Biblical descriptions of the nature of the Christian God and free will are contradictory.

============ Introduction: ============ Thanks to my opponent for his formidable round 2 response. It is not that I have qualms with the traditional definitions ascribed to God, it is that my opponent must be prepared to defend the Biblical warrant for such ascriptions – considering that such ascriptions are not universally accepted among the evangelical community. *On Omnipotence, Revelation 19:6 and Matthew 28:18* This ugly Latin word was never used by any of the biblical authors. The original Greek word for which the KJV translates omnipotence, is pantokrator, which literally means "ruler over all things." Not quite the omnipotence my opponent was shooting for. The original Greek word employed in Matthew 28:18 is exousia. This would more appropriately translate as authority. *On Omniscience and 1 John 3:20* Taking this hyper-literally ignores the context. This is the only place in the entire bible that it ever uses the language that God knows everything. However, taken contextually, we see that it is referring to how God knows everything in terms of the contents of our hearts. *On all-encompassing benevolence* These verses say nothing of benevolence. ============================= REGARDING THE HUMAN PERSPECTIVE OF EVIL ============================= My point here is that since we can be wrong at any given moment regarding what we perceive to be evil, then how can we reasonably expect to make any sound judgments regarding evil in the world. Since my opponent's assertion is that evil abounds, he must substantiate this. "Are we to take God's word for it?" Yes. ============================= REGARDING GOD'S ROLE IN HUMAN AFFAIRS ============================= "The problem with this assumption is that if God wishes to help humans be perfecting in this world and live in that perfection in the next, He's doing a pretty bad job." Since my opponent has suggested that a problem exists, then he must substantiate beyond the tenuous assertion that God is doing a bad job. By what standard does my opponent conclude that God is doing a bad job? Moreover, he missed the point. The point is that God wishes for such things, as quoted below, to actually exist. Since the existence of the below quoted is contingent on the existence of free will, it stands to reason that such an omni-excellent God would allow the existence evil. "a world that fosters "moral integrity, magnanimity, compassion, courage, humor, honesty, and the capacity for love." This world is not possible without the existence of free will. There can be no such thing as magnanimity if the opposite is not possible, nor compassion, courage, human, honesty and love without the possibility of their respective opposites. Since love is a distinction between nonLove, there must be such thing as nonLove. This leads me to an important point: THERE ARE SOME THINGS EVEN AN OMNIPOTENT GOD CANNOT ACTUALIZE. A world that contains free creatures is more valuable than a world that contains no freedom at all. It is indeed possible for God to create free creatures, but, as Plantinga points out, "He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right FREELY. To create creatures of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil, and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. (1)" To put it more simply by way of syllogism: P1: It is possible for said God (omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent) to create a being that has moral freedom. P2: If it is possible for said God to create morally free beings, then it is possible for said God to create a being who freely chooses to act evilly. C: It is possible therefore, for said God to create a being who then freely chooses to act evilly. This can account for evil acts. And with God, we can rightly call them evil as there is an objective standard by which to do so. Moreover, and with contention 1, God cannot force a free action – it is a logical contradiction. Stepping into modal logic here, let's take Bob as an example. Bob has a choice to beat up Larry. If the decision is a free one, then there must be a possible world where Bob beats Larry and also a possible world where Bob does not beat Larry. Now one of these worlds even God cannot actualize. Which world becomes reality depends on the free action of Bob, not God. ============ Direct Responses: ============ "Thus, assuming that God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he would by definition interfere in order to further his benevolent nature in creating the benevolent state." God would not interfere given that he has created beings with moral freedom. Unless my opponent can create a necessary premise that requires an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God to interfere, then this point stands as an ipse-dixit (unsubstantiated assertion). "Such interference is a contradiction to free will. Regardless of what the state God is working towards happens to be, the fact that he is working towards some sort of state shows that free will and the Christian God cannot logically stand beside each other." Forced benevolence on his creation is contra omnibenevolence, insofar as actions are only actually good if they are chosen. It is, therefore, reasonable that said God would not interfere given that his doing so would hinder any ability for a human to legitimately actualize moral integrity, magnanimity, compassion, courage, humor, honesty, and the capacity for love. ============ Conclusion: ============ My opponent has failed in creating a third and essential proposition between freewill (F) and omnibenevolence (B) that shows a necessary contradiction. Since no contradiction has been shown as true, or necessarily true, my opponent's burden remains unfulfilled. I look forward to his response. Sources: 1. http://philofreligion.homestead.com...