Belief

[Captain Scarlet]

Just because you feel duress at the information presented doens't mean it's any more of an act of bullying or coersion, then an informative lesson. Last I recall Arcanus and I are both Christians and I can't speak for him, but I believe that God's intent is not to interfere with free will, but to inform. You obviously have a differing opinion so please site refernece and a framework for your logic.

Saying that a being is worthy of worship, we would be recognizing it as having an unqualified claim on our obedience. Can there be such an unqualified claim and is that consistent with free will? There is a long tradition in moral philosophy, according to which such a recognition could never be made by a moral agent. According to this tradition, to be a moral agent is to be autonomous, or self-directed. Unlike law or social custom, moral precepts are imposed by the agent upon themself, the person who acts according to precepts that can, on reflection, conscientiously approve of their own actions.

On this view, to deliver oneself over to a moral authority for directions about what to do is simply incompatible with being a moral agent. To say "I will follow directions no matter what they are and no matter what my own conscience would otherwise direct me to do" is to opt out of moral thinking altogether. Furthermore to feel compelled to do it because of threats levelled agianst you is to limit your own ability to override these directions and thus exercise free will

The description of a being as all-powerful, all-wise, and so on would not settle the issue; for even if it could be demonstarted that the existence of such an awesome being was necessary, we might still question whether we should recognize him as having an unlimited claim on our obedience.

All this said it is purely academic. You ask for my logical framework for there being incompatibility between free will and a theistic god. But no theist has supplied any sound logical arguments nor evidence for such a being in the first place.

[Strongbad]

[quote='Strongbad' pid='107419' dateline='1291204835']
1. Humans have developed a vivid imagination.
2. Many fictional characters have been created by human imagination, e.g. leprechauns, fairies, dragons, god(s), etc.
3. Therefore, no deity exists, except in the realm of human imagination.

An argument that assumes gods are products of human imagination in order to conclude that gods are products of human imagination is a viciously circular epic fail.

That would be true if the argument included an assumption, but since it only includes statements of FACT, it does not fail.

[Lethe]

She failed to consider that the one who said one lies and one tells the truth was lying.

[lilyannerose]

She failed to consider that the one who said one lies and one tells the truth was lying.

I thought that the one who said that was the one telling the truth because one does lie and other does tell the truth!

[Ryft]

1. God is the cake.
2. The cake is a lie.
3. Therefore, God is a lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55h1FO8V_3w

---

---

That would be true if the argument included an assumption, but since it only includes statements of FACT, it does not fail.

In an argument, the truth of premises is assumed (because premises are propositions, not arguments). That "gods" are products of human imagination is something your second premise asserts but does not prove—because it is a proposition, not an argument—which is fine, normally, since assuming the truth of the premises in order to reach the conclusion is simply how proper reasoning proceeds. But in this case it is not fine because your argument is viciously circular, such that the conclusion occurs as one of the premises (petitio principii fallacy).