Reddit mentions of Freedom of the Will

> I guess what I'm asking is what "best possible world" means.

Just what it seems. I cannot define exactly and comprehensively what that would entail. But, we do have a test for speculation: whatever we imagine, if it can be improved upon, then the inferior should be rejected.

Thus, a creature whose initial nature is morally perfect can have authentic freedom. That, all by itself, is good. But, to the extent that a creature can be more free if he had consented to his morally perfect nature, then the initially morally perfect creature can be rejected as the best kind of creature.

>The mother continuously punishes the child for acting as she knew it would. What part of this is good or not absurd?

The story is absurd, because the child does not deserve punishment. Children are not rational or accountable, and thus cannot incur guilt. Guilt is required for a punishment to be deserved. The mother can and should "correct" the child, but "correction" does not always entail "punishment".

This is not analogous to the question of creation, because it is supposed that the damned will deserve damnation. That much you have never yet disputed.

>A person can incur no fault if they were not created.

But once they have been created, they can incur guilt. If there is a problem, it must be that God was obligated to refrain from creation. You have shown no such obligation.

>The goals may differ, but I don't believe that excuses God from partial fault.

Responsibility, yes. Fault, no. God's ends can justify His means. The creature's ends do not justify his means. Shared responsibility, not shared guilt.

>Good and evil can still exist absent of hell-bound individuals.

The question is not whether evil can exist, the question is whether a sufficient experience of evil can be rendered in order to maximize the quality of the beneficiary's consent, while at the same time minimizing the suffering endured by the beneficiary. In order to know the depths of human depravity, it is not necessary for me, personally to be maximally depraved. I can gain such an experience vicariously through other maximally depraved individuals, whether directly or indirectly, and thus come to an understanding of evil which would not have been otherwise possible. This maximizes my goodness, while minimizing my suffering.

>Assuming you are speaking about the God's wrath against sinners on Earth

I am not.

>If, however, you are talking about the wrath of sending certain people to hell, then no one on Earth is witnessing it.

Whence comes the requirement for those on earth to witness it? None of God's ends are earthly. Those in heaven will have the benefit of seeing the righteousness and power of God's wrath.

>If so, can't he go against His nature since it is just a preference?

It is impossible to go against one's nature. See Jonathan Edwards' "Freedom of the Will". Whatever a person chooses is always the best "good" that they perceive. If a person does what they normally would not, just to prove that they could "go against their nature", this really only demonstrates that they would prefer to be able to "go against their nature" than not. That preference is exactly what they have chosen, and thus have not actually accomplished what they set out to do.

If I generally prefer Coke to Pepsi, but you hold a gun to my head and force me to choose the Pepsi, you have not forced me to go against my nature, because in reality you have only demonstrated that I prefer drinking Pepsi to getting shot in the head.

>We are still working to find common ground, but to me, so far, it has been sufficiently proven.

I am satisfied to disagree on that point. Be that as it may, I am grateful for your courteous engagement, and I appreciate the benefit of your perspective.

>God has physical parts as well. The Trinity involves Jesus who existed spatially. Jesus is God in human form.

This is not quite accurate. The Bible says that Jesus existed, both with God and as God, prior to the first act of creation, prior to His taking on human form. That human form is not what He is, it is merely something that He "put on" or "appeared through".

It is not supposed that the Son is "part" of God. Rather, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully and completely God. Thus, the concept of the Trinity does not nullify or contradict God's self-existence.

Jonathan Edwards - Freedom of the will
https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Will-Jonathan-Edwards/dp/1470179768