So you're just saying it's safely beyond the reach of our current knowledge, so let's throw in god and infinity and pat ourselves on the back. Horse shit.
Of course. For there to be a moral choice at all, there has to be also evil, the absence of good. And, while there is suffering, only some of it results from evil.
No, we could not. The very existence of good requires the possibility of evil.
Whether people understand it is irrelevant. Much like a game programmer makes games regardless of if the characters in those games know it, it is true, and relative to his game, he is god for all intents and purposes.
You just demonstrated that you don't, claiming that one can exist without the other.
The thing about paradoxes isn't that they're limiting anything. The thing about paradoxes is that they have no content. If you say a square circle, it doesn't mean anything. You demonstrate only that you can combine words in a way that does not make sense, not the limits of having all power.
We can walk through this. Tell me, what is good? I need a definition.
If a choice isn't good, what is it, by definition?
I don't know that.
Yes! Great that you understand that.
...and a pancake. My jubilation was premature. When there is no choice there can be no more good than can there be evil. Free will, by definition, requires both as real alternatives.
There are several proofs, though none of them are or require "God is omnipotent". One thing about God is that relatively little is known, and Epicurus really didn't know even that much when he invented his little wordplay.
Which explains why it's possible to combine them in ways that do not make sense.
I believe God can't make oxymorons true, for there is nothing in them to make true. One uses signifiers without a signified.
Oh, "El Crappo"...you haven't changed a bit.
There are several. I'd like to know what you think is good. It's hardly useful for either of us to make an argument concerning a definition you do not share. That's why I asked you. If you do not cooperate, then there is little reason to continue further.
The definition of evil is the absence of good. There is no neutral.
Morality is defined by choice. If there is no choice, there's absolutely no reason to call anything good or evil. In that scenario neither has any meaning.
I repeat: having all power does not mean being able to make stuff that are by definition impossible to conceive. While it is impossible to make a square circle, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether one has power to do what one wishes. This is because one cannot wish a square circle. It does not mean anything. If your intellectual capacity can't understand this, my king needs a new, competent adviser.
He's neither omniscient nor omnipresent. There are few Biblical claims to the former, and even those are highly situation specific, and absolutely none of the latter. Omnipresence in case of God is not only false, it is also a category error. He's not here nor there, but beyond the material universe.
Depends on what can be known. If everything, including the future, then neither man nor God has free will, and the concept has to be abandoned as nonsense. I tend to be of the opinion that omniscience, understood that way, is itself an oxymoron. However, the Biblical God is obviously not omniscient, and so the question is irrelevant.
Almost right. Foreknowledge doesn't alter the fact that the ones who make the choice do not have the choice forced upon them. Free will becomes impossible when combined with foreknowledge of their creator. In that case they'd be simply puppets. Were that true, the Bible would make absolutely no sense.
