Why does God allow evil?

Yup.

I agree with you completely, although I have found an argument from the other side that comes close to solving the idea of morality without an absolute authority. Some describe morality as a sort of mutually-beneficial exchange of safety and trust. Of course, this does not in any way explain self-sacrifice. As apologists, we would do well to prepare for combating this new argument on the moral front.

The argument always trends straight to the metaphysical, an area atheists seek to, but can't, avoid.

Yes, except that morality is anything *but* a "mutually-beneficial exchange of safety and trust". It's more a system of rules given by an authority. Christian morality is dictated by God -- we can come up with good reasons why we *should* do or not do a thing, but it comes down to "He said so." Muslim morality is dictated by Allah (ostensibly), and atheistic morality is dictated by the strongest leader.

I agree with you partially. It is important to ground Christian morality not merely in the commands of God, but in the character of God. Of course, I realize that this is splitting hairs a bit (since His commands are always in accordance with His character)

holy shit, this could not BE more true, no matter how hard ya try

Indeed

233gus.jpg (click to show)
I didn't come up with it on my own, but I believe at least the possibility of evil is necessary for free will!

Truth.

if a robot can be programmed with a form of free will, yet not be considered truly free, would the same not apply to us as humans?

Regardless of what one believes, we all make hundreds of choices every day thinking they are our own. If they're not, we still act as though they are free.

I think, if one can choose to do something that is not necessarily the most comfortable option, especially if one isn't under some outward compulsion or force of habit, one could say they are acting on free will.

It's assumed among "determinists" that there is never more than one choice a person can make at a time, and that it is determined by the sum total of one's experiences up to that moment.

The logical conclusion to this line of thought is that there is no real choices, only actions dictated by prior actions; hence, no free will.

And yet, the Christian God says He holds humans accountable for our choices, indicating that He thinks we have free will. If He made us, as He claims to have done, He should know.

Freedom can only be given by someone that is free. Free will has no place in a deterministic universe, one which is governed solely by physical laws. So, if we're free, it's because a free agent designed that into our makeup. I think the debate gets to much into an either-or argument, when there is a third thing, that could be the better option--limited free will. That would still have to be a part of a purposeful design but wouldn't necessarily negate the laws of cause and effect that act on us continuously.

LOL

If I ask you why you made a particular decision and you answered, "because of this" or "because of that," then you've demonstrated that your decision was based on something other than freedom, but was contingent (determined) by other factors which originate outside yourself.

So the only answer that would be acceptable for you to agree the person was "free" to make that decision/choice is "because I wanted to"?
Each "want to" that we have is based on reasons and reasoning that don't have to go beyond our own inward desires. Our inward desires can be influenced by outside circumstances, however, those circumstances don't determine the choice/decision we will make as there are multiple ways of reaching the same desired outcome.

Surely you wouldn't associate the influence of circumstances to "coercion" or "determinism," would you? Human nature being what it is wants what it wants when it wants it. Since there are many ways of achieving the desired "want" the particular choice/decision wasn't determined. If we said that the outcome was a determining factor therefore the decision had to be determined, that would be the fallacy of composition/division.

The theological question of why does God allow evil has as it's answer an anthropological question (free will) if it is the "free will" that many if not most Christians believe in. If you are interested I would like to give you a theological answer that explains biblical anthropology.

Careful about assuming what I would accept or not. I'm stating positions, not holding one. I've been down this road both theologically and philosophically and know the ins and outs. I also realize that a debate, still raging, after over 2 millennia isn't going to be solved on this site, but it's cool to watch minds work.

I read all your other comments before I responded, so I know that you were merely postulating positions. At first I had "for the one who holds that position" but I changed that and "they" to "you."

I'm not interested in millennia old debate. I'm interested in biblical text rightly interpreted and applied. Being faced with those by someone who could support their position exegetically, hermeneutically, and logically caused me to have change my position.

Determinism either naturalistic or theological are both unsound.

I tend to think that every decision I make is influenced by factors outside myself, as well as what I believe to be right or wrong (and what I want).

not sure why he thought that was a good idea

I agree 95%. In a perfect world, "perfect" wouldn't be a word anyone would understand, much less come up with to begin with. I don't think terms require an "equal" opposite so much as the concept of extremes on both ends though. Just my thoughts.

Unless evil is understood to be a corruption or twisting of the perfect order, rather than an entity of its own.

Evil is like darkness, non-essential, (philosophically speaking) but used to describe conditions when there's a lack of good.

What twists the perfect order?

Right: the idea of Satan, a created, fallen angel; versus yin/yang with its opposing, equal forces.

Maybe you're on to something.

My understanding of theology is that God (I assume a Christian context) is absolutely sovereign -- He either allows it or it doesn't happen. However, He gives us the ability to choose -- the "free will" I've been going on about. As James3v6 pointed out above, there are limits to that freedom. The philosophers can argue where those limits are until the cows come home or Jesus returns, whichever is first!

God is omnipotent or not. If he is, he knows and has predetermined our choice, and he knows and allows the outcome and our lives are predestined and it is not a choice for he knows what has/is/will happen and has approved it all. To change it would admit to err.
If he allows free will and does not know, or chooses not to know what we will choose, or does not know the outcome of our choices, then he is not omnipotent, therefore, not a God.

He can know our choices without controlling them. By His will, He can choose how to exert His power. If He chooses to give us choice, does it make Him any less God? No. For reasons I do not fully understand, God has found it desirable to allow the possibility of rebellion. Perhaps He wants us to freely choose Him? Or perhaps He wants to show His divine power and righteousness through contrast? Regardless of His reasons, how can we, as mere limited humans, criticize an infinite God? I do not know exactly how free will and Divine Predestination interact with one another, but I believe both are true