In response to my (essentially self evident) statement:
"I.e. men would only be able to do what was permitted, not truly free agents to make choices, independent of the granting authority." You state:
...For {that statement} to be true, it needs to be presumed that what humans desire to do can run contrary to God's desires and can threaten them; or that God is whimsical.
If the former, then God's omnipotence would be denied. If the latter, God's omni-benevolence would be denied.
Assume there is a set of physically possible choices / actions for men, {a,b,c,d...} and that an omni-potent "free will" granting authority ("God" hereafter to be brief) is permitting men only to chose to do {a,c,d...} because that authority does not desire men to do "b." I.e. he makes both choosing and certainly then doing "b" impossible as he does not desire men to do "b."
Then I do not need to presume that someone desires to do "b" to state, as I did, that: "men would only be able to do what was permitted, not truly free agents to make choices, independent of the granting authority." My statement is valid WITHOUT making the presumption you state is required, under your first alternative.
Under your second alternative (God is whimsical), for example sometimes God permits the choice of "b" and not of "c" etc. sort of at random. My statement remains valid, even more so if "more valid" than "valid" is possible, as then men cannot even predict what choices are not available.
For men to have a truly free choice, "independent of the granting authority" then men must be able to choose the full set of physically possible actions. I.e. any member of the set {a,b,c,d...} Unless the full set of physically possible choices is available, then God is limiting or to some extent controlling your "granted-free-will" much like Henry Ford did in the Model T era when he said: "You can chose any color car you like, so long as you want it to be black."
As far as omnipotence & omni-benevolence as aspects of God are concerned, I am in no position know what adjectives are valid, but these two seem to contradict each other and thus only one or none is possible (assuming God is not a "flip-flopper" with changing atributes). For example try applying both to wide spread starvation of babies, Hitler killing nearly 10 million persons (Gypsies, homosexuals, persons with mental or physical defects, not just the more well know 6million Jews), etc. The standard out: "God works in mysterious ways." does not cut it with me. Give me the old gods. They were plausible, even dependable. You knew Zeus would transform himself into animal form and have his way with some woman, like Europa. What is the point of being the most powerful god if you cannot have a little fun now and then?
:shrug: But I may not understand what Judaic/Christian God enjoys. Perhaps he got a thrill out of turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt?
...The above also seems to imply that when humans couldn't do something, this inability would be due to God hampering their will. And not perhaps due to a given of material nature in which humans seek to act.
So also, there is the distinction between freedom of will and freedom of action. Are they to be equated?
Yes, if the "something" is physically possible, affordable, etc. then not being able to chose it would imply someone is interfering. Usually there are also man-imposed deterrents (laws and cops etc.) on many physically possible choices.
and
Yes, probably. I.e. we can only chose physically possible things. For example, I cannot chose to make myself invisible and take cash from the bank when no one is looking at it, etc.
I.e. it is certainly possible for me to desire /wish to be invisible - chose that mentally or "will it" in some sense, but as it is not possible in action, “remaining visible” is not a real choice I make. There may be some fine distinctions, but for most purposes willing something (possible, affordable, etc.) and freedom of action would seem to be equivalent. Specifically, if sin is possible, I think to do so requires some action. (I am not very big on the idea that one can "mentally sin" without any action. “Lust in my heart” is no sin for me.)
