My views on objective morality

[Kiekeben]

God is supposed to be all powerful. That is absurd, but if I accept that, then no other analogy is fitting. He could easily make it so that sex is possible, but non consensual sex isn't.

If he can't do that, he's not anything like all powerful.

Again, I don't think you understand the nature of will / free will. The *only* difference between consensual sex and non-consensual sex is willingness. People having consensual sex (freely) chose to have it. One or more people having non-consensual sex did not freely choose to have it.

So yes, an all powerful God could have easily made it so that non-consensual sex wasn't possible...by negating free will. That is, by making it impossible for a human to even consider the choice "Should I have sex with this person who doesn't want me to?". That is literally the only way God could do that, other than swooping down every time someone was about to get raped, which as I pointed out, has it's own problems (if God prevents all evil, then humans have no knowledge of evil, therefore cannot redeem themselves).

You are also making the false assumption that an all powerful being *has* to do certain things a certain way. That isn't necessarily the case; presumably God also has free will, so he also has a choice in the things he does. Just because God could make a human being who never died for instance, doesn't mean he necessarily wants to do that.

I think what you are perhaps confusing is omnipotence and omnibenevolence, or at least a combination of the two. That is to say, if a God is all-good and all-powerful, he would logically stop all evil (because if he failed to stop all evil, either he is not all good, or is not all powerful). However, again we can argue free will; that God can be all-good and all-powerful, but holds human's free will as more important than getting directly involved.

To use an analogy of parenting. If a parent spots their child about to make a mistake, is it good parenting to stop them before the mistake is made (and therefore preventing them from being aware of the mistake itself) or is it better to let them make the mistake and learn from it themselves? I'd argue that both examples are good parenting, depending on how you look at them, but each has it's own advantages and disadvantages.

Then maybe we wouldn't have arms and legs - some animals do survive without them.

Right, but we do. I fail to see what this "what if" has to do with anything.

We would theoretically conceptualize evil, but none of us would have the desire to do it. Why should we understand it any deeper when none of that is actually happening?

I don't think you can trivialize evil like that. Evil isn't some singular ability like flying; it's not really an ability at all. It's a way of using an ability. Sex with a willing partner is not evil; sex with an unwilling partner is, for example. Flying isn't evil, but flying into buildings is.

The problem with being able to conceptualize evil is that as soon as you can, you know how you could do evil things.

As for not having the desire to do it; again, that violates free will, which again brings me back to my original point.

And why should anyone agree that that is a good plan? What would be wrong with God simply creating heaven? 

Speaking of which, is there free will in heaven? If there is, then there can be free will without the bad consequences (all you need is a place where there can be no physical or emotional harm, and there you go - assuming fw makes sense, individuals can still act freely, but no one gets hurt). And if there isn't fw in heaven, then why is fw important in the first place?

Lastly, even if there is fw (here on earth), I for one have no desire - and am sure I never will have the desire - to, say, kill an innocent person. Nevertheless, on your view, I still presumably have fw. So why couldn't God have created only humans who have no bad desires?

I'm not a theologian or even a believer, so I can't answer you. Whether or not it's a good plan is irrelevant to the point though; the Christian doctrine is that humans cannot understand God (the "mysterious ways" argument), so whether or not you personally think it's a good plan, if you are a Christian you have to take it on faith that it is.

Yeah, after posting the above I realized you're not an actual believer. But anyway, my point is not irrelevant: whether the plan in question is a good plan should be part of what's under discussion.