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]

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

Depends on how many Priests make it to heaven.

But seriously, if the endgame is for a perfect God to be surrounded by perfect sycophants in perfect heaven why all this hurtful, miserable and pointless mucking around?

Would I be correct in saying that evil ultimately reduces to pain?

No, I can think of all kinds of scenarios where evil only compounds pain indefinitely.

If this is true perhaps it is 'simply' a fact that for creation to become perfect it must endure the pain of knowledge.

Assuming anything a god does should make sense to us lowly humans, and I think it should, why did a perfect being create something imperfect? If the end state is perfection why all the misery? It's a very simple question and in all my years asking it I have yet to hear an answer that makes one iota of sense. Maybe it's just me.

Perhaps perfection involves the freedom to lose perfection by choosing what is not perfect.

[Peter]

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

Depends on how many Priests make it to heaven.

But seriously, if the endgame is for a perfect God to be surrounded by perfect sycophants in perfect heaven why all this hurtful, miserable and pointless mucking around?

Would I be correct in saying that evil ultimately reduces to pain?

No, I can think of all kinds of scenarios where evil only compounds pain indefinitely.

If this is true perhaps it is 'simply' a fact that for creation to become perfect it must endure the pain of knowledge.

Assuming anything a god does should make sense to us lowly humans, and I think it should, why did a perfect being create something imperfect? If the end state is perfection why all the misery? It's a very simple question and in all my years asking it I have yet to hear an answer that makes one iota of sense. Maybe it's just me.

Perhaps perfection involves the freedom to lose perfection by choosing what is not perfect.

That sounds more like entertainment to me. Tell me that this is all an entertainment created by a god for his god friends, because the creator god knows how it all ends, and I would say that's plausible.

[Clownboat]

1. If I've learned one thing it is that anything and everything can and will be perverted to evil.

I do not appreciate your outlook on life, but I sure am glad that it is yours to bare.

How depressing. I assume you have never made lemon juice out of lemons (good out of a bad situation).

It does explain why you invent a god concept that is all about the afterlife. I can't really blame you with the horrible outlook you have about this one.

Be well, and I hope your outlook on life improves in the future because I don't think your level of negativity is conducive to a healthy life.

[no evidence no belief]

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

Depends on how many Priests make it to heaven.

But seriously, if the endgame is for a perfect God to be surrounded by perfect sycophants in perfect heaven why all this hurtful, miserable and pointless mucking around?

Would I be correct in saying that evil ultimately reduces to pain?

No, I can think of all kinds of scenarios where evil only compounds pain indefinitely.

If this is true perhaps it is 'simply' a fact that for creation to become perfect it must endure the pain of knowledge.

Assuming anything a god does should make sense to us lowly humans, and I think it should, why did a perfect being create something imperfect? If the end state is perfection why all the misery? It's a very simple question and in all my years asking it I have yet to hear an answer that makes one iota of sense. Maybe it's just me.

Perhaps perfection involves the freedom to lose perfection by choosing what is not perfect.

Yup, perfection definitely means not being perfect...

I guess you're not bearing false witness, after all.

You're just playing that game where you try and say the most non-sensical thing ever, just for fun.

There's nothing in the Bible prohibiting that! Heck, I'll play that game too!

2 +2=5!!!

Yey, this is fun.

Let me know when you want to go back to debating.

[Dantalion]

[Replying to post 86 by mgb]

WHere do you get from my post that I advocate treating people differently ?
I said draw a line between some acts/crimes, not people.
Child molestation would always be wrong, independent from the person who's doing it.

[no evidence no belief]

i see that theist response have trickled out. No theist statement has gone unaddressed. So I'm assuming that this major flaw in the free will argument remains unchallenged.

So not only can nobody provide any evidence that their God exists, but if he did, he'd be a douche.

[mgb]

If God prevents some evils and not others then the person who has been stolen from can say "He prevents some evils but lets me get robbed. This is preferential treatment. God has one set of rules for one person and another set of rules for me. How can He behave like this? A God who teaches equality and fairness in all things and He doesn't treat me the way He treats others. This God is a tyrant" and so on the logic would go until God is required to prevent every evil - the common cold, the toothache, the marital breakup, lost car keys...

Creation must see evil for what it is and reject it instead of doing evil and endlessly blaming God for what it can fix itself. Otherwise creation will never learn and remain a child forever, endlessly protected and cosseted and spoiled by God.

[Replying to post 86 by mgb]

WHere do you get from my post that I advocate treating people differently ?
I said draw a line between some acts/crimes, not people.
Child molestation would always be wrong, independent from the person who's doing it.

My point is that if you draw the line at preventing child molestation you will have to draw the line again. If genocide is the worst crime and you draw the line there and prevent it then child molestation comes next so you draw the line there and then there is a next worst crime and that has to be prevented then the next worst crime has to be prevented an so on until all crimes must be prevented. In other words evil would have to be banished altogether. But it is man that has fallen and man needs to reverse the fall.

[Dantalion]

If God prevents some evils and not others then the person who has been stolen from can say "He prevents some evils but lets me get robbed. This is preferential treatment. God has one set of rules for one person and another set of rules for me. How can He behave like this? A God who teaches equality and fairness in all things and He doesn't treat me the way He treats others. This God is a tyrant" and so on the logic would go until God is required to prevent every evil - the common cold, the toothache, the marital breakup, lost car keys...

Creation must see evil for what it is and reject it instead of doing evil and endlessly blaming God for what it can fix itself. Otherwise creation will never learn and remain a child forever, endlessly protected and cosseted and spoiled by God.

[Replying to post 86 by mgb]

WHere do you get from my post that I advocate treating people differently ?
I said draw a line between some acts/crimes, not people.
Child molestation would always be wrong, independent from the person who's doing it.

My point is that if you draw the line at preventing child molestation you will have to draw the line again. If genocide is the worst crime and you draw the line there and prevent it then child molestation comes next so you draw the line there and then there is a next worst crime and that has to be prevented then the next worst crime has to be prevented an so on until all crimes must be prevented. In other words evil would have to be banished altogether. But it is man that has fallen and man needs to reverse the fall.

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 .

[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.

[instantc]

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.