proselytizing the action of attempting to convert someone from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
So when people on these forums and elsewhere make such statements concerning not believing or accepting "the science", they are proselytizing, and threatening.
That is totally incorrect. When I say I do not believe or accept anything at all, I make no statement whatever about what you should think. I don't happen to think that there are women 50 feet tall. I don't tell you whether you should think so or not.
Even when I say I don't think that the Bible is history -- and present perfectly good evidence from within it for why I do not think so, I do not say anything about what you should think.
But you did. We are social animals, we rely on our relationships with others for our very survival as a species, and yet you were so bold as to say "I do not excuse you for not getting to know." The meaning of this is very clear, you know, and I think it crosses the line.
Fortunately for you, I don't need to report it. I'm not interested in what you may or may not excuse me for.
Why would that be relevant? It was about whether God could have made it so lifeforms didn't eat each other, and according to revelation that is possible because there will be no suffering and everyone will live happy together.
It's relevant because God did create animals not to eat each other. It's in the Genesis account.
So pointing out Revelation is pointing out what God has promised to do in restoring his original design.
So once again you've got me confused about what point you are arguing.
Yes I fully understood that, and I completely disagree. If a child molester ask me, if its ok that he molest that child over there and if im going to interfere or try to stop him, and I answer him. "Not worries, Im going to allow you to molest the child, what do I care" then I find that to be highly immoral and evil of me.
Equally when God allows it, I think he is just as evil as I would be. The difference is that he have no excuse at all compared to a human, because of the traits people have given him.
I don't care if it came from him or not!! Does he have the power to stop it and chooses not to? If that is the case, then he is an evil monster, its pretty much that simple
Are you okay?
You are focusing on God's power yes?
Is power God's only attribute? So let's say God uses his power. How does that show he is wise and just?
No this is a classic example of blaming humans for everything that is wrong. God could have created things in whatever way he wanted. He could also have made it so humans in much higher degree lived in harmony with nature, not needing to expand and subdue everything around us. Meaning he could have made human nature different than what it is.
Okay. Tell us how God "could also have made it so humans in much higher degree lived in harmony with nature, not needing to expand and subdue everything around us. Meaning he could have made human nature different than what it is."
Please don't tell me you can't because you are not omnipotent and omniscient, because you would kill off your argument one time.
Its just a random person that fell on the track, no need to assume that it is the next Hitler laying down. Just assume its a 5 year old kid, what good reason would you have to not help?
Why is the 5 year old kid any different to Hitler in this case? Are you saying you know what state the 5 year old kid is in relation to the established law?
I once saw a movie, a long long time ago, where this father was a real evil person, so some people hid his children from him, so they wouldn't also turn evil. Now it turned out that this one kid of his, the boy, is very powerful with something called the force and despite his father trying to make him evil, the son keeps trying to convince his dad to return to the good side, which he eventually does and his father, turns out to actually help his son in the end killing the really evil guy. Which then isn't really dead and it all turns a bit messy after that.
What on earth does that have to do with anything? Why would I care what happened in a movie?
It's important to use words in their correct context.
Where the believer is concerned, truth about God is not determined by a secular world view, but is determined by truth found is his word.
I would not go to a non-believer, to ask 'What is the truth about God'
I would wisely consult a source that presents information from or about God, and see if I can gain truth there.
I would ask the dentist about teeth, but I would not expect the Bible to tell me about teeth, necessarily.
Take this definition for example...
Faith - strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
That apparently has changed from something like - having a blind belief in something for which there is no evidence.
However, the believer does not accept such a secular worldview. It's not defined that way in the Bible.
So it is, in the case of the word usage omniscience.
We accept the Bible's view on God being all-knowing.
The context clearly shows that God is in control of his ability to know.
Take for example... 1 Chronicles 28:9 ; Job 34:21 ; Psalms 33:13-15 ; etc.
God searches. God looks. God seeks to know. All of these are exercises. God exercises these abilities.
If God already knew, they would be no reason to seek to know, or get to know. He would already know.
So omniscience as used regarding Jehovah God, involves selectively knowing.
If we disagree about that, that's okay. We don't have to agree, and arguing about it won't change anything.
I'm not clear on why you replied, when you didn't address anything I said in any way. Why waste time typing all that when you made no discernable point, much less a point related to anything we've talked about?
You have a decision. Either God is omniscient and omnipotent, or he's not. If he's not, then he's not necessarily responsible for evil and everything else. If he is, even if he chooses not to know some things, he's responsible for how the universe has turned out, Satan, evil and all.
That is totally incorrect. When I say I do not believe or accept anything at all, I make no statement whatever about what you should think. I don't happen to think that there are women 50 feet tall. I don't tell you whether you should think so or not.
Even when I say I don't think that the Bible is history -- and present perfectly good evidence from within it for why I do not think so, I do not say anything about what you should think.
But you did. We are social animals, we rely on our relationships with others for our very survival as a species, and yet you were so bold as to say "I do not excuse you for not getting to know." The meaning of this is very clear, you know, and I think it crosses the line.
Fortunately for you, I don't need to report it. I'm not interested in what you may or may not excuse me for.
By the premises of the PoE, God is much more capable than any human father or doctor. If he were to want the benefit without the suffering, he could make it happen.
OTOH, if God insists that humans suffer to obtain punishment, he would be immoral or sadistic like the father who refuses anaesthetic for his child's surgery.
For one thing, I don't have a beef against God.. I don't think his way of ruling is not right. I don't think I should be god and do things my own way, or what I would rather do, that may be against what God requires I do. I know that God is as described in the Bible - perfect is his activity, For all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness who is never unjust; Righteous and upright is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4)
I know he is loyal to those who show loyal love, and he blesses them. I know he cares for us, even when we don't seem to care about him. He is a dear father and friend.
People try to destroy whom they don't understand, or care about, and like Satan - the whole world reflects the spirit of selfish pride, which blind them.
In fact, the whole world lies in Satan's power, and are blinded by his things.
So God is the target of their lies.
I don't believe that deep down they don't know, but because they love the darkness, rather than the light, as Jesus said, the blindness consumes them.
I chose the light. It's bright. It exposes the things hidden in the dark, and it lights my path to a satisfying life now, and that which is to come.
For another, I understand 1he truth of the matter, and contrary to your view, God's love stands out in all of this as so abundant to be fathomed, that I can really appropriate why he hides these things from the unappreciative, ones who reject him, allowing them to be blind, and remain in darkness.
So as to let you know, I understand why you have a problem with it.
Does not your God have a heaven for those who submit and a fully equipped and serviced hell with all kinds of torture instruments for people who do not, Gehenna, Jahannam.
Errr... But this isn't where my point was directed. You're taking this down a road I'm not addressing. I'm not saying people should never have been made, I'm saying that they shouldn't have been set up to fail unless that was the intention from the very beginning.
I think a better analogy is a parent who leaves a loaded gun on the kitchen table, tells his children that he's going away for a while, and that they shouldn't play with the gun.
These kids don't know anything about guns, death, or anything bad that happens in association with such a deadly thing. The only reference for guns they have are toy guns (other fruit) they play with (eat), and nothing bad happens when they play with those toy guns (nothing bad happens when they eat other fruit in the garden). It's just some object that dad says not to touch. Now, kids being curious and not understanding any better will play with the gun like they do with any other toy gun they've played with. It's there. They've never experienced anything terrible resulting from their actions before, so why would this be any different? They have no real frame of reference; they don't understand what "bad" or "death" even is.
Not only that, but the father allowed a convicted criminal with a bone to pick against him into the house to watch the kids! This convict wants to hurt the father, and what better way to do it than by hurting his children? For whatever reason, this father allowed this criminal to interact with his kids, and ofcourse this convict tells them that this is just a toy gun that the kids could play with like they always have done. These kids don't know this guy isn't trustworthy, and what he says reflects the reality they know. Like I said, they have no real frame of reference to work with.
If this scenario happened in real life, there's no way the father wouldn't be arrested. Everything about this seems sinister. There's no way this scenario could unfold without someone getting hurt. Everything seems intentionally laid out this way. Like I said, the dominoes are set up.
I guess we can use this... with some adjustments for accuracy.
"How old are the children" would be the first question?
Let answer that.
Background
Adam was created, and instructed. The Bible says, God was creating animals and bringing them to Adam to see what he would name them.
(Genesis 2:19, 20) Jehovah God had been forming from the ground every wild animal of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and he began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one; and whatever the man would call each living creature, that became its name. So the man named all the domestic animals and the flying creatures of the heavens and every wild animal of the field, but for man there was no helper as a complement of him.
So how old would Adam be before the "girl child" arrived? Pretty old.
Experienced? Certainly.
Experienced in what? He was getting to know his father.
What did he learn? His father is generous. A loving provider - after all, Adam ate every day, and more than just once, so he must have tasted a variety of tasty foods. How does his father do it? Adam must have thought. My father sure powerful, he must have concluded.
What else did he learn? He could trust his father. A friendship was being built. God spoke to Adam daily. They talked - communicated.
What we know
Adam was fairly grown, experienced, responsible - one of those children parent leave in charge of the household, or business.
Adam and his dad had a relationship... safe to say, an understanding.
Along come baby girl. My, she must have been gorgeous - the first woman. The most beautiful woman to have ever lived.
Adan's eyes lighted up, when he thought, 'For me?' Adam broke out in poetry.
(Genesis 2:22, 23) And Jehovah God built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman, and he brought her to the man. Then the man said: “This is at last bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh. This one will be called Woman, Because from man she was taken.”
So Adam was given a gift from his dad, and he may even have felt, it was a reward.
His appreciation for his dad should have grown. Not just appreciation, trust.
Let's assume Eve is inexperienced, although that's not necessarily the case, because when the Devil confronted her, she added that not only were they not to eat from the fruit of the tree, they were not even to touch the tree. So Eve too was instructed, and had an understanding.
The father also communicated with her in Adam presence.
(Genesis 3:8, 9) 8 Later they heard the voice of Jehovah God as he was walking in the garden about the breezy part of the day, and the man and his wife hid from the face of Jehovah God among the trees of the garden. 9 And Jehovah God kept calling to the man and saying to him: “Where are you?”
Of all things to think of, why a gun. Let's use a kind of poisonous plant. cause I wont even suggest crack cocaine, or something like that, since the dad obviously is not bad.
"the father allowed a convicted criminal with a bone to pick against him into the house to watch the kids"
Don't listen to the stories. Let's use the Bible.
1) The "convicted criminal" did not exist, as the Bible does not say the angel did anything in heaven to be convicted for.
2) That angel was not the one in the garden, communicating with Adam and Eve.
3) That angel took it upon himself to leave and go where he was not sent. Job 1:6, 7 Just as his later supporters did. Genesis 6:1, 2
So, as any cunning schemer would do - target the less experienced - Eve.
Eve was deceived into thinking she was making the better choice by following someone who asked her to disobey daddy.
What child does that? I don't know of any child that would let a stranger convince them to disobey their dad, but let's assume for the sake of your scenario, that she is not mentally challenged, and she thinks that this will be better than anything her dad gives her.
She takes it, and invites Adam to go along with her.
Adam is not inexperienced. Adam is the responsibility child - the "man" of the house. He knows better.
According to the Bible, Adam knows what he is doing, when he chooses to abandon his dad / be disloyal to his dad / rebel along with a stranger, against his dad.
Adam takes the plant, and deliberate eats..
(1 Timothy 2:14) . . .Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and became a transgressor.
They eat and the poison starts to work. They will die slowly.
Is it a bad thing that Adam and Eve died?
Let's see.
(Genesis 2:16, 17) Jehovah God also gave this command to the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.”
(Genesis 3:2, 3) At this the woman said to the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.’. . .
They both knew and understood the consequences of disobeying their father.
Perhaps Eve believed the stranger's lie, and thought she would cheat death somehow, but she was wrong.
Was God unfair? He would be, if justice was not served. Worst, he would be the real liar, if they did not die.
Did God kill his children unnecessarily. In other words, should he have not put the tree there, and just let them live without caring if they acknowledged him, or cared about him?
Should he have just given them the tree of life, so that they could live forever, even if they did not care about him or what he thought?
In other words should God have created man, put him on earth. given him eternal life, and man not have to listen to him instruct them how to live, nor acknowledge him at all - just live however they want?
What do you think?
I see something worst than what we see today.
Remember, man is living forever, with no guidance, only each person's view, whether it be a selfish one, or greedy, or whatever.
What do you see?
The Bible says this...
(Jeremiah 10:23) . . .I well know, O Jehovah, that man’s way does not belong to him. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.
This is the reason for God allowing man to go through this,
This issue has come up, before Adam began to produce his children.
Mankind, Adam's offspring, is getting the opportunity to see for themselves the sad results of man's rule, independent of God.
The issue is being settle. In fact it's clear for all to see.
Was it necessary?
Once settled, those who recognize that they need guidance, and they recognize the benefits of acknowledging the creator as their provider, and instructor, will get to live forever on the earth that they will care for, under the management of the all-wise maker.
God is giving the earth to obedient people, not disobedient rebellious ones, who will ruin all mankind, and the earth.
That's just, fair, and loving, isn't it? I think so.
And yet, everything evil originated with one angel. Why not just remove him from the equation? Problem solved. No serpent to tempt Adam and Eve into disobeying god, which didn't even enter their mind until he gave them that thought to think about. Good and Evil started with him. He was the lynchpin that started it all: the first domino.
If God removes that angel, how would that solve the problem?
What is the problem?
So God removes that angel, and anther angel takes his place, and another, and another...
Is God to just keep removing angels indefinitely?
What will the other angels think? What would you think?
What really is the problem?
Why do you think God is not dealing with the problem? What is the problem?
I hope you don't say free will.
But this seems unreasonable. What use is hope for a being who knows what will happen? Hope does nothing to change anything that someone knows will unfold. I can hope I will win the lottery when I never play, and I know I will never win, but what good will hoping that I do is there? That just seems like self delusion.
Then you really have no hope.
You are focussing not on the hope - that you will win the lotto, but you are focusing on what you think is the inevitable - that you won't win the lotto. So you also have no faith. A bad combination. It's bad enough not having one.
Not that I am encouraging you to gamble.
That's false. No human after the common era live beyond 150 years. The oldest sufferer lived less than 1000 years.
They suffered for their own crime... temporary.
Does not your God have a heaven for those who submit and a fully equipped and serviced hell with all kinds of torture instruments for people who do not, Gehenna, Jahannam.
That's false. No human after the common era live beyond 150 years. The oldest sufferer lived less than 1000 years. They suffered for their own crime... temporary.
Atheists often make an argument as to why God does not exist; why God is immoral; etc. Then some deny that they don't.
They also argue that a creator god would not do xyz, or what a creator god would do, etc. Then some deny that they don't. I could go on... but you get my point, I hope.
You're not denying, it looks like.
100 years is a long time for one not to have learned anything. What might prevent them from learning.
So many haven't even lived that long, and they learned not to complain. They are even helping other sufferers to find reasons not to complain.
Well, He could have just zapped all the innocent little children into heaven instead of horrifically drowning them. There they could have played with the cuddly little lambs He zapped into heaven instead of horrifically drowning them.
But that would not have been as dramatic, would it?
Realistically, Genesis obviously has multiple authorship. There were local floods back before there was writing. Legends start and grow. Stories of floods/tsunamis wiping out villages became the fodder for people writing another creation story.
It isn't some mystical god that horrifically wiped out most of humanity. It was the imaginings of people pushing a new religion. A religion about One god. A strong, vengeful god that man had to fear.
Take this definition for example...
Faith - strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
That apparently has changed from something like - having a blind belief in something for which there is no evidence.
If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
Evil exists.
If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
Is this the correct argument? I heard it before, but some of this sounds a bit strange.
However, the gist is somewhere in there.
Why can God not exist (as a morally perfect entity, who is all powerful, all knowing and all wise), where evil exists, although God knows when evil existed, and although God wants to do something about it?
The argument is not a sound one.
Romans chapter 8 verses 20 and 21 says this... "For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but through the one who subjected it, on the basis of hope that the creation itself will also be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God."
Allowing suffering for a permanently lasting freedom from corruption, seems pretty moral to me.
How can that not be moral?
It would actually be evidence too of one who is all knowing, all wise and all powerful. Isn't it?
The God that created gods release into burst. Activated burning. Space opening. Fall of God into space evolution is sentient.
We determine that state of being eternal. Unconditional love as compared to self human.
So our claim is to choose to be like it. We die we were separated from it by spiritually entering earths atmosphere a lower state.
So eternal forms converted as a migration into denser bio life. Yet we were pre sentient.
If it were not real then animals would never have demonstrated love kindness caring sharing compassion and relationships.
Our question how could such a living being and state allow destruction and evil forms?
It didn't. We taught it was innocent if knowing. It gained an experience notified as change. As personally they sought change by research.
It was explained by our holy father and because our holy mother came out after him together they were informed.
Three states existed before god and space presence...
Eternal only
Eternal with family living sentient beings.
Spirit of language that emerged.
Language was different to self form.
They researched it looking holding trying to find where it came from.
How O and Oo were held. Being the change of language. The too late moment. Language could not return to how it had been expressing itself.
O o.gods form was held the eternal body thinned around it.
O O gods burst. Space instantly owned water state as highest body in that moment.
Gods all scattered burst burnt evolved and space opened its body as gods bodies diminished.
How it was explained spiritually to my life.
God in creation supports any type of expression.
Father tells us. We all still own an eternal spirit each self. Life is sexually expressed together we form conscious stories memories. We die and our life recorded can be used to re communicate to the living.
As you are only a formed self human by sex. The conscious experience. We know our bio bodies die. Heavens own life image recorded the eternal uses its records to advise teaching.
If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
Evil exists.
If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
Is this the correct argument? I heard it before, but some of this sounds a bit strange.
However, the gist is somewhere in there.
Why can God not exist (as a morally perfect entity, who is all powerful, all knowing and all wise), where evil exists, although God knows when evil existed, and although God wants to do something about it?
The argument is not a sound one.
Romans chapter 8 verses 20 and 21 says this... "For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but through the one who subjected it, on the basis of hope that the creation itself will also be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God."
Allowing suffering for a permanently lasting freedom from corruption, seems pretty moral to me.
How can that not be moral?
It would actually be evidence too of one who is all knowing, all wise and all powerful. Isn't it?
I’m new and I’m sure someone pointed this out but it looks like you are going the long way around the evidential problem of evil. Your question is formed like a modus tollens: If the premise is assumed to be true, the conclusion necessarily follows. It almost certainly raises some red flags for people. Your question highlights the problem. You have to make assumptions “allowing suffering” and “permanently lasting freedom” to reach your conclusion. I get what you’re trying to say though. If those assumptions were true, who knows, you could be right. There’s just no way to get there with these statements. I’d try another way to get to God otherwise you’ll probably just be arguing in circles with everyone since the problem of evil, logical or otherwise, has been refuted.
100 years is a long time for one not to have learned anything. What might prevent them from learning.
So many haven't even lived that long, and they learned not to complain. They are even helping other sufferers to find reasons not to complain.
What use is learning if it is false?
That some do not complain is their choice. As you said, they encourage others also not to complain. It is like one suffering in a pogrom or holocaust asking another to bear it. Pathetic.
Do you think God knew that Adam would eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, when he told him “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.”
If God is *all-knowing*, then yes, He knew Adam would eat from the tree.
If God did NOT know that Adam would do this, then God is not all-knowing.
Furthermore, did God create Adam knowing that Adam would eat from the tree? YES. Again, if God is all-knowing, then God would have to know that.
So, did God create humans knowing that they would turn against Him? YES. Again, if God is all-knowing He would know that.
Could God have created humans with free-will and such that they didn't turn against Him? YES. We know this is possible because Heaven is supposedly like this.
So, when God created humans, He did so knowing they would turn against him and that would produce a lot of pain and suffering. he also had other options where that pain and suffering would not occur.
I’m new and I’m sure someone pointed this out but it looks like you are going the long way around the evidential problem of evil. Your question is formed like a modus tollens: If the premise is assumed to be true, the conclusion necessarily follows. It almost certainly raises some red flags for people. Your question highlights the problem. You have to make assumptions “allowing suffering” and “permanently lasting freedom” to reach your conclusion. I get what you’re trying to say though. If those assumptions were true, who knows, you could be right. There’s just no way to get there with these statements. I’d try another way to get to God otherwise you’ll probably just be arguing in circles with everyone since the problem of evil, logical or otherwise, has been refuted.
Welcome. Nice avatar - a golden apple.
The premises make assumption, and do not lead to the presumed conclusion.
It assumes that a perfect being must do things the way imperfect beings believe.
The only way the arguments can be conclusively correct, is if the ones presenting the argument are perfect,
Since that is not the case, the argument is simply a viewpoint coming from ones with limited knowledge, understanding, wisdom, etc.
The one having unlimited knowledge, wisdom, and understanding demonstrates that.
Hence why the reason presented - allowing evil for an ultimate good, as... not an assumption, but the most logical, and reasonable conclusion, stands up.
If God is *all-knowing*, then yes, He knew Adam would eat from the tree.
If God did NOT know that Adam would do this, then God is not all-knowing.
Furthermore, did God create Adam knowing that Adam would eat from the tree? YES. Again, if God is all-knowing, then God would have to know that.
So, did God create humans knowing that they would turn against Him? YES. Again, if God is all-knowing He would know that.
Could God have created humans with free-will and such that they didn't turn against Him? YES. We know this is possible because Heaven is supposedly like this.
How do you define one with the ability to know all things?
How do you define one who has unlimited knowledge?
Does one with unlimited knowledge utilize all that knowledge, or exercise that ability at the same instant - uncontrolled?
How do you define one with unlimited power?
How do you define one with the ability to do all things?
Does the one with unlimited power utilize that power, or exercise that ability - uncontrolled... so that all things are obliterated before them, or done?
You, see, simply using words without understanding their usage, only sounds good to the ear, but is meaningless.
Using the word with understanding, gives meaning.
Omniscient -
adjective
having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.
As it stands, you cannot by any means demonstrate that omniscient means knowing everything without exercising the ability to do so.
Therefore, an omniscient being does not automatically know everything, as if it were writen somewhere in a finite vacuum.
God is *all-knowing*. He has the ability to know everything. There is nothing he cannot know. In the same way he has the ability to accomplish anything, which he does not need to, just because he can
Having ultimate and unlimited power does not require one to destroy the universe.
The fact God does not destroy the universe does not mean he is not omnipotent.
He did not exercise his ability to know that Adam would eat from the tree.
Did God create Adam knowing that Adam would eat from the tree? NO.
The Atheist would not know that since he knows nothing about God, and moreover, what he calls a fairy tale cannot be altered by what he wants read into the "fairy tale"
He would need to write his own script... but why would an Atheist want to edit a script about God?
Did God create humans knowing that they would turn against Him? NO.
The so called fairy tale the Atheist read does not say that, so the Atheist makes it up because perhaps that's the way he wants it to be, so that he can have some target practice? LOL. Wow.
What does an Atheist get out of that?
Could God have created humans with free-will and such that they didn't turn against Him?
The Atheist answers YES.
Then the Atheist follows with this statement... "We know this is possible because Heaven is supposedly like this.
Did not the many angels turn against God?
Where does the Atheist get their script from? Did they write it themselve?
Unheard of. Why would an Atheist write a script about God?
Nowhere in the Bible does it say beings in heaven with free will did not turn against God. That's some made up stuff by the Atheist.
So, when God created humans, He did so knowing they would turn against him and that would produce a lot of pain and suffering. he also had other options where that pain and suffering would not occur.
This sounds like a massive nitpicking on your part. Can God accomplish anything he wants instantly or not? Whether you call this magic is utterly irrelevant.
Can I say, that no answer satisfies one who insists on having it their way.
Let me try one more time.
You are putting a door on with some hinges. You have a scewd3iver to send home the screws.
Each turn of the screw will take milliseconds, and sending home each screw may take seconds.
Someone offers to do it for you. They bring along their tool.
He places the tool against the head of the screw, and presses the trigger. You hear VROOM, and "instantly" the screw is home. In less than a second with some milliseconds to spare, you can use our door.
Magic. No.
The process was sped up so fast, you barely saw it. It happened almost instantly.
Think of a miracle in this way. It's an action involving processes, that's beyond your ability to understand because you don't know what "tool" is being used.
You can't see what processes are involved, but the one with the ability is using knowledge, and an ability far beyond any human's, to carry out processes, at a far greater speed, and with far greater ability than you can imagine.
When the tree withered instantly, processes were taking place extremely rapidly.
If there existed a camera that could capture each frame, you would be able to sit and watch it in slow motion... but that would be impossible.
