I can tell that we could make 1000 exchanges and never see eye to eye. I don't see particular value in continuing the conversation. I will respond to a few of your points.

> You call that "free"?

Absolutely. If my knowledge has not in any way affected your ability as a free agent to make an authentic choice, it is truly "free."

> is the cause for the entire future.

Absolutely not. You are completely ignoring that the causal agent (God) created people to be legitimate causal agents in their own right. The future is not set in stone.

> "Rationality is the quality or state of being rational – that is, being based on or agreeable to reason

Right. And by this definition determinism is not rational. It is not based on reason at all or agreeable to it. Instead, it is an inevitable response to chemical and neural transactions. There is no reason involved.

> Determinism IS cause and effect.

Of course it is. So is free will. So is everything. We live in the context of time and process.

> So you say evil is "necessarily one of the choices", but if God were OMNIPOTENT then God simply could have made it differently, simply omitting the necessity.

You have completely misunderstood the meaning and definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence doesn’t mean there are no limits to what God can do (Mk. 6.5). It means God is able to do all things that are proper objects of his power. It is no contradiction that God is able to bring about whatever is possible, no matter how many possibilities there are. The omnipotence of God is all-sufficient power. He can never be overwhelmed, exhausted, or contained. He is able to overcome apparently insurmountable problems. He has complete power over nature, though often he lets nature take its course, because that’s what He created it to do. He has power over the course of history, though he chooses to use that power only as he wills . He has the power to change human personality, but only as individuals allow, since He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. He has the power to conquer death and sin, and to save a human soul for eternity. He has power over the spiritual realm.

What all of this means is that God’s will is never frustrated. What he chooses to do, he accomplishes, for he has the ability to do it.

There are, however, certain qualifications of this all-powerful character of God. He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatever we may conceive of in our imagination, like eliminating the choice of evil.

• He can’t do what is logically absurd or contradictory (like make a square circle or a married bachelor)
• He can’t act contrary to his nature. Self-contradiction is not possible. He can only be self-consistent, and not self-contradictory.
• He cannot fail to do what he has promised. That would mean God is flawed.
• The theology of omnipotence rejects the possibility of dualism
• He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. Luke 13.34. If God can override human free will, then we are not free at all.
• He cannot change the past. Time by definition is linear in one direction only.

Leibnitz & Ross philosophically state omnipotence in what’s called a “result” theory: theories that analyze omnipotence in terms of the results an omnipotent being would be able to bring about. These results are usually thought of as states of affairs or possible worlds: a way the world could be. A possible world is a maximally consistent state of affairs, a complete way the world could be. The simplest way to state it may be, “for any comprehensive way the world could be, an omnipotent being could bring it about that the world was that way.” Ross formulated it as “Since every state of affairs must either obtain or not, and since two contradictory states of affairs cannot both obtain, an omnipotent being would have to will some maximal consistent set of contingent states of affairs, that is, some one possible world.”

> I for one will crush all evil, whether you like it or not.

I'm all for crushing evil. I'm all in on that one.

> (...) The creature is doing what I created Him to do: decide what happens next.

But when you already know what exactly will happen because of how you created the creature, you also already know all the decisions of the creature before they happen. You call that "free"?

> Knowledge is only knowledge; it has no effect without power, and God does not use His power to determine everyone's trajectory.

Reality consisting of cause and effect means that the initial creation, done by the use of His power, designed by His complete knowledge, is the cause for the entire future.

> Instead, he only followed biology, chemicals, synapses, etc. Therefore, he came to the conclusion not because of rationality but instead because he was determined to conclude it. Therefore it's irrational, by definition.

No it is not "irrational by definition".

Let's check some common definitions:

"Rationality is the quality or state of being rational – that is, being based on or agreeable to reason." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality

"Reason is the capacity of consciously applying logic by drawing conclusions from new or existing information, with the aim of seeking the truth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

> Just because "he only followed biology, chemicals, synapses, etc." doesn't make the thought irrational or rational, it doesn't matter.
I didn't say it was free from cause and effect.

Determinism IS cause and effect.

"Determinism is a philosophical view where all events are determined completely by previously existing causes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

And if you make it non-deterministic, then all you do is introduce fundamental randomness to the cause and effect in reality. Adding randomness doesn't change anything about will being "free" or not, it only would make will fundamentally random to an extent.

So since you do agree that cause and effect exist, you do actually believe in either determinism or a probabilistic non-determinism, both equally restraining of any will.

> Nothing can spontaneously come into existence out of a state of utter non-existence.

What you think of when you write "utter non-existence" is a static nothingness. But even that has one rule: Nothing can change.

What I am talking about is non-existence even of rules themselves, true "chaos" if you will. When there are no rules, no definition of reality at all, then any rules can come from that.

> If you believe to the contrary, please give me an example. (...) As I said, something has to be eternal.

There isn't even any other possible explanation. As you rightly note, nothing can come from an unchangeable nothing.

Neither does an eternal existence of rules make sense, for those rules themselves would have come into existence first. Hence even a God could not just be eternally without rule-less chaos "before" it.

> And yet, intelligence cannot be reduced to brain functions and emergence or else we have no grounds for trusting intelligence. If intelligence is the product of only physical and chemical processes enhanced by emergence that don’t aim at truth, cannot understand, and are incapable of making judgments, then reason is unreliable.

Actually intelligence absolutely can and does come from that, as all evidence indicates. Sooner or later we will probably even be able to create intelligence fully superior to ours. You are the one who lacks evidence to the contrary.

> This statement is a contradiction. If beings truly have free will, then evil is necessarily one of the choices.

So you say evil is "necessarily one of the choices", but if God were OMNIPOTENT then God simply could have made it differently, simply omitting the necessity.

> If evil is not one of the choices, then it's not free will.

God could simply have defined it differently. Who are you to say that "it's not free will" if there is no evil? God could just not have done it that way, how hard can it be to understand the meaning of ->OMNI<-potence? Do you think I'm talking about omnipotence-light™? No. I'm talking about the concept of omnipotence, the power to rewrite even the rules of reality itself. You are telling me that OMNIgoshdarnPOTENCE can't create free will without evil? You know, "It's a self-defeating position." applies to a ton of what you write, and this evil-excusing lunacy might be the pinnacle of irrationality. I for one will crush all evil, whether you like it or not.

Well, you and I have vast disagreements, but you haven't carried your case. You've stated opinions, but not proofs.

> Whatever was initially created decides what happens next.

I disagree. If I create a being who is able to decide what happens next, what I have created is choice, and what the being creates is effect. If I create the other being to be truly free, then he is truly free, and my initial creation does not determine what direction that freedom will take. The creature is doing what I created Him to do: decide what happens next.

> Omniscience together with omnipotence implies ultimate responsibility.

I disagree. Omniscience is knowledge based on timeless sight, and does not imply determinism. Knowledge is only knowledge; it has no effect without power, and God does not use His power to determine everyone's trajectory.

> Wrong, rationality describes how an intelligence operates based on its observations, not that it is somehow "free" from cause and effect.

I didn't say it was free from cause and effect. What I said was that he didn't subscribe to determinism for rational reasons. Instead, he only followed biology, chemicals, synapses, etc. Therefore, he came to the conclusion not because of rationality but instead because he was determined to conclude it. Therefore it's irrational, by definition. A determinist cannot distinguish between true and false on rational grounds because he has arrived at his conclusion irrationally. Such a person cannot say determinism is true. It's a self-defeating position.

> "Autonomous" yes, "free" as in "causally independent", no.

Because humans are not causally independent doesn't lead to the conclusion that free will is impossible. If they were created to have authentic choice, then the fact that God was their causal mechanism has no infraction on their ability to authentically choose as autonomous free agents.

> A total non-existence implies the total non-existence of rules that prevent spontaneous creation of rules from the absence of rules.

You're doing a good job of twisting reality here, but I'm not buying. Nothing can spontaneously come into existence out of a state of utter non-existence. If you believe to the contrary, please give me an example.

> If God is "eternal" to avoid the question of God's God, then I can just say that reality is "eternal" without God.

As I said, something has to be eternal. The discussion at hand is what that "something" is. Whether reality, energy, gravity, God, or something else, something eternal had to be the first cause. This is where we weigh the evidences and logic to determine the most reasonable conclusion.

> Yes we do, it is called emergence. Which includes evolution.

I believe in evolution, by the way. Emergence is a fascinating theory, and we are actually able to observe it in various contexts. It explains how complex, nonlinear, highly interactive aggregates become systems through adaptive self-organization, and how patterns of system organization are causal in their own right. And yet, intelligence cannot be reduced to brain functions and emergence or else we have no grounds for trusting intelligence. If intelligence is the product of only physical and chemical processes enhanced by emergence that don’t aim at truth, cannot understand, and are incapable of making judgments, then reason is unreliable. It's a self-defeating position.

> you still haven't shown that God isn't the greatest evil for allowing evil to exist.

I did, because your argument fails at many levels before you arrive at this conclusion, negating the legitimacy of this conclusion, which is based on the previous grounds.

> If God were truly omnipotent, then God could have created beings with free will WITHOUT any evil whatsoever

This statement is a contradiction. If beings truly have free will, then evil is necessarily one of the choices. If evil is not one of the choices, then it's not free will.

> His initial creation to allow His creatures to decide their own directions

Whatever was initially created decides what happens next. This is true whether reality is deterministic or probabilistic. If it were false, then that would imply that will must be fully separate from reality, in which case will couldn't interact with reality.

> This is untrue. Knowledge is not causative; only power is causative. Because God can see all of our decisions as the present doesn't mean that He has caused them.

If God knows exactly what will happen at any point in time, and also created everything, then God has caused everything that happened after creation too. Omniscience together with omnipotence implies ultimate responsibility.

> No. No human will is exercised outside of a context. We as people inevitably interact with and are at least to some extent dependent on our environment and experiences.

Exactly right.

> Correct. Reality is not deterministic. (...)

Then what could it even be? If it is probabilistic, it is still partially deterministic. If were completely random, then nothing can matter.

> The only way you can believe in determinism for rational reasons is if determinism is false. (...)

Wrong, rationality describes how an intelligence operates based on its observations, not that it is somehow "free" from cause and effect.
My machines can also "believe" whatever I program into them and they are certainly more "rational" or "logical" than any human can manage to be. Doesn't mean that they need free will or non-determinism.

> An omniscient and omnipotent God CAN create a creature that is autonomous from Him.

"Autonomous" yes, "free" as in "causally independent", no.

I can also create an autonomous drone that operates even when I'm dead, yet it was I who caused its very mind to be created. Am I then not part of the causal chain that led to its creation? If an omniscient/omnipotent God were to exist, that God would be the origin of the causal chain.

> Since nothing can spontaneously generate itself out of a state of utter non-existence, anything that has a beginning must have a cause.

Actually that totally can happen. A total non-existence implies the total non-existence of rules that prevent spontaneous creation of rules from the absence of rules.

> If anything can just pop into existence by itself, there is no such thing as science.

No, once rules come from no rules, there are rules. Hence also science.

> So for anything to exist, there must exist something (or someone) that had no cause to bring what is into existence.

If that were so, then it would also apply to God.

> (...) something that was eternal that brought into being what we now see. Therefore the "first cause" must be eternal. It must also be timeless. If the past were infinite, we would have no present; only if the past is finite can there be a present, so the sufficient cause must be timeless.

If God is "eternal" to avoid the question of God's God, then I can just say that reality is "eternal" without God.

> We have no example of informational data that doesn't come from an intelligent cause.


Yes we do, it is called emergence. Which includes evolution.

> We have an eternal, timeless, personal, intelligent and powerful first cause. Something is eternal; God fits the bill better than any other explanation.

Even if you were to ignore all my other arguments, you still haven't shown that God isn't the greatest evil for allowing evil to exist. If God were truly omnipotent, then God could have created beings with free will WITHOUT any evil whatsoever, a true infinite paradise. If you need some contrived reasons for why God didn't, then God apparently isn't actually omnipotent for He was bound by your excuses.

Free will is pretty tough to define without allowing any loopholes. I can only sort of describe its characteristics and its necessity. It's the modulation of ongoing action, the distinguishing of potential courses, the ability to reason, the exercise of autonomy, and the consequent self-direction of thought and behavior.

> Does it mean the will is free from God?

In a sense. It can function autonomously from God, though God can know what we are thinking and willing.

> God already knows absolutely everything that is going to happen before, during, and after creation, meaning that the wills are entirely dependent on what God initially caused with absolute knowledge one way or the other.

This is untrue. Knowledge is not causative; only power is causative. Because God can see all of our decisions as the present doesn't mean that He has caused them. His initial creation to allow His creatures to decide their own directions negates the idea that His initial cause of humanity has made our minds and wills entirely dependent on what God initially caused. Because He can see it doesn't mean that He in any way caused it.

> Does it mean the will is entirely free from the environment?

No. No human will is never exercised outside of a context. We as people inevitably interact with and are at least to some extent dependent on our environment and experiences.

> Does it mean that reality is not deterministic?

Correct. Reality is not deterministic. Anyone who believes in determinism doesn't arrive at that belief or hold to it for rational reasons. He believes it because he was determined to believe it. It is impossible to believe in determinism for rational reasons. Determinism is self-contradictory. The only way you can believe in determinism for rational reasons is if determinism is false. If determinism is true, then it doesn't make any sense for him to say that determinism is true, because if it is true, then you are assuming there are rational reasons for believing it. Fine, believe it, but if you're right, then your position is no better than the opposite, rationally, because you believe people believe things aside from any rational basis.

> Based on the above, an omniscient & omnipotent God cannot create anything that decides truly independently from that God.

Therefore this initial conclusion is a non sequitur. An omniscient and omnipotent God CAN create a creature that is autonomous from Him. While His presence and possible influence are always in any human's context, His omniscience is not causative and His power is restrained. The possibility of free will is not only plausible but necessary, since determinism is a non-rational position.

> This means this God would be responsible for absolutely all evil from start to finish.

Then this is also a false conclusion.

> This in turn means the God must itself be the greatest original evil (if it would exist).

...and this is an even more false conclusion.

> The only way to avoid the above is to either: Claim that the God is not actually omniscient or omnipotent.

...and this is a false conclusion.

> Claim that the God is beyond our reasoning

This is only true in a sense. God can be known because He chooses to make Himself known. God's goal is to be in relationship with His people. It would be difficult for people to enter into a relationship with a God whom they do not know. If his nature were concealed, obscured, or distorted, an honest relationship would be impossible. In order to clear the way for this relationship, then, God has undertaken as a primary objective a program of self-revelation. Therefore even though the fullness of God is beyond our reasoning, He can be known enough so that we can have a relationship with Him.

> Finally, to those who argue that reality as we know it must have a creator God, what created God then?

Since nothing can spontaneously generate itself out of a state of utter non-existence, anything that has a beginning must have a cause. If anything can just pop into existence by itself, there is no such thing as science. So for anything to exist, there must exist something (or someone) that had no cause to bring what is into existence. No matter what your religion, theology, whether atheist or religious, scientist or philosopher, we all have to admit that there is something that was eternal that brought into being what we now see.

Therefore the "first cause" must be eternal. It must also be timeless. If the past were infinite, we would have no present; only if the past is finite can there be a present, so the sufficient cause must be timeless.

It must also be personal. Impersonal causes must have first causes. Only personal causes are capable of being first causes. Kinetic energy is energy is motion; potential energy is energy stored. The only way something begins in motion is if there is a first cause.

It must also be powerful, based on the universe we see.

It must also be intelligent. There is random data, ordered data (like snowflakes), and informational data. We have no example of informational data that doesn't come from an intelligent cause. (By "intelligence" I mean a structure, system, or organism that provides a meaningful context and mechanism by which to process and interpret ordered data.)

We have an eternal, timeless, personal, intelligent and powerful first cause. Something is eternal; if we are truly motivate to follow the evidence to its most reasonable conclusion, God fits the bill better than any other explanation.

To those people who say "free will" exists, what do you even mean by that? What do you think this "free will" is? From what is the will "free"?

Does it mean the will is free from God? But if there were an omniscient & omnipotent God that directly or indirectly created the wills in the first place, then God already knows absolutely everything that is going to happen before, during, and after creation, meaning that the wills are entirely dependent on what God initially caused with absolute knowledge one way or the other.

Does it mean the will is entirely free from the environment? That cannot be it, humans obviously are influenced by what they perceive - otherwise they couldn't react to anything.

Does it mean that reality is not deterministic? That would just imply that reality is probabilistic instead, which would just add fundamental randomness to everything, so a will still isn't actually free from the environment and it's own (past) internal state.

Does it mean the will is free to some definitely limited extent from the environment? That would make sense, insofar that a will can be said to have its own internal state, but then "free will" doesn't mean all that much.

Based on the above, an omniscient & omnipotent God cannot create anything that decides truly independently from that God.

This means this God would be responsible for absolutely all evil from start to finish.

This in turn means the God must itself be the greatest original evil (if it would exist).

The only way to avoid the above is to either:

Claim that the God is not actually omniscient or omnipotent. In that case, what exactly are the limits of that God and why should that be so? Also, why should anyone unconditionally worship that for some reason limited God?

Claim that the God is beyond our reasoning. That would acknowledge that the believe in the God is simply irrational. In that case no rational debate is possible, and any equally irrational believe can use the same non-argument, so why bother talking.

Finally, to those who argue that reality as we know it must have a creator God, what created God then?

If you say God doesn't require a creator, then neither does reality.

If you say reality does require a creator, so does your creator itself.

Adding a creator on top of reality only adds complexity, it doesn't answer anything.

The most straightforward answer to why something exists is that the very absence of anything "before" anything existed, including the very "rules" that define reality, does in fact permit the truly arbitrary "collapse" (for the lack of a better word) into reality. It's not that hard to understand and doesn't require any creator that is more complicated than reality itself.

And even if someone were to still claim that a creator God must exist, this wouldn't alter the prior arguments that this God must be either evil and/or limited in power.