So Descartes and I both think Descartes' argument is quite different to Anselm's, whereas you think it is the same. Hmm, who do you think might understand Descartes' argument better - you, or Descartes? How can you possibly expect to understand Descartes when you are going in thinking you understand him better than he understands himself? Wrong attitude. Take a humility pill and read him. Don't read into him. Read him.

Descartes had a big ego, plus another actually unique argument for God in the Third Meditation

He did not have a big ego. Most geniuses know they're geniuses - be dumb not to notice.

Then explain exactly how Descartes's ontological argument is different from Anslem

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.

Again I ask how does God create morality?

OK. An imaginary "God" then. (It was in my list! :smile:)

God is constrained by his properties. He can't change his own nature. He is with rules and regulations and he can't go against them. And if there are rules and regulations for God. U can ask where do those rules and regulations come. Which makes God without freewill. Which in a way makes him no God.

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.

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.

God is not constrained. What constrains him?

No, 'imaginary' is not included in the definition. — Bartricks

I said "in my list". And my list was: "Christian? Hindu? Islamic? A personal 'God' ... or any other imagined, constructed 'God'?".
OK?
Google "imaginary god" (1.6m results) and you'll see why I put it in my list ...
As for your definition, I don't thing it exists. There are hundreds of definitions and now one says "a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent". And, BTW, I didn't want to comment on that in the first place, but ... "person" ???

So, I advise you to look up "God" in Wikipedia.

I also advise you, before starting a discussion to study well the key terms involded in it, e.g. "God".

Then he is programmed.

His own nature.

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.

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

Well, in his created world how did things become pious and sinful?

His nature is fixed. And he can't change them. He as all other things in the universe is a consequence and he can't change who he is. Which makes him without freewill.

God is his nature. His free will and his nature are one and good. His choices are his nature and he is necessary. A divine being can be free in that way

why is his nature fixed??what fixes it?

The nature is the purely simple union of will, essence, and existence

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.

You don't think of God in a spiritual way as evidence that you don't understand aseity

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.

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

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. 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. There is no rhyme and reason to your God, so everything whatsoever is possible. You have free will and don't have free will, are a boy and a girl, and every other nonsense, because your position allows it

You gotta stop feeding the Bart, it only encourages him. Don’t be his chump.

You're probably right

Well if you havent read his interactions with others I can assure you it is a complete waste of time engaging with Bart. Dont take my word for it, review his chats with anyone, you will see how its just going in circles, much like Barts “logic”.

Hey mods, at what point does Barts posting become low quality? I submit he hasn’t engaged or been engaged with a single quality discussion. At best they start with sime merit and quickly degenerate into something indistinguishable from trolling.
How about the boot already?

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.