[photon]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

Life would be devoid of free will. According to religion this life is a test. What's the point of writing a test if you know the answers?

Knowing that there is a test and that there's someone administering the test doesn't remove your free will.

What's the point of having a test at all? Especially a contrived one.

Originally Posted by arloiginla

Because your wife is a human being like you, and therefore on an equal standing.

That doesn't explain why knowing she exists leaves me with free will, while knowing God existed would remove my free will.

Originally Posted by arloiginla

My point about God is that if he was visible in a human sense all the time is that we'd be forced to acknowledge Him as our Creator and it wouldn't happen out of our free will

So? I know my parents created me, that doesn't remove my free will. It's just a fact.

Originally Posted by arloiginla

in which case we wouldn't follow out of love and faith but rather out of obligation.

Knowledge of God's existence wouldn't turn it into obligation, anymore than knowing my parents created me obligates me to follow them, or knowing Harper is the Prime Minister of my country obligates me to follow him.

You can't just say "God's a special case" without showing why God is a special case.

And I'll tell you what would obligate me.. knowledge that if I don't follow out of "love and faith" that I will be punished for eternity.

Originally Posted by arloiginla

Because when a creator creates something, it is in order to fulfill a specific purpose, one devised by the creator. If God created us, then He has a purpose in mind for us, making us accountable to Him and to that purpose.

So basically what I said then, "might makes right" which is a moral failure.

So a creator creates a human, gives it free will, and then sets up a test that they will fail (and be punished for) if they choose something other than what the creator has pre-determined. Where's the free choice again?

Originally Posted by arloiginla

Why are the conditions not met? God reveals enough of Himself to us in His creation, and hopefully in some of His people, that we will be without excuse on judgment day if we chose to refuse to acknowledge His existence.

So God doesn't reveal himself because it would violate free will, but he does reveal enough to convince some to acknowledge his existence, but that doesn't violate free will why?

Every other religion says the same thing, there's enough revelation and enough evidence to meet the salvation criteria, and I've seen nothing that gives one God any more merit than any other, so I would say no the conditions are not met.

Originally Posted by arloiginla

I'm not going to quote Scripture here as nobody will want that, but everything around us - the earth we live in - required intelligence in order to be created, just like any invention that a person makes.

Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Evidence shows us contrary. Intelligence would be able to do a MUCH better job.

Originally Posted by arloiginla

It doesn't just happen by random chance either.

No one claims it does.

Originally Posted by arloiginla

Problem is we attribute everything to "science" nowadays which was also something He created in order to understand His world better...we are going backwards and saying science is above God not vice versa.

No one attributes anything to science, science is a methodology, not a force.

Science explains how things happen. Science doesn't make the moon orbit the earth, science explains how that happens.

If science happens to explain something that was previous attributed to God, that's not science's fault. People used to think floods and lightning were divine in origin because they couldn't explain them, now we know better.

Originally Posted by arloiginla

Bottom line, it's silly to take a "God exists and we are subject to Him but I don't care, I'll do whatever I want in life." That would be an inconvenience and a problem so it's easier to say "God doesn't exist." and attribute this entire world to random chance instead. That's why I said most people don't want to be accountable to God. Just trying to explain that comment.

This is so old and tired, it's just a contrived attribution of motivation a believer will use to come up with why someone doesn't believe. It's offensive. "Non believers really do believe but they don't want to be accountable so they just say they don't believe God exists".

Are you saying you don't believe in Allah, Vishnu, and Wotan because you don't want to be subject to them and just do whatever you want in life?

And no one attributes the entire world to random chance, that's such an overt misrepresentation of the non-believer's position it's poisoning the well.

Originally Posted by arloiginla

As I explained, He's provided enough of Himself that we will be without excuse, but also little enough that we have to have a bit of faith (as tiny as a mustard seed according to the Bible) in Him. As one part says, You have seen and believed, but blessed are those who have not seen and still believe. Anyways, no more Scripture quotes from me.

You realize this amounts to tautology right? There's nothing here except that "He's provided enough because he's provided enough".

I say he hasn't provided enough, in fact he's provided nothing. I've never been provided with anything unambiguous.

And that's ignoring the moral bankruptcy of the whole situation in the first place. In a multiple choice test, I have options A, B, and C, but if I choose anything other than B it's eternal punishment. Feel free to choose whatever you want.

That's not free will, that's coercion. That's like me going up to the girl I like and asking her to love me, she can if she wants, but if she doesn't I'll chain her in the basement.