Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So free will entails the ability to do things - not just the ability to decide to do things. Correct?
For example, if you decide to exercise your free will to go to the rodeo and I stop you by forcing your car off the road into a ditch, then I have messed with your free will. Right?
By your definition of free will, it only exists if what you set out to do actually ends up happening.Yes.
These are the extraordinary measures God would have to use to prevent people from harming each other. The scenario in the OP is one incident in the world. But evil abounds in this world and you haven't considered what life would be like if God intervened all the time.If God can do anything, then he could prevent the chains and gags from existing.
By your definition of free will, it only exists if what you set out to do actually ends up happening.
If you plan on going to the mall, but a friend of yours invites you to the movies and you end up going to the movies with your friend, by your definition, your friend messed with your free will. Now let's say your friend was actually planning on going to the movies by his/herself, but accidentally called you on the phone and now felt obligated to invite you to the movies. You accepted. Now you have messed with your friend's free will. Correct?
This isn't the type of free will I'm talking about. I'm talking about the ability to freely make choices. For example, if you are faced with an A/B choice, you could choose either A or B.
As it is logically impossible for an all-loving (or all-good) and all-powerful God to exist in the presence of mass suffering or mass calamity, how do you reconcile this?
As it is logically impossible for an all-loving (or all-good) and all-powerful God to exist in the presence of mass suffering or mass calamity, how do you reconcile this?
Do you change your construct of God such that he either isn't all-loving or all-powerful?
OR
Do you just not think about it?
What do you think life would be like if God intervened to stop all instances of rapists raping children?These are the extraordinary measures God would have to use to prevent people from harming each other. The scenario in the OP is one incident in the world. But evil abounds in this world and you haven't considered what life would be like if God intervened all the time.
It seems as if you think free will can be affected by the interference of someone other than the one exercising free will. When I say free will, I mean the ability to freely make a decision. For example, I am faced with an A/B choice. I freely choose A. That's a freely made choice. When I try to carry out the actions of choice A at a later point in time and you interfere, I don't believe you have interfered with my free will - as you didn't impede my ability to freely make decisions.Your example doesn't make sense. The friend had free will to not invite you to the movies but to make an excuse and hang up. They chose to invite you. You have done nothing to them by accepting. They also have the free will to call you later and say they don't feel well and can't go after all.
Yes, everyone has choices, not even necessarily A and B. There are varying degrees of choices.
I don't know where this is going. I don't understand what you're getting at.
If God exists and is omnipotent in the presence of mass suffering and mass calamity, then it means that God doesn't love the victims of mass suffering and mass calamities enough to do anything to protect them. This means he is a malevolent and sadistic God. So I ask how you can go to sleep every night knowing that you worship a malevolent and sadistic God?You have made an unproven statement. God is love as Scripture attests and proves, also God is omnipotent as Biblical evidence witnesses to. And, I know that suffering exists as history and experience demonstrate. Since what I have presented is fact as demonstrated by the Biblical and existential witnesses, your assertion that God does not exist is false and not logical at all.
No. The existence of mass suffering and mass calamity means an all-powerful & all-loving God cannot exist. How do you reconcile this?You have predicated the non-existence of God on the existence of suffering and your statement asserts that since suffering exists, God does not exist. This is horribly circular. If you had not made the appeal to logic, a form of appeal to authority, and simply asked a question, these problems that I have just outlined would not exist. Your posit is illogical on several fronts.
It seems as if you think free will can be affected by the interference of someone other than the one exercising free will. When I say free will, I mean the ability to freely make a decision. For example, I am faced with an A/B choice. I freely choose A. That's a freely made choice. When I try to carry out the actions of choice A at a later point in time and you interfere, I don't believe you have interfered with my free will - as you didn't impede my ability to freely make decisions.
If God exists and is omnipotent in the presence of mass suffering and mass calamity, then it means that God doesn't love the victims of mass suffering and mass calamities enough to do anything to protect them. This means he is a malevolent and sadistic God. So I ask how you can go to sleep every night knowing that you worship a malevolent and sadistic God?
No. The existence of mass suffering and mass calamity means an all-powerful & all-loving God cannot exist. How do you reconcile this?
1) We know that evil exists. (examples are a rapist raping a child, a tornado ripping through Joplin, Missouri, a typhoon striking a populated area of the Philippines).I am not going to attempt to answer any of your questions that are based on illogical assumptions and are not supported by reasons of logic. You have not made any proofs that would require defense. You are simply making accusations, demanding that these accusations be treated as truth and then challenging us to disprove and unproven premise: Illogical.
You still fail the tests of logic and you have yet to prove your first premise. You have not cleared the logical fallacies of appeal to authority and circular reasoning. In fact, you are just repeating the circular reasoning pattern.
Understand something friend, without logic, truth is unobtainable and dialogue is meaningless. Fix your flawed logic and we will continue. Otherwise I will assume that this premise or yours is meaningless and we can end this charade.
1) We know that evil exists. (examples are a rapist raping a child, a tornado ripping through Joplin, Missouri, a typhoon striking a populated area of the Philippines).
2) Christians claim God can do anything, meaning he is capable of preventing evil
3) Christians claim God loves everyone, meaning that he would want to prevent evil
If #1 & #2 are true, then #3 can't be true
If #1 & #3 are true, then #2 can't be true
If #2 & #3 are true, then #1 can't be true
Since we know that evil exists, then either #2 or #3 must not be true. So either God doesn't love everyone or he can't do anything.
It seems like it would be a world without rape. Just a shot in the dark.What do you think life would be like if God intervened to stop all instances of rapists raping children?
1) We know that evil exists. (examples are a rapist raping a child, a tornado ripping through Joplin, Missouri, a typhoon striking a populated area of the Philippines).
2) Christians claim God can do anything, meaning he is capable of preventing evil
3) Christians claim God loves everyone, meaning that he would want to prevent evil
If #1 & #2 are true, then #3 can't be true
If #1 & #3 are true, then #2 can't be true
If #2 & #3 are true, then #1 can't be true
Since we know that evil exists, then either #2 or #3 must not be true. So either God doesn't love everyone or he can't do anything.
As it is logically impossible for an all-loving (or all-good) and all-powerful God to exist in the presence of mass suffering or mass calamity, how do you reconcile this?
Do you change your construct of God such that he either isn't all-loving or all-powerful?
OR
Do you just not think about it?
As it is logically impossible for an all-loving (or all-good) and all-powerful God to exist in the presence of mass suffering or mass calamity, how do you reconcile this?
Do you change your construct of God such that he either isn't all-loving or all-powerful?
OR
Do you just not think about it?
Since we know that evil exists, then either #2 or #3 must not be true. So either God doesn't love everyone or he can't do anything.
Many Christians I've encountered claim that God can do anything and loves everyone. If you disagree with those Christians, then you are not in the camp of people from whom I desire a reconciliation on the problem of evil. But for those Christians who claim that God can do anything and that God loves everyone, I ask how they reconcile the problem of evil.#2 is not true and either is #3; more to the point they cannot be held as truth statements. This is the point of the fruitlessness of your OP, which is illogical because it is contingent on non-proven premises. Actually, #3 is a conclusion for which you have not provided any premises to support it. #2 is false for the same reason, it is not a premise, it is a conclusion based on non-revealed premises.
Also, you have misstated #2. The Christian believes that God is omnipotent which is not the same as saying "God can do anything." Your conclusion ("either God doesn't love everyone or he can't do anything") is a false dilemma; logical fallacy. The last part of your conclusion I will accept as a typo, since surely you did not mean God cannot do anything, which of course He can. Even I can do something and I cannot be truthfully charged with not being able to do anything.
Do you seek meaning in this thread?
If you had the power to stop rapists to rape children, would you? Of course you would. Why then are you more morally solid than God - who doesn't stop the rapists from raping the children?It seems like it would be a world without rape. Just a shot in the dark.
Why not blame the rapists? Even for a theist, this is the obvious thing to do. There are victims of horrible crimes who never lost their faith in God. Some of them became Christians after these things happened to them. Your challenge, which is an attempt to show that Christians are insensitive to suffering, is clueless because there are many Christians who can tell you what suffering is. They know it firsthand.
They don't have an answer to the question. They don't need it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?