Re-upload: God is illogical

Thanks for your interest in this debate topic. It is a very interesting topic. Don't worry about it. Thought about logical flaws in God and made a debate. On Omniscience: I agree, God is all-knowing, God wants everyone to choose life, And God gives everyone free will. You argue this is illogical. I don"t see why. You forgot to mention that God wants what is good for us or at the very least save us. Mentioned in the same attribute that you were rebutting. If God allowed us to choose good and bad, God has allowed humans to not be capable of saving. This can be seen with Hitler, Stalin and many other evil people from the past. By God giving free will God has allowed evil to exist knowing full-well the consequences and knowing also some people cannot be saved. Examples would be Hitler and Stalin again. God gave them free will to do bad. Most likely God would send them to hell. A parent can want their child to make a good choice, Allow them to make the choice, And know they will not make the good choice. I do not see the formal tension. It sounds like good parenting, Though leading to sad results. The parent is unwilling to take the child"s free will away, But they keep hoping they will make a wise choice. This does not logically follow, Either the parents forces the child to meet their demands or the child will find order in something else. Parents will not allow the free will of the child to be used to do bad. One instance would be if the child is trying to touch fire. A good parent would realise free will matters less then the child's health therefore they will make sure the child does not have the free will to burn him/herself. This analogy can be used with God. God by not forcing people to meet Its demands has allowed evil to persist. I argue stopping evil matters more then having free will. That doesn't mean I am against freedom but as a civilised society we create laws to be civil with one another. On Omnipotence: I agree, God is all-powerful, And is at "peak power". But, This doesn"t take away purpose. I agree that the journey to self-actualization gives great purpose. But, Being in a state of self-actualization also brings great purpose. If the destination were purposeless, The journey itself would soon be purposeless, As you would be going nowhere important. So, The destination of 'peak performance' better have purpose itself. The purpose of being in one's ideal state is to live and do as you are now able to do. I boil it down to few words as possible. Life is a power struggle. Without power to gain life becomes meaningless. Since God is all-powerful God has nothing strive for. Why does God carry on existing? This question was still not addressed. As humans we can never gain full power because we cannot point to every example of power and gain from it. Which is why humans can never truly be fulfilled if the goal of life is ultimate power. God already has it but still exists for some reason to watch us. Consider an analogy: a child is learning to build, First using Lego, Then blocks, And finally goes to university and becomes a great architect. He has arrived at perfection. Now he is able to build at peak performance, That is the meaning, Which he obviously takes great joy in, Or he would never have tried to build in the first place. You do understand even the child has room for improvement as well as an architect. I have never known a field where everything has been learnt. God with all Its attributes has already gained perfection therefore I don't see a reason to persist. You do also understand the difference between the peak performance of a human and a God right? One can be considered peak performance and the other is ultimate performance. There is nothing learn, Strive or fulfill by God yet I am supposed to assumed God does care about us. Or, To use your example of science: it is meaningful to try to learn the mysteries of the universe through the scientific method. But, It is also meaningful to simply understand these truths, And to apply these truths to developing technology. Or, Returning to the case of God, Part of God's peak performance is to bestow love on His creation. The creation is not for His amusement, But for God to bestow love onto those who want it. To the science example. Humans still have mysteries to be discovered. God has not. All as in everything leaves no room for improvement. God is the perfect being yet God still has purpose. I still do not see how It does. Why does God want to bestow love into us? That is completely useless if God was perfect. If God is sinless God would not need or require affections of humans and God already knows who will or not accept so even if affection does occur God already knew it will happen therefore the acts God commits become redundant. Why did God create life? Why does God want us to love It? Another point to peak performance is that it is relative. It is relative to what the human knows, Capable and can do given the time restrictions. God has none of those affecting It therefore it should be considered ultimate performance. If the architect was at ultimate performance there was nothing to learn therefore purpose in building things has become obsolete. Humans require obstacles to overcome without them there is nothing to learn from. With God knowing everything and is all-powerful in doing so as It wishes becomes redundant if there is no obstacle or something left to learn. On omnipresence: I agree, God is "omni-present", But that really just means that God is all-knowing. Perception perceives percepts purportedly caused by an external physical world. God is not physical, So it is no surprise that perception does not perceive God. You accept my definition of omnipresent and yet you change it. All-knowing is different than being everywhere. By your logic the person with the best eyesight knows more then a person who lacks eyesight. That is not how it works. It doesn't matter where the argument came from it matters what the argument is. From what I read it does not logically follow. If God is not physical how does God exist? My argument still stands everywhere does mean in our perception. Everywhere cannot exclude anything that is what it stands for. The mind apprehends abstract objects, Such as numbers, Moral values, Logic, Ideas and God. So, We should expect the mind to apprehend God, Not the senses to perceive God. Completely forgetting what omnipresence means. Everywhere. This does include the mind. If it does then God is not omnipresent. What created our mind? God. What also gave us the tools to perceive our world? God therefore I am supposed to assume either God is not capable of being everywhere or does not want to be. If God does not want to be omnipresent then God is not omnipresent. You may object: if X cannot be perceived, It doesn"t exist. Well, That is an old argument. The external world is not directly perceived, But we assume it exists. Other minds are not directly perceived, But we assume they exist. Numbers, Moral values, Laws of logic, Are all not perceivable by the senses, But we presume they exist. The past, The future cannot be perceived by five senses, But they exist. Our own minds are not perceived by our perceptions, But we presume we exist. So, Presumably that isn't your argument. I am guessing you are making the argument Creatio Ex Nihilo. No evidence has been given for it to be the case. Creatio Ex Materia on the other hand has evidence. Your argument boils down to faith. It is not logical to have faith since it goes against logic. Faith is illogical. No amount of reason or strict principles of validity was used to have complete trust that there is a God. By you saying That is an old argument. also states absolutely nothing. I can say to the Bible is an old argument therefore it is wrong. Am I wrong in this in saying this proves the Bible wrong? You say no therefore That is an old argument. is a bad argument. Everything is assumed to exist. If that is the case logically following your example God is also assumed to exist? By you saying nothing is fact God is also assumed to exist. I am not saying you argument is wrong but by you making that claim God would also fit into the assumption category you laid out for everything we perceive if not I would say you are being intellectually dishonest. We do not require to see how the past was like instead we can use current tools to identify changes in nature. Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.