"Can God make a square circle?" What is the response in your description of my position? What is the response in my description of my position? The way they resolve to the same thing is that if god is constrained by the system of logic that God is unable to do something for whatever reason.
God is unable to do something Are you claiming that square circles are things? I am saying they are non-things, so are not included in some-thing. Or are you claiming that any combination of words (without regard for meaning) define a thing? The issue here is whether the omnipotent being created the system of logic itself, and therefore whether that being is able to transcend the limitations of logic that we are bound by as limited beings existing within the universe created by the omnipotent being.
You seen to be happy using meaningless statements as part of your deductive process No not really. I accept that we are using different definitions of what omnipotence is - yours is the most widely used by theists now, that I accept; but I am not alone in the way I am defining omnipotence. It would seem to be more fruitful to continue on the basis that I understand that with your definition of omnipotence God is only able to do things which are not logically contradictory.
As for free will: free will being a prerequisite for love as far as I can see is an assumption you are making, I would query the necessity and basis of that assumption. I think it is more accurate as describing man as having a will, and this will as being free to X. (For various X, to be defined). So if free will is not required for love then presumably a robot could love?
One might ask what the point of giving humanity free will in the first place was, the consequence of it (which God would have known in advance) was that humanity fucked up creation by introducing evil into the world (let's ignore the fact that the devil rebelled before man for the moment!). If man was able to love without free will then it was clearly a mistake for God to give it to man, God could have made mankind able to love him without the fall.
I would say that love requires a choice, and for there to be choice one must have free will. Therefore if you do not have free will you cannot choose, and if you can't choose you can't love.
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
What is the response in your description of my position? What is the response in my description of my position?
The way they resolve to the same thing is that if god is constrained by the system of logic that God is unable to do something for whatever reason.
God is unable to do something
Are you claiming that square circles are things? I am saying they are non-things, so are not included in some-thing. Or are you claiming that any combination of words (without regard for meaning) define a thing?
The issue here is whether the omnipotent being created the system of logic itself, and therefore whether that being is able to transcend the limitations of logic that we are bound by as limited beings existing within the universe created by the omnipotent being.
You seen to be happy using meaningless statements as part of your deductive process
No not really. I accept that we are using different definitions of what omnipotence is - yours is the most widely used by theists now, that I accept; but I am not alone in the way I am defining omnipotence. It would seem to be more fruitful to continue on the basis that I understand that with your definition of omnipotence God is only able to do things which are not logically contradictory.
As for free will: free will being a prerequisite for love as far as I can see is an assumption you are making, I would query the necessity and basis of that assumption. I think it is more accurate as describing man as having a will, and this will as being free to X. (For various X, to be defined).
So if free will is not required for love then presumably a robot could love?
One might ask what the point of giving humanity free will in the first place was, the consequence of it (which God would have known in advance) was that humanity fucked up creation by introducing evil into the world (let's ignore the fact that the devil rebelled before man for the moment!). If man was able to love without free will then it was clearly a mistake for God to give it to man, God could have made mankind able to love him without the fall.
I would say that love requires a choice, and for there to be choice one must have free will. Therefore if you do not have free will you cannot choose, and if you can't choose you can't love.