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?

[mgb]

Sure, I understand, but to me, a demonstrably existing God drawing A line is better than a supposedly omnipotent benevolent God stopping absolutely nothing.
It wouldn't be perfect, but at least it would be something and i would be clear.

I think God does stop evil in a more general sense. Think about what the world would be like if the Roman Empire had continued. Already in the time of Christ it was descending into darkness. What if this had continued? What if it had gone on becoming more and more ruthless and oppressive as technology developed and made it more powerful? Europe would have descended into the worst darkness.

How exactly does 'it could be worse' respond to the Problem of Evil? The question is about the actualized evil in the world, talking about potential evil is more like a red herring than a justification.

It was put to me that God does nothing about evil. This is not true.

[Allahakbar]

Sure, I understand, but to me, a demonstrably existing God drawing A line is better than a supposedly omnipotent benevolent God stopping absolutely nothing.
It wouldn't be perfect, but at least it would be something and i would be clear.

I think God does stop evil in a more general sense. Think about what the world would be like if the Roman Empire had continued. Already in the time of Christ it was descending into darkness. What if this had continued? What if it had gone on becoming more and more ruthless and oppressive as technology developed and made it more powerful? Europe would have descended into the worst darkness. Christopher Columbus - or his equivalent - would have exported this darkness to America and America would have been born in darkness. I don't imagine that mere good will or some kind of 'humanism' on behalf of a few Romans would have reversed this descent, no more than it will these days. It is easy for atheists to go back to the past to get a club to beat theists with but there are many good things in the past too. If the Church had not existed we might well be living in the kind of world George Orwell described when he said that the vision of the future would be "a boot stamping on a human face forever". Let's be thankful it is not a memory of the past.

It did, it was called The Dark Ages and no Roman empire required, just the religious empire of christianity.

[mgb]

Sure, I understand, but to me, a demonstrably existing God drawing A line is better than a supposedly omnipotent benevolent God stopping absolutely nothing.
It wouldn't be perfect, but at least it would be something and i would be clear.

I think God does stop evil in a more general sense. Think about what the world would be like if the Roman Empire had continued. Already in the time of Christ it was descending into darkness. What if this had continued? What if it had gone on becoming more and more ruthless and oppressive as technology developed and made it more powerful? Europe would have descended into the worst darkness. Christopher Columbus - or his equivalent - would have exported this darkness to America and America would have been born in darkness. I don't imagine that mere good will or some kind of 'humanism' on behalf of a few Romans would have reversed this descent, no more than it will these days. It is easy for atheists to go back to the past to get a club to beat theists with but there are many good things in the past too. If the Church had not existed we might well be living in the kind of world George Orwell described when he said that the vision of the future would be "a boot stamping on a human face forever". Let's be thankful it is not a memory of the past.

It did, it was called The Dark Ages and no Roman empire required, just the religious empire of christianity.

And what rescued the "dark" ages?

[Allahakbar]

Sure, I understand, but to me, a demonstrably existing God drawing A line is better than a supposedly omnipotent benevolent God stopping absolutely nothing.
It wouldn't be perfect, but at least it would be something and i would be clear.

I think God does stop evil in a more general sense. Think about what the world would be like if the Roman Empire had continued. Already in the time of Christ it was descending into darkness. What if this had continued? What if it had gone on becoming more and more ruthless and oppressive as technology developed and made it more powerful? Europe would have descended into the worst darkness. Christopher Columbus - or his equivalent - would have exported this darkness to America and America would have been born in darkness. I don't imagine that mere good will or some kind of 'humanism' on behalf of a few Romans would have reversed this descent, no more than it will these days. It is easy for atheists to go back to the past to get a club to beat theists with but there are many good things in the past too. If the Church had not existed we might well be living in the kind of world George Orwell described when he said that the vision of the future would be "a boot stamping on a human face forever". Let's be thankful it is not a memory of the past.

It did, it was called The Dark Ages and no Roman empire required, just the religious empire of christianity.

And what rescued the "dark" ages?

This has no validity within the discussion you initiated. Do you accept that a dark age actually resulted in human history even with the fall of the Roman Empire? Because your claim was that if the Roman Empire were to continue then a dark age would ensue, yes? Do you accept that a dark age occurred under the auspices of a christian empire?

[mgb]

This has no validity within the discussion you initiated. Do you accept that a dark age actually resulted in human history even with the fall of the Roman Empire? Because your claim was that if the Roman Empire were to continue then a dark age would ensue, yes? Do you accept that a dark age occurred under the auspices of a christian empire?

Yes, of course I do but in what sense were these ages 'dark'?* And even if Europe did falter during those ages how much worse would it be had not Christian morality and good will existed? The Church provided a moral foundation for Europe and America after the dark ages. I am suggesting, reasonably, that things might not have gone so well without this moral foundation. The dark ages could have been much darker and we might not ever have emerged from them.

*Dark Ages, the early medieval period of western European history. Specifically, the term refers to the time (476–800) when there was no Roman (or Holy Roman) emperor in the West; or, more generally, to the period between about 500 and 1000, which was marked by frequent warfare and a virtual disappearance of urban life. It is now rarely used by historians because of the value judgment it implies. Though sometimes taken to derive its meaning from the fact that little was then known about the period, the term’s more usual and pejorative sense is of a period of intellectual darkness and barbarity....

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... /Dark-Ages

[Allahakbar]

This has no validity within the discussion you initiated. Do you accept that a dark age actually resulted in human history even with the fall of the Roman Empire? Because your claim was that if the Roman Empire were to continue then a dark age would ensue, yes? Do you accept that a dark age occurred under the auspices of a christian empire?

Yes, of course I do but in what sense were these ages 'dark'?* And even if Europe did falter during those ages how much worse would it be had not Christian morality and good will existed? The Church provided a moral foundation for Europe and America after the dark ages. I am suggesting, reasonably, that things might not have gone so well without this moral foundation. The dark ages could have been much darker and we might not ever have emerged from them.

And if my dog hadn't stopped for a crap we might have had rabbit for tea. Is that the best you have to support the ridiculous claim you made? It could have been worse. Alright children we've sold you all for scientific experimentation but it could have been worse if we were allowed to have abortions. Oh yes mum thanks so much for that.

*Dark Ages, the early medieval period of western European history. Specifically, the term refers to the time (476–800) when there was no Roman (or Holy Roman) emperor in the West; or, more generally, to the period between about 500 and 1000, which was marked by frequent warfare and a virtual disappearance of urban life. It is now rarely used by historians because of the value judgment it implies. Though sometimes taken to derive its meaning from the fact that little was then known about the period, the term’s more usual and pejorative sense is of a period of intellectual darkness and barbarity....

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... /Dark-Ages

And just in case you were unaware christian despotism and intransigence had a part to play in the existence of the dark ages.

[Dantalion]

Sure, I understand, but to me, a demonstrably existing God drawing A line is better than a supposedly omnipotent benevolent God stopping absolutely nothing.
It wouldn't be perfect, but at least it would be something and i would be clear.

I think God does stop evil in a more general sense. Think about what the world would be like if the Roman Empire had continued. Already in the time of Christ it was descending into darkness. What if this had continued? What if it had gone on becoming more and more ruthless and oppressive as technology developed and made it more powerful? Europe would have descended into the worst darkness.

How exactly does 'it could be worse' respond to the Problem of Evil? The question is about the actualized evil in the world, talking about potential evil is more like a red herring than a justification.

It was put to me that God does nothing about evil. This is not true.

What does God do about evil ?

[mgb]

What does God do about evil ?

As I have said the church has laid a moral foundation for Europe and the western world. Confucius did similar things for China. Buddha helped do the same as did Lao Tzu. These people lived in the so called Axial Age that marked a turning point in human thinking-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_Age

These thinker's ideas, inspired by God, emerged independently of each other.

[mgb]

And just in case you were unaware christian despotism and intransigence had a part to play in the existence of the dark ages.

This is a very emotive response. Despotism is not Christianity. It sometimes pretends to be but I am talking about real Christianity, based on charity and a desire for goodness. In these terms the churches have done real good for the world.

[Goat]

What does God do about evil ?

As I have said the church has laid a moral foundation for Europe and the western world. Confucius did similar things for China. Buddha helped do the same as did Lao Tzu. These people lived in the so called Axial Age that marked a turning point in human thinking-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_Age

These thinker's ideas, inspired by God, emerged independently of each other.

That is what the church claims to have done.

Can you show that was God?