You speak of the Christian God as if it were the only possible God, therefore your arguement only works against him.

Sorry, this will be a long post. I could explain some things a little better, but I would need to make the post much longer, and it is already too long.

I do not think what you have described is a commonly accepted or the best representation of Christianity. First point, the purpose of free-will is not to follow someone else's will. I made this point in a response to you about the objective moral law earlier. As I suggested, read Plato's Euthyphro, and I think you will get the point.

The point of hell is justice. The idea that good actions will be rewarded, and bad actions will be punished. The same punishment system is in place wthin the judicial system, as well as in how parents raise kids. The only difference is that the idea of divine justice is more all-encompassing.

I think the point you are overlooking is that the motivations behind actions still matters. If someone truly followed God's laws because they feared eternal damnation, then your point might make more sense although I still would not agree with it (I wouldn't agree because free will would then be impossible as long as there was a system of government with a judicial system that rewarded good actions and punished bad actions). The problem is that religion does not teach people to follow moral laws becuase they will face eternal punishment if they do not follow said laws. It teahces people to follow the laws out of repect for God and respect for the values that these laws instill. There is a big difference between following the moral law out of respect and following the moral law out of fear.

To go back to previous example, the relationship between God and humans is more like the relationship between a parent and child rather than that between dictator and citizen. God points humans in the right direction by giving general rules to follow (do unto others as you would have done unto yourself), but there comes a point where God must metaphorically step back in the same way as parents step back and let their children make their own decisions.

To give an obvious example, the principle "do unto other as you would have done unto yourself" is a good general principle, and I think most people would agree with it. However, there are cases where the principle is more difficult to apply, such as cases where we have irrational desires or where principles might conflict with one another. For example, we could derive two truths from this principle: lying is wrong, and it is wrong to stand by while innocents are killed. However, there might be cases where we could lie to save someone's life. In these cases, it is clear that the decision is up to the person because the principle does not specify which moral law should be followed and which ignored. I used this example because I think it illustrated the point that the moral law communicated in the Bible does not address every situation that will ever arise. Its a general rule, and people ultimately have to make some decisions that are not explicitly covered by the rule. Point being, there is a point where humans quite obviously must make decisions based on their own convictions and not those taught in the Bible. The purpose of Christ's teachings is to facilitate the growth of these convictions so that people will be better prepared to confront ethical issues when they arise. After these teaching, it is up to the individual to apply them (same idea of parenthood- we try to instill positive values in our kids, but the choices they make are ultimately up to them).

True, but I was actually talking about Christianity in my original post. I also think Sapphire was justified in making the assumption given the topic of the thread and the debates taking place.

You do bring up a good point though. The questions of free-will, God's goodness, and the existence of evil are only relevant to theistic or religious conceptions of God. Deistic conceptions of God are going to be outside these criticisms, for the most part. Point being, atheists can't disprove God by showing how free-will, God's goodness, and the existence of evil are incompatible. If they could show the incompatibility, they would only show that theistic conceptions of God are inaccurate.

Sorry, this will be a long post. I could explain some things a little better, but I would need to make the post much longer, and it is already too long.

I do not think what you have described is a commonly accepted or the best representation of Christianity. First point, the purpose of free-will is not to follow someone else's will. I made this point in a response to you about the objective moral law earlier. As I suggested, read Plato's Euthyphro, and I think you will get the point.

The point of hell is justice. The idea that good actions will be rewarded, and bad actions will be punished. The same punishment system is in place wthin the judicial system, as well as in how parents raise kids. The only difference is that the idea of divine justice is more all-encompassing.

I think the point you are overlooking is that the motivations behind actions still matters. If someone truly followed God's laws because they feared eternal damnation, then your point might make more sense although I still would not agree with it (I wouldn't agree because free will would then be impossible as long as there was a system of government with a judicial system that rewarded good actions and punished bad actions). The problem is that religion does not teach people to follow moral laws becuase they will face eternal punishment if they do not follow said laws. It teahces people to follow the laws out of repect for God and respect for the values that these laws instill. There is a big difference between following the moral law out of respect and following the moral law out of fear.

To go back to previous example, the relationship between God and humans is more like the relationship between a parent and child rather than that between dictator and citizen. God points humans in the right direction by giving general rules to follow (do unto others as you would have done unto yourself), but there comes a point where God must metaphorically step back in the same way as parents step back and let their children make their own decisions.

To give an obvious example, the principle "do unto other as you would have done unto yourself" is a good general principle, and I think most people would agree with it. However, there are cases where the principle is more difficult to apply, such as cases where we have irrational desires or where principles might conflict with one another. For example, we could derive two truths from this principle: lying is wrong, and it is wrong to stand by while innocents are killed. However, there might be cases where we could lie to save someone's life. In these cases, it is clear that the decision is up to the person because the principle does not specify which moral law should be followed and which ignored. I used this example because I think it illustrated the point that the moral law communicated in the Bible does not address every situation that will ever arise. Its a general rule, and people ultimately have to make some decisions that are not explicitly covered by the rule. Point being, there is a point where humans quite obviously must make decisions based on their own convictions and not those taught in the Bible. The purpose of Christ's teachings is to facilitate the growth of these convictions so that people will be better prepared to confront ethical issues when they arise. After these teaching, it is up to the individual to apply them (same idea of parenthood- we try to instill positive values in our kids, but the choices they make are ultimately up to them).

Not true, as what is possible or not were rules designed by him, and being omnipotent means that he could change the rules, else he's not really omnipotent and there's an isntance higher than himself.

To respond to that argument, God's omniscience and omnipotence do not need to be denied. Someone could just give the free-will defense. They could argue that the very act of giving people free-will counts as a good action because it allows for a greater level of moral goodness in the world. If people are not responsible for their own actions, its difficult to understand how we can hold them accountable for their actions or ascribe moral worth to their actions. To take a point from Leibniz, its about making the greatest possible world, and the greatest possible world requires free-will.

As far as the main point, I don't think many religious scholars would argue that God is not responsible for creating the world in the way that he did. It was a free choice he made, and he made a world that allows for human's to have free-will. Because he is the cause of the universe, there is a connection between how he designed the universe and the possible actions humans can make (good and bad). However, the existence of the evil resulting from human actions does not count against God's goodness given that free-will is good. Once again, the point is making the best possible world and not actually making the world with the least amount of suffering or evil. I think we can both imagine a world where no one suffers because God controls every action of the individual's inhabiting the world. I would argue that saying this is a good world in itself is inaccruate (the goodness would lie in God and his decisions-not the world itself).

1. Because they rejected something that is Absolute goodness, so you get the other side of the coin, so to speak. And no, i am not insensible to that nor God is, that`s why He lets you redeem until the very end. Why don`t you consider that aswell and the fact that there is a Heaven too as a reward.
--Hell is death`s salary as heaven is life`s reward.
--And there couldn´t be another 3rd option. Be or not be, poisitive and negative/heaven or hell.
2.
"GOD's free choice to make the universe in such a way that people would do that"
Nothing was determined from the start. To reach something Absolute goodness and holy they had to a)be as God or b)deserve to be with Him.
--That`s a BIG supposion, but alright. You just forgot that if they knew they could had changed the way they raised their kid. But that`s no important. What is important is that people do what they do but should be responsible for their actions and that doesn`t change.
--You are trying to make a poin that is not valid. God puts us on neutral grounds, that example puts us with an influence. So no, God is not to blame for our mistaked even if He foreknew. Knowing something in advance is not the same as forcing or making it happen, it`s like skipping ahead of the whole thing to see the result.
--Being free is part of human nature, what you do with it it´s your own responsability and that`s what you not fully consider.
3.
I`d lie that one sins! Of course not me, i`m perfect! :D
Point being? Because there is one! ;p

Furthermore, Christ is supposed to be the son of a virgin ( to be honest, she was probably a whore trying to not get killed by her husband if he found out) and god.

I read somewhere that this is likely a mis-translation from the original Latin. The original wording could just have easily translated to mean "young woman" rather than virgin. However, by translating it to virgin instead it gives the whole thing the appearence of divinity.