To elaborate more on my argument, I would like to show it in the example of Adam and Eve. If Adam and Eve are inherently good, then given that they have free will and God won’t interfere in their free will, Adam and Eve will not choose to eat the apple. However, it is true that Adam and Eve did choose to eat the apple instead of dropping it, so it seems that Adam and Eve are not inherently good. — Isabel Hu

The Adam and Eve narrative is a difficult example of explaining the existence of evil for me. According to the Genesis account of creation (Genesis 1-3) God’s comment on the creation of man is “very good,” a literal translation of the hebrew (וְהִנֵּה-טוֹב ). This right here is problematic to me because this means that the creation of Man is not perfect in any sense of God. Even though it is not perfect, man is still capable to carry out God’s purpose, if they choose to. Through this distinction, I believe that evil and sin are completely man-made; in other words, a voluntary act. When looking at the Genesis account in this point of view, it leads me to believe that humans are not inherently evil. Instead, humans are voluntarily evil, choosing for himself or herself to separate from the will of god to follow their own pleasure (which leads to evil in the Christian perspective). Using a biblical example for the arguing the inherency of good/evil then opens the door for what the bible has to say about the confession of sin. If sin and evil were inherent in the creation of humanity, then why must confession be a voluntary act? In John 1:1-10, John the Baptist states, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth that us not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.” It is clear that the cleansing of evil is a voluntary act from humans. If it was not required of us to ask for forgiveness, there would then be no justifiable reason for God to place blame upon us.

Our faith in Christ was/is/probably will be based on a certain set of miracles Christ performed - feeding five thousand with nothing but a loaf of bread, walking on water, restoring sight to a blind man, and resurrecting from the dead, etc. A good mix of miracles in my humble opinion but it needs mentioning that they wouldn't have convinced a modern person who's got just that right amount of scientific knowledge under faer belt to prevent or delay an inference of divinity. — TheMadFool

I do not think faith in Christ is dictated merely by the miracles Jesus Christ (well, aside from the resurrection from the cross). Jesus’ interpretation and fulfillment of the Torah is just as good as a reason to believe he is the Messiah. He was responsible for sharing revolutionary ideas about faith and allowed a once considered “unclean” nation to be able to receive salvation from sin. During the passion narrative, Jesus’ words spoken at the Passover dinner are just as important to base faith off of than the miracles he performed. As he shared bread and wine with his close followers, Jesus subverted the remembrance of deliverance from Egypt to the mark of the New Covenant (Mark 14:22). In this act, he predicted that his death would bring a new deliverance to the Gentile nations. That point alone is probably good enough reason to believe that Jesus was not an ordinary person, though it would be difficult to argue Jesus’ divinity without mentioning faith.
It would be curious to look at the other miracles of Jesus’ ministry logically to see if they would still communicate the same message of Jesus’ divinity. Take the feeding of the five thousand for example: It is clearly impossible for any sort of human to duplicate five loaves of bread and two fish to feed an entire mountainside of people. But what if we looked at this scene logically instead of literally? Perhaps the kid who had the food was moved by Jesus’ teaching and prompted him to share his food with others who did not have any. Maybe this could have inspired the other people listening to Jesus’ message to share their own food with others too. In the end, five thousand people would have been fed on that mountainside. Instead of some act of magic performed by Jesus, the people heard the words from Jesus and saw the action of that one faithful kid, which sparked a huge act of kindness and generosity from the others around them. That image of this “miracle” seems a lot more powerful that way to me at least and it still would be able to validate the faith that people had in Jesus, the messiah.

The existence of objective beauty is not improbable under theism
The existence of objective beauty is very improbable under atheism
C. The existence of objective beauty provides strong evidence to favor the theism over atheism (prime principle) — Daniel Ramli

Although I understand where you are coming from with your argument, I don’t necessarily agree with premise 1. Maybe it would be smart to define objective beauty a little better. I believe that no matter what can be seen as beautiful, there is someone out there that can logically explain why said thing is not beautiful to them.

Kant states, “The judgement of taste is therefore not a judgement of cognition, and is consequently not logical but aesthetically, by which we understand that whose determining ground can be no other than subjective.” (Kant 1790, section 1)

I believe this quote is powerful because without a subjective response to something as beautiful, what’s the point of beauty? It looses the very thing that makes something beautiful, which is the personal connection to an object, scenery, or person that provides a more intimate view on the subject.
On the topic of theism, let’s look into a biblical imagery that many Christians view as beautiful. In scripture, there are many references to the Lord as, “god the father,” and there are plenty of passages that are able to poetically describe God’s love towards his creation like a loving father would with his children. But what if the person reading the scripture grew up with an abusive father and consequently, isn’t able to identify with that imagery. Since this imagery is one of the foundations of Christianity (i.e. the Holy Trinity), not being able to view God as a father-like figure as beautiful can significantly distort the true characteristics of God that can be seen and good and righteous. I find it generous to genially find something objectively beautiful, let using that as a way to prove the existence of God.

Why does a benevolent god need to be worshipped? Deep down, isn’t that a trait of selfishness which isn’t really associated with rightness? When looking at finding rightness through worshipping a god, doesn’t it seem a little contradictory if the entire belief system to becoming a better person all lies on trying to please a divine figure. If a god(s) is truly good and benevolent, there shouldn’t be any need for individuals to try and please the good they choose to follow. Instead, it makes more sense for all people to be able to be given the benefits of worshipping a god without proving their faith to said God. I agree that if we follow the idea that power lies behind the worshipper, then it would be though the individual’s devotion to their god that allows their god to exhibit their power.

A god is not just something that is worshiped, the idea of worship of gods comes from the idea that the god is worthy of worship due to its power, knowledge, goodness, etc. Once this is clarified, some of the other questions or objections you raise fall into place. If you believe that God deserves worship, it is implied that it is because you believe they are greater than you in some way, which includes the idea that they would know something that you do not-that is, the absolute truth — Larissa

What is exactly worthy enough for an individual to worship a god though? For an example, if the Christian God demands that his followers devote their lives and worship hi/she/it in order to achieve holiness or some state of goodness, isn’t that God limiting themselves from being omnipotent? If God is truly omnipotent, then God would have no need for anyone to physically worship them, or even further to recognize the existence of God. The difficult thing about this thought is that even if God needs worshippers and followers to progress their work on earth, what is the end goal of they years of devotion. Pursuing God doesn’t guarantee a full knowledge of truth for those people, even if it provides them comfort when life throws unexpected curves.
Any any of you explain to me how the power of God is affected by human worship? Thanks:)

My issue is with inherency for it implies the existence of proclivities, tendencies, inclinations and the like, things that, well, determine our actions. In effect, if we are inherently anything, we're, for certain, not free. — TheMadFool

Can you unpack how humans are inherently “not free?”

I don’t think God has anything to do with the creation or the inclusion of evil in the world today. God created good and through it, allows free will to be available for all humans. Any practice of evil is an individual’s response against what is good. It is their right, as a person of free will, to be able to rebel against goodness and create evil.
Although there are certainly issues in the world that truly evil and above our understanding, I believe blaming God for all evil is wrong.
It is through free will that an individual can choose to perform evil. For an example, if a person get into a car wreck and ends up using the car as tool for killing another person, the blame of evil should not be placed on the creator of the car. Manufacturing the car itself is not evil, but the individual who chose to perform an evil deed is responsible for the blame. The purpose of the car was subverted into a tool for evil; so evil is twisting the use of a good thing into something harmful. Evil then, should not be placed on a divine being even though it is though a god that man was created. Instead it is the use of the man’s free will to manifest evil.
I feel as if this subject is very complicated but a start to understanding evil lies in selfishness. When looking at more difficult subjects such as poverty, it’s not simply because of the evil in the world that people in poverty suffer; maybe it’s because other individuals who have the means to help less fortunate communities chose to use their money on themselves.
Just because we have a lack of understanding the root of subjects such as murder and other acts of evil does not mean we can simply place the blame on God. God did not create evil, but it is through the ignorance of man and selfishness of their own lives that enable individuals to rebel against God by committing these sins.

Although I generally agree with your post, one thing I am curious on is the epistemology of memory and how it can affect an individual’s claims, whether the individual is a person of faith or not. How can one argue to be rational when their argument stems from memory (which can be falsely recalled). When breaking down memories: Remembering requires believing, justification and non-accidental truth. Andrew Moon (2013) claims that it is important to know that remembering requires justified belief. But what if the premises of an individual's memory is misconstrued which leads to a certain belief that is being used in an argument? If memories are not exact replicas of one’s experiences or truth, are both parties subject to being irrational in their argument?

If we assume God is an omnipotent being, wouldn’t God work outside of what humans view as logical or illogical? I have a difficult time understanding why a question such as the omnipotent paradox is even being asked because it is forcing human knowledge and reason on a being that transcends human understanding. Like Isaac242 said, I don’t believe omnipotences is able to be logically possible since it works outside of space, time, and reason.
By bringing reason into this question, it is hindering the possibilities of an omnipotent God to complete this task this is above human understanding.
In a way, even asking this question and trying to answer it logically is a paradox itself due to the limitations of our knowledge.

But when looking at it in a logical perspective, I find Swineburne’s take on this compelling. His argument basically says that God is truly omnipotent at all times and is capable to create a rock so late that he himself would not be able to lift it. But once he creates said rock, then he would relinquish his omnipotence. So then it would be out of God’s character to perform such a task that would limit his own power as a divine being. The stone paradox fails because all that God would have to do is simply decide not to create the stone, which would enable him to keep omnipotence at all times.

Since I am very new to philosophical dialogues, I am curious to what y’all think of Swineburne’s argument?

God, since he loves bacteria and parasites equally as he loves us, can't take sides and so won't intervene. Compare this with the notion of a good parent - loving all his/her children equally, without a hint of partiality; a good parent is expected to be completely impartial on sibling rivalry whatever form it assumes. — TheMadFool

First time poster, so please be patient:
How are you able to argue that each living organism is of equal worth? Isn’t one of the pillars of humanity the distinction of what is right and wrong, regardless if an individual chooses to do the right thing or not? One of the major characteristics that separates humans from other biological organisms is morality. What I mean by this is biological organisms operate on instincts (e.g. killing, mating, using other bodies as hosts, etc.) It is something that is not taught to these organisms but rather an innate quality to ensure survival. On the other hand, humans act on complex emotions in which (for most individuals) they consider the impact of their decision (whether it is right or wrong). Yes organisms and humans are able to share similar qualities, but what separates these behaviors from other organisms is the reason why they choose to act a certain ways.
To conclude: Organisms act out of instinct and not off of a basis of morality. Animals don’t invent ways in harming others or set up objects as an idol, humans do. In my opinion, roping together biological organisms with humans does not convince me that they are equal since a human actions are not entirely instinctual . Do you care to expand on your assumption?