answers

[ARTHANASIOS]

Whether or not something is better is a different question as to whether or not it takes away someone's free will.

All these discussion came from this, right?

You must know, God won't send a sign if that completely interferes with your free will. That means you will never witness a sign that proves 100% of His existence...

 Well, I never said that God takes away your free will, I said "God won't send a sign IF that completely interferes with your free will" and I meant exactly that. The "That means you will never witness a sign that proves 100% of His existence..." part is not a complete sentence (the "..." reveals this) and refers to batboy2002's case because he is obviously not a full believer. I fail to see any logical error to what I've said. Please, explain yourself better in order to be able to understand your way of thinking more clearly.

[Aves]

Whether or not something is better is a different question as to whether or not it takes away someone's free will.

All these discussion came from this, right?
Pineapples are tastier than strawberries. Therefore, God exists.
Needless bloodshed is bad. Therefore, God does not exist.
A rainbow is a meteorological phenomenon that is caused by reflection, refraction and dispersion of light in water droplets resulting in a spectrum of light appearing in the sky. Rainbows are pretty. Therefore, rainbows negate free will.

None of those arguments make sense, because they talk about different things. Same deal with a concept or object's "quality" and "effect on free will."

You must know, God won't send a sign if that completely interferes with your free will. That means you will never witness a sign that proves 100% of His existence...

 Well, I never said that God takes away your free will, I said "God won't send a sign IF that completely interferes with your free will" and I meant exactly that. The "That means you will never witness a sign that proves 100% of His existence..." part is not a complete sentence (the "..." reveals this) and refers to batboy2002's case because he is obviously not a full believer. I fail to see any logical error to what I've said. Please, explain yourself better in order to be able to understand your way of thinking more clearly.

Your argument is valid, but not necessarily sound. The issue is whether or not God sending a direct sign would impede with free will. You say that this would affect believers and non-believers differently. Why would it not impede the free will of a believer when it would that of a nonbeliever? 

To use a biblical reference, I think the Book of Job demonstrates problem pretty clearly, especially in Job 37-42. God literally comes out like an archetypical Greek Hero lauding his various feats and prowess, declaring his omnipotence. Essentially, "Who are you to question me, with all my power? How dares such an ignorant being such as yourself question the Almighty." How and why do you consider that not to be an impediment on his free will?

[ARTHANASIOS]

I think you guys take the bible way too literally, that's the problem. The "Who are you to question me, with all my power? How dares such an ignorant being such as yourself question the Almighty." phrase just shows the difference of power levels between God and mankind. It is not a bullying attempt, it is a fact you have to accept if you also accept that God exists.

Moreover, I think we should define free will before keep going any further. I have a feeling we decipher free will differently.

[ElementalDearWatson]

Well, I never said that God takes away your free will, I said "God won't send a sign IF that completely interferes with your free will" and I meant exactly that. The "That means you will never witness a sign that proves 100% of His existence..." part is not a complete sentence (the "..." reveals this) and refers to batboy2002's case because he is obviously not a full believer.

Indeed, you said that God won't prove his existence to someone who isn't a "full believer", because that would take away their free will.   You have also said that non-believers are one group of people who can deny God, and that believers are another.  What you've not done is explained how God proving his existence to someone who isn't a "full believer" would take away their free will, if that person can still deny God, and why it wouldn't take away the free will of a believer.

[ElementalDearWatson]

Moreover, I think we should define free will before keep going any further. I have a feeling we decipher free will differently.

You're the person who introduced the term.  Define how you meant it, and explain how God proving his existence to someone who isn't a "full believer" would take away their free will, if that person can still deny God, and why it wouldn't take away the free will of a believer.

[ARTHANASIOS]

You yourself said that they can still deny him.  And I would put it to you that believers can also feel an obligation to obey.

These both facts are irrelevant. BOTH a believer and a non-believer can deny a God's miracle and I never said otherwise.

You're the person who introduced the term.  Define how you meant it, and explain how God proving his existence to someone who isn't a "full believer" would take away their free will, if that person can still deny God, and why it wouldn't take away the free will of a believer.

Free will is the ability to make choices without being forced to do so.
However, God knows what choice each person is going to make using their free will, but without interfering to it.

Typical non-believers won't like to believe in God and follow God's commands, God knows that so God chooses to conceal Himself from them.
Typical believers both like to believe in God and follow God's commands, God knows that so God chooses to reveal Himself to them.

[ElementalDearWatson]

Typical non-believers won't like to believe in God and follow God's commands, God knows that so God chooses to conceal Himself from them.

This seems to be a different proposition than not having the ability to make choices without being forced to do so.  You now seem to be saying that God wouldn't ask anybody to do something that they wouldn't want to do - something which is flatly contradicted by many passages in the Bible, and something which is entirely irrelevant to the concept of free will, as you have defined it.

You've also taken something which is true for "typical" people of certain groups and extrapolated it out to all members of those groups.  This is particularly egregious in this specific context, as batboy has said more than once that he wants to believe.

[ARTHANASIOS]

Typical non-believers won't like to believe in God and follow God's commands, God knows that so God chooses to conceal Himself from them.

This seems to be a different proposition than not having the ability to make choices without being forced to do so.  You now seem to be saying that God wouldn't ask anybody to do something that they wouldn't want to do - something which is flatly contradicted by many passages in the Bible, and something which is entirely irrelevant to the concept of free will, as you have defined it.

Could you please provide me with those passages of the Bible? Thanks.

[ElementalDearWatson]

As an example, let's say Onan.  God killed his brother, Er, and told Onan to impregnate Er's wife.  Onan didn't want to, and every time he slept with her he "spilled his seed upon the ground".  So God killed him.

Not that that's particularly important as this is irrelevant to free will, as you defined it, and it also doesn't address the problem of you extrapolating something from people who you say are "typical" to everybody.