CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
This questions supposes God is real and at least somewhat omnipotent. So, if anyone can logically show that God doesn't fit the definition of truly omnipotent; all he would have to do is change all the on-line dictionaries to alter the definition of 'omnipotent'. This would be easy for even a mildly omnipotent being.
If you think you have a loop-hole in my logic that you could just check a dictionary that is a physical book. Answer me this, when was the last time, if ever, any of you used an actual dictionary?
Answer me this, when was the last time, if ever, any of you used an actual dictionary?
If you claim that he is omnipotent then you must realize that either a paradox or an immediate contradiction will arise. Also the last time I used an actual dictionary was mabye 5 years ago. Primarily because my dictionary is electronic.
Rafael Nadal just defeated Ferrer in the 2013 French Open for his 8th French Open Title. He fell behind because he was injured. Making that kind of statement without understading why is foolish. He just won 6-3, 6-2, 6-3. Also sir, if you are going for humor go for "humor" not hard to understand complications of words. We are here to debate not make jokes.
Everyone who loses has an excuse. This is true of Rafael and of you. If you think I use "hard to understand complications of words", maybe you should trade in your five year old electronic dictionary, and
You don't know me. Also I just told you that he was absent so he didn't lose anything. I didn't lose anything because there was never anything to lose.
maybe you should trade in your five year old electronic dictionary, and
READ A BOOK.
I actually am reading two books as of now and they are pretty good.
While true I don't know you; you did lose something by answering overly literally to a humorous comment. You lost my respect. And will only continue to do so, if you continue to do so.
What two books are you reading; "Facetiousness for beginners" and "How to justify loving losers"?
While true I don't know you; you did lose something by answering overly literally to a humorous comment. You lost my respect. And will only continue to do so, if you continue to do so.
I never asked for your respect nor did I ever have a starting amount of respect for you.
What two books are you reading; "Facetiousness for beginners" and "How to justify loving losers"?
No. Just "First the killed my father", which is a pretty good read, and a Britannica Encyclopedia for my paper I am writing.
If all you are going to do is insult me then at least do so effectively.
Omnipotence is not defined as being able to do the logically impossible. But if you want to go that far and say that omnipotence is that far, while the Bible says that He is omnipotent, then He is omnipotent and can do the logically impossible, which would mean that what it is said He cannot do in the Bible is true because He can do it and cannot do it at the same time. If anything, your definition of omnipotence only keeps the Bible afloat.
No. This is what most Christians fail to realize. Their God has limits. He can do anything that is possible in his realm. The bible even stated that God cannot lie meaning that he is indeed bound by his own laws. He cannot sin and therefore is bound hy his own laws. There is an immediate problem when it comes to complete omnipotence. There is an immediate paradox set up when an omnipotent being is brought up. Can an omnipotent being make a being stronger than himself? No. God can be all-powerful, but Christians must realize that when they say "God can do anything" they are not understanding their religion properly. God has limits. He cannot sin, lie, do bad, etc. He is limited by his own laws. God is not truly omnipotent but he is powerful. Christians need to realize this.
You are defining omnipotence as that which can do the logically impossible such as making a married-bachelor. That is not what omnipotence means. Do you think that God could make a married bachelor, or a square circle, or a square with only two sides, or a circle with 87 sides, etc? That is not what omnipotence is defined as because it is illogical. However, even if he were to be able to do the logically impossible, such as making a rock bigger than he could lift, then he could make a rock bigger than he could and lift and he could lift it. Therefore, God is still completely and utterly omnipotent.
You are defining omnipotence as that which can do the logically impossible such as making a married-bachelor.
It is not the "illogically impossible". It is doing things that set up for a paradox. A truly omnipotent being cannot exist. However a limited being with massive power can.
However, even if he were to be able to do the logically impossible, such as making a rock bigger than he could lift, then he could make a rock bigger than he could and lift and he could lift it. Therefore, God is still completely and utterly omnipotent.
That is illogical. Your logic makes zero sense. The question is "Can God make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?" If he can lift it then he is not omnipotent because he couldn't do what we asked. If he can then he isn't omnipotent because he couldn't lift the rock. You are not understanding your own faith. Your bible claims that he cannot do certain things. Are you saying that the bible is false? The bible never claimed that he was capable of doing every single thing imaginable.
It is not the "illogically impossible". It is doing things that set up for a paradox. A truly omnipotent being cannot exist. However a limited being with massive power can.
No, a truly omnipotent being can exist, as I have shown you.
That is illogical. Your logic makes zero sense. The question is "Can God make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?" If he can lift it then he is not omnipotent because he couldn't do what we asked. If he can then he isn't omnipotent because he couldn't lift the rock. You are not understanding your own faith. Your bible claims that he cannot do certain things. Are you saying that the bible is false? The bible never claimed that he was capable of doing every single thing imaginable.
You don't understand the logic.... Omnipotence is not defined as being able to do the logically impossible, such as making a married bachelor. If God cannot make a rock bigger than He can lift, then He is still omnipotent because it would be logically impossible to be omnipotent and non-omnipotent at the same time. However, if God were able to do the logically impossible, which is to say being able to make a rock bigger than He can lift, then He can make a rock bigger than He can lift and be able to lift it: He would be able to be A and not A at the same time. That is logic for you; don't misunderstand it. The rock question is itself and illogical question. It is equivalent to asking this: "Does a square have 2 or 3 sides?" The question is illogical. The answer that I have presented to you is defended by multiple atheistic and Christian philosophers because the question itself is illogical. Furthermore, the Bible says that God cannot go against His nature, which is equivalent to saying that God cannot do the logically impossible, which is same question as before, which I have answered twice now.
The bible never claimed that he was capable of doing every single thing imaginable.
God can do everything that is imaginable. He cannot do that which is unimaginable, , which is to do the logically impossible, which is to make a married-bachelor, which you are suggesting is a requirement for omnipotence. However, if He were, which He might be able to, then your statement is pointless.
THEREFORE, God is still omnipotent fully and truly and utterly.
No, a truly omnipotent being can exist, as I have shown you.
You have not shown me anything worth heeding. You words are just excuses for your God's short comings and forgive me if I sound rude.
However, if God were able to do the logically impossible, which is to say being able to make a rock bigger than He can lift, then He can make a rock bigger than He can lift and be able to lift it:
Then your God failed to make the rock unliftable. That is the flaw in your logic. Again you are not even respecting the paradox. You are just saying he can lift anything and if he can he failed to make the rock heavy enough and thus failed to prove his omnipotence.
The rock question is itself and illogical question
It is more like a paradoxical question. You seem to be missing the key fact that he never lifted the rock.
It is equivalent to asking this: "Does a square have 2 or 3 sides?" The question is illogical.
Of course that question is illogical. The same logic is applied to your God.
Furthermore, the Bible says that God cannot go against His nature, which is equivalent to saying that God cannot do the logically impossible, which is same question as before, which I have answered twice now.
Yes. I am aware that the authors of the bible were aware of this paradox. Meaning his power is not infinite. He can only be all-powerful in certain things. That is not sheer omnipotence.
God can do everything that is imaginable.
I can agree. This just shows me he can do normal things.
He cannot do that which is unimaginable
If he knows everything then he can imagine a new color. Are you saying God cannot do that? That is even much simpler for you to understand.
However, if He were, which He might be able to, then your statement is pointless.
Pointless? I have already shown you why he cannot be truly omnipotent. You just explained things that didn't address my statements.
THEREFORE, God is still omnipotent fully and truly and utterly.
I would continue on with reasonable logic but it seems like you cannot even understand the simplest of things. He cannot do the unimaginable? Can God make a new color? If you answer yes then you contradicted yourself. If you say no then he is not omnipotent and thus contradicted yourself.
I'm going to stop arguing with you now... You aren't taking logical steps and not even listening to my words. If God is omnipotent, then doing the logically impossible is not an issue for defining that He is omnipotent. And if He could do the logically impossible, then He could make that rock bigger than He could lift and be able to lift because He would be able to that which is illogical. If you don't want to accept the first one about Him being omnipotent, then believe the second one, which necessarily means He is omnipotent. Listen to logic, not what you have thought before being destroyed in my rebuttal.
That is your decision and I cannot impede upon it.
You aren't taking logical steps and not even listening to my words
You are just making up answers. Sir, you haven't disproven the paradox. I even gave you a new one and you havent answered it in fear that you will contradict yourself.
Listen to logic, not what you have thought before being destroyed in my rebuttal.
You rebuttal was supposed to destroy me? It didn't do much but allow you to evade my next paradox. You just made up odd claims and contradicted yourself.
You say listen to logic yet you post rubbish and claim to have "destroyed" me. I am sorry but that isn't logic. You didn't answer my final paradox. You made the claim that he cannot do the unimaginable. I said if he knows everything he can. Even in simple terms or a paradox you failed to realize this. Can God create a new color? Answer that.
The bible even stated that God cannot lie meaning that he is indeed bound by his own laws.
Their is a difference between physically being able to and doing it by choice. If I say I can't/ won't murder someone it is because I am morally oblidged to not do so. Being a healthy teen male I am well within physically capable to do so. I don't however because it is my choice. Does choosing not to do something make you not powerful in that area? God is morally convinced what is right and what is wrong and does the right. Trying to make him do other wise is like a two year old make me murder someone by force. Its not gonna happen. God is omnipotent because he never has to and won't sin.
God is omnipotent because he never has to and won't sin.
It does not come down to choice but capability. You bible said he cannot sin and thus he cannot do everything.
Trying to make him do other wise is like a two year old make me murder someone by force. Its not gonna happen
That is a poor analogy. Your God is not capable of sin. If he cannot sin how does he know everything? If he knows everything he should know how to sin and thus be capable of sin yet he cannot do it. That shows us that he isn't omnipotent.
However omnipotence is not doing everything. It is having power over what you choose to do. Here's a quick definition (Wikipedia, not my own)
A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.[1]
A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[2]
A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.
Every action performed in the world is 'actually' being performed by the deity, either due to omni-immanence, or because all actions must be 'supported' or 'permitted' by the deity.
A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.
Here is the flaw in your logic. If God knows everything he must know all sin. If he knows all sin he understands and knows everything about sin. If God knows everything about sin he knows how to sin which opens up the capability of God sinning. However if God cannot sin he must not know how to sin. Meaning he doesn't know everything. The "omni" makes your God contradictory.
He understands sin well enough. The key part is "worldplan" in that statement.
If God knows everything about sin he knows how to sin which opens up the capability of God sinning. However if God cannot sin he must not know how to sin. Meaning he doesn't know everything. The "omni" makes your God contradictory.
Omnipotent is being powerful in all situations. In every situation God does what he pleases. Knowing that sin is present doesn't require God to sin, that's just stupid.
Knowing that sin is present doesn't require God to sin, that's just stupid.
That isn't my argument. My argument is that he knows everything. He knows how to sin thus opening the capability of sin which means he can indeed sin which contradicts with what he claimed to be true. That is my argument. It is a contradiction that cannot be solved.
Their is not place in the bible where it says God cannot sin. God just doesnt because he chooses to. It says he can't be tempted to sin which makes sense because Gods going to do what he wants. God won't sin because he chooses to, but but no place does it say he can't. God still is omnipotent.
The other perspective is that sin is anything against Gods will. By this definition God cannot sin because he can't go against his own will. But are you going to have an argument that gods not omnipotent cause he can't go against his own will?
Titus 1:2 states, "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began."Â
Lying is a sin. He cannot sin.
God just doesnt because he chooses to. It says he can't be tempted to sin which makes sense because Gods going to do what he wants. God won't sin because he chooses to, but but no place does it say he can't. God still is omnipotent.
God cannot lie. Gid cannot commit that sin. Lying is a sin. God cannot sin because there is no darkness in him right?
The other perspective is that sin is anything against Gods will. By this definition God cannot sin because he can't go against his own will. But are you going to have an argument that gods not omnipotent cause he can't go against his own will?
Lets take you thing into context. He still knows everything correct? If he knows everything he knows how to sin and thus raises that capability of him doing it meaning he knows how to lie. If he knows how to lie he can sin. The bible says he cant. That is contradictory.
You still have yet to show me how him knowing about sin and its working renders him not omnipotent. You keep saying it raises the capability of him doing it but why does he have to?
If he knows how to sin he can sin. The bible said he cannot. Thats contradictory. He does not have to but if we say can God sin? And we say he knows how to and thus can sin your God contradicts itself. He cant be omnipotent.
Would you punish your 5 year child reading a book if you taught your child to read?
If you didn't want you child to read books why teach the child to read in the first place, same with evil, if God dislikes evil/sins why even create evil/sins in the first place, it's counter productive.
God is ether unable or unwilling to stop evil, that don't sound very omnipotent to me, just saying?
Would you punish your 5 year child reading a book if you taught your child to read?
If I taught my child to read and told him not to read a certain book, then it would be a justified punishment. That is still pointless to whether God is omnipotent.
If you didn't want you child to read books why teach the child to read in the first place, same with evil, if God dislikes evil/sins why even create evil/sins in the first place, it's counter productive.
God has made the creature, which is the bearer of evil, so that His glory may be displayed through the destruction of the wicked and the mercy of the elect. Likewise, so that the elect may live in love and grace.
God is ether unable or unwilling to stop evil, that don't sound very omnipotent to me, just saying?
God is willing and able to stop evil. He is just patient and waiting for all to happen first.
Because God is omnipotent, then He cannot be that which is not omnipotent. Therefore, that which God creates cannot be omnipotent, otherwise it would be a contradiction. Continued, because this newly created being is not omnipotent, then it is intrinsically able to do that which is evil; it would not have the full capacity to do that which is good: God would be the only one who could stop it from committing evil. Therefore, the mere fact that God created implies that evil existed because evil is the lack of good and this being, by definition, would not be made with the capabilities to complete the good.
That's the definition just so you know, now let's begin.
Because God is omnipotent, then He cannot be that which is not omnipotent.
If he cannot do anything, as the definition states, then he is not omnipotent. Case closed, but I'll continue.
Therefore, that which God creates cannot be omnipotent, otherwise it would be a contradiction.
If he is omnipotent he can do anything, as the definition states, that includes things that are illogical because he'd exist outside of logic, yet as you say he can't so he's not omnipotent. Case closed, but I'll continue.
Continued, because this newly created being is not omnipotent, then it is intrinsically able to do that which is evil;
Someone who can do anything, as the definition states, could create a perfect being, erase evil from the new being, or wouldn't accidently create evil, which is what it seems like you're saying God did.
it would not have the full capacity to do that which is good:
Someone that can do anything, as the definition states, would be able to correct that as soon as it's realized, and being omnipotent it should be realized before it even happens.
God would be the only one who could stop it from committing evil.
Yet he doesn't?
Therefore, the mere fact that God created implies that evil existed because evil is the lack of good and this being, by definition, would not be made with the capabilities to complete the good.
Trying to confuse me? Well it worked, yet at the end of the day, you alone have stated in the lines above God is not omnipotent, because someone omnipotent can do anything, as the definition states, yet there's things you said he can't do. Am I right?
The definition of omnipotence does not state that He can do the logically impossible. And if He could do the logically impossible, then He could be completely good and be the root of all evil. So your objection is pointless. Please refer to my new debate if you have questions; you are ignorant.
As to why God allowed evil and His creations to be, refer to Romans 9.
The definition of omnipotence does not state that He can do the logically impossible.
The definition of omnipotence does not specify what kind of act can or can't be done. it's all inclusive when it says "able to do anything", or did you not catch that part? Anything, includes making it rain and not rain in the exact same area. Anything includes a married bachelor, anything includes making the sky the color red and blue at the exact same time. If God can't do that stuff, as you even admits he can't, then he's not omnipotent.
I'm not saying your god isn't all powerful, able to do things humans couldn't fathom, if you believe he is then by all means do, but you can not continue this argument in any way possible if you're saying the things God can't do, when the definition clearly states anything is possible.
II'll reiterate. able to do anything!!!
Now answer this, one question and after this I'll reply only once more before you either get it or don't.
I'll ask you: is omnipotence defined as being able to do the logically impossible? If so, then we don't have a problem here in regards to evil and goodness. If not, then your arguments are pointless. Regardless of how you look at it, your arguments are pointless.
I'll ask you: is omnipotence defined as being able to do the logically impossible?
It's defined as being able to do...wait for it...anything, anything, anything. Did I mention Anything?
With your question answered, can i get my question answered so we can end this argument that's going no where. Even though I'm pretty sure I know what you'll say, I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt.
If so, then we don't have a problem here in regards to evil and goodness. If not, then your arguments are pointless. Regardless of how you look at it, your arguments are pointless.
Fine, my arguments are pointless, that doesn't mean they're wrong, but I digress. Answer this question.
If God is omnipotent, which is to be able to do anything including that which is logically impossible, then He can do A and not A at the same time and in the same sense. Therefore, literally everything and not everything is possible with God. Therefore, to answer your question, I will respond by saying yes and no. God can make a married-bachelor and not make one at the same time. Though that is logically impossible, God can do that which is logically impossible, which is to have A and the negation of A in every circumstance.
If God is omnipotent, which is to be able to do anything including that which is logically impossible, then He can do A and not A at the same time and in the same sense.
Exactly! Can he? You still haven't answered the question.
Therefore, literally everything and not everything is possible with God.
Exactly! Is it? You still haven't answered the question.
Therefore, to answer your question, I will respond by saying yes and no.
Wow! Way to just change your answer. But okay if God can do all of this, then why didn't he? Why did he not making humans all good? That's possible for him right? If it is but he didn't then he couldn't be omnibenevolent. Yet, since that's another topic all together, I'll leave it alone.
God can make a married-bachelor
Even though you've been saying in all your recent comments, that he can not. If God can do that, then he is in fact omnipotent.
Though that is logically impossible, God can do that which is logically impossible, which is to have A and the negation of A in every circumstance.
Again, completely changing everything you originally said, but if that is the case then why doesn't he? Why doesn't he destroy all sin, if that's something he can do?
Read Romans 9 for all the "whys" to be answered. Also, I have not changed what I originally said: you defined omnipotence differently from what it is classically defined as. I started from the classical standpoint and you differed from it so I answered it how you perceived it to be, though I don't think it is that way.
Also, I have not changed what I originally said: you defined omnipotence differently from what it is classically defined as.
Woah! Back up a bit. I, from the moment I disputed you, gave you the definition, did I not? You can lie and say I didn't, or you can admit it, and the fact that you changed your answer to suit your God's purpose.
I started from the classical standpoint and you differed from it so I answered it how you perceived it to be, though I don't think it is that way.
What is the classical standpoint, pray tell? Does it involve a different definition? If it doesn't then I'm afraid to say you are full of it.
Woah! Back up a bit. I, from the moment I disputed you, gave you the definition, did I not? You can lie and say I didn't, or you can admit it, and the fact that you changed your answer to suit your God's purpose.
I disagreed with your definition; it doesn't matter if you gave me the definition from the beginning or not. And if your definition is correct, then it doesn't discount my God at all. Please refer to my response to you a few minutes ago: "Omnipotence is not defined as being able to do the logically impossible. But if you want to go that far and say that omnipotence is that far, while the Bible says that He is omnipotent, then He is omnipotent and can do the logically impossible, which would mean that what it is said He cannot do in the Bible is true because He can do it and cannot do it at the same time. If anything, your definition of omnipotence only keeps the Bible afloat."
What is the classical standpoint, pray tell? Does it involve a different definition? If it doesn't then I'm afraid to say you are full of it.
The classical definition of omnipotence is the one I have been giving you: that God cannot do the logically impossible. That is history; you can deny that this is the classical definition of it but it will still be true that it is the classical definition regardless.
I disagreed with your definition; it doesn't matter if you gave me the definition from the beginning or not.
1. You didn't tell me you disagreed with the definition, you just continued arguing from your own definition.
2. What is your definition of omnipotence? If it's not publicly know, but instead some personal definition you made up, it's not valid.
And if your definition is correct, then it doesn't discount my God at all.
Google it yourself, it's correct, and it means able to do anything. Anything does not exclude anything at all. meaning if anything, at all, can't be done by said God, said God is not omnipotent.
"Omnipotence is not defined as being able to do the logically impossible.
Yea, I googled that phrase. This is what I found. Do f3, or ctrl find, or whatever you do to search a page, and look for this phrase "omnipotence includes the power to do the logically impossible." That phrase is in there, meaning omnipotence, as the definition dictates, is able to do anything and doesn't exclude anything.
But if you want to go that far and say that omnipotence is that far, while the Bible says that He is omnipotent, then He is omnipotent and can do the logically impossible,
If that is indeed the case, then you've been arguing from a incorrect standpoint and refuse to correct it. it was you who continued to say "God can't make a Married-Bachelor." Now that that idea has been defeated you're just pulling at whatever straws you can find to keep your argument afloat. Yet everything that exists today disproves God's omnipotence. The bible says he's omnibenevolent, yet, he made sin. Or when making humans he didn't destroy sin, an act an omnipotent being could certainly do. He wanted us to live with sin.
you can deny that this is the classical definition of it but it will still be true that it is the classical definition regardless.
You are really taking my words out of context and not listening to me. The classical definition of omnipotence , which means "all-powerful", does not include doing the logically impossible. You can argue with that fact all day long but it will still be true.
Furthermore, the Bible says God is omnipotent, but that is from the classical definition, which theologians have gone from. So I have not been using the incorrect definition: listen to what I have been saying. But if theologians are incorrect, then that does not deny Gods omnipotence being able to do the logical impossible, if that is what it is meant in the Bible when it says God can do all things
Moreover, omnibenevolence and sin being in the world is not a problem with omnipotence. It is a question of "why?", which cannot be answered unless God.
You are really taking my words out of context and not listening to me.
I understand what you mean. I am saying that you said something different now than you were before, without taking it as a whole. yet I can't. The two things, are contradictory.
The classical definition of omnipotence , which means "all-powerful", does not include doing the logically impossible.
Where does it say that? If it does not literally exclude the logically impossible, then you must assume that it in fact does include the logically impossible since every other definition would say the words "able to do anything"
You can argue with that fact all day long but it will still be true.
I said I can't deny a link. If you show the link of the classical definition that excludes the logically impossible then I will have no argument, but until you do, you're just grasping at straws and reading between the lines.
Furthermore, the Bible says God is omnipotent, but that is from the classical definition, which theologians have gone from.
The bible says a lot of questionable things, let's just leave that aside for now, show me this classical definition.
So I have not been using the incorrect definition: listen to what I have been saying.
The correct definition, you haven't showed me.
But if theologians are incorrect, then that does not deny Gods omnipotence being able to do the logical impossible, if that is what it is meant in the Bible when it says God can do all things
This is a perfect example of reaching. You're saying, basically, in case my other argument is invalid then try this one.
Moreover, omnibenevolence and sin being in the world is not a problem with omnipotence.
Omnibenvelonce: Unlimited ability or desire to do good to others. Sin is quite the opposite of doing good to others.
It is a question of "why?", which cannot be answered unless God.
What?
You have been defeated.
At the risk of sounding childish, I know you have but what am I? Honestly you haven't supported anything you said, you've been wishy washy with your opinions, you've been grasping at straws, and every time I asked a straightforward question you'd either ignore it, or ask a question back as if the answer to that question was the answer to my question, when so far your questions have been heavily worded responses.
God does not smite people that don't believe in him but ignores prayers from around the world, evidence of his non existence and evidence that he is not truly omnipotent.
The myth of omnipotence is the biggest reason I don't believe in God. If God was omnipotent he would have planned every single thing to exist happen and thus prayer would be unnecessary, but if God had a plan for everything why do people reject him or break his rules? Does God plan for people to go to hell? Many religious people at this moment would use the excuse God wants us to have free will but free will contradicts Gods omnipotence an omnipotent regardless has the ability to control all things so free will would be unnecessary in Gods eyes. So either free will is evidence against Gods existence or God is just an evil fuck that just preplans us to go to hell!
