@debunker
what I'm saying is all this conversation about God's attributes being consciously chosen by Him or not brings me to think about His beginning, which conflicts with the notion of a beginningless God.
Well, as I've said, God's beginning or lack thereof isn't relevant to the subject. You need not bring in other things that only complicate the issue.
Anyway, ordaining mercy on Himself is a concious act out of absolute free-will, but then, to you, this act is not really out of free-will since it's based on His nature over which He has no control.
Yes, and so I don't know how you can assert that God ordaining mercy for himself is an act of absolute free will given my (as yet un-refuted) counter argument. To assert such merely begs the question as my hypothesis is entirely possible. That is, that God does not act out of absolute free will but rather, out of an innate predisposition.
This brings me back to the Mutazilites argument which you believe is irrelevant to this discussion: God's nature/attributes is one with God's essence.
As I previously wrote on this subject:
And unless you can unpack the argument of the Mu'tazilites and show that it refutes my contention, it doesn't nullify the argument.
It's not necessarily irrelevant, but citing it is pointless unless you can show how it refutes my contention that the Islamic god cannot have absolute free will. In order for it to have any use in this argument, you have to demonstrate
why it answers the problem, you can't merely assert that it does. At least, you could, but that wouldn't get us anywhere.
I summarize in one question: If one believes God is a beginningless, causeless cause, and that God's one with His attributes/nature, then wouldn't all of this contradict with the lack of absolute free-will of God?
No. For a start, the statement itself is ambiguous; the exact reasons as to why it answers the problem are not explicit. Furthermore, it just seems to acknowledge the root of the problem, rather than refute it. That is, it states that God possesses these attributes innately, and that they, like him, never began, and so they can't have been created or chosen by him. Therefore, he must be bound by them regardless of what he wills, his decision-making is constrained by his nature. But even if he did choose them, of course, then surely he would do that on the basis of some other innate predisposition, and so even that choice itself would not have been free, certainly not absolutely.
I've explained my argument several times, and I don't think I need to do it again. In order for this exchange to go anywhere, you have to take my argument apart. You can't merely cite an argument that you think refutes it, and I'm sure you yourself wouldn't just accept, say, an argument put forth by scholars of the Islamic orthodoxy showing that their Islam is the true one without subjecting it to the right scrutiny and criticism. Just because you have an argument doesn't mean that your position is correct, the argument could well be demonstrable BS, as are so many syllogisms, particularly in theology.
Topic: Stupid, Selfish Humanity.