Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

Ahh...to witness God...
Watch the following and hold it in mind until finishing the story below:
[video][/video]
Good comedy often contains elements of truth.

Back in the summer of ‘78 while working as a Mayan Archaeologist and living in Middle America, I traveled to Chichen Itza to meet with my mentor, Edward Kurjack, Will Andrews, Silvia Garza, and a colleague, Dennis Pulleston, to discuss how we were going to use my remote sensing methods, combined with ground surveys done by Dave Vlcek, to develop a better basis for understanding new stunning evidence revealed by the massive slash and burn of large tracts of land that had just been done at Chunchucmil just SW of Merida. When I arrived a the Chichen Itza ruins I was approached by several Maya workers that recognized me who informed me, my friend Dennis Pulleston was dead.
They explained a couple days earlier, during a rainstorm that caused a break in the work, found them and Dennis sitting at a sheltered tourist shack back behind the Great Pyramid El Castillo. While drinking with the Maya, the topic turned to religion. All, likely in a fairly pissed condition were subjected to a tirade by Dennis about how their religiosity was a bastard hybridization of Christianity and ancient Maya religion...all of it bunk (Even today there is a blending of ceremony and tradition). Probably because it was raining, Dennis began railing about the Maya Rain and lightning God, Chaac. The Maya with him suggested Chaac was a dangerous, vengeful God and shouldn’t be disrespected. In hearing that, probably prompted by the alcohol, Dennis increased his insistence that their religious beliefs were nothing more than folk superstitions. They Maya, according to their account, kept warning him not to anger Chaac, which made him more agitated and persistent in his denigrating talk. Then, as some point, Dennis decided to prove his point, got up, walked across the access road and crossed to the front staircase of the pyramid. A couple of the Maya, concerned for him followed. Dennis ascended to the top of the pyramid unfollowed by the Maya, apparently hurling challenges to Chaac. At the summit, according to the Maya, Chaac replied. Dennis was struck by lightning, dying instantly.
To the Maya Witnesses I spoke with, they are still followers of Christianity, but Chaac exists; they saw the evidence first hand with their own eyes.
Contrast that with Carland’s challenge to God (presumably,;the Christian God) in his monologue on religion... nothing happened.
Hmmm... I know what my Maya friends think. They hedge their bets, faith in Christianity? Yes. But, don’t F*** with Chaac.
All of the above, except the back story, can be checked by Googling. But, her DENNIS’s death is noted on a Wikipedia page about him at the end of the section about his life and career.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_E._Pulestonhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_E._Puleston
So...?

 

Lots of people think there is evidence.. just out of curiosity what part of thr country do you live in? How familiar are you with thousands of miles of dense forest land?

I am a deer hunter and during hunting season you typically see no evidence bucks exist.

 

It doesn't really matter if God did a bunch of good things. If he is all-good then he shouldn't do a single bad thing. I personally don't believe the problem if evil is actually a problem. This is because we need adversity to be truly tested and to really grow.

The refutation of the problem of evil is in the first few chapters of the bible. God puts Adam and Eve in this perfect garden where everything is perfect. But they don't grow, and they aren't really tested. When God gives them a simple commandment, they break it, which shows how weak and ingorant they really were.

So God casts them out of this perfect garden and makes them go through suffering and adversity. This makes them stronger better people and allows God to see what they are truly made of.

 

Thank you for sharing that because it contains all of the essential elements for the superstitions that were the origins of religion. Fear of the unknown, ignorance of science, vengeful sky bully, being struck down by a bolt from the sky, retribution for blasphemy, drunken stupidity, etc, etc. No surprise that the Maya hedge their bets and will continue to do so until their education replaces those superstitions.

What is worth noting is that our modern technology has reached a par with some of the attributes of those ancient deities. We can now know what is happening virtually anywhere on the planet, we can travel to virtually any part of the planet at will, we know what someone eats, wears, watches and where they go and we can even strike someone down with a bolt from the sky.

In essence we have assumed the powers of at least demigods ourselves.

 

So, in Dennis’s case, where lies the Truth? There was a warning, followed by him being struck by a lighting bolt; something the Maya believe the God Chaac is known to wield... the entire event witnessed and recorded....all evidence of the supernatural, just not that of the Christian God.... or an inebriated man stupid enough to climb to the highest point in the area in a thunderstorm? Hmmm, I know what my Maya friends believe and what was shared with many who have propagated the story, now legend, among other Maya. Just an aside, the ancient Maya had something similar to the Bible, a pictorial annotated codex of their religion going back to centuries before Christ, something the Spanish Catholic Clergy attempted to erase from existence back in the 1500’s as they waged their campaign of subjugation, enslavement and conversion.

 

There is no doubt that the Mayans were an advanced civilization with some sophisticated knowledge of the world around them and the ability to engage in impressive construction. Their religion is probably closer to the original sources of prehistoric animalism than those in the west since there were essentially no other "corrupting" influences.

As far as what happened to Dennis is concerned have you ever read Terry Pratchett's Small Gods?

 

And that is fine in itself. The problem is that you opened this thread challenging other people to justify their position on the basis of logic. But you dismiss the logic that is offered, not because you have a logical counter to it, but simply because the conclusions contradict your faith. You're perfectly entitled to live in line with your faith and you're perfectly entitled to engage in logical discussions. What you can't do is casually mix and match logic and faith in discussions whenever it is most convenient to what you want to believe.

On that basis you're right, we're only going to go on in circles at this point. My point was never to change your mind though. I never expect that is possible with threads like this, they're not written with the intention of getting a "right" answer after all. My answers to your questions aren't just for you but for anyone who happens to be reading and even if you don't (or can't) accept them doesn't mean they're wrong.

 

Which is why I terminated any further meaningful interaction with the OP because it is a waste of time trying to explain logical fallacies to those that use them because they do not understand what they are in the first place.

 

* Its impossible to terminate that which never existed.
* You NEVER offered any "meaningful" interaction with the Opening Post
* Instead YOU offered only your atheistic locked-down personal opinions
against the God of the Bible and against Christianity.

Participation in threads is 100% voluntary.

* You are NOT the authority on what is, or is not, a logical fallacy.
* You have no more authority to explain something to me, than I
have to explain something to you.
.

* Because I disagree with YOU on what a logical fallacy is, does
NOT mean that YOU are correct in what YOU claim is a logical fallacy.
* You do not understand this: What YOU claim is a logical fallacy,
is NOT, in fact, a logical fallacy.
* YOU are not the Final Authority on what is, or is not, a logical fallacy.

________


By the way, your use of HUGE font and the big BOLD feature is very
impressive. You doing that reminds me of the sage's advice to the young
amateur debater: "When you have zero solid and correct arguments
to make, then be sure to SCREAM and HOLLAR and YELL as LOUD
as you can, in an effort to compensate for the absence of any valid
arguments."




`

 

Kreef's arguments contradict Plantinga's free will theory.

 

Thank you for CONFIRMING that your DISQUALIFICATION was fully justifiable on the basis of your kneejerk denialism as further evidenced in your asinine screed above.

Secondly your puerile attempt at an ad hom FAILS since your own Covidiot-in-Chief uses words in bold for EMPHASIS all the time.



Have a nice day!

 

* I disagree.
* There is no problem.
* Your personal interpretation of my Opening Post as being a "challenge"
does not mean that it is a challenge. Its a request only.
* My Opening Post does not ask other people to justify their position.
That is your interpretation of my Opening Post. Read on to see what my
Opening Post actually asks atheists to do.

____________


* My Opening Post merely asks ONLY one thing. Here it is:

From my opening Post:
"I ask these God-Causes-All-Things Atheists to join me in listing the good
things God causes, along with the bad things they say He causes.__JAG

* Why is that so difficult to understand?
* Why do the atheists in this thread have such a difficult time understanding
that simple request?
* By the way, HonestJoe, do you think my opening Post "got under the skin" of
some atheists in this thread? It appears that it did.
* Did it "get under your skin"?

* Why is the following request such a big issue?
"I ask these God-Causes-All-Things Atheists to join me in listing the good
things God causes, along with the bad things they say He causes.__JAG

* I mean atheists do not believe God exists in the first place!

* So? So it quite fascinating that they're making such a Big Issue out of a
very simple request regarding the God-That-Does-Not-Exist, isn't it?


______________________


Here is my Opening Post:
Start quote.
There are some Atheists that interpret the Christian doctrine of God's Omnipotence (He is all powerful)
as meaning that God only PERMITS, but does not CAUSE, human suffering. This thread is NOT for these
Atheists.

There are some Atheists that interpret the Christian doctrine of God's Omnipotence (He is all powerful) as
meaning that God not only PERMITS, but also CAUSES, all human suffering. These Atheists say that
Christianity demands that we say that God CAUSES . . .ALL. . . that comes to pass in human history.
This thread IS for these Atheists.

Some of these Atheists say that:

■ God put bone cancer in children [for example the atheist Stephen Fry says this.]

■ God put the COVID-19 virus upon the human race

So?

So God either causes all things or He does not cause all things.

So?

So worldwide every year there are hundreds of millions of good things that God causes
but no threads are ever started by Atheists celebrating those hundreds of millions of good
things God causes --- if God gets the blame for all the bad things He is said to cause,
then He also must get the credit for all the good things He causes -- if you want to be
consistent, that is. And you do want to be consistent, I feel certain you do.
`
So if God is Omnipotent and CONTROLS and CAUSES . . .ALL . . things, therefore all
the hundreds of millions of acts of kindness that occur worldwide every year are caused
by God --- and everything else that is a good thing.
`
I ask these God-Causes-All-Things Atheists to join me in listing the good things God
causes, along with the bad things they say He causes.

God either causes all things, or He does not cause all things.

If He causes all things, then God:
`
■ caused Polio to be cured.

■ caused all the love in the world
Etc Etc . .
End quote.

________________

* My Opening Post is very simple. Its not complicated.
* There is nothing complicated about this simple request:
"I ask these God-Causes-All-Things Atheists to join me in listing the good
things God causes, along with the bad things they say He causes.__JAG

* I do NOT.
* Rather I disagree with the "logic" that is offered.
* Moreover I have repeatedly presented logical
explanations for my positions.
* They were, of course, rejected by atheists.
* Does that surprise you? It ought not to surprise you.

* I DO have logical counters to it.
* You disagree with my logical counters.
* This does not mean that you are correct and that I am incorrect.

* No more than the fact that my logical conclusions contradict your
atheism and your atheistic worldview.

You're perfectly entitled to live in line with your atheistic
worldview and all the many ramifications that spring out of
your atheistic worldview.

* You're perfectly entitled to engage in logical discussions also.
* By the way, you are fully aware, are you not, that atheists and
Christians characteristically do not agree on what is, or is not,
the correct conclusions to be drawn from "logical" reasonings
and various premises.

* I most certainly CAN mix logic and faith in discussions because
a combination of logic and faith is exactly how the world actually
works.
* And I will continue to do exactly that -- to mix logic and faith
as I present my views and ideas here inside Thread World on
the Internet.
* I think I make many very reasonable and logical points. Readers
can and will decide for themselves if what I write is reasonable and
helpful to them.
* Christianity is a mix of Faith and Reason.
{FAITH} "for by grace are you save through faith"
{FAITH} "without faith it is impossible to please God"
{REASON} "come now let us reason together" sayeth the Lord
Isaiah 1:18 KJV
{REASON} "As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and
on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the
Scriptures, __Acts 17:2

* Your "most convenient" thingy applies equally 100% to you too.
* The issue is no more what I want to believe, than it is what you
want to believe.

* HonestJoe, how many atheists vs, Christians threads have you
read on the Internet that did not "go in circles."?
* I have repeatedly explained myself to you and to others here in
this thread and of course all my explanations were rejected,
and why is that? Its very simple: Atheists reject Christian
explanations. That's what atheists do. Does that surprise you?
Christians reject atheists explanations also. Are you surprised?
* Question for you HonestJoe, do you really believe that
atheists and Christians have common ground with regard
to what is, or is not, reasonable? They obviously do not.

That's an honest statement. I never expected to change your
mind either. Read 1 Corinthians 2:14 to understand why.
Seriously, give 1 Corinthians 2:14 a shot. It will explain
why atheists vs, Christians threads most always end up like
this one.

* That's honest too.
* Atheists and Christians merely "post past each other" on their
way to composing their next post. Surprised?

I write my posts for the exact same reasons -- for Internet lurkers
to read, and for other Christians to read. I have near to zero
expectations that any atheist will give serious consideration to
what I write.

* I can, and do, say the identical same thing.
* HonestJoe, even if you don't {or can't} accept my conclusions
does not mean my conclusions are wrong.

 

I disagree with all that you wrote.

I did not confirm anything.

There was zero ad hominem in what I wrote.

I am not disqualified anymore than you are disqualified.

If I post this to you, does that mean that I have
somehow made a point against what you have written?
Did you post the cartoon character to ridicule what I wrote?

There was zero kneejerk denialism in what I wrote.

What I wrote was no more an "asinine screed" than
is what you write.

There was no puerile attempts at ad hominem.

I do not know who the "Covidiot-in-Chief" is, but
that's okay --- let it forever remain a mystery.

You keep telling me to "Have a nice day" -- thank
you. I hope you have a nice day too.

By the way, regarding what you previously put in big font
and big bold on the subject of my mixing Faith and Reason,
please read this:

* I most certainly CAN mix Logic and Faith in discussions because
a combination of Logic and Faith is exactly how the world actually
works.

* And I will continue to do exactly that -- to mix Logic and Faith
as I present my views and ideas here inside Thread World on
the Internet.

* I think I make many very reasonable and logical points. Readers
can and will decide for themselves if what I write is reasonable and
helpful to them.

* Christianity is a mix of Faith and Reason.

{FAITH} "for by grace are you save through faith"

{FAITH} "without faith it is impossible to please God"

{REASON} "come now let us reason together" sayeth the Lord
Isaiah 1:18 KJV

{REASON} "As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and
on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the
Scriptures, __Acts 17:2


`

`

 

They do not.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/show-compassion-to-animals.572976/#post-1071726182
/BIG GRIN
Some interesting ideas at the link, both pro and con.

 

Then I think you're being grossly dishonest or extremely naive.

In which case there is nothing complicated about my simple request in response, for you to accept that if there is a god responsible for all things, they would also be responsible for all the evil things as well as the good. It's exactly the same thing you're asking of those atheists so why is it problematic for you?

Unless, of course, you don't actually believe the logic you're asking them to voice and you were actually trying to set them up with some kind of "gotcha" moment.

You literally told me that you can't provide a logical justification for your position and that it has to be accepted on faith. As I said before, you can't bounce between logic and faith at your own convenience. If you're working based on faith so be it, but you can't then expect to engage in a logical discussion on the topic.

I don't have an "atheistic worldview". You are making the mistake of jumping to assumptions about people. Don't debate what you think I am, debate what I say.

Well you can but you can't expect anyone to take you seriously. What is the point of any discussion based on facts and logic if any participant can just say "Well my faith disagrees with that". If I say "2+2=5 because that's what my faith says", we'd never be able to do any maths together.

And remember, we're not talking about things as they are but logical abstracts. If a god exists and is responsible for good, they are logically responsible for evil too. Now you could (try to) make a logical argument for a god only being responsible for one but not the other but you don't need to have faith that such a god actually exists. We're only talking about what is possible, not what actually is.

I'm not asserting any beliefs or faith though. My answer to the big questions is generally "I don't know". The only thing I really asked for was for you to accept to the same logical conclusion that you asked (some) atheists to in your OP.

Sometimes the journey is as important as the destination.

Honestly, yes. We're all pretty much the same, with differences in specific beliefs and worldviews being tiny aspects of the whole. If we didn't have vast ranges of common ground, we wouldn't even be capable of starting a discussion, let alone debate minute specifics of complex concepts like we are.

Did you expect the atheists your OP referred to to change their minds about what God is responsible for though? If not, what did you expect. What was your actual underlying motive in posting in the first place?

Doesn't that make addressing your OP to specific atheists somewhat dishonest then? Is lying not a sin?

 

It clearly did matter to some atheists who read my Opening Post.
All the Opening Post asks of them is this:

"I ask these God-Causes-All-Things Atheists to join me in listing the good
things God causes, along with the bad things they say He causes.__JAG

All they had to do was just say, "Okay, we will do that."

But instead my simple request morphed into the conglomeration
that is this thread -- which is okay and cool enough, Nothing wrong
or unusual with some conglomeration here inside Thread World
on The Internet At Large. It happens all the time.

Regarding The God-That-Does-Not-Exist:

Of course, atheists do not believe that God exists, but even so, they
do not seem to want to say that the God-That-Does-Not-Exist also
did many good things --- even though they DO want to say that the
God-That-Does-Not-Exist did many bad things. /funny stuff to be sure!

Are you an atheist? Agnostic? Seeker of truth? A gentleman and a scholar?
Christian? None of the above?

I have read some of your ideas on that. It is a reoccurring theme in your posts.
Interesting perspective. On that subject, did you read my Opening Post titled
Can Suffering Make Us Stronger?
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ring-make-us-stronger.572834/#post-1071711149

On Christianity, it made them weaker and worse off, not better people.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because
all sinned."__Romans 5:12

The New Testament teaches:
{1} Sin entered the world through one man.
{2} Sin brought Death to humanity
{3} All men individually choose to Sin {so each
individual person is responsible for Sin, and not
only Adam the first man}

The New Testament solution to the Sin Problem:
"He {the Lord Jesus} is the atoning sacrifice for our sins,
and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole
world.__ 1 John 2:2

The atonement - "Atonement means doing what is necessary
to bring about reconciliation and the reuniting of two parties
who are at odds. It involves making amends, and paying
compensation for a transgression, a wrong or an injury."

The Atonement is the reuniting of God and man.

Ending up like this in the New Testament:
"Therefore, since we have been justified through faith,
we have peace with God through our LORD Jesus
Christ__ Romans 5:1

Justification By Faith - It is a legal term. "Justification by faith
alone is the gospel, the belief that we are forgiven our sins and
made innocent before God by the atoning blood of Jesus Christ
and His resurrection from the grave. You can do nothing to earn
this. It is by the grace of God."



`

 

If "nothing changes itself" (Kreeft), will alone is not enough to change a person into a sinner, since will is a part of the self. External influences, completely independent of the self, are required. The will is neither sufficient, nor free.

 

If "grossly dishonest" then that is direct ad hominem.
And "extremely naive" is not a nice thing to say about a person.
Did you include the word "or:" to cover your butt?

naive - showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment.

Then you added the word "extremely" to the ad hominem naive
to make it even more intense. To say that I personally "lack judgment"
is ad hominem. To say that my reasoning is incorrect is not.

JAG Previously Wrote:
"* Your personal interpretation of my Opening Post as being a "challenge"
does not mean that it is a challenge. Its a request only.
* My Opening Post does not ask other people to justify their position.
That is your interpretation of my Opening Post. Read on to see what my
Opening Post actually asks atheists to do.__JAG

Then HonestJoe replies with:
"Then I think you're being grossly dishonest or extremely naive"__HonestJoe

Any poster could say exactly the same about you, namely that "Then I think
you HonestJoe are being grossly dishonest or extremely naive." How
would you like that? Would you like to hear that from another poster?

If not, then why did you say that to me? "So in everything do to others
what you would have them do to you."__The Lord Jesus Matthew 7:12
You probably claim to practice the "secular" golden rule, do you not?
If so, then why not actually practice it?

I have explained that to you several times. Read the thread
again if you truly have an interest in the answer.

You're continually repeating yourself. I have explained that to you several
times. You do not hear it. It does not register with you. Feel free to repeat
the same things over and over. This is the Internet.

Goodness! You're repeating yourself almost word of word. Okay, here it
is again:

* I most certainly CAN mix Logic and Faith in discussions because
a combination of Logic and Faith is exactly how the world actually
works.

* And I will continue to do exactly that -- to mix Logic and Faith
as I present my views and ideas here inside Thread World on
the Internet.

* I think I make many very reasonable and logical points. Readers
can and will decide for themselves if what I write is reasonable and
helpful to them.

* Christianity is a mix of Faith and Reason.

{FAITH} "for by grace are you save through faith"

{FAITH} "without faith it is impossible to please God"

{REASON} "come now let us reason together" sayeth the Lord
Isaiah 1:18 KJV

{REASON} "As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and
on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the
Scriptures, __Acts 17:2

Do you take your own advice?
HonestJoe to JAG:
"Then I think you're being grossly dishonest or extremely naive."__HonestJoe
What is that? "Pot . . .kettle"?

You can't expect anyone to take you seriously except those clearly on
your side who are locked-down on your worldview.
And you clearly are taking my Opening Post very seriously otherwise
you would not be continually repeating yourself posting in this thread
on the subject of my Opening Post.
Did the Opening Post "get under your skin"?
I think it did.

Again I have already explained why I do not blame the God of the Bible
for the evil in the world. You read it. But you did not hear it. It did not
register in your mind. My view is that it will not register in your mind if
I repeat it again. And again. And again. And again. Why? Because I think
you are locked-down on your atheistic world-view and are not going to
budge 1/16 of an inch off that world-view --- regardless of what you read.
You can classify that as my opinion.

My view is that you do, for all practical purposes.
You "debate" just like an atheist Your tone and attitude
sounds just like all the other atheists sound. If it
walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like
a duck -- then it is reasonably certain that it is a duck,
isn't it?

My view is that the journey we're on in this thread is near the end.
I also think these lengthy exchanges between you and I are near
the end. I am beginning to see a repetitious pattern in your posts.
You repeat he same questions and bring up the same points no
matter how many times the points are explained to you. You do
not hear the explanations. They do not register in your mind.
For all practical purposes you are talking to a wall. For all
practical purposes I am talking to a wall. You know the "wall"
like the ones in your Living Room and Bathroom.

{1} Atheists and Christians have very little common ground.
{2} Atheists and Christians continually "post past each other."
{3} Atheists have no intention of giving serious consideration to
what Christians post.
{4} Christians have no intention of giving serious consideration to
what Atheists post.
{5} The claim that Atheists and Christians read each other's posts
charitably is incorrect. They do not. It is pure pretense to say they do.
{6} 1 -5 up there is true in the vast truly overwhelming majority of atheists
vs. Christians threads on the Internet. The exceptions are rare indeed.

No.

I expected exactly and precisely what this thread has become.

Why do you care what my actual motive was? Maybe my motive
was only the enjoyment of writing an article? Maybe my motive was
only to provide some "food for thought"? Maybe my motive was only
to give Internet lurkers something to read? Maybe my motive was to
practice my writing skills? Maybe I wrote my Opening Post to please
my wife? Maybe I wrote my Opening Post only to stimulate my own
mind?

I said the following:
"I write my posts for the exact same reasons -- for Internet lurkers
to read, and for other Christians to read. I have near to zero
expectations that any atheist will give serious consideration to
what I write."__JAG

And HonestJoe Replies With This:
"Doesn't that make addressing your OP to specific atheists
somewhat dishonest then? Is lying not a sin?"__HonestJoe

* My view is that question in illogical and irrational.
* I can write to give atheists "food for thought" without
further expectations of discussion.
* I can write to give Internet lurkers something to read.
* I can write for nothing more than the sheer enjoyment of
writing.
* I can write to make my wife happy. She loves to read my
stuff.
* There are many other reasons why a writer writes.

_______________

I think you really ought to carefully consider the following:

* Each person can decide for themselves WHY they write on
the Internet. I do not decide for you. You do not decide for me.

* I do not control the board. You do not control the board.

* Though you may try to control the board. You seem to want
control. How so? Because you keep telling me what the rules
are. You don't actually use the word "rules"--but you nonetheless
keep telling me what the rules of debate are. I do NOT accept
your view of what the rules are. You have your views and I have
my views. They contradict. You go your way. I will go my way
with regard to what the rules are here inside Thread World on
the Internet At Large.


`
`

 

Pisa,
Thanks for you comment.
However we are not on the same page.
We're not even in the same book.
We're not even in the same Library.
We're not even in the same city.
Peter Kreeft and Alvin Plantinga do not disagree with each other on any major point.
Alvin Plantinga"s Free Will Defense attempting to demonstrate that God's Goodness
and His Omnipotence are not irreconcilable does not contradict Peter Kreeft.
At least that's my view of the issue.

Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense seeks to be a defeater for Epicurus:

The Problem Of Evil as presented by Epicurus:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not Omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither able or willing? Then why call Him God?"__Epicurus.

Against Epicurus . . .

Here is Planting's Free Will Defense:

As Alvin Plantinga summarized his defense:[14]

A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.

 

Plantinga's defense is predicated on the existence of free will. Kreeft argues that nothing can happen without outside interference. Exercising free will - if the will is indeed free - is something that happens without outside interference. At least one of them is wrong.

 

Points:

Sorry. But I do not understand the point{s} you are making.
If you truly have an interest in discussing the points, you
can re-make your points with some concrete examples .

I have no clue what you mean when your say "Kreeft argues
that nothing can happen without outside interference."

Neither do I know what you mean or conclude from your
"is something that happens without outside interference"?

"something that happens"? You mean for example a crime
is committed?

"without outside interference" You mean something outside
the man acted on him, to cause him to commit the crime?

It is universally recognized that man has a Free Will. The
courts of law all believe that, and will jail you if they can
convict you of choosing to commit a crime. Are you saying
that Kreeft is saying that a man cannot commit a crime
without "outside interference"?

"at least one of them is wrong"__Pisa

On your lights, which one do you think is wrong?
Kreeft or Plantinga?

 

It's funny that people think they can come to the truth about God by using logic and what sinple minded humans call rational thought..

You cannot do it on your own, you don't have the requisite knowledge to think rationally about it...

 

Seriously?

Omnipotent, Omniscient, Eternal....

 

Not all religions have deities with those attributes. In some religions their are hierarchies of deities with different capabilities, even with powers greater than those of other deities; some have multiple deities in non overlapping domains. Some have notions of a supernatural world populated by disembodied beings or ancestral spirits with no real clear definition of an all powerful deity.