[...] if we don’t have free will, then this may dramatically change how we govern ourselves and interact with others. [...]

This seems self-defeating for if we don’t have free will, then we don’t really govern ourselves.

Scriptures say that we have no free will to believe or not, as that will or faith to believe is controlled by god and his deciding who gets the grace to believe and who does not.

How you see god will be determined by your supernatural belief.

The supernatural is a false picture of our highest ideals.

Nature is the better picture.

Regards
DL

It is a test that has you give up your free will and do something simple like having you start a post with my words instead of your own, which would be you not giving up your free will to me, which also proves your exercise of free will.

It gets you either way and proves you have a will to give up.

That possession is your proof.

If any do not see the logic trail and proof, step up and test yourself.

Our free will is demonstrably undeniable.

Regards
DL

You say that sometimes. Other times, God has not revealed himself because that would affect our free will and we could not "freely choose" to follow God.

No, We believe God reveals Himself at all times in the many ways I previously listed. I don’t understand why you believe God revealing or not revealing himself effects our free will. Can you elaborate on that?

Didn't say it was. If someone doesn't have an explanation, it's not honest to just accept any answer someone else might dogmatically push in its place. I don't have to have "the" explanation to criticize claims put forth as explanations either.

Except our explanation isn’t dogmatic. It’s necessarily true.

And how could we know if the catholic claims were wrong?

By taking the time to gain a thorough understanding of them and all of the reasoning, terms and logic that underpins them to see if they hold up under scrutiny.

it is a meaningless claim. is your proposed intelligence orderly? is it rational?

It is order and rationality itself.

why don't you need to explain that supposed order and rationality with yet another intelligence?

It must necessarily be explained that way because it’s incoherent and illogical to claim that order and intelligence can be the effect of a non-ordered and non-intelligent causal agent.

so in this situation, they knew what was going to happen and they wanted it. why did they want that? what put that desire in them? (and it's another can of worms to nail down what supposedly happened, a literal garden-apple-scenario or something vague-but-definitely-real)

They had to have been deceived into wanting it. Keep in mind that genesis uses symbolic language to describe an actual event.

we work with the premises you give us. god created everything. okay. I'm taking your concept seriously, now, is the will somehow "outside" of everything? is it beyond reality itself, independent?

https://youtu.be/UnpycBrUB3U

god created Satan, which is supposedly a being more intelligent than humans. in this perfect creation, before the fall, where does the chaos come from which leads to rebellion? if there's no "Fog of War" in an eternal, immaterial existence, so there are no excuses due to ignorance, why are choices leading to self destruction even made? how can that be considered rational? is Satan insane? were the first parents perfectly sane and rational?

https://youtu.be/J_xIChMDYGI

https://youtu.be/iwJNi-f1NPc

https://youtu.be/T5pSrlr1rJI

My question is, does demonic influence even make sense?

You ask great questions. See if the linked videos above are helpful.

"They would have to have been made fully aware of the consequences of disobedience. It was perfectly created in the beginning but was corrupted by the act of disobedience. The act of disobedience resulted in the rupture of the relationship that God originally intended humans to enjoy with him which was unfortunately passed along to everyone since."

so in this situation, they knew what was going to happen and they wanted it. why did they want that? what put that desire in them? (and it's another can of worms to nail down what supposedly happened, a literal garden-apple-scenario or something vague-but-definitely-real)

we work with the premises you give us. god created everything. okay. I'm taking your concept seriously, now, is the will somehow "outside" of everything? is it beyond reality itself, independent?

god created Satan, which is supposedly a being more intelligent than humans. in this perfect creation, before the fall, where does the chaos come from which leads to rebellion? if there's no "Fog of War" in an eternal, immaterial existence, so there are no excuses due to ignorance, why are choices leading to self destruction even made? how can that be considered rational? is Satan insane? were the first parents perfectly sane and rational?

"How can accountability be focused on in the absence of influences that end up requiring accountability in the first place? Being held accountable for ones actions presupposes that one may or may not have committed some act that one is being held accountable for which requires taking into consideration all influences that affected the outcome."

My question is, does demonic influence even make sense?

"But we believe that God has revealed Himself."

You say that sometimes. Other times, God has not revealed himself because that would affect our free will and we could not "freely choose" to follow God.

"I don’t know isn’t an explanation."

Didn't say it was. If someone doesn't have an explanation, it's not honest to just accept any answer someone else might dogmatically push in its place. I don't have to have "the" explanation to criticize claims put forth as explanations either.

"Some other means of arriving at truth is required."

And how could we know if the catholic claims were wrong?

"order and knowable information"

"Claiming that order and information can only be the product of an intellect is not a religious claim and the Church has a 2000 year intellectual tradition that shows its work."

it is a meaningless claim. is your proposed intelligence orderly? is it rational? why don't you need to explain that supposed order and rationality with yet another intelligence?

if we don't have an explanation for something, the honest thing to do is admit that. we say "we don't know". and we can keep looking, we can keep trying to figure out if there is an answer. keep studying, keep improving, we don't have to give up.

Studying and Improving by what means? Scientifically and empirically?

and we don't have to accept whatever god claim a religion makes just because it claims to have the answer without showing its work.

The very clear presence of order and knowable information found in nature requires an explanation and I don’t know isn’t an explanation. Neither is randomness. Claiming that order and information can only be the product of an intellect is not a religious claim and the Church has a 2000 year intellectual tradition that shows its work.

the honest approach can be strange and maybe frightening to religious authorities, so they attack it. "you need to come up with an answer NOW, or else my god claim takes it's place by default." that's not how honest investigation of world works. Frank Turek does that, Trent Horn does it too, I've witnessed it firsthand, and its an argument from ignorance.

You have one of two choices and the nature of the question at hand isn’t anything science is capable of adequately addressing. Some other means of arriving at truth is required.

another falsehood they'll put in skeptic's mouths is the claim that science "will" absolutely figure everything out given enough time. I don't have to make that claim either. again, the honest thing to say is "I don't know." and we're still perfectly capable of dismantling a theistic claim by asking it questions until it devolves into contradiction.

I don’t know is a perfectly rational response in certain circumstances. There are however skeptics who do go around making that claim. We’re simply saying that science has its limits and cannot, even in principle, be an adequate or the sole means of discovering truth.

if there is a god, it should know what a good logical argument is and is not. why would a believer be satisfied with the arguments they have put forth, just riding on the inertia of millennia of political/social dominance? a rational creator would want you to be right for the right reasons. if this god isn't going to reveal itself, and we honestly don't know for sure it has done anything in our reality, it would be nonsensical to judge non-believers as heretics or dishonest or any of the other many slanders I've seen.

But we believe that God has revealed Himself. We point to the immensity of evidence found in reality of the presence of an infinitely higher intellect that both creates and sustains the whole of reality on a moment by moment basis and we’ve got boatloads of rigorous rational philosophical analysis to back it up. Atheism has nothing else to offer except that science may one day yield all the answers to all our questions.

which is based on more claims that don't stand up to scrutiny. the garden of eden story does not make sense, and the story is changed depending on the situation the apologist needs to apply it to. were the humans tricked by satan? or not? was it fully informed decision making they are fully accountable for, or were they manipulated? if you claim this was all perfectly created, it's illogical that humans are ultimately accountable for some violation and need redemption from it.

They would have to have been made fully aware of the consequences of disobedience. It was perfectly created in the beginning but was corrupted by the act of disobedience. The act of disobedience resulted in the rupture of the relationship that God originally intended humans to enjoy with him which was unfortunately passed along to everyone since.

depending on what is convenient in the moment, the apologist can make his claims about original sin without ever mentioning Satan. but having it both ways is convenient.

What is your understanding of what we define original sin as?

I see the Satan character used as a tool for dehumanizing whole groups of people today. LGBT activists get accused of working for Satan. I may not believe that, the accused may not believe that, but I know there are consequences if a large number of people believe these hateful thought leaders who spew rhetoric about demonic influence.

Legitimate criticism of ones opponents does not equate to dehumanizing them. Anyone who dehumanizes another for any reason is not acting consistently with the the faith. There are also consequences if a large number of people believe the hateful thought leaders who spew rhetoric about those who oppose them being fascist, bigoted, homophobic nazis.

on the other hand, if theodicy were to focus solely on humanity's accountability, with no invisible demonic scapegoats, I think that would be... better? less harmful to society, sure. more constructive.

How can accountability be focused on in the absence of influences that end up requiring accountability in the first place? Being held accountable for ones actions presupposes that one may or may not have committed some act that one is being held accountable for which requires taking into consideration all influences that affected the outcome.

it still has the problem of not being consistent, because the problem remains that our desires were supposedly programmed by a god.

Our desires were ordered not programmed.

I don't see what is complicated about that. Entropy happens, it's inescapable, thus suffering exists.

Simply stating that suffering exists offers no context for suffering to make sense.

"If the explanation that an intelligent, guiding, causal agent is behind it isn’t satisfactory then how else can it be explained?"

if we don't have an explanation for something, the honest thing to do is admit that. we say "we don't know". and we can keep looking, we can keep trying to figure out if there is an answer. keep studying, keep improving, we don't have to give up. and we don't have to accept whatever god claim a religion makes just because it claims to have the answer without showing its work.

the honest approach can be strange and maybe frightening to religious authorities, so they attack it. "you need to come up with an answer NOW, or else my god claim takes it's place by default." that's not how honest investigation of world works. Frank Turek does that, Trent Horn does it too, I've witnessed it firsthand, and its an argument from ignorance. another falsehood they'll put in skeptic's mouths is the claim that science "will" absolutely figure everything out given enough time. I don't have to make that claim either. again, the honest thing to say is "I don't know." and we're still perfectly capable of dismantling a theistic claim by asking it questions until it devolves into contradiction.

if there is a god, it should know what a good logical argument is and is not. why would a believer be satisfied with the arguments they have put forth, just riding on the inertia of millennia of political/social dominance? a rational creator would want you to be right for the right reasons. if this god isn't going to reveal itself, and we honestly don't know for sure it has done anything in our reality, it would be nonsensical to judge non-believers as heretics or dishonest or any of the other many slanders I've seen.