Again, you entire manner of speaking about "events" and "happening" presume some objective, causal relationship between intent and action. This is my point about the language you use--it is loaded and therefore can only lead to predetermined conclusions. My point is not necessarily to undermine "causality"--I am simply trying to clear the road of leading words in order to properly frame the issues involved. If you want to talk about the non-reality of causality, read Hume. He does a fine job of deconstructing the easy modernistic perceptions of the relations of reality to its objects.
And I asked you to prove yours. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
Words having meaning and being logically consistent is not the problem. The problem is when words are hijacked and loaded with meaning they might not normally contain, but are then held to be normative to determining the necessary conclusions of logical statements.
For example, we could return to my original example of the word "choice" when used in reference to God. When one uses the simple word of "choice," one drags along all the supposed human experiences of causality, consequence, intention, etc. However, all of these experiences are colored by human finitude and our relation to the universe of space/time in which we live. To simply export the word "choice" when speaking of God's actions drags along all of the meanings and nuances that accompany the word when describing human action. However, as must be admitted, it is quite likely that "choice," when spoken of in divine terms, is going to have a qualitatively and quantitatively different meaning than it would when applied to the human. Nonetheless, these words are often inappropriately exported without clarification/redefinition. Therefore, what we say about God when using these unqualified word amounts to little more than saying something about ourselves. Unfortunately, even this fails for the definition is attempted to be cast into an entirely different plane of existence. Therefore, we not only fail to reasonably describe that about God which we wish to understand, we also fail to understand ourselves for our perceptions of human reality are countenanced in a realm of existence quite foreign to our nature/accesibility.
The same can be said of the all words used thus far: "Choice," "power," "ability," etc.
No, as has been my experience, traps are being set. This is a classic tactic--to back one's opponent into a semantic corner. It's already been done on this very thread!
Futility, perhaps. However, works kind of slow today, so why not?
I mostly just like to get you fired up.