The traditional answer is free will allows the choice of evil. Discuss... or don't.

I agree.

However, that brings up the question of why God would allow people to have free will and commit evil.

Actually, why should I bother with this argument? Socrates said everything about this already in the platonic dialogues.

[quote]Actually, why should I bother with this argument? Socrates said everything about this already in the platonic dialogues.[/quote] Because Socrates is the height of human philosophy, guise.

[quote]Because Socrates is the height of human philosophy, guise.[/quote] Well, everything that I would say in this conversation would just be what Socrates said in The Republic. Just go read that book if you want to know my opinion on this subject.

[quote]Well, everything that I would say in this conversation would just be what Socrates said in The Republic. Just go read that book if you want to know my opinion on this subject.[/quote] uh... that was plato dude... He wasn't a strong supporter of democracy... Socrates was

More like, why would he create humans with base instincts that go against what he wants in the first place. You don't need to take away free will to do that. For example why give humans the instinct to be highly sexual if you only want them to fuck during marriage for procreation purposes? Why did he make adam and eve stupid and ignorant to good and evil if he didn't want them to rebel? If god wanted them to be good but didn't want to take away their free will, he could have just created humans with a predisposition to want to be good. Then there you go.

[quote]More like, why would he create humans with base instincts that go against what he wants in the first place.[/quote] You are a stunning example of someone who doesn't even know what they're arguing against in the first place. I mean, seriously, where did you get THAT crock out of?

[quote]uh... that was plato dude... He wasn't a strong supporter of democracy... Socrates was[/quote] It's the other way around. The book is just a conversation Sorcrates had that Plato wrote down.

Dr. William Lane Craig said, something to the effect "The problem of evil argument is a good emotional argument but not a good logical argument" This is probably why it is so popular with skeptics. Even though the acknowledgment of evil leads to objective morals transcendent of humanity and points to a transcendent God.

[quote]The traditional answer is free will allows the choice of evil. Discuss... or don't.[/quote] 'The traditional answer' would be great if all the evil in the world was the result of human free will. Your answer, though, doesn't account for people born with crippling birth defects or people killed/seriously injured by natural disasters and freak accidents, not to mention people who contract malaria or other such horrible diseases.

I will need to get back to you on this. The answer has something to do with how evil is defined, and how moral evil in the Judeo-Christian paradigm resulted in natural evil, but I'm not sure how to explain it. I especially need to ask some TEs about it, since they have to answer this objection in a different way as they can't just appeal to the Fall as the source of all evil.

[quote]I will need to get back to you on this. The answer has something to do with how evil is defined, and how moral evil in the Judeo-Christian paradigm resulted in natural evil, but I'm not sure how to explain it. I especially need to ask some TEs about it, since they have to answer this objection in a different way as they can't just appeal to the Fall as the source of all evil.[/quote] One would assume that the omnipotent God could do away with natural disasters and nasty diseases without infringing upon human free will. This being the case, he is either accountable for these things or nonexistent.