What are your top three reasons?

@suzianne said
All of these things prove to me that Free Will works.

I can stop a criminal from committing a crime without violating his free will.

Free will doesn't help explain natural evils, such as tsunamis and volcanoes and earthquakes.

@bigdoggproblem said
I can stop a criminal from committing a crime without violating his free will.

Free will doesn't help explain natural evils, such as tsunamis and volcanoes and earthquakes.

All natural evils as you say are all a result of the flood and it's aftermath issues still being felt today.

@galveston75 said
All natural evils as you say are all a result of the flood and it's aftermath issues still being felt today.

So, I'll respond by saying that God caused the flood, so he is still to blame for any results of that flood [even though, to be honest, I don't see how one flood can be blamed for all of the other disasters - there's simply not enough causal links].

You'll probably claim that man's sinfulness was what forced God to flood the earth in the first place, then I'll point out that there are lots of ways to kill sinful people besides flooding, ways that don't damage the planet, then you'll come up with some sort of explanation as to why it HAD to be a flood, and I probably won't find that explanation very convincing.

Did I get that right?

@bigdoggproblem said
So, I'll respond by saying that God caused the flood, so he is still to blame for any results of that flood [even though, to be honest, I don't see how one flood can be blamed for all of the other disasters - there's simply not enough causal links].

You'll probably claim that man's sinfulness was what forced God to flood the earth in the first place, then I'll point ...[text shortened]... to be a flood, and I probably won't find that explanation very convincing.

Did I get that right?

Maybe or maybe not. So no matter the answer I give you've already closed you mind to at least listen? Am I right?

@galveston75 said
Maybe or maybe not. So no matter the answer I give you've already closed you mind to at least listen? Am I right?

No, I am willing to listen - I am just not optimistic about the discussion being productive.

@galveston75 said
Maybe or maybe not. So no matter the answer I give you've already closed you mind to at least listen? Am I right?

Do you see yourself as a person with a "closed mind" or with an "open mind"?

@bigdoggproblem said
I can stop a criminal from committing a crime without violating his free will.

Free will doesn't help explain natural evils, such as tsunamis and volcanoes and earthquakes.

You can stop one criminal, yes, even several. But this is not interfering in man's collective free will in any way.

While some people complain that these things you cite are 'acts of god', I would say that they are merely the result of an active earth, made the way it is to do the things it does. Calling them 'evils' is completely unnecessary anthropomorphism.

@kellyjay said
God is the same today as always, He isn't impotent either.

He made his righteous decision already about mankind. Now we can only wait for it to come to pass. The clockwork must run down. He's done his bit. Now men need to come to a choice.

@suzianne said
You can stop one criminal, yes, even several. But this is not interfering in man's collective free will in any way.

While some people complain that these things you cite are 'acts of god', I would say that they are merely the result of an active earth, made the way it is to do the things it does. Calling them 'evils' is completely unnecessary anthropomorphism.

Yes, the meaning of the term "evil", in the General Argument from Evil, is usually expanded beyond the common meaning, to include natural evils. We could also call those things "bad things" or "tragic occurrences" - with the point being that God ought to be willing and able to stop them, active earth and all. For example, God could lead people away from the volcano before it erupts, or he could hold up the tsunami wave as he did the Red Sea, until people were evacuated, or he could grab the tectonic plates and smooth over their passage to prevent the earthquake, etc. etc.

All this is what any decent human would do with foreknowledge of such events and the power to prevent them or alleviate the suffering caused by them.

@suzianne said
You can stop one criminal, yes, even several. But this is not interfering in man's collective free will in any way.

Please say some more about the difference between collective free will and individual free will.

@bigdoggproblem said
Yes, the meaning of the term "evil", in the General Argument from Evil, is usually expanded beyond the common meaning, to include natural evils.

I always put quotation marks around the word "evil" when talking to religionists because, too often, the way they use it renders it basically meaningless. So, for example, herding human beings into gas ovens is "evil", but not believing in Jesus is "evil" too, and 'getting angry with one's brother is "evil", and everbody is "evil" because of Adam... etc. In such circumstances I just put quotation marks around the word because it scarcely means anything when Christians [for example] use it.

@fmf said
Do you see yourself as a person with a "closed mind" or with an "open mind"?

Of course you realise that Galveston75 is a member of a religious cult which will probably forbid him from answering your question.

@suzianne said
He made his righteous decision already about mankind. Now we can only wait for it to come to pass. The clockwork must run down. He's done his bit. Now men need to come to a choice.

He is very active today and never has stopped being so. He holds all of creation together by the power of His Word, He is calling all to Himself even now! We don't go to Him on our own without His calling upon our lives. He isn't far off from us, He is a comfort in times of trouble, a good shepherd who lays down His life for His sheep.

This universe is winding down, its time is limited, but God is very active in the lives of men. Yet like when Jesus was Lamenting over Jerusalem when He was walking to it so He could lay down His life for us He tells us that what He wanted and what we want, are two different this more times than not.

John 6:44
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. Our problem is the same as when Jesus walking to ed the earth and looked

John 10:11
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

Matthew 23:37
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!

@bigdoggproblem said
Yes, the meaning of the term "evil", in the General Argument from Evil, is usually expanded beyond the common meaning, to include natural evils. We could also call those things "bad things" or "tragic occurrences" - with the point being that God ought to be willing and able to stop them, active earth and all. For example, God could lead people away from the volcano bef ...[text shortened]... oreknowledge of such events and the power to prevent them or alleviate the suffering caused by them.

Well, God doing those things is a direct violation of free will.

I mean back in the day, we had God talking to people who already believed in him, setting up a prophet to do the grunt work, building an ark, leading people out of Egypt, he even sent his Son to earth in his place, because a direct revelation of God to the godless people doesn't give them much room to 'not believe', if that's their free will choice.

Imagine if the hand of God kept showing up before disasters, showing the way to safety, eventually we'd have people not concerned with saving themselves because "if it were serious, God will save us", and we'd have millions more people suddenly believing in God, but isn't that coercion? God doesn't want people believing in him and following him because their only other choice is to die, free will IS necessary to a people choosing a path. People need to be free to NOT choose God, for there to be any value in choosing God.

Jesus saith unto him, "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed." - - John 20:29, KJV

@suzianne said
Well, God doing those things is a direct violation of free will.

I mean back in the day, we had God talking to people who already believed in him, setting up a prophet to do the grunt work, building an ark, leading people out of Egypt, he even sent his Son to earth in his place, because a direct revelation of God to the godless people doesn't give them much room to 'not b ...[text shortened]... hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed." - - John 20:29, KJV

I don't agree. God's offering to save people from natural disasters is no more a violation of their free will than, say, for a human to save people from drowning by offering them a lifeboat. They don't have to take it. They have free will still. They can choose to accept, or swim for shore on their own, or give up and drown.

For some reason, you seem to think it's desirable that the choice not be too obvious. I am at a loss as to why. It's likethisclose to saying that God actually wants to be rejected by a fair amount of the people he created, or worse, like God wants to make sure there is incomplete information so that some of the people will screw up on the choice.