The third part in what is apparently an ongoing series. Don’t worry, this one is short.
First, let’s accept that free will is worth all the suffering it has caused (or, all the suffering that has occurred that would not have occurred if it weren’t be for free will), and so it really is the best gift from an all-loving god. Despite this free will thing, God—once again, the God of Christianity—has no problem indirectly influencing people through the Bible (and the people he spoke to in the Bible). The Bible tells us everything we need to do and believe and accept to be deemed worthy by God and so ascend to Heaven (we’re assuming it’s true, of course). Our all-loving god both gives us free will and nudges us in the direction he wants, helping us live the proper life. That sounds fair, right?
I don’t think so. We’ve established he wants the best for us and that he’s prepared to influence us (without breaking free will and forcing us to do his bidding). So, why is this influence confined to some events recorded in a book of, as I said in an earlier piece, doubtful veracity (some of the events would have been quite impressive, but all the evidence we have are the writings), some miracles, and some personal revelations. No magic billboards or words etched in the moon or sky-writing pelicans or anything particularly compelling. In fact, the opposite is the case—we get compelling scientific evidence against the truth of God’s word (with regards to creation).
To put it simply: has God really done enough (noting that he is all-loving) to stop us from ruining our lives and suffering eternal damnation? Surely not.
Compelling scientific /against/ God’s Word? That’s not what I’ve learned in much of my research.
You really intend to argue for Genesis (and by that I mean a literal interpretation, not “it’s obviously just a story because back then God knew we couldn’t handle the truth”)? A lot of that stuff is way out there.