What follows is round 9 with my debate with JP Holding:

PJ> I've said that an omniscient Being should be able to create a world where
PJ> nothing bad happens without violating free will. You've asked me how,
PJ> and haven't accepted simply "by omnipotence" as an answer.

JPH> True, and I can't -- that's like saying God can use omnipotence to
JPH> create a world where a sum of 2 plus a sum of 2 actually equals a sum
JPH> of 5. I just don't see that it's at all a possibility, practically speaking.

But you are making the claim that nothing bad happening without violating free will is a fundamental inconsistency--like 2 and 2 being 5. You've asked me to prove it is not a fundamental inconsistency. But it is actually your burden of proof to show it is a fundamental inconsistency. And until you do so, I will play the "unfalsifiable" card, and dismiss your claim as such.

Further, you do agree that God is not obligated to give me every possible option. If I say I don't have the free will to teleport myself to Saturn, you say God is not obligated to give me that ability. You've said that free will only means I have the free will to choose among available options and I need not have every possible option. Therefore, the list of available options need not have anything "bad" amongst them and still not violate free will.

PJ> But when I've asked how God can make sure that everybody gets the
PJ> chances that they need to choose salvation, you have simply offered "by
PJ> omnipotence".

JPH> And there's nothing wrong with that, because there's nothing practically
JPH> impossible about spreading enough news to every person. One apple,
JPH> one orange.

I meant to say, "when I've asked how God can make sure that everybody gets the chances that they need to choose salvation, [without violating free will] you have simply offered 'by omnipotence'". If you surprise me and do manage to demonstrate the fundamental inconsistency in regards to God being unable to prevent evil without violating free will, then I suspect that same demonstration will show that God being able to make sure everyone gets the Gospel without violating free will is also a fundamental inconsistency.

Besides, God clearly hasn't spread the news to everybody--such as to people in other countries, making the point fairly moot. I don't remember how you personally respond to this challenge. You might say they have been shown enough of something that God can tell if they would accept the Gospel if they were to hear it; or perhaps you might say that they have a different salvation method. Whatever--all of these kinds of answers can be dismissed by playing the "unfalsifiable" card. But, more than merely "unfalsifiable", these explanations reek of being obvious dodges. Its plainly obvious that not everybody has received the Gospel and every attempt to explain this are simply unfalsifiable alibis.

PJ> However, I haven't found arguments that I should have strong motivation
PJ> to understand the Bible any more compelling that arguments that I should
PJ> try to understand the Koran or the Book of Mormon.

JPH> If nothing else, isn't it worth while to understand the book that has
JPH> above others driven Western civilization?

Would you believe, "I've read enough to conclude, 'there's no accounting for taste'"? :-) Seriously, back like 20 years ago, when I was still a struggling semi-Christian, semi-agnostic, I took a class from the church I was attending, "Through the Bible in One Year". We were to generally read a major book, or a couple of minor books, per week. Then we would have a Sunday school discussion over the material. I did read Genesis. I did read most of the NT. But I just couldn't stay awake long enough to read most of the OT. I did make an honest attempt, and read a fair amount. And whether I finished the reading assignment or not, I did usually go to the Sunday school discussion. Maybe there's some jewels there that I missed. But maybe there is some jewels in the Book of Mormon...

But, more importantly, your answer of "If nothing else, isn't it worth while to..." is virtually an accidental admission there is no fundamentally clear and obvious reason why I should consider the Bible to be something more than just another holy book. The Bible can't merely be "more than just another holy book"--it must be clearly and obviously so. Anybody can make an honest mistake. If the evidence of the Bible being more than just another holy book is not clear and obvious, then somebody concluding that is in fact just another holy book is not unreasonable. And if it is not unreasonable to conclude it is just another holy book, then it is unreasonable for God to insist that I do discern it is more than just another holy book--and base my eternal fate upon that. Unless you can produce something that anybody should instantly see as being obviously special about the Bible, then you've really lost the debate.

JPH>I won't know until I can ask a former fetus.

Hmm. So, you are agnostic as to whether fetus' have souls? And if not, then presumably abortion is no crime? Interesting. But, no matter. I'm afraid I'm going to pull a number out of my butt, but I figure that throughout history, probably at least two percent of all people have died as infants. Maybe more. (You can debate my number if you like, I'm just guessing.) You'd have to concede that infants have souls, and yet don't experience much of a "contiguous reality" if they die as infants, no? Assuming you make this concession, then these 2% of all people (or whatever number you prefer) don't need a "contiguous reality". This leaves us with the conclusion that God is capable of creating about 2% of people who don't need a "contiguous reality" and yet can't create 100% of everybody to not need a "contiguous reality"? Not very believable. In short, I think I can dismiss everything you've said in regards to people needing a "contiguous reality" as being both unfalsifiable, and also obviously ad-hoc.

PJ> I can scream in your ear all day long and that won't *force* you to do
PJ> anything.

JPH> Hmm. I'd ask if you want to try it... I'd have to disagree and say it
JPH> would force you to do something -- either do what I scream for you to
JPH> do, or punch me in the pazoo to make me stop, or bust your own
JPH> eardrums out so you don't hear me anymore.

Why would you not have the free will to ignore me if you so choose to do so? You seem to be claiming that human personality won't allow you to ignore such a situation. My response is two fold: first, who's fault is that? Who designed human personality such that my screaming in your ear isn't something easily ignored?

Secondly, even in the case where I was subtle and just whispered something in your ear and walked off, human personality won't allow you to really, totally ignore that either. You will wonder why I bothered. The incident will be processed at least to some degree by your conscious and subconscious. The point I'm getting at is you are trying to make a distinction between some level of influence being subtle and not a violation of free will, and another level that is not subtle and an actual violation of free will. And I'm saying there is no such distinction. Even the most subtle of influence--if it is detectable at all--will be mentally processed. And very strong influence can be chosen to be ignored. No true distinction. Or, if there really is such a distinction, it is again burden upon you to prove it.

JPH> If faith is loyalty and trust, then what is the mystery?

I can concede that is a definition that gives "faith" a better connotation that my definitions... But loyalty and trust must be earned. And a God that hides in shadows, but still insists on receiving loyalty and trust with threats of eternal punishment is a God that has not earned loyalty and trust.

PJ> If you are going to play the "unfalsifiable" card, I think I can safely
PJ> dismiss just about everything you've said as unfalsifiable as well. So,
PJ> where does that leave us?

JPH> Perhaps at a standoff? Barring specific discussion of course...

Since you pulled out the unfalsifiable card, I've enjoyed following suit this round. I presume you regret playing that card.

But really, it is not so much that your claims are unfalsifiable, they just aren't plausible either. But I can't prove your claims are implausible, as "implausible" is subjective. Even so, I had been avoiding (until the last round) from playing the unfalsifiable card because I had endeavored to show that my claims are the more plausible regardless of whether or not they are falsifiable. However, you refused to acknowledge that my claims were the more plausible and insisted on me proving my claims. And then you pulled out the unfalsifiable card. That really left me no alternative but to dump the unfalsifiable card on all of your claims. And since you are the claimant, it is your burden of proof. Your burden which you not only have not met, but I believe your claims are fundamentally unprovable. From my perspective, it is clear this is not a standoff, I've beaten you.