What is the point of giving us free will if you still want us to follow your rules and plans?

For example, Steve Musk creates a robot that kills mice and rats
Called the Skewerbot, because it just hunts and stabs these rodents with a long stick
Then it cooks them

The Skewerbot has no free will, its brain and actions are programmed

But, Steve Musk decided to give it free will, but at the same time it also wants the Skewerbot to kill mice
Free will breeds curiosity, like a child sticking forks in electrical sockets, this Skewerbot will eventually end up skewering a cat.
The Skewerbot also will then realize he doesn't have to listen to his owner if he's not alive, and sooner or later will kill its creator

Me thinks God is afraid that we will eventually kill him
Just as we are afraid our creations will kill us, we are also a creation

Robot =\= human
human =\= God

Don't really care about the rest, but the second-last paragraph is totally flawed on so many levels.

You are an idiot to simplify things like that

You're an idiot, cocaína

This is a very good point Cacao. Another question would be asking where evil comes from in light of an all powerful and all good God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

Evil is just an illusion
For example
Most people consider what God is against to be evil, however when God does these actions it's considered good

Evil doesn't stay objective
Evil is when you don't abide by God's rules

Evil is when you choose to have your own path or overthrow the tyranny that puts you in permanent jail if you don't obey like a good human

Just as Stalin, Hitler, and Mao would ruin your life if you didn't meet their standards or abide by their rules
Rules they considered good just because they said so
Then you'd be casted out into the prisons and be labeled as "bad" if you didn't like their rule

When someone says you shouldn't argue the rules, it always is because they can't stand rationality
The argument isn't moral, it's logical, it always boils down to
Why can he do it? But not me?

Evil is not an illusion. Yes, Hitler, Staling and Mao would label you as "bad" if you didn't like their rule, but I think everyone here can agree that they were evil, and abused their power.

“If mind is common to us all, then we have reason also in common… then common too is the reason which dictates what we should or should not do.” (Marcus Aurelius)

If it is true that notions of what is good and evil change, then through reason and discourse we can ensure that the distinction is made clear.
There have been some mechanisms proposed on how to be good, the easiest to follow is Kant's categorical imperitive.

tell the gestapo that the jews are in the basement, cause to lie can not be a universal law..... thanks but no thanks....

on a more serious note..... the categorical imperative is a highly abstract formal structure whitout any content. Its not really going to give you any guide in how to act well.

Edited 2/3/2020 09:22:00

Problem of evil is solved by Plantinga's free will defense. A 3-O deity (with omnipotence constrained by reason- i.e., can't create a rock it can't destroy) could conceivably be forced to tolerate or even produce "evil" to create morally complex situations that allow moral actors to exercise free will. (If this doesn't make sense, watch James Gunn's "Super"- Frank Darbo has to suffer through a harsh life even though he is a fundamentally good person because, at least for him, that is how God is testing him- the moral complexity of his shitty life comes from other humans' decisions and in turn allows Darbo to make his own choices that help him grow and learn. This isn't part of the movie thematically but imo that movie inadvertently illustrates the free will defense really well- a 3-O deity that wants to create a morally rich universe will probably also have to create a bunch of Frank Darbo situations so that moral actions have meaningful consequences and are constantly forced by harsh, challenging situations.)

no, that solved the logical problem of evil. (on a side note :that this has even been a discussion shows how poor the historical knowledge of analytical philosophers are, since this is the normal scholastic position).But fine you got different orders of good were second order goods beats first order goods, and to have the second order good then the first order evil is a necessity and therefore you can have morally bad actors and evil in the world.......... but that begs the qustion, what about natural evils like tsunamis, earthquakes and diseases. Well what is Plantingas posistion on that? His position is that natural evils are also a consequence of free will, but not of humans, but of demons???? well now it just becomes silly since that is obvious an ad hoc hypothesis if ever there was on

Edited 2/4/2020 09:58:34

Natural evil is definitely outside Plantinga's formulation but still covered by the same style of argument: Evil facilitates free will, because choice only has meaning if it has consequences.

Natural evil is also a weird argument to make because free will is also partly driven by resource constraints. But the big issue with either PoE is that the burden on the theistic side is basically zero- they just need some explanation for why a 3-O deity may be consistent with suffering. While "evil comes from free will" still falls short of that burden, "evil may facilitate free will" easily meets it.

You guys are all using arguments with "evil" having different definitions

We cannot start making a conversation if we haven't even agreed to what "Evil" means