Can a xtian god be free?

[Anomalocaris]

I'm a complete non-cognitivist towards that kind of "I am that I am" God, the whole concept is nonsensical so believing in it makes you an idiot.

But xtains are easily awed by idiocy.

[theVOID]

That's apparent, just look at fr0d0 and his "Jesus is 100% mortal and 100% immortal" bullshit.

[Captain Scarlet]

Shouldn't this be in Christianity?

Logical flaw on par with making a circle square. God, being the source of all things can only do good. That's how the Xtian God is formulated. therefore God cannot do evil... it's a logical impossibility. Simple fail.

You are begging the question in favour of a god in your rebuttal. I have identified 3 traits of a god (as far as I'm aware consistent with the xtian conception). It may be a logical necessity for god do only do good things, but this means he is either imprisoned behind his own nature or chooses not to. Thus god is NOT free, as VOID has stated.

[Zenith]

Assigning a god the supposed attributes of being the locus of morality, omnibenevolent and freedom to act. Ignoring issues with reality are these attributes contradictory?:

0. If a god exists he is the locus of morality, omnibenevolent and totally free to act.
1. As the locus of morality a god could only ever choose to do good things (such that it is necessarily true that, this god cannot do evil things) as determined by their nature.
2. An ominbenevolent god would only ever choose to do good things (or at lest the maximum amount of good things)
3. A god who is totally free to act must be able to choose to do evil things or not maximise the amount of good things that happen
4. A god does not exist

My answer would be: A God (single god of the universe that created all) is free to do what he wants. However, in other sense, if He decides to be in a certain way, then, in this sense, He reduces His own 'freedom'.

However, "freedom" is a complex term (perhaps no one can properly define it) because we also call ourselves free if we "do what we want". But every decision of "how to be" restricts our 'freedom', while if we do not allow ourselves to decide how to be, we are not free, again (i.e. we are not free to decide how to be). So the meaning you gave to the term (or how the term is usually understood) is a paradox: this 'freedom' actually means to be able to do something against your will, without actually being against your will.

Regarding your points:
0. If a god exists, this does not mean He must be "the locus of morality, omnibenevolent and totally free to act";

1. I'd like to know how you define morality first. And how should this be understood regarding God.

2. However, "to do only good things" sounds a bit tricky: should the punishing of evil be considered "good" or "evil"? Because, to punish the evil would mean to cause evil to the evil man, thing which might make the evil man reconsider his behavior (so the result is good), or simply, the ones that suffered because of the evil man to cease suffering (the result is good here, as well). But, if the evil man is not punished, then it is done evil to the people that suffer, because the evil man is left to do what he wants (and he does evil). So perhaps you should say what you understand of "good".

3. "must be able to chose to" does not mean "is forced to chose to..." - you restrict the freedom of the "god" you have imagined.

[fr0d0]

You are begging the question in favour of a god in your rebuttal. I have identified 3 traits of a god (as far as I'm aware consistent with the xtian conception). It may be a logical necessity for god do only do good things, but this means he is either imprisoned behind his own nature or chooses not to. Thus god is NOT free, as VOID has stated.

I'm not begging the question but pointing out that the root definition contradicts your premise.

Omnibenevolent is an inaccurate description of the Christian God. It needs further refining to be accurate. Yes God is 'imprisoned' by logic... but it is fallacial to try to reconstruct that as 'limited in freedom'.

[Captain Scarlet]

You are begging the question in favour of a god in your rebuttal. I have identified 3 traits of a god (as far as I'm aware consistent with the xtian conception). It may be a logical necessity for god do only do good things, but this means he is either imprisoned behind his own nature or chooses not to. Thus god is NOT free, as VOID has stated.

I'm not begging the question but pointing out that the root definition contradicts your premise.

Omnibenevolent is an inaccurate description of the Christian God. It needs further refining to be accurate. Yes God is 'imprisoned' by logic... but it is fallacial to try to reconstruct that as 'limited in freedom'.

No. An xtian god can do anything logically possible, acting evil is logically possible. Especially if a god sets/emits the rules around what is evil/good. The assertion that he can only do good things means that he cannot break his own nature nor codes NOT that it is logically impossible for him to do so, thus he is not totally free. Would you argue because an xtian god is immortal he cannot make himself into a mortal? He is immortal by nature, thus eveything about him is such and he can't help that and must be that and only that? But to me it still seems to be a logically possible action for an omnipotent diety and you would have to accept this example is at the heart of the xtian worldview. Thus his nature cannot determine what is logically impossible. He just can/can't do it, will/won't do it. Your rebuttal fails.

[fr0d0]

God doesn't set the rules as such, God is the rule. He is wholly positive so negativity is what opposes him and not what he can do. He cannot act contrary to his nature, for that would be to define God as something he isn't. Therefore it is logically flawed to suggest that he is capable of evil.

God can't make himself mortal, but he can become a mortal/ God constrained in mortal form whilst at the same time the rest of God externally to the mortal form. This isn't logically contradictory.

You are still trying to assert that God cannot be free because he can't be logically inconsistent. You should refer to the debate question "Can God move an immovable rock" here for an explanation of the fallacy that you're committing: http://atheistforums.org/thread-1813.html

[Zenith]

The assertion that he can only do good things means that he cannot break his own nature nor codes NOT that it is logically impossible for him to do so, thus he is not totally free.

Who told you that the Christian God can do or does only benevolent things? (I think benevolent is more appropriate to what you mean, than good is). There are also christian people who believe this what you say to the extreme that they think that God suffers when a man suffers, but I believe that's madness. So perhaps you can tell me how you drew the conclusion how God "must be".

Would you argue because an xtian god is immortal he cannot make himself into a mortal? He is immortal by nature, thus eveything about him is such and he can't help that and must be that and only that?

You use the traditional terms: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. Know that this terms are not found in the Christian Bible nor "all-powerful", "all-knowing", etc. These terms were invented by people afterwards, perhaps to make God more special. The same way, the Islamic god Allah, to be more special, people said that everything that happens, everything that anyone or anything does has been per-ordained by Allah before He created the world. And they brag that their Allah is more special than any other god, and believe that, in order to be "God", one must have these attributes.

So this what you say is "making your own theory of how God must be, and if your theory contradicts itself, GOD DOES NOT EXIST!!"

As about freedom, how can you define a paradoxical term and expect not to contradict itself in a certain context??

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Captain Scarlet]

The assertion that he can only do good things means that he cannot break his own nature nor codes NOT that it is logically impossible for him to do so, thus he is not totally free.

Who told you that the Christian God can do or does only benevolent things? (I think benevolent is more appropriate to what you mean, than good is). There are also christian people who believe this what you say to the extreme that they think that God suffers when a man suffers, but I believe that's madness. So perhaps you can tell me how you drew the conclusion how God "must be".

Would you argue because an xtian god is immortal he cannot make himself into a mortal? He is immortal by nature, thus eveything about him is such and he can't help that and must be that and only that?

You use the traditional terms: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. Know that this terms are not found in the Christian Bible nor "all-powerful", "all-knowing", etc. These terms were invented by people afterwards, perhaps to make God more special. The same way, the Islamic god Allah, to be more special, people said that everything that happens, everything that anyone or anything does has been per-ordained by Allah before He created the world. And they brag that their Allah is more special than any other god, and believe that, in order to be "God", one must have these attributes.

So this what you say is "making your own theory of how God must be, and if your theory contradicts itself, GOD DOES NOT EXIST!!"

As about freedom, how can you define a paradoxical term and expect not to contradict itself in a certain context??

Correct me if I'm wrong.

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. If they are wrong then it is possible to conceive of a more perfect being. If not perfect why would you call it a god and not just another being, just a very brilliant one? If not infinitely great then has finite characteristics and does not halt infinite regress.

I think you are the one who has made there own theory of a 'god', if not all powerful, good, knowing, immutable, eternal etc; you need to define your god and state why it should be called one, why it can be a creator etc.

---

God doesn't set the rules as such, God is the rule. He is wholly positive so negativity is what opposes him and not what he can do. He cannot act contrary to his nature, for that would be to define God as something he isn't. Therefore it is logically flawed to suggest that he is capable of evil.

God can't make himself mortal, but he can become a mortal/ God constrained in mortal form whilst at the same time the rest of God externally to the mortal form. This isn't logically contradictory.

You are still trying to assert that God cannot be free because he can't be logically inconsistent. You should refer to the debate question "Can God move an immovable rock" here for an explanation of the fallacy that you're committing: http://atheistforums.org/thread-1813.html

I understand your points, and although I've tried to explain that I do, I have also obviously failed to make myself clear enough. So for the avoidance of doubt I understand that you believe the xtian god cannot do the logically impossible. Creating a rock big enough to lift, or a bowl of porridge too big that he can't eat it, is asking a god to do the logically impossible. There have been some respectable schools of thought that claim god can even do the logically impossible as well.

The parallel of mortal / immortal still holds which in your terms or lines of argument would not be logically possible for this god. If I ask a muslim why we have never seen god, they would of course refer to the Qu'ran but also that no-one has ever seen god it isn't possible for him to be mortal etc. That response seems to be more consistent than arguing that an immortal god can break his own nature and send himself down to earth in mortal clothes. I know you might say that the immortal part did not die, well if you do that there was no sacrifice, as the immortal (and important) bit didn't suffer, and xtians own view on this subject are contradictory and confused. Anyway...

...my point is that a god committing evil is NOT logically impossible in any way, just that he is not free to do so. Committing evil is not in and of itself logically contradictory; you, myself or anyone else CAN do it and so should an all powerful Diety be able to. If the xtian god is limited/is limiting himself/has imprisoned himself behind his own nature/has been created by another god who is preventing himself from doing so, then this god is NOT free. What you have done is bootstrapped a quality to the heart of god and then said look he can't do evil anyway, because he can't and therefore it isn't logically possible. THE END...only I'm afraid it isn't.

[fr0d0]

Apologies Scarlet I should've included that you seemed to understand. I was reiterating the point. Yet you follow by then stating a logical impossibility: God is capable of evil. You simply don't understand the nature of God, and I'd recommend you to study that further. Yes I don't find the concept of Jesus as God contradictory at all. Something else your knowledge is incomplete on.