Hello Claire, thanks for taking the time to respond.

This will be a fun conversation! You ask some great questions.

You said:
“One liiiiiiitle problem is that you, right off the bat, state a presumption of the existence of a God with all the “omnis” you have listed.”

Indeed. I’ve written extensively elsewhere on the evidence for such a God existing.

I presume it for the sake of the argument here, as the question I’m answering presumes it. Because the questioner presumed it, I went along with the presupposition, focusing instead where the questioner wanted to focus.

If you are interested in the articles I’ve written to establish the logical certainty of the “God with all the ‘omnis,’” as you say, simply click through my story history.

You said:

“You then proceed to list why you believe that humans have free will and, without saying but implying, we are not the product of evolution. Then you conclude that the emergence of humans can only have happened through the action of the all-omni God.”

These are in the ballpark of my points, but they aren’t the specific points I’m making.

I don’t list why I believe humans have free will. Again, I presume that for the sake of the argument, as it’s presumed within the question.

It would be an interesting series of articles to write establishing that we do, in fact, have free wills, but again, that isn’t the focus of this article. Since the question assumes it, I run with its assumption.

Assuming free will, I contrast two explanations for it: the “all omni” God and pure naturalism. Pure naturalism requires the assumptions of abiogenesis and molecules-to-humans evolution.

You said:

“By presuming the conclusion in your premise you have artfully demonstrated the oft misused expression “begging the question”. This expression is used incorrectly in common parlance to mean that a statement raises more questions. The said expression actually defines a logical fallacy reflecting circular. reasoning.”

Certainly, begging the question is fallacious. But that’s not what I’ve engaged in, here.

We’ll see this a bit more clearly in response to the next bit.

You said, summarizing what you believe to be my argument:

“- Do humans have free will? God has free will because he is all-omni and created humans with free will.

- Humans cannot be the product of evolution because they have free will that can only come from an all-omni creator God.

- Therefore, since God is all-omni and God created humans in his own image it follows that humans have free will.
QED

Sorry friend, but that won’t fly.”

Indeed that won’t fly.

But that’s not my argument.

I assume that humans have free will, as the questioner assumes it. Since they’re not doubting that point, I don’t argue it.

Given the reality of free will, as the questioner assumes, how can we best explain it?

You could break it down into two syllogisms:

1. A purely naturalistic universe is bound by cause and effect.
2. A universe bound by cause and effect cannot produce free will, as every effect is determined by its cause.
3. If every effect is determined by its cause, the effects are not free. They are limited by the characteristics of their cause.
4. We possess free will.
5. Therefore, our free will is not explainable by a purely naturalistic universe.

Then:

1. An “all omni” God would be able to create humans who possess genuine free will.
2. The “all omni” God of the Bible has revealed His will to create humans who possess genuine free will.
3. We possess free will.
4. Therefore, our free will is explainable by an “all omni” God.

The point of this article is to show that, rather than free will being paradoxical with a sovereign God, it is explainable by a sovereign God (when it is not explainable by a purely naturalistic universe).

You said:

“Before you assume that I am an atheist, I am not.”

It’s interesting to know what you are not.

What would you say you are, then?