You've missed my point. I understand that the passage is not talking about levels of evil. I never implied it did. My point was in showing that in this passage we see that there are levels of evil that need more to eliminate them from people. The passage wasn't about that but the fact was that this person was inflicted with a stronger evil than others.
You know, I think I did miss your point
... And I now would tend to agree with you, it seems based on this verse that Satan may well have different levels of access to people. However, the point you were trying to carry was that a repeat sinner like a serial killer would be prone to more/easier access by Satan and that moreover such a sinner would be unlikely to accept salvation. I conceed that within the structure of your beliefs you have made the first point about different levels, I look forward to your support for the reminder of the argument you were making
Yes, you said that before and I am asking what evidence provides you with the certainty that no God is required? Just saying that you have this level of certainty and claiming that no God is needed does nothing to provide where this certainty arises and what evidence informed you of that.
Agreed, I am merely telling you what the fact of the observable world suggests to me. As far as I know there are no elements of the universe that absolutely necessitate a God, let alone your specific God. In the absence of such features I simply don't see the need to hypothesize one. Moreover it seems to me that you may have forgotten to respond to the actual question in there
What I had asked was how could we be held morally accountable for beliefs that are not under our conscious control. I understand that you disagree that God belief, as arrived at by observations about the world, are not under conscious control, however, let's assume for the moment that this is indeed the case, that I have not made a conscious decision to not believe in God. Under those circumstances am I morally responsible for how the evidence appears to me?
Really? You really want to go here. That disappoints me. I was very impressed with your fairness and your ability to discuss your position without straw men. Darn. I mean I know that you are in a way joking but I rather see through that.
I had hoped you would see the humour in that and from your response I not sure. I hope so. In any case I am not certain this is a straw man at all. You claim to have knowledge from an invisible (non detectable) , transcendent, all knowing, all powerful being that has given you special revelation and that is in no way falsifiable... Right? Those are the basics are they not?
Considering you said you looked into science, and I would assume you held that in some position of authority that you would not question the best minds in science when they claim they do see the appearance of design in the universe. I guess I was wrong.
I'm not sure if you meant that to be snarky or pithy, so I will assume witty instead
The key there of course is the appearance of design, which is a subjective statment that proposes that natural items in the world (n) are like objects designed by human like intelligence (m) and that n and m are the same in some relevant way (r). If you would like to run that argument I am happy to show you the defeaters...if you are already familiar with them then I guess you ready know that the inference to design from analogy fails, I am happy to do the same for the watch argument or really any version of the teleological argument that you prefer.
In any case the position that the universe necessitates a creator is a positive claim being made from your world view. As such the burden is not on me (except in a conversational way) to prove that your God is not responsible for the universe. It is of course possible to prove a negative, but not when the negative in question is invisible, transcendent and so ill defined as a concept as to be unfalsifiable. So rather than shifting the burden of proof, I would truly like to hear your positive case that the observable universe gives clear evidence that your God made it. If you can make this case I am happy to conceed that, maybe I have somehow made a conscious choice to deny your God and then have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness but until then...
I believe that the whole entire Bible makes that case. I think that for centuries others, actually millions of others believe as I do. So what would provide all these people including myself to change our minds? If Christianity is true as we claim, it is not the Christian that by its theology is incorrect as the Holy Spirit informs the Christian of Bible truth
Clearly the whole Bible does not make that case as we showed in the example of pharaoh, of 2 Thessalonians 2:11 and of course in the case of the thousands of infants and foetuses that God killed before they had a chance to exercise any free will at all.
Again rather than simply asserting that the whole Bible males your case and then appealing to the popularity and tradition of your position, make the case
You need to deal with the counterfactuals presented above and then also make a positive case that God values human free will to the extent that you are convinced he does.
If you can't even determine what my thoughts and positions are how in the world would I think you are capable of knowing what God could of or should of done to bring you and the minority of others holding your position to choosing God?
Again not sure if this was meant as snarky so as always I will assume not
Here is the problem, I don't know what it would take to convince me, I don't know what experience I would need to have to choose God of my own free will. Buy if God exists he does know and so far he has chosen not to do it. Moreover, throughout history (on the assumption that the Bible is accurate) he has allowed uncountable thousands to die without providing them the experience that would lead them to salvation. What else are we to conclude but that God does not want us all saved?
This is how I think, this is what my position clearly is and now you need not assume what my position is or believe something that you think I believe when I don't. Are we good?
Of course we are good, it might have been helpful though if you had just answered, yes, the first time