Is there ANY scientific evidence could show there is no God?

[Danmark]

Is there any scientific evidence that, if discovered, would prove to a Christian that the God of the Bible is man made and does not correspond to reality? In other words, is there anything you can imagine that would demonstrate there is no God?

Many Christian apologists appeal to science to support their belief in the Christian God; however, I suggest those apologists do not actually accept any scientific evidence that might suggest this 'God Story' is a hoax. I would like to test this hypothesis by asking if there is anything science could report that would convince believers in the God of the Bible that the Biblical claims about God are false?

[Still small]

Again, both sets of images were displayed according to a man-made classification system. Nothing more, nothing less.

What kind of classification system are you expecting to find if not a man-made one? Who or what do you think could provide a better one?

I don’t expect a classification system other than one made by man. Just as long as we realise that it is made from a limited knowledge base and as the quoted article states -
“People's preconceptions and personalities can get in the way of evaluating the data objectively.� (And, yes, I admit this applies to everyone, just as long as we are aware of it.)

How would one determine whether a particular example is a transitional form rather than just another species adaption for different environmental conditions and different locations? That is, of course, other than using the applied terms 'ancestor' and 'descendant' and labels and dotted lines on a diagram.

(Also, there are other classification systems developed or being developed besides those based on Linnaean taxonomy. Just as an example -Baraminology - NSCE.)

Have a good day!
Still small.

[Still small]

No, I said an ‘intelligent’ life form, not one that jumps to assumptions like the present one.

So your stance is that using dating methods is unintelligent?

No, my stance is that we should not base our ‘facts’ on assumptions, as you appear to have just done.

Did you actually read what you linked? It describes a situation where there was a layer of redeposited ash which made dating difficult because it was a mix of substances, and despite all that they continued to investigate and improve methodology over a number of years until they had a more conclusive result confirmed by a number of sources. This is a terrible example for your point. This case illustrates "many of the problems with radiometric dating, but it equally illustrates that the problems are not insurmountable."

Yes, I did read the article, (knowing full well that it was from a anti-Creationist website). Did you read the papers to which they referred? As I stated in my reply - “Now, while the article itself doesn’t mention ‘matching dates to hominem fossils’ (no wonder, considering the website) but the papers listed in the references do.�. What caused the doubting and rechecking of the original dates given for the tuff? The fact that it didn’t accord with the fossils evidence.

You also cut out the end of the statement that you quoted. Here it is in full: "People's preconceptions and personalities can get in the way of evaluating the data objectively. In the KBS Tuff controversy, personality conflicts may have contributed to delay in the resolution and certainly contributed to the drama. But in the end, the objective evidence is a constraint that every scientist must meet. Replication, free access to information, and awareness of conflicts of interest help assure that personal foibles do not determine outcomes. Because such mechanisms were in place, all of the scientists who initially supported the older 2.6 Myr date for the KBS Tuff later came to accept the 1.88 Myr age (Lewin 1987)." Seriously it's like you looked for an example that shows the opposite of what you're saying and then just selectively quoted it thinking that we wouldn't read it. I'm genuinely confused. (Emphasis in the original)

And when did they cease to see a need for re-testing? Once they found a dating method that agreed with their assumption.

That is “countless individuals who have investigated millions of pieces of evidence that all point to one concrete explanation�, all of whom have been taught to think the same way without questioning the paradigm by people who have been taught to think the same way without questioning the paradigm . . . .

Whoops, you're describing religion. Laboratory results that are reproducible are once again, the opposite of what you're describing.

Yes, the religion of naturalistic materialism. Whilst the results may be reproducible, the interpretation of the results is based upon one’s a priori or ‘worldview’. At each stage, the interpreter is interpreting according to the ‘worldview’ he/she has been taught. Evidence does not ‘speak for itself’, it must be interpreted.

You're probably going to want something like a movie where a bunch of scientists pile into a time machine and zip back to the paleolithic and give these hominids IQ tests, and you likely won't be satisfied by anything less that that. Nonetheless:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3385680/
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10. ... 0800600413
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles

Thanks for the links. Now, other than in accordance to a man-made classification system, what make you think that all these specimens are part of the one Family - hominids? They could, well be, from differing families except for the presumption of ToE. Differences in brain capacities could be due to being from different families or genus. The articles which you listed compare the cognitive abilities of Homo sapiens to other ‘lower’ animals where the only link is, again, an a priori assumption to hominid evolution according to ToE. I contend that what is interpreted as ‘brain mass’ expansion due to evolution is actually due to greater body mass of the specimens (link). I would also contend that of the collections of skulls in image, the specimens labelled ‘A’ to ‘G’ (& possibly ‘H’) are from a different evolutionary line to those labelled ‘I’ to ‘N’. That the first series is from different Family or ‘kind’ (Pongidae) than the second series (Homo) being descendants from Adam and Eve.

One might also notice that there is greater variation in the images in Collection B than in Collection A, yet supposedly B is more closely related than A. Go figure!

One might also notice that there is no discernable direction of development in Collection B as it is a series of breeds branching off of one species and terminating at a variety of points, and a very noticeable pattern of development in one direction in Collection A, indicating it was one organism evolving in one general direction.

Again, both sets of images were displayed according to a man-made classification system. Nothing more, nothing less.

What does this even mean? Seriously, I don't think there's even a point here. As Tcg said, what kind of classification system are you expecting? I could easily say that both true and not true statements can BOTH be written in english, therefor they're equal in value. A value has to be ascribed to something in context.

True but the position of each specimen in the collections of skulls in image is according to a presupposition of ToE’s Hominid evolution to enhance the impression of that assumption (a form of circular reasoning).

You still have to show your evidence that Australopithecus, homo habilis, neanderthal, and homo sapiens all co-existed. You put that theory out there and then left it hanging.

That is simply a matter of a differing of a priori or ‘worldviews’, either ‘gradualism/uniformitarianism’ or ‘Catastrophism’ causing the appearance of ‘geological age’.

Have a good day!
Still small

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 182 by Still small]

Still Small - Here's our disconnect: You are accusing myself and other proponents of evolution as having an a priori assumption of the truth of evolution. So for every piece of evidence we present you can just say "well you're assuming that evidence points to your conclusion because your world view presupposes evolution to be true". Our acceptance of the theory of evolution means that our judgement is clouded and we can't analyze each piece of evidence on it's own. Your use of "a priori" indicates you think we're utilizing deductive reasoning - starting with the premise of "evolution is fact" and then using that premise to justify conclusions.

Scientific theories don't use deductive reasoning though - they use inductive reasoning. Inductive logic always results in a general conclusion; it is impossible to use deductive logic to arrive at a theory. Theories only come from inductive logic. Additionally, because of the law of large numbers, the strength of an inductive conclusion grows as the number of observations used to form the conclusion increases.

Here's an example of inductive reasoning re: radiometric dating:

1. Every time that we have ever measured radiometric decay rates they have been constant
2. There is no logical reason to think that they are not constant and there are strong mathematical/logical reasons to think that they are constant
3. Numerous experiments only work because radiometric decay is constant
4. Therefore, radiometric decay rates are constant

An evolutionary viewpoint isn't based on deductive reasoning, it's an inductive position supported by evidence that points in the same direction. Your criticism of the Tuff scenario seems to be: Scientists found fossils, and then the dating didn't agree with what their assumptions were about the fossils, so they retested them until they got the result they wanted. In actuality: scientists found a piece of evidence that contradicted their body of knowledge, and were perplexed, so they refined their testing methods and found that their tests were flawed because the samples they were using were a jumble of samples that had been deposited together. They didn't just assumed the dates were wrong because they knew evolution was true, they were suspicious of their tests because it contravened other evidence. Sure enough their test was flawed.

Finally, it is actually YOU that is using an a priori premise. You are using the assumption of biblical truth and the existence of adam and eve as a premise for your deductions. This is an enormous logical fallacy. You are doing this:

1. The bible is true and Adam and Eve were the first humans
2. Because all humans come from Adam and Eve, they could not have evolved from previous ancestors
3. All evidence that shows that hominids have changed over time MUST be wrong, because #1 is true
4. All of these hominids must actually just be different families, because #1 is true
5. Any evidence for evolution must be wrong, because #1 is true
6. Radiometric dating can't be reliable, because #1 is true

That is the dictionary definition of an a priori assumption. You are guilty of the very accusation you have levelled.

[Divine Insight]

@Still small,

The Abrahamic God is disproved by the Bible itself. There is no need to bring science into the question of whether or not the Biblical God exists. That question has already been answered by the Bible and the answer is that this God is necessarily a work of fiction. So that particular God has already been shown to be false.

Also, if you actually wanted scientific evidence to confirm that the fictional God of the Bible is false, just look at what the Bible claims:

The Bible claims that God created the earth and all the animals on it, and "Saw that it was Good". Well, these animals couldn't have been eating each other and dying from horrible diseases and natural disasters because that clearly wouldn't be "Good".

Secondly, the Bible tries to pin the blame on humans having fallen from grace to be the cause of all the ills in the world, including death, and disease, etc.

Well, science has discovered the TRUTH. And the truth is that animals had been eating each other and dying of diseases long before humans ever showed up on the planet. Therefore the Biblical claim that humans are to be blamed for the ills of the world is clearly a false claim. So the Bible has also been shown by reality to be nothing more than false man-made fiction.

So the Biblical God has been demonstrated to be a man-made fiction in every possible way.

What we can ask now is whether there is any scientific evidence that could show that there is no God at all (of any kind)?

We can even answer this question by ruling out certain types of Gods. For example any supposedly benevolent God who could intervene in human affairs cannot exist.

Why? Because we don't see this happening, and any God who could intervene but doesn't couldn't simultaneously be benevolent.

We can also rule out any God's that we could supposedly pray to and ask to change anything in our lives. Those kinds of God also are not possible, because if they existed they would be easily detectable and demonstrable.

So about the only type of God that we can't rule out would be a God that doesn't intervene in human affairs, and possible one that isn't even omnipotent. Perhaps the God itself is limited in what it can do. In this way we could hold out hope that it still might be benevolent but is just unable to do everything it might wish it could do.

In fact, if you look at the Biblical God you'll see a God who is extremely impotent and incapable of doing many things. Including containing his own wrath. We could accept this as simply being a God who is indeed impotent. But remember that the Biblical fables proclaim that God is omnipotent and there is nothing he cannot do.

So there's your greatest self-contradiction right there. Proof positive that the Biblical God is a fictional character. No science required to see that the Bible is a collection of fictional tales. Very poorly written to boot.

[Divine Insight]

Is there any scientific evidence that, if discovered, would prove to a Christian that the God of the Bible is man made and does not correspond to reality? In other words, is there anything you can imagine that would demonstrate there is no God?

Many Christian apologists appeal to science to support their belief in the Christian God; however, I suggest those apologists do not actually accept any scientific evidence that might suggest this 'God Story' is a hoax. I would like to test this hypothesis by asking if there is anything science could report that would convince believers in the God of the Bible that the Biblical claims about God are false?

I just answered the question of this thread while responding to another thread topic.

I've just proven why there can be no such thing as a God. A God would need to be non-entropic (not obey the law of entropy), in order to be eternal. Yet if it was non-entropic it could not be conscious or sentient. Therefore, by definition it could not be a "God". Thus we have scientific proof that there can be no God of any kind.

We know that our universe is not eternal, and the reason we know this is because of the second law of thermodynamics called "Entropy" that tells us that our universe will eventually and necessarily run out of usable energy over time.

Therefore, the only way anything could be 'eternal' (i.e. exist without every running down) would be if it does not obey the law of entropy. But if it does no obey the law of entropy then it can have no memory of the past, or any meaningful coherent consciousness or sentience.

Yet the very idea of a "God" is that it is eternal (i.e. has no entropy). But if it has no entropy, then it can't be conscious or sentient.

Therefore no "God" can possibly exist based on the very definition of what we mean when we use the term "God". Because when we use the term "God" we mean a conscious sentient eternal being. But those property are mutually exclusive.

In order to be conscious and sentient it needs to obey entropy.
But in order to be eternal it cannot obey entropy.

So there cannot exist a conscious sentient being that exists eternally.

Thus we have scientific proof that no "God" can exist. Based on the very definition of what we mean by the term "God".

If something exists eternally it cannot obey entropy, and if it isn't obeying entropy then it cannot be conscious or sentient.

So there we have it. Scientific proof that there can be no God of any kind.

I never thought I'd see the day when such proof would be discovered, and here I discovered this proof myself just today.

How amazing is that!

There can be no God of any kind. Wow! The naturalists are right!

And now we have proof.

[Still small]

Still Small - Here's our disconnect: You are accusing myself and other proponents of evolution as having an a priori assumption of the truth of evolution. So for every piece of evidence we present you can just say "well you're assuming that evidence points to your conclusion because your world view presupposes evolution to be true". Our acceptance of the theory of evolution means that our judgement is clouded and we can't analyze each piece of evidence on it's own. Your use of "a priori" indicates you think we're utilizing deductive reasoning - starting with the premise of "evolution is fact" and then using that premise to justify conclusions.

Scientific theories don't use deductive reasoning though - they use inductive reasoning. Inductive logic always results in a general conclusion; it is impossible to use deductive logic to arrive at a theory. Theories only come from inductive logic. Additionally, because of the law of large numbers, the strength of an inductive conclusion grows as the number of observations used to form the conclusion increases.

The ‘law of large numbers’, using the same or similar premises, only strengthens an inductive conclusion as being consistent but that does not guarantee the conclusion is true. The consistent use of incorrect premises will strengthen an incorrect conclusion.

Here's an example of inductive reasoning re: radiometric dating:

1. Every time that we have ever measured radiometric decay rates they have been constant

Every time? Then again, these could just be constant(ly wrong). You have no external ‘clock’ (external to the ‘system’) against which to compare them.

2. There is no logical reason to think that they are not constant and there are strong mathematical/logical reasons to think that they are constant.

‘Constant decay rates’ may only be constant as measured in the present. There are several papers which show that decay rates can and have been affected by such things as solar flares, solar rotation. (link 1, link 2, link 3)). And these have been measured in the present. In fact, some have begun to realise how little they understand as shown by a somewhat comical comment made by a member of the Purdue-Stanford team -
“"We haven't known the solar neutrino to interact significantly with anything, but it fits with the evidence we've gathered as the likely source of these fluctuations," he said. "So, what we're suggesting is that something that can't interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed."�(Emphasis added) (link). There may have been other factors of far greater effect in the ‘early universe’ of which we are unaware.

3. Numerous experiments only work because radiometric decay is constant

Except for those that aren’t constant. (link 1)

4. Therefore, radiometric decay rates are constant

But as I have just shown, they are not.

An evolutionary viewpoint isn't based on deductive reasoning, it's an inductive position supported by evidence that points in the same direction. Your criticism of the Tuff scenario seems to be: Scientists found fossils, and then the dating didn't agree with what their assumptions were about the fossils, so they retested them until they got the result they wanted. In actuality: scientists found a piece of evidence that contradicted their body of knowledge, and were perplexed, so they refined their testing methods and found that their tests were flawed because the samples they were using were a jumble of samples that had been deposited together. They didn't just assumed the dates were wrong because they knew evolution was true, they were suspicious of their tests because it contravened other evidence. Sure enough their test was flawed.

So these tests were flawed. How many more are flawed that have yet to be exposed as such?

Finally, it is actually YOU that is using an a priori premise. You are using the assumption of biblical truth and the existence of adam and eve as a premise for your deductions.

I believe I admitted to such in my last post. We all have a starting position, an a priori or ‘worldview’ and it is according to this ‘worldview’ that we each interpret the evidence before us. I believe my interpretation is correct and fitting according to my ‘worldview’, just as you believe yours is.

This is an enormous logical fallacy. You are doing this:

1. The bible is true and Adam and Eve were the first humans

True

. Because all humans come from Adam and Eve, they could not have evolved from previous ancestors

True

3. All evidence that shows that hominids have changed over time MUST be wrong, because #1 is true

False. Each true hominid, (as outlined in my previous post), is a descendant of Adam and Eve, each evolving to fit a particular environmental niche. Most have become extinct due to a catastrophic event with only Homo Sapien surviving and continuing to evolve, again for particular niches.

4. All of these hominids must actually just be different families, because #1 is true

False, as outlined in Point 3 above.

5. Any evidence for evolution must be wrong, because #1 is true

Again, false. Evolution has occurred and continues to occur. It is only the limit to which evolutionary change occurs in which we differ. I hold to the concluding evidence provided by all experiments thus far, conducted via the scientific method for evolutionary change which appears to limit such change to within the Family level.

6. Radiometric dating can't be reliable, because #1 is true

Irrelevant, as radiometric dating methods were shown to be flawed according to your own admission.

That is the dictionary definition of an a priori assumption. You are guilty of the very accusation you have levelled.

“a priori (eɪ praɪˈɔ�raɪ; ɑ� prɪˈɔ�rɪ)
adj
1. (Logic) logic relating to or involving deductive reasoning from a general principle to the expected facts or effects
2. (Logic) logic known to be true independently of or in advance of experience of the subject matter; requiring no evidence for its validation or support
3. (Statistics) statistics See prior probability, mathematical probability

[C18: from Latin, literally: from the previous (that is, from cause to effect)]
apriority n�
(Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014)

Now that is a ‘dictionary definition’ and a position from which we all start to interpret evidence when all the facts are not fully known or knowable. I’m willing to admit it, are you?

Have a good day!
Still small

[Still small]

@Still small,

The Abrahamic God is disproved by the Bible itself. There is no need to bring science into the question of whether or not the Biblical God exists. That question has already been answered by the Bible and the answer is that this God is necessarily a work of fiction. So that particular God has already been shown to be false.

Big claim, little proof.

Also, if you actually wanted scientific evidence to confirm that the fictional God of the Bible is false, just look at what the Bible claims:

The Bible claims that God created the earth and all the animals on it, and "Saw that it was Good". Well, these animals couldn't have been eating each other and dying from horrible diseases and natural disasters because that clearly wouldn't be "Good".

Well, you are partly correct but if you want to use the Bible to form an argument, at least quote it in context (I’ll accept that it was due to genuine misunderstanding on your part as opposed to a deliberate attempt at quote mining). Firstly, the pronouncement of “good�, being made 6 times in the first chapter of Genesis, along with the ‘very good’ on the seventh time (theologically important) were made within the Garden of Eden or Paradise. At this time, if you care to read it, the animals, along with man were herbivores, Gen 1:29  “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.�
Gen 1:30  “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.�
The carnivorous nature did not begin until after the Flood of Noah - Gen 9:3  “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.� The herbivorous state of nature will return with the return of Paradise (see Isaiah 11:6-9 & 65:7-25).
As for dying of disease, etc, we return now to the creation account in Genesis. Genesis 3:8–24 records a number of curses which God pronounced on creation after man rebelled against Him. To the serpent He said, ‘Cursed are you more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field.’ This appears to say that all animals were cursed; but the serpent was cursed more than the others. There were other curses also, such as ‘Cursed is the ground.’ It appears, therefore, that because man had been put in charge of the earth, the whole earth, as well as man himself, came under a curse. In fact Romans 8:18–25 indicates that the whole creation was subjected to corruption and suffering, and the implication is that this was ‘the Curse’—the result of man’s rebellion against God. Man’s rebellion appears to be a desire to be like God and decide what is best for himself, rejecting what God had provided. Besides the ‘curse’, it is possible that God, in His wisdom, allowed animals to die in order to avoid man’s misapplied worship of creatures which were ‘immortal’. Though, despite this, man will find a way - Rom 1:25  “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.�

Secondly, the Bible tries to pin the blame on humans having fallen from grace to be the cause of all the ills in the world, including death, and disease, etc.

As God had given man dominion over all the creatures of the Earth and Earth itself, any decision made by him would carry consequences which affect all of which he had dominion over.

Well, science has discovered the TRUTH. And the truth is that animals had been eating each other and dying of diseases long before humans ever showed up on the planet. Therefore the Biblical claim that humans are to be blamed for the ills of the world is clearly a false claim. So the Bible has also been shown by reality to be nothing more than false man-made fiction.

Your argument against the existence of God via your so-called “TRUTH� is only true on the a priori or presumption of the non-existence or inability of such a God, being a false argument. Next !!!

So the Biblical God has been demonstrated to be a man-made fiction in every possible way.

Surely not “every possible way�? Or are you implying that you have a limited imagination?

What we can ask now is whether there is any scientific evidence that could show that there is no God at all (of any kind)?

Well, that is the question being asked in the OP.

We can even answer this question by ruling out certain types of Gods. For example any supposedly benevolent God who could intervene in human affairs cannot exist.

Why? Because we don't see this happening, and any God who could intervene but doesn't couldn't simultaneously be benevolent.

Your error here (again, I’ll assume it is accidental as opposed to deliberate on your part) is that God is not a God of single or individual attributes. Yes, God is a benevolent God but He is also omniscient and omnipotent but He will not override your free will. Contrary to ‘popular belief’, there are some things which God cannot do. He cannot lie, He cannot deny His own nature. He cannot have sin in His presence. Nor can He, despite numerous requests by many people, God cannot ‘get lost’ (or other such less polite language). As I said, He will not override your choices. He may go to great lengths to convince you otherwise but He will not directly go against your choices, hopefully allowing the resulting consequences to change your thinking. So, what you may see as being a benevolent gift requested from God, may actually, once all the factors are known, ultimately be to your harm or destruction. A benevolent or loving God (just as any good father) would give you what you need, not necessarily what you want.

We can also rule out any God's that we could supposedly pray to and ask to change anything in our lives. Those kinds of God also are not possible, because if they existed they would be easily detectable and demonstrable.

You appear to be mistaking a loving, benevolent God for a ‘genie in a bottle’. Two points here, one, for His ‘children’, He is obligated to answer their prayer. But as with the previous point, He will give us what we need, not necessarily what we want. Thus, He does answer prayer but with three possible answers, “yes�, “no� and “yes but not right now�.
Point two, for those that are not already His children, He is obligated only to answer one particular prayer, a genuine prayer asking for forgiveness and salvation.

So about the only type of God that we can't rule out would be a God that doesn't intervene in human affairs, and possible one that isn't even omnipotent. Perhaps the God itself is limited in what it can do. In this way we could hold out hope that it still might be benevolent but is just unable to do everything it might wish it could do.

One other God which cannot be ruled out is the genuine God of the Bible, as opposed to those of your own imagining which you have here previously described.

In fact, if you look at the Biblical God you'll see a God who is extremely impotent and incapable of doing many things. Including containing his own wrath.

I don’t believe that it is written in a scripture that God will contain His wrath. Neither would most people who, after doing everything to help others and trying to give them the best life possible, have it thrown in their face, laughed at and ridiculed. Or worse still, having the beneficiaries of such generosity total deny Who it is and what has been done for them.

We could accept this as simply being a God who is indeed impotent. But remember that the Biblical fables proclaim that God is omnipotent and there is nothing he cannot do.

Well, your version of God may be impotent but a careful study (as opposed to a bit here and a bit there) does indicate an omnipotent God who can do anything other than a few things as noted before. Just because God doesn’t do your bidding as you would have it, like a ‘genie in a bottle’, this may be a clear indication that the true God has a far better understanding of what is best for you whether you accept it or not. Remember, He will not force you but you must be prepared for the consequences of your choices.

So there's your greatest self-contradiction right there. Proof positive that the Biblical God is a fictional character. No science required to see that the Bible is a collection of fictional tales. Very poorly written to boot.

As pointed out, this only applies to your version of God and not that of the Bible.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Bust Nak]

God is a benevolent God but He is also omniscient and omnipotent but He will not override your free will. Contrary to ‘popular belief’, there are some things which God cannot do. He cannot lie...He will not override your choices....

This bit is interesting, you say there are things that God cannot do and gave examples; yet when it comes to overriding free will, you say "will not" as opposed to "cannot." If it is merely will not as opposed to cannot, then what is the relevance of what God can or cannot do, when it is a matter of will?

As a general comment on your objection, you spoke of God not doing "as you would have it," but that wasn't the point at all, it is God not doing what God logically must do which leads to a contraction.

[Still small]

God is a benevolent God but He is also omniscient and omnipotent but He will not override your free will. Contrary to ‘popular belief’, there are some things which God cannot do. He cannot lie...He will not override your choices....

This bit is interesting, you say there are things that God cannot do and gave examples; yet when it comes to overriding free will, you say "will not" as opposed to "cannot." If it is merely will not as opposed to cannot, then what is the relevance of what God can or cannot do, when it is a matter of will?

God will not override the gift He gave or instilled in man, being the power of contrary choice or free will. Don’t get it wrong, God could override your choices but He won’t. The ability to choose allowed Adam to do what is right of his own volition but the down side is the possibility of choosing to do wrong (evil). But, evidently, God saw that a greater good would come from it, for example, that the result would be creatures who genuinely love God freely. Actually, real love must be free—if I programmed my computer to flash ‘I love you’ on the screen, it would hardly be genuine love. God could overrule our every decision, forcing us to do exactly as He wanted, like little stick figures or puppets. But there would be no joy or satisfaction in that. Genuine love comes from having a choice, albeit though, at the risk of choosing otherwise. That is what God is after, our choosing to love Him. As the sign said that I read today, “Jesus would rather die for us than live without us�.

As a general comment on your objection, you spoke of God not doing "as you would have it," but that wasn't the point at all, it is God not doing what God logically must do which leads to a contraction.

What is it, that you believe “God logically must do�?

Have a good day!
Still small

[Bust Nak]

God will not override the gift He gave or instilled in man, being the power of contrary choice or free will. Don’t get it wrong, God could override your choices but He won’t.

Thanks for clarifying that.

The ability to choose allowed Adam to do what is right of his own volition but the down side is the possibility of choosing to do wrong (evil)...

What do you say to the scenario where Adam can choose evil but won't? (Much like how God can override free will but won't) That means no evil AND real love, it's sounds like a win-win. Why didn't God create this version of event instead?

What is it, that you believe “God logically must do�?

Ultimately, a perfect God must either not create at all, or create idential copies of God. As perfection can only create nothing but perfection.