...and now for something completely different: Free Will!

[ppp]

This is what atheists do not understand. Atheists think omnipotent means that God can do anything, which really means God should be doing everything they expect Him to do. They do not understand what omnipotence really means. It means that God can do anything but God only does what God chooses to do.

Setting aside your strawman "which really means God should be doing everything they expect Him to do", your other clause " but God only does what God chooses to do" is irrelevant to the issues of responsibility.

Why should an omnipotent/omniscient God do what humans expect Him to do?

Irrelevant. The position is that the god that many theist describe is immoral. This is not an assessment of any actual god. It is an assessment of human depictions of their gods. Do not confuse your depictions for anything real. I don't.

 

[Trailblazer]

Setting aside your strawman "which really means God should be doing everything they expect Him to do", your other clause " but God only does what God chooses to do" is irrelevant to the issues of responsibility.

That is no strawman because many atheists believe that God should be doing everything they expect Him to do.

God only does what God chooses to do is not irrelevant, not unless you can make an omnipotent God do what He does not choose to do.

God is not responsible for/accountable to humans for anything He does or does not do.
Give me one good reason why an all-powerful God would be responsible/accountable to humans (other than the fact that you want Him to be).
I want a logical reason why the creator of the entire universe would be accountable to a few measly humans.

Irrelevant. The position is that the god that many theist describe is immoral. This is not an assessment of any actual god. It is an assessment of human depictions of their gods. Do not confuse your depictions for anything real. I don't.

My question is not irrelevant.
Why should an omnipotent/omniscient God do what humans expect Him to do?

The God that theists describe is not immoral because God is not subject to morality, only humans are subject to morality. The conflate God with humans is the fallacy of false equivalence.

 

[ppp]

That is no strawman because many atheists believe that God should be doing everything they expect Him to do.

It is a straw man because atheists do not believe that there is a god to be doing things. You know that an atheist is someone who does not believe that any gods exist, right? When we are talking about the problem of evil we are talking about the attributes that theists assign to their assorted gods.

God only does what God chooses to do is not irrelevant, not unless you can make an omnipotent God do what He does not choose to do.

God is not responsible for/accountable to humans for anything He does or does not do.
Give me one good reason why an all-powerful God would be responsible/accountable to humans (other than the fact that you want Him to be).
I want a logical reason why the creator of the entire universe would be accountable to a few measly humans.

Again you are missing the point. No one is trying to force your supposed god into doing something.. We are assessing the nature of your god as you describe it. It is, at beast, an amoral being. In fact, without accountability there is no morality.

The God that theists describe is not immoral because God is not subject to morality, only humans are subject to morality.

Such a being would be nothing but a detriment.

 

[KWED]

I never denied that God created the universe, I only denied that God did anything AFTER that, except for sending Messengers. I have always said God did that.

That is logically incoherent. The only suffering that could be considered God's responsibility is the suffering that is not freely chosen by humans. That would be our fate, for which God is responsible, and I covered this on another thread:

Questions that believers cannot answer

God does not prevent all suffering? Why should God prevent suffering, just because you and atheists like you don't like suffering? That is Not a reason for God to prevent suffering but it is the only reason you have.

What did I say God causes to happen? God determines what some of our fate will be, that which we do not freely choose (see above).

I am not a religionist who praises God for all the good and never looks at the bad.
I look at BOTH the good and the bad. As I said in my thread:

It would be unfair to blame man for things that are beyond his control so who is responsible for all the suffering in the world that is not caused by man? Logically speaking, if God is responsible for 'everything' then God is responsible for 'both' the good and bad things that happen to us.
Questions that believers cannot answer

Some believers merely point out the inconsistencies in atheist arguments about God.
You are one of the atheists who blames God for the bad but never gives God any credit for the good, and that is illogical, since if God is responsible for everything, God is responsible for BOTH the good and the bad.

Good.

Just pointing out that in this post you claimed that god does not interfere in our lives, and also that god is responsible for some of our suffering because he determines our fate.
As I have shown on many previous occasions, you simultaneously hold contradictory positions, which is why any attempt at debate is utterly meaningless.

 

[KWED]

who is to say that God doesn't strike down a lot of killers?

The stats which show that the majority of murderers are in prison and did not die suddenly from unexplained causes.

Ever think that maybe it saved the child a lifetime of suffering to die young?

So you are fine with killing any infants whose lives may involve suffering (and not just killing them but slowly torturing them to death).
Yet you are opposed to early-term abortion on any grounds.
Inconsistent much?
That's the problem when you base your position of dogmatic platitudes rather than reason and logic.

 

[KWED]

Those atheists abound on this forum. Like I said, whenever an atheist invokes God and states what God does or does not do, they are referring to God. There is no get out of jail free card.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Atheists want a free pass, they want to be able to say any damn thing about God and then they say no God exists. Tat is logically incoherent because a nonexistent entity cannot be responsible for anything.

No, that is not the reason. God needs no cheerleaders because God has no needs at all.
Only humans and other animals have needs.

The person who sets it of is to blame.

Thanks. My life has been one tragedy after another, and by all rights I should have lost my faith in God long, long ago, but I have sustained my faith with the help of friends like my bff @Truthseeker.

However, some improvement might be on the way.

The argument that atheists make -- that God can eliminate suffering so God should eliminate suffering -- is logically incoherent.

This is what atheists do not understand. Atheists think omnipotent means that God can do anything, which really means God should be doing everything they expect Him to do. They do not understand what omnipotence really means. It means that God can do anything but God only does what God chooses to do.

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings, p. 209

Why should an omnipotent/omniscient God do what humans expect Him to do? How could any human know more than God regarding what is best for humans?

And now you are arguing that because atheists refer to the claimed nature of the god religionists believe in in order to show flaws in the religionists' arguments, they therefore believe that god exists?
Dear god! You literally have no idea what you are talking about.
(BTW, I'm not back. I am merely using a couple of your posts to show why any attempt at debate with you is utterly pointless. Your beliefs render you incapable of rational thought)

 

[KWED]

This deserves special mention...

So someone who planted a land mine is not to blame when it blows someone up?

The person who sets it of is to blame.

You are blaming the person who steps on the landmine for their loss of limbs, not the person who planted the mine in the first place?
Ye gods, you have outdone yourself!

 

[1213]

You're just talking in circles. I did not say I am not capable of it. I said that I could not choose to desire it. I even put the words choose to desire in bold, but you still managed to miss it.

And I meant one can choose what he wants/desires.

All you are doing is claiming that you choose what you desire on the basis that you already desire it.
Stop conflating action and desire.

I think desire is same as will. And it is formed freely by what person thinks is good. For example I could want to eat a cake, because I like its taste. It would be my will and it would be formed by me freely on basis of what I appreciate.

 

[Truthseeker]

Suffering exists in this world because it is a material world in which suffering is unavoidable. Accidents and injuries will happen and people will get physical diseases because they have physical bodies. Moreover, people will die and leave mourners who suffer the loss of their loved ones. I do not like it any more than anyone else, especially because I have had to endure untold suffering for most of my life. I do not want to share it on this forum, I try to keep it private, but if you were my personal friend like @Truthseeker you would know what I have endured.

Yes, I have some idea. I would have to experience it to really know.

You wonder why I am posting at this hour? I couldn't sleep tonight. I came so late to this forum, and spent so much time in our PM that I had no time to answer alerts before I thought I was going to sleep. I am getting more awake as the new day dawns. It is 7:12 in the morning here. This is typical when I can't sleep.

 

[Wildswanderer]

and our choices are determined by our experiences and our individual natures.

So you don't believe free will is real?

 

[Wildswanderer]

If that was all there was to it, I'd agree. How would you feel though if someone offered you cake, then when you politely refused, put you in jail? No you shouldn't get the cake, but that's not all that's at stake. It's more than just cake or no cake. And, as I said before, God doesn't give us eternal life, just a choice between a nice life and a horrible one. No other options.

Nope.... the Bible explicitly says he gives eternal life to those that believe.
Two options here: hell isn't considered life, or hell is actually just ceasing to exist. And yes there's higher stakes here than cake so the reward is bigger and the consequences of rejecting it more serious.
Of course if you believe in purgatory, there may be another chance to change course. But why not take the cake now? There's no down side.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why not? Do you think you have no evidence at all for God, but just believe it anyway?

Oh I think there's evidence, but it can always be explained away. Faith is always required. Why did God choose faith as the door to eternal life? I don't know. Ask him.

 

[ppp]

So you don't believe free will is real?

If you mean the classic libertarian free will that is defined in the OP. No, I don't.

 

[ppp]

And I meant one can choose what he wants/desires.



I think desire is same as will. And it is formed freely by what person thinks is good. For example I could want to eat a cake, because I like its taste. It would be my will and it would be formed by me freely on basis of what I appreciate.

You are just doing your synonym circle again.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That's pretty facile and weak reasoning, for someone claimed to be an omniscient deity. Were it true it would be another reason, if any beyond the complete dearth of objective evidence, to disbelieve any claims that he was anything but human. I mean if someone can't differentiate between pernicious behaviours like cheating on a partner, and murder, and ostensibly innocuous behaviours that are hard wired by evolution like lust and hate, then it would be absurd to suggest such a person was wise, let alone omniscient.

Where do you think all Wrong actions start?
Hate leads to murder and lust to cheating, but even if it doesn't it still is wrong. And this is interesting and odd coming from people who want the police to arrest people for their political opinion. You do associate thoughts with actions.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So "the best option" an omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent deity can choose, is to sit idly by and allow children to be raped? An evolved ape can do better than that.

Your so called ape is the one doing the rape, so apparently not.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, I have some idea. I would have to experience it to really know.

You wonder why I am posting at this hour? I couldn't sleep tonight. I came so late to this forum, and spent so much time in our PM that I had no time to answer alerts before I thought I was going to sleep. I am getting more awake as the new day dawns. It is 7:12 in the morning here. This is typical when I can't sleep.

Sorry you could not sleep Duane.... I don't have trouble falling asleep, but I have trouble waking up too early and not being able to go back to sleep.
It is amazing I am able to sleep at all, given what has been going on.

You did come late last night and I almost missed getting your PMS because I had closed my laptop, and just came back to check one more time.

 

[Trailblazer]

Just pointing out that in this post you claimed that god does not interfere in our lives, and also that god is responsible for some of our suffering because he determines our fate.
As I have shown on many previous occasions, you simultaneously hold contradictory positions, which is why any attempt at debate is utterly meaningless.

It is all in how you interpret what I say and what I mean by what I say.
God does not interfere in our lives because God does not interfere with our free will decisions.
Our fate is another matter as it is not subject to free will, since fate involves things that are not chosen by us.

God is responsible for our suffering that is not chosen by us, since it was fated by God.
For example if someone close to be dies and I suffer I did not choose that so God is responsible for that suffering because it was my fate to lose that person.

 

[Trailblazer]

And now you are arguing that because atheists refer to the claimed nature of the god religionists believe in in order to show flaws in the religionists' arguments, they therefore believe that god exists?

No, I am not claiming that these atheists believe that God exists, I am pointing out how ridiculous it is for atheists to blame God for anything, since a nonexistent entity cannot be to blame for anything...

You want to have your cake and eat it too but you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
If God does not exist, then God cannot be to blame for anything. Logic 101.

 

[Trailblazer]

This deserves special mention...

You are blaming the person who steps on the landmine for their loss of limbs, not the person who planted the mine in the first place?
Ye gods, you have outdone yourself!

My mistake. I was on the run yesterday when I wrote that.
We all make mistakes, what is important is that we admit them when we realize we made them.