Why did you ignore the tsunami part?

Tsunami/earthquakes/natural disaters etc.. are caused by God IMO to punish people of a paticular area that may be doing evil in Gods eyes like Sodom and Gomorrah

Will there be innocent people be killed - yes.

Just like any war that man has made, like the war in Iraq or WW2 there was evil wicked people like Hitler who needed to be stopped did innocent people die then - yes. Why would it be different then when God is trying to stop evil people.

it'd be different because God is different. Since he's all powerful, he could've avoided innocent people getting killed. Maybe designing something that only kills evil people or whatever. Don't compare what man can do with God.

Man - "If I was God, and I was all powerful, all loving, all knowing, blah blah blah..........there would be no evil in the world and everyone would be happy and live in a perfect place.

God - "I dont want people to live like zombies that only do what I want them to do, I want them to have free-will and let them make choices of thier own and be responsible for their actions"

Who said life was fair? Who said life was going to be easy?

Yes the 3 month year old had no choice thats because her free will was taken away by the rapists, this is not fair but its NOT Gods fault it is the rapists. If you say why didnt God stop him, then were does God stop making the choices on your behalf.

Say you wanted to eat something that you really wanted and God came down from heaven to say "Thats bad for you, I wont allow you to eat that"

Say you wanted to go and meet a friend of yours at a house party and God came down from heaven to say "I wont allow you to go there because their will be drugs/drink bad things there that will be bad for you"

Is that the kind of life you want to live?

So this man wants to rape a 3 year old and God came down from heaven to say....................

Or is God trying to say

"You have free will, you know that eating something that is bad will make you overweight and will cause damage to your body over the long run"

"You have free will, you know that there will be people there at that house party who do drugs etc and you are putting yourself in a bad situaiton and might be tempted to try them but its up to you go or not knowing these things"

"You have free will, you know its wrong to rape this child, you might be caught and be sent to prision for your actions and I will have to punish you for taken away that childs right and free-will"

There is no bother to refute this, other than saying that:

1. Professors who talk about god to students as if they could prove him/disprove him are morons and should be kicked from their position. As long as god is not clearly defined it is not some sciency proposition.

2. Students who use their personal beliefs to vehemently oppose a theory as outlined on the board are bad students. If you want to vehemently oppose a well referenced scientific theory, then atleast use scientific theory that backs up your personal opinion.

3. University lectures that involve debate between professor and student using high school argumentation are not worth attending. Go out in the sun and do something useful...like having an icecream or something.

so free will is only for a select few? the 3 yr old wasn't able to choose anything. she didn't have a freaking choice. god knew this was going to happen and basically gave free will to the rapist over the child?

and what about the tsunami killing a 3 month old baby sleeping? what kind of choice she could've made?

No, EVERYONE has free-will, but what happens is some people will force their will and wishes on to other people the difference is that God will NOT force you to do something you are not willing to do freely. This man raped this young child, thats his free-will being forced on the young child, thats not Gods fault.

if everyone has free will and can make choices, why didn't the 3 yr old baby have a choice to make just before she was murdered? why didn't the 3 month old baby have a choice when she was killed by tsunami?

Becasue their free-will was taken away due to an action outside of their control.

You seem to be saying that a 3 year old can control situations that a adult could control - you do understand that this is not the case right?

I take it from your statement above you would say if the mum and dad of that child told the 3 year old not to play with fire/matches and took control of the situation by removing the danger your action/emtion would be that of "Hey stop that, this 3 year old has a choice and has total free-will if she wants to play with matches let her"

Now to me this is forcing their free-will for GOOD while as the rapist is forcing his free-will for BAD. Can you make the connection?

As for tsunami, to me it is no different than US army forces bombing an area that kills that same 3 month old baby.

US army was using their weapons to make the world a safer place by removing the evil regime that rules there but things like this are going to happen.

God has weapons, tsunami, earthquakes etc.. he uses them to do his will whatever that might be. Can you make the connection?

lol.

So not everyone has free will then? if she can't make a choice about tsunami, how does she have free will? just saying "everyone has free will" doesn't make it true. I'm giving you cases where there's no choice to make and you're coming back with "everyone has freewill". freewill isn't free if you don't have it in every situation. name it forcewill if you want

as for comparing US army killing innocent civilians to God, are you joking? you do know that God has some special powers right? He doesn't have to follow US army's example?

The prof makes 3 serious errors in this speech.

1. He assumes human definition of good is absolute and correct.
2. He ignores the fact our knowledge is limited - we can't judge absolutely without absolute knowledge.
3. There is no atheistic basis for ANY definition of good and evil.

KB24 can you please explain to me what you think free-will is, as clearly I dont know what it is?

Nice post.

freedom to make a choice?

now i have some questions for you

what is free will for you?
you say everyone has it, but is it equal to all?
is it available in all situations?
if it's equal and it's available at all times, why didn't the babies have a choice to make in those examples?

Debateable. It's referred to as 'our definition of good'. That specific part also doesn't necessarily claim the human definition is correct, just that it is the human definition. To say that 'if god does not fit our definition of "good" then we should not call him good' is correct even if our definition of "good" is not ultimately correct - suppose we were all wrong about what 'yellow' was. We should not call bananas yellow (even though they are).
Sauce for the goose - neither can we call god good, for the same reasons.

There's no 'atheistic basis' for a decent lasagne recipe either. Decent lasagne
nonetheless exists, and does so entirely independently of atheism. Do the varying theistic bases for varying theistic moralities ever strike you as being analagous to the varying secular bases of varying secular moralities?

Can you explain how babies have the biological capacity to consent or dissent to actions initiated by older people?

Why didn't the parents of the abusers teach their children not to be abusive to babies? Don't they have any responsibility to teach their children morals?

Why do you immediately hold God accountable in the chain of events? What gives you the right to hold God accountable? Can you prosecute God or enforce anything against him?

because God can see everything and has the power to do anything while the baby can't.

so are you saying babies don't have freewill? does bible say anything about the age at which people start having free will?

We have freewill but we're suppose to exercise our own discipline in the exercise of it.

God already gave babies protection under the Golden Rule.

Why don't people start exercising what God tells them to do.

Do you think its possible for God to give a "restricted" type of free will? Do you think you want God to grant us free will on a case by case basis? Would this be like the government coming into your home and telling you what to do about minute details of your life? Would that be micromanaging?

Free will is a blessing. Its people who decide to use it as a curse.

what is the golden rule? if there's no restricted free will but the babies in my examples were given no choice, what exactly am I missing here? at what age do babies start having free will?

The Golden rule is to do unto others only those things you'd want done to yourself.

Freewill starts from birth but we aren't developed enough to exercise it in a mature way so God places responsibility on the family to take care of its own members in the interim.

what about orphans who die of hunger?

if my having free will creates the possibility that i will suffer eternal torment and damnation then its something i could pass on...

Nobody is suppose to be dying of hunger in this world but that's because the Sermon on the Mount has never been practiced or even taught consistently throughout the world.

If you can't accept the existence of God then why should you accept his morality enough to apply it?

People can't even agree in their own families about how to use the purse strings. How are they going to apply the Sermon on the Mount morality correctly?

Only a few individuals get it right. Very few groups do.