Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense Regarding The Problem Of Evil:

Man's Free Will is responsible for all the evil in the would.
God created a perfect world.
God created perfect human beings.
God gave human beings a Free Will.
Human beings used their Free Will to choose to do evil.
Human beings choosing to do evil is the reason we have
natural disasters and evil in the world-- and the reason
we have The Curse upon the Earth.

Many atheists blame the God of the Bible for all the natural disasters
and all the evil in the world.

You may ask, "How can atheists blame the God of the Bible for evil
when atheists do not believe that God exists?
Answer: They postulate that "if God does exist" then He is evil
because the Bible presents God as being Omnipotent {all powerful}
and therefore He could have created a world without any evil if He had
wanted to do that. He did not want to do that, therefore He is evil.

So? So there are many atheists who have said that the
God-That-Does-Not-Exist is responsible for all the evil in the world.

What does that mean? Well again atheists do not believe that God exists
but, for the sake of argument, they say that if the God of the Bible
does exist, then He is responsible for all the evil in the world because
He is Omnipotent and could have designed a world without evil.

I just recently read a lengthy thread on another forum where
an atheist and many of his fellow atheists blamed the God of
the Bible for inflicting the COVID-19 virus on humanity.

Yes, sure! Again, I know that atheists do NOT believe that God
exists. But they, for arguments sake, argue against the God of
the Bible and say that "if He does exist", He would be evil because
He could prevent evil, but chooses NOT to prevent it.

Has anyone read the books written by the infamous "New Atheists"?
There are 4 of them. Their names are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris,
Daniel Dennett, and the late Christopher Hitchens.

The atheist Richard Dawkins is an especially vile talking atheist.
Here is what the atheist Richard Dawkins said about the God of
the Bible:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant
character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust,
unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser;
a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal,
pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously
malevolent bully.” ― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Again, the "New Atheists" do not believe that God actually exists.
But they say that "if He does exist" He is evil as I explained above.
I keep repeating this because a large number of Internet posters
endlessly state that "Atheists do not believe that God exists" as if
we did not know that. We do know that.


Back to what some atheists have said about the
God-That-Does-Not-Exist . . .

They have specifically and clearly and emphatically declared
that the God of the Bible IS responsible for the evil in the
world.

Stephen Fry, an atheist, has a video on You Tube, He was
being interviewed and he was asked, 'What would you
say to God when you die and find out that Christianity
is actually true, and you are standing at the pearly gates?

Stephen Fry replied that he was going to ask God "Why he
put bone cancer in children? God, What is that all about?",
replied Stephen Fry.

Stephen Fry's video went viral and has become infamous on the
Internet. You see it quoted and linked to quite often.

____________

Back to The Problem Of Evil . . .

Centuries ago Epicurus formulated The Problem Of Evil like this:


Sayeth 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 nor willing? Then why call him God?”__Epicurus

The Christian analytical philosopher Alvin Plantinga has a very good
rebuttal to these "New Atheists" and to Epicurus.

Sayeth the Christian Alvin Plantinga:

{You will need to "deep read" what Plantinga says below
and spend some time studying and seriously analyzing
what Plantinga has written}

As Plantinga summarized his Free Will 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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_...urther_details

End quote.
___________


The "New Atheists" do not correctly understand the Biblical
doctrine of the Omnipotence {all-powerful} of God.

Epicurus did not correctly understand the Christian doctrine of
God's Omnipotence. God's Omnipotence does not mean that
He can do anything. God cannot create square circles. God
cannot make 2 + 2 = 7. God cannot give humans the Free Will
to do evil and at the same time prevent humans from doing evil.


The fatal flaw in Epicurus is he misunderstood the Christian
doctrine of the Omnipotence of the God of the Bible.

Conclusion: Mankind, NOT God, is the cause of sin, evil, and
natural disasters in the world.


`

 

Alvin Plantinga Continued . . .

Start quote.
{Plantinga's} second major work, God, Freedom and Evil, proved even more
consequential, as it dealt with the oft-heard objection that a good God is
incompatible with a world filled with evil. Plantinga responded by asserting that
this argument presumes, but does not establish, a contradiction between God
and the existence of evil.

Even an omnipotent and loving God would not create free creatures who would
always choose to do good— for to ensure that, God would have to deprive them
of genuine freedom (which includes the freedom to do wrong). Plantinga further
maintained that the overriding value of human free will is a more-than-credible
reason a benevolent God might have for allowing the existence of evil. The book
was so well argued that it is still widely credited, even by non-believers, for
successfully rebutting this particular charge against God’s existence.
End quote.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/06/alvin-plantingas-masterful-achievement

`

 

Alvin Plantinga Continued . . .

Start quote.
It is worth noting that in 1966, the year before Plantinga began his theistic trilogy,
Time published its sensational cover story, “Is God Dead?” By 1980, however,
the somewhat chastened magazine acknowledged he was not: “God is making
a comeback Most intriguingly, this is happening not among theologians or
ordinary believers—most of whom never accepted for a moment that he was
in any serious trouble—but in the crisp, intellectual circles of academic
philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from
fruitful discourse.” The man Time credited more than any other for this
turnabout was “America’s leading orthodox Protestant philosopher of
God, Alvin Plantinga.”
End quote.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/06/alvin-plantingas-masterful-achievement

 

Alvin Plantinga Continued . . .

. . .for anyone interested in reading Alvin Plantinga . .

Start quote.
Soon after this, Plantinga began a new trilogy, culminating in what
many consider his masterpiece, Warranted Christian Belief, a
500- page tour de force in which he not only defended theism,
but basic Christian theology and Holy Scripture against a wide
range of determined critics.
End quote.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/06/alvin-plantingas-masterful-achievement

 

Alvin Plantinga Continued . . .

Start quote.
The rise of “new atheists” like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris
and the late Christopher Hitchens has not intimidated Plantinga in the least.
He playfuly calls them the “four horsemen” of the atheist apocalypse, and in
his latest book, Knowledge and Christian Belief, he exposes their inadequacies:

One might say they are more style than substance, except that there isn’t much
by way of style either; their preferred style seems to be less that of serious
scholarly work than of pamphleteering and furious denunciation They blame
everything short of bad weather and tooth decay on religion…Their style
emphasizes venom, vitriol, vituperation, ridicule, insult and ‘naked contempt’;
what’s missing, however, is cogent argument.
End quote.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/06/alvin-plantingas-masterful-achievement

 

Alvin Plantinga Continued . . .

Start quote.
More recently, Plantinga has turned his attention to the alleged conflict
between science and religion, answering the charge in Where the Conflict
Really Lies. In it, Plantinga turns the tables on anti-religious scientists,
showing that while there is a serious conflict between evolution and
naturalism (which excludes the supernatural), “there is a deep and
massive consonance between theism and the scientific enterprise.”
The book received a largely favorable review in The New York
Review of Books, which described Plantinga as a “philosophically
subtle and scientifically informed theist” who had made a “valuable
contribution” to the subject. The praise was all the more remarkable
given that Plantinga once wrote a devastating critique of philosopher
Thomas Sheehan’s anti-Christian polemics, which the same
New York Review of Books had promoted years before.
End quote.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/06/alvin-plantingas-masterful-achievement

 

Alvin Plantinga Continued . . .

Ah one last short quote to honor Alvin Plantinga . . .

Start quote.
“In the 1950’s there was not a single published defense of religious
belief by a prominent philosopher; by the 1990’s there were literally
hundreds of books and articles, from Yale to UCLA and from Oxford
to Heidelberg, defending and developing the spiritual dimension. The
difference between 1950 and 1990 is, quite simply, Alvin Plantinga.”
End quote.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/06/alvin-plantingas-masterful-achievement

 

That's the belief/dogma of Western religion, and recognizing it as nonsense (IMO) does not require one to be a stalwart atheist.

The perfect world with perfect beings, or at least a near-so reality is noncorporeal, nonphysical (relative to our physical reality), i.e. the spirit world where the energy (light) is free gratis, obviating the need to eat and compete for resources.

The material world is one of confined energy sources wherein individuation promotes concerns for security, reproduction, and competition for limited resources. Evil and sin are arbitrary moral concepts.

The occurrences of natural disasters do not depend on the interventions of a judgmental overseer. These have nothing to do with retribution for sin.

The choices made, good or bad, in the exercise of free will, are part of the learning process, furthering the development of quality consciousness, the ultimate goal being reunification with the Source (God). The intermediate process involves consolidation, a melding of individualized beings.

The chicken that creates the egg does not intervene inside the egg, but the embryo must play by the rules in order to become a chicken.

There is a small piece of God in each of us. It has been there ever since the Unlimited Spirit separated us from itself and gave us awareness of our individual existence.

 

Just not in any way you can demonstrate, Mr. "I Merely Assert".

 

I think you're leaning too heavily on that angle. The debate really boils down to a question of the validity and internal consistency of the various interpretations of the Bible and concepts of God presented by all the different religions, churches, faiths and individuals. It isn't about any one concept making logical sense it's about all of the concepts making logical sense as a whole. God could be responsible for evil (and good) or could be not responsible for evil (or good). The question is what would each of those conclusions mean about God and all of the different things said about him and, by extension, said about us and how we're "meant" to live our lives.

I wouldn't be as direct or one-sided about this (but then I'm not trying to sell a book) but as a raw principle, can you really challenge that impression given some of the actions in the OT either directly attributed to God or presented as direct instructions by him?

Doesn't that depend on the purpose of existence and the viewpoint you're looking from? We would obviously prefer free creatures to exist rather than not because we are some of those free creatures. From the point of view of the universe, does our existence really make the blindest bit of difference? A little nihilistic I admit but still a valid consideration if you're going to establish an objective concept of what is "valuable".

And again, I don't think there is any argument against that idea on it's own. The questions are raised on what that would mean about the nature of God, all the other things said about him and all the things people are told they should or shouldn't do as a consequence.

I think the fundamental issue here is lots of people (theists and atheists) focus on only one of "good" and "evil". Regardless of where you fall on this point, the question is whether God is responsible for good and evil or whether he isn't (directly) responsible for either. I don't think you can make a valid argument for his to be responsible for one but not the other. After all, very little or anything a "morally free" creature does can be labelled exclusively and unconditionally "good" or "evil". Free will would render a creature free to do both good and evil by definition and reality leads to a whole mess of complex chains of consequence, mixed outcomes and relative perceptions.

 

So is it possible to sin in heaven? If it is not, then a god can create creatures that do only what is right. As I understand it you cannot sin in heaven according to christians.

The Bible is clear that it will be impossible for humans to sin in heaven. A close look at Revelation 21 and 22, the New Testament's final chapters, offers several insights that indicate sin will no longer remain in the new heaven in eternity future.

Revelation 21:4 notes the future removal of any pain or problems: "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore."

This same verse notes the reason there would no longer be death or pain: "for the former things have passed away." The new heaven and new earth will exist without the curse of sin found in this world.

https://www.compellingtruth.org/heaven-sin.html

 

If you rely exclusively on what can be demonstrated, then you are boxed in by dearth of philosophy, in a lack of scope. IAW so firmly anchored in objective physical reality as to be blind to the abstract machinations of subjective physical reality where there are less tangible processes going on behind the scenes.

Total reliance on the senses and materialism doesn't get you any forward-thinking scope.

 

The above does not address the issues of free will, individuation, security, or competition for limited resources. IAW it's a promising nonphysical reality. The individual faces no developmental requirements or challenges in qualifying for the sin-free new world, except to sign on to the concept, be reverent and dedicated to the Almighty, and be saved. IAW I'm not buying it and am looking towards a different scenario.

 

It is not meant to it shows the contradiction between Plantingas argument and orthodox christian teaching, if there is no sin in heaven but still free will then a god can create a world without evil. Either you can agree with his argument or you reject the idea of heaven being without sin and therefore evil, you cannot have bothj!

 

The whole defense requires that we first assume that God is immoral and relies on corporate punishment. Blaming so random person for an earthquake that kills someone else entirely is simultaneously ignorant and presumes an ignorant and evil God.

"I have to drown this puppy because somewhere a human cheated on his wife." How could a God be this evil and idiotic?

 

Thank you! I've been pointing this out for over a decade and still haven't gotten a response from any theist.

 

Bet we do not get a reply here either! They come to preach not discuss.

 

Well the OP has opened another thread and even quoted plantagia in it, but I think we will not get a reply to our question here!

 

Yardmeat,
I am a Theist and I will do my best to give you an answer.

Since you have been asking for over a decade, you deserve
for somebody to give you a response.

I am going to invest considerable time and effort in
composing my response to you -- and I hope you will give it
some serious consideration and not mock and ridicule my
efforts. I have read enough of your posts to know that you
often write reasonable replies to ideas with which you
disagree.

The Issue behind your question is this:
There is no sin in Heaven but there is Free Will in Heaven
so God could have made Earth like Heaven and created
Earth with no sin and with Free Will -- but He did not do
that -- therefore Plantinga's Free Will Defense fails.

I am going to make some Miscellaneous Points:

{1} There may NOT be Free Will in Heaven -- not the same
kind of Free Will that human's have. We can't know for sure.
The people and angels in Heaven may be permanently
confirmed in holiness and be unable to sin. We simply
cannot know. We can only speculate.

{2} There was a time, long ago, when angels did have Free
Will and a large number of them rebelled against God and
were kicked out of Heaven. See Revelation 12:7-9 Some
theologians think that God has now removed the possibility
of this happening again through permanent confirmation in
holiness,

{3} Question: Why did not God use permanent confirmation
in holiness for humans here on Earth, as He did in Heaven?
{if that's what He did}

{4} Because Heaven is not a testing ground.

{5} Earth is a testing ground. What kind of testing?

{6} Testing to see who will, and will not, be allowed to enter
Heaven.

{7} Why would God create this kind of testing? Because He
wants to find out who will, or will not, obey Him.

{8} Why would He want to come to know this? Because there
can be only one God in Heaven. Humans who refuse to obey
God here on Earth, would also refuse to obey God if they were
allowed in Heaven -- therefore the testing here on Earth.

{9} What does God want you to do? What is the test? He wants
you to submit your will to His will. He wants you to submit your
intellect to His superior Intellect. He wants you to agree to live
your life as a creature, and not to live your life as if you were
equal to Him who is your Creator.

{10} You may say, "I will NEVER agree to that." Okay, if you say
that, then you have your answer. How so? Because the entire
Bible is written on the assumption that you have Free Will and
what you choose will determine your eternal destiny.

{11} God says throughout the Bible that you must choose,
Choose what? Choose to believe in Him. Choose to submit
your will to His will. Choose to submit your intellect to His
Intellect. Choose to exercise faith in Him. "without faith it
is impossible to please God" Hebrews 11:6 This means
He wants you to choose to please Him.

{12} Again, you may say, "I will NEVER choose to do that."
Well, if you say that, and live out your life like that, then
according to Christendom's most famous Bible verse,
you will perish. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world
that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever
believes on Him, shall not perish, but have eternal life."
Note the particulars:
{A} believe
{B} perish
{C} eternal life

"Believe" is clear enough. You take a leap of faith. You don't
"think it through" ~~ you don't "trust your intellect" instead
you trust in God and believe Him -- eg. believe John 3:16.

"Eternal life" is clear enough ~~ you live forever and you never
die even though your body dies, your soul lives forever in Heaven.

"Perish" is more difficult to understand.
What does it mean to "perish"?
Christendom has two views of "perish"
{a} conscious eternal torment
{b} perish means death {Annihilation}
Compare
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift
of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our LORD.__Romans 6:23
Contrast the "death" with the "eternal life."
On {b} death means death {ie. Annihilation}

{13} Back to Free Will . . .
The entire Bible demands that you make a choice.
Here is the principle stated in these 3 Bible passages.

Proverbs 3:5-6
"Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your
own understanding; 6in all your ways submit to him, and
he will make your paths straight."___Proverbs 3:5-6

Are you willing to do that? Are you willing to "lean not on your
own understanding"? If you're not willing, then you have your
answer with regard to why Earth is a testing ground,

Joshua 24:15
"But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose
for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods
your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of
the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me
and my household, we will {choose} serve the LORD."
___Joshua 24:15

So will you choose to serve the Lord? You will choose yes or no.
You either will, or you will not. Free Will. You have it.

Deuteronomy 30:19
This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against
you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and
curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live"
___Deuteronomy 30:19

The entire Bible demands that we make a choice.
There are two choices:
{a} life
{b} death
"Now choose"

__________________


One last point about "acceptable losses."
The Bible is written on the assumption that there
will be a HUGE number of human beings that will
consistently choose to have nothing to do with God.
Question: Why would God create a world where a
HUGE number of His creatures will end up perishing?
Answer: Because on Biblical Christianity, the final
number of those who believe is far greater than the
final number of those who want nothing to do with
God. See Revelation 7:9-10
{However, nobody has to be among the "acceptable
losses" See Revelation 3:20}

___________________

Yardmeat, I hope that made at least some sense to you.
I will be glad to give you my best answers to any questions
that may have popped into your mind while you were reading
that up there.

If you read this far, thanks for taking the time to read what I wrote.
Try to be kind if you reply -- I'm only attempting to answer your
question that has gone unanswered for over a decade.



`

 

So you say God created humans with the free will to do evil instead of humans that do no harm. Am I to understand that you also think this was a morally good move? (The text says "valuable", it's not clear if that is equivalent to goodness, or if it is some other value that God pursues instead of goodness). If you think God creating free humans was good, but atheists fail to see it, then we must conclude that the atheists do not have knowledge of good and evil, which to the best of my knowledge is at odds with Christianity and/or the Bible.

You touch on bone cancer in children, but your argument doesn't address it. Natural disasters and similar (like bone cancer) cannot be explained by Plantinga's argument, since they are not caused by human free will (unless you argue there are free humans who put it in the children, or like Plantinga, argue that there are demons who deliberately oversee every unfortune, even highly likely ones).

If I recall correctly, Plantinga does not resolve or address the normal argument from evil, he addresses only the logical argument of evil, which is slightly different. His argument allows for solutions to the problem of evil, but they are solutions that Christianity would not traditionally accept, such as "murder and mayhem is inherently good" or "humans do not have knowledge of good and evil" or "no unfortune can happen without a demon deliberately creating it".

 

Yes I do believe that was a morally good move. I will explain why
I believe that, but I have to tell you up-front that there are no
secular arguments that can explain it. That leaves Faith based
reasons. If you are not interested in Faith based reasons, then
I cannot respond to your questions.

Here is what I believe the Bible traches:

I am going to give you my answer by making . . .

Miscellaneous Points:

{1} God gave man Free Will.

{2} God knew that a huge number of His creatures would use their
Free Will to do evil and end up finally rejecting His love and be lost.
But . . .

{3} God also knew that a huge-enormous-overwhelming number of
His creatures would end up doing the exact opposite of that. So?

{4} So God knew that His "net gain" so to speak would be, in
percent ratio, for greater than His losses. His net gains by far
outweigh His losses.

{5} Those finally lost will end up being just a "tiny corner of the
Universe" in percent ratio to those salvaged.

{6} The final number of Christians in human history will end being
trillions times trillions. No typo. I mean trillions times trillions. What
about sufficient time to get this done?

{7} The human race is now in its infancy, only about in the Third
Grade, historically speaking. We have untold mega-millenniums
yet to go before we will graduate up the Fourth Grade. It may
take 500,000 years to get us to the Tenth Grade.


__________________


Father Time Is The Friend Of Christianity:


{8} There are no Biblical reasons why Human History can
not continue on for say 1,000,000 years. Or much longer.

(9} The Human Race has always made progress. You have to
compare millenniums, not mere centuries. Compare the
progress made in the last 1000 years with how things were in
the world 2000 years ago. The year 10,000 A.D. is going to
be very impressive. The Bible teaches that the entire
world will end up being Christianized. Human history ends
up good . . its all good. Revelation 21:3-4

{10} The Bible teaches that the God of the Bible is far bigger
than the human mind can conceive and that His Plans for
His human project is "off the charts."

{11} The God of the Bible is the "God of the Hubble Deep Field"
by which I mean that one has to look at the stars and what
is actually "out there" in order to get some idea of just how
BIG God is --- and just how BIG is His Plan for His Human
Race Project.

_________________


The 21st century's God is way to small . . .

{12} Ever how BIG you think the God of the Bible is, you are
underestimating just how BIG He actually is. Your God will
therefore always be "to small." Merely look at the Hubble Deep
Field and you see only a tiny fraction of what is actually "out there"--
yet what you see in the Hubble Deep Field is absolutely mind
boggling and cannot be comprehended by the human mind --
it is so huge-enormous. Just think how BIG God actually is.

{13} Google will tell you that there has been about 108 billion
humans born to date. That is a mere drop in the bucket compared
to what is coming.

{14} The Bible teaches that the final number of God's people will
be in numbers like the stars in the sky and like the grains of sand
on the seashore. Trillions times trillions.

{15} The book of Revelation which tells about the end of human
history says that the final number of the people of God will be
a multitude so huge as to be uncountable by human men.
Revelation 7:9-10

{16} In other words, God knew that the vast overwhelming
majority of His creatures would end up using their Free Will
for good purposes and therefore He created the world on
those terms.

{17} All this above is why Free Will is valuable to God
and to His Human Race Project -- and was a morally
good move. His human net gains far far outweigh His
human losses. {You might say isn't His human losses
sad? Yes but that is their choice. See Rev. 3:20}




`



`

 

"Yes" would have done just fine. The actual meat of the question was in the next sentence. Do you therefore believe that anyone who does not agree does not have knowledge of good and evil?

 

You asked this question:
"So you say God created humans with the free will to do
evil instead of humans that do no harm. Am I to understand
that you also think this was a morally good move? (The text
says "valuable", it's not clear if that is equivalent to goodness, or
if it is some other value that God pursues instead of
goodness).___Swensson

I then did my very best to compose a 17 point reasonable
answer to your question and present it to you.

You dismissed and brushed off all 17 of my points -- okay
Swensson, I get your message loud and clear.

I spent a lot of time composing an answer to your question
because I thought you might really be interested in what I
had to say -- but no . . .obviously not.

I do my very best to "connect with your mind" and make a
contribution to your understanding of Christianity with
regard to an important and key question that you asked . . .

And then you quote my entire post of 17 carefully written
points of explanation and dismiss them all with your, "Yes
would have done just fine."

_________

Yet maybe I really DID actually "connect with your mind"?
Maybe that is the real reason that you brushed off my 17
points. How so? Well you are a human being and its
reasonably certain that you do in fact strongly suspect
that there is a lot of truth in the points I make in my
replies to you ---do some of those points make you
uncomfortable?

Anyway, I will reply to some of your other points
later on . . .




`

 

Merely because atheists "fail to see" that it was good for God
to create humans with Free Will, does not mean they have no
knowledge of good and evil.
{1} I am an atheist.
{2} I fail to see that it was a good thing for God to create humans with a Free Will.
{3} Therefore I have no knowledge of good and evil

None of that up there makes any sense to me, none at all.

 

I disagree. I have addressed it. See {12} below.
Here it is again:

If {11} is not true.
Then {12} is not true
But if {11} and {12} are true, then {14} is ALSO true
_________________________________________

{1) I am an atheist.
{2} i don't believe in God.
{3} But He may exist.
{4} I can't prove He does.
{5} I can't prove He doesn't.
{6} The Bible says He is Omnipotent.
{7} That means He is all powerful.
{8} He could have created a different world.
{9} But He did not do that.
{10} He created the world we now have.
{11} That means He is responsible for all that exists.
{12} Therefore God is responsible for bone cancer in children.
{13} I want to be consistent with this principle.
{14} Therefore God is also responsible for Hospitals and the Red Cross.



`