Free Will is a sign if God's inescapable weakness

[John V]

For others, here is a quote from the same source that alpha-male is reading, while saying he sees no evidence of violence decline:

Quote - "Violence has been in decline over long stretches of time", says Harvard professor Steven Pinker, "and we may be living in the most peaceful time in our species' existence."

https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-and-violence/#/5

You found a guy who says so...BFD. There are people who disagree:

http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/longpeace.pdf

[Face2face]

Something from a book I am writing, that got my theist friend wiled up:

1. The job of machine learning researchers is to make smart software that do things that humans are effortlessly good at, like recognizing images.

2. These smart software are loosely inspired by the human brain, so they can learn somewhat like humans do.

3. These researchers, because they are non omniscient, they don't know how to make the perfectly smart software. As a result, the smart software that they build have to learn by trial and error/make mistakes in order to get better at doing tasks.

4. In a similar way, if Gods really gave humans free will, humans are using this free will to do both good and bad, but humans have actually learnt how to get better and better and less violent over the centuries.

5. This then has a surprising consequence; why would God need to give humans the chance to learn by free will, if God was smart enough to make perfect beings without the need to learn by trial and error? It implies that if free will is God given, God is non omniscient/non omnipotent in a similar way to how machine learning researchers are non omniscient, and therefore make smart software that need to learn by trial/error to get better at tasks!!!

I'm sorry, but I don't see where you are coming from. According to Christians, God made us imperfect on purpose, so of course we have to learn things.

However there are other issues with a God creating the free will that we have, I have just never seen this particular thing as an issue.

Yeah the 5 steps above already mention that bible God purposely made imperfect beings.
And this point shows exactly how inadequate the bible God is.
If bible God was a better engineer, he would be able to create beings that didn't require trial and error aka "free will" to learn from fuck ups??

Think about ford. If ford had the knowledge to create modern 2017 ford vehicles, why would Ford bother to release elementary tech cars back in the early days several decades ago?
Because ford developed elementary tech, this is an indication of Ford's mental limit / power limit.
In a similar way, bible God needing to make "imperfect" beings implies an insufficient creator.

[The Grand Nudger]

For others, here is a quote from the same source that alpha-male is reading, while saying he sees no evidence of violence decline:

Quote - "Violence has been in decline over long stretches of time", says Harvard professor Steven Pinker, "and we may be living in the most peaceful time in our species' existence."

https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-and-violence/#/5

You found a guy who says so...BFD. There are people who disagree:

http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/longpeace.pdf

Technically, -you- found that guy, Alpha. 

[Mister Agenda]

You dont believe in God, so why concern yourself with what He's like?

Anyway, there have been a ton of threads here about free will and why God granted it to us. There was just one recently that I'll try to find and post here.

God is the proposition. Some Gods/gods proposed are more improbable than others. The God of Deism who set the universe in motion and hasn't touched it since only lacks evidence. A version of a capital 'c' Creator who's alleged behavior doesn't make logical sense is more problematic. Not that I'm convinced by the OP's argument, just sayin' it is perfectly fine to note the pros can cons of propositions you don't accept.

[Mystic]

I find the story of Adam with some other premises that are implied satisfying to the question.

[The Grand Nudger]

The clay golem, that Adam?  Or was it a clot of blood?  The one that never existed?  That satisfies some question for you?  

Well, what wouldn't then? I ask because it seems as if you'd accept any answer, if you're willing to accept the sort of answer above. Why a fictional adam... instead of peanuts, for example?