Timothy O'Connor - How Free is God?

[michealrich]

@Closer To Truth
Please explain to me from Christians point of view, how free your God is, who demanded blood and manslaughter (i.e. killing Jesus) for the mercy and slavation of humanity?

[J]

Does God sin when he considers the 'concept of sin'?:-) A perfect God cannot choose, as choice entails consideration (yes or no), which is something that a perfect entity is limited by/incapable of. Not forgetting that God is atemporal of course.

[LetReasonPrevail]

The Ultimate Theistic Bullshit Dodge when it comes to challenging the supposed nature of God:  "X" with regards to God is "different in kind" to "X" with regards to humans.  This deceitfully manifests itself in the grating use of the phrase "in the sense that".  For example:  "God can be considered to have Freewill, IN THE SENSE THAT..." or "God can be seen to be all powerful (i.e. can do anything), IN THE SENSE THAT..."

[fernandodosa]

if you can't explain it simply.
you simply can't explain it .
and you don't understand it.
God makes no sense .
it sounds very much made up .
not very different from the bible.

[IronCharioteer]

A very unsatisfactory and roundabout answer to a very simple and clear question.

[charlesbrightman]

Does "God" have the freewill to act illogically?

[LetReasonPrevail]

Per Tim O'Connor, it is "inevitable" for God to create due to his fixed nature, but this is different in kind to the what we mean as "inevitable" for humans (i.e. a result due to forces beyond our control).  But this seems to be a distinction without a difference.  So is God's nature in his control to change, or is it effectively "beyond his control"?  This highlights a further problem with this line of thinking.  Namely, God's nature is being treated as though it is ontologically distinct from God himself.  I fail to see how this has been sufficiently demonstrated to be the case.  As far as I can see, "God's nature" is simply one particular way of describing God's thoughts & resulting actions.  "God's nature" is fundamentally a description and nothing more.  It doesn't exist in reality.  It isn't a thing unto itself.  It's a concept.  As such, it is an emergent property of a functioning mind.  And if that mind stops functioning, then "poof" the concept so-called "God's nature" vanishes, while God (assuming he's real) remains.

[MikeJunior]

Although I love theology and philosophy, all conversations about what God can or cannot do or what God is is nothing but pathetic (enjoyable) rambling. The only reason these conversations are possible is exactly because such a being does not exist. Because if this being did exist, we should just be able to ask God himself in order to answer questions about his freedom for example. The fact that there never is a divine, direct answer shows that God is either impotent, or uninterested, or non-existent.


If either one of the first two options are true, then we shouldn't even bother talking about this being.

[Martynjs]

If 'God' exists perhaps he created the earth etc. for a laugh. Perhaps he was bored. Perhaps he is a psychopath.