The rant about a lack of God was probably unnecessary, The OP was about if it was possible to have a moral god that does not act to prevent evil or if the lack of action was evidence that God did not exist. When you go into the analysis of my motives you take away from the discussion that is at hand here.
How exactly was my post, saying that a god that does not act to prevent evil is evidence that god does not exist, off-subect? Or whatever you are saying? And what did I say about your motives that is any different than what you say about ours each and every time you suggest we hit our knees and beg forgiveness?
And don't you find it kind of ironic that in a world where your god does nothing during a rape/murder, you are expecting me to stop? If I'm a psychopath, you are helpless right now.
Now with your rather graphic example in mind, If you suggest that their is a threshold in free will. That at some point something becomes so tragic that a moral god would have to intervene. Where then is this line that you speak of?
No, I don't suggest that there is a threshold of free will. In case I was not clear in my post, I am stating that free will, as you define it, does not exist. There is no threshold. If I can't keep a madman with a sniper rifle, who is out to kill an random person, from blowing a hole in my chest, then I have no free will in the matter, as per your definition. None whatsoever. But if we add the ostensible existence of your moral god and nothing changes, then either he is not moral or he does not exist. And I assume the latter. You, of course, are saying that there is a threshold, and that you don't understand it but he's the boss so it doesn't matter anyway, though its okay to pray every now and then for some other, more humanly acceptable outcome, as long as we don't go getting our hopes up or anything.
Your world view on this subject is an excuse as to why there is evil, et al. Mine is an explanation. You view implies that more prayer will help. My view is that humans can help themselves, but there is no outside force available to assist us.
Maybe it would be better to consider it this way, Your example brings up the idea of power theory. Or that what makes this event tragic is that even though both parties had a choice, the evil party was so overwhelmingly powerful that the choice of the other party almost seemed to disappear.
I have no quarrel about the victim being less powerful, except you said "almost", when at times the victim has no say whatsoever.
So then consider the implications of God's intervention of every tragedy. If God is all powerful, then direct intervention would literally render the other party without choice. Weather the choice is right or wrong is it not that persons choice to make? I ask then again where is the line to where God should intervene?
You are saying that there is a god but he doesn't do diddly for good reason. He used to do diddly, like, you know, when he made us and stuff, and drowned folks and turned that nice lady to salt and things, but these days, not so much. And while you tell us that he is omnipotent, it didn't occur to him to design us to be a little less bad at being humans. And that, even though he messed up in that department, it isn't his fault about the tree and snake and stuff, because he casually mentioned the horrors that that would bring to Adam that one time. Which should have been more than enough. Because, you know, husbands always communicate well with their wives, so certainly he would have communicated the dictate effectively to Eve.
Plus you are telling us that he he used to have such casual conversations with people, but now he is agoraphic and we need to be understanding about his problem.
If god is real, of what value is he? Why worship him? Is it only because you're hoping that you can cop a reserved seat in heaven? And because you like feeling better because you have answers to the really big important stuff? (note: this is not a personal attack. I am asking you, as a self-defined christian, why you accept the stories.) According to most of the believers who come here, your god demands our adoration, based on his ill-defined intrinsic love and the kid thing. Which, as an atheist, I see as just another part the myth.
Now on the point that God artificially makes the freedom of choice as the most important. What then would you say is the most important?
If god is real, and if he makes freedom of choice more important than anything else, then he doesn't understand how powerless he is leaving some people, and how powerful he is allowing other people to be. And that this power imbalance is clearly not a part of his specific plan, but rather a by-product of his refusal to participate in his own creation. If he is real, his reliance on one old book and heresay is inadequate, and so obviously he doesn't actually care. And if he doesn't care about the world in general, he presumably also doesn't care about the dying child in my example. And if that is the case, even if he is real, why bother getting on my knees today if he is going to let me be killed by a crazed maniac tomorrow? For salvation and heaven? How would I know if that would be an improvement? He can't do anything right by humans standards on earth. What would his motivation be to do any better up there? That he calls it paradise is irrelevant. His standards are so much different than my own that I doubt he knows what a paradise is. It may be a paradise for him, but I've no reason to think that it would also be a paradise for humans. His track record is too poor to imagine otherwise.
If he's real, I'll take hell. If billions of others can be down there suffering right now, for not kowtowing to him, that's where I belong. Which means, of course, that he only gets around to doing what he says he's going to do after death. Which is no use to the planet right now.
My knees shall remain clean. Unless I drop another pen under the sofa.
Edit: minor rewording