The libertarian free will dilemma

[Simpletruther]

If we have a premise that God cannot violate the autonomous will of his creatures without violating their moral agency, and also that He loves them:

Along with a premise that God is omni benevalant(all good) And omnipotent and omniscient.

Then it's easy to concieve that
God can know precisely upon which circumstance each of his creatures would freely choose him and be saved.

And so the dilemma is why would a
God claiming to love his creature not bring about those circumstances which would lead to his creature freely choosing him.

If he is unable his is not omnipotent.

If he is unwilling he does not really love them and is not omni benevalant.

If he doesn't know the circumstances that will lead to faith he is not omniscient.

 

[ReverendRV]

If we have a premise that God cannot violate the autonomous will of his creatures and also that He loves them:

Along with a premise that God is omni benevalant(all good) And omnipotent and omniscient.

Then it's easy to concieve that
God can know precisely upon which circumstance each of his creatures would freely choose him and be saved.

And so the dilemma is why would a
God claiming to love his creature not bring about those circumstances which would lead to his creature freely choosing him.

If he is unable his is not omnipotent.

If he is unwilling he does not really love them and is not omni benevalant.

If he doesn't know the circumstances that will lead to faith he is not omniscient.

Especially in the light of God going so far as to sacrifice his only Unique Son. When you'd go that far, why stop there?

 

[zerinus]

If we have a premise that God cannot violate the autonomous will of his creatures without violating their moral agency, and also that He loves them:

Along with a premise that God is omni benevalant(all good) And omnipotent and omniscient.

Then it's easy to concieve that
God can know precisely upon which circumstance each of his creatures would freely choose him and be saved.

Flawed argument. It is logically inconsistent. If you are acknowledging their freedom to choose, you cannot now construct an artificial situation in which they are tricked into “freely choosing” what would otherwise be against their will to choose. Even if it were possible, it would make God into a dishonest hypocritical trickster which of course he is not.

And so the dilemma is why would a
God claiming to love his creature not bring about those circumstances which would lead to his creature freely choosing him.

Continuing the same flawed reasoning and logical inconsistency. A free moral creature by definition cannot be “tricked” into “freely” choosing what is contrary to his will; and even if it were possible, the trick would be temporary, and once he discovered that he had been “tricked,” he would renege on his commitment into which he had been tricked.

If he is unable his is not omnipotent.

Omnipotence does not mean that God is free to be dishonest, unjust, hypocritical, or play tricks on people.

If he is unwilling he does not really love them and is not omni benevalant.

If he doesn't know the circumstances that will lead to faith he is not omniscient.

Flawed arguments all the way through.

 

[TomFL]

If we have a premise that God cannot violate the autonomous will of his creatures without violating their moral agency, and also that He loves them:

Along with a premise that God is omni benevalant(all good) And omnipotent and omniscient.

Then it's easy to concieve that
God can know precisely upon which circumstance each of his creatures would freely choose him and be saved.

And so the dilemma is why would a
God claiming to love his creature not bring about those circumstances which would lead to his creature freely choosing him.

If he is unable his is not omnipotent.

If he is unwilling he does not really love them and is not omni benevalant.

If he doesn't know the circumstances that will lead to faith he is not omniscient.

So you propose

If God does not have middle knowledge he is not omniscient

and if he does not love everyone God is not omnibenevalent

 

[Simpletruther]

Flawed argument. It is logically inconsistent. If you are acknowledging their freedom to choose, you cannot now construct an artificial situation in which they are tricked into “freely choosing” what would otherwise be against their will to choose. Even if it were possible, it would make God into a dishonest hypocritical trickster which of course he is not.

Continuing the same flawed reasoning and logical inconsistency. A free moral creature by definition cannot be “tricked” into “freely” choosing what is contrary to his will; and even if it were possible, the trick would be temporary, and once he discovered that he had been tricked, he would renege on his commitment into which he had been tricked.

Omnipotence does not mean that God is free to be dishonest, unjust, hypocritical, or play tricks on people.

Flawed arguments all the way through.

why would it be artificial, as opposed to those same same circumstances coming about by happenstance?

You prefer people have a slim "chance" that those conditions happen on their own rather than definitely?

How is God unjust in doing this and saving them?

How is it dishonest to put them in situations that God knows will persuade them?

 

[Simpletruther]

Flawed argument. It is logically inconsistent. If you are acknowledging their freedom to choose, you cannot now construct an artificial situation in which they are tricked into “freely choosing” what would otherwise be against their will to choose. Even if it were possible, it would make God into a dishonest hypocritical trickster which of course he is not.

Continuing the same flawed reasoning and logical inconsistency. A free moral creature by definition cannot be “tricked” into “freely” choosing what is contrary to his will; and even if it were possible, the trick would be temporary, and once he discovered that he had been tricked, he would renege on his commitment into which he had been tricked.

Omnipotence does not mean that God is free to be dishonest, unjust, hypocritical, or play tricks on people.

Flawed arguments all the way through.

why would it be artificial, as opposed to those same same circumstances coming about by happenstance?

You prefer people have a slim "chance" that those conditions happen on their own rather than definitely?

How is God unjust in doing this and saving them?

So you propose

If God does not have middle knowledge he is not omniscient

and if he does not love everyone God is not omnibenevalent

The bible indicates
God has middle knowledge:

Matthew 11 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! Woe unto thee, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

God knew what their choice would be under x condition.

 

[zerinus]

why would it be artificial, as opposed to those same same circumstances coming about by happenstance?

You prefer people have a slim "chance" that those conditions happen on their own rather than definitely?

How is God unjust in doing this and saving them?

How is it dishonest to put them in situations that God knows will persuade them?

Your entire thought process and reasoning is so illogical as to be counterintuitive. Your thinking mechanism has been so compromised by your adherence to Calvinism that it has become incapable of a logical evaluation of the principles involved. It is impossible to conduct a rational argument under those circumstances. To you what is illogical appears logical, and the irrstional appears rational. It is impossible to carry out a meaningful discussion with someone under those circumstances. Nothing more to say.

 

[Simpletruther]

The bible indicates
God has middle knowledge:

Matthew 11 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! Woe unto thee, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

@TomFL

 

[rhomphaeam]

Even if it were possible, it would make God into a dishonest hypocritical trickster which of course he is not.

I don't know old bean - your god and the heavenly mother have been fornicating into existence billions of spiritual babies for millennia. He tricked you right?

 

[TomFL]

why would it be artificial, as opposed to those same same circumstances coming about by happenstance?

You prefer people have a slim "chance" that those conditions happen on their own rather than definitely?

How is God unjust in doing this and saving them?

The bible indicates
God has middle knowledge:

Matthew 11 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! Woe unto thee, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

God knew what their choice would be under x condition.

Well I agree

Are you aware a number of Calvinists here will dispute your claim

Oh and you just denied God is all good

 

[Simpletruther]

Well I agree

Are you aware a number of Calvinists here will dispute your claim

Oh and you just denied God is all good

Well he do you answer the dilemma then?

As for all good. God either doesn’t love everyone or all will be saved.

 

[Simpletruther]

Your entire thought process and reasoning is so illogical as to be counterintuitive. Your thinking mechanism has been so compromised by your adherence to Calvinism that it has become incapable of a logical evaluation of the principles involved. It is impossible to conduct a rational argument under those circumstances. To you what is illogical appears logical, and the irrstional appears rational. It is impossible to carry out a meaningful discussion with someone under those circumstances. Nothing more to say.

There is nothing illogical about my questions. I am assuming your theology and then asking why God would be unjust (given your theology) to ensure that all those He loves get saved.

 

[TomFL]

Well he do you answer the dilemma then?

As for all good. God either doesn’t love everyone or all will be saved.

Maybe there are no conditions upon which that one would freely love God

But are you affirming God is not all good

when you stated if he does not love anyone he is not omnibenevolent

 

[Simpletruther]

Maybe there are no conditions upon which that one would freely love God

But are you affirming God is not all good

when you stated if he does not love anyone he is not omnibenevolent

If there exists no conditions thst a person would ever believe, then they are effectively predestined for hell. And it calls into question how they could possibly be said to be “able” or “free” to believe if no circumstance whatsoever would lead them To believe.

And That just shifts the dilemma. Why would God create someone he knows would never believe under any circumstance, how could that possibly be a loving act to create a being destined for hell?


Let me clarify my OP was clumsily worded. If God loves someone but is unwilling to save then he is not all good.

However if he doesn’t love the then it can be said that it is good not to love them.

 

[Simpletruther]

If we have a premise that God cannot violate the autonomous will of his creatures without violating their moral agency, and also that He loves them:

Along with a premise that God is omni benevalant(all good) And omnipotent and omniscient.

Then it's easy to concieve that
God can know precisely upon which circumstance each of his creatures would freely choose him and be saved.

And so the dilemma is why would a
God claiming to love his creature not bring about those circumstances which would lead to his creature freely choosing him.

If he is unable his is not omnipotent.

If he is unwilling he does not really love them and is not omni benevalant.

If he doesn't know the circumstances that will lead to faith he is not omniscient.

A clarification on the benevolence. I worded that incorrectly. If God does love them, yet doesn’t do everything ultimately form their good, it calls into question his omni benevolence. .

 

[zerinus]

There is nothing illogical about my questions. I am assuming your theology and then asking why God would be unjust (given your theology) to ensure that all those He loves get saved.

He loves everyone, and wants everyone to be saved. He also gives everyone the chance and opportunity to be saved if they want to:

2 Peter 3:

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Ezekiel 18:

23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

Ezekiel 33:

11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

But he does not force or coerce anyone to do so. He wants them to freely come to him if they want to, or reject him if they want to. Your theorising is logically inconsistent and doesn’t address the issue correctly. You are saying that if he really loves everyone and wants them to be saved, why doesn’t he trick them into believing and repenting. The answer is that God is not a trickster. He is not in the business of tricking people into believing or repenting. He respects their free agency, and allows them to freely choose him or reject him as they will.

 

[Theo1689]

He loves everyone, and wants everyone to be saved. He also gives everyone the chance and opportunity to be saved if they want to:

Wrong.
There is nothing about "chance" or "opportunity" in your proof-texts.

2 Peter 3:

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

This verse isn't a "universal" truth. It is limited to the group referred to as "us-ward", and in the previous verse as the "beloved".

God is omnipotent.
If He TRULY wanted all to be saved, then all WOULD be saved.

He TRULY wants all the "beloved" (ie. the elect) to be saved.
Therefore, all the elect WILL be saved.

Ezekiel 18:

23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

This doesn't teach that the wicked don't die.
It simply teaches that the reason for them dying is NOT His "pleasure".
And this is directed at ISRAEL, not "everyone".

Ezekiel 33:

11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

You see? He is referring SPECIFICALLY to "Israel", and not to "everyone".

 

[Simpletruther]

He loves everyone, and wants everyone to be saved. He also gives everyone the chance and opportunity to be saved if they want to:

2 Peter 3:

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Ezekiel 18:

23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

Ezekiel 33:

11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

But he does not force or coerce anyone to do so. He wants them to freely come to him if they want to, or reject him if they want to. Your theorising is logically inconsistent and doesn’t address the issue correctly. You are saying that if he really loves everyone and wants them to be saved, why doesn’t he trick them into believing and repenting. The answer is that God is not a trickster. He is not in the business of tricking people into believing or repenting. He respects their free agency, and allows them to freely choose him or reject him as they will.

Explain how that is tricking them in any bad way.

Would you not "trick" your child into geting off the street if a car was coming and wouldn't that be right thing?

 

[zerinus]

Explain how that is tricking them in any bad way.

Would you not "trick" your child into geting off the street if a car was coming and wouldn't that be right thing?

Tricking a child (who doesn’t know any better) to get him off the street, to prevent him from being hit by the cars; is a different situation from attempting to trick a fully grown adult, who knows perfectly well what he is doing, who is sane and of a sound mind, who has made up his mind to commit suicide by throwing himself under a bus. You can talk to him, and try to persuade him not to; but you can’t force him not to, if that is what he is determined to do—except by putting him in chains, which God is not in the business of doing.

 

[Simpletruther]

He loves everyone, and wants everyone to be saved. He also gives everyone the chance and opportunity to be saved if they want to:

2 Peter 3:

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Ezekiel 18:

23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

Ezekiel 33:

11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

But he does not force or coerce anyone to do so. He wants them to freely come to him if they want to, or reject him if they want to. Your theorising is logically inconsistent and doesn’t address the issue correctly. You are saying that if he really loves everyone and wants them to be saved, why doesn’t he trick them into believing and repenting. The answer is that God is not a trickster. He is not in the business of tricking people into believing or repenting. He respects their free agency, and allows them to freely choose him or reject him as they will.

Explain how that is tricking them

Tricking a child (who doesn’t know any better) to get him off the street, to prevent him from being hit by the cars; is a different situation from attempting to trick a fully grown adult, who knows perfectly well what he is doing, who is sane and of a sound mind, who has made up his mind to commit suicide by throwing himself under a bus. You can talk to him, and try to persuade him not to; but you can’t force him not to, if that is what he is determined to do—except by putting him in chains, which God is not in the business of doing.

How is presenting circumstances forcing him?