Mr_Anony:
what posts? were you referring to me?

Read Page 6

If this is the post u were referring to.........

mkmyers45:

Like when people decide to build a skyscraper to reach God eh? Indeed being like God brings desire for dominance and total power no?

God doesn't desire to have total power. He has it already.

The bible is indeed God's word no? So even the emergence of Satan is not a mistake? So even the ultimate wager between God and the devil for who gets more souls should not be counted as a mistake but as what? Indeed severally Human words have been used to rightly describe God's nature... Jealousy,Anger,Repentance etc etc

God and the devil are not in some kind of soul-winning competition. The devil is a sinner much like man is.

If determinism is true, then we have no control over the events of the past that determined our present state and no control over the laws of nature. Since we can have no control over these matters, we also can have no control over the consequences of them. Since our present choices and acts, under determinism, are the necessary consequences of the past and the laws of nature, then we have no control over them and, hence, no free will. This is called the consequence argument.

I think I have dealt with this already, about how choice is free.

wiegraf:
Maybe, but there isn't any evidence of some omnixxx around. There's just copious evil, much more than necessary to justify any conceivable motive that isn't nefarious.

Maybe there isn't any evil at all just events happening

Like you've said, there are other ways a God, or even mere mortals, could have gone about solving the issue ie. assuming they could see the future (besides I thought God doesn't interfere with their choice making, yet he has a problem with their future choices and interferes by having them killed off?). And I'm not talking about simple bullet to the head deaths, I'm talking about horrible, serial killer type deaths (indeed worse than many a serial killer deaths).

You missed the point of the analogy. The point was to show you that from your vantage point, you cannot make the call on what the best solution is.

In nature for instance, you have viruses that eat other life from the inside out over a period of weeks (I think, not too sure of the duration). Or the infamous fungi that turn ants into zombies, reanimating dead ants after they've eaten some of their organs, killing them in the process, and then using their bodies to move around.

And what is evil about and organism consuming another organism?

The levels of natural evil available are far more than what would be sufficient to achieve some 'good' aim down the road. Why should the investigator assume a 'good' motive? There's absolutely no reason to other than naiveté. Said investigator would be deemed as highly incompetent by any rational being judging him.

If the examples you gave as evil are anything to go by then you don't have a good definition of evil. Evil is not automatically the same as suffering. When you kill a goat to make stew, it is just as evil as a virus eating you from the inside out. It is just one organism consuming another.

If he knew what was going on, not to mention what would happen in the future, had unlimited resources to aid, had a 'good' purpose and was by nature averse to suffering, then like you've already stated there very likely would be other less evil ways to achieve this greater good.

like I said, evil does not equal suffering. You are not asking for God, you are asking for a genie to take your pain away and make you feel better.

Bonus: Your reply to my point about omniscience, you might as well just have said whargarrble. You basically just asked me to accept his claims, which he didn't even make to me himself nor did he supply any good evidence of having made said claim, on faith. Like I already said, there's no way he could know for sure, unless logic does not apply to him. You think a supposedly wise being would not be able to see my point? Even if God himself showed up and told me personally he was omniscient I'd tell him he was being disingenuous.

Lol, the meaning of omniscient is that God knows everything and his knowledge is limitless. If this is true, then your question is invalid. You can only rightfully ask that question if you claim that God is not omniscient. Then that means that you too will also be asking me to accept you claims based on blind faith.

I'm not sure what your free-choice entails, but you also state that ultimately man is not in control of his destiny, yet he has free-choice. He isn't in charge, yet he has free-choice? And God still judges him for his perceived failures. (Sometimes for things like eating shellfish or pig, or working on sabbath, but that's another issue). As for your computer analogy, trust me, any programmer would accept that his AI's flaws are his own. He would set about making a better program if he cared (even the architect in the matrix did so). That's simply not how programming works, formulas determine their actions, formulas coded by the programmer. He would accept his code is flawed.

My point simply is this, your choices are free and yours to make. The consequences are beyond your control because other people are equally making choices. You cannot eat your cake and have it my friend, the universe doesn't revolve around you, you know.

As for the programmer, the only way the flaws of the AI are his own is if he takes away their freedom to choose and personally makes every choice for them.

Omnipotent, everything about him is true, yet there is false in this universe. Who is responsible for false then? Not God?

More bonuses maybe but enough for now, I suppose

Lol, it is interesting how when people want to disprove God, they resort to logical nonsense. Truth and false are not objects or actions that one can be responsible for, they are attributes of being. One is a deviation from the other.

Mr_Anony:
Maybe there isn't any evil at all just events happening


You missed the point of the analogy. The point was to show you that from your vantage point, you cannot make the call on what the best solution is.


And what is evil about and organism consuming another organism?


If the examples you gave as evil are anything to go by then you don't have a good definition of evil. Evil is not automatically the same as suffering. When you kill a goat to make stew, it is just as evil as a virus eating you from the inside out. It is just one organism consuming another.


like I said, evil does not equal suffering. You are not asking for God, you are asking for a genie to take your pain away and make you feel better.

Lol, the meaning of omniscient is that God knows everything and his knowledge is limitless. If this is true, then your question is invalid. You can only rightfully ask that question if you claim that God is not omniscient. Then that means that you too will also be asking me to accept you claims based on blind faith.


My point simply is this, your choices are free and yours to make. The consequences are beyond your control because other people are equally making choices. You cannot eat your cake and have it my friend, the universe doesn't revolve around you, you know.

As for the programmer, the only way the flaws of the AI are his own is if he takes away their freedom to choose and personally makes every choice for them.


Lol, it is interesting how when people want to disprove God, they resort to logical nonsense. Truth and false are not objects or actions that one can be responsible for, they are attributes of being. One is a deviation from the other.

This is insufficient
You accepted the focus on natural evil, which is simply suffering to life. You are now switching positions, making statements like 'Maybe there isn't any evil at all just events happening'. Frankly, the post is not even worthy of my (or anyone else's for that matter) full attention. After days of deliberation, this is the best you can come up with?
I am disappoint.

Yield good ser, yield

wiegraf:

This is insufficient
You accepted the focus on natural evil, which is simply suffering to life. You are now switching positions, making statements like 'Maybe there isn't any evil at all just events happening'. Frankly, the post is not even worthy of my (or anyone else's for that matter) full attention. After days of deliberation, this is the best you can come up with?
I am disappoint.

Yield good ser, yield

No my friend, it was not days of deliberation I just didn't want to tackle a long post at the time but that's by the way.

The response I gave you is one that follows from your response. Remember we started about natural evils and not moral evils but you are making a moral judgment when you ascribe personality to an ant and how an ant suffers when it is being eaten by fungi. My point is this; If you describe that as evil, then all existence might as well be evil because organisms must feed.

This is all you've done so far in your attempt to disprove God: "I don't like X, therefore God must also not like X and because God is able to stop X and doesn't stop it, God must not exist"

News Flash: God's purpose is not to pander to your whims. That is the job of a genie. Also, God doesn't have to answer to you by explaining all His purposes in detail to you.

I have told you from the start that God is all-loving and love means that some suffering can be allowed to happen. The divide between you and I is that while I am describing God as I know Him, you are describing an omniscient genie. The problem is that you are then turning around to make it sound as if my God is the same as your genie.

I accepted the challenge based on natural evils where man suffers and doesn't understand why He suffers. He can't blame any other conscious being other than nature for his suffering. For instance, a volcano erupts and destroys a whole village and stuff like that and we wonder why this happens.

(It is a tough question as you can see I am not making it any easier for myself because I really want to tackle it. However what I will not entertain is unreasonable arguments like when you start humanizing animals just to call evil upon their "misfortunes", or illogical arguments like suggesting that a being who knows everything cannot know that their is another being that knows more)


I will not yield yet until I am sure I can't give a suitable answer. lol

^^^ Lovely

Mr_Anony:
No my friend, it was not days of deliberation I just didn't want to tackle a long post at the time but that's by the way.

The response I gave you is one that follows from your response. Remember we started about natural evils and not moral evils but you are making a moral judgment when you ascribe personality to an ant and how an ant suffers when it is being eaten by fungi. My point is this; If you describe that as evil, then all existence might as well be evil because organisms must feed.

This is all you've done so far in your attempt to disprove God: "I don't like X, therefore God must also not like X and because God is able to stop X and doesn't stop it, God must not exist"

News Flash: God's purpose is not to pander to your whims. That is the job of a genie. Also, God doesn't have to answer to you by explaining all His purposes in detail to you.

I have told you from the start that God is all-loving and love means that some suffering can be allowed to happen. The divide between you and I is that while I am describing God as I know Him, you are describing an omniscient genie. The problem is that you are then turning around to make it sound as if my God is the same as your genie.

I accepted the challenge based on natural evils where man suffers and doesn't understand why He suffers. He can't blame any other conscious being other than nature for his suffering. For instance, a volcano erupts and destroys a whole village and stuff like that and we wonder why this happens.

(It is a tough question as you can see I am not making it any easier for myself because I really want to tackle it. However what I will not entertain is unreasonable arguments like when you start humanizing animals just to call evil upon their "misfortunes", or illogical arguments like suggesting that a being who knows everything cannot know that their is another being that knows more)


I will not yield yet until I am sure I can't give a suitable answer. lol

Yield, you change mouth for middle of talk after you couldn't figure a way to wiggle out of it. Since you think the universe revolves around us, do not forget, natural evil applies very much to us as well, and you know this.
I'll make this easy for you, just say "the problem of evil puts a bucketload of doubt on the existence on a good god, specifically, one concerned with suffering, but I prefer my fairytales because they make me feel warm, special and fuzzy". That's respectable enough. Don't let @ihes fan-girling deceive you, your case is terribly weak. I don't want this to drag longer than it need be.
Yield, good ser

Double post

mkmyers45: then who created evil? lucifer?

sorry im some page late on this, God created everything, but not evil, many have wondered if God created everything then evil must be part of everything, well evil is that a thing, evil is not a substance, instead evil is the absence of Good. Lucifer decided to remove himself from that which is Good (GOD) That absence of Good is called evij.

wiegraf:

Yield, you change mouth for middle of talk after you couldn't figure a way to wiggle out of it. Since you think the universe revolves around us, do not forget, natural evil applies very much to us as well, and you know this.

No I don't hold that the universe revolves around us what I am saying is that animals do not suffer in the way we do. They do not ask existential questions or seek for meaning, they just try to survive. (for an animal, survive=good, perish=bad) Therefore since animals don't have a concept of good and evil as we do, it will be inappropriate to make moral judgments about animal activities not to talk of very low level organisms such as fungi and ants.

I'll make this easy for you, just say "the problem of evil puts a bucketload of doubt on the existence on a good god, specifically, one concerned with suffering, but I prefer my fairytales because they make me feel warm, special and fuzzy". That's respectable enough. Don't let @ihes fan-girling deceive you, your case is terribly weak. I don't want this to drag longer than it need be.
Yield, good ser

bollocks!
I have given you an explanation based on God as I know Him. God is not a genie. His job is not to fulfill your every wish just how you want it.






Lol, was that what you were hoping I'd say? poor you, you are yet to even present the problem properly. You are at best projecting an image you think to be God and attacking that image.

Mr_Anony:
No I don't hold that the universe revolves around us what I am saying is that animals do not suffer in the way we do. They do not ask existential questions or seek for meaning, they just try to survive. (for an animal, survive=good, perish=bad) Therefore since animals don't have a concept of good and evil as we do, it will be inappropriate to make moral judgments about animal activities not to talk of very low level organisms such as fungi and ants.



bollocks!
I have given you an explanation based on God as I know Him. God is not a genie. His job is not to fulfill your every wish just how you want it.






Lol, was that what you were hoping I'd say? poor you, you are yet to even present the problem properly. You are at best projecting an image you think to be God and attacking that image.

So say you. Even if we were the centre of the show (with a gzillion stars made just for us) you ignored human/sentient suffering as well, rather conveniently. I can't read the last ~3 posts from you as they are particularly sad. From what I can tell, if the word 'religion' were not attached to those posts you'd likely be in an asylum. Worry not, as it's attached to 'religion' you're doing fairly well when compared to others. You stop avoiding the issue, blatantly denying the nature of the crimes, then we can talk.
Troll

wiegraf:

Yield, you change mouth for middle of talk after you couldn't figure a way to wiggle out of it. Since you think the universe revolves around us, do not forget, natural evil applies very much to us as well, and you know this.
I'll make this easy for you, just say "the problem of evil puts a bucketload of doubt on the existence on a good god, specifically, one concerned with suffering, but I prefer my fairytales because they make me feel warm, special and fuzzy". That's respectable enough. Don't let @ihes fan-girling deceive you, your case is terribly weak. I don't want this to drag longer than it need be.
Yield, good ser

Lol.... You seriously aren't trying to blame me for the scalds and burns you're getting for walking into a geyser, are you?

wiegraf:

So say you. Even if we were the centre of the show (with a gzillion stars made just for us) you ignored human/sentient suffering as well, rather conveniently. I can't read the last ~3 posts from you as they are particularly sad. From what I can tell, if the word 'religion' were not attached to those posts you'd likely be in an asylum. Worry not, as it's attached to 'religion' you're doing fairly well when compared to others. You stop avoiding the issue, blatantly denying the nature of the crimes, then we can talk.
Troll

Lol, wow, so we have now come to the point in our debate where you have resorted to snide remarks and name-calling........Why didn't I get the memo?
Oh well, too bad

Mr_Anony:
I have told you from the start that God is all-loving and love means that some suffering can be allowed to happen. The divide between you and I is that while I am describing God as I know Him, you are describing an omniscient genie. The problem is that you are then turning around to make it sound as if my God is the same as your genie.

How is your god all loving?. . .Will you as a loving parent allow a stary bullet to hit your child and make him paralyse for the rest of his life if you have the ability to stop it?. . .

Mr_Anony:
Lol, wow, so we have now come to the point in our debate where you have resorted to snide remarks and name-calling........Why didn't I get the memo?
Oh well, too bad

I confuse. Snide remarks and name calling?
Hahahaha

@Anony, where did you go? Back to work?
Come back, I'll be nicer. I'll even make cabin shakes
In my defense, those were really pis.s poor posts.

We've already decided on the nature of evil we are using, stop trying to wriggle out of it, it's a bit dishonest and there's no need to repeat ourselves. If it's harmful to life, especially without any mitigating good, it's evil (biological agent or not). In essence suffering = evil, for any kind of life, though you seem to conveniently not focus on sentient life.

So, let's go to our case. There is no proof of an omnixxx being existing, non whatsoever. For the investigator to factor that into his investigation is absurdly silly. This is simple. He arrives at a crime scene, sees a lot of gratuitous evil, does he assume he is on the trail of a sociopath or does he assume some genius all-gooder is trying to achieve some greater good?
Pick either sociopath or all-gooder.
After that, add any mental gymnastics you might require to deal with the cognitive dissonance.

Random: Me, earlier:
"If he knew what was going on, not to mention what would happen in the future, had unlimited resources to aid, had a 'good' purpose and was by nature averse to suffering, then like you've already stated there very likely would be other less evil ways to achieve this greater good."

You earlier:
"Now let us say somehow that you somehow came upon some super magical powers to see the future that those 3 young men were indeed Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong and because of their deaths, the lives of some 81 million people have been spared. You'll immediately be thanking the "raving sociopath" who was so good and had the foresight to kill these animals before they came to power.

Now this is not to mean that God cannot fix things some other "better" way. It means that since you can't see the big picture, you are not in the position to make the call. The point I am trying to make here is that for you to truly tell what is good and what is evil, you have to view events from a transcendent vantage point. "

Note the bolded. How you can say ""I don't like X, therefore God must also not like X and because God is able to stop X and doesn't stop it, God must not exist" " with a straight face is beyond me. (Note, I have not said it must not exist, I have said it is extremely unlikely it does exist if it is all omnixxxx, as it's very likely that there would have been less evil ways to achieve this greater good, even you acknowledge that. If this is the least evil option available then he should get off his behind and explain himself clearly, or he can go f himself). I am saying there is copious, superfluous evil in this universe, much more than necessary to achieve any good we can conceive, yet you expect me (or any other rational person) to believe that an omnixxx has some 'good' purpose to all of this. Various religions try to sell suffering like it's some sort of virtue, it's not. Countries like Norway top the HDI and there's little suffering there (at least when compared to our illustrious nation). They still contribute vastly to society, in fact they usually feed us pious, suffering nations. They set about making the world better for everyone, others set about suffering and preparing/waiting for the rapture.

Let's ignore just how much wharrgarbl is available in the 'bonus' section for now. You keep on making arguments based on the assumption that I accept, or that there is, a god. There's no evidence to support this, non whatsoever, I could only accept that on ....faith.
I vote we have Leto Atreides from dune as our new god. What say you?

Why are we dancing around in circles over this? Let's have a recap shall we?

The problem you posed is
Premise 1: if God is omnipotent and omniscient then He is able to prevent all suffering.
Premise 2: If God is omnibenevolent, then He does not like suffering and will want to do anything to stop it.
Conclusion: Suffering exists, therefore it is either God does not hate suffering or God can't stop it even if He wanted to.

(Note that your argument does not question God's existence, rather it questions God's abilities and God's kindness)

My response to you is
Premise 1: God is omnipotent and omniscient therefore He is able to prevent suffering.
Premise 2: God is not omnibenevolent rather He is All-loving. Love allows some suffering if it achieves a greater purpose.
Conclusion: Suffering exists but since we know God is omniscient and omnipotent and all-loving, He knows the purpose of our suffering and we can trust God to do what is best.

Satisfied?

@Mr_Anony: See this post in the link below (the one in quote) and tell me what you think.

https://www.nairaland.com/52324/beautiful-analogy-atheist/2#12122015

Mr_Anony: Why are we dancing around in circles over this? Let's have a recap shall we?

The problem you posed is
Premise 1: if God is omnipotent and omniscient then He is able to prevent all suffering.
Premise 2: If God is omnibenevolent, then He does not like suffering and will want to do anything to stop it.
Conclusion: Suffering exists, therefore it is either God does not hate suffering or God can't stop it even if He wanted to.

(Note that your argument does not question God's existence, rather it questions God's abilities and God's kindness)

My response to you is
Premise 1: God is omnipotent and omniscient therefore He is able to prevent suffering.
Premise 2: God is not omnibenevolent rather He is All-loving. Love allows some suffering if it achieves a greater purpose.
Conclusion: Suffering exists but since we know God is omniscient and omnipotent and all-loving, He knows the purpose of our suffering and we can trust God to do what is best.

Satisfied?

Not quite, close but no. Do you accept that the odds of there being an all-xx.xx god are astronomically low?

There's a video that is disturbing. Serial killers doing their thing, have you seen it? If not, perhaps you'd like a demonstration of just what evil is (natural evil, up there, moral evil, in most cultures it's off the charts), and why it's extremely unlikely/difficult to accept god can do something, but chooses not to.
http://www.bestgore.com/murder/dnepropetrovsk-maniacs-murder-guy-hammer-screwdriver-real-snuff-video/#
Now, if you have a weak stomach, or are simply squeamish, I cannot warn you enough, do not watch this video. Maybe just read the description on the page.
Do not watch the video if squeamish etc. You have been warned
But if you assert an all-xx.xx or an omnixxx being exists please watch it, try and make it to the end (~8 mins), then explain to me what a supposedly all-xx.xx was doing at the time. Note that this kind of stuff happens, via biological agents or not, to life all the time.
So basically, following your descriptions, allowing for free will (until neuroscience comes and eliminates that concept as well), you still accept he's all-good on faith as there very likely would be alternative, less evil ways to achieve his goals. There are very low odds of him being all-good, yes or no?

wiegraf:

Not quite, close but no. Do you accept that the odds of there being an all-xx.xx god are astronomically low?

There's a video that is disturbing. Serial killers doing their thing, have you seen it? If not, perhaps you'd like a demonstration of just what evil is (natural evil, up there, moral evil, in most cultures it's off the charts), and why it's extremely unlikely/difficult to accept god can do something, but chooses not to.
http://www.bestgore.com/murder/dnepropetrovsk-maniacs-murder-guy-hammer-screwdriver-real-snuff-video/#
Now, if you have a weak stomach, or are simply squeamish, I cannot warn you enough, do not watch this video. Maybe just read the description on the page.
Do not watch the video if squeamish etc. You have been warned
But if you assert an all-xx.xx or an omnixxx being exists please watch it, try and make it to the end (~8 mins), then explain to me what a supposedly all-xx.xx was doing at the time. Note that this kind of stuff happens, via biological agents or not, to life all the time.
So basically, following your descriptions, allowing for free will (until neuroscience comes and eliminates that concept as well), you still accept he's all-good on faith as there very likely would be alternative, less evil ways to achieve his goals. There are very low odds of him being all-good, yes or no?

Actually, I didn't watch it. I didn't have to. You are only appealing to the emotions here. your case does not do anything to refute my argument in any way.

Note, I am not underplaying the severity of the crime or trying to airbrush the horror of it in any way. I am only saying that nothing about it proves that God does not exist or that He is not all-loving. On the contrary, the presence of evil i.e. the fact that we see it and recognize it as evil - is more reason why God must exist and why God is all-good.

Purist: @Mr_Anony: See this post in the link below (the one in quote) and tell me what you think.

https://www.nairaland.com/52324/beautiful-analogy-atheist/2#12122015

I saw the link and the post by nferyn, his logic follows even though he has made some wrong assumptions. What do I think? Same thing I think now. Please read my response to wiegraf again

Mr_Anony:
Actually, I didn't watch it. I didn't have to. You are only appealing to the emotions here. your case does not do anything to refute my argument in any way.

Note, I am not underplaying the severity of the crime or trying to airbrush the horror of it in any way. I am only saying that nothing about it proves that God does not exist or that He is not all-loving. On the contrary, the presence of evil i.e. the fact that we see it and recognize it as evil - is more reason why God must exist and why God is all-good.

Explain the bold if you will. I can't see it at all. And note, evil exists even without intelligent life to judge it. Roughly, unnecessary suffering = evil, for all life. But we can ignore that for now and perhaps you can tell me how you translate "evil = God exists", an all-x.xx.x god ie.

wiegraf:

Explain the bold if you will. I can't see it at all. And note, evil exists even without intelligent life to judge it. Roughly, unnecessary suffering = evil, for all life. But we can ignore that for now and perhaps you can tell me how you translate "evil = God exists", an all-x.xx.x god ie.

I was about to start explaining when I noticed you said:

"evil exists even without intelligent life to judge it. Roughly, unnecessary suffering = evil, for all life"

Now, how do you know this? If there is no intelligence to judge it, how can we describe an event as evil? without intelligent life, how can we know that there is suffering or that the suffering is "unnecessary"? i.e how is it possible for an unintelligent/unconscious being to suffer?

The explanation I was going to give you was one that deals with our intelligence and consciousness but since you have said suffering can exist even if there was no life to discern it, I would like to ask how you know this.

Mr_Anony:
I was about to start explaining when I noticed you said:

Now, how do you know this? If there is no intelligence to judge it, how can we describe an event as evil? without intelligent life, how can we know that there is suffering or that the suffering is "unnecessary"? i.e how is it possible for an unintelligent/unconscious being to suffer?

The explanation I was going to give you was one that deals with our intelligence and consciousness but since you have said suffering can exist even if there was no life to discern it, I would like to ask how you know this.

Other animals suffer too. They can't sit and think about it doesn't mean it's not evil, it's unnecessary pain, or hunger etc. I'd argue that great apes, dogs and some others can be traumatized as well. Natural evil applies to all life.

EDIT:Note I am stressing superflous suffering, the point had already been made, and there is absolutely no conceivable goal one of us could think of for elongating the suffering. I think though an all-powerful being should be able extend it to all suffering, but we can ignore that as well for now

wiegraf:

Other animals suffer too. They can't sit and think about it doesn't mean it's not evil, it's unnecessary pain, or hunger etc. I'd argue that great apes, dogs and some others can be traumatized as well. Natural evil applies to all life.

You have not answered my question at all. For an animal to suffer or be traumatized, it must have an intelligence so as to know that it is suffering and that it's suffering is evil.
To even ponder the necessity of it's suffering, the animal should have an even higher intelligence capable of stepping outside itself and viewing it's situation from an objective viewpoint.

You said:

"evil exists even without intelligent life to judge it. Roughly, unnecessary suffering = evil, for all life"

My question is: How do you know this to be true? You have not answered me.

EDIT:Note I am stressing superfluous suffering, the point had already been made, and there is absolutely no conceivable goal one of us could think of for elongating the suffering. I think though an all-powerful being should be able extend it to all suffering, but we can ignore that as well for now

Here again, you talk about the necessity of elongated suffering and how we can't think of any conceivable goal for it. I hope you do realize that these things require that an intelligence exists.....or how else can an event be conceived as evil if there is no intelligence to conceive it?

Secondly: If the premises that God is omniscient and omnipotent are true and God can permit suffering, then it doesn't matter how long the suffering lasts or how intense it is as only an omniscient being can rightfully tell exactly how much suffering is necessary.

Note: I am not trying to trivialize suffering at all. I have suffered myself and asked God questions in my desperate moments, but I am not going to use my emotions as basis for a logical argument.

Purist:

Interesting examples you have there. Anyways, none of you has yet been able to demonstrate the freewill offered by a [size=15pt]God who condemns you if you don't serve him. [/size] The "freewill" to choose otherwise? lol. The only "choice" I see here is the same offered by the tyrannical Head of State who allows his people freedom of speech, but then goes ahead to lock them up when they say something he doesn't like. The people have a "choice" too, apparently. If you want to roll with the president, you must be his kind of guy (say only what he wants to hear). After all, he's the boss.

If that's your definition of freewill, then I accept: God gave us "freewill" indeed.

You just dont get it, or do you?
If the life you live was not authored by you but rather was created by God then you owe him your very life, or dont u think so? Even though u deny it it does'nt realy change the fact that you're God's product, can a clay dictate to it's potter/maker how to mold it? No of course, it's the will of the potter to mold his clay as he deem fit. Is'nt it?

God made man in his own image and gave man freedom to live freely like god on earth over every living thing (Dont you yet understand?) that God wanted a replica of himself to rule the earth, he was'nt looking for a slave to impose his will on else he would'nt have given man free will.
you need to understand that God the creator is a God of creativity, he delight in doing this, but remember the free will he gave to man makes man a responsible being else we would have been like animals who cannot be held responsible for their actions cause they know little to nothing cos they were'nt given free will, they only live as nature dictates for them.
But for man, God did not just gave him free will but he also gave him a law to keep man under check else we all know man would have gone beyond boundries, so God gave man laws of do and donts to keep man under check, those laws were plain so man had the choice to either obey or disobey God's command, the consequencies of man's actions are being meted out clearly so he has no excuse for choosing to disobey.

[size=15pt]No wonder the bible says where there is no law the people are not held accountable for sin - Romans 5:13 [/size]
But that's not the case, cos God gave man this laws, do you wanna know why God gave man this free will and a law?

I'll tell you here, though it's a mystery but i'm allowed to unvail it, cos just like the story of Job, God wanted to prove an everlasting point to whole of creation both spirits and the living, both angels and demons, both principalities and powers and rulers of this dark age, both all living in the heavenlies and the inhabitants of hell that [size=15pt] Man despite being given freewill and laws even without seeing this God can still chose to believe, obey and trust this unseen God and even love him and because of that love chose to stay away from anything that would go against his laws, meaning man can still use his free will for God's purpose and benefit believing they owe their very life to him and remain loyal to him without him God influencing their actions.

So it's just like the whole of creation are watching us act, no wonder the bible says we are daily watched by a great cloud of witness - Hebrew 12:1 [/size]
So is it wrong for God to boast about his own creation as he did in the days of Job?
He gave man freewill and sits back to watch those who would freely chose to obey him and those who would disobey - without the influence of both God and the devil.
So it's your choice either to follow God all the way or use that same life given to you by God to glorify God's adversery (satan) each of this choices have eternal consequences and they are not hidden but made plain by God in his written word - The Bible.

Nough said already. God bless!

^^^
What is simply the use of freewill IF there are restrictions, if there are orders to be obeyed, with freedom comes zero responsibility.

Kay 17: ^^^
What is simply the use of freewill IF there are restrictions, if there are orders to be obeyed, with freedom comes zero responsibility.

there is a difference between freedom and anarchy

Mr_Anony:
You have not answered my question at all. For an animal to suffer or be traumatized, it must have an intelligence so as to know that it is suffering and that it's suffering is evil.
To even ponder the necessity of it's suffering, the animal should have an even higher intelligence capable of stepping outside itself and viewing it's situation from an objective viewpoint.

You said:

My question is: How do you know this to be true? You have not answered me.


Here again, you talk about the necessity of elongated suffering and how we can't think of any conceivable goal for it. I hope you do realize that these things require that an intelligence exists.....or how else can an event be conceived as evil if there is no intelligence to conceive it?

Secondly: If the premises that God is omniscient and omnipotent are true and God can permit suffering, then it doesn't matter how long the suffering lasts or how intense it is as only an omniscient being can rightfully tell exactly how much suffering is necessary.

Note: I am not trying to trivialize suffering at all. I have suffered myself and asked God questions in my desperate moments, but I am not going to use my emotions as basis for a logical argument.

Even if its a baby suffering needlessly and its unaware of it, its still an evil.

For a perfect benevolent creator, evil is not possible.

Kay 17:

Even if its a baby suffering needlessly and its unaware of it, its still an evil.

For a perfect benevolent creator, evil is not possible.

First of all, there is a difference between the quality of being benevolent and and the quality of being loving (this much I have explained to wiegraf).

As for the baby; If the baby is unaware of it's "suffering", it takes another intelligence observing the event to judge it evil.

A suffering baby is a manifestation only IF there is an observer?!

Kay 17: A suffering baby is a manifestation only IF there is an observer?!

what is a manifestation if there is nothing it is manifest to?