Unless you pray for something, which definitely and provably works, right tack? I guess you have either bailed out of or have forgotten that little debate.

(October 28, 2011 at 7:29 am)searchingforanswers Wrote: Yeah lucent did you answer that? what changes in heaven do we still have free will or are we "mindless robots"?

I could say that since christians are mindless robots in life they'll still be mindless robots in heaven.

But that would be mean so I won't.

(October 28, 2011 at 6:55 am)lucent Wrote: So what you're saying is that God should prevent all suffering. Which means that He should prevent us from any action that might cause another suffering, which means we are nothing more than robots forced to do Gods will.

Do you know what a strawman argument is Lucent? Apparently not. Go ahead attack something I didn't say and avoid the point.

Quote:The problem of evil is solved by the fact that God allows His creatures free will, because creatures that are significantly free can have meaningful relationships with God. Creatures that are not significantly free are forced into doing Gods will. The former is preferable to the latter.

Even if the FWD goes through, and I would argue it doesn't. It does nothing to address the inductive problem of evil. Im afraid you're hitting the wrong target Lucent. The inductive POE is a separate argument which the FWD cannot touch. However as for the FWD it is the equivalent of saying god moves in mysterious ways. Yep he sure does, except of course if he doesn't exist.

(October 28, 2011 at 7:30 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(October 28, 2011 at 7:09 am)lucent Wrote:

(October 28, 2011 at 7:05 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(October 28, 2011 at 6:55 am)lucent Wrote: Nothing happens unless God allows it to happen..allowing it obviously means God decided it should happen. I am not sure how many different ways I can tell you the same thing

So god decides that abortions should happen then?

That He allows them to happen doesn't mean He wants them to happen. It only means that He allows for the free will decisions of the people involved in making them happen.

No,no,no, you have specifically stated that nothing happens unless god decides it should happen.
Now you're saying that things happen even though god doesn't want them to.

Two completely contradictory statements.

I'm coming to the conclusion you don't know what you mean.

I'm not sure how I could be any more clear. God has decided that His creatures can defy Him, because of free will, so that's what should happen..but it obviously isn't what He prefers to happen. Again, perhaps the distinction is going over your head, but it is a pretty simple concept.

Oh, I see, so the lawgiver and creator abdicated authority to a creation which he understood to be fallen. Sounds less than qualified for his position.

(October 28, 2011 at 9:43 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Do you know what a strawman argument is Lucent? Apparently not. Go ahead attack something I didn't say and avoid the point.

This is no strawman. Your argument was a fallacious appeal to emotion, the real question behind your statement is how can a loving God allow suffering/evil. The answer is because of free will. If you want to argue this isn't sufficient, please state your case.

(October 28, 2011 at 9:43 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Even if the FWD goes through, and I would argue it doesn't. It does nothing to address the inductive problem of evil. Im afraid you're hitting the wrong target Lucent. The inductive POE is a separate argument which the FWD cannot touch. However as for the FWD it is the equivalent of saying god moves in mysterious ways. Yep he sure does, except of course if he doesn't exist.

You're acting like the inductive poe is watertight, and its not. For one, it begs the question. Consider the following propositions:

1. There appears to be no purpose to gratuitous evil
2. There is some non apparent purpose to gratuitous evil
3. There is in fact no purpose to gratuitous evil

To reject 2 and go from 1 to 3, you are saying that there are cases of gratuitous suffering. But you can only say this if you are certain there is no God. Assuming what the argument is trying to prove is begging the question.

There are other issues, such as the expectations of finite creatures as compared to an omniscient God. There are many ways to address this argument.

I'm coming to this thread drunk off my ass, so forgive my imposition, but I think Ursula K Le Guin had it right, in The Lathe Of Heaven when she wrote, "I haven't any strength, I haven't any character, I'm a born tool. I haven't any destiny. All I have is dreams. And now other people run them.” We find ways to rationalize our way away from fate, to pretend we have ways by which we escape the game, by which we bet against the house and win -- but we all know we're born tools; to wish to be otherwise is the wish to be supernatural, or the stuff of angels. We find it easy to condemn the stupid for silly "get out of jail free" cards in their faith, yet we buck and fight the inevitable, that we are just a tool, no less than the theist, no less than any of those we hate. We are tools. And other people run us.

You just might be right, maybe you are a tool..................................

Sorry to interrupt with this irrelevant point, but... The Lathe of Heaven was an awesome book. I love original storytelling with a poignant moral. Le Guin is an exceptional author.

(October 28, 2011 at 10:28 pm)lucent Wrote: This is no strawman. Your argument was a fallacious appeal to emotion, the real question behind your statement is how can a loving God allow suffering/evil. The answer is because of free will. If you want to argue this isn't sufficient, please state your case.

Not much. Go read the thread again.

I didn't say that "I think god should stop all suffering". I said that the god who controls all, according to you, is therefore also zapping out miscarriages millions of times per day from the supernatural realm, despite the free will of the mother-to-be who wants the child. In what sense am I appealing to emotion. Factually god if he controls all events is overriding free will. Or would you argue miscarriages are natural events?

Quote:You're acting like the inductive poe is watertight, and its not.....

How can an inductive argument be watertight. I never made this claim. However you have asserted The FWD eradicated the PoE. You are the one claiming watertightness. I'm pointing out where it isn't. Try and turn the tables if you wish but strawmanning etc will not get you off the hook. Go ahead let's hear how the FWD is a watertight shut down of the PoE.