another free will question

[no evidence no belief]

The typical theist argument is that God gave people free will, and is not responsible for people's choice to do evil with their free will.

I think that's a simplistic argument.

Our free will allows men to insert the penis in the anus of children, and unfortunately men use their free will to make that choice very often, creating tremendous physical, mental and emotional damage in the child and society as a whole.

Our free will would also allow men to forcibly insert a finger all the way inside a child's ear, causing loss of hearing, internal bleeding, possible death and all sorts of physical, mental and emotional damage in the child and society as a whole. But somehow we almost never do that.

Why is it that the same free will that gives us the ability to do any evil equally, somehow results in thousands of anal rapes, but virtually zero forced ear fingerings?

It seems to me that there is more than free will at play here.

I would argue that separate from our free will, which is a wonderful thing, we have instinctive urges built into our nervous, hormonal, lymphatic and genital systems.

I would argue that these urges are poorly designed. Getting an erection when seeing a child bending over is NOT a question of free will. It's an entirely subconscious process. Of course one can use his free will to decide not to ACT on his sexual impulses, but if our nervous, hormonal, lymphatic and genital systems was designed in such a way that men only got sexually excited at the sight of adults, then they could STILL use their free will to commit all sorts of child abuse. But I would argue that if our body was designed better, the instances of child abuse involving penetration of their anus would be no more common than child abuse involving the penetration of their ears.


Let me put it another way. Some children are unfortunately HIV positive. Most pedophiles who know what HIV is, would avoid raping an HIV positive child. They still can use their free will to choose to rape the child anyway, but in most cases they will not.

Can we agree that God is NOT limiting the free will of pedophiles by causing some children to have AIDS?

Now, what if some new disease appeared which affected ALL CHILDREN, and it didn't cause any harm to them, but caused instant death to anybody who raped them? Would that curb the free will of pedophiles to any greater degree than HIV in children curbs their free will?

I argue that it would not. Does the fact that raping porcupines is really painful curb the free will of people into bestiality?


In conclusion, it is logically inescapable that widespread pedophilia is NOT an unavoidable byproduct of free will. God would have the power to let us have the cake and eat it too. God would have the power to give us free will AND make anal rape as common as ear rape.

Questions for debate: Why did God design our biological impulses so poorly that they often misfire and result in child rape?

If he has the power to bring anal rape occurrences to the same level as ear rapes WITHOUT limiting free will in any way, why doesn't he?

[instantc]

In conclusion, it is logically inescapable that widespread pedophilia is NOT an unavoidable byproduct of free will. God would have the power to let us have the cake and eat it too. God would have the power to give us free will AND make anal rape as common as ear rape.

Questions for debate: Why did God design our biological impulses so poorly that they often misfire and result in child rape?

I think you have misunderstood the free will argument, of course God could give men free will but make everything which is evil also undesirable in different ways. I think it is the desirability of evil which makes resisting it praiseworthy. Skeptical theism holds that evil is not just a byproduct of free will, but also necessary in order for a greater number of people to come to freely know God. In other words, there is no gratuitous evil. Why exactly it is necessary, the story does not tell. Obviously there are many ways to make the earth a more convenient place without tampering with free will.

[Morphine]

In conclusion, it is logically inescapable that widespread pedophilia is NOT an unavoidable byproduct of free will. God would have the power to let us have the cake and eat it too. God would have the power to give us free will AND make anal rape as common as ear rape.

Questions for debate: Why did God design our biological impulses so poorly that they often misfire and result in child rape?

I think you have misunderstood the free will argument, of course God could give men free will but make everything which is evil also undesirable in different ways. I think it is the desirability of evil which makes resisting it praiseworthy. Skeptical theism holds that evil is not just a byproduct of free will, but also necessary in order for a greater number of people to come to freely know God. In other words, there is no gratuitous evil. Why exactly it is necessary, the story does not tell. Obviously there are many ways to make the earth a more convenient place without tampering with free will.

The problem here seems to be that one is more concerned about being praised than doing good. Like the employee who only works hard when his supervisor is looking.

[instantc]

In conclusion, it is logically inescapable that widespread pedophilia is NOT an unavoidable byproduct of free will. God would have the power to let us have the cake and eat it too. God would have the power to give us free will AND make anal rape as common as ear rape.

Questions for debate: Why did God design our biological impulses so poorly that they often misfire and result in child rape?

I think you have misunderstood the free will argument, of course God could give men free will but make everything which is evil also undesirable in different ways. I think it is the desirability of evil which makes resisting it praiseworthy. Skeptical theism holds that evil is not just a byproduct of free will, but also necessary in order for a greater number of people to come to freely know God. In other words, there is no gratuitous evil. Why exactly it is necessary, the story does not tell. Obviously there are many ways to make the earth a more convenient place without tampering with free will.

The problem here seems to be that one is more concerned about being praised than doing good. Like the employee who only works hard when his supervisor is looking.

There really cannot be a debate unless you respond to what I actually said. Nobody said anything about wanting to be praised. In my skeptical hypothesis God's goal is not to make life convenient on earth, but to have as many people as possible come to freely know him. There is nothing selfish or evil in that goal, and if that is the case, then earthly convenience really might be the second priority.

[Danmark]

Isn't this simply a restatement of the problem of evil argument?

Not that that is not an important argument. It's an argument that conclusively demonstrates the idea of an omnipotent god is inconsistent with a good god.

We have our poor friend steps as an example. He desperately tries to convince us of his perfect god whose adherents have split into 73 factions [72 + the one 'right' one ], who claim their religion is the religion of peace yet have to reconcile the violence done in their god's name. They do this by somehow defining as non violent the defending of their faith by violence.

Certainly if there were an all powerful god he could have reduced the suffering and evil by making the sexual urge more selective. He could have interfered with the catastrophic effects of poor parenting, giving each child a fresh start despite the bad choices of the parents.

But these acts would have called for a true god, a thinking entity that interacts with man and directs nature thru his magical or supernatural powers.

The fact that life is inconsistent with the proposed acts of this 'true god' is further proof there is no god. Life with its random suffering is consistent with the notion of a godless, chaotic, material universe.

[no evidence no belief]

In conclusion, it is logically inescapable that widespread pedophilia is NOT an unavoidable byproduct of free will. God would have the power to let us have the cake and eat it too. God would have the power to give us free will AND make anal rape as common as ear rape.

Questions for debate: Why did God design our biological impulses so poorly that they often misfire and result in child rape?

I think you have misunderstood the free will argument, of course God could give men free will but make everything which is evil also undesirable in different ways. I think it is the desirability of evil which makes resisting it praiseworthy. Skeptical theism holds that evil is not just a byproduct of free will, but also necessary in order for a greater number of people to come to freely know God. In other words, there is no gratuitous evil. Why exactly it is necessary, the story does not tell. Obviously there are many ways to make the earth a more convenient place without tampering with free will.

So God deliberately toys with us, making child rape especially desirable, for the purpose of seeing who he will torture for eternity, and who he will force to venerate, worship and praise him for all eternity?

[no evidence no belief]

In conclusion, it is logically inescapable that widespread pedophilia is NOT an unavoidable byproduct of free will. God would have the power to let us have the cake and eat it too. God would have the power to give us free will AND make anal rape as common as ear rape.

Questions for debate: Why did God design our biological impulses so poorly that they often misfire and result in child rape?

I think you have misunderstood the free will argument, of course God could give men free will but make everything which is evil also undesirable in different ways. I think it is the desirability of evil which makes resisting it praiseworthy. Skeptical theism holds that evil is not just a byproduct of free will, but also necessary in order for a greater number of people to come to freely know God. In other words, there is no gratuitous evil. Why exactly it is necessary, the story does not tell. Obviously there are many ways to make the earth a more convenient place without tampering with free will.

The problem here seems to be that one is more concerned about being praised than doing good. Like the employee who only works hard when his supervisor is looking.

There really cannot be a debate unless you respond to what I actually said. Nobody said anything about wanting to be praised. In my skeptical hypothesis God's goal is not to make life convenient on earth, but to have as many people as possible come to freely know him. There is nothing selfish or evil in that goal, and if that is the case, then earthly convenience really might be the second priority.

So in his limited ability to judge man's character, God has no choice but to make it desirable for some of us to rape children, in order to tell if we will or will not go through with it?

[instantc]

So in his limited ability to judge man's character, God has no choice but to make it desirable for some of us to rape children, in order to tell if we will or will not go through with it?

It's not necessarily a question of acquiring the relevant knowledge. It might not be feasible for God to create such place as heaven without first having created this life as it is. It is possible that a paradise where everyone freely rejects sin and accepts God causally presupposes a previous life where those people came to know God through all the evil in the world. In order for your conclusion to deductively follow from your premises, you would have to show that it is feasible for God to create a place where there is no suffering and everyone freely gets to know him.

So God deliberately toys with us, making child rape especially desirable, for the purpose of seeing who he will torture for eternity

That is if one claims that God tortures people in hell. If that's not part of one's theology, your objection immediately vaporizes.

[ttruscott]

...

I would argue that separate from our free will, which is a wonderful thing, we have instinctive urges built into our nervous, hormonal, lymphatic and genital systems.

...

I contend that all these impulses to horrific crime you mention are a result of the sinful natures we got when we chose to use our true free will to rebel against GOD because our free will was ended by our becoming a sinner and addicted to sin.

These impulses to crimes are the result of sin controlling us, not a sign of our free will, even though we gave sin the control when we chose by free will to become evil.

As for sins against children being the worst, the ultimate disvalue of sin puts Christ on the cross for the smallest sin by an elect and the smallest sin by a non-elect puts himself in hell.

But aside from that, not only do I contend that children are not innocent of sin and guilt (having become sinners in the spirit world before their conception) I contend that the worst crimes imaginable are not even let loose upon the world but such demons and devils are kept back and restrained or it would be unbearable to stay alive down here.

Peace, Ted

[no evidence no belief]

So in his limited ability to judge man's character, God has no choice but to make it desirable for some of us to rape children, in order to tell if we will or will not go through with it?

It's not necessarily a question of acquiring the relevant knowledge. It might not be feasible for God to create such place as heaven without first having created this life as it is. It is possible that a paradise where everyone freely rejects sin and accepts God causally presupposes a previous life where those people came to know God through all the evil in the world. In order for your conclusion to deductively follow from your premises, you would have to show that it is feasible for God to create a place where there is no suffering and everyone freely gets to know him.

Mmm. That's a hard one. Can God create a place where there is no suffering and everyone freely gets to know him. Is there a feasible argument for that? Mmm, let's try.

GOD IS OMNIPOTENT THEREFORE HE CAN