(August 13, 2012 at 1:22 am)Undeceived Wrote:

(August 13, 2012 at 1:09 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: If hunger and other necessities were cured and catered for we'd focus on expanding our knowledge and making life better for everybody.

What, in your mind, is a necessity? Name them all.

How about I just name one that covers all of them?
Health.

(August 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote: Hell is seperation from God on an eternal scale. the Pit, The void, The Darkkness where their is weeping and gnashing of teeth, The Grave all describe Hell.

Ok.

(August 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote: The fact that we are free from His Expressed Will is apart of His plan.

We aren't free to choose if it is all in a plan from the beginning of time. This is determinism with a God label slapped on it.

(August 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote: you usage of the Word 'justice' describes a 'fairness' that is based in popular morality. (it's what you think fair to be)

Is this command theory attached to justice instead of morality? Justice is a concept that relies on a judge (a person, etc) to determine fair retribution. What can never be fair is a finite crime punished with an infinite sentence. Whether or not you want to define "justice" into oblivion is none of my concern.

(August 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote: A just God would be incapable of creating a place of infinite suffering for finite crimes.

Wait till you get to Hell there's a place with limitless suffering. there are limits in this life our soceities ensure that.

I'll say it again: A just God couldn't punish someone for a finite crime with infinite punishment. Nothing you can do in 5 years, 10 years, a million years can earn you infinite punishment. You know how big 1 trillion is to infinity? It isn't even a fraction, not even a slice of the pie. You are no closer to finishing your sentence than a trillion years before that.
This is the definition of injustice.

(August 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote: Un belief is not a crime it is a choice. People Choose to be with God or seperated from Him.

If I don't believe in God and am later sent to hell for it, I am being punished. I don't see an alternative.
On choice, I thought you said it was all in his plan? If it is his plan that I choose something and not another thing, then I never had a choice to begin with.

(August 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote: Hence: Redemption to all those who Seek it.
As you have pointed out not all will seek redemption.

This is blatant injustice. Clear and obvious malice for those with a brain in their heads.

(August 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote: How so? For the 'plan' was to provide choice.

There is no choice in your system, planned or otherwise. If choice was planned and every decision was also planned, then choice is only an illusion.

(August 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote: Did you choose to remain outside of the redemption offered or not?

According to you, no I didn't. I am simply following his master plan.

(August 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote: You had no choice on whether or not you will sin, but you do get to choose whether or not you will live in your sins.

Special pleading. I can't choose anything else besides whether or not I need to be redeemed for sins that I was forced to commit by a plan that the very one requiring redemption set out for me? How do you not read the things you are typing and see them for what they are? Is this the true power of indoctrination?

(August 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote: Both, God's Plan is that you have a Choice.
Oh and you might want to read up on the fallacy you have misidentified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Wikipedia Wrote:"Essentially, this (special pleading) involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption."
*Parenthesis are mine

You have failed to justify why you can choose redemption but not anything else. So no, I didn't misuse the term "special pleading". Have you looked at any of the pages on logical fallacies that you post here, or are you just trying to appear intelligent?

(August 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote: No. I simply put it out there that if their was a God, that I have my eyes and ears opened. (I didn't just appeal to the God of the bible. i put it out there and God responded as His promises indicate He would.)

Thanks for clearing that up.

I'll share with you an anecdote, if that is ok. It has to do with prayer, so don't rage too hard.
When I was 5 years younger at the age of 13, I believed in God. I read the Bible, albeit minimally. I didn't attend church, but justified it with the "God is in my heart, so I won't bother getting dressed up for a social event" line. I began to doubt towards my 14th birthday. Remember, I already believed in God. I spent days, even weeks praying that he might enlighten me to his presence, to show me he existed. I begged and pleaded that he would just flip a switch in my head that allowed me to see I was being a fool for doubting things that I had believed so willingly all my life before.
Nothing happened. No enlightenment, no switch flipped. I eventually turned to all Gods, hoping that one would answer me with something. I am not a stupid person, so if I asked God to show me a sign I knew what I should expect from him, and it wasn't my school project on the computer deleting itself (later found it, deleted by... me), it wasn't finding a dollar I had used as a bookmark in years passed. I never did get an answer in any form ever. Eventually they led me to become more comfortable with my skepticism and my skepticism led me to my atheism.
So, why didn't my desperate appeal to any God to make his presence known fail? I already believed, I was hardly testing God. I just wanted him to confirm my belief. Why didn't he comfort me and show me my path was correct?
Anyway, I don't disbelieve today because God didn't answer my plead to enlighten me, but more because there is no evidence at all for his existence, so don't think that I gave up my belief for a failed prayer.

(August 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote: Can you give examples of "this and that"

"This": The ability for one to choose in a planned universe something not according to the plan.
"That": Used for rhetorical effect as a device illustrative of my own assumption that you would, in the future, contradict yourself again.

(August 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote: I have worked in this field for a very long time and know how people in and out of the faith serve in it as well, and how they generally carry their works.

I never said you were wrong, I certainly don't send money oversees. But I do offer charity work for war vets and those that benefit the community. I am 18 and my time was and will be very valuable. I don't currently have money to give to anyone, just time. And I do offer that in places that I can. Don't assume that I am self-absorbed, because I am not.
[/quote]

(August 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote: I have given everything on many occasions, and it has been given back to me 10x over. I have given when I had nothing to give. If I see a need that I can fill, I fill it.

You are sitting here on a computer when you could be doing any number of things to help others. Guaranteed.
I am not saying you're selfish for not doing this; in fact, I commend you, as you are far more selfless than I if what you say is true. Still, don't act like you have precedence over me when we are both currently sitting at a computer, looking at a screen.

(August 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote: I see a need here for the Spiritually starving. One that far exceeds the needs of the physical starvation that boy endured.

The power of imagination takes your attention from actually helping those in need? I guarantee you that most everyone here is not spiritually starved as you suggest. We get along just fine without your God, and because you will never be able to prove that he exists in a way that satisfies anyone other than the gullible, I won't be the first to tell you that you are wasting your time. I assure you, time spent consoling the poor and feeding the hungry is much better spent than the spiritual counseling you provide here. Still, I enjoy the banter and wouldn't want to see you go. Keep that in mind.

(August 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote: For there are many willing to give time and money to help people like that. (for that is a job anyone can do) But, here Their are very few who are willing and able to spend time in places like this and put fourth the effort to feed the Spiritually Hungery.

Anyone can spend time on this site. I found it rather accessible myself, with the fact that it is one of the first two Google results for "atheist forums". If you feel you are capable of "feeding the Spiritually Hungry" then I assume you believe you can prove God? Where is the thread that you took care of this little tidbit, then?

(August 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote: It is God's plan to give you oppertunity to fill the needs you see.

I'll go ahead and fill you in on what you made clear to me. If it happens in this world, it happens because God willed it so.
This
If it is bad and it happened then you must not understand God's justice
and
he planned it so we would have the ability to help others
are nothing more than dodges and weaves to avoid the criticisms offered. You are a better person than your negligent God, and I feel like you know it. After all, I don't see anyone bombarded with the sheer amount of objections that you trudge through on the daily and remain solid in your position. Surely the dodges get harder and harder, don't they?

(August 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote: I did do this very thing in my "God does not love you..." thread.

Figures.

(August 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote: See this is what makes me question your basic comperhension skills. For i must have said the "Plan thing" was to give you choice 1/2 a dozen times or more from the beginning..

And I feel like I have made it quite clear an equal or greater number of times that planned choice isn't choice it all.
Planned choice = programming. Do robots have the ability to make a choice? I'm talking calculators, not hypothesized, hyper-advanced models. Does my cellular phone choose to run my emails through to my computer when I click the button? Does a robot built to climb stairs choose to climb them when he is turned on?
No.
And so it follows clearly that a planned world with "choice" is a world void of any true choice at all.

(August 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote: then simply ask them to provide book Chapter and verse for their assertion.

What if I told you they did?
What if I told you they didn't, but said it was implied? Or, what if they said it was implied and justified it was another chapter and verse tag?
Why does it matter? This is anecdotal. It illustrates that, no matter who you talk to, they will believe they are right and will dogmatically resume their condition regardless of the differing views that others find valid.
In other words, you bible means a millions things and one thing at the same time.

(August 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote: Again Book Chapter and Verse.

I'm simply relaying you what I have been told. I'm taking what you say here as gospel for the sake of debunking your claims, so what good would it do to tell you what they said if I was simply going to accept it for arguments sake? Why would I argue to defend it if I did present it? I don't care either way.

(August 13, 2012 at 1:27 am)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(August 13, 2012 at 1:22 am)Undeceived Wrote: What, in your mind, is a necessity? Name them all.

How about I just name one that covers all of them?
Health.

Then why innovate? Doesn’t all innovation have survival at its core? If medicine is no longer an innovation, but a necessity, wouldn’t we live forever under God’s placating hand? We'd never die. Well that's what the Garden of Eden used to be like. We messed up by sinning, and now death is our punishment. Or should people still die in this utopia of yours? Say, after a couple hundred years. What if someone wants to die earlier or later? At what point should God take these people? No matter how He does it, He will cause grief—either in the individual or in his/her family.
But let's get back to the topic. I claimed people would not innovate if all necessities were provided. If not health, what do people innovate for? Discovery? Pleasure? Both are self-serving. Unless that's your point--you want a world of all pleasure but no earning or gratitude for that pleasure. A world in which God serves you but you do not serve Him. Am I correct?

(August 12, 2012 at 5:15 pm)Drich Wrote: My arguement is weak?

Yup.

Quote: Did you read yours?!?!?

Yaeh, I did. What do you think I wrote?

Quote:"Because we can't Feed everyone, due to war or political posturing (again a issue with man not God) we/I won't feed anyone! and blame the whole mess and our/my laziness on God."

And where the hell did I say this?!?!?!?!?

I didn't say "Because we can't feed everyone, ....we/I won't feed anyone!" I said, "In MOST cases kids are starving because of corrupt governments who use food as a weapon. We couldn't feed the kids no matter how much we want to or try." This was in response to your lame-ass reponse that we are somehow at fault because kids are starving. My point was that we CAN'T help most of these kids because of corrupt governments, war and the like. But I see that escaped you.

There is no "laziness" on our part. There are many organizations and donors who try to help starving kids. Unfortunately, being HUMAN, we can only do so much. YOUR DEITY, however, being all powerful and omnipotent, could feed these starving kids without even putting down his Mai Tai. But he chooses not to. And you think this being is worthy of worship?

Quote:Yeah that arguement is much better since you supposedly do not believe in God,

Correct, I am quite certain your deity is as real as all the other deities mankind has worshiped over the centuries.

Quote: meaning that their won't be any help till you offered it anyway.

Right. There is no help coming from an invisible man in the sky. We have to do it on our own.

Quote: Way to think that one through.

Way to misrepresent what I say.

---

(August 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote: Un belief is not a crime it is a choice. People Choose to be with God or seperated from Him.

Unbelief is NOT "a choice"! It is a reasonable conclusion based upon the evidence. Am I expected to throw away my intellect and reasoning abilities when it comes to fantastical tales about unproven deities? Why is that? I can no more "Choose to believe" your deity is real any more than I could "choose to believe" that the sun orbits the Earth.

And even if I decided to delude myself and proclaim "I believe!", your deity would know I'm faking it (being omnipotent and all). So, you're wrong about not believing being "a choice".

---

(August 13, 2012 at 1:06 am)Undeceived Wrote: Suppose God feeds every hungry person in the world. What are we (you and me) likely to do? Well, stop working of course!

What?

Where are you getting this crap? Why would I stop working if your deity feeds all the hungry people in the world? You're missing a very important point here... I was talking about STARVING people (NOT the same as "hungry people") and I was talking about people who are incapable of feeding themselves. In fact, I specifically said "kids"! If your deity suddenly provided food to all the starving people on the planet I would still have to work. I'm sure your deity won't be paying my electric bill or making my mortgage payment.

Quote: If God will intervene and supply my every need, why must I do anything?

Who the hell said anything about your deity "supplying my every need"? Stop putting words in my mouth!

Quote: Let Him care for us hand and foot.

Never said this either.

Are you going to address what I actually said or just make shit up?

Quote: In the meantime, we are turning into selfish monsters who won't do anything for others because we aren't doing anything for ourselves. God wants to inspire love in us, and that is one good product of suffering. Now if you want to allow a clause like "God will only feed those who cannot help their situation", then consider who could help them--other people. Or to put it another way, who could step in and prevent people from getting food. At some point you infringe upon free will. If I want to lock someone in a dungeon, who is God to magically place bread in that dungeon? How dare he interfere with my life! And presto--half the world still hates God.

And here you just make conclusions based on shit I never said! Do you have a reading disability?

Quote:Finally I ask, to what extent should God get involved?

Well.... considering that there is no evidence your deity EVER "gets involved", this is a rather moot point.

(August 13, 2012 at 1:42 am)Undeceived Wrote: Then why innovate? Doesn’t all innovation have survival at its core? If medicine is no longer an innovation, but a necessity, wouldn’t we live forever under God’s placating hand? We'd never die. Well that's what the Garden of Eden used to be like. We messed up by sinning, and now death is our punishment. Or should people still die in this utopia of yours? Say, after a couple hundred years. What if someone wants to die earlier or later? At what point should God take these people? No matter how He does it, He will cause grief—either in the individual or in his/her family.
But let's get back to the topic. I claimed people would not innovate if all necessities were provided. If not health, what do people innovate for? Discovery? Pleasure? Both are self-serving. Unless that's your point--you want a world of all pleasure but no earning or gratitude for that pleasure. A world in which God serves you but you do not serve Him. Am I correct?

I'm sorry, did you just respond to RD with a fanciful story about utopian gardens and eternal life under the watchful eye of ghosts? If you want to have an adult conversation someday you might have to stop telling fairy tales-as-fact. We innovate because we were dealt a shitty hand. There's no other table to play at, granted, but I fail to see how your fantasies are going to better our situation. Death is not a punishment, it is not a curse placed upon us by spirits. It is a function of biology. Let me ask you this, lets imagine some far flung scenario whereby we have reached the limits of innovation. There is no need to look any further into anything because all necessities have been met (and almost miraculously human beings are no longer curious and we have abandoned our habitual tinkering for tinkering's sake). So? No, seriously..... so fucking what? Here you are insinuating that this is somehow a bad thing -and yet you would like to casually insert your imaginary friend as the sole provider of such a service nevertheless.

The avoidance of reality and abject indifference towards one's fellow man, combined with the sheer amount of hypocrisy by proxy that a response like this is likely to find at it's core is breathtaking.

(August 13, 2012 at 1:42 am)Undeceived Wrote:

(August 13, 2012 at 1:27 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: How about I just name one that covers all of them?
Health.

Then why innovate? Doesn’t all innovation have survival at its core? If medicine is no longer an innovation, but a necessity, wouldn’t we live forever under God’s placating hand? We'd never die. Well that's what the Garden of Eden used to be like. We messed up by sinning, and now death is our punishment. Or should people still die in this utopia of yours? Say, after a couple hundred years. What if someone wants to die earlier or later? At what point should God take these people? No matter how He does it, He will cause grief—either in the individual or in his/her family.
But let's get back to the topic. I claimed people would not innovate if all necessities were provided. If not health, what do people innovate for? Discovery? Pleasure? Both are self-serving. Unless that's your point--you want a world of all pleasure but no earning or gratitude for that pleasure. A world in which God serves you but you do not serve Him. Am I correct?

So what you are saying is that because God would help us out alittle when we were desperate that would then completely take away the point of discovery? We wouldn't look further into human biology because we wouldn't need to cure people. Well thats bollocks isn't it? Humanity often craves knowledge for its own sake.

Please do not use examples you cannot prove. You cannot prove the Garden of Eden ever existed. You cannot prove anything of what The Bible claims of our origins so cut that shit out right now. You get a free pass on God for this instance, we need to assume his existence which you also have no proof for to have this discussion. Don't push it and stay on subject.

If God were active in the world we'd have no cause to fear death, grief would be greatly lessened.
Earning? How would you not be able to earn or give gratitude in a world where a God is evidently active, loving and protective of his creation? You don't think people would be grateful for that? That they wouldn't make strides forward to improve the universe they live in? Are you telling me he has to abandon the world in order for you to do that?
At the end of the day everything we do as a race can be broken down into three things. Survival, discovery and pleasure. You're saying its a bad thing we need only worry about the second and the third? Are you denying it would make people more morale, more knowledgable and the world a generally happier place to live in? That wouldn't be rewarding for God to see?

(August 13, 2012 at 10:40 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(August 13, 2012 at 1:42 am)Undeceived Wrote: Then why innovate? Doesn’t all innovation have survival at its core? If medicine is no longer an innovation, but a necessity, wouldn’t we live forever under God’s placating hand? We'd never die. Well that's what the Garden of Eden used to be like. We messed up by sinning, and now death is our punishment. Or should people still die in this utopia of yours? Say, after a couple hundred years. What if someone wants to die earlier or later? At what point should God take these people? No matter how He does it, He will cause grief—either in the individual or in his/her family.
But let's get back to the topic. I claimed people would not innovate if all necessities were provided. If not health, what do people innovate for? Discovery? Pleasure? Both are self-serving. Unless that's your point--you want a world of all pleasure but no earning or gratitude for that pleasure. A world in which God serves you but you do not serve Him. Am I correct?

There is no need to look any further into anything because all necessities have been met (and almost miraculously human beings are no longer curious and we have abandoned our habitual tinkering for tinkering's sake). So? No, seriously..... so fucking what? Here you are insinuating that this is somehow a bad thing -and yet you would like to casually insert your imaginary friend as the sole provider of such a service nevertheless.

Thank you for agreeing. RD was arguing that people would continue to innovate in the face of all their necessities being provided for. I was not the first to insinuate that as a bad thing, but it seems he did, else he wouldn't have opposed my theory of all of us quitting work.

Quote:yet you would like to casually insert your imaginary friend as the sole provider of such a service nevertheless.

This discussion is about God and why He might not provide for our every need. If you had read all the comments you would have known we were talking about what a benevolent God would or would not do. This is not a proof. It is an attempt to show that, if there was a God, He has reasons for "keeping us in suffering," as vague as that phrase is. Rhythm, do you consider the Christian God wrong to allow a dystopian world? Or will you plead the fifth and refuse to even engage the topic on an assumption that all gods are "imaginary friends"?

(August 13, 2012 at 12:19 pm)Undeceived Wrote:

(August 13, 2012 at 10:40 am)Rhythm Wrote: There is no need to look any further into anything because all necessities have been met (and almost miraculously human beings are no longer curious and we have abandoned our habitual tinkering for tinkering's sake). So? No, seriously..... so fucking what? Here you are insinuating that this is somehow a bad thing -and yet you would like to casually insert your imaginary friend as the sole provider of such a service nevertheless.

Thank you for agreeing. RD was arguing that people would continue to innovate in the face of all their necessities being provided for. I was not the first to insinuate that as a bad thing, but it seems he did, else he wouldn't have opposed my theory of all of us quitting work.

"There is no need to look any further into anything because all necessities have been met"
I don't disagree with this. There wouldn't be any need, there would be the desire. Alot of people find discovery and the acquisition of knowledge to be a pleasurable thing.
"Undecieved" is obviously not one of these people.

Quote:yet you would like to casually insert your imaginary friend as the sole provider of such a service nevertheless.

(August 13, 2012 at 12:19 pm)Undeceived Wrote: This discussion is about God and why He might not provide for our every need. If you had read all the comments you would have known we were talking about what a benevolent God would or would not do. This is not a proof. It is an attempt to show that, if there was a God, He has reasons for "keeping us in suffering," as vague as that phrase is. Rhythm, do you consider the Christian God wrong to allow a dystopian world? Or will you plead the fifth and refuse to even engage the topic on an assumption that all gods are "imaginary friends"?

And you would make an assumption that your particular religions interpretation of creation is the correct one. You can't have it both ways.
We are allowing you the luxury to assume God exists without proof in this thread, that is as far as the luxury extends.
If you do not appreciate this then we will gladly revoke it and commence discussing your total lack of proof for anything you are claiming.
Is that what you want or do you want to continue trying to justify prayer as was intended by this thread?

(August 13, 2012 at 12:06 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: You cannot prove the Garden of Eden ever existed. You cannot prove anything of what The Bible claims of our origins so cut that shit out right now.

When I argue for God I argue for the Christian God and everything He entails. Take the full package or nothing at all. If you don't, we're just supposing a god in thin air whose attributes we cannot begin to guess. The Bible gives us a starting point.

Quote:How would you not be able to earn or give gratitude in a world where a God is evidently active, loving and protective of his creation? You don't think people would be grateful for that?

Suffering reminds us of God and how dependent and indebted we are to Him. Without death, we become self-sufficient. We don't need God. God ceases to be "evidently active" the moment he gives our bodies a permanent clean bill of health. Or would you advocate the Manna in the Desert scenario, in which our bodies are not immune but we receive food every morning? That didn't work out too well--the Israelites still grumbled. They did not love God; they only tolerated Him because they got food. Is that how you want your spouse to act toward you? To take your generosity and go out and sleep with another man? God created us for a spiritual love story; an active relationship. If we have everything we need without asking, we set ourselves up as gods and forget about the real Creator who wants to get to know us.
Adam and Eve can help explain this God. They too had perfect bodies. They walked with God every day--until temptation (in the form of free will) came. They desired knowledge equal to God. They looked inside themselves and sought to be autonomous, able to live without Him. If Adam and Eve refused a visible God, how would we even remember an invisible one? So ever since Eden God has made weak our bodies, so that we might know we are but created organisms, fully indebted to Creator God, and that we might seek Him to overcome our shortcomings with a new body in Heaven.

Describe to me a world in which utopia and free will coexist.

(August 13, 2012 at 12:06 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: You cannot prove the Garden of Eden ever existed. You cannot prove anything of what The Bible claims of our origins so cut that shit out right now.

(August 13, 2012 at 12:48 pm)Undeceived Wrote: When I argue for God I argue for the Christian God and everything He entails. Take the full package or nothing at all. If you don't, we're just supposing a god in thin air whose attributes we cannot begin to guess. The Bible gives us a starting point.

Then you should go to another thread because you've obviously made a mistake. This thread is to justify prayer ingeneral which is used by many religions all around the world. We could care less for your specific interpretation. The only assumption you are allowed a free pass on in this case is the existence of a God. Thats it.

(August 13, 2012 at 12:06 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: How would you not be able to earn or give gratitude in a world where a God is evidently active, loving and protective of his creation? You don't think people would be grateful for that?

(August 13, 2012 at 12:48 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Suffering reminds us of God and how dependent and indebted we are to Him. Without death, we become self-sufficient. We don't need God. God ceases to be "evidently active" the moment he gives our bodies a permanent clean bill of health. Or would you advocate the Manna in the Desert scenario, in which our bodies are not immune but we receive food every morning? That didn't work out too well--the Israelites still grumbled. They did not love God; they only tolerated Him because they got food. Is that how you want your spouse to act toward you? To take your generosity and go out and sleep with another man? God created us for a spiritual love story; an active relationship. If we have everything we need without asking, we set ourselves up as gods and forget about the real Creator who wants to get to know us.
Adam and Eve can help explain this God. They too had perfect bodies. They walked with God every day--until temptation (in the form of free will) came. They desired knowledge equal to God. They looked inside themselves and sought to be autonomous, able to live without Him. If Adam and Eve refused a visible God, how would we even remember an invisible one? So ever since Eden God has made weak our bodies, so that we might know we are but created organisms, fully indebted to Creator God, and that we might seek Him to overcome our shortcomings with a new body in Heaven.
Long story short: describe to me a world in which utopia and free will coexist.

Sorry? If God prevents starvation, dehydration, suffering and death we become *less* dependent on him? *Less* grateful to him? *Less* inclined to believe, worship and love him?
You really don't know people do you?
The idea you'd worship a being more because they forsake you any of those things is patently absurd.
Given absence of such worries mankind could go on to achieve far more.

Your Eden bedtime story has no baring here nor does Manna in the Desert and they undermine your case with their lack of proof. Present proof of it or do not use them.
End of.