Sorry for the long delay in responding. I got behind in work and some other things.  Some of your points I simply didn't feel I had anything further to add to the topic, so I didn't comment further.  Here we go:

PJ>How do you know this? How do you know that it is not possible for God
PJ>to be able create another being that has free will and yet never do wrong?

JPH>Actually, never lack the capacity to do wrong -- the two options are
JPH>mutually exclusive.

I disagree. Let me give another analogy. Will there ever be anybody to make chocolate/motor oil/gasoline flavored ice-cream, even if it could be made non-toxic? I assume it could be done, but nobody would ever do it simply because nobody has any desire to eat chocolate/motor oil/gasoline flavored ice-cream.

Or, to explain another way, there are an infinite number of things that I and/or other people could do that would be termed "bad", and an infinite number of things I and/or other people could do that would be termed "good". And of those infinite things, some of the "good" things will just never be done, for whatever reason. Likewise, of all the "bad" things possible, some of them will also never be done--for whatever reason. The point I'm getting at is that you (and many other Christians I encounter) seem to equate a necessity that something actually be done in order for it to be a real option. And I don't believe that is true, I believe that there are real options, things that I could do if I chose to do so, but will never do so. Therefore, I do not believe it to be a true statement that evil things must actually ever be done in order for evil to be an available choice.

PJ>Or, another possibility would seem to be that if God knew ahead of time
PJ>who would choose Him and who wouldn't, why not only create those that
PJ>would choose Him?

JPH>Since you did revise your answer on this I will address it later.

Okay, ready whenever you are...

PJ> Well, you can give away half of infinity, and still have infinity left.

JPH> Mathematically that sounds like nonsense. There is no such thing
JPH> as "half of infinity".

Forgive my imprecision. You can do what appears to be "dividing infinity in half". Such as, you can decide to divide whole numbers into even and odd numbers. Each of those sets seems like it should be half the size of the set of all whole numbers. And yet each of those subsets are still infinite sets. Also, you can do that again and again, appearing to divide each set in half, only to still have infinite sets. The point I'm getting at is, if there is a being of infinite power, He should be able to bestow infinite power upon infinite entities if He so chose. You can say that He must not want to, but there seems to be no logical reason He cannot. How we got started in this discussion was your questioning that this was logically possible and I believe it to be logically possible.

JPH> Satan and the angels are designated as created beings, which implies
JPH> residence in space-time.

Even if Satan and the angels are "created beings" that doesn't to me necessarily imply residence in space-time.

JPH> Any idea where you heard that?

You know, I can't put my finger on it, and it may indeed be my own invention and I didn't realize it. However, my understanding is that heaven is NOT within our universe. I can't take a rocket-ship, even the Starship Enterprise, and ever get to heaven, right? And if heaven is NOT in our universe, does that not imply that it does not reside in at least our space-time? Now, it could have its own space-time, but it would not be our space time, no?

PJ> But, at the very least, Satan should know that God knows what would
PJ>happen before it ever happens.

JPH>Perhaps, but since when do you suppose Satan is rational? The
JPH>whole premise of satanology is that Satan made a stupid decision.

I always thought of Satan as being depicted as "diabolical"--of intellect befitting a being intended by God to be His finest creation.

JPH> God can't violate logical laws; I am sure you know of the standard
JPH>"Can God make a stone" paradox...what's your take on that? Can
JPH>God make 2 + 2 = 5?

I use the "square circle" or "round square" variation of this theme. True, I understand that omnipotence is generally defended as not requiring the logically impossible. Therefore, God cannot create the logical absurdity of a "square circle". But, making a stone too big too lift is very different. There is nothing inherently contradictory to the concept of something too big to lift. For example, I can build things too big for myself to lift. The idea of something "too big to lift" isn't inherently self-contradictory or illogical, it only becomes illogical when framed in the context of an omnipotent being. This implies--perhaps--that what is self-contradictory is not the idea of something too big to lift, but the very idea of omnipotence itself. I concede that what I just said isn't an airtight proof, but simply a possibility.

PJ>And it is how we answer that question is where we get the concepts
PJ>of "good" and "evil".

JPH>That's fine for now. So then this is not a hard concept, is it?

But my concept of "good" and "evil" is very different than yours. I don't believe in good and evil "force" (Use "The Force," Luke! Help, I'm being drawn to the Dark Side of "The Force!") Nor do I believe in any personification of "good" or "evil" force, such as God and Satan.

PJ>How do you know a better one isn't possible?

JPH>I don't. And thus it remains that neither of us has a ground for criticism
JPH>on this point. Only raw emotion is involved in claims that this world isn't
JPH>satisfactory.

But, you had earlier made the positive claim that this is the best possible world. I may not be able to prove you wrong, but I say that you have not proved your positive claim. And, you now seem to take back your positive claim and say neither of us knows. Okay, if neither of us knows, then it should be my right to think that there probably aught to be a better plan available to an omnipotent being. Even if ultimately I'm wrong and you are right, it seems to me it should be my right to think there should be a better possible world.

JPH>Well, sorry to disappoint you but I am not running for political office
JPH>or seeking to run the world to any extent.

You are correct, you personally are not running for political office. But, it has been fairly common for those who seek political office to believe they know God's plans and desires, and attempt to run society based on it.

JPH>I'm willing to accept your claim of having flown to the store
JPH>based on what you reported.

Did you know that "gullible" isn't in the dictionary? <g> Seriously, I really doubt you would really believe me if I said I flew to the store. And if you really would believe me, you must believe that the face on Mars is a real face placed by aliens, Elvis Presley faked his death and is planning a come-back career, etc...

JPH>The thing is, why should I care?

Well, gee, if I found the secret to being able to fly by flapping my own arms, that would probably be a valuable skill. I'd think just about everybody would want to know how I did it.

JPH>Isn't that a position derived from your personal orientation as one

JPH>skeptical? It remains that "bias" is an easy charge to throw around....

It is true that everyone is biased, and I'm no different. I think that we can try to understand our bias, try to recognize it, but I don't believe it is humanly possible to turn off one's bias. So, I'm skeptical, is this a crime?

JPH>but it needs to be demonstrated objectively, not merely assumed.

Well, I think the popularity of religion, including ones that you consider false religions, is sufficient objective evidence.

JPH>I do not agree that a "miracle" is any more a "violation" of natural law
JPH>than you picking up a box is the law of gravity violated....

As I noted, I now attempt to cover this issue in the first seven paragraphs of my revised coverage of Objection 2.

JPH>Still is in traditional groups, though allowances are often made for infants
JPH>and those who lived before of without knowledge of Jesus.

PJ> one would think he would have been more clear on how it works!

JPH> Well I do find it quite clear myself...can you explain what you think the
JPH>problem is?

Well, your own quote above, "allowances are often made for infants and those who lived without knowledge of Jesus" is a great starting place for questions. Well, are there or aren't there allowances for infants? Or for those that lived without knowledge of Jesus? If so, do they get a "get into heaven free card" or do they get a second method of salvation? And exactly how much of what Jesus taught do I have to believe? If I think he was an inspirational rabbi, is that good enough? Why or why not? What about if I heard a little bit of Christianity one time, or a few times? Am I expected to make that my life goal to determine if it is true or not? Those are rhetorical questions, which you need not bother answering, for whatever answer you give, I can find a dozen different answers from well-studied Bible scholars. The Bible just doesn't say.

PJ>But, the more generic profile of, "heard the Gospel not very well,
PJ>and the source of whatever information they did get seemed to
PJ>be from suspect individuals" probably fits millions and millions of people

JPH>And is this nevertheless a rational basis upon which to make a decision?

Like it or not, it is part of the human system of evaluation to include perceived reliability of the source of information when determining whether or not the information itself is reliable or not. That's just the way it is. If someone tripped out on drugs tells me they were abducted by aliens, vs. someone that I otherwise have generally thought to be a reliable source tells me they were abducted by aliens, I'm more likely to believe the second person. Even in the second case, I personally would probably be skeptical, but I'd still consider the non drug user as at least being somewhat more likely to be correct. If the first person, the drug user, really did get abducted by aliens and I disbelieve him because of the drug use, well, that's the breaks. The fact is, even if he is correct, there isn't a good reason for me to conclude he is correct.

JPH>If the basis is, "Accepted Christ, or didn't" is that not a start?

Well, now we are back to, how much "accepted"? Accepted that there is a fair possibility that he was the Savior? Accepted that there is a small possibility that he was the Savior? How about accepted that he was a good, inspirational Rabbi? And, again, there seems to be plenty of people that should answer "n/a" as they never even heard of Jesus.

PJ>For one, well, um, I read porno mags, for the, um articles of course.

JPH>My blind stepfather used to say the same thing.

I thought it was only a myth that it caused blindness...

 

JPH> but it is quite likely that hell should be evaluated not in terms of
JPH> punishment, but of absence of that which is positive

Just FYI, I happened to listen to Tim Phelps, son of world infamous Fred Phelps, the "God Hates Fags" preacher on the Infidelguy radio show. And the host mentioned that he understood that most people teach hell as being the absence of God. And Tim said that is bad theology. I forget what passage of the Bible he used, but he used some passage to support his claim that God is going to be directly in your face down in hell directly punishing you. Phelps' God is the most sadistic bastard imaginable. But anyway, I digress. The point is, exactly what hell is, is also debatable. You can probably find passages to prove Phelps is all wrong, and he can likely do the same to you. And the bottom line is, even if you are right, that means that for all the people in hell, they miss out on all the good stuff for all eternity, even if they change their mind.

JPH>there is simply no practical possibility of all agreeing in a pool of
JPH>sufficient size.

Well, I covered this earlier, in that even with billions of people who ever lived, there are things that nobody will ever do even though they were possible for them to do. If nobody ever makes chocolate/motor oil/gasoline ice cream, then that means that of all the billions of people that ever lived, all of them all "agree" to not make chocolate/motor oil/gasoline ice cream. So it is possible for pools of huge numbers of people to have a choice, and never make it.

JPH>I don't see how one disproves the other. I target persons not knowing
JPH> who the "74,676th converter" is,

But your comment "the 74,676 converter" implies that you agree it is possible that there indeed could be someone who would convert on the 74,676th try. Which means if there is any such person, but they die at only the 74,675th chance, then they died too soon! Now, you have argued (if I understand correctly) that if there is any such person, God wouldn't let them die at only the 74,675th chance, He would be sure they got the 74,676th chance. Do I understand correctly? Assuming so, this is one of those things that, true, I can't prove you wrong. But I can say that it seems highly unlikely to me. It looks to me like people that convert today may well have died yesterday and died too early.

After all, if you were correct, it would seem like, at least occasionally, there should be a few people that might take hundreds of years to eventually convert. Maybe very few, but seems like there should be at least some. So, it would seem like God would need to let at least a few people live to hundreds of years old, and that hasn't ever happened that I know of.

PJ>Well, do they not do that already, here on Earth, before they die?
PJ>Aren't some people Christians because they don't want to go to hell?

JPH>Yes, and they shouldn't. It's nowhere used as a kerygamtic appeal.

It took me a while to find the definition of the word, but I now understand it to mean "proper" way to spread the message. Well, um, where does the Bible say what is or what isn't the right way? Where does it say that fear of hell isn't a valid reason to want to be Christian? And moreover, whether it is the "right" reason or not, you did agree that it can be a motivator. And even if that is the motivator, if someone then chooses Christ, they are still saved, right? So, why should there be any difference to hell being a motivator on Earth as merely a threat, and an actual motivator after death in hell?

PJ>But, then that makes our entire life on Earth rather pointless. God
PJ>already knows whether or not you would, in any circumstance, choose
PJ>Him, so why bother making us go through the motions?

JPH>I'll answer that with a question: Does experience add value to your
JPH>future?

Well, I'll start answering your question to my question with another question... <g> What difference would it make to you right now if God had actually created the universe five minutes ago, complete with memories of everything you think you did prior to then? The answer is absolutely nothing. We experience life moment-by-moment, trapped by the tick of the clock, unable to escape it. And at any single moment, whatever it is you think happened, as far as your reaction at the moment, is exactly the same whether what you think happened in the past is what really happened or not. Any experience God might want me to have, He could implant it into my mind and I would know no difference. Therefore, actually having to go through the motions of doing anything seems pointless.

And now, the ball returns to JPH's court...