I'm back. Did you miss me?

Human nature places a blocking mechanism on free will to do what is possible and proper.  

You speak as though you believe you know all things.  Are you omniscient?  Is there anything in this universe you don't know? Given a very generous gift, I think you would know less that .05% of everything.  Are you really saying that because you find something pointless in your .05% of everything, that in the other 99.95% of everything that the answer might not be there?

We say humanity was made good.  They were made without sin. Sin, you will notice, or the temptation to sin, did not arise from within the person, it arose from outside the person, in the form of whatever the serpent was. 

Jesus, who Christians consider a new thing - like Adam, was also tempted from without.  the devil came to him and despite the thoughts being put to him - Jesus rightly rejected them all. 

So gratuitous evils, such as animal suffering in the billions, serves some good to the future? This seems wholly implausible. 

That is not what I said. God is not utilitarian. The means and the ends matter.  The point I was making is that whatever world you can imagine, it would not be better than this one for the purposes it was made. 

So why not skip our world and create New Heaven? 

Just because someone wants to skip school because it contains bullies, does not mean that school is not the best option. 

Human nature places a blocking mechanism on free will to do what is possible and proper.  

There are restraints but would you agree or contend the idea that human free will is truer than determinism? When someone sins, do you believe they do so because of a necessary causal chain, or because of choice? 

You speak as though you believe you know all things.  Are you omniscient?  Is there anything in this universe you don't know? Given a very generous gift, I think you would know less that .05% of everything.  Are you really saying that because you find something pointless in your .05% of everything, that in the other 99.95% of everything that the answer might not be there?

If we know .05% of all that is to be known, then our knowledge of God is one which is based in insufficient reasoning - precisely, it is based on only .05% of all facts. I know things just as how you report you know things - because they best conform to what we know. 

We say humanity was made good.  They were made without sin. Sin, you will notice, or the temptation to sin, did not arise from within the person, it arose from outside the person, in the form of whatever the serpent was. 

p1. Humans were made good. 

p2. Therefore it is inconceivable that humans could have been made any "gooder". 

p3. A human who is able to contend morally reprehensible temptations is "gooder" than a human who cannot contend morally reprehensible temptations. 

p4. Humans (Adam & Eve) did not contend morally reprehensible temptations (the serpent)

c1. Therefore it is conceivable that there is a "gooder" human that could exist. 

Ergo. A contradiction arises between p1 and c1. 

Jesus, who Christians consider a new thing - like Adam, was also tempted from without.  the devil came to him and despite the thoughts being put to him - Jesus rightly rejected them all. 

So if Jesus was a "free" man who rejected all sin, why couldn't God make people like Jesus? That would be a true utopia - free will individual who chose only to do what is good.

So gratuitous evils, such as animal suffering in the billions, serves some good to the future? This seems wholly implausible. 

That is not what I said. God is not utilitarian. The means and the ends matter.  The point I was making is that whatever world you can imagine, it would not be better than this one for the purposes it was made. 

If our world is the best possible world, then would you agree that every murder which occurs is not only morally acceptable, but morally obligatory? If we live in the best possible world, and in this world there are street mugging and whatnot, then the street muggings and whatnot must be apart of what makes this the best possible world. WIthout the muggings, it would not be as good. 

So why not skip our world and create New Heaven? 

Just because someone wants to skip school because it contains bullies, does not mean that school is not the best option. 

But if the option of skipping school involved you being transferred into heaven, which is supposed to have all the "goods" of this world and much more, then yes I would take that option for there would tautologically be no harm in doing so. 

The dictionary does not define the Christian notion of freewill 

A confession made of one's own free will would be inadmissible to you then, considering you tell us that you are a lawyer and a Christian that represents criminals?

Hello Stephen, I paused for a moment before answering you.  I took for a moment your reference to my personal life as another insult from you. And to be perfectly honest, I still think you are attempting to be insulting here.  I request that you refrain from talking of my personal life in the future. 

My point to Bones is that Christian doctrine is not defined by a dictionary but by the Bible.

  I have no issue with others defining free will how they choose or desire. That is entirely a matter for them.  Just don't THEN conflate what the individual's personal definition is with what the Christian defines it as.  That is my point. 

Tradesecret wrote: The dictionary does not define the Christian notion of freewill 

A confession made of one's own free will would be inadmissible to you then, considering you tell us that you are a lawyer and a Christian that represents criminals?

Your contention then seems somewhat redundant doesn't it? Confessions are admissible in court. Yet it depends upon the circumstances and how it was obtained.  What is admissible in court is a different to my point to Bones. Thanks for asking so that it can be clarified. 

Just don't THEN conflate what the individual's personal definition is with what the Christian defines it as.  That is my point. 

I request that you refrain from talking of my personal life in the future. 

Which part? The part where I referenced to you being a lawyer, or the part where I referenced you being a Christian? Both are true are they not?

My point to Bones is that Christian doctrine is not defined by a dictionary but by the Bible.

Leaving you open and free to redefine just about any word you feel like redefining when it goes against the Christian grain and the Christian narrative.

  I have no issue with others defining free will how they choose or desire. That is entirely a matter for them.  Just don't THEN conflate what the individual's personal definition is with what the Christian defines it as.  That is my point. 

Ok, how does "the Christian bible" define the word - righteous? And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - blameless?

Your contention then seems somewhat redundant doesn't it? Confessions are admissible in court. Yet it depends upon the circumstances and how it was obtained.  What is admissible in court is a different to my point to Bones. Thanks for asking so that it can be clarified. 

Well to be honest I didn't expect a different answer to the one you have given. Because you have intentionally  ignored the point where I clearly wrote ;

Stephen wrote: "A confession made of one's own free #21

Do you see that? It says - own free will -  that means not coerced, not forced and not given under duress or torture, but freely, and in the exact manner that you often give freely details of your personal life to the members of this forum . So it is not as redundant as you want it to be. 

So then- would a freely given confession be inadmissible to you?

Just don't THEN conflate what the individual's personal definition is with what the Christian defines it as.  That is my point. 

And my point is that you simply redefine the universally accepted definitions of words when they do not fit the Christian/ YOUR narrative.  And this is why I started my first question to you by asking you;

Do you agree with the definition of the word Genuine?

And do you agree with the definition of the word  "Serious"?#2  These are both words used by you and of your own free will in your own OP Here>>#1

So, how does the Christian bible define the words - Genuine and Serious? 

I request that you refrain from talking of my personal life in the future. 

Which part? The part where I referenced to you being a lawyer, or the part where I referenced you being a Christian? Both are true are they not?

Both if it makes you easier for you to remember.  

My point to Bones is that Christian doctrine is not defined by a dictionary but by the Bible.

Leaving you open and free to redefine just about any word you feel like redefining when it goes against the Christian grain and the Christian narrative.

Not at all.  It just means that I am using the framework of free will within the biblical reference.

If you want to discuss this with me - then that is where I will reference it to. Not to some dictionary - of which there are literally hundreds in the world.

Your contention then seems somewhat redundant doesn't it? Confessions are admissible in court. Yet it depends upon the circumstances and how it was obtained.  What is admissible in court is a different to my point to Bones. Thanks for asking so that it can be clarified. 

Well to be honest I didn't expect a different answer to the one you have given. Because you have intentionally  ignored the point where I clearly wrote ;

I did not ignore any part of your question.  I said confessions are admissible in court.

You however are not really asking about a confession obtained freely or not.

  I have no issue with others defining free will how they choose or desire. That is entirely a matter for them.  Just don't THEN conflate what the individual's personal definition is with what the Christian defines it as.  That is my point. 

Ok, how does "the Christian bible" define the word - righteous? And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - blameless?

LOL! Go and read the bible and find out for yourself. 

[1] What I propose - to try and simplify things is that if people who have asked me a serious question and wish an answer I will reply here. 

[2]  These questions must be genuine and in response to what I have written .or others if they are serious. #1

I request that you refrain from talking of my personal life in the future. 

I can never forget your previous glorifying of yourself. And will always raise the point/s when given cause to do so. 

Your  little ploy of trying to close down and stifle genuine debate  hasn't worked , so you return to your  default position and ignore your own dictates.

• Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action.
  
• Free will is the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe.
  

I accept the fact that we can only know God based on insufficient reasoning. Hence why I am pleased God chose to reveal himself through the Scriptures. 

p1. Humans were made good. 

p2. Therefore it is inconceivable that humans could have been made any "gooder". 

p3. A human who is able to contend morally reprehensible temptations is "gooder" than a human who cannot contend morally reprehensible temptations. 

p4. Humans (Adam & Eve) did not contend morally reprehensible temptations (the serpent)

c1. Therefore it is conceivable that there is a "gooder" human that could exist. 

Ergo. A contradiction arises between p1 and c1. 

I am fine with p1.  I think that p2 is flawed since both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil existed.

p3 is an interesting proposition.   Yet I can't agree with it yet. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by contend. It may be you mean resist. Yet I am still not comfortable with the term "gooder".  We will have to explore that further.  If you don't mind.

c1 again is probably true - but not necessarily flowing out of the above conclusions. 

Jesus, who Christians consider a new thing - like Adam, was also tempted from without.  the devil came to him and despite the thoughts being put to him - Jesus rightly rejected them all. 

So if Jesus was a "free" man who rejected all sin, why couldn't God make people like Jesus? That would be a true utopia - free will individual who chose only to do what is good.

He did make a person like Jesus. 

So gratuitous evils, such as animal suffering in the billions, serves some good to the future? This seems wholly implausible. 

That is not what I said. God is not utilitarian. The means and the ends matter.  The point I was making is that whatever world you can imagine, it would not be better than this one for the purposes it was made. 

If our world is the best possible world, then would you agree that every murder which occurs is not only morally acceptable, but morally obligatory? If we live in the best possible world, and in this world there are street mugging and whatnot, then the street muggings and whatnot must be apart of what makes this the best possible world. WIthout the muggings, it would not be as good. 

As I said above - I hold this in tension.  Out of the possible worlds that could have been created - this is the best possible one.

But on the other hand - every human is entirely responsible for their actions. 

So why not skip our world and create New Heaven? 

Just because someone wants to skip school because it contains bullies, does not mean that school is not the best option. 

But if the option of skipping school involved you being transferred into heaven, which is supposed to have all the "goods" of this world and much more, then yes I would take that option for there would tautologically be no harm in doing so. 

God has not given us that option.   I suppose he wanted us to learn something about good from the evil we witness.

What you hold to is a tautological impossibility. It's a dichotomy to maintain either my will is authored by myself, or a result of past causes. 

I accept the fact that we can only know God based on insufficient reasoning. Hence why I am pleased God chose to reveal himself through the Scriptures. 

Your conclusion that god revealed himself through Scripture is based on insufficient reasoning. How do you know it's the right scripture? And even if it were right, the "rightness" would only conform to 0.05% of all possible knowledge. 

p1. Humans were made good. 

p2. Therefore it is inconceivable that humans could have been made any "gooder". 

p3. A human who is able to contend morally reprehensible temptations is "gooder" than a human who cannot contend morally reprehensible temptations. 

p4. Humans (Adam & Eve) did not contend morally reprehensible temptations (the serpent)

c1. Therefore it is conceivable that there is a "gooder" human that could exist. 

Ergo. A contradiction arises between p1 and c1. 

I am fine with p1.  I think that p2 is flawed since both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil existed.

It's not possible to affirm only one of p1 or p2. Being made good in this context necessarily entails that one couldn't be any better, for if it were conceivable, then the conception itself would have been what God create. Either God created ultimately moral people or he did not. 

p3 is an interesting proposition.   Yet I can't agree with it yet. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by contend. It may be you mean resist. Yet I am still not comfortable with the term "gooder".  We will have to explore that further.  If you don't mind.

I think resist is a good term to use. Is it not trivial that a person who resists the urge to be evil is better than person who cannot? A person who caves in to their desire to steal is less moral than a person who uses rationality to conclude that it is wrong. 

c1 again is probably true - but not necessarily flowing out of the above conclusions. 

If he could, then what benefit does creating these sinning people.

Another topic I have been pondering is why God created in the first place. It is an issue, as I see it. 

p1. God is infinitely good, that is, God's essence is that which could not be any better. 

p2. God creating humans does not make reality any better. 

c1. There was no point in creating people. 

Jesus, who Christians consider a new thing - like Adam, was also tempted from without.  the devil came to him and despite the thoughts being put to him - Jesus rightly rejected them all. 

So if Jesus was a "free" man who rejected all sin, why couldn't God make people like Jesus? That would be a true utopia - free will individual who chose only to do what is good.

He did make a person like Jesus. 

My question isn't whether he made a couple people like Jesus, but rather why didn't he create the population as he did Jesus? What is the point of all these sinning people? We have established that "free will" is not a defence for sin, so what's the point?

So gratuitous evils, such as animal suffering in the billions, serves some good to the future? This seems wholly implausible. 

That is not what I said. God is not utilitarian. The means and the ends matter.  The point I was making is that whatever world you can imagine, it would not be better than this one for the purposes it was made. 

If our world is the best possible world, then would you agree that every murder which occurs is not only morally acceptable, but morally obligatory? If we live in the best possible world, and in this world there are street mugging and whatnot, then the street muggings and whatnot must be apart of what makes this the best possible world. WIthout the muggings, it would not be as good. 

As I said above - I hold this in tension.  Out of the possible worlds that could have been created - this is the best possible one.

So then you would affirm that every murder which occurs is not only morally acceptable, but morally obligatory. 

But on the other hand - every human is entirely responsible for their actions. 

This entails free will then - people are the authors of their own actions. 

So why not skip our world and create New Heaven? 

Just because someone wants to skip school because it contains bullies, does not mean that school is not the best option. 

But if the option of skipping school involved you being transferred into heaven, which is supposed to have all the "goods" of this world and much more, then yes I would take that option for there would tautologically be no harm in doing so. 

God has not given us that option.   I suppose he wanted us to learn something about good from the evil we witness.

God could have instilled that wisdom into our minds, just as how he intils intuition. 

And haven't you made it clear  above on this thread that you only take your understandings and meanings of words" from the bible itself"?#20  and not "some dictionary"?

I am not asking you for the definitions of these words given in "some dictionary". I asked you questions that are well inside your own capacity and the dictates and the requirements that you set down in your original post yourself, namely:

Tradsecret wrote:[1] What I propose - to try and simplify things is that if people who have asked me a serious question and wish an answer I will reply here. 

Tradsecret wrote:[2]  These questions must be genuine and in response to what I have written .or others if they are serious. #1

So how does "the Christian bible" define the word - righteous?

And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - blameless?

And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - perfect?

And although mankind's fall means we will remain sinful does this mean we will not ever be perfect until  we accept Jesus, the resurrection and die?

 It is a commitment to stop you and Brother from trolling and making personal attacks.

There is no personal attack made by me on  this thread. You are just desperate to avoid the questions even if it means breaking rules set down by yourself.

The very fact that I have told you that those questions are not serious questions by you because you want to know - and yet you continue to push anyway - is demonstration that you have your own agenda.  

LOOK, Just simply stop responding to me if your intent is to keep refusing to answer my questions that are clearly in the bounds of your own fkn dictates, you sanctimonious, contradictory, backpaddling whining little tart . Its not fkn hard.

LOOK, Just simply stop responding to me if your intent is to keep refusing to answer my questions that are clearly in the bounds of your own fkn dictates, you sanctimonious, contradictory, backpaddling whining little tart . Its not fkn hard.

Nothing personal there is there? 

So how does "the Christian bible" define the word - righteous?

And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - blameless?

And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - perfect?

And although mankind's fall means we will remain sinful does this mean we will not ever be perfect until  we accept Jesus, the resurrection and die?

LOL! Go and read the bible and find out for yourself.  Romans is a good place to start.  Compare it to Luther's comments. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7634/post-links/329868

Just as I predicated.

What you hold to is a tautological impossibility. It's a dichotomy to maintain either my will is authored by myself, or a result of past causes. 

Only if I wish to maintain a distinct cultural Western view of logic.

I accept the fact that we can only know God based on insufficient reasoning. Hence why I am pleased God chose to reveal himself through the Scriptures. 

Your conclusion that god revealed himself through Scripture is based on insufficient reasoning. How do you know it's the right scripture? And even if it were right, the "rightness" would only conform to 0.05% of all possible knowledge. 

It's based on as much information as we use ordinarily for most books of history and their authencity. 

p1. Humans were made good. 

p2. Therefore it is inconceivable that humans could have been made any "gooder". 

p3. A human who is able to contend morally reprehensible temptations is "gooder" than a human who cannot contend morally reprehensible temptations. 

p4. Humans (Adam & Eve) did not contend morally reprehensible temptations (the serpent)

c1. Therefore it is conceivable that there is a "gooder" human that could exist. 

Ergo. A contradiction arises between p1 and c1. 

I am fine with p1.  I think that p2 is flawed since both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil existed.

It's not possible to affirm only one of p1 or p2. Being made good in this context necessarily entails that one couldn't be any better, for if it were conceivable, then the conception itself would have been what God create. Either God created ultimately moral people or he did not. 

I don't agree that to accept p1 you must also accept p2. 

Resisting evil is a good thing, surely? If a person is unable to resist evil, the question is why?

If the reason why the person cannot resist evil is justified then surely that does not make them worse than the person who resists evil?

c1 again is probably true - but not necessarily flowing out of the above conclusions. 

If he could, then what benefit does creating these sinning people.

God does not create sinning people. God created  people without sin.  People sinned.

I am not sure what the question of benefit is trying to ascertain?  Can you think of any benefit that would satisfy you? I doubt it. 

Jesus, who Christians consider a new thing - like Adam, was also tempted from without.  the devil came to him and despite the thoughts being put to him - Jesus rightly rejected them all. 

So if Jesus was a "free" man who rejected all sin, why couldn't God make people like Jesus? That would be a true utopia - free will individual who chose only to do what is good.

He did make a person like Jesus. 

My question isn't whether he made a couple people like Jesus, but rather why didn't he create the population as he did Jesus? What is the point of all these sinning people? We have established that "free will" is not a defence for sin, so what's the point?

What is the point of what? The primary purpose of life is to worship God and glorify him forever.  The point is not about us - it is about God. 

So gratuitous evils, such as animal suffering in the billions, serves some good to the future? This seems wholly implausible. 

That is not what I said. God is not utilitarian. The means and the ends matter.  The point I was making is that whatever world you can imagine, it would not be better than this one for the purposes it was made. 

If our world is the best possible world, then would you agree that every murder which occurs is not only morally acceptable, but morally obligatory? If we live in the best possible world, and in this world there are street mugging and whatnot, then the street muggings and whatnot must be apart of what makes this the best possible world. WIthout the muggings, it would not be as good. 

As I said above - I hold this in tension.  Out of the possible worlds that could have been created - this is the best possible one.

So then you would affirm that every murder which occurs is not only morally acceptable, but morally obligatory. 

I'm sure I have answered that question.  I take the view that murder is morally unacceptable.  The 6th commandment is you shall not murder.   Hence it is neither acceptable or obligatory. 

But on the other hand - every human is entirely responsible for their actions. 

This entails free will then - people are the authors of their own actions. 

Yes. 

So why not skip our world and create New Heaven? 

Just because someone wants to skip school because it contains bullies, does not mean that school is not the best option. 

But if the option of skipping school involved you being transferred into heaven, which is supposed to have all the "goods" of this world and much more, then yes I would take that option for there would tautologically be no harm in doing so. 

God has not given us that option.   I suppose he wanted us to learn something about good from the evil we witness.

God could have instilled that wisdom into our minds, just as how he intils intuition. 

would you have preferred that God simply made us robots without a free will and just to do perfect.  The problem with robots is that they can't love freely. 

It's not western logic - logic is logic. Either 

• you author your actions. 
  
• you don't. 
  

There's no third option, it's a true dichotomy rendered valid by the law of excluded middle.  

It's based on as much information as we use ordinarily for most books of history and their authencity. 

You said before that I can't come to conclusions because I only possess a fraction of possible information, yet somehow you can come to conclusions? 

I don't agree that to accept p1 you must also accept p2. 

Well I don't know how to explain it then. If something is good, suggests that being "gooder" is logically incoherent, for if something "gooder" were possible, then that "gooder" would be the standard for good. 

Resisting evil is a good thing, surely? If a person is unable to resist evil, the question is why?

It would be because they couldn't do what a more moral man would do, that is, resist the evil. 

If the reason why the person cannot resist evil is justified then surely that does not make them worse than the person who resists evil?

If the reason to resist evil is justified, then the act of doing it isn't evil, so it's excluded from the conversation. 

God does not create sinning people. God created  people without sin.  People sinned.

p1. People sin because they possess a desire to sin. 

p2. Desires are manifested from the brain. 

p3. God created brains. 

c1. God created people's desire to sin

I am not sure what the question of benefit is trying to ascertain?  Can you think of any benefit that would satisfy you? I doubt it. 

I can't see any benefit to why God created sin, and that is precisely the problem. 

What is the point of what? The primary purpose of life is to worship God and glorify him forever.  The point is not about us - it is about God. 

What's the point? Well literally the eradication of all sin whilst maintaining the fruits of life? We can still praise God if we're all like Jesus. 

I'm sure I have answered that question.  I take the view that murder is morally unacceptable.  The 6th commandment is you shall not murder.   Hence it is neither acceptable or obligatory. 

But God created a world in which, as you stated, is the best possible world, which entails that every occurence is also the best possible of all outcomes. 

So you do believe in free will then? 

would you have preferred that God simply made us robots without a free will and just to do perfect.  The problem with robots is that they can't love freely. 

There is NO WAY you're using the free will defence to defend sins. The entire point of my argument is that we can be sinless and free at the same time. You can still love freely even if you don't possess the desire to sin. 

It's not western logic - logic is logic. Either 

• you author your actions. 
  
• you don't. 
  

There's no third option, it's a true dichotomy rendered valid by the law of excluded middle.  

Yes. Western Logic.  I am surprised you are rejecting Eastern logic.   I don't have to and I am not going to. 

I don't agree that to accept p1 you must also accept p2. 

Well I don't know how to explain it then. If something is good, suggests that being "gooder" is logically incoherent, for if something "gooder" were possible, then that "gooder" would be the standard for good. 

Use a different word then. gooder is not an English word anyway.  good better best.  something that can good but not gooder.  but it can be better. 

Resisting evil is a good thing, surely? If a person is unable to resist evil, the question is why?

It would be because they couldn't do what a more moral man would do, that is, resist the evil. 

Are you talking about character or something else? A quality of intelligence, culture, gender etc?  Prince Andrew might never put elbows on the table, but I wouldn't want him around my kids. Hitler was very intelligent apparently as is Trump, but both of them have significant ethical compasses. 

If the reason why the person cannot resist evil is justified then surely that does not make them worse than the person who resists evil?

If the reason to resist evil is justified, then the act of doing it isn't evil, so it's excluded from the conversation. 

Let me think about that.  I am not sure we are talking about the same thing here - justified. If an act is justified does that mean the act is not evil? 

God does not create sinning people. God created  people without sin.  People sinned.

p1. People sin because they possess a desire to sin. 

p2. Desires are manifested from the brain. 

p3. God created brains. 

c1. God created people's desire to sin

People sin for all sorts of reasons.  Sometimes it is an act out of a desire. Sometimes it is an omission out of thoughtlessness.  Desire is not the common factor. 

I am not sure what the question of benefit is trying to ascertain?  Can you think of any benefit that would satisfy you? I doubt it. 

I can't see any benefit to why God created sin, and that is precisely the problem. 

God did not create sin.  Sin is not a thing that can be created. 

What is the point of what? The primary purpose of life is to worship God and glorify him forever.  The point is not about us - it is about God. 

What's the point? Well literally the eradication of all sin whilst maintaining the fruits of life? We can still praise God if we're all like Jesus. 

This is why Jesus died on the cross. To eradicate sin. 

I'm sure I have answered that question.  I take the view that murder is morally unacceptable.  The 6th commandment is you shall not murder.   Hence it is neither acceptable or obligatory. 

But God created a world in which, as you stated, is the best possible world, which entails that every occurence is also the best possible of all outcomes. 

I am still missing your point here.   Of all the possible worlds, that could have been made, our world at this time, in its condition - on its way to becoming a new heaven and earth is the only one God chose to make.  God ordains the ends and the means.   Knowing this does not imply that everything that happens in our world is necessarily the best possible of all outcomes.   

would you have preferred that God simply made us robots without a free will and just to do perfect.  The problem with robots is that they can't love freely. 

There is NO WAY you're using the free will defence to defend sins. The entire point of my argument is that we can be sinless and free at the same time. You can still love freely even if you don't possess the desire to sin. 

I know what your argument is - or well I am trying to understand it. I don't agree with it so far.   The New Heaven is the only place where we will be sinless and free at the same time. \

So do you ignore the Law of Non-Contradiction? The Law of Identity?  

Use a different word then. gooder is not an English word anyway.  good better best.  something that can good but not gooder.  but it can be better. 

p1. Humans were made morally perfect. 

p2. Therefore it is inconceivable that humans could have been made more morally better. 

p3. A human who is able to contend morally reprehensible temptations is "morally better" than a human who cannot contend morally reprehensible temptations. 

p4. Humans (Adam & Eve) did not contend morally reprehensible temptations (the serpent)

c1. Therefore it is conceivable that there is a "morally better" human that could exist. 

Ergo. A contradiction arises between p1 and c1. 

Resisting evil is a good thing, surely? If a person is unable to resist evil, the question is why?

It would be because they couldn't do what a more moral man would do, that is, resist the evil. 

Are you talking about character or something else? A quality of intelligence, culture, gender etc?  Prince Andrew might never put elbows on the table, but I wouldn't want him around my kids. Hitler was very intelligent apparently as is Trump, but both of them have significant ethical compasses. 

I'm sorry what is the point of that digression? I was making a very simple point, that is, if you are unable to resist some evil, you lack some essence that someone who could resist it possess.

If the reason why the person cannot resist evil is justified then surely that does not make them worse than the person who resists evil?

If the reason to resist evil is justified, then the act of doing it isn't evil, so it's excluded from the conversation. 

Let me think about that.  I am not sure we are talking about the same thing here - justified. If an act is justified does that mean the act is not evil? 

Give me an example of something which is morally justified but still evil.

People sin for all sorts of reasons.  Sometimes it is an act out of a desire. Sometimes it is an omission out of thoughtlessness.  Desire is not the common factor. 

Ok, but would you agree that the syllogism is true if I added, on balance, in front of each statement? You would agree that most evils are a result of a desire to do something? 

I am not sure what the question of benefit is trying to ascertain?  Can you think of any benefit that would satisfy you? I doubt it. 

I can't see any benefit to why God created sin, and that is precisely the problem. 

God did not create sin.  Sin is not a thing that can be created. 

It is. Sin is a result of the actualisation of some desires. Those desires were created by God. 

What is the point of what? The primary purpose of life is to worship God and glorify him forever.  The point is not about us - it is about God. 

What's the point? Well literally the eradication of all sin whilst maintaining the fruits of life? We can still praise God if we're all like Jesus. 

This is why Jesus died on the cross. To eradicate sin. 

You ignored the original point. Why can't God create everyone like he created Jesus. What harm would there be? 

I am still missing your point here.   Of all the possible worlds, that could have been made, our world at this time, in its condition - on its way to becoming a new heaven and earth is the only one God chose to make.  God ordains the ends and the means.   Knowing this does not imply that everything that happens in our world is necessarily the best possible of all outcomes.   

You literally said "Out of the possible worlds that could have been created - this is the best possible one"

p1. God is that who can actualise any possible world. (True via tautology. God is, by definition, that who can do all that is possible [omnipotence])

p2. New Heaven is a possible world (true because you said. It's literally the end goal for humanity so it must be possible)

c1. Therefore, God could have created New Heaven, without the need for preceding worlds

So do you ignore the Law of Non-Contradiction? The Law of Identity?  

No, not at all. I am just not slavishly blind to it that I don't see other methods of logic.  Western logic is powerful but it is not infallible.  It falls down at different levels.  A useful tool, but not the only tool in the logic bag. 

p.1 If you are saying that they are made without sin.  Yes I would agree. 

p.2 If you are saying that it makes no sense that a human could be made even more so "without sin", then I guess that makes sense. 

p.3 You need to actually justify that assertion.   I don't accept at face value that just because someone resists temptation that this makes someone morally better. It may be true or not. It may be true sometimes and sometimes not. 

Resisting evil is a good thing, surely? If a person is unable to resist evil, the question is why?

It would be because they couldn't do what a more moral man would do, that is, resist the evil. 

Are you talking about character or something else? A quality of intelligence, culture, gender etc?  Prince Andrew might never put elbows on the table, but I wouldn't want him around my kids. Hitler was very intelligent apparently as is Trump, but both of them have significant ethical compasses. 

I'm sorry what is the point of that digression? I was making a very simple point, that is, if you are unable to resist some evil, you lack some essence that someone who could resist it possess.

the point is you have not defined evil.   

If the reason why the person cannot resist evil is justified then surely that does not make them worse than the person who resists evil?

If the reason to resist evil is justified, then the act of doing it isn't evil, so it's excluded from the conversation. 

Let me think about that.  I am not sure we are talking about the same thing here - justified. If an act is justified does that mean the act is not evil? 

Give me an example of something which is morally justified but still evil.

I didn't use the word "morally", I just said justified.   but a person could justify stealing a loaf of bread to feed her children. 

People sin for all sorts of reasons.  Sometimes it is an act out of a desire. Sometimes it is an omission out of thoughtlessness.  Desire is not the common factor. 

Ok, but would you agree that the syllogism is true if I added, on balance, in front of each statement? You would agree that most evils are a result of a desire to do something? 

no I am not in agreement.  Sin for me - is both the action and the omission. I actually think most people sin more by not doing what they should be doing as opposed to committing direct sins.  For me - the 2 commands are love God and love others.   People most often fall down loving others by failing to do stuff - not by punching them in the nose.   The Failure to something is not normally desire, but opportunity, neglect, selfish behaviour, recklessness, thoughlessness. Etc. 

Putting "on balance" in the front is not going to do it. 

I am not sure what the question of benefit is trying to ascertain?  Can you think of any benefit that would satisfy you? I doubt it. 

I can't see any benefit to why God created sin, and that is precisely the problem. 

God did not create sin.  Sin is not a thing that can be created. 

It is. Sin is a result of the actualisation of some desires. Those desires were created by God. 

No - not correct.  Sin is an action or an omission.  It is a falling short of doing the right thing.   God does not create a desire to sin.   

What is the point of what? The primary purpose of life is to worship God and glorify him forever.  The point is not about us - it is about God. 

What's the point? Well literally the eradication of all sin whilst maintaining the fruits of life? We can still praise God if we're all like Jesus. 

This is why Jesus died on the cross. To eradicate sin. 

You ignored the original point. Why can't God create everyone like he created Jesus. What harm would there be? 

In the first place - Jesus is God, so it is impossible to create God. God is eternal.

I am still missing your point here.   Of all the possible worlds, that could have been made, our world at this time, in its condition - on its way to becoming a new heaven and earth is the only one God chose to make.  God ordains the ends and the means.   Knowing this does not imply that everything that happens in our world is necessarily the best possible of all outcomes.   

You literally said "Out of the possible worlds that could have been created - this is the best possible one"

Yes, I did.  And I hold to that.  What I am saying is that this does not mean that everything is obligatory. 

p1. God is that who can actualise any possible world. (True via tautology. God is, by definition, that who can do all that is possible [omnipotence])

p2. New Heaven is a possible world (true because you said. It's literally the end goal for humanity so it must be possible)

c1. Therefore, God could have created New Heaven, without the need for preceding worlds

Ok. so where does that leave us?

A straightforward couple of questions.

A. What exactly is sin?

B. How and why was/were such conclusions decided upon?