The Argument Against God's Existence From God's Imperfect Choice

[Edwardo Piet]

I understand your point. However then according to your own response, you don't actually mean "logically possible"--you simply mean "best possible". 

No, I mean the best logically possible answer.

 You have to distinguish between logically possible and actually possible (logical modality).

Or in other words, between logically possible and metaphysical possible. This is just an irrelevant tangent you're going on though because I specifically stated logically possible. God can supposedly do anything logically possible even if it isn't metaphysically possible.

For example, a world where everyone chooses good is, broadly speaking, logically possible--logic alone cannot rule it out.

We're not talking about metaphysical possibility we are talking about logical possibility. Something is logically possible if it can be described without being logically contradictory or logically incoherent.

But clearly, additional criteria is needed to determine if it is actually possible.

God can supposedly do anything that is logically possible even if it isn't metaphysically possible, yes?

It is logically possible that something can travel faster than the speed of light. However, physical constraints of the universe seem to set a limit so it is not actually possible.

Indeed... and God is supposedly beyond these physical constraints.

Again, this is just a red herring on your part. I specifically say that God can and does choose the best logically possible option. God can supposedly do anything that is logically possible even if it isn't metaphysically possible.

Premise (1) cannot be logically possible because

That's absurd. Premise one HAS to be logically possible because it's literally a tautology to say that God chooses what is the best logically possible option when you already concede that God can do anything logically possible and always makes perfect choices!

 in Premise (2) it clearly must mean actually possible

And again, it makes sense to dispute premise 2 from a Christian perspective but you're just doubling down on absurdity by disputing premise 1 if you accept that God can do anything logically possible and always chooses the best option. If you're not even willing to make the most basic of concessions when you're very clearly mistaken even according to your own viewpoints then this is clearly you not even arguing honestly and just doubling down on being wrong. But it didn't really make any sense to dispute premise (1) at all from a Christian perspective. You were very clearly equivoating on my use of the word "logical" when I was very clearly talking about logical possibility. Now you are going off on another red herring about metaphysical possibility/modal possibility and yet failing to notice the fact that premise (1) only speaks of logical possibility so you're not even addressing premise (1) let alone refuting it.

THEREFORE, your whole inserting of "logically" is meaningless and what you really mean is just 

Do you or do you not accept that God can do anything logically possible and chooses the best logically possible option? The only way you can possibly deny premise (1) is by accepting that God is beyond logic and can do the logically impossible or that he doesn't always choose the best of all logically possible options.

Premise 1: God always chooses the best logically possible option.

You strike it out and say it's "meaningless" and yet the entire point is that some Christians say God can do anything even the logically impossible and others recognize that that makes no sense and God can obviously not do the logically impossible as the logically impossible isn't even anything coherent at all.

If you don't accept premise one then you are not accepting the idea that God CAN do anything that is logically possible and DOES choose the best logically possible option. Seriously, stop playing silly games and move onto premise 2 if you want your criticism of my argument to actually be taken seriously. Premise 1 is indisputable unless you think God isn't so perfect after all or that he is so perfect that he can make square circles and married bachellors.

which brings up what you mean by "best". Premise (1) is not valid if you don't define "best"

We already have a concept for the best option. It means better than all other possible options. The point is if we can accept that there is a world that can be described that is better than this world then God can bring that world about because it is logically possible (because it can be described without a contradiction which is what logically possible means).... so the only possible dispute lies in whether a better world than this one can be described. My argument isn't invalid until the word is defined. The word is defined and we know what it means. It's merely a matter of opinion whether there's a logically possible better world because it's a matter of opinion about what is better than what. But, it is still true that if there is a logically possible better world that can be described... then my argument is valid. If my premises are true then my conclusion follows. And premise 2 is the only premise that you can realistically dispute.

 "Best" is a value judgement weighed against how well it meet a certain criteria.

Indeed. So the question is... can a world that is better than this one be described?

What is your criteria and more importantly why should it also be God's criteria? 

If something is truly better it's better regardless of what God thinks. The point is that if a better world can be described and God has failed to choose it then he either can't or won't.

Libertarian Free Will is not only taught throughout the Bible, but is core to the entire message of God/redemption/etc. To argue against God, you don't get to deny the theology that goes with it. Otherwise you are question begging. 

I'm not question begging anything as Libertarian Free Will is not only logically incoherent and impossible regardless of whether determinism or indeterminism is true but I've already made arguments against why it is impossible repeatedly on AF. Want me to share it again?

I am saying exactly what I said. Free will entails that God has subordinated control of some things. Why do you say "needless" suffering. You are begging the question again.

What question do you think I'm begging?

If God can no longer violate people's free will even if he wants to then it is not true to say that he is omnipotent.

You have not proved that it is needless or can have been prevented while achieving the same goals. 

I don't have to prove that needless suffering is needless LOL. I'm not saying that all suffering is needless.

It's not my job to prove that God can prevent it while achieving the same goals as God can supposedly do anything logically possible so we already know that he could do that.

and again, you are using logically possible incorrectly.

Wrong. It's you who doesn't seem to understand the difference between logical possibility and metaphysical possibility. If something is logically possible it just means that something can be described coherently without any logical contradictions.

You have not shown that avoiding such a thing is actually possible while achieving the same goals. 

Again, I wasn't talking about actual/modal/metaphysical possibility. I am saying that God can do anything that is logically possible and that is supposedly what you believe omnipotence is about, yes? God is beyond the physical world and can do absolutely anything... which is why he is omnipotent. He can't do the logically impossible but that's only because such things cannot even be described and are therefore a total absence of anything and therefore aren't anything that he cannot do.

You lack basic conversation skills. I didn't have to respond to you little syllogism. Change your tone or it won't happen again.

Change my tone? You're the one who just randomly got rude right here right now. You're the first one to get personal.

---

Do the physical constraints of the universe limit gods, somehow..such that what may be logically possible.....are beyond their actual ability?

Apparently God can't do the metaphysically impossible either which could make his powers so limited that what is actually possible isn't very impressive at all compared to a being that could do absolutely anything logically possible. The answer to all God's apparent mistakes could actually be "Avoiding that apparent mistake wasn't metaphysically possible."

---

In short, God expected us to react better then we have. Of course, he always knew this was possible, and is now dealing with a very bad case scenario, that was always possible but originally improbable.

Lol he didn't just always know that this is possible he always knew that this would be actual. And from God's perspective there is no such thing as improbable as everything that will happen is absolutely certain to him.