Can a xtian god be free?

[Zenith]

You are wrong. These are not my conclusions but those supposed attributes that xtian theist philosophers place on their god, ie not my words, but theists own words.

So yeah, in this meaning I was wrong: we all borrowed the terms and meanings from the mainstream theists, so it's not your theory as much as it is their theory. Anyway, I think it is important to note that theists' terms and meanings also changed in time.

If they are wrong then it is possible to conceive of a more perfect being.

Sorry, but there cannot be anything more perfect - "perfect" is an absolute term.

But I don't think that an absolute being can be conceived (absolute in everything), because it's paradoxical:

omnipotent = "can do all", which includes absurd/illogical things like "a squared circle";

omniscient = "knows all", which includes, knowing if after exact 200 years a baby would be born in X place with name Y and everything what he would do in his life and if he would finally go to heaven or not - but that's against "free will", because if you know you would irresistibly do X, it means you can't do anything for it not to happen, which means an absolute force (or God) actually took the decision for you, so it's per-ordinance, not "all-knowing" (so "all-knowing" is a paradoxical term, because it contradicts itself... unless my logic is wrong).

omnibenevolent - another paradoxical term, because punishing an evil man might be required in order for that man to understand that he did wrong and to change his behavior (which means that the result is "good"), and if that does not happen, the evil man would continue to do evil. So this "omnibenevolent" is an absolute, paradoxical term as well (not being able to do evil => not causing evil to the evil man which leaves the evil of the man to continue (which is not benevolence), while doing evil to the evil man may be beneficial to him)

all-sovereign - another paradoxical term, and it means that everything that happens (e.g. people's own decisions) are actually God's decision. Perhaps in most theories, these decisions were took before the creation of the world.

If not perfect why would you call it a god and not just another being, just a very brilliant one?

I don't understand very well what you mean by "perfect".

Anyway, the answer is the same: because you don't re-invent the wheel! That is, the word "god" has already been invented, and has many different meanings (depending on culture, religion, epoch), including what you say there.

For instance:

- in ancient pagan religions "gods" were not necessarily immmortal, they were not necessarily brilliant, not necessarily good, etc.
- in the Christian Bible, there is no definition of the word "God", but it's just used throughout the Bible, e.g. when it shows what God did and how God is.
- in the Qur'an, Allah is an absolute God (omniscient, omnipotent, though it seems not omnipresent - I've heard a muslim scholar explaining that Allah is not omnipresent), but not quite benevolent - I'd call Allah a rather racist God that hates the Jewish people and all infidels - but "Allah" is still called "God", not by other term.

So, why re-invent the wheel? Or, what and how a "God" should be in order to exist?? - and I think this question is absurd.
If "God" exists, He exists no matter how or what we want Him to be.

If not infinitely great then has finite characteristics and does not halt infinite regress.

hmmm... what do you mean by "does not halt infinite regress"? I cannot answer this unless I understand it properly...
Anyway, for some reason, I've got the feeling we're debating useless terminology...

you need to define your god and state why it should be called one, why it can be a creator etc.

How a god can be a creator... well, if he created (e.g. the universe, the world, etc.)!!

OK, definition of "god":
"a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world..."
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god)

So, my understanding of "god" is: a supernatural being (with supernatural powers, obviously) that is worshipped and can has power/authority over parts of the universe, events, etc. - in other words, it can do something for the worshippers (otherwise, it wouldn't have been worshiped).

My understanding of "God": a single god that created the universe, the laws of the universe, and all that is in and about it (and is eternal). This implies that He has power/authority over all He created. This also implies that He knows everything about what He created (e.g. thoughts of man, their intentions, how they are, etc.). But, if we weren't forced a destiny by this God, and because we are not robots (everything we do to be programmed in us to do so), it means that there are things that cannot be known. So, for instance, it is impossible to know if a man would be born at position X after 200 years and to be known everything he would do in his life until death.

Anyway, if such "God" exists, I think it's stupid for us, people, to invent paradoxical terms and concepts to describe Him, and because our own theory is paradoxical, to state that God cannot exist.

I think you are the one who has made there own theory of a 'god', if not all powerful, good, knowing, immutable, eternal etc;

If immutable means unchangeable, the Bible says that God does not change. And it is stated that He is eternal.
Anyway, it seems to me that you accuse me for not believing in a God that can create a squared circle (or a rock He cannot lift, etc.)...

As about the absolute paradoxical "omnibenevolence", that is not found in the bible. On the contrary, you can find:

23. Jesus said to them...
...
25. I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah's time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land.
26. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon.
27. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed— only Naaman the Syrian.
28. All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this.
29. They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff.

so the lack of the absolute paradoxical "omnibenevolence" is not my invention either. Would you call the Christian God not a "God" now?