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]

But it is not possible for God to do evil, that is an essential part of Christian theology.

Yes but I am not talking about God, I am talking about us human beings. As long as we are imperfect it is possible for us to be evil.

Yes but your argument was that possibility of evil is necessary for the possibility of good. If it not possible for God to do evil, then it is not possible for him to do good either.

No. I am saying that for us fallen human beings the possibility of evil exists. It exists because we are fallen. Yet, we need to become good. If God gives us the power to be good - which He does - then there is a risk that we will use that power to do evil. I am not saying it is necessary for this possibility to exist but it does. God does not need to become good because He is good.

[instantc]

But, God is not able to do evil, therefore it seems to me that according to your argument, his actions cannot in fact be good either. In the light of this very argument, it is hard to see how any of God's action could be considered good, just like our actions wouldn't be truly good if we didn't have the chance to choose between good and evil.

The difference between us and God is that we are imperfect. We are fallen. To regain perfection we must reject evil. To be good we must have the means, the power, to be good. But, because we are fallen, we can misuse this power.

'Regain perfection' presupposes that we were perfect at some point, but how would a perfect being fall into sin?

Your argument was that in order for there to be the possibility of good, there must also be the possibility of evil. That would mean that since God cannot do evil, he cannot do good either. In your own words:

If God takes away to power to do evil He takes away the power to do good.

Now you are defending your special pleading for God by saying that God is perfect, and therefore the possibility of evil is not required for him to freely choose good. In essence, God is a being who is both freely good and not able to do evil. Therefore it is either possible to be freely good without being able to do evil, or then God is either not free or not able to do good.

[mgb]

But, God is not able to do evil, therefore it seems to me that according to your argument, his actions cannot in fact be good either. In the light of this very argument, it is hard to see how any of God's action could be considered good, just like our actions wouldn't be truly good if we didn't have the chance to choose between good and evil.

The difference between us and God is that we are imperfect. We are fallen. To regain perfection we must reject evil. To be good we must have the means, the power, to be good. But, because we are fallen, we can misuse this power.

'Regain perfection' presupposes that we were perfect at some point, but a perfect being cannot fall into sin.

Your argument was that in order for there to be the possibility of good, there must also be the possibility of evil. That would mean that since God cannot do evil, he cannot do good either. In your own words:

If God takes away to power to do evil He takes away the power to do good.

Now you are defending your special pleading for God by saying that God is perfect. In essence, God is a being who is both freely good and not able to do evil. Therefore it is either possible to be freely good without being able to do evil, or then God is either not free or not able to do good.

But I am not talking about good and evil in all terms. I am talking about good and evil in human terms, for human beings, not God. Human beings are capable of evil. What to do? Make them powerless? But that would mean we can do not good. Give us the power to do good? But that means we can abuse that power and do evil. This is the state we are in. You cannot project this onto God and assume the same applies to Him.

[instantc]

Human beings are capable of evil. What to do? Make them powerless?

This is the state we are in. You cannot project this onto God and assume the same applies to Him.

But, the original question was why did God make humans capable of doing evil in the first place. Your response was that that is necessary in order for them to be able to do good. I pointed out that God is both good and incapable of doing evil.

Now you are suggesting that the only way to make men incapable of doing evil is to make them powerless. However, God is both incapable of doing evil and powerful, therefore it would be possible to make someone both free and incapable of doing evil without making them powerless. Thus the question remains, why did God make men capable of doing evil?

[mgb]

But, the original question was that why did God make humans capable of doing evil in the first place. Your response was that that is necessary in order for them to be able to do good.

No, I did not ask that question at all. Nor am I saying the possibility of evil is necessary. What I am saying is that the possibility of evil exists and so we are exposed to the risk of evil.

Now you are suggesting that the only way to make men incapable of doing evil is to make them powerless.

No, making men powerless is not the only way to make them good. Teaching them to be good is another way. But that takes time.

However, God is both incapable of doing evil and powerful, therefore it would be possible to make someone both free and incapable of doing evil without making them powerless."

Yes, by making them, or persuading them, to become good. But until men are good the problem remains; it remains possible they will do evil.

[Peter]

EXACTLY! We cannot fly around the kitchen, we cannot avoid blinking when somebody claps their hands in front of our face, etc. That takes NOTHING away from our free will. If men had erectile disfunction when trying to rape children it would take NOTHING away from free will, it would NOT be a limit on the person's mind, just on the person's body, like the inability to walk through walls, or keep your knee still when tapped. It would just GREATLY reduce child rape.

If God takes away to power to do evil He takes away the power to do good. Using your argument you could ask why God does not make millions of people stupid so they won't use their brains to exploit others, as many capitalists and clever people do. Perhaps God should make millions of people cripples so they won't bully others or take people's hands off so they won't steal? There is no end to this but it is not God's way. God's way is to teach mankind how to use its power wisely and this means getting mankind to reject evil, not preventing people from doing evil by taking away their free will.

Will you have the power to do evil in heaven? If not, will heaven be full of stupid, amputated, castrated, cripples so that they can do only good? What a vision that is...

The idea that you can't have good without bad is nonsense. It's like saying you can't have light without dark. Without dark you may not fully appreciate light but there is certainly no reason everything can't be light and good.

I don't say heaven will be full of amputated people. I was only extending the logic of the poster's argument and asking if this is what it would lead to. If God should make a person impotent the same argument could be used for God making a person stupid. I don't think God would do any of these things.

It's fascinating how some people seem to know what an unfathomable god would do or not do.

Will I have the power to do evil in heaven? Heaven is life made free of evil. Evil comes from the loss of God. I am not saying that you cannot have good without bad.

Oh, I thought you said, "If God takes away the power to do evil He takes away the power to do good". Obviously, that's not what you meant.

I am saying that people will have evil if they keep choosing it - until they have had enough of it, of hell, of despair. But isn't it better to be wise and choose good without going through hell first? But some WILL go through hell before they learn.

"but there is certainly no reason everything can't be light and good.". Certainly. That is what God is telling us. That is what heaven means. Heaven is not a greedy concept. We exist. We are right to desire to be done with suffering and evil. We are entitled to desire that our existence be made free of these things.

We can probably all agree on wanting an existence free of evil. We just disagree on how to get there.

[instantc]

No, I did not ask that question at all. Nor am I saying the possibility of evil is necessary. What I am saying is that the possibility of evil exists and so we are exposed to the risk of evil.

I am asking that question, why did God make men capable of doing evil in your theology?

[mgb]

Will I have the power to do evil in heaven? Heaven is life made free of evil. Evil comes from the loss of God. I am not saying that you cannot have good without bad.

Oh, I thought you said, "If God takes away the power to do evil He takes away the power to do good". Obviously, that's not what you meant.

Saying man has the power to do evil is not the same as saying evil is necessary. It is saying that man has the power to make a choice. What is necessary is choice, not evil.

[mgb]

No, I did not ask that question at all. Nor am I saying the possibility of evil is necessary. What I am saying is that the possibility of evil exists and so we are exposed to the risk of evil.

I am asking that question, why did God make men capable of doing evil in your theology?

This is the doctrine of the fall. The fall created the possibility of evil. But the fall is still happening. So is redemption. Mankind is still making the choice about whether to continue the fall or turn back to God.

[no evidence no belief]

EXACTLY! We cannot fly around the kitchen, we cannot avoid blinking when somebody claps their hands in front of our face, etc. That takes NOTHING away from our free will. If men had erectile disfunction when trying to rape children it would take NOTHING away from free will, it would NOT be a limit on the person's mind, just on the person's body, like the inability to walk through walls, or keep your knee still when tapped. It would just GREATLY reduce child rape.

If God takes away to power to do evil He takes away the power to do good. Using your argument you could ask why God does not make millions of people stupid so they won't use their brains to exploit others, as many capitalists and clever people do. Perhaps God should make millions of people cripples so they won't bully others or take people's hands off so they won't steal? There is no end to this but it is not God's way. God's way is to teach mankind how to use its power wisely and this means getting mankind to reject evil, not preventing people from doing evil by taking away their free will.

I have a simple question: If our BODY (not our mind) was designed so that having an orgasm inside a child's anus felt much much less good than having an orgasm inside an adult woman's vagina, would that make it impossible for good and evil to exist?

That's a simple yes or no question.


Is it ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for a pervert's mental sickness to be compounded by tremendous physical pleasure when he rapes a child, in order for the good/evil system that enables free will to exist?

You mentioned that people have a tendency to steal. Would you agree that if whenever a thief stole something, not only did he get the thing he stole, but he also got an orgasm, he would steal more?

Even without the orgasm, people still have the free will to steal. And even without the orgasm, people still have the free will to abuse children.

The orgasm is NOT a necessary component for people to have the choice to do the evil on which free will allegedly depends. It's just something that God added on to fan the flames in his sadistic desire to see children ass-raped.


By the way, how often do children get anally raped in heaven?