(April 21, 2017 at 4:08 pm)SteveII Wrote:(April 21, 2017 at 1:56 pm)Grandizer Wrote: No, you don't get to decide burden of proof lies on atheists when you haven't demonstrated that it is impossible for people to freely choose good all the time and, more importantly, that libertarian free will is even logically possible.
As God, he is responsible for allowing natural disasters to happen.
They tend to cause a lot of harm to people as well.
You really think people have complete freedom to move out of harm's way? I don't.
Save people, of course. Why hurt at all? There's no point to it that I can think of.
Provided he actually does exist, God is always welcome to explain to us why he behaves in such neglectful ways. If he has the power to stop suffering, and he is supposed to be a loving God, then why not act like a powerful and loving God?
I would argue instead that naturalism is increases the likelihood that a loving God does not exist, and that Christian doctrine merely rationalizes why human suffering as a result of natural disasters is allowed by a loving God.
So may a wonderful divine experience that does not involve being harmed by natural disasters.
Why does it even have to be this way anyway? God, if you're out there, answer please?
No God, no sin. And even if God, we don't necessarily choose to sin. And it's not like we necessarily create temptations ourselves.
And you know all this, how?
I'm not doing the one line at a time thing.
The PoE argument is trying to prove that evil and God logically cannot exist. The burden of proof is on the atheist (the proponent of the argument). It is not successful (there are a variety of defenses) and most philosophers have moved on and it only continues to get discussed by the internet atheist.
If you want to attack free will, you have a long uphill climb. The only defense you have is the assumption of naturalism.
All kinds of things cause harm to people. Falling off a ladder for one. Nothing evil going on there.
You want God to save people from natural disasters? Isn't that a wholesale violation of free will? You wanting near constant miraculous intervention does not make the argument. God has sufficient reasons for not acting--one of them being preserving free will.
3. Of course we choose sin. No, we often don't create a temptation. But that is irrelevant.
4. That is what I believe based on study and experience. Do I know this to be true. No.
How is it my free will to die in a tornado?!
"The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing." - Samuel Porter Putnam
