Mate, I have. I’m actually a little distressed by how blind you are to it.

No, mate, you haven't. You have just asserted, on the basis of no argument, that the person of God - so, God - is essentially omnipotent. That's false because it is incoherent.

Then you have simply told me that my view is contentious. Ooooo, will the contentios come and get me?

Now, chum, argue something. Or point out that I am a mean and nasty person who bullies people by refuting their arguments without mercy.

I’ve said that God as God in essentially omnipotent. For the sake of argument I’ve accepted that the person of God is not essentially omnipotent.

A bachelor as bachelor is essentially unmarried. The man who is a bachelor is not essentially unmarried.

The man takes priority over his bachelorhood.

On your terms the person of God takes priority over his divine traits like omnipotence.

You’ve given God personhood and given that personhood priority. This is a peculiar and contentious view of God, and your view of omnipotence rests on it.

This is your last go. But because I dislike quitting arguments I’ll argue with anyone else who disagrees with this characterisation (not that I expect anyone to be so interested).

Er, where's your argument?

You think you saying stuff is an argument? You think telling me my view is contentious is a refutation? You think contentious views are false views?

Now, don't reply unless you have a reply to this argument - an argument that refutes your ignorant view:

1. If a person is omnipotent, they are able to do anything
2. If a person cannot divest themselves of some power,they are unable to do something
3. Therefore, if a person is omnipotent they are able to divest themselves of some power.

Bow out. That's my advice.

Arguments work by finding inconsistencies and entailments that cast doubt on a belief. Your replies don’t address what I’ve said, so I’m counting that as a concession in respect to your own view. You can hold it, but to arrogantly proclaim it is silly.

To support my view:

Think about the words anything and nothing. Any thing. No thing. If God can do any thing, it isn’t a limit on his power if he can’t enact contradictions, if contradictions are deemed to be no things.

Which premise are you denying?

2

Divesting himself of his divine traits would be a contradiction on my terms, so it isn’t a limitation that he can’t.

How is it a contradiction? Provide the argument.

He’s essentially those traits. A bachelor is essentially unmarried, so he can’t be married. God is essentially omnipotent, so he can’t not be omnipotent.

God isn't mentioned in the premises. You are confusing a label with a person and flagrantly begging the question.

Focus on the argument. You have said premise 2 is false. Show it to be.

Note, being less than all powerful is a thing - we are less than all powerful. So it is not 'no thing'.

And being unable to make yourself less powerful is an inability. It is not an ability. It is an inability. Midas could not stop himself from turning things gold. That was an inability.

Now, show me that premise 2 is false. Don't just assert your view. Your view has been demonstrated to be false - incoherent nonsense- by my little argument. So refute it.

A bachelor can’t be married because that contradicts the definition of a bachelor.

God can’t not be omnipotent because that contradicts the definition of God.

God isn't mentioned in the premises. Refute the argument. Don't just keep reiterating your hopeless confusion over the word God and its occult power to bind God.

Psst, you don't have a case or a clue or, it seems, the ability to focus.

Arguments work by identifying inconsistencies and entailments that cast doubt on a belief.

God is necessarily, I’ll say instead, omnipotent. To stop being omnipotent would contradict this. Contradictions aren’t things. God can still do any thing, because contradictions aren’t things.

That’s my view.

To put it more concisely, God is omnipotent because all powers that exist come from God.

That’s my view. To argue with it you need to ask pertinent questions that seek to identify inconsistencies and entailments that cast doubt on it.

That's not an argument. My argument refutes your view - it shows it to be nonsense. Your response "but it's my view!" over and over again. Yes, I know it is. And it does not make sense. It's not God you believe in, but some hobbled creature who can't divest itself of any of the powers it has. So you don't believe in God, you believe in Midas.

But, but, but, it's my view. God means x, y and z and so the person who satisfies x, y and z can't ever possibly not have x, y, and z, just like bachelors don't have the ability to marry. It's my view. You've explained to me why its stupid, but it's my view and I hold it in my mind and it's mine and so there.

Arguments work by identifying inconsistencies and entailments that cast doubt on a belief.

If you’d like to continue arguing, think of a pertinent question you think goes towards identifying an inconsistency or problematic entailment in the following belief: God is omnipotent because all powers that exist come from God.

Just refute the argument. Stop telling me about what arguments do. I make them for a living. Refute the argument, punk.

I’ll give you two more goes.

Refute the argument. Atheist.

One more.

Refute the argument. The one that shows you don't believe in God and don't understand God.

And we’re done. Good talk.

Refute the argument or go and be confused elsewhere.
And this was not a good talk. It was unpleasant. Very.

Only he who creates himself out of nothing has a completely free will.

God is before trivial notions such as the notions that you apply to humans and intelligence.

Why would that person - the one who created himself out of nothing - have free will?

God, like us, is not subjected to laws and processes that determine thinking, choice, and action. Those laws and processes are the a priori for free will to exist. Without determined processes there would be no free will. So God created the world out of free will, be it by thoughtful deliberation and planning, or accidentally.

If both the "that you are" (your existence) and the "who you are" (your character or personality) are dependent upon the will of another, the will of a creator, then, by definition, you cannot have free will. You can only be truly free if you yourself have the power to do both; to choose to exist and to choose who you shall be.

So, the reason why creating yourself would make you free is that then nothing external to you would be responsible for you being the you that you are?

If so, then that condition could also be satisfied if one exists uncreated. For if one exists uncreated, then nothing external to you is responsible for you being the you that you are.

Correct!

Nothing external to me would be responsible for me being the who that I am.

Instead, either only I would be responsible for being the who that I am, or
not only no one, but not even I myself, would be responsible for being the who that I am.

Schopenhauer opted for the former.

As Schopenhauer noted, guilt and moral responsibility do not attach primarily to one's actions but to the who that one is. I can only be responsible for who I am if, at some point, I chose to be who I am.
Guilt, blame lies in one's character, not in one's actions.