Dr Rick

If restrictions upon people eliminate free-will, then only omnipotent people can have free will

Radorth

Ah yes, Rad is a heretic because he doesn't think in a box, and doesn't define "omnimax" as having the ability to contradict oneself or arbitrarily break the laws of physics, or reach out with 500 physical arms and whack rapists around the world. Well so be it.

Of course if God was omnipotent, he could choose not to be omniscient. He could choose to fall asleep for twenty centuries.

Omnimax, smomnimax. It doesn't mean anything, when you think rationally about it for five minutes

In the end we won't care much about any of God's attributes except.

1. His goodness

2. His mercy

3. His long suffering nature

4 His power to judge and condemn us to hell, or deliver us

5. His power to create and destroy

It is these things which will make for "wailing and gnashing of teeth."

I admit we do not have free will in many ways, but I suggest no one will whine louder than Dr. Rick when what we have is removed.

I'm afraid the best argument the skeptics can make here is that God should have made robots who always chose what he wanted, and were so naive as to ask no questions. Of course the skeptics are the first to call any Christian who does so a mindless goody-goody.

The irony is gonna kill me.

Rad

Radorth

Re: Dr Rick

{deleted-AV}

You're either lying or being deliberately obtuse. No I didn't. But of course you seldom can make an argument without misrepresenting me first. I said the "major problems" with the world are caused by human stubbornness and stupidity, etc.

I don't see how anyone could disagree with my statement unless they were just trolling. Were you here before I came BTW?

Rad

lpetrich

Radorth:
What kind of God would you serve and obey willingly, or at least acknowledge his righteousness and goodness?

At the very least, such a being would have to manifest Itself to me and act as if it is omnimax, including not alllowing bad things to happen by omission.

What would change in your life, for example, if you saw a bonafide miracle yourself?

The next question is how would I be able to tell that it is a Real Miracle (tm) and not something else.

If he ended all natural disasters, how many people would really change just because he did that?

Why is it necessary to "change"?

What I would say is "It's about time that you did you job."

lpetrich

LP:
Radorth is saying that everything bad that happens to us is all our fault.

Radorth:
You're either lying or being deliberately obtuse. .... I said the "major problems" with the world are caused by human stubbornness and stupidity, etc.

So it's just the "major problems"? So would my example of an asteroid strike be either a major or a minor problem?

Dr Rick

I never said or even implied that, nor do I believe it.


Moderators: would you please fix that false implication; it's a new low, even for Radorth.

long winded fool

lol. So if I own a slave, there's no reason to assume he or she is not free to do as he or she pleases? He can pick cotton, wash the sheets, watch the kids, it's all his choice! If I protect my child for his whole life to prevent him from ever making a choice that results in his suffering, I am a loving father with a child free to do what he wants? He has the complete freedom to choose anything that I say is ok.

False. I addressed all these claims already, but I suppose 4 pages is a bit much to expect anyone to read. Please examine your last statement again. "We could all want different things while an omnipotent god could prevent harm." Don't you see how easy this is to contradict? What if I want to harm someone? Please don't say: "If God is omnipotent, He could prevent it without taking away your free will." This is akin to the most irrational of fundamentalist arguments. Using the same "logic," I can prove that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God can allow evil without being unloving solely because he is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. That is as irrefutable as yours. I have given a rational explanation without declaring that God can contradict himself because he is omnipotent. You assume that there is no god, but if there were he could do paradoxical things. "If he's omniscient, he could figure out a way." You have declared this assertion without addressing my explanation with anything other than an unsubstantiated declaration that it is illogical. You are ignoring my argument because you already know it's wrong. This defense is used quite often. It first appears around the age of six, but sometimes carries over into adulthood in intellectually insecure people. The six-year-old defense is: "No, I'm right because you disagree with me and you're stupid." The adult version is all too often: "You're stupid because I'm right and you disagree with me." By themselves, these are essentially the same conclusions. Until you logically address my explanation instead of tossing it away with balled fists and accusations of nonsense, you are essentially stomping your feet and shouting "No!" in the face of hard reason.

Good. We have it broken down. All of that is true barring the presence of free will. An omnibenevolent god would want to prevent evil. He would also want his children to have the freedom to choose Him (good) or turn away from Him (evil.) I hope you can take it from here. If he prevents them from turning away from Him, he eliminates evil and thus is no longer omnibenevolent. Not too hard.

No stupid! I'm right!

AquaVita

Radorth, please only quote what other members actually say.

Thank you.

Aqua-GRD mod.

Dr Rick

Your still not addressing the issue. "Free will" is not the same as being " free to do as he or she pleases;" You're not free" to turn into a cloud, but that doesn't mean you don't have free will. "Will," the desire to do something, is not lost even if that will cannot always be actualized.

If you want to harm someone but can't, the will is still present even though you can't do the harm.

Then do it; until you do, that's just another unsubstantiated assertion.

No, you've merely claimed that free will requires the possibility of evil and have failed to show why; a claim without substatiation is not a rational explanation.

I have not suggested that he be able to do anything "paradoxical"; that's just another assertion. Free will can exist without endless capabilities to turn every possibility into reality; if that is not true, then no non-omnipotent human has free will.

You've provided no explanation to show that he couldn't "figure out a way."

I'm addressing your assertions presented as conclusions, and yes, that form of argument is wrong. Your claim of an "illogical paradox" requires demonstrating that there is a logical paradox.

Even declaring that you only possess the intellectual abilities of a six-year old is no substitute for a rational argument; if you have any doubts, ask your mommy. In the meantime, stop saying "You're stupid because I'm right and you disagree with me;" big boys don't talk that way.

Provide a logical proof that the possibility of evil is necessary for free-will, and you'll be talking like an adult that understands logic.

Maybe you need a "time-out"

Llyricist

Congratulations, you just rocketed the goal posts right off the PoE playing field. The PoE defines Evil as anything that causes human suffering, most certainly NOT turning away from a hypothetical sky daddy. You've entered the whirly twirly circular world of presupp here....a whole 'nuther ball of wax.