Thanks u/Plemethrock
We can have a discussion on whether or not free will exists. Discuss if every action we do is already predetermined by how our brain is wired, with the environment around us being the inputs.
We can also have a discussion on whether or not humans have souls and analyze the evidence for and against us just being our bodies
(I made an error and had to repost, apologies)
Dude... Talk about avoiding hypotheticals. You literally answered with a question.
The point was to demonstrate that giving a choice between doing what's right and what's wrong allows for virtue to be exhibited. If God made the world so that no such choice was possible it would lead to a less virtuous world.
God doesn't do stuff out of lack or necessity - He has all the knowledge and all that he needed before the creation. On the contrary - He did it out of abundance of love. Everything He does is for the good of the creation. The "tests" He put are for the betterment of man, so that man can transcend his nature and become like Him.
I answered. It's just that there's no pleasing you because asking "but why are things that way and not another way" is sophistry and childlike questions. This can go on literally forever. Here, I'll try too: Why did God made me so I have to breathe to live when he could've made me not go through the trouble of breathing? Or why can't I grow wings right now just by thinking about it?
The thing is I offered explanations as to why God did things a certain way, but it doesn't matter much. What matters is that He did it that way for a reason. It doesn't have to make sense to us and ultimately it can't because we're limited in our knowledge and reason and can't comprehend the purpose and function of all things. We know what has been revealed by Him and what our senses and reason can tell us but that leaves a lot of unknowns.
Wtf are you on about? When did I say that science showed us animals were originally designed to function better without death? When did you hear me appealing to science when talking about something that's supernatural and can't be empirically observed?
I'll mea culpa on the science thing because that was another user who jumped into the conversation earlier and I had not cared to pay enough attention to notice the difference.
What I won't mea culpa is the alleged "dodging" of the hypothetical. I asked many hypotheticals that encompassed that more than encompassed yours (and some non-hypotheticals like the mechanisms by which your worldview works), but you need to reduce it to argue your point and now feign indignation that I "dodged" the hypothetical, despite it being a simplification of questions you already chose to ignore. Hypotheticals that were asked to come to a deeper understanding, not ones orchestrated in their simplicity to win an argument. Or maybe you truly do feel indignant despite the hypocrisy, that wouldn't be atypical.
You believe what you believe and there is no need for evidence. Everything flows downstream from that. It's great for you personally, and I do really mean that, but it's useless in discussion. Whatever piece you may need to say I'm sure you will but there is no value left to be had in this exchange. So, you can enjoy the last word should you choose
Strawman. I definitely can justify my belief and bring evidence for my worldview without appealing to God or divine revelation. Also I can easily turn that against you or anyone else because no one has a neutral position. Everyone's worldview is based on presuppositions about reality (metaphysics, epistemology and ethics). What you consider evidence is not neutral too but is determined by said presuppositions.
But I have no problems answering your hypotheticals. Ask me straight and I will answer straight. All you do is complain I didn't answer something 5 comments ago - well ask again then. I think I did answer but maybe I missed something. You definitely didn't answer my hypothetical though, but I don't mind because the only reason I gave it to you is to demonstrate why your line of argumentation (asking why God did this and not that) is not adequate internal critique. It misses the central claim that everything God does is good and has purpose, even if we don't understand or know it.