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

[SteveII]

Premise (1) is not true. God chooses what is best. It is not logical that he would die on a cross. It is loving that he would die on a cross. This unravels your whole argument.

Strawman. Do you not understand logical possibility?

"God always chooses what is best" and "God always chooses the best logically possible option" is exactly the same damn thing if you accept that God cannot do the logically impossible. You are equivocating by using "logical" to mean as opposed to "loving" or something else of the heart instead of of the head, whereas I was using "logical" to refer to logical possibility. As was abundantly clear. How can you not see that I was talking of logical possibility when it was stated right there?

For reference, this is what you said:

Premise 1: God always chooses the best logically possible option.
Premise 2. There is a better logically possible option than the one in which God has chosen which he hasn't chosen.
Conclusion: Therefore such a God does not exist.

I understand your point. However then according to your own response, you don't actually mean "logically possible"--you simply mean "best possible".  You have to distinguish between logically possible and actually possible (logical modality). For example, a world where everyone chooses good is, broadly speaking, logically possible--logic alone cannot rule it out. But clearly, additional criteria is needed to determine if it is actually possible. 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. Premise (1) cannot be logically possible because in Premise (2) it clearly must mean actually possible. THEREFORE, your whole inserting of "logically" is meaningless and what you really mean is just 

Premise 1: God always chooses the best logically possible option.
Premise 2. There is a better logically possible option than the one in which God has chosen which he hasn't chosen.
Conclusion: Therefore such a God does not exist.

which brings up what you mean by "best". Premise (1) is not valid if you don't define "best". "Best" is a value judgement weighed against how well it meet a certain criteria. What is your criteria and more importantly why should it also be God's criteria? 

Premise (2) is also not true for two reasons:

(a) For your premise to be true, God would have to be able to control all the variables and therefore the outcomes.

So you are saying he can't?

If God created people with free will, then he has by definition, subordinated his ability to control everything. Freewill entails a sinful world. Free will entails that God has subordinated control of some things. 

That's just another example of him choosing an inferior option unless you are biting the bullet and saying that "free will" is worth child rape, serial killings, genocide and animal cruelty... all of which God foresaw.

And that's not to mention the fact that there are two kinds of free will: One kind that is logically incoherent and even God himself doesn't have... and another kind that is possible in a deterministic world and was possible even before God supposedly "gave" us it. There's absolutely nothing about compatabilist free will that means God is unable to intervene... as we violate each other's compatabilist free will all the time. Are you saying God has given himself less power than us? And he thinks that allowing all the needless suffering in the world to happen is justified?

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

(b) Your example has to be from a Christian worldview. Under such a worldview, a child dying of cancer is not the greatest loss. That child never existing would be a greater loss.

In case you didn't realize, the child existing and NOT dying of cancer is the greater option... and it is logically possible... therefore God failed to choose the better option. Q.E.D.

and again, you are using logically possible incorrectly. You have not shown that avoiding such a thing is actually possible while achieving the same goals.  

With Premise (1) not being the case and Premise (2) being severely undercut, this argument fails to support the conclusion.

You equivocated on the word "logical" and made a strawman out of premise (1), thereby you didn't even address it... and you admitted on premise (2) that our "free will" is worth all the awful suffering that goes on in the world.... AND you failed to refute the logically possible option of a child NOT dying of cancer AND being born. The fact that that is logically possible and God doesn't choose it just demonstrates my point. And, you can't make the free will argument against that. Which is why you made a fallacy of a false dilemma between a child not being born at all and a child being born with cancer. It is logically possible that the child that was born with cancer could have been born WITHOUT cancer, and yet God didn't choose that. Q.E.D.

P.S. I suspect that Christians will dispute premise (2). But disputing premise (1) makes literally no sense unless you are saying that God can do the logically impossible. The fact that you equivocated and strawmanned premise (1) despite how incredibly clear it is makes me think you either (a) don't understand logical possibility or (b) were being disingenuous and misrepresented it on purpose. You're just being silly if you're disputing premise (1). Talk about doubling down on irrationality.

Either that or you think God can make square circles. In which case you are saying he is beyond reason so there's literally no point in reasoning with you.

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