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?

[ttruscott]

...

One problem with this scenario is that as a result of disobedience that leads to knowledge, god [in this story] changes the genetic makeup to make man even more susceptible to corruption, so that man is not just defiant, but now has desires for even greater sins, for perversion.

This god overreacts horribly. Again this is a too human 'god' we are presented with and one that is unnecessarily evil in giving man more than mere freedom, but corrupting his desires.

Re: the business about Jesus coming in the flesh, that:
1. Does not excuse god's overreaction, and
2. Is a suggestion that is hotly disputed in its own right and a topic of numerous other threads.

I agree with your conclusions about this scenario since though I was definitely called by GOD I refused to believe in original sin (like Thomas) until He brought PCE to me and taught me a Christianity that was sensible to me.

So:

GOD did not overreact horribly - that is just a false story.
Men corrupted their own desires by choosing to become sinful.
Jesus coming in the flesh is of no importance to anyone except believers...since we all chose our eternal relationship with YHWH millennia ago. It is false to think we can change our self chosen fate at this late date...<shrug>

Peace, Ted

[Jarte]

[Replying to post 20 by Danmark]

What then is a proper reaction to disobedience? Should the first sin of all history be left unpunished?

I know an inhuman God may goose that path so does the one that doesn't strive for justice and hold responsibility for others actions. Can we blame God when he informed Adam of the consequences.

"If you eat from this tree you shall surely die."

Would an evil God warn his servant of the consequences? Would an evil God not inform him of the dire consequences?

Man is the evil one, he strove and deliberately disobeyed. The greatest irony is that those who have experience sin would never fall for the temptation. We would refuse the fruit.

Now I ask for there only being one rule in the entire world would it not be logical that that single rule carries the weight of all other sins. By that I mean if human logic states that an eye for eye is a just punishment then shouldn't it be logical that Adam is burdened with every sin that resulted from his first and that a just repayment of such a great debt is for his own children to have suffer through the consequences of his actions.

Ultimately it is not God who corrupted man but rather man who corrupted man.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 20 by Danmark]

What then is a proper reaction to disobedience? Should the first sin of all history be left unpunished?

I know an inhuman God may goose that path so does the one that doesn't strive for justice and hold responsibility for others actions. Can we blame God when he informed Adam of the consequences.

"If you eat from this tree you shall surely die."

Would an evil God warn his servant of the consequences? Would an evil God not inform him of the dire consequences?

Man is the evil one, he strove and deliberately disobeyed. The greatest irony is that those who have experience sin would never fall for the temptation. We would refuse the fruit.

Now I ask for there only being one rule in the entire world would it not be logical that that single rule carries the weight of all other sins. By that I mean if human logic states that an eye for eye is a just punishment then shouldn't it be logical that Adam is burdened with every sin that resulted from his first and that a just repayment of such a great debt is for his own children to have suffer through the consequences of his actions.

Ultimately it is not God who corrupted man but rather man who corrupted man.

Do you agree that the story of 'the fall' in Genesis is allegorical?

I agree it is better for this god to have warned before he struck, but death seems a severe penalty for curiosity. The 'original sin' theology inherent in your response is simply another example of an evil god, punishing all for the sins of others.

My argument is not that there should be no logical consequences for bad or stupid actions. My argument is that even if we accept this mythical god as real, his overreaction seems more humanlike than godly.

An omnipotent god could preserve choice, yet have appropriate punishment for evil without punishing the children for the sins of the fathers, 'yea to the 7th generation.'

My suggestion to those wedded to the Biblical version of god is that they do a thought experiment. Picture an all powerful, all loving god who simply wants to encourage wise choices with a minimum of punishment, just enough to be effective.

You know, just like a good parent would. Now compare that 'good parent' god with the vindictive, jealous, overreactive god of the bible and evaluate the difference.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 20 by Danmark]

What then is a proper reaction to disobedience? Should the first sin of all history be left unpunished?

I know an inhuman God may goose that path so does the one that doesn't strive for justice and hold responsibility for others actions. Can we blame God when he informed Adam of the consequences.

"If you eat from this tree you shall surely die."

Would an evil God warn his servant of the consequences? Would an evil God not inform him of the dire consequences?

Man is the evil one, he strove and deliberately disobeyed. The greatest irony is that those who have experience sin would never fall for the temptation. We would refuse the fruit.

Now I ask for there only being one rule in the entire world would it not be logical that that single rule carries the weight of all other sins. By that I mean if human logic states that an eye for eye is a just punishment then shouldn't it be logical that Adam is burdened with every sin that resulted from his first and that a just repayment of such a great debt is for his own children to have suffer through the consequences of his actions.

Ultimately it is not God who corrupted man but rather man who corrupted man.

Deu 24:16 - The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers, every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

[no evidence no belief]

...

One problem with this scenario is that as a result of disobedience that leads to knowledge, god [in this story] changes the genetic makeup to make man even more susceptible to corruption, so that man is not just defiant, but now has desires for even greater sins, for perversion.

This god overreacts horribly. Again this is a too human 'god' we are presented with and one that is unnecessarily evil in giving man more than mere freedom, but corrupting his desires.

Re: the business about Jesus coming in the flesh, that:
1. Does not excuse god's overreaction, and
2. Is a suggestion that is hotly disputed in its own right and a topic of numerous other threads.

I agree with your conclusions about this scenario since though I was definitely called by GOD I refused to believe in original sin (like Thomas) until He brought PCE to me and taught me a Christianity that was sensible to me.

So:

GOD did not overreact horribly - that is just a false story.

If you agree that some Bible stories are false, we're making very good progress!

[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.

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.

Sorry about that. I misunderstood your position. I thought you were using, praise worthiness, as some sort of rebuttal.

[Morphine]

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.

What reason does anyone have to believe anyone would lose the "ability" to freely know God, simply because they weren't abused or screwed over in some way in this life? Did Jesus not know God "before" his hardships? Being that God is supposedly omnipotent, there's no reason to think he can't create heaven however he wants and have utilized the premise of the OP.

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.

How would this premise undermine the amount of people who come to freely know him? Could God have not just simply made his presence known like he did with Adam and Eve if knowing him was truly his concern?

[Peter]

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.

What reason does anyone have to believe anyone would lose the "ability" to freely know God, simply because they weren't abused or screwed over in some way in this life? Did Jesus not know God "before" his hardships? Being that God is supposedly omnipotent, there's no reason to think he can't create heaven however he wants and have utilized the premise of the OP.

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.

How would this premise undermine the amount of people who come to freely know him? Could God have not just simply made his presence known like he did with Adam and Eve if knowing him was truly his concern?

(rant)Oh no Morph, He can't make himself known! That would take all the fun out of it for Him because we would all become obedient "robots" like Adam and Eve. It's all just too much to take seriously, I mean really, are you kidding me? The perfect bible god set up this entire clusterf&%$ just so he could keep some people and punish others? IMO, if there's a bible god He set this up as pure entertainment for His buddies since He already knows the ending. Or maybe we're The Sims for a really advanced alien. I could buy that with little effort.(/rant)

OK, just had to vent a little there. Carry on.

[ttruscott]

...

One problem with this scenario is that as a result of disobedience that leads to knowledge, god [in this story] changes the genetic makeup to make man even more susceptible to corruption, so that man is not just defiant, but now has desires for even greater sins, for perversion.

This god overreacts horribly. Again this is a too human 'god' we are presented with and one that is unnecessarily evil in giving man more than mere freedom, but corrupting his desires.

Re: the business about Jesus coming in the flesh, that:
1. Does not excuse god's overreaction, and
2. Is a suggestion that is hotly disputed in its own right and a topic of numerous other threads.

I agree with your conclusions about this scenario since though I was definitely called by GOD I refused to believe in original sin (like Thomas) until He brought PCE to me and taught me a Christianity that was sensible to me.

So:

GOD did not overreact horribly - that is just a false story.

If you agree that some Bible stories are false, we're making very good progress!

No sir I don't...I just believe the interpretations of them are false.

Peace, Ted

[Clownboat]

...

One problem with this scenario is that as a result of disobedience that leads to knowledge, god [in this story] changes the genetic makeup to make man even more susceptible to corruption, so that man is not just defiant, but now has desires for even greater sins, for perversion.

This god overreacts horribly. Again this is a too human 'god' we are presented with and one that is unnecessarily evil in giving man more than mere freedom, but corrupting his desires.

Re: the business about Jesus coming in the flesh, that:
1. Does not excuse god's overreaction, and
2. Is a suggestion that is hotly disputed in its own right and a topic of numerous other threads.

I agree with your conclusions about this scenario since though I was definitely called by GOD I refused to believe in original sin (like Thomas) until He brought PCE to me and taught me a Christianity that was sensible to me.

So:

GOD did not overreact horribly - that is just a false story.

If you agree that some Bible stories are false, we're making very good progress!

No sir I don't...I just believe the interpretations of them are false.

Peace, Ted

Why should we accept your interpretations as being any better? Or should we not accept your interpretations?