ramifications of omnipotence for God

I don't understand. All men do have both free-will and the capability for obedience to God.

Omnipotence means God can do anything. I don't see how God having the ability to create man with free will means that God can't create man with no free will. He already created plenty of things without it. Are you confusing omnipotence with being a control freak?

Yeah, and in plain language that translates into 'it's human nature to look out for one's self, but it is intelligence which looks out for the greater good'. Of course men have the propensity to desire survival, but we often don't know what is in our best interest. You might seek answers via 'God's grace', or via trial and error, and life long learning. Why? God already made angels, and animals, and rocks, and plants, and a gazillion things which either have no free will, or exist just to obey. Omnipotence just says that 'God could have'. God could have made purple spaghetti monsters...so what?

I know, I know, but but just what do you think a 'propensity to disobey God' IS? If anything in religion is to be meaningful, it can't just be some mythological terms bandied about for centuries. I am not missing the point. Even if the Bible were completely made up, it is based on the simple observation of man's dual nature. Intelligent man has choices to make. If we suppose that we were not very intelligent, we would depend more on instinct. Intelligence has the strange result of making us stupid, because we have to trial and error our way through 'solutions', whereas a being without free will could conceivably get it 'right' the first time.Since Christians ascribe the duality of man to the 'flesh' versus the 'spirit', it is perfectly fine to say we have a 'propensity' for survival/fleshly desire, which competes with a higher calling. The higher calling is only known through intelligence and reason, and again, our intelligence can work against us.Intelligence and free-will are the same thing to me, it's as if we became too intelligent to follow a 'plan'. You look at little children, you see that when they reach a ceratin 'age of reason', they suddenly become aware that their choices have consequences. They have 'the knowledge of Good and Evil'. When they are just 'being children' they can do no wrong.What you guys are saying is that if men were stupid, God would be omnipotent. Some of the arguments against God that I see here are very, very simplistic theologically.

Why are you assuming He didn't? Christians certainly don't assume He didn't!I believe there are scores of angels who have never sinned, as well as Jesus, Mary, and many saints. If a person has never even remotely desired sin, as in being aware of it's tempting lure, they would hardly HAVE free will, but would be creatures in a mental enclosure. A sin is just a great aberration from the design. There are already plenty of critters and creations which do not have the intelligence to reinvent themselves.

One knows it's master, or rather, knows a different master. They both have equal propensity to obey what they see as the leader, and that is good for their survival. What did the serpent tell them? He said they shall not surely die, and they would become as gods. Yep. Sure, but beliefs that don't reflect anything which we can observe, or do not make sense, wouldn't stick around too long.

I think you see why this reasoning fails. Most Christians already believe God can and does intervene, and even in some cases interferes with free will. Take Paul of Tarsus. He may have had free will after his visions, sure, but if you saw God or Jesus, hypothetically, wouldn't that weigh in on how you exercised your free will?

Seriously, if we had some overwhelming desire to follow the true master, how would that be free will?If we have free will, the only useful thing this could mean is that we should have entire freedom to choose whatever master we like.If I allow my daughter to go shopping, and I tell her in no uncertain terms which dress I want her to buy, and also tell her it is ultimately her choice, how does that stop my being her parent? I still have the final say so. On the other hand, if I allow her to go shopping, and I don't pressure her decision, I may be a better parent. Either way, I am the parent, the 'omnipotent' figure in her life, and parenting is not about being a control freak. Yeah, supposedly, but no evidence of that. Everyone has equal tendency for debauchery. Everyone has the same measure of free-will. I do certainly believe that an intelligent evil is far worse that a stupid evil.'To he whom much has been given, much will be demanded'...the parable of the talents says something like this. Then you have AC Doyle 'when a doctor goes wrong, he is very dangerous indeed'. Look at any sci-fi movie, and you can see how 'evil' super-hero types can be. Astrology made sense to people. I think for many it still does, but since we are in an age where we 'know' better, as far as science and evidence, the 'usefullness' of astrology is viewed as an illusion.

You have not demonstrated this. I think it is a mistake and a straw man to worry about the degree of 'desire' a person has to sin. In a duality, there is the desire to serve a master, but a choice about which master.

Sorry, iceage, I am having computer trouble, and had to end my message prematurely. Take a dog and wolf. You claim one is 'more willing to obey'. I believe they are equally willing to obey, but have different perceived masters.Relate this to free-will, and you have a dog who is free to choose a master...be it human or canine. If the dog has no experience or knowledge of human masters, he will follow natural inclination. He still has equal 'propensity' for following a human, if he is given the knowledge. IOW, it is natural for him to follow some leader or dominant figure.

God gave free will. He commanded but did not take away the ability to choose. No robot there. Critical thinking? Eve thought critically enough about the benefits as compared to the risks, of eating the apple. Correct, she had no guilt, but she had intelligence. She made an informed decision about the apple, and she thought it was therefore the 'right' decision. The best case you could make is that God was not honest in telling her the downfall of her choice, but that is a hard case to make when Christianity is screaming about death and hell and such. God DID tell her she would die, and the serpent DID say she would not, so... Hm...not knowing something is wrong does not mean it is not wrong. Catch my drift? You may be forgiven a fault you were unaware of, at work for instance...in my life never ...but again, regardless of whether Adam and Eve knew guilt or conscience, the most you can say is that God was evil because they did not know better and were still punished. Then, of course, you have to question whether anyone who actually talked to a supreme Being would be bothered with an ugly serpent anyway, and whether it could be said that they 'did not know better'. If you know that a parent will be upset at a choice, you 'know' better, even if you have no concept of guilt. My kids can link action to reaction, but they think it is funny. They aren't guilty about their actions quite yet. This is why I link intelligence and free will. One is no good without the other. When you reach the age of reason, you have real, true, free will.