What the heck? The strawman fallacy is when you misinterpret someone's argument in order to make your own argument more convincing.
Inteligento misinterpreted what Christians mean when they say that a person is set free. He thought it was free will when in reality Christianity never claims that, it claims freedom from sin.
Responding to your last comment claiming that it wasn't immoral to kill children or commit adultery before.
So you're a moral subjectivist, which I would argue falls under moral Nihilism.
Thinking it isn't immoral and it being immoral are two different things. Killing an infant is ending a human life whether you think so or not. So I think you shouldn't talk to a moral objectivist by claiming it wasn't immoral before, because you know that they'll disagree.
Now that's reasonable reasoning. However, that's like saying that God is at fault for creating animals that can't reason at all, because they're not perfect like he is. Giving humans the ability to reason is not a mistake. I can make a little minifigure of me on purpose. But that little minifigure will never be as good as me.
God also (at least according to Christianity) made humans good, and they are good, but then came the fall.
For your rebuttal of my ask for proof that God is bound by the metaphysical, I don't think you're understanding the argument.
Originally, you claimed that God could be bound by the metaphysical if it exists. So I responded claiming that God doesn't necessarily need to be bound by the metaphysical if it exists.
Your response is more of a misinterpretation of my counterclaim (and perhaps my counterclaim may be a misinterpretation of your claim). It also ignores the rest of my claim, that the universe must be bound by space and time.
