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

[Edwardo Piet]

---

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.

You know everything about God it seems soon you will be his Prophet.

God is supposed to be omniscient. I'm not the one claiming he knows everything I'm accepting the premise that he does, as most people think he does. Do you think he doesn't know some things?

---

 What makes you think there's another possible world (time line), there is no proof of such a thing thus your argument is a mute point, bye, bye.

I didn't say there was such a possible world at all. I'm talking about logical possibility not metaphysical possibility.

Do you mean "moot point"?

It's not a moot point because I didn't say there was such a possible world at all. I'm talking about logical possibility not metaphysical possibility.

Other atheist will have to argue against you because they do not believe in free choice, period and to have another world ie. time line there would have to be free choice, it is inescapable. 

No one has to argue with me on this matter. But I'm making an argument against God's existence so it's the theists who have to address it. Omnipotence as the ability to do anything logical possible is an ability prescribed to God by Christians.

---

1 from who's perspective?

Premise 1 isn't about perspective.

If God always chooses what is logical

I didn't say God always chooses what is logical.

can then He not have the ability to make a choice out of compassion?

Yes he can as such a thing is logically possible.

or make one for the greater good logical or not?

It's not about God only doing logical things it's about God having the ability to do anything logically possible. It basically means God is able to do absolutely anything except for impossible things like make square circles or married bachelors.

1) the statement God always chooses the best logically possible option is false.

So he sometimes chooses worse options?

Because that statement presupposes that best and logical are to be determined by m.n per your example below.

No it doesn't. Premise 1 isn't about premise 2. All premise 1 says is that God chooses the best logically possible option.

In truth God has a plan for man and even individuals.

And such a plan has to be logically possible otherwise he can't carry it out.

The bible shows that God always make decisions based on the fulfillment of his plans and or any prophesies tied to His final outcome.

This doesn't contradict premise 1.

So Yes God always chooses the best outcome, but what is accordance to His will and not our own.

So if he always chooses the best outcome he must choose the best logically possible option. So it seems that you do accept premise 1.

does that mean kids will die, yes does that mean good people will loose everything sure will/lord willing. Why?

Because to God it is far more important that your eternal home/future is secure than anyone person place or thing.. That while pushing for the events in the book of revelation.

This is a false dilemma as God doesn't have to choose between those options as there is a logically possible option that is better than them both: The option of God saving your eternal home/future without kids dying.

If your primary premise is wrong then it is no wonder your follow up and conclusion also fails.

The follow up premise wouldn't fail even if premise 1 did because it's a separate premise. Only the conclusion would fail if one of the premises did. And premise 1 is the premise that can't be wrong unless you think God either doesn't always choose the best option or God is able to choose impossible options.

Again your idea of 'logic' does not play into a decision God wold make.

Do you know what "logically possible" means?

God ultimately makes choices from an omni present state knowing the consequence of every action every life and every death.

This doesn't contradict premise 1.

Sometimes death if far more merciful than a full long life.

This doesn't contradict premise 1 either.

Sometimes the death of a person if far better than the death of several different people or a whole people. but all you see is a kid with cancer and the immediate effect.

None of this contradicts premise 1. Like as I have told you and Steve multiple times now: Premise 2 is the only premise that is in dispute unless you think God can do things like make square circles or God doesn't choose the best possible option. All premise 1 says is that God chooses the best option and that the best option available is something logically possible as the Christian sense of omnipotence does claim that God cannot do logically impossible things.

how narrow minded one must be to not be able to look past a single story of a child with cancer and see anything but the immediate circumstance.

Again you're just making a false dilemma again. God doesn't have to allow bad things to happen in order to carry out his plans. God is able to do absolutely anything logically possible.

So not you logic/reasoning argument where God is paradoxically fixed into making your decisions fails a horrible death and you should be ashamed embarrassed for think that if God does not think as you do there can be no God..

It's the Christians who claim that God can do absolutely anything logically possible. It isn't me who claims to know what God can and can't do. It's the Christians. Premise 1 is literally a Christian premise. That's why it's so silly to object to premise 1. The dispute is premise 2. The fact premise 1 is disputed either means that the Christians I am talking to either (a) Don't understand logical possibility (b) Don't think God always chooses the best possible option © Are disagreeing with premise 1 for the sake of it merely because I'm giving an argument against God despite the fact it's actually a Christian premise. Christians claim that God always chooses to take the best option and that he can do anything logically possible. That's all premise 1 is.