Unless being freely-willed is Godly perfect. And well, it makes sense one can surrender their free will for what they find as perfection, and to freely seek perfection takes a will to find. And supposing perfections are a choice on an array of perfections and imperfections, well ... free will seems perfect as a way to choose from that array and have perfection. Far from safe, all this speculating leads to wondering that God without free will can’t be perfect at all.

Three points.

1) The ontological argument is an argument you reject, so why do you assume it here? In my experience, most Christians, including major theologians like Aquinas, also reject it. I don't even think the ontological argument really does make the assumption that there is only a single perfect being. Many people using it make your assumption, but it seems like an unwarranted one imo.

2) You should disambiguate your attacks here. The free will defense really does defeat the claim that a perfect god must create a perfect universe (assuming the possibility of libertarian free will).

Imagine two universes. In one universe, everyone always does exactly what God desires, but they do so by God forcing them to do so. In a second universe, everyone always does exactly what God desires, but they do so by their own free choice. Which of these universes is better or are they the same?

Well, since many moral theories claim that moral blame or praise should accrue not to just doing the right thing, but to choosing to do the right thing (eg Kantianism), it seems like the second of these universes, at least on some construals of moral value, is better. However, it is logically impossible for God to force someone to freely (in the libertarian sense) choose to do good. Thus, it is not within God's power to deterministically create the maximally perfect universe because the maximally perfect universe is necessarily non-deterministic (given the above assumptions). More concretely, the maximally perfect universe requires freely given compliance from free-willed beings to do the right thing.

3) Given the argument in (2), the argument I thought you were making here is that this defense assumes a non-deterministic universe. But if the world is not deterministic, then how could God have perfect foreknowledge of the future? That is the argument I was trying to defeat with my counterexample of the multiverse. Your discussion of perfection here doesn't address my argument at all, as my argument takes as an assumption that the universe is not deterministic.

Of course God has free will.

You saying it, doesn't make it so.

Understand that OP is not some detached, open minded, objective participant questioning the existence of a god. He is acting on behalf of his god which is the intellect operating in a materialistic, deterministic universe.

It is no different and equally as pointless as two followers of separate religions talking past each other full of religious zeal.

what does this mean, and how do you know?

Because the contrary is impossible. To even attempt to argue against it you have to use logic.

To clarify, this is in response to my mistaken post earlier in which I said that OP’s main claim is that a perfect being cannot limit itself. The main claim is actually that a god cannot transcend logic. That is the fundamental religious belief. The idea of a perfect being limiting itself is simply a violation of this foundational belief since it’s a contradiction.

Correct. That's why I've done my best to provide some reasons.

It means what it says, and I know because it logically follows. Feel free to give me an example of when logic fails though.

My personal views are irrelevant. In fact, to ask the question, I'm assuming the existence of a god I don't think exists and that has properties that weren't awarded to that god by me but by people who do believe...

Really you're just committing an Ad hom here, which is, ironically, pointless.

Let’s simplify. I believe God transcends reason and logic. You don’t believe a god can transcend reason and logic. Everything else is basically a restatement of those beliefs.

This thread would be more efficient if the following question was asked instead:
-Do you believe a god can transcend reason?
-If ‘no’, then the intellect is your God.

What would it even mean to transcend reason? If it was outside.of reason wouldn't it be unintelligible?

Only if reason is the only way to know something.

Edit: Actually, I think the better response is 'can we know something that is unintelligible?'

Also, I'm not saying that God always transcends reason and logic. Revelation allows for understanding at that level, but 'knowing at an irrational level' (irrational faith) is a prerequisite for revelation.

Hey look! This thread was useful after all.

the contrary being logic is not an immutable property of the universe?

How is that impossible? Having to use logic does not show that its an immutable property .

Saying "It logically follows" does not mean that it does

What does it logically follow from?


P) ???????

therefore

C) Logic is an immutable property of the universe.

You need to fill in P and have a valid syllogism in order for it to "Logically follow"

You need to use logic to even consider logic not being an immutable property of the universe.

Isn't that cute? Look at you, using logic to come to a conclusion!

right, but that doesnt make it an immutable property of the universe

still doesnt mean logic is an immutable property of the universe, though

Logic being a mutable or non-existent property of the universe makes as much sense as a circle being square...none.

Do you think it is possible for claims about god to be contrary to reason? That is, fair enough if you think reason can't get us to all true claims about the world, but do you think that claims about god can be self-contradictory and yet still true?

I think what appears to be a contradiction about certain aspects of reality and the existence of a god actually turns out to be a paradox at a deeper level of insight.

A logical paradox is just a fancy word for an unsolved contradiction. So are you saying that reality at a deeper level is self-contradictory?

An unsolved or I would say un-revealed contradiction seems about right. This is not something I think about much and am speculating/extrapolating. What captures my attention at this point in my life is the actual process of development rather than the insights that are revealed. Honestly I am skeptical when anyone wants to discuss God.