Not necessarily: if the omnipotent agent was necessary, and the omnipotence was essential, most metaphysicians would hold that this is not possible (once again, barring Cartesians). — Kuro

That just demonstrates the falsity of those ideas. An omnipotent person can always divest themselves of their omnipotence, else they would not be omnipotent (it is absurd to suppose that a person who is unable to do something is nevertheless omnipotent). Thus, no omnipotent person is omnipotent 'necessarily' but rather they are omnipotent contingently. Indeed, there will be no necessary truths if there is an omnipotent being, for the omnipotent being will have the power to render any truth false if they so wish. Thus, all truths - including the truth that there is an omnipotent being - will be contingent if, that is, there is an omnipotent being (which there is).

An omnipotent being is able to do anything at all. Destroy itself. Make a square circle. Anything. Those who insist otherwise are demonstrably confused. I do not deny they exist, of course. I deny they are thinking very clearly.

What you said about Frankfurt type cases was mistaken. One can be a libertarian 'and' a Frankfurtian (plenty are). What Frankfurt type cases do - if they are successful, that is - is show that you do not need to have alternative possibilities in order to be morally responsible. But one could still argue that determinism undermines free will for other reasons.

hird of all, omnipotence can be interpreted two ways: that which is literally all powerful or that which is logically all powerful. In regards the former, it is equivalent to holding that a square circle exists — Bob Ross

That's false. Being able to make a square circle is obviously not equivalent to actually making one, and thus in holding - as I do - that an omnipotent being can do absolutely anything at all, I am not affirming the actual existence of square circles. That's like thinking that becasue I 'can' throw the boiling hot cup of coffee into my own face, I have just done so. No I haven't.

When it comes to free will, it is - of course - contested exactly what it involves. But it doesn't matter what it involves, for no matter what it involves, an omnipotent being is going to have it.

Yes. An omnipotent person can kill themselves. Why would you think otherwise?

Why is your philosophy limited to earth and that which is limited to this reality? It seems, well, limited. — Book273

It isn't. What are you on about? I believe in God. I also believe that no good, all knowing, all powerful person would create some evil, ignorant idiots and then create a world it would be dangerous for evil, ignorant idiots to live in and place them in it. That seems patently obvious: that's not how good people behave and if you think otherwise, then you have some screwed up ideas about what being morally good involves.

So, I draw the only reasonable conclusion one can draw: God did no such thing. God did not create me and you.

That contradicts what some religious types believe. So what? What's that got to do with anything?

The only question is whether it is consistent to suppose that there exist billions of ignorant, evil idiots and that God exists as well and had nothing whatsoever to do with their existence. And the answer to that question is a big fat 'yes'. Being omnipotent does not involve having to create anything - if it did, it wouldn't be omnipotence worthy of the name. Thus, there is no contradiction involved in supposing there to exist an omnipotent being and lots of other beings that the omnipotent being had nothing to do with creating. And the same goes for being omniscient. And certainly being morally good doesn't, for it'd be positively bad to create such creatures. Thus, God's existence is entirely compatible with the existence of billions of evilly disposed ignorant idiots that God did not create. And that seems to be the situation, yes?

How do you know when you are reasoning and when you are not if not by sensation? What form does your reasoning take as opposed to being irrational if not some sensation? — Harry Hindu

By thought. We have thoughts and some of those thoughts are generated by our faculty of reason. And they tell us about the thoughts of Reason herself.

God as an entity does not exist. God as encompassing energy, I believe, is a certainty. — Book273

What the hell does that mean? God is an energy? Oh, I thought he was a gas. Or a potato. Silly me. So, just to be clear, when you hear 'the problem of evil' you think this is a problem that arises for those who believe in energy?

The word 'God' denotes a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. And it is for the putative existence of a person like that, that the problem of evil emerges. And it's not about religion - the problem of evil was first articulated by Epicurus hundreds of years before Christianity was on the books.

If one is using the word 'God' differently, then you are just not engaging with the problem.

It is hard to experience a punch in the face unless one is punched in the face. — Book273

You're just saying stuff. Again: as is blindingly obvious to virtually everyone bar the psychopathic and morally bankrupt, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person would not decide to create some idiot immoral people and then dump them in a dangerous world to live among each other. That's the act of a sadist. So, God - not being a sadist - didn't do it. That's not what is going on. If you think it is what is going on - that God loves idiot immoral people and then letting them languish in ignorance in a dangerous world - then you've gone one totally messed up idea about what being morally good involves.

Again, no arguments, just squawks.

So, free will requires existing with aseity. And that's the manner in which minds exist. Thus, God has free will (something we could know independently, given that God is omnibenevolent and one would not be omnibenevolent unless one was morally responsible for being virtuous - which requires free will - and so too do we.

God would — Book273

No he wouldn't. You've said nothing in support of your claim. Why on earth would God - an all powerful, all knowing, all good person - create ignorant, morally bad people and then dump them in a dangerous world? That's not remotely like anything even someone half-way decent would do!

He wouldn't and hasn't.

No, that's incorrect.

Yes, correct.

Yes, you're correct.

You're now absolutely right! — Agent Smith

No I'm not.

You're right! — Agent Smith

I know!

Omnipotence = Dictator
It's as inevitable as summer follows spring! — Agent Smith

The problem is that you don't.

Two events can occur at the same time. And typically, causes precede their effects (not always, but typically). So, an omnipotent person can cause at t1 two events to occur simultaneously at t2. And those two events can be the event of divesting herself of omnipotence and the event of creating a stone too heavy for her to lift. These two simultaneously occurring events had the same cause - God - and they constituted God creating a stone too heavy for her to lift. For the stone was created by God and she, the same person who created the stone, can't lift it.

Yes, like most atheists, you confuse 'God' with 'Christianity' and think that hackneyed criticisms of Christianity can just be lazily peddled against anyone who defends God.

Doesn't work. Once more: God is by definition morally good. Dictators are morally bad - and that's something you believe too, yes? So, God is not a dictator.

Yes, that's exactly what I wanted to convey. There's a thread around here somewhere that asks the question "Does God have free will?" — Agent Smith

It is not at all clear to me what you're trying to convey. Does God have free will? Yes. Obviously.

Do you need to be omnipotent to have free will? No.

If you're omnipotent, will you have free will? Yes.

You are now confusing God with the bible.
A good person is not a dictator. Thus, God is not a dictator.

I assume you don't think it is morally good to be a dictator? If you think it is morally bad to be a dictator and you also think that God is a dictator, then you are having contradictory thoughts.

Fallacious. An omnipotent person has free will, but it does not follow that a person who has free will is omnipotent.

Also, being able to do what you want is not sufficient for free will. Consider Jack, who has been programmed only ever to want to do what he can, in fact, do. Well, Jack does not have true free will, even though he always does what he wants. So, true free will does not just involve doing what one wants, it also involves being unconstrained by others. That's true of an omnipotent being, but it is not true of Jack.

It can also be true of beings who are not omnipotent, so long as the way they are is not due to external causes.

What on earth are you on about? Here's the argument:

1. If God is a dictator, then he is morally bad
2. God is morally good
3. Therefore God is not a dictator.

Look, it's not my fault your view is so easily demonstrated to be confused. But confused it is.

That's true of anything anyone has ever said.

I did not say that it was 'necessarily' true that God is not a garden variety dictator. I said he is not. And the basis of that belief is that God is morally good and garden variety dictators are not. I am having trouble understanding how you are not understanding this.

What's the difference between God and your garden variety dictator? — Agent Smith

God is morally good and, as I have literally just told you, doesn't make people do his bidding.

No, you think God is morally bad. That's a contradiction. It's no different to thinking bachelors have wives. Minds can and do think contradictory thoughts. In my case it is rare. In most others it is the norm.

Why is the brain/mind not a sense organ for patterns? — Agent Smith

We're talking about idealism here, yes? What do idealists think the brain is? Do they think the brain is the mind? No. They think the mind is the mind and the brain is part of the sensible world - which is not a place, but the mental activity of another mind. It seems to me that you do not understand the idealist thesis.

Well, I give you you. You are thinking contradictory things. You think God is a bad person. That's a contradiction. And you think it. So you 'did' a contradiction, in some sense of 'did'.

No, it is manifest to reason. If you think God lacks free will, explain why (and do so without attributing to God something that contradicts the definition of God).
And if you think God is a dictator, explain why without, once more, contradicting the definition of God. So explain how he is a dictator consistent with him being morally good. I think dictators are not morally good people - I don't think morally good people want to make other people do their bidding. Don't you?

So, as God is good then he wouldn't behave in that way, would he? He wouldn't be a dictator. So he isn't.

What's the real version of idealism, pray tell. — Agent Smith

I just gave you an example: Berkeley's idealism. There's never been a finer defender of the view.

Well, I think an idealist who thinks minds exist but also thinks that the only things that exist are things that can be conceived of exist, is thinking contradictory things.

You think no one thinks contradictory things? That's absurd. People think contradictory things all the time. It's hard not to, for a lot of the time we don't have the time to figure out what contradicts what and which thoughts to stop having.

Anyway, your question seemed unrelated to the topic of the thread.

Reason "senses" patterns? — Agent Smith

No. Berkeley - the steel idealist rather than the straw one - thinks minds exist. He thinks it is manifest to reason that sensations cannot exist absent a mind to have them. As sensations clearly exist, a mind that is having them - your mind - exists. But the mind is not sensed, but inferred. So it is by reason, not sense, that we are aware of our own mind. And that too is how we can become aware of the mind whose sensational activity constitutes the external sensible world.

I do not know what you mean by 'do a contradiction'. Certainly minds can think contradictory thoughts - they do so all the time and then express them on this site, among other places.

That which sees can't itself be seen. Ergo, that which sees doesn't exist. — Agent Smith

That's fallacious and it is not essential to idealism. As I explained, Berkeley - the ablest defender of the view - made no appeal to such arguments.

Minds exist. Minds are not perceivable and thus, as far as Berkeley is concerned, cannot be conceived of (for our imaginations can work only on what our sensations provide). But they exist and Berkeley affirms their existence. We know of them by reason, not sense.

So, you're working with a strawman version of idealism. No idealist worth their salt would argue that only that of which we can conceive exists.

Does God have free will? — Agent Smith

Yes. He can do anything. Doesn't get much freer than that. Plus God clearly values free will and so would make sure he had it.

God is morally good by definition. A morally good person is not a dictator. Therefore, God is not a dictator. That is, God does not make people do as he wants.

Look around you - are you in a world in which everyone is made to do as God wants? Clearly not. So, God is not a dictator. And we are not living in a divine dictatorship.

What does a good, all powerful person do? They tell others to be kind and so on. But they do not make them be kind and so on. They 'could', of course, for they are omnipotent. But they do not have to (for they are omnipotent). And nor would they do so, for they are morally good and morally good people don't do that kind of thing.

I don't see any connection.

Also, that's a mischaracterization of idealism. The idealist does not think that only the conceivable exists, for minds themselves exist yet are not conceivable.

Berkeley, for instance, arrives at the conclusion that the sensible world is made of another mind's mental states because it resembles our sensations and he takes it to be self-evident to reason that sensations can only resemble sensations. Thus, it follows that the external sensible world - the place our sensations give us some awareness of - is itself made of sensations. And as he takes it to be equally self-evident that sensations cannot exist absent a mind to have them, then the external sensible world turns out to be made of the mental activity of another mind.

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.

Yes, you have defeated me with your brilliant arguments. Or should I say, you are beat me with argument good being done are is. God done good.

God can't show his omnipotence. So he's not omnipotent. — EugeneW

Yes, that's right. Who's a good boy!

What you want me to conclude after I receive pissed bread? — EugeneW

Does they not teach you English good at the learning place?

Don't you have homework to do?
Make an argument or go and do your homework.