You're using the same words, but it's pretty clear you don't really know what they mean.

* Why doesn't gravity work backwards?
* Because gravity makes objects fall towards each other.
* Yes, but why doesn't it go backwards?
* That's not what gravity does.
* But why not?
* Massive objects cause curvature in spacetime and this curvature makes objects move towards each other.
* You're not answering my question. Why doesn't it go BACKWARDS?
* Etc.

There's nothing to be gained from this conversation except for a headache.

Do you have any evidence of this claim?

First off, I have never denied that there are not consequences to A&E sin.

But what you are trying to say is that person X is now condemned because of it, as if he did not have a choice, which is not true.

Is life harder because of sin in the world yes. But that does not mean that person X is not capable of entering into eternal life.

Person X has the exact same opportunity as the rest of us have.

Life is tougher because of A&E sin, and yes we are all effected by the consequences of their actions. But we are not condemned because of them and we all have the free will to turn towards God and accept his gift.

So in your scenario of Person X going to hell, he has absolutely no one to blame but himself.

Just as you and I do not, or should not, blame our lives on our parents and the situation that we were born into. We should accept the situation that we have been given and deal with it to the best of our ability.

You're sort of missing the point I'm trying to make but that's probably my fault. What I'm saying is that in hindsight, person X is paying for something he had nothing to do with. It doesn't matter that he still could have gone to heaven. The fact is, that in the situation where it's given that he went to hell, he is paying for the sins of someone else.

I agree wholeheartedly with this as a rule from our perspective. But this has nothing to do with God's perspective. From God's point of view, person X had a worse chance of going to heaven because of the actions of A&E. I think this is in direct contradiction to the idea of a perfectly just God.

Either that, or your conception of "perfectly just" is incorrect.

So you disagree that punishing someone for the sins of someone else is unjust?

You said:

I don't believe "had a worse chance" = "punishment."

We are all interconnected in some way either generationally or by family that I'm not exactly sure of.

But it says in the NT that if you're married to an unbeliever that you make them holy.

I looked that up because I wanted to know if it was an extension of salvation to your unbelieving loved ones and John MacArthur said no. What it affected were their blessings. Your unbelieving loved ones can be blessed through the believers.

I'm not an expert here so someone else will have to take over.

I just thought I'd complicate things.

I really need to get more knowledgable on the blessings and curses but somehow I never seem to get beyond existence of God questions around here.

Ok fair enough. This gives me an idea for a new thread though.

so if I (an atheist) marry a chick that loves the jesus then im good to go?

do you people really have no idea how absolutely insane all of this sounds? Jesus IS god. How could God be corrupted by something he himself created?

This is as meaningful as arguing, "No way a witch could make a whole house out of nothing but gingerbread."

I just spent a whole post explaining why this cannot be true. Why did you clip out the part about quadriplegics and neurodegenerative patients and prisoners? Your theodicy didn't cover it, which was (IIRC) one of the objections I raised.

quote]They need to have an option to turn from God. If your option is between A and B but B does not really exist, do you have a choice? No, you can only choose A so you do not have the ability not to choose A.[/QUOTE]

In what sense does a quadriplegic or sufferer of ALS or prisoner have the option to turn from God?

Why couldn't Satan have been granted the option in the same sense?

Thinking like that probably gets you in even deeper trouble.

But this isn't a question of blame.

If my parents molest and mutilate me, then I am justified in concluding that they are not benevolent toward me.

If I'm given two choices, either I have parents who love me and molest and mutilate me, or I don't have parents, then the latter is clearly the case.

The nastiness of God isn't about blame, it's about showing that Christianity cannot be valid. Certainly there could be such a nasty God, I still have the terror over the possibility, but the God you describe is a logical contradiction.

haha, i obv wouldn't marry her for that reason alone, but for those pascals wager loving folks it would be a nice extra benefit safety net

I actually got distracted by work so I did not get to finish. sry

The actions of your mind and heart are just as important as your physical actions.

Reading over you post, it is pretty absurd, even for an atheist. Making up pretend scenarios is ridiculous. And to equate you not being able to have access to the president is not a fair analogy.

If you were the most powerful person on the planet, you would have access to him and no amount other people could stop you.

And free will in not merely constrained to our physical movements. I am not sure where you got this one from.

In a scenario where I give you $100 and told you to go spend it you would have free will over that money.

Now let's say that the minute you tried to spend it in some manner that I did not approve of I took it away. Do you have free will over the money?

No let's say that after I gave you the money I gave you a list of what you were allowed to spend it on, all of which were for me. Do you still have free will over that money?

In the latter two examples in reality I gave you nothing only let you spend my money for me.

This is a completely fallacious analogy and is not even close to what we are talking about. Adam and Eve did nothing directly to you.

You are far from showing anything of the sort. The only thing that you have done is build your own version of a "fair god box" and when the Christian God failed to fit in you deemed him contradictory. But you have yet to show anything that is actually contradictory.

The fact that or lives are tougher because of the choices of other is not contradictory of free will or a just God.

As the one who started this thread, would it be scummy of me to say I didn't want to participate in it anymore because it got too stupid to debate?

Great. Then there is no need for Satan to physically be able to turn against God, it's only his mind and heart that matter.

Furthermore, there is no need for us to be in control of our physical movements. A patient with ALS is not in control of his physical movements, and yet he has free will. Therefore, it's possible for someone to be out of control of his physical movements, while still having free will. Thus, God did not need to give us control of our physical movements in order to grant us free will.

According to your religion, God is omnipotent. That means he can take any plausible pretend scenario and make it reality. Thus, pretend scenarios are highly logically relevant in considering God - any scenario that would be better than reality implies that an all-good God doesn't exist. If God had the option of creating scenario A, and created scenario B instead, and scenario A is better than scenario B, then God deliberately chose the worse scenario.

If I came down with Alzheimer's, lateral sclerosis, or any number of other problems, or if someone locked me in a cage, then this would not be true. Plenty of powerful people have died of such things, there was nothing irrevocable about their power. And even if I'm the most impotent peasant in all of China, if I break your legs you will lose the power to walk. It doesn't matter if you're Emperor of the Land.

If I were the most powerful person in the world, and I were trying to kill the president, and I had a stroke and became paralyzed, I wouldn't be able to kill the president. If I were the most powerful person in the world, and the least powerful person in the world stabbed me in the neck, I would die and fail at killing the president. So if I were the most powerful person on the planet, a single person (or even a chance event) could stop me.

This is how the real world works, I'm really not sure how you're claiming otherwise. Have you heard the story of Alexander the Great? Julius Caesar? Attila? Power in this world is not irrevocable. Many of those who choose to do horrible things just happen to die before they get around to doing them. Does this invalidate their free will? Why can't torturers and rapists get heart attacks before going through with their crimes?

If I don't have control over my physical movements, then I do not have the power to rape, torture, kill, or maim anyone. If free will doesn't necessitate freedom to control my physical movements, then free will doesn't necessitate rape, torture, murder, or mayhem. Thus, free will cannot be an adequate defense of these things.

Not if it's in a frozen account, or if I can't physically reach the bank or someone willing to accept it as payment. If I'm stuck in the middle of the desert with broken legs, a $100 bill isn't something I have the "freedom" to spend. And people have been in that situation - dead due to physical obstacles and their money didn't save them. Many powerful people have been in that situation, thus it logically must be possible. Again, it's odd that you're claiming otherwise. Lots of people do not have the power to spend their money.

You're reversing the scenario. The question is this - if you break my legs and give me $100, do I have free will? I can't spend the money - does that mean you've removed my free will? If the answer is no, then YOU CAN REMOVE MY POWER TO WALK AND SPEND WITHOUT AFFECTING MY FREE WILL (you've also removed my power to rape and torture without affecting my free will, and if you can do it so can God).

This is all irrelevant. Your defense for why God created a world of torture and rape and disease is that it was necessary in order for free will to exist. I have established that the ability to rape and torture is not a necessary condition for free will to exist. That directly contradicts your defense - God DID NOT have to allow rape and torture in order to allow free will. You yourself just said that the heart and mind are what matter, not physical abilities. Thus, a person does not need to have the physical ability to rape and torture in order to have free will. Thus, according to your assertions, God did not have to grant us those abilities! He could have made a world without rape!

But instead he made a world with rape - even though it wasn't necessary at all - and that makes him a cruel character. Someone who decides to add a bit of rape for spice, when there is no need to do so, is not omnibenevolent.

And if I shoot you, I did nothing directly to you. I just pulled a trigger, it was the bullet that did the dirty work, right?

Of course, God is the supreme architect of suffering and misery and strife, according to your views, with Lucifer after him. Adam and Eve are a distant third (who were literally put in a trap that they had no choice but to spring, apparently). So I am being unfair to them, if your story were true then God would be the child-molester.

I created an "all-benevolent being box," by saying that if it is possible for God to be more benevolent than he is, then he cannot be all-benevolent.

Do you have a problem with this reasoning?

And yes, if you claim that God is all-benevolent, then that reasoning is a big deal for you.

OK, I lied. I'll participate in the thread. (just can't help myself lol)
That's my claim. Show me another type of evidence that works and I'll recant it.

Someone should really define "free will" in this thread. The definition keeps changing from post to post.

I'll take a shot at it: "The luxury an individual has to make his/her own choices so long as they are not constricted by this individual's physical and mental capabilities."

According to this (very legitimate imo) definition, Satan could not be stopped by God and have free will at the same time. BUT, also according to this definition, God could have created a world without evil, and still have given people free will.

There's no problem with the logic, but there is a problem with God's omnibenevolence.

What do you mean by this?

Right now, the door is open for scriptural evidence of the grace of God because "it works" even though you don't necessarily see empirical evidence of it working.

Well, scriptural evidence "works" the same way for Allah, but you don't believe that to be true. Why not?

Scriptural evidences for various religions contradict each other. Therefore, logically, they cannot all be true. Yet they're either equally unverifiable, or you're incredibly arrogant. (to claim they're not equally verifiable is the same as saying "Muslims are stupider than Jews...Jews are stupider than Christians...other Christians are stupider than me")

I don't believe it is true because I don't believe the explanation of the universe provided in the Qu'ran is consistent with the experience of life.

I agree with this.

Why is this not a false choice? How does "not equally verifiable" have anything to do with "stupidity"?

Because if the evidence is objective (and not some sort of "personal" evidence that could apply to the validity of rabbits feet and astrology), and Christianity is clearly correct, then you MUST view people who are not Christians as ignorant, unintelligent (or anything else negative) in relation to you.

Don't worry though...since religion is so good at being divisive, they feel the same way about you.