(August 7, 2018 at 3:42 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote:(August 7, 2018 at 2:57 pm)SteveII Wrote: It seems obvious (from reasoning) that any being with free will will choose imperfectly. A complete relationship requires free will. Other components of a maximally fulfilling life requires free will. If God wanted creatures that could have maximum fulfillment and relationships (including with him) then free will was necessary. And then we are back to free will inevitably leads to sin.
In case anyone wants to bring up God having free will, he also has other characteristics--including omniscience and being necessarily the standard of goodness.
Out of curiosity and with all due respect, is the above post more of a statement of faith/belief than a statement of reasoned fact? In general, when making an apologetic argument, how does one ensure that he or she has minimized the biases of his or her faith to the greatest extent possible? Does one use sources and facts that are independent of one's faith (perhaps independent of religious faith all together) and free from its influence?
I don't agree with your characterization of my statement. Yes, it has theological content. But I was defending a belief against a charge that it was not internally consistent. Internal consistency is very much about logic and reasoning.
You can study all the conclusions of all the natural theology arguments to test whether your beliefs are consistent with formal arguments. You can engage arguments against Christianity like the Problem of Evil (PoE) and see what comes of it.
Can you be free of all biases? Probably not. Religion is about faith, personal experiences, and believing the experiences of others. These all have subjective aspects to them. The challenge is the make sure you have a balance between objective and subjective reasons to believe.
