Athiest are the dumbest people. No Offence its just true.

[Hydra009]

God can only do what is logically possible. He can't make square circles or married bachelors.

Yet he can somehow be three-in-one just fine.

[Randy Carson]

It's not so much about 'not making the people that would say no to him', it's about making the world in such a way that everyone created would come to accept him. This is an all-powerfull, allknowing creature that created the world as he saw fit; by definition he can shape it so that everyone would come to understand his will and come to choose to accept him by their own significant free will.

If God makes the world in such a way that everyone WOULD without fail come to accept him, that world simply overpowers their inclinations, doesn't it? And this can be as subtle as you like, it's still irresistable. Like putting someone inside the event horizon of a black hole; they have free will, but there's no way they will resist the gravity. If God shapes the world "so that everyone would come to understand his will and come to choose to accept him by their own significant free will", there's no way they will resist Him. The point is, that people WOULD come to accept NO MATTER WHAT. Is that coercion?

You need to keep all three traits active at all times during this. Let me try to explain with your following statement.

So… he wants everyone to accept him but purposefully creates those who will fail so that their eternity in hell can serve a greater purpose?

That does not sound like omnibenevolence to me.

The essence of that thinking is that if people choose to reject God, He still knows how to maximize the good that He can get out of the situation.

He makes lemonade!

[Mr.Obvious]

He is, and this is the Achilles' Heel of your argument.

God can only do what is logically possible. He can't make square circles or married bachelors. He can't make a rock so big he can't lift it.

However, his inability to do what is illogical does not mean that he is not omnipotent.

Therefore, the idea that "God can create significantly free beings and cause them to do only good" is logically impossible.

Moreover, his foreknowledge that some would reject him doesn't really fly. This is watching M&M's coming down a conveyor belt and discarding the imperfect ones so that only perfect M&M's go into each bag. God would consider each person's potential for rejecting him, and he would simply not make those people who would do so.

This is my first pass...I'll go back and read your response again more slowly.

And thanks! Real discussion is a pleasure!

If there is an achilles heel, that is not it. You and the other thinkers you've envoked to make your stance more clear all fail to keep his omniscience in mind. It's no more illogically possible for him to create a world in which all people would come to accept him than a world in which some would come to accept him. If you believe he created this world he as much predestined you to believe in him as he did me not to believe in him and he would've predestined us both an equal amount if he'd had us both be believer or none believers. Exactly because he could see every possible world and eventuality and chose to create one of the unlimited options. By creating a world, he would've made a choice as to who would choose to follow him. Which means that if he chose to build this creation, he did create  significantly free beings and caused them to do good. The only difference with a better one is that he also chose to create significantly free beings and caused them to do evil. Keep in mind that he's the starting point of everything, allknowing and allpowerful (and supposedly omnibenevolent): His creation is a choice that always defines what his subjects will choose. No less in this world than in a perfect one.
I don't think I can explain it any clearer than with the example below.

If God makes the world in such a way that everyone WOULD without fail come to accept him, that world simply overpowers their inclinations, doesn't it?

No more than in a world he creates in such a way that not everyone would, as he still knows and chooses in advance what they will choose by choosing to create the reality he picks.

And this can be as subtle as you like, it's still irresistable. Like putting someone inside the event horizon of a black hole; they have free will, but there's no way they will resist the gravity. If God shapes the world "so that everyone would come to understand his will and come to choose to accept him by their own significant free will", there's no way they will resist Him. The point is, that people WOULD come to accept NO MATTER WHAT. Is that coercion?

No more coercion than what you've witnessed in this life if you were to die today and go to heaven because you chose to let him into your life. He still chose in advance to set up the system in such a way that he knew you would accept him, whereas I would not. And it's the same amount of coercion for me to go to hell because he could've chosen to set up the system in such a way that he knew I would come to accept him. Because he knows in advance any possibly createable world and can make any possibly createable world; by creating one he made the prime choice. And with perfect knowledge and omnipotence he could've created the perfect world. He didn't, but there would have been no less free will than in this one because he is still the allknowing and allpowerfull one who sets up the system; chooses the creation.
This is not watching m&m's go by. It's building an imperfect m&m-machine on purpose so you know which peanuts will be poorly covered in chocolate (while you have The schematics, materials and technical knowhow to create a perfect one.)

The essence of that thinking is that if people choose to reject God, He still knows how to maximize the good that He can get out of the situation.

He makes lemonade!

He is the one choosing to give himself lemons.

[Baruch]

All of this theological gum chewing ... assumes G-d isn't malevolent, or simply amoral.  The medieval theologians thought, that if one came up with a superlative, it necessarily existed.  So absolute good and absolute evil must be more than mere thoughts.  So people still play into that (which actually came from Greek philosophy) ... by coloring the idea of G-d with positive superlatives.  This is mania, not dialectic.

[Randy Carson]

If there is an achilles heel, that is not it. You and the other thinkers you've envoked to make your stance more clear all fail to keep his omniscience in mind. It's no more illogically possible for him to create a world in which all people would come to accept him than a world in which some would come to accept him.

"Illogically possible?" Did you mean "impossible"? Or just "illogical"?

If you believe he created this world, he as much predestined you to believe in him as he did me not to believe in him. And he would've predestined us both an equal amount if he'd had us both be believer or non-believers.

I changed the sentence above by adding some punctuation to help me follow your thought. Let me know if I got it wrong. And here I disagree. You are proposing a Calvinist view which is often called "double pre-destination": some are predestined to heaven and others are predestined to hell.

Obviously, in the case of the latter group, there is no significant free will with regard to acceptance of God. They cannot accept God and be saved if they are predestined for hell. The Catholic view is that while God does predestine some to heaven, He does not predestine anyone to hell. I mentioned previously that this "double-predestination" is an error of Calvinism. Are you a former Calvinist?

Exactly because he could see every possible word and eventuality and chose to create one of the unlimited options. By creating a world, he would've made a choice as to who would choose to follow him. Which means that if he chose to build this creation, he did create  significantly free beings and caused them to do good. The only difference with a better one is that he also chose to create significantly free being and caused them to do evil. Keep in mind that he's the starting point of everything, allknowing and allpowerful (and supposedly omnibenevolent): His creation is a choice that always defines what his subjects will choose. No less in this world than in a perfect one.

Your position, merely re-stated here and not proven, is that God could create a "perfect" world in which every single significantly free person would choose to accept Him without exception, and failure on His part to do so represents proof that He is deficient in one of the omni's. I agree this is what we're discussing; I do not agree that you have shown a compelling reason why this must be so. And by the way, you wrote, "caused them to do good" above. If God causes them to accept him, then they were not significantly free, were they? Isn't this something they have to choose? Now, we're typing...which can be tedious...so perhaps what you meant is that He gives them sufficient reasons to accept Him which "cause" them to do so. If so, then "cause" in that sense is merely shorthand. I just want to make sure we're in sync.

If God makes the world in such a way that everyone WOULD without fail come to accept him, that world simply overpowers their inclinations, doesn't it?

No more than in a world he creates in such a way that not everyone would, as he still knows and chooses in advance what they will choose by choosing to create the reality he picks.

Here we disagree. God issues an invitation to all; some accept and some do not. It is your contention that he could have created a world in which everyone accepted because he would have either only created that one world out of the infinite number of possible worlds or because he would simply have not populated any world with those whom He knew in advance would reject him.

I'm asking how this would be possible. People come to accept God for a variety of reasons and because their own very personal life experiences. Now, unless you are proposing a world in which everyone simply "knows" God from birth rather than coming to know him at some stage in life, then what you are proposing is that the "butterfly effect" is so meticulously arranged for every single person in the world that all come to accept God.

Okay, He's God and He's all-omni, so this should be possible for Him. Easy, even. But then I have to ask: Isn't it true that some people come to accept God after having exhausted all of their other options and reaching the end of their ropes, so to speak? And specifically, aren't there prisoners on death row who finally come to terms with their own misspent lives and personal limitations and character flaws but only after having their anger and hatred and destructive tendencies forced into an 8x10 room made of concrete and steel? Perhaps they are only able to hear that small voice of God in the long, silent hours of solitary confinement.

Fine. They eventually accept Him...just as you proposed that they would. So, what's the point?

My point is that on the other side of the prison door that leads to their spiritual freedom is the path of destruction, heart-ache, misery and human suffering that they traveled during the course of their lifetime. The road that led to prison was filled with sin and evil and pain...not just for themselves but for others who were the victims of their anger, greed and lust.

So, while you're contemplating a utopian world in which God simply creates perfect "Stepford Wives" for himself, I'm envisioning a real world in which God is able to redeem those who are fallen and full of sin that resulted from their own free choices.

And by the way, I haven't even begun to address the fact that the sins/crimes committed by the death row inmate may have caused others to call out to God in their pain and suffering and thereby be saved. (There may also be those who gnash their teeth at Him and say, "Why did you let this happen to me?", but I think He is prepared for this possibility, also.)

No more than in a world he creates in such a way that not everyone would, as he still knows and chooses in advance what they will choose by choosing to create the reality he picks.

If God "chooses in advance what they will choose", then they have not chosen freely for themselves any more than a child chooses for himself what to eat after his mother has put food on his plate. Whatever he eats was chosen in advance for him.

Surely you didn't mean this?

No more coercion than what you've witnessed in this life if you were to die today and go to heaven because you chose to let him into your life. He still chose in advance to set up the system in such a way that he knew you would accept him, whereas I would not. And it's the same amount of coercion for me to go to hell because he could've chosen to set up the system in such a way that he knew I would come to accept him. Because he knows in advance any possibly createable world and can make any possibly createable world; by creating one he made the prime choice. and with perfect knowledge and omnipotence he could've created the perfect world. He didn't, but there  been no less free will than in this one because he is still The allknowing and allpowerfull one who sets up The system, chooses The creation.

I think that God knows what I need from Him in order to be saved. I exercise my free will to cooperate with God in that process. God knows what you need from Him in order to be saved. You may, if you wish, decline that invitation. As Christopher Hitchens famously claimed of himself, there are those who would not serve God even if He were to prove Himself to them.

This is not watching m&m's go by. It's building an imperfect m&m-machine on purpose so you know which peanuts will be poorly covered in chocolate (while you have The schematics, materials and technical knowhow to create a perfect one.)

A restatement of your position.

I'll continue this later.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I know he's.gay due to a evil influence I think there is a spirit of perversion.

And how long have you been fighting your own spirit of perversion? Since you had trouble hiding your stiffy when showering after gym class? When your friend asked you to do a sleep-over and you pictured yourself under him? Second grade, and that nice. Mr. Johnson down the block, the one with the candy?

[stromboli]

Lol. One member of the Mormon leadership (the Quorum of 12 plus the leaders, aka the Q15) Dallin Oaks, is especially outspoken against gays. Story goes he used to wash and blow dry his hair every day while on his mission. doesn't have much hair now. You never know......

[widdershins]

God can only do what is logically possible. He can't make square circles or married bachelors. He can't make a rock so big he can't lift it.

However, his inability to do what is illogical does not mean that he is not omnipotent.

Therefore, the idea that "God can create significantly free beings and cause them to do only good" is logically impossible.

That makes no sense, and that last sentence is wrong.  First, doesn't God decide what is "logical"?  Could he not change the rules of the universe so that it became possible to make square circles?  Hell, couldn't he just change the definition of one or both in a way that we would never even realize that square circles haven't always been a thing?

I would think that god-like powers would necessarily include the ability to do that which is logically impossible.  That's pretty much the definition of magic.

And now to that last sentence.  So many problems.  First, a god capable of all of creation, setting things up exactly as he desires, could very much create a being which, when coupled with the proper circumstance of a fine-tuned universe, would do only good.  That he knows the outcome of every possible iteration before creation ever begins means that he would be able to pick an iteration which, while capable of evil, would never actually do evil.  The creation would both have free will AND resist doing evil.  This is completely within the powers of the all-powerful.  He would simply have to modify conditions and probabilities to suit this desired end.

And second, according to the Bible, isn't that EXACTLY what he did?  Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge of good and evil and, therefore, could not do evil.  It wasn't until they were changed by the magic fruit that they gained the ability to do evil.

[Randy Carson]

Lol. One member of the Mormon leadership (the Quorum of 12 plus the leaders, aka the Q15) Dallin Oaks, is especially outspoken against gays. Story goes he used to wash and blow dry his hair every day while on his mission. doesn't have much hair now. You never know......

Is there a connection between homosexuality and blow drying your hair?

What am I missing?

[Randy Carson]

That makes no sense, and that last sentence is wrong.  First, doesn't God decide what is "logical"?  Could he not change the rules of the universe so that it became possible to make square circles?  Hell, couldn't he just change the definition of one or both in a way that we would never even realize that square circles haven't always been a thing?

I would think that god-like powers would necessarily include the ability to do that which is logically impossible.  That's pretty much the definition of magic.

And now to that last sentence.  So many problems.  First, a god capable of all of creation, setting things up exactly as he desires, could very much create a being which, when coupled with the proper circumstance of a fine-tuned universe, would do only good.  That he knows the outcome of every possible iteration before creation ever begins means that he would be able to pick an iteration which, while capable of evil, would never actually do evil.  The creation would both have free will AND resist doing evil.  This is completely within the powers of the all-powerful.  He would simply have to modify conditions and probabilities to suit this desired end.

And second, according to the Bible, isn't that EXACTLY what he did?  Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge of good and evil and, therefore, could not do evil.  It wasn't until they were changed by the magic fruit that they gained the ability to do evil.

They chose to disobey God first, and then took a bite second.

[Baruch]

To be fully human, to grow up, Adam and Eve had to disobey G-d.  Who do you think was disguised as a serpent?  It was a setup.  Parents know ... you have to get the kids to leave home eventually.  If we had stayed in Gan Eden, we would have stayed naked ... not even diapered.  That and the relationship between Adam and Eve was clearly incest anyway.  Original sin would actually be, the natural result of such inbreeding.

[Mr.Obvious]

I'll continue this later.

As it's almost one o'clock at night right now, I'm not going to rebuttle right now.
But I'd like to know, am I still waiting for something? Or am I good to go when I find the time?

[FrogMan]

You know what I find funny about all this?  The idea that a world where we lack free will but are in complete bliss and happiness all the days of our lives is somehow taboo to Christians.  For some reason, free will is more important.  It helps them explain why bullshit happens on this Earth, and it's a get out of jail free card for God when things go bad.  "Oh a baby was murdered?"  That's free will!  God wipes his hands clean there, no fault of his cause, hey, he HAD TO give us free will! 

Really, though, I'd rather have pure happiness and no pain over free will any day.  And here's the big ol' kicker....In Heaven, you know, that awesome ending at the end of the video game of life....THERE'S NO FREE WILL.  That's right: in the most perfect place you can imagine, there's no fucking free will.  Yet, somehow, it's not good enough for Earth.  It's the perfect scapegoat for believers.  "Well, uh, see that child was raped cause of humanity and their free will.  But just wait til you're dead and everything is perfect in Heaven!  All we do all day is praise God and nobody sins.  No drug addiction, sexual deviants, sadness, pain...and the best part is, all your non-Christian loved ones will burn in hell!  That part sounds bad?  Don't worry, with lack of free will, you'll see things through perfect Jesus-goggles and won't mind, because you'll know you were right and they were wrong! You loved your wife for 50 years but she was a different religion than you?  She's probably feeling a little toasty right now, eh?  Grab the s'mores! LOL"

That's how this stupid fucking conversation sounds to me.  Amazing the crazy things people can do to their mind to try and cope with the pain and reality of life.  Jeez.

[stromboli]

You know what I find funny about all this?  The idea that a world where we lack free will but are in complete bliss and happiness all the days of our lives is somehow taboo to Christians.  For some reason, free will is more important.  It helps them explain why bullshit happens on this Earth, and it's a get out of jail free card for God when things go bad.  "Oh a baby was murdered?"  That's free will!  God wipes his hands clean there, no fault of his cause, hey, he HAD TO give us free will! 

Really, though, I'd rather have pure happiness and no pain over free will any day.  And here's the big ol' kicker....In Heaven, you know, that awesome ending at the end of the video game of life....THERE'S NO FREE WILL.  That's right: in the most perfect place you can imagine, there's no fucking free will.  Yet, somehow, it's not good enough for Earth.  It's the perfect scapegoat for believers.  "Well, uh, see that child was raped cause of humanity and their free will.  But just wait til you're dead and everything is perfect in Heaven!  All we do all day is praise God and nobody sins.  No drug addiction, sexual deviants, sadness, pain...and the best part is, all your non-Christian loved ones will burn in hell!  That part sounds bad?  Don't worry, with lack of free will, you'll see things through perfect Jesus-goggles and won't mind, because you'll know you were right and they were wrong! You loved your wife for 50 years but she was a different religion than you?  She's probably feeling a little toasty right now, eh?  Grab the s'mores! LOL"

That's how this stupid fucking conversation sounds to me.  Amazing the crazy things people can do to their mind to try and cope with the pain and reality of life.  Jeez.

There is also no free will because anything that otherwise qualifies is met with punishment. Noah's neighbors indulged the free will of not believing in god and got drowned for it; hence, no free will. We cannot move outside of our bodies. Any constraint given to us physically does not allow free will. We cannot move outside of the environmental and inherited characteristics of our life, hence no free will.

The idea of free will is ludicrous. we have debated that here many times. The concept of free will in religion-"you can do what you want, but boy am I gonna fuck you up if you disobey" is likewise ludicrous. Free will is a myth, but it sounds good to the believers. "I worship god of my own free will 'cause if I don't I'm gonna fry in hell." Right.

[FrogMan]

And ALSO, what about God's omniscience?  Doesn't he know the future?  How can we truly have "free will" if the choice we make is known already in advance?  How could we be punished for a predetermined future?

I know this is more philosophy-related, but I also question if we truly make decisions, or if we just "perceive" that we do.  Do we really know enough about how our bodies, brain chemistry, and environment shape what we actually do?

Too many questions.  I've been inactive here the last few years after being a fairly regular poster when I joined in 2010, but I've lurked and taken in a lot of the convos here.  A lot of what I'm asking here is kind of rhetorical, because I doubt Randy has anything of insight on this stuff.  Just more mental gymnastics.