DeadChannel

Yeah that's something that's always struck me about that. Even if, as my colleague The Butt Lard said, one of the mes did something different in the ∞ iterations of my life, can we really say that this difference is the result of "free will"?

I guess, then, the next question is "who gives a ****"? I know I'm not going to be all existential and mopey about it. Or the universe knows... whatever.

The Batlord

I'm sorry, what evidence did you provide for a random universe? As far as I'm concerned, a random universe would require the same amount of magic as one ruled by God, so you've got some explaining to do.

And please do so in a way that a drunk might understand, for that is what I am.

__________________

William_the_Bloody

Well this is all good, the next time my girlfriend beats me with her cane for jerking off before we get together, I can now say, that it is not my fault, for I was predestined to beat off before we met, and it was therefore beyond my control.

I am satisfied with this answer.

Ps; you shouldn't beat off 7 times a day, it will lower your zinc levels, and your hair will fall out

DeadChannel

Yeah, I mean, I generally subscribe to a deterministic universe, since there doesn't seem to be any evidence otherwise, but... pansy... gay... boy... 69? brings up a good point. Whether or not the universe is random or deterministic, free will probably doesn't exist in any meaningful way. Actually, put in these terms, the whole thing seems like a silly question.

The Batlord

I still say wussy***boy31 is full of ****, but whatevs.

__________________

kibbeh

you know nothing about the universe you're just a drunk metal nerd

Zhanteimi

Yes.

Free will exists in Heaven, and the blessed choose, even in Heaven, to do and be good. It goes back to what I wrote earlier in this thread: getting to the point where what you need and what you want dovetail.

The Serpent didn't make Eve eat the fruit. Eve chose to do so. God is not responsible for us choosing to do evil. Just because He could stop us doesn't mean He is responsible. He respects us enough as free moral agents to not take away our free will.

Read Job.

The Fall of Man affected not only us but all creation. Hence, "all creation groans". You know, you could Google these questions and find immediate answers. There are plenty of apologetics that have dealt with these quite elementary questions.

kibbeh

why would a random universe require magic? why would a deterministic one NOT require magic? what is this magic you speak of?

The Batlord

Math decides a deterministic universe. For a random universe to occur, 1 + 1 would at some point be required to equal a number other than 2. Math is easily proven. 1 + 1 = 3 is less easily proven.

And let's not bring up quantum physics, since nobody really understands it, and so it doesn't make sense to use it for an argument.

__________________

DeadChannel

That's silly. If there is no hardship in heaven, then that necessarily means that people there are unable to choose the alternative, and thus have no choice at all.

But okay, I see a workaround. God could easily just change people's psyches or whatever so that they are incapable of sin. But then, if he is able to prevent people from sinning simply by making them better people, or any other device that would retain their free will, then your appeal to free will again is moot because this inherently implies that God is capable of preventing evil without infringing upon people's free will. See what I'm saying. To simplify:

1) God is capable of preventing evil in heaven without infringing on free will.
2) By virtue of his omnipotence, he ought to also be capable of preventing evil on earth without infringing upon free will.

Thus;

3) God does not need to infringe upon free will to prevent evil
4) The problem of evil persists, and God still necessarily consents to it

So, if your argument here is correct, then your argument earlier (appeal to free will) is invalid and God is still literally Hitler.

Decisions don't happen in a vacuum. Perhaps the serpent didn't coerce eve into eating the apple, but there were certainly a set of conditions that caused her to make that choice. God would have been aware of those conditions, and still allowed them to take place. Therefore, God consented in Eve eating the apple.

But you're missing my overall point: the eve apple bit was just a rhetorical. The point is:

Why didn't God create eve in such a way that she wouldn't have eaten the apple the first place, or further:

Why did God create man in such a way that the tiniest shred of free will would result in atrocities? Why didn't he just do whatever he did to the people in heaven? And inb4 you cite The Fall of Man, I'm getting to it.

I'll make a point of it, but for now would you mind giving me the clift notes version, and how it relates to my argument?

Firstly, the Fall of Man is a silly concept even outside of the context of this debate. To wit, doesn't it really only serve to prove The Problem of Evil right? After all, why would God continue to punish us thousands (millions, depending on how literally you take the bible, and I don't get the sense that you're a six-thousand year type) of years after eve? The Fall of Man certainly isn't my fault.

But okay, the bottom line is, whatever God's rationalisation for not preventing natural disasters is, be it The Fall of Man or anything else, God would still have to not prevent natural disasters. Which, if you think about it, is pretty messed up:

Now, The Fall of Man is God's punishment for Eve eating from the tree of knowledge. As a result of the Fall of Man, "all creation groans", which, in this context, means at least partially that natural disasters happen. By virtue of his omnipotence, that's actually a whole lot like saying this:

"Because Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, God punished man with natural disasters".

Now you've got a God on your hands that not only turns a blind eye to suffering and strife, he actively participates in it. I don't think this is the logical corridor that you want to go down.

I've read a little bit from a few of the major apologists, and I've never been terribly impressed. Also, most of the objections to this issue, the problem of evil specifically, tend to be particularly bad. We're talking about Free Will right now, but you don't even want to get into stuff like "God's just testing our faith". Let's not call these issues elementary -- philosophers on both sides far smarter than us have been debating this for hundreds of years.

Oh, by the way, I totally don't want to give the impression that I'm persecuting you or anything. I just genuinely enjoy arguing with people. So yeah.

*drops mic* (love you chula)