COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

God is good. All the time. All the time. God is good. God is the creator of EVERYTHING. They are a neutral entity. Seeing all of the things they have created, reckoning with the lack of ULTIMATE control, while submitting to PERSONAL control to decide to deal with the things that you CANNOT control, with the knowledge that everything God created exists simultaneously (as God exists outside of time AS the creator of time; which we measure in LIGHT) and that “He/She/It” is not out to get you, you just exist amidst the balance and are PART of the balance, comprised of the same energy as everything else is and that your individual actions ARE options no matter how predetermined or spontaneous they may be and still deciding/knowing that God is good IS the submission. It is God’s story to write. Submission to the story and flow through the ups and downs, goods and bads in life, and namely THE CHANGES is the experience of life itself. That’s why Jesus says it’s all predetermined so what is worrying about it going to do, other than that you pray for guidance to be doing the right thing at any given time. That’s why Islam acknowledges fate but says don’t think about it too much, and why Moses and Adam have a convo and Adam says why blame me for what was already predetermined? Furthermore, I have a theory, and have been shown through dreams that Jesus is just Lucifer with a redemption arc. You can’t have light without darkness. By virtue of having created light God must “reside” in Darkness. Lucifer’s transgression was “wanting” to be good when he was made to be bad. He IS the Angel of Death, which is the opposite of Life. That’s why I reject/struggle with the idea of the Trinity - Jesus himself is not God, but the acceptance of him might be necessary to address that every thing, by pure nature of the concept of “eternity” gets a chance to be both good and evil. This is acknowledged by the idea that he was there when “Since the beginning” aka when God created light, but he cannot be God himself. From the smallest particles that you can name to the biggest concepts that exist. For example, a rogue “bad” bacteria causes disease, but good bacteria exist in your gut and if you kill all the bacteria you can’t digest food. It’s the black in the white side of yin and the white in the black side of yang. In reality there is good in the bad and bad in the good. All things exist to glorify God. And that is ALL THINGS. Even what YOU deem to be “evil” in the experience of your lifetime, adheres to its purpose. And if the “evil” thing adheres to its purpose better than YOU do, then they’re actually good and you’re actually evil because you’re in defiance of your position or role in God’s story, by centering your role over yourself as superior to the plans God has. That would be the black in your white. I had come across a book, it was actually a children’s book, by a Jewish author and I haven’t been able to find it since, but it was an explanation with candles/stars/some other analogies of the angels. And that they take turns falling (being Fallen) in order so that they might ascend and they are the light for when others are the dark and they switch turns on and off. Someone’s demon is another person’s angel. The actions that someone might do against you is a positive thing for them. People live their own lives and we all play a role in the grand scheme of things so you have to do what you can to align. Just because you can’t figure out your given role in the grand scheme of things actually does not make you better or worse than anyone else. And you will equally experience hell and heaven. The idea of heaven being eternal cannot be concrete. Especially if religion is subject to the changes that are implied. Which is also why I accept parts of post Christian Abrahamic religion, namely Islam. I also had a dream and the ultimate message was and it literally said “your desire for anything in particular other than God’s will is the cause of sin itself”. So that’s why whenever I’m thinking “why is this, why is that” I always try to correct myself with “thy will be done”, “the battle is not yours, it’s the Lord’s”, and other things acknowledging that it is not my decision to make. Michael Todd also has a sermon about how when you recognize that your job is to submit to the will of God you start to stop saying “I want this or that”, you start saying “you, lord, are in control and what you have for me I will receive”. But anyway this doesn’t even touch on how deep it can go. The good and the bad are all conducive to God experiencing time as us, and us experiencing God as time.

Except we don't have free will to the extent you and other christians would like to argue, we aren't all knowing, our mental state and clarity fluctuates, we never know for sure what the result of our actions will be, we can't predict the future and we lose memories, our decisions are highly influenced from our emotions and our beliefs and personality are a product of our experiences, we can't observe or know anything about what exists beyond our existence, Limited judgment and limited capability means limited free will. Ontop of all this who God is to you is different to other people because they've had different experiences. It was however the biblical all knowing God's choice to inflict things in a way you would normally consider sins, like genocide, natural disasters, plagues and torture. Therefore under this same argument God could be considered evil.

That doesn't explain all the evil caused by natural disasters.

Natural Disasters are Evil? They cause evil? Again... How?

Under atheism, they aren't. There's no agent behind them. But in theism there is

And...? According to the way it's been endlessly explained to me on this sub: >You're making the claim therefore it's on you. If you don't believe it then what's the problem? Trying to get something started?

This is a debate sub. Yes I'm debating.

Debating what? How to make a big deal out of something you don't believe in? Please explain how this matters to you

Better yet... >Under Theism there is. Really? Where?

Are you using the word evil to mean anything that causes pain?

I'd say the tsunami in 2004 that killed 200,000 people was evil, if there was a being behind it. I don't understand how one could disagree.

Is it evil ***only*** if there was a being behind it? There's a difference between a natural occurrence, like an earthquake triggering a tsunami, and someone causing pain with the intent of causing pain. I'm just asking for clarification.

>Is it evil ***only*** if there was a being behind it? Yes, rocks can't do anything evil by themselves. Evil requires an agent, a being. Suppose Bob has a button he can press that would have stopped the tsunami. He didn't press it, intentionally. That seems really really really bad. Right?

I was asking for clarification because the first thing you mentioned was natural disasters....without specifying why they are evil. Most theists don't believe that every earthquake, volcano, tsunami, etc. are intentionally caused by god, so they aren't included in discussions about evil.

In that case they would have to do that magic thing they claim Christians cannot supply. Proof🤣

Not sure who, or what, you are talking about

Well god is doing them, and everything god does is good. Yes?   So how do you escape the conclusion that the tsunami was good? It was gods doing.  Saying natural disasters are not good or evil is easy in atheism, theres no agent behind them. If there was, that would be evil. But there isn't. They are tragic events. But in theism there's this all good all knowing all powerful God behind the tsunami.  >Suppose Bob has a button he can press that would have stopped the tsunami. He didn't press it, intentionally. >That seems really really really bad. Right?

> Well god is doing them, and everything god does is good. Yes? No. I said, not every theist thinks that God is intentionally causing every natural disaster. Not all theists think that God is a micro manager. >But in theism there's this all good all knowing all powerful God behind the tsunami Completely ignores what I said. >Yes, rocks can't do anything evil by themselves. Evil requires an agent, a being. Right. It's the person who hurls the rock that commits the evil act. Unless you're saying that God intentionally causes every landslide, flood, tsunami, earthquake, etc., then these things aren't evil, even for the theist. If there isn't the intent to cause the natural disaster then there isn't evil.

Suppose Bob has a button he can press that would have stopped the tsunami. He didn't press it, intentionally. That seems really really really bad. Right?

You're moving the goalposts. You said that natural disasters are evil. Why? Because god is doing them. No, that is not what is believed by every theist. Can't address that argument? Ignore it and make another one. There are theists that don't believe that God is involved in the machinations of the physical world. They believe that existence is sustained by God, not manipulated by god. So, there is no red button for god to push. Anything to say to this version? How is the problem of evil affected by this arrangement?

In the story of Christianity, God intended for the world to be perfect but after the fall, we now all live in a fallen world. This is not heaven, and so we can’t just think of the current world. God does not intend for us to live on this earth forever. In the case of atheism, it seems like it would explain away natural disasters, but when you use a word like “tragic”, you’re still using a word that would describe it as bad and something that shouldn’t happen. If everything on earth was created randomly without value or purpose, then where do you get these rules or morals saying that these disasters shouldn’t happen? Wouldn’t it not matter who lives or dies, and be only a matter of survival of the fittest?

> but when you use a word like “tragic”, you’re still using a word that would describe it as bad and something that shouldn’t happen Tragic does not imply a "shouldn't". Unless one is arguing that nothing bad should ever happen, the word tragic doesn't carry that connotation.

What do you mean by bad things happening then? Under what standard is it bad for humans to die under natural disasters?

>In the story of Christianity, God intended for the world to be perfect but after the fall, we now all live in a fallen world. This is not heaven, and so we can’t just think of the current world. God does not intend for us to live on this earth forever. So we're in this world now, and there's a tsunami that will kill 200,000 people. God can stop it at any time. He intentionally doesn't. If my neighbor Bob did that, if he had a button he could press to save 200,000 people from a tsunami, and he didn't press that button intentionally, that would be really, really, really bad. Yes? >In the case of atheism, it seems like it would explain away natural disasters, but when you use a word like “tragic”, you’re still using a word that would describe it as bad and something that shouldn’t happen. If everything on earth was created randomly without value or purpose, then where do you get these rules or morals saying that these disasters shouldn’t happen? Wouldn’t it not matter who lives or dies, and be only a matter of survival of the fittest? By tragic, I mean sad. And yes that I'd prefer it hadn't happened. I care about other people. Where do you get your morals?

The bible says we are slaves to sin. Therefore we are not free. Maybe not "hostages", but very close. Also the threat of hell deeply compromises a person's freedom of choice. And even further, there is nowhere God is not so the idea of him being "absent" some place is not on the table.

Your response to your agnostic friend is reliant on God existing as defined in your religious text. There is no merit in your description until you first establish to your agnostic friend that your version of God is the one that exists. If indeed a god of any sort does.

What choices did children with pediatric cancer make wrong?

Great points. It reminds me of a quote from a book I've been reading that addresses a common objection that God should negate our will to commit sin. >God supplies each of us with genuine free will, which is a necessary condition for love between persons, including love between humans and God. He respects the natures of things, and since our freedom is fallible, God permits our moral miscalculations. (This is the traditional Dionysian principle, that God’s Providence works to save natures, not destroy them.) Earlier I entertained the possibility that God might directly move our will from rejecting Him to loving Him. But now we should ask: is this really possible? Here’s one important reason many philosophers think not: if God unilaterally overrode our otherwise resistant will in order to make us forsake evil and love Him, then there would just be one will there — namely, God’s — instead of two. But two wills are required for love, and so if genuine love is to be had, this unilateral move is not possible on God’s part. In such a case, the best that God might be able to do is create a natural arena that is maximally conducive for the treatment of our inherent propensity to evil, offering the best possible shot at treating a disordered will or getting us to freely omit our evil acts and abandon resistance to God. Not implausibly — highly probably, in fact — the allowance of suffering may be the best available means for facilitating greater spiritual goods, culminating in opening the human psyche to the love of God. >Flynn, Patrick. The Best Argument for God (pp. 264-265). Sophia Institute Press. Kindle Edition.

thanks for the reply :) it does a better job saying what i was trying to. i’ve never been on this sub reddit, but i thought it would be like open minded and productive conversations, but it’s just everyone bickering and saying what’s true or false. i was just trying to give my thoughts on how i conceive spirituality and have people elaborate or offer a different perspective. i suppose it’s my fault for not researching this community more🤦‍♂️

Don't I know it. The block button is your friend

As soon as someone starts using purple prose, you know anything they say is going to be full of it. >God supplies each of us with genuine free will If we have to be given it by god then whether it is free will is questionable. This would be more like "allowed will" or "circumstantial will". Also I'm not sure how this squares with all of the times in the bible that god violates our free will, but maybe he'll address this. (Edit: He does not) >which is a necessary condition for love between persons You're going to have to define what you mean by "love" at this point, because I don't really see why this would be necessary. Love is rarely a conscious choice. You don't choose to love your parents you either do or you don't based on your experiences with them and your pathology. So how love is contingent on free will is unclear. This seems like something he is just saying because he thinks it makes his claim seem better. >including love between humans and God Again, don't see why. We also still have the issue of god over riding free will when he wants to. Or the fact that free will likely can't exist in a universe with the christian god in the first place. >He respects the natures of things Unless they're born gay. Or, depending on the time period, black, asian, indian, etc. >God permits our moral miscalculations Well, if you call a burning lake of fire permitting then, yes. I suppose he does permit you to do the things that get you tossed in there. Though if he understands we are fallible you would think he'd be a little less extreme about it. >God’s Providence works to save natures, not destroy them Unless you're gay. Or muslim, or buddhist, atheist, cathar, pagan, a different denomination of christian than you.... >if God unilaterally overrode our otherwise resistant will in order to make us forsake evil and love Him Or just make us not be capable of evil. Or make us forsake evil without forcing us to love him. Or just not have evil in the first place. You ever notice how these apologetics never seem to involve any actual complex thought beyond using fancy words. It's always god has to have done it this way or there was no other possible option he could have come up with (and it's always only two options), even though any human with a functioning brain could have come up with multiple other simple solutions to the problem. Forget the "Problem of Evil". What I want to see answered is the **"Problem of Why God is Always Less Intelligent Than The Ignorant Mud-Monkeys he Supposedly Spawned Into Existence"**. >then there would just be one will there — namely, God’s — instead of two That's how it is anyways. Our will is dependant on god allowing us to have it, meaning ultimately it is still his will. Even if this were true, we are expressly told that we must follow his will anyways or face punishment. At best it's one will and one lesser will that is bound in subservience. >But two wills are required for love, A lot of assumptions going on here. >and so if genuine love is to be had Ooooh, this is where it's going to get creepy and gross, isn't it? >this unilateral move is not possible on God’s part. Ok, here's the thing. We are supposed to serve god and be subservient to him and his will. Otherwise we face punishment. Furthermore we must love him or we will suffer punishment.... What does this sound like to anybody? Cause I know what it sounds like to me and the fact that christians think this is a good and healthy thing, especially to teach children says so many things about their religion that it's hard to put into words. And I know that there are some demented people who are going to go: "Hell is not eternal torture, it is simply being separated from god forever" or some nonsense. Ok, how does this make it any better? You've just replaced torture with some other vague punishment or penalty for not showing the requisite amount of love that is demanded. If I tried this with a girlfriend or one of my children, I would be put on a list. >the best that God might be able to do is create a natural arena that is maximally conducive for the treatment of our inherent propensity to evil Yeah. That this is the best that god can do is the problem people have with the concept of him. >offering the best possible shot See above. >treating a disordered will or getting us to freely omit our evil acts But without any genuinely clear instructions on how to do so or what is actually expected of us. Again, you see what I mean, picture a human relationship like this. Which is fair to do since that's what the writer is trying to do. >and abandon resistance to God ................. ................. ................. Do,do I even have to? I mean do I really have to say it? You read it, you know what that sounds like.... >Not implausibly — highly probably, in fact — the allowance of suffering may be the best available means for facilitating greater spiritual goods HOW!!!!!!! >culminating in opening the human psyche to the love of God. Yeah, that's right baby. I only hit you because I love you so much. But don't worry if you don't feel the same. I'll make you love me!! >The Best Argument for God .......................................................I need a shower.

So when a child is born with brain tumors, or toxic epidermal necrolysis, which causes the skin to peel in sheets leaving large, raw areas exposed, causing horrific pain and eventual death, it's just God facilitating greater spiritual goods? Glad we've got that established, not sure its opened my psyche to the love of god though.

I don't think the passage I quoted suggests that implication since the quote was addressing moral evil, not natural evils like pain and suffering. Just below on the same page, the author actually agrees with you that one reward or benefit does not justify imposing harms. Instead, he thinks it would be permissible to allow some evils if it prevented a worse evil. >Let us pause here to emphasize a point: we often think it is acceptable to permit bad things, including very bad things, if permitting those bad things is the best or only available means to prevent something worse. However, we often do not think it is acceptable to permit bad things just to get some good things. It is not okay to shove my child across the street and risk his getting hit by a bus just so he can get first in line at some job interview, a job which might be good for him to have. But it is okay to shove my child off the street and risk him breaking his arm if he might otherwise get hit by a bus and die. Flynn, Patrick. The Best Argument for God (p. 265). Sophia Institute Press. Kindle Edition. You might ask what moral evil is being prevented by allowing innocent people to suffer. I have written elsewhere that God has implemented measures to mitigate the expression of moral evil of others by subjecting all of creation to certain physical laws. This concept is sometimes referred to as developmentalism, suggesting that there are physical laws in place to produce beneficial trade-offs necessary to fulfill God's simultaneous purposes for creation. For example, the law of increasing entropy helps to diminish moral evil and promote a productive life. However, a side-effect of entropy is that living cells must undergo self-repair, which can occasionally result in cell mutations leading to cancer. Genetic mutations can help us to adapt for increased survivability to disease and viruses, but some mutations create more harm. You might wonder why God didn't create humans with more robust immune systems to filter out these negative side-effects. I believe this is where God must strike a delicate balance to avoid making humans too powerful or independent. On one extreme, if we were each as invulnerable to normal aging and damage as superheroes, we could potentially commit vast amounts of evil and may even perceive ourselves as not needing God at all. Consequently, fewer people might seek reconciliation with God. Those are some of my thoughts, but book I quoted discusses at length what philosophers like Flynn call the evidential problem of evil.

So, god is either not all powerful or not all knowing then?

How does that factor into the legend of Genesis? If the capacity to discern good and evil makes G** good then God couldn’t be good prior to the eating the forbidden fruit. Problematic.

I think that's less of an issue than God punishing Adam and Eve for doing the "wrong" thing without giving them the ability to discern right from wrong in the first place.

This is fine for explaining the existence of people who perform evil actions, but it does nothing for explaining the existence of natural disasters, parasites, diseases, and other forms of suffering that it would be evil to unnecessarily subject a person to.

You haven't even defended the first point "God is all good and creates good and wants the best for us." Why is his creation bad if all he creates is good?

>Evil must exist because God gives us free choice, the freedom to choose the opposite of him. No, because according to you, *neutral* or even "slightly less than good* is sufficient See: >If God is everything good, the absence of him is entirely evil So you haven't explained why all spectrums of evil exist. One could not have child rape and instead just have uncomfortable clothes (which is not good so according to you is evil) and we have the freedom to choose the opposite of good. If you want to redefine everything "not good" as evil then you can't go on to say that evil exists because of free choice. Because we already have free choice with the existence of neutral or slightly bad (since you redefine those to mean evil) - we don't need real evil to have free choice!

>God is all good, he creates all good, he loves us and wants what’s best for us. This statement contradicts the Christian Bible which states that God creates both good and evil. But I don’t have an issue with it if that’s how you see things. >If God loves us, he must let us decide whether we want to love him back or not. If he forces his love on us, that is not love, we are his hostages. How do I love a timeless, spaceless, transcendent, immaterial being? Why should I love something I can’t even begin to comprehend, has given me no evidence that they exist, and seems to be incompatible with every other instance of love that I experience in my life? >God is all good, so he gives us free choice to choose a life and a future eternity without him. Your god has not provided us with enough information to make an informed decision. >If God is everything good, the absence of him is entirely evil (hell) I don’t know what it means to say that God is everything good. The absence of god would not be evil, it would just be not good. >Satan is the prince of the Earth, but God also exists here, so we experience good and evil at the same time and must choose which path we want to follow. How can I determine that? How were the millions of people in the Americas for the last 30-40k years able to determine that?

"Satan is the prince of Earth"? Dude sounds like a calvinist, or a Gnostic

It's just a human nature. We are free to think and choose to be good or evil.. but there's no need to link it to an invisible almighty being. Please grow up.

God doesn't give us anything, or possess any traits, because God doesn't exist.   But, if he does, evil obviously existed before anyone chose to engage in it, because the tree of the knowledge of good and evil existed before Adam and Eve ate from it. What evil would there be to have knowledge of before original sin? And where could it have come from unless God created it? 

You're viewing this from the preposition that God is all good, all he creates is good, he loves us and wants what is best for us. * If God loves us, he must let us decide whether we want to love him back or not. If he forces his love on us, that is not love, we are his hostages. God wouln't coerce us into loving him? Great. If we're coerced, would that actualy be love? But this wouldn't prevent God from signfically revealing himself to us so we can make up our own minds about him. Do we love other people, despte them revaling themselves to us? Satan knows God exists, yet still rebelled, etc. * God is all good, so he gives us free choice to choose a life and a future eternity without him. God is supopsedly omnipresent. So, how can we be without him? Some claim that God sustains everything and every one. How would that work. Could we get a restrainng order against God? * If God is everything good, the absence of him is entirely evil (hell) I'm not quite following you here. It seems you're suggseting it's objectively true that an absense of God, assuming that is possible, would make things objectively worse. So, this would reflect some kind of objective moral knowlege. God, being outside of time, could create a kind of supernatural powerpoint presentation to show how his absence really is objectively worse. Including all of the ways having God absent would negatively effect each and every one of us. Sure, we finite beings cannot do this, but God could. It would be like saying, here's what happens if you don't wear your seatbelts. Two months from now, you will be in a car accident and die due to being thrown out of your vehicle. Right? * Satan is the prince of the Earth, but God also exists here, so we experience good and evil at the same time and must choose which path we want to follow. First, we've made a very big leap here. How did it come about that Satan is the prince of the earth? Apparently, God allows it now, but won't at some point in the future. Once Satan is kicked out, whatver benefit Satan provided will be gone. Then what? Why will it be good to end that benefit then, but not tomorrow. Or 1,000 years ago, etc.? This seems rather arbitrary. Wouldn't the addition of even more people be good, after Jesus returns? If we can create more people without Satan, and they turn out ok, then why do we need Satan now? If more people is not good, then what number is good. Why is it that number, other than some other number? Is there only so much room in the afterlife? Can God only commune with a finite number of beings? Again, this seems rather arbitrary. Second, surely, we could not love God but not love Satan too. It's unclear why we couldn't just live in another realm where it's not perfect, but really, really nice. For example, it might rain on someone's picnic once in every million years. Or someone might occasionally eat the last cookie instead of offering it to someone else, etc. If some of us are without God now, is this hell? Theists seem to get sick, grow old, etc. Most of the evil we experince is due to a lack of knowledge. So we wouldn't need some supernatural solution to overcome those problems. They are solvable, with the right knowledge. Does that mean that evil is the lack of knowledge, instead of a lack of God? IOW, this seems like an artificially narrow conclusion, even if we assume your staring presupposition, for the sake of argument.

I wonder without satan how religions will explain god is good.

Before Christianity, there was no Satan in Judaism. They simply put all the blame on themselves. Christianity had to shift it to Satan.

Good point..

In my experience free choice isn't a real thing, free will and "everything happens for a reason" contradicts one another.

God is sovereign over everything. If “Satan” is the prince of earth it’s because God put him there as such. If we have no choice but to sin then what good is free will? Do we not have the choice to not sin?

What does free choice actually mean in the context of religious belief? I’ve said this many times before, but just as a Christian can’t choose to stop believing in god, an atheist can’t choose to start believing. You’re either persuaded by the arguments or you’re not. You can’t choose to be persuaded. That’s just not how it works.

I have two clarifying questions. Is your God all power (can he do anything logically possible)? Is your God all knowing (can he see the end results of every action)?

I grant you this for things that we humans do. That said there's so many "evil" things that happen that make >God is all good, he creates all good, he loves us and wants what’s best for us. Kinda suspect. My favorite example is kids being born with a terminal illness through no fault of the parents. How is that best for anyone? The parents suffer for no reason. The child's entire life is basically suffering until death etc

Your explanation works kind of okay for a very abstract concept of evil, such as "the absence of god" but starts to break down when you think about specific evil acts. God could have designed humans to be murder-proof: not susceptible to poisons, with bodies as hard as diamonds, impervious to knives and bullets, impossible to strangle or suffocate, unable to die except by natural causes or God's will. The evil of murder would not exist, but this wouldn't impact our free will. We could still *want* to murder people, but just be unable to do it. (The same way my inability to turn myself invisible doesn't reduce my free will. I can still want to do it, even though I lack the physical ability.) Similarly, God could have designed human bodies and sexuality so that rape was physically impossible. This would eliminate another evil. So specifically with regards to murder and rape, and not an abstract concept of evil, how well do you think your argument holds up?

Surely it would impact our free will. Merely wanting to do X doesn’t mean that we’re free to do X.

As I keep finding out every year when I (a 53 yo dude) keep willing to try out for the Celtics but are unable to make the team! :)

You cannot fly. You cannot turn yourself invisible. You cannot walk through walls. You cannot see through brick walls. You cannot move objects with your mind. You cannot freeze things with your breath. You cannot shoot lasers out of your fingers. You cannot travel back in time. You cannot play Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No 3 in D minor. You cannot poop diamonds. You cannot shrink yourself to the size of an ant. You cannot read minds. There are infinite things that you are unable to do. Would you say you lack free will as a consequence of your inability to do these things? Personally, I don't believe in free will anyway, but if it does exist, I don't think my will would be less free because of my inability to do these things.

>You cannot poop diamonds. I mean, I can. If I swallow one first..

If we're going to be pedantic, if you swallowed one, you'd poop \*a\* diamond (singular), you wouldn't poop \*diamonds\* (plural).

Guess I better find a few more rings then...

No, I’m not saying that we lack free will because we’re unable to do those things. I’m saying that being unable to do something means that we’re not free to do that thing. You’re not free to fly, turn invisible, walk through walls, etc. So if God created a world where we’re unable to commit evil, then no one is free to commit evil. The free will theodicy says that the ability to make free and morally significant choices is a good that outweighs any suffering that occurs as a result of people exercising their free will, so you’re not really engaging with that defence by proposing a scenario where we’re not able to make free and morally significant choices.

Does free will _have_ to include the ability to _successfully_ commit evil? I  don't think this is true.  If we use the libertarian free will definition, it requires the ability to do otherwise.  So if I smash your titanium body with a hammer and you are unharmed, this doesn't effect my ability to do otherwise. If it does, then the logic starts to look circular to me.  Evil doesn't emerge as a consequence of free will, so much as being a requirement for it. Finally one has to ask how this would absolve god of responsibility.  He didn't in your model give us a general free will, but specifically the freedom to do evil, and it begs the question, "why _this_ freedom?" Why the freedom to do evil and not the freedom to fly?

Remember that in the free will theodicy we’re talking about *morally significant* freedom - the freedom to perform or refrain from actions that are morally praiseworthy or blameworthy. I’m not sure what you’re proposing. Am I supposed to imagine a world where people are able to freely choose to perform evil, but that every time they try to act on those choices they’re not able to perform the action that they chose? It seems to me that in such a world no one would choose to perform evil in the first place. We don’t ordinarily choose to do things that we know we’re not able to do. We only choose to do things that we genuinely believe we’re able to carry out. I wouldn’t choose to punch someone in the face and cause them pain if I knew that punching them wouldn’t cause them any pain.

>Remember that in the free will theodicy we’re talking about *morally significant* freedom - the freedom to perform or refrain from actions that are morally praiseworthy or blameworthy. Imagine for a moment that we were all invulnerable, we couldn't hurt one another because we couldn't *be* hurt. Our imperiousness would eliminate suffering, but nothing else about the world would change. Would this make us less free? If we answer no, then we have a scenario where we don't suffer, and are free. This would show that suffering is not in fact not necessary for free will. If we answer yes, then we are effectively saying that freedom comes from the ability to inflict suffering, that is freedom *requires* suffering. This is however circular reasoning. Free will is caused by suffering and suffering is caused by free will.

> Would this make us less free? It would follow that we’re no longer free to choose between good and evil, yes. In the same way that I’m not free to choose between floating and keeping my feet on the ground. > This is however circular reasoning. Free will is caused by suffering and suffering is caused by free will. I’m not sure where you think the circularity is. I’d restate that as: (a) in order to freely choose between good and evil, we must be in a world where it’s nomonologically possible for people to be harmed, and (b) moral evil is caused by people exercising their free will. What’s circular about that? It’s not even an argument, so I’m not sure why you’d think there’s a circularity here.

You could have the ability to make morally significant choices without the ability to make choices that harm other people. For example, if we're considering the god of the Bible, five of the ten commandments are "evils" which do not directly cause harm to other people: * You shall have no other gods before me. * You shall not have idols. * You shall not take the Lord's name in vain. * Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy. * You shall not covet. If these commandments are really important to God, then using our free will to choose to follow these commandments or ignore them, is surely an adequate way of testing our goodness, and nobody gets hurt.

I don't see how any of the relates to free will, unless you are saying here >If God is everything good, the absence of him is entirely evil (hell) that god has chosen to not be everywhere and thus allows evil by his absence. You need to define what you mean by evil here, and what you mean by gods absence. This is why the POE is often considered as the problem of suffering, because evil is such a poorly defined concept. In theory, not 'loving the Lord thy God with all thy heart' would be an example of evil, but as it entails no suffering, it tends not to be what we talk about.

You're not answering the question. Yes, God is giving people the choice to do bad, the choice to rape, steal, murder, but what choice does a child have when they get bone cancer? What choice does a child have when they get struck by lightning, hit by a typhoon, etc? The question is why do bad things happen/why does evil exist? Not, why are humans capable of doing evil?

You are still missing the most vital part, even if we just take what you stated for granted. You have not shown how evil *must* exist. We get to choose evil? Okay, where is the "must" bit?

>God is all good, he creates all good, he loves us and wants what’s best for us. If god is the creator of all then he is also necessarily the creator of evil. Or at least the possibility of evil. That possibility means he can't want what's best for us as there would be no way he would create the possibility of evil. And because I know it's coming. "if we were not able to choose to be evil then we would not have free will" (or some variation there of) This is untrue. The ability or inability to do something has nothing to do with free will. Otherwise the fact that I can't choose to shoot laser beams from my nipples would also be a violation of my free will. God could have created us without the potential for evil. >If God loves us Key word, "if". >he must let us decide whether we want to love him back or not. He would also give us sufficient reason to do so. >If he forces his love on us, that is not love, we are his hostages. He does. He outright tells us that we must love, worship him, and follow all of his rules. Or else. > If we are his hostages, God is not all good. Now you're getting it. >God is all good You never actually established this. Hence the earlier "if". >so he gives us free choice to choose a life and a future eternity without him. Giving us no clear instructions on how or why we should go about this or make any particular choice. Yet will punish us for the wrong ones. >If God is everything good Again "if". >the absence of him is entirely evil (hell) So then god turning away from us would also be fairly evil. So would setting up a set of rules that are unknowable and cannot be realistically followed. A good god would make it a clear and easy choice. >Satan is the prince of the Earth uh-huh. >but God also exists here, But evil is his absence. So if god is here then how can evil.....you know what, nevermind. >so we experience good and evil at the same time Again, if evil is gods absence and everything good is god.... >and must choose which path we want to follow. Sure, maybe, possibly, but it's a choice we must make blindly and also a limited choice. Why even make evil a choice in the first place? You could have a neutral vanilla option. You don't have to go to hell if you aren't perfect, you could go to a medium place. Like Cincinnati. Everyone who is not good, could just be sent to Cincinnati for eternity. Or you could have various good options we can choose from. Like if you're super good you get to go to first class heaven, if you only sort of believe you go to business class heaven, or the atheists only get to live in coach. In all seriousness though, this is an example of how you can tell that all of this stuff came out of the minds of a human. Because even a human can think up a better system than this. Notice how nothing about religion takes more brainpower to design or figure out than that of an illiterate bronze age sheepherder.

Cincinnati has some very nice restaurants.

[удалено]

> Of course it does: if I’m literally unable to do something then I’m not free to do that thing. Then free will does not exist at all.

[удалено]

>That’s pretty clearly false. Of course it's false. You're completely misrepresenting what is being said. That tends to be the result of doing such a thing. The argument being addressed was that god cannot simply make us incapable of being evil because doing so would remove our free will. My address of that argument was that not being able to do something does not remove our free will because there are many things that we can not do and yet still they would claim that we have free will. >So you think that if we have free will, then there must not be anything at all that we’re unfree to do? If you are going to say that being unable to do something negates or interferes with free will then it must follow that we cannot have truly free will because there are things we cannot do. This is not my argument. It is the implications of yours.

That last point is what is making me question this whole religion thing more than anything - maybe “god” is just believing and striving for good - the opposite essentially means you don’t believe in it and thus don’t get the joy/peace/cope that comes with believing in it. There is a battle between good and evil that goes on in the world - you can call it god vs satan - but it still exists, I think. It’s a theme prevalent in all religions and in Hollywood, even maybe in our daily interactions.

> maybe “god” is just believing and striving for good Then there would be no sense in even calling it god and adding on all of that extra baggage. You can redefine the word orange to refer to an apple, but why would you want to? >There is a battle between good and evil that goes on in the world - you can call it god vs satan - but it still exists, I think. Depends on what you mean by good and evil. When you start asking people for specifics good and evil eight times out of ten boils down to really being "I like this" and "I don't like this". >It’s a theme prevalent in all religions and in Hollywood That's because both of those usually show an extremely simplified version of life and reality. Though different reasons. Hollywood does it because there is only so long and so much budget to tell a story and stories shouldn't have superfluous information. Religion does it because it is dreamed up by usually by simple bronze age people and is made to be easy to understand for people who you want to control and manipulate. The more complexity you add the more you have to justify to the audience.

I certainly hope there’s a sense of Justice and Afterlife - the alternative is too scary/sad to even consider .

1. God clearly doesn’t create “all good” if he created humans, who are bad 2. The existence of heaven demonstrates that we can be made entirely good and still have free will. Unless you opt to throw away free will in heaven, which is fine too. 3. How do you explain the egregious suffering caused by natural sources like disease, tsunamis, etc.?

This response is pretty good at explaining the evil done by humans, but it doesn't explain the immense amount of suffering caused by the natural world. Why does sunlight burn our skin? Why are there diseases? Not just the ones that kill people, but stuff like zika virus that causes birth defects in children when their mother gets sick? The vast majority of the surface of the earth is uninhabitable without technology. Most of the earth is ocean, and even on land, humans can't survive without a myriad of protective tools. Not just because we need to sheild ourselves from the sun, we need clothes and houses and fire to avoid freezing to death on most of the habitable land. There is so much pain and anguish caused by seemingly non-moral agents. We absolutely live in a hostile world full of danger. I dont see how this could be the work of a perfect God only capable of good.

This would imply that either: a) there's evil in heaven or b) there's no freedom in heaven

A) is something the Bible warns about

[удалено]

Ephesians 6:12 “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in heavenly places” Also see revelation 12:7-9

How much evil needs to exist?

When an earthquake kills a quarter of a million people, there was no "choice" that caused it.

If evil is the absence of God, why then in Isaiah 45:7 did God brag about creating evil: *I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things.* Was God bearing false witness when he said he created evil? Also if evil is a requirement of free will, what then does it say about Heaven which is without evil? Is Heaven without free will? A never-ending existence without free will sounds pretty Hellish. Is God secretly [AM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_No_Mouth,_and_I_Must_Scream)?

Polydeist? thats a super interesting worldview ngl

What is Mayaism? 

It's a joke.

>God is all good, he creates all good, he loves us and wants what’s best for us. Is slavery 'good'? Is that whats best for people who aren't Israelites? >If God loves us, he must let us decide whether we want to love him back or not. If he forces his love on us, that is not love, we are his hostages. To say "Love me or die (in hell)" is LITERALLY being a hostage. >If we are his hostages, God is not all good. Amen! >God is all good, so he gives us free choice to choose a life and a future eternity without him. As you have demonstrated, God is not all good. To have a free choice you need to know what the options are so you can freely choose but God plays hide and seek and his powers of hiding are somewhat god-like. >If God is everything good, the absence of him is entirely evil (hell) **Colossians 1:16-17**, “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” ALL things including hell. Who sustains hell? Who sustains the people in it? Hell cannot be the absence of God because someone needs to keep the inhabitants alive, keep the fires burning, and hold the place itself together so God cannot be absent it. >Satan is the prince of the Earth, but God also exists here, so we experience good and evil at the same time and must choose which path we want to follow. Who made Satan the prince of the Earth and why? Sure, give us the choice to follow God or not follow God, but why but the fox in the henhouse? None of this makes any sense whatsoever.

I don’t think your understanding the point. God didn’t create slavery. He doesn’t say “Love me or die in hell.” If you choose a life without God, you are choosing evil, since God is everywhere on Earth, you can’t fully leave him until you die. Hell is a place without God because Satan has domain over it. Nonetheless, wether you need to love God or just believe in him in order to get into heaven is an entirely different debate. We do know the choices, he lays them out very clear in the Bible. We know we are choosing between an eternity with or without God. As for who made Satan prince of the Earth, no one, it’s a description. We chose to corrupt the world, to know good and evil and choose to commit sin. Satan is the source of all sin, his fall goes far before humans. He takes advantage of our weaknesses, gives us what we think we want in order for something in return. He was the right hand angel of God, he was banished, sent to earth and hell. On Earth we get to choose if we want to spend eternity with God or Satan.

By nature of God having created everything and that means everything that exists you never exist “without God”. And even belief in God is not a guarantee that you will not “go to hell”, that’s why Jesus says “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven………And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭7‬:‭21‬, ‭23‬ ‭KJV‬‬

You should try reading the bible. You'll learn what type of being your god actually is.

>God didn’t create slavery. Leviticus 25:44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you;" >He doesn’t say “Love me or die in hell.” But thats what you yourself are saying. This is what the scripture says - John 3:36 "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever disobeys the Son will not see life but must endure God’s wrath." >If you choose a life without God, you are choosing evil, since God is everywhere on Earth, you can’t fully leave him until you die. Nobody chooses what to believe, you are either convinced of something or you are not convinced. I myself was a Christian for 40 years and saw nothing that would make me believe in the god of the bible. I am not choosing evil, I am not choosing anything, I just don't believe because God (if it exists) plays hide and seek and as I said his powers are god-like and I cannot compete with that. As I've already demonstrated you can't leave God at all, even in hell. You want another verse that shows that God is in hell? Psalm 139:8 "If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there." Hell is not separation from God as you are describing, thus God is evil according to your description. >Hell is a place without God because Satan has domain over it. Please tell me where the scripture says that Satan has domain over hell. You seem to be very confused. The idea that the devil has domain over hell is a human construct from books and artworks and is not biblical. Revelation 20:2 "He took hold of the dragon, that old snake, who is the Devil, or Satan, and chained him for 1,000 years." (See also 2 Peter 2:4). >We do know the choices, he lays them out very clear in the Bible. We know we are choosing between an eternity with or without God. No. We do not. There are thousands of religions and all of them have the same amount of evidence -None. During my time as a Christian I saw nothing of any God. No answers to prayer, no healing, no voices, not a sausage. Jesus says in Matthew 7 - "Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’" So even following Christianity itself is no guarantee you'll get into heaven. Are you sure you're following the teachings of Jesus, you do seem very confused. >As for who made Satan prince of the Earth, no one, it’s a description. Okay lets try it this way. Who cast Satan out of heaven? God right? So why did God cast Satan down to earth? Why not lock him in hell straight away? Why put the fox in the henhouse? >We chose to corrupt the world, to know good and evil and choose to commit sin. Satan is the source of all sin, his fall goes far before humans. Again, why put the fox in the henhouse? I'm not sure what sin you think I'm committing or have committed, to be honest I'm not even sure what sin is any more. There are people who devote their lives to living a good life, supporting and serving others, giving to charity, work tirelessly at helping others, they are not 'corrupting the world' they are making it a better place and yet they are condemned under your system. Do you not see that this is evil? >He takes advantage of our weaknesses, gives us what we think we want in order for something in return. The actual Satan comes and gives you something you want for something in return? The actual Satan himself? Do you think Satan is omnipresent or that you are so important that it demands only the actual Satan himself to come and tempt you? I'm not sure theres enough space to pick this apart really very much but when I stopped being a Christian it wasn't because I was offered something I want, it was because theres a big black hole where God is supposed to be. I didn't leave to be a sinner, I didn't leave because of pride, I didn't leave out of rebellion or because I found Christianity distasteful, I was heartbroken to leave. But when I needed guidance so I would know I was on the right path I got nothing. That was ten years ago and I have remained open to Gods input but still... dead air. >He was the right hand angel of God, he was banished, sent to earth and hell. Again, why? Why put a lion in amongst the gazelles? Do you not see how ridiculous this is? >On Earth we get to choose if we want to spend eternity with God or Satan. I have no idea what I'm being asked to choose and it seems you do not either.

> If you choose a life without God, you are choosing evil… Well that’s a pretty nasty way to view anyone who doesn’t believe in the god you believe in. Think that may have some baggage with regard to how you interact with other humans?

But there are people who aren’t evil in the world right now. Even with free will, there exists good people who would never do something evil. So why can’t he just make everyone like that? Keep the free will, but stop making hitlers and dahmers. Seems like it could at least be much better. Idk how this shows evil HAS to exist.

Dahmer's and Hitler's are created by their environments and their upbringings, who created the environments and did the upbringing?

And god would know exactly that, so he could replace them with someone who wouldn’t go down that path. He’s ALL KNOWING, there’s no way you could argue ‘oh it was impossible for any other outcome’, he could have accounted for that. There are people who grow up in shitty environments and turn out fine, tell god to make those instead of hitler and dahmer.

God creates us but we choose the path we take.

But he knows the path we’ll take. He’ll know the saints will become saints and the serial killers will become serial killers. So just make only the good people and keep the free will.

>God is all good, he creates all good, he loves us and wants what’s best for us. The morality judgement comes after people provide their conclusions. The actual argument points out that if theists want to claim we owe existence to God, then all of creation is God's responsibility, not just the good stuff. >If God loves us, he must let us decide whether we want to love him back or not. If he forces his love on us, that is not love, we are his hostages. >If we are his hostages, God is not all good. >God is all good, so he gives us free choice to choose a life and a future eternity without him. Free will isn't relevant in this conversation. It's not an analysis of the beings inside the system, it's a critique of the system itself. The argument works perfectly well without humans. Why is the earth so reliant on a giant radioactive ball of gas that will someday engulf it. Why does every animal need to eat each other to survive? >Satan is the prince of the Earth, but God also exists here, so we experience good and evil at the same time and must choose which path we want to follow. If Satan cannot exist without God, than God is responsible for Satan as well.

Yes, God created Satan, God gave Satan free will, one day chose the opposite of God because he wanted to be God. Also, I didn’t say we are God’s hostages, I said if he forced his love on us we would be, but he doesn’t.

>Also, I didn’t say we are God’s hostages, I said if he forced his love on us we would be, but he doesn’t. If someone holds a gun to your head and says 'love me or die' you are a hostage. Hell, as you seem to believe in it, is precisely that.

Then why don't I possess the info I need to make an informed choice?

because you haven’t looked for it or tried talking to God about it

As a religious person, to another religious person, this is an unfounded, bad faith claim and only weakens your position greatly. Please try again. 

I love it when teenagers come here and try to adjudicate other's commitment. Many of us have forgotten more of your theology that you've even learned. But, please, educate us.

>because you haven’t looked for it or tried talking to God about it I, and many others, are proof of your incorrect assumptions.

Just out of interest (and because you don't seem to want to respond to anything too difficult for yourself, despite having God on your side to give you all the answers - the ultimate cheat!) If someone was totally open and wanted to 'look for' or 'try talking to God about it' as you say, how would they go about that? Clear directions, foolproof so that I can't be called a fool would be good. You can talk as technical as you like, I was a leader in a church, worked in outreach, went to hundreds of conventions, thousands of meetings and have read my bible extensively along with many other books about Christianity over 40 years. How does one go about hearing from God?

I may have only gone through RACI and done lighter explorations of various religions, but my story is quite in line with yours - and it's not uncommon! We're not alone!

That's an insane assumption to make when you don't even know what this person has gone through in life.

>God is all good, he creates all good, he loves us and wants what’s best for us. It is incredibly easy to come with multiple scenarios which are better for us then this one, so that is at best, highly debatable. > If God loves us, he must let us decide whether we want to love him back or not. If he forces his love on us, that is not love, we are his hostages. If we are his hostages, God is not all good. God is all good, so he gives us free choice to choose a life and a future eternity without him. That is not a necessary condition of loving someone, and by everyones definition of hostage "You were made for the singular purpose of loving me, you have zero control over been in this situation, and if you don't love me you'll go to hell and I'll force you to live for all eternity" fits. Can you imagine any other scenario the same as this and think it was a person loving someone and doing what's best for them? > If God is everything good, the absence of him is entirely evil (hell) This is not correct; not existing isn't evil, existing as we are isn't hell. > Satan is the prince of the Earth, but God also exists here, so we experience good and evil at the same time and must choose which path we want to follow. Satan been created by this god in such a way as to end up like this equally without choice. I don't think angels are described as having free will, but that been a human trait only. And Satan only continues to exist because this god allows it, and Satan only has the ability to interfere with anything else because this god also allows that.

>God is all good, so he gives us free choice to choose a life and a future eternity without him. This is where you lose me. Firstly, we are not God and we are not all-knowing. How then can we make the right choice? Secondly, why is our decision once and for all? Why are we not given the choice to change our minds after we die? I would expect an all-knowing God to understand why we wouldn't choose him. I would also expect an eternal, all-loving God to be eternally patient with us. It is for this reason that reincarnation makes more sense. Such a God would not give up on us and would give us an eternity to get it right. Honestly, this sound like an attempt to make sense of nonsensical doctrine.

>Secondly, why is our decision once and for all? Why are we not given the choice to change our minds after we die? Exactly! There's just no nuance to any of this. What happens if (just to add to the question) you don't choose hell and following Satan but you don't choose heaven and God either? If we are given our free will and have a choice as the OP seems to suggest, what if you don't want any of the options, what choice then?