So where would the errosion of free will stop?

how does that erode free will? The only reason it seems like it would is because we are looking at it from our current perspective and we currently can rape if we choose to. If god had made it physically impossible from the get go it would have 0 effect on free will. Does the physical impossibility of shape-shifting, flying, breathing underwater, etc. erode free will?

k i can't stand religion but all i can say is that I don't believe in him for sht...i know there's something out there but I will not devote myself to something that we are not "certain" of....there are tons of religions out there but which is correct? Therefore, I will remain agnostic...

I also read Ingersoll's points and found them interesting. I'm just wondering: has any one successfully attacted Pletho's God? I haven't been on this forum for a while. Pletho seems to have an interesting bent on the Christian God that makes sense.

Jesus isn't God, but Lord of this world, therefore not omnipotent. God the father created the universe ( and perhaps may not give a **** about us). Am I missing anything about Pletho's God? I probably am because I haven't been around much. But just wondering.

I think your point is very weak.

Certainly you can pick out any single act and postulate that God could make that specific act impossible without impacting free will. I can just as easily postulate that God did actually make the very evil acts impossible but we cannot even imagine them because as totally impossible acts we cannot visualize them. A completely pointless direction.

The point is that evil is a very logical possible outcome of free will. I think you would find that most intelligent people, atheists included, would agree. They simply do not feel like taking the time to argue with you.

This is primarily a question of whether a benevolent God would draw the line to the left of "raping infants and then eating their skin while they're still alive."

I'd bet a large sum that the "most intelligent people" are unlikely to believe in free will in the first place. In the case of its existence, they might agree, but only naively. I think given exposure to certain points, they would acknowledge that this is far from obviously true even given the free will assumptions.

But that's all beside the point, because the atrocity I mentioned above is extremely rare. People aren't usually that cruel (unless social psychology encourages them to be). Nature, on the other hand, causes that level of suffering on a regular basis. Natural disasters, starvation, and disease are the great evils of the world. Otherwise known as "acts of God."

Furthermore, even pretending that some human actions are divorced from causal properties, it is clear that causal elements play a major role. Societies with abundant resources have almost always had fewer crimes (though not always less warfare) than those without. People in societies with favorable social conditions don't generate people who do nasty things. Do people in Western Europe lack free will? Is that how it works? Because it seems that people in conflict- and poverty-torn regions of Africa have a tendency to torture other people, whereas people in stable, developed areas do not have that tendency. This implies an environmental impact, rather than a free will impact. You can claim that God is unable to influence free will, but God is certainly (according to your view) able to influence these environmental factors. And once those factors are controlled, and people have all their needs met through every stage of their development, people basically never do these horrible things (those that do almost always have genetic defects or brain damage, again environmental causes and not free will).

Pletho's God is far too mighty for any of us to challenge.

tl ; dr

Please stop obssessing with the bible if you dont think Jesus is God.

An incredible statement. Rather than respond to your post, I will give you a chance to take this back. You have always seemed intelligent and somewhat aware of history, so I can only assume that you have made a mistake.

Nah, I'll stand by that. It's true that crimes like rape happen in countries that are well-put-together, but they are perpetrated primarily by foreigners. But it's peripheral to the point, regardless. The correlation is all that's necessary to establish causal influence. If free will were the sole determinant of rape, then we would expect to see equal rates of rape in every country in the world.

The site you quoted provides stats on reported rape in Norway. It was not an official site and the stats may not even be true. It had more than a few overtones of racism and went on to blame their ills on Middle Eastern immigrants. There were some other northern European posters lamenting the immigrant destruction of their utopias also. I am sure you could find a KKK site to further strengthen your point.

Your last sentence is only valid if the rate of rape is rigorously proportional to the total evil in a society. I suspect the rate of rape in the Third Reich was pretty low, for example.

Everything I have said is perfectly obvious. You should have been able to reason that out and avoid a post so easily refuted. I am done with you. Say whatever you want. I will not bother to correct you.

Thats not true. You would expect if free will existed that people that had something to lose would be less likely to rape. You would expect that in a deterministic world rape would be spread equally throughout the world.

WOW
interesting stuff.
will just say, yes, some of the points in the initial post have merit, However, the bible gives HOPE to many who have no hope in this life. be it true or not, millions needs this HOPE, be it true or false, to make good in this life. many values taught in the bible r good for children to base their actions off of. anyone can find fault with any and all religion, gov't, and PERSON. nothing is perfect, unless of course you believe in God and believe this person/entity to be perfect.
anyways, i was raised in a Christian home but i try to be open and think through things instead of just being spoon fed ideas. i do enjoy these posts, just thought that i might contribute in a very small way.

Uh, no.

This type of thinking, frankly, is disgusting to me.

why is that???? i know lots of people who do draw hope from this, and without it, would not have much to live for..... i am NOT saying i think this, but different strokes for different folks, so why is this disgusting to U?

What good is false hope? Wouldn't you prefer that people think for themselves? Uhg. WTF?

I would say that false hope is more depressing to me than disgusting. However, it is only false hope if you can demonstrate that it is impossible. Otherwise, it is just hope.

No. If a person decides whether to rape based on what they have to lose, then what they have to lose determines the likelihood that they will rape. That's what we call "determinism." Actions are determined based on prior conditions.

According to determinism, we will see rape rates based on the prior conditions, and the rape rates will follow statistical patterns based on those conditions. That is the premise of determinism. Another way to say this (one that theists tend to prefer as it makes spin easier) is that with understanding of the conditions giving rise to rape, we can predict the likelihood of rape - if a country is socially together, then I can predict a lower rape rate in that country. If a person has something to lose, then I can predict that he will be less likely to commit rape. If a person has a good credit rating and no criminal history, then I can predict that he will be less likely to commit rape than someone with a poor credit rating and a history of crime. This is how determinism works in practice.

Free will states that we cannot predict actions. In fact, the whole reason it plays such a role in your theology is that it implies even God can't predict actions. The fact that I can predict likelihood of rape to a high degree is a strike against that premise.

Regardless, if having something to lose means a low likelihood of rape (I don't think this is anywhere near as big a factor as you're making it out to be, but let's go with it), then God can give everyone something to lose. This will reduce the likelihood of rape in a deterministic and predictable way (ie, by definition, in a way that does not relate to free will).

Um, you went through the whole thread and didn't pay attention to the link at the top? The link is to an official publication. It happens to be written in Norwegian, I linked the discussion because it provides an English summary of some of the data. I'm not sure how you missed the point so completely.

I don't think rape is always a perfect indicator. However, rape, torture, and murder are the worst things people do to one another, and all are strongly correlated with income. Again, it doesn't matter. In order to support the position of an omnibenevolent God, it is necessary that every factor not dependent on our free will is aligned as perfectly as possible to ensure benevolent ends. All I need to do is establish that there exists some determinant element to atrocity in order to show that God, by influencing determinant elements, can reduce the rate of such atrocities. Reducing the rate of atrocities to a minimum is the most benevolent action, atrocities are not reduced to a minimum rate, ergo the most benevolent action has not been taken. As it is possible for a God to have taken a more benevolent course, if a God exists that God is not as benevolent as it is possible to be and therefore not perfectly benevolent. Thus, any claim of an omnibenevolent God is false. Christianity is a claim of an omnibenevolent God, therefore Christianity is false.

Great, are you into bloodletting, too?

If you don't think Norway, Sweden, and Denmark have better crime rates than Colombia or South Africa, then you are remaining willfully ignorant in order to avoid having your faith destroyed.

That you think it is "obvious" that crimes are non-deterministic doesn't make it so. We have proof that they are determined and predictable to a high degree. Deterministic effects result in differing levels of suffering for humans and differing levels of evil, God created the deterministic effects, therefore (regardless of free will) God has chosen a world with greater (rather than lesser) evil. Yet God is defined as omnibenevolent. This is a contradiction, and thus Christianity is logically contradictory given what we observe in the world.

The Bible gives hope, yes. It also causes destruction, murder, and war. It also prevents the advancement of scientific knowledge. "Hope" isn't a worthwhile cost. If people want ot find hope in Buddhism, fine. But belief in a jealous God that orders his people to commit genocides is not fine.

Buddhism doesn't provide "hope". Hope is an emotional state or condition and Buddhism is the detachment from all such conditions.

Hope is conditional on certain promises and there are no future promises in Buddhism. A future belief but no promises.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true

Why did he not plainly say: "I am the Son of God," or, "I am God"?
He was a Son of God much like King David. He did not claim to be God.

Why did he not explain the Trinity?
Because it was added later.

Why did he not tell the mode of baptism that was pleasing to him?
Because it was a given in his day. Moving natural water.

Why did he not write a creed?
Because he did not come to destroy the law. No additional creed was necessary.

Why did he not break the chains of slaves?
He was focused on religious change. He supported the sick and diseased in their right to access the temple. This is an indication of his character. The low would be made high, etc.

Why did he not say that the Old Testament was or was not the inspired word of God?
What? He absolutely stated that he came to support the law. He was a jew.

Why did he not write the New Testament himself?
This is stupid. He had no concept of a New Testament.

Why did he leave his words to ignorance, hypocrisy and chance?
How would he stop someone from writing the wrong words on a scroll? Every time a scribe picked up a pen, he slaps them on the hand?

Why did he not say something positive, definite and satisfactory about another world?
His ministry was preaching the coming of the Son of Man and the bodily ressurection of believers. The low would be made high. In other words, those who had suffered would be rewarded. His message was positive, definitve and satisfactory to any believer.

Why did he not turn the tear-stained hope of heaven into the glad knowledge of another life?
Read the Bible again. His entire message was about the coming establishment of God's kingdom on the Earth, not somewhere else.

Why did he not tell us something of the rights of man, of the liberty of hand and brain?
Uh, why do you think he attacked the temple system and its abuses? Maybe he wanted people to be treated equally regardless of their ability to pay or the state of the body?

I think these questions have obvious answers and are really weak criticisms. He probably didn't read the Bible much so he thought these questions were difficult to answer.

The OP is really stupid.

The writings you posted are all based on the belief that Jesus knew the entire future of the planet while he was still human. Which is not the belief of any christian.