What about revelation? According to the holy texts supplied by the Christian god, for example, one could indeed be demonstrated to be totally innocent in the presence of a supposedly omnibenevolent god. And if one is innocent why would they potentially suffer more than someone who isn't innocent? This disjunction seems to indicate very little thought on the part of an omniscient, omnipotent person. And surely determining one's guilt against a set of interpretable but still infallible laws is a function of reason? — ToothyMaw

Reason trumps revelation, for either you have a reason to believe you have experienced a revelation, or you do not. And in the latter case you have no reason to think in the truth of the supposed revelation. And in the former case, Reason is acknowledged to have the greater authority.

And it is by following Reason that we can come to understand that if there is any evidence for God, that evidence is evidence of our guilt, and thus there is no problem of evil.

The problem of evil is actually better described as a 'presumption' of evil that follows from a 'presumption' of innocence. We 'presume' we are innocent creatures facing risks of harm in a dangerous world.

That presumption is justified, other things being equal. But a presumption is not evidence. And so if evidence of God comes alone, then the presumption of innocence does not constitute countervailing evidence. That's my point.

If you define any of the omni terms as "Being able to do anything without limits, even the impossible", then an omniscient, omnipowerful, and omnibenevolent being would be able to do anything, even contradictions. — Wirius

Yes, that is I think the only reasonable way to understand what omnipotence involves. Here is an argument for that: to be all powerful is to be more powerful than anyone else. A being who can do anything is more powerful than one who can do some things and not others. Thus, an omnipotent being can do anything.

If you try and place some restriction on 'anything' (anything logically possible, or some such) then the argument I have just made will come and get you.

So God can do absolutely anything. And so this:

If God can basically do anything, then we can learn and experience all good without experiencing any suffering. You see, if we "needed" to experience suffering to learn, that would be a limitation on Gods power. But a God who can do anything, even contradictions, doesn't "need" to do anything. — Wirius

is quite right. There is no benefit that God was constrained to give you at the expense of some harm.

You are on the rails up to this point. But then it all goes wrong and you stop following reason.

If we look at the present situation of humanity, there is obviously suffering, crippling experiences, horrifying genetic abnormalities, and senseless and wasteful death.

Therefore we cannot conclude that God can do literally anything, and be perfectly good. It just doesn't work. There are two conclusions we can make from this. — Wirius

You have just begged the whole question by assuming that we are innocent! It's absurd. Look, if God exists, you're in a prison. That's the point I was making. It follows logically. Here:

1. If God exists, then he would not suffer innocents to live in ignorance in a dangerous world
2. God exists
3. Therefore, God has not suffered innocents to live in ignorance in a dangerous world — Bartricks

Do you think that is invalid or unsound? Which? Don't just blithely ignore it, as you have done. It shows - demonstrates - that if God exists, then we're in prison. And the evils that befall us are deserved. We are coming to harm here because God - quite rightly - hates us.

And note the much more subtle general point: any evidence that 2 is true is evident for 3 and thus the problem of evil instantly dissolves.

Thus, there is no problem of evil.

Since God is omnibenevolent and since we have free will, then it's logical to conclude "dangerous world" is not dangerous because of God but rather because of us. — SpaceDweller

No, it is 'logical' to conclude that God made us ignorant and placed us here because we jolly well deserve to be here facing the risks of harm that our ignorance creates for us.

Look, this argument is valid and apparently sound:

1. If God exists, then he would not suffer innocents to live in ignorance in a dangerous world
2. God exists
3. Therefore, God has not suffered innocents to live in ignorance in a dangerous world — Bartricks

So I do not know why you keep talking about what is logical, given that there's no question the above is. Logically, evidence that God exists is evidence of our guilt.

You're not following the argument I gave.

God's not an arsehole, right? By definition, he's morally perfect. And he's also all powerful. So he can do anything and he's nice. He's not, then, going to create a dangerous world and put ignorant innocent people in it, is he?

So, if he exists, he hasn't. Not has. Hasn't.

But here we are, living in ignorance in a dangerous world.

He wouldn't have put innocent people in that predicament.

So......we're not innocent, then. We must 'deserve' to be here.

There are two main ways you can come to deserve something. Something really bad happens to you and so you come to deserve good things as compensation. Well, that clearly doesn't apply here.

The other way is you exercise your free will and attempt to do wrong to another. That's what we must have done.

So, if God exists, this world is not 'evil'. It's a prison in which everyone is getting their just deserts: that is, everyone is being left to languish in ignorance in a world in which that ignorance exposes us to arbitrary risks.

Thus, any evidence that God exists is evidence of that - evidence of our guilt. And in that way, the problem of evil is dissolved.

Your premise assumes God has full control over people and doing so in line with his omnibenevolent nature, you omit free will of people, it's completely absent and nowhere mentioned. — SpaceDweller

What? No, I assume we do have free will. How else did we come to deserve to be here?

This leads to conclusion that God-people relationship is master-slave rather than master-freeservant which obviously we all know is not true. — SpaceDweller

Eh?

Secondly, we have evidence that free will in human live is not lacking, it is obviously present, therefore expecting God to control us is contradictory to fact. — SpaceDweller

I know we have free will. I don't see what your point is. We have free will, and due to how we have exercised it at some earlier time, in some other place, we came to deserve to be here. Hence we're here.

How does any of that address the OP?

If God exists, then the 'evils' of the world - the risk of harm our ignorance exposes us to - are our just desert goods. That just follows as a matter of logic from these two premises:

1. If God exists, then he would not suffer innocents to live in ignorance in a dangerous world
2. God exists

If there is no evidence that God exists, then we are default justified in believing that God does not exist, because we're default justified in believing ourselves to be innocent (which implies God's non-existence).

But if there is any evidence at all of God's existence, then that evidence is evidence that we deserve to face the risks of harm that our ignorance is exposing us to here.

Yes, post little faces. :vomit:

You are begging the question. As always. Read the OP and say something that addresses something in it.

I refer you to the argument in the OP. Do take the trouble to read it and do take a little more to understand it.

Here it is for your convenience:

1. If God exists, then he would not suffer innocents to live in ignorance in a dangerous world
2. God exists
3. Therefore, God has not suffered innocents to live in ignorance in a dangerous world

Not my view. But whatever. If you say it is, it is. That's how things work here, yes?

Childish. No, the rapist is not carrying out the will of God. But by all means explain to me how you got to that conclusion.

But not being able to maintain your Godhood without one of the Os is a limitation. — khaled

What on earth are you on about? Show your reasoning. How the hell do you arrive at the conclusion that a person who is able to divest themselves of abilities is less powerful than one who is not? The latter lacks abilities the first one has, namely to divest themselves of their abilities. Christ. This is not difficult.

False. The line is: The opposite is just as likely, therefore your statement remains unproven. — khaled

What?

But in my example given, the point is that both cases will result in exactly the same appearances. God could be lying, or he could not be. Either way, the appearances don’t change. So as far as you know, yes, they are just as likely. — khaled

And my body is just as likely to be made of cheese as not, as I cannot rule out the metaphysical possibility that it is made of cheese. Good one! Go you! Now I'm just going to go chop a finger off and put it on a cracker, for there's a 50% chance it's feta. Wish I had dandruff - we're all out of parmesan.

Once more (incidentally, stop assuming I'm wrong - that'll help. Assume I might - might - just know what I'm talking about): if something appears to be the case, then we have default reason to believe taht it 'is' the case.

That applies to testimony, both of people and of reason (which is also the testimony of a person).

So, "I am sat on a chair right now". There. Do you have reason to think I am sat on a chair right now? Yes. I just told you I am. Could have been lying. That's not evidence I am lying. Brute possibilities are not good evidence. Tattoo that on your hand. Brute possibilities are not good evidence. Do it.

It is possible I am made of cheese. That's not evidence I am. It is possible that when I said I was sat on a chair, I was lying. That's not evidence I was lying.

I told you I was sat on a chair. You have reason to believe I am sat on a chair.

Now, our reason tells us things. Whatever our reason tells us, we have default reason to believe to be the case.

I must have said this about 100 times now.

Note too these are general points about how to reason well and how to figure out who has the burden of proof. They'd stand even if Reason was not a person. For regardless of whether Reason is a person or not, our faculty of reason is not infallible. And that's all you're pointing out, again and again and again: that our faculties are not infallible....so how do we know anything? Could be a malfunction. It's the same point! It's not a point that arises specifically for my kind of view about Reason. It's a general point about how we know anything about anything. Yet you keep raising it. Why?

Of course it might be that these babies that get hurt in famine and war are in some sense guilty, but that reasoning is circular. It becomes a simple article of faith and not logic anymore. The whole point of the theodicy is to find a logical philosophically sound answer to the problem of evil. — Tobias

It is not circular reasoning. This is circular reasoning:

1. P
2. Therefore P

This is my argument:

1. If God exists, then he would not suffer innocents to live in ignorance in a dangerous world (If p, then q)
2. God exists (p)
3. Therefore, God has not suffered innocents to live in ignorance in a dangerous world (therefore q)


That's not circular at all. It just extracts the implications of 1 and 2.

The whole point of the theodicy is to find a logical philosophically sound answer to the problem of evil. — Tobias

And I have done precisely that. Are you not following? I am offering - indeed, demonstrating the truth of - a prison theodicy.

Everything gets harmed, so everything by article of faith must be guilty. The whole notion of innocence and guilt becomes meaningless — Tobias

What are you on about? Not everything gets harmed. The guilty get harmed. God exists and would not allow it to be any other way.

How on earth does the notion of innocence and guilty become meaningless? You think that if there's a prison in which every inmate is guilty, then guilt doesn't mean anything? How does that even begin to work?

He just knows all there is to know. The choices that people will make is something to know. therefore God knows them. — Tobias

No, 'omniscient' means 'all knowing'. That means he is in possession of all items of knowledge. All that is known, God knows. For God, being Reason, creates knowledge when he adopts a certain attitude towards true propositions.

What you are doing is conflating truths with knowledge. That a proposition is true does not entail that it is an item of knowledge. Thus, God can be all knowing, yet be ignorant of the truth of many propositions.

God is causa sui, meaning cause of himself. — Tobias

Yes and no, as it is an ambiguous claim. First, note that the definition of God is a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Being the cause of oneself is not one of the essential divine attributes.

However, as being omnibenevolent seems to involve having free will, and free will seems to require having not been created, we can conclude that God exists a se. (We can conclude the same about ourselves, incidentally, for we have free will too). But existing a se is not the same as creating oneself. And creating oneself - unless interpreted very broadly so that one can be maintaining oneself in exsitence and thereby qualify as being 'self caused' (Descartes' interpretation) - seems to involve a contradiction, as it would require existing prior to one's own existence. And as our reason is clear in telling us that there are no true contradictions, we can safely conclude that God has not created himself. He could, of course, for he can do anything and what our reason tells us about what's possible is no constraint on God, as God is the voice of Reason that our reason the means by which he communicates with us. But if one listens to God in the guise of the voice of Reason, then he is telling us that he did not create himself.

Read all of scholastic philosophy up to Spinoza. — Tobias

Why would I do that? It'd take ages and be very inefficient. Why don't you just follow the arguments I am presenting to you?

By necessity it follows that God might create another God, but that other God is identical to itself in every aspect. — Tobias

What is necessity? Some strange force outside even God's control? No, it is nothing. There is no necessity in the world, just truths that Reason is more adamant about than others. It is heretical to believe in necessity, for God can do anything and so nothing is necessarily true. Think about it. God can do anything. So nothing exists of necessity, for God can destroy anything and everything whenever he wants (including himself). And no proposition is true of necessity, for God has the power to falsify any and all of them.

Yes but you created that Jersey in time. — Tobias

You have missed the point somewhat. The example of the jersey was to show you that one can create something and then be in it. And so from the fact that God created time, one cannot conclude that God is outside of time. That would be as silly as thinking that because I created my jersey, I cannot be in it. Which is very silly indeed.

God did not create time in time because if he did he would not have created time, time would already be there. Therefore his creation is timeless. — Tobias

I started a thread on God and time and his relationship to it and explained in that thread exactly how it can be that God created time. Anyway, God did create time. And from that we can conclude that both causation and change does not require time. Time requires causation and change, not the other way around.

Well there goes God the creator of everything... God did create all things, or they must have been created from nothing which is impossible. — Tobias

No, bad reasoning. Of anything that exists we can ask whether it came into being or has always existed.

Note, one cannot say that all things that exist have come into being. For if one says that, then one will be forced to postulate an actual infinity of things, or an actual infinity of prior causes, or suppose that some things can come into being uncaused (which you admit is not so). And you would have to say that God was created as well, but by himself despite him not existing at the time - and so you yourself would be supposing something - God - to have come into existence out of nothing, the very thing you deny is possible! So do, please, be consistent!

So, some things must exist a se. That is, some things must exist uncreated. Proponents of the first-cause argument for God then conclude that there is precisely one such thing - God. But that does not follow and all the argument actually establishes is that there exist some uncreated things or thing.

God is, I agree, one of them, for he tells us this in so many words by allowing those of us who listen carefully to him to understand that he is all-good and thus has free will and thus exists uncreated (for it is toxic to free will to have been created by external causes).

But God tells us that we too have that status, for our reason is no less clear about our own possession of free will.

Note, those who place great store by the first-cause argument for God would admit, if they are clear thinkers anyway, that the argument does not establish God's existence, but is instead one argument in a suite of arguments that together are capable of showing God to exist.

And god quite frequently seems to allow har inflicted upon and innocent... — Tobias

No he doesn't. He exists and wouldn't, so hasn't. You're confusing the harm that befalls people here, living in ignorance in a dangerous world, to harm that God has allowed to befall the innocent. Follow the argument!!! He exists. He wouldn't allow harm to befall innocents. Harm befalls people here. So? Look, it's a basic IQ test. What follows? This: we're not innocent.

If you wake up in a bed, aching and covered in bandages and you look around and see that you are in a huge room with others in a similar situation to yourself, but you have no recollection of how you came to be here, what is it reasonable for you to conclude? That you are in a hospital and that something terrible has gone wrong with your health, yes?

Well, you are not in a hospital. You are in a prison. For God exists and you are living in ignorance in a dangerous world, something God would not have permitted to happen to you were you anything other than a very, very bad person. Deal with it.

What? No, being able to divest yourself of something is not a limitation. It's an ability. This is painfully obvious.

And then you ask a tedious and easily answered 'how do know?' question. The standard retort of the philosophically uneducated - make every debate about how we can know anything.

How do I know? I provided a proof. Didn't you notice? I'll do it again (and then I'll provide your response).

1. If God exists, then God would not suffer innocent people to live in ignorance in a dangerous world.
2. God exists
3. Therefore, God has not suffered innocent people to live in ignorance in a dangerous world
4. We are living in ignorance in a dangerous world.
5. Therefore we are not innocent.

Now for your predicted response, absent the normal insults "oh, but how do you know, given that God can do anything and so for all you know that argument is invalid. Boom. You got owned!"

Yes? That's the line, right? Because it is possible that p, p. That's your reasoning. Possible.....therefore actual. Possible I am dreaming. Therefore I am dreaming. Possible I am not. Therefore I am not. Therefore I am dreaming and not dreaming, according to Khaled.

And yes "oh, but your god can so contradictions, so I am dreaming and not dreaming, boom! Owned again!"

Yes, 'can'. But 'can' doesn't mean 'does'. 'Possible' doesn't mean 'actual'. And no contradiction is actually true.

Possible also does not mean 'as likely to be true as any other possibility'. It is possible my body is made of cheese. Doesn't seem to be. No reason whatsoever to think it is and plenty to think it is not. But it is possible it is made of cheese. No contradiction in the notion. By khaled logic that means I have as much reason to think my body is made of cheese as that it isn't. Khaled logic isn't very good, is it? Or do you reserve such appalling reasoning for the assessment of my views alone?

Some humans have tortured innocents to death, but they are in deep dookie. — Enrique

They already were - this, here, is dookie. And now they're deeper still. Once God's existence is established, and once his omnipotence is appreciated, there's no way of avoiding the conclusion: we're in clink doing life stretches.

There are some who, in love with themselves, imagine that God created this world 'for' them - that is, as some kind of treat or gift. A more foolish and self-centred view of things is hard to conceive of. This world is a dangerous place and we are born and live most of our lives knowing virtually nothing about it. The idea that God would do that to an innocent person is outrageous. And the idea that God 'needed' to subject us to life here to teach us something, or to permit us to exercise free will, is absurd, given that God can do anything and so could give us all goods without exposing us to any risk of harm whatever. To think otherwise is to think God incapable.

So, we are here because God wants us to be - and we are ignorant because God wants us to be, and we are exposed to the risk of harm such ignorance creates because God wants us to be. And why would he want us to be? Because he hates us. And why would he hate us? Because we attempted to do what he's doing to us to an innocent person or persons.

There is, I think, no way of avoiding these conclusions once one starts thinking clearly.

God is defined as an omniscient being. — Tobias

Yes, that means 'all knowing'. That is, in possession of all items of knowledge.

An item of knowledge is a justified true belief.

But God determines what is justified.

So, God can make himself ignorant of something and thereby it will cease to be justified. God's will determines what is and isn't justified. Thus, God can be ignorant 'and' omniscient, for by making himself ignorant he reduces the domain of knowledge.

The question is similar to the question whether God can create another God. — Tobias

I do not follow you. Yes, God could create another God. God can do anything, so he can do that.

Also you seem to think God exists in time similar to the way human's do and that he pries in the same way as humans pry in private affars. However God does not exist in time similar to humans as he would than be under the rule of time and hence limited. God though is an unlimited being. — Tobias

Yes, and yes, God does exist in time. God creates time. And God is in time. I created a jersey. And I am in the jersey. God creates time. God is in time.

Omnibenevolence does not stand in the way of free will. He can act otherwise, but he does not, he only acts in benevolent ways. This does bring the theodicy to the fore of course. Why are there sinful things in a creation of a benevolent being? — Tobias

Omnibenevolent doesn't mean maximally benevolent - it means 'all good'. But yes, being omnibenevolent is in no way in conflict with having free will.

Why are there sinful beings? Well, God didn't create them - being omnipotent does not essentially involve having created everything. And free will seems to require being uncreated. So as we have free will, it is reasonable to conclude that we are uncreated.

Why is there wrongdoing? Because God values people having free will and exercising it. But he doesn't allow anyone to visit harm on an innocent. Why would he? He can prevent that. So it is reasonable to suppose he does. And has.

This argument is valid and sound:

1. If God exists, he would not suffer innocent people to live in ignorance in a dangerous world
2. God exists
3. Therefore, God has not suffered innocent people to live in ignorance in a dangerous world
4. We are living in ignorance in a dangerous world
5. Therefore, we are not innocent

God doesn't allow harm to befall innocents. Harm befalls us. We are not innocent.

So you really believe that throughout history there has not been a single case of an innocent victim being tortured to death because God would have intervened?

Please name the planet on which you live. — SolarWind

You don't seem to be very good at reasoning. No, I think there has not been a single case of an innocent being tortured to death. God would not allow it.

Now, baby steps. People are tortured to death in this world. But God would not allow innocent people to be tortured to death. So, guess what? We're not innocent. And God doesn't care what happens to us here. He doesn't like us. Hence the torturing (which, note, he's not doing to us - we do that to each other); hence the ignorance.

No. Of course not.

You can't lose what you don't have. But yes, if you don't have a phd, then you are not a dr. What's difficult to understand here?

Your claim is debatable, that's all. — TheMadFool

Is it? Which bit?

Does not being omnipotent require being Reason?

And does not being Reason mean that one will be the arbiter of moral value?

And does not being omnipotent imply being exactly as one values being?

So it is more important for God to allow free will than to protect the victims of violent acts? — SolarWind

It is more important to protect innocent people from violent acts (strange circumstances aside). And so God has done precisely that. That's the reasonable conclusion, anyway, once it is clear that God exists.

I mean, what do you think you're doing here? You think God would suffer innocent people to live in ignorance in a world like this one? Of course he wouldn't. So join the dots. He hasn't. And that you are living in ignorance in a dangerous world tells you something: you're not innocent. You're not here to be benefitted - for there is no benefit an omnipotent has to expose you to danger to give you - you're here to be punished. You're being exposed to the ignorance and attendant dangers that you would freely have subjected another to had God not prevented you from doing so. That's the only reasonable conclusion, anyway.

Bart Bot minds. What was the meaning of your question?

I do not understand your question.

I explained above how it is that omnibenevolence flows from omnipotence. I don't understand what you're talking about now.

That is confused. Omniscience and omnibenevolence flow from omnipotence.

If you're omnipotent, then you are Reason, for then and only then would you have the power to do anything.

And if you're Reason then you are also the author of the moral law and the creator of all moral values.

And if you're all powerful - as you would be, being Reason - then you have the power to make yourself however you wish to be.

And so it is reasonable to believe that an omnipotent person will be exactly as she wishes to be. That is, she will fully value how she is and won't want to change a thing.

And when you're Reason and feel that way about yourself, then you are morally perfect, for to be morally perfect is to be maximally valued by Reason. So God is free - as free as can be, for there is nothing restricting what she does - and she fully values herself - and so is omnibenevolent as well.

You are trying to generate a puzzle, but your way of doing it turns morality into some curious external force that binds God. It is nothing remotely like that: it is an aspect of God's will.

So it is more important for God to allow free will than to protect the victims of violent acts? — SolarWind

No, I would imagine that it is more important to God to respect the privacy of free agents than it is to know exactly what they are going to decide to do. But there is a space between decision and action and I am sure that God - being omnibenevolent and all powerful - would intervene to protect innocent victims from a free agent's violent acts. You are too, I take it?

But you also think Descartes wrote 5 meditations, think Descartes thought God's power was limited and think Descartes' ontological argument for God is the same as Anselm's. So I think your thoughts have something of a credibility problem and you shouldn't place too much store by them. Wiser to trust mine. And I don't think I'm a bot.

You still haven't said what fixes God's nature. Barty Bot wants to know! Tell Barty Bot.

There are two possibilities. A. He created pious and sinful things. B. Things became pious and sinful through the choices they made. A. is problematic because why would an all good creator create sinful things? B. however, begs the question though. If they made choices that made them sinful God would know before hand and God knows its creation has the potentiality to be sinful. — Tobias

I think B is true.

But why think God would know how we'd exercise our free will? God can make himself ignorant of anything he wants to. And it seems positively disrespectful to pry into the private thoughts and desires of free agents. So I think it is perfectly reasonable to think that God doesn't know how free agents will exercise their free will. Not becasue he 'can't' know, but because he doesn't want to.

I don't see a problem with B, then.

And some, of course, do abuse their free will. Us, for example. And here we are: condemned to live among others who have done the same.

So if God (since you don't understand what all-power means) in your view can cease to exist while making the "appearance" of his existence remain, you have no proof God has ever existed in your life time. — Gregory

How does that follow? Like so many here, you seem to have difficulty distinguishing between being able to do something and actually doing it. I can lie, yes? Yet if I say "it is raining where I am" you have good prima facie evidence that it is raining where I am.

It's just as likely, in your view, that you are a goblin and the rest of us elves, because God can make it appear so. — Gregory

No, that simply doesn't follow. It's possible I am dreaming right now. That doesn't mean it is just as likely I am dreaming as that I am perceiving reality.

It's called the Dunning Kruger effect.

You believe God can exist, not exist, be bad, and be Satan himself all at the same time. Talk about acid nonsense — Gregory

You're confused. A bachelor can't have a wife. That doesn't mean that a person who is a bachelor lacks the ability to take a wife, it just means that were he to do so, he'd no longer qualify as a bachelor.

'God' is like 'bachelor'. God is a person who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. God, qua God, cannot do evil, etc - the 'cannot' here not telling us anything about God's abilities, but just about when a word is being correctly applied.

But just as qualifying as a bachelor does not prevent one from taking a wife, likewise qualifying as God does not prevent the person of God from doing anything - far from it, by dint of being omnipotent, the person of God can do anything.

These are slightly subtle points, however.

I'll take that to mean "I don't know how to answer your question"

By 'spiritual' do you mean 'vaguey waguey hippy way'?

You have a wobbly jelly of a worldview; I have a classical temple.

How...is...his....nature....fixed?

If it is fixed, it must be fixed by something outside of him, yes? Otherwise he's fixing it himself, in which case he can unfix it and it is not properly fixed at all.

And if it is fixed by something outside of him, then he's not God - because he's now neither omnipotent or omnibenevolent.

why is his nature fixed??what fixes it?

So he can do what he wants, then? His nature is not going to be fixed, is it, for what could fix it?

God is well defined and the definition does not include 'imaginary'. Tedious. And clearly for the purposes of establishing whether or not God has free will we do not need to concern ourselves with whether God exists.

God is not constrained. What constrains him?

Morality is made of norms and values - that is, directives and valuings. They're his. So that's how he creates it. It's like asking me how I create my own values. Well, i value things, that's how. It's just my values do not constitute moral values, whereas his do.

No, 'imaginary' is not included in the definition. You are just convinced God does not exist and do not understand, or are unaware of, the evidence that he does.

Start a thread on it and I will. This thread is about God and free will, not a thread on the finer details of a particular philosopher's arguments.