Why Did God Have to Make Evil?

[Davin]

OK, but then I have to change my initial assumption about your intelligence/education. In context my use of "accept" was common and correct.

You gave two options, I was seeing whether you considered there to be more options than the ones you provided, to which you replied with a bold statement without any qualifiers as an answer to what one accepts. Which brings us to this ad hominem. I wasn't talking about your use of accept I was talking about your answer to my question:

And what if one accepts neither?

Then we have free will.

Maybe you'd like to add some qualifiers, but as it stands: you said we have free will on the condition that one accepts neither of the two options you provided.

[Voter]

You gave two options, I was seeing whether you considered there to be more options than the ones you provided,

TROLL

[Voter]

So... wait- what? How does this justify allowing evil exist if he knows how you would act under every hypothetical circumstance?

Just as I said - if God knows you would have sinned even without his omniscience, then the omniscience precludes free will argument is rendered moot.

That means this life isn't a test. He can virtually simulate it in his mind and, according  to you, cast fair judgement in doing so.

Yes, that follows from omniscience as you guys have defined it.

[Voter]

Satan/Lucifer, a finite being with finite power, is going against an infinite omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent (depending of who you ask) with infinite power. Satan also knows his future, which doesn't bode well for him, and yet he continues to do this. If he truly has free will, then he is the stupidest character in literature I have ever seen.

Satan obviously doesn't believe all the facts you list. How can you not see this... :brick:  :bananacolor:

...Uh, yes, he does, according to the Bible.

Sounds interesting, let's see the passage(s).

[Voter]

Ahh yes, cherry picking websites that don't fully define what information is..

Going to a standard dictionary and choosing the first definitions that fit the context is not cherry picking. As to the rest of your post, tl;dr.

[Voter]

The thread degenerates to Omniscience and free will. I have shown Biblical evidence (and evidence from several of the greatest Biblical philosophers) that God is omniscient and we have no free will. The theists here have not shown why God is omniscient AND we have free will (or that God is not omniscient) to any satisfaction.

I'm feeling pretty satisfied. AD seems satisfied.

[TheJackel]

So... wait- what? How does this justify allowing evil exist if he knows how you would act under every hypothetical circumstance?

Just as I said - if God knows you would have sinned even without his omniscience, then the omniscience precludes free will argument is rendered moot.

That means this life isn't a test. He can virtually simulate it in his mind and, according  to you, cast fair judgement in doing so.

Yes, that follows from omniscience as you guys have defined it.

The definition of Omniscience is quite clear Voter, either you abide by it, or you can not use it. We have shown that Omni-powers are logical fallacies, and that is all that really matters here. If you still want to believe that some magical entity in the sky knows and watches your every thought and action, that's up to you. however, GODS are still purely concepts of opinion Voter, even if some entity were to exist that is more powerful or intelligent than man. And free will argument isn't moot Voter, free will is actually a logical fallacy because you don't have free will over every aspect of your existence in relation to existence itself. There is no free will to not die, as one example of countless of others. Freedom to choose and do is finite at best. To really be free and a free agent voter, it would have to be without bounds or limits. And we all know that is impossible!

I'm feeling pretty satisfied. AD seems satisfied.

With all that circular fallacious logic, I can imagine any theist feeling satisfied.. Not once have you actually confronted any of the arguments here without running around in ignorant intentional circles that fail entirely to actually apply and acknowledge even the definition of Omniscience, much less contradictions, or concepts of information.

[TheJackel]

Ahh yes, cherry picking websites that don't fully define what information is..

Going to a standard dictionary and choosing the first definitions that fit the context is not cherry picking. As to the rest of your post, tl;dr.

Incorrect... I corrected your use of the standard dictionary LOL. The rest of my post is hardly Tl.. But DR is like the case with just about every post you can't handle here in this discussion. That's typical intentional laziness, if not a means to keep ones fingers in their ears.  It's not our problem that you intentional play games of ignorance. If you have to lie to yourself to keep yourself happy Voter, so be it. :blink:   In fact is makes you out to be something very similar to this:




BTW, FAIL! (in regards to having to use information (matter, energy, material physicality)(again for constructive purposes only)

I would also love to see you make a choice without information to be weighed and chosen from.

[LegendarySandwich]

Sounds interesting, let's see the passage(s).

This one, for starters. He knows his time is short.

[Davin]

You gave two options, I was seeing whether you considered there to be more options than the ones you provided,

TROLL

I see, so your definition of a troll is someone who asks for clarification of your position?

[LegendarySandwich]

You gave two options, I was seeing whether you considered there to be more options than the ones you provided,

TROLL

I see, so your definition of a troll is someone who asks for clarification of your position?

I think Voter might have come from the Evolution Fairytale Forum.

[TheJackel]

I think Voter might have come from the Evolution Fairytale Forum.

That's possible, but what makes you think that  

[Voter]

You gave two options, I was seeing whether you considered there to be more options than the ones you provided,

TROLL

I see, so your definition of a troll is someone who asks for clarification of your position?

No, my (rather a) definition of troll in this case is someone who doesn't follow the thread and then asks stupid questions. Those two points were repeats, and were two of a number of independent arguments previously submitted but which had not been addressed by the opposition.

ETA: Look three or so posts down for a repeat of the original. Your position that the two I later posted were, in my view, the only options is shown to be incorrect.

[Voter]

Sounds interesting, let's see the passage(s).

This one, for starters. He knows his time is short.

Sure, at that late point. I meant that he probably doesn't believe it now. Yes, obviously when he's finally beaten he's going to believe it.

[Voter]

Incorrect... I corrected your use of the standard dictionary LOL.

No, you have proposed a different usage from the standard dictionary definition.

Heck, anyone can win any argument if they give themselves sole authority to define the terms. I'm not giving you that. Without unorthodox definitions, you have nothing.