Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Baloney. You just stated that God sets the definitions. HE defines truth, not I. Your position is relatavistic and therefore cannot assure salvation on theological grounds.
You're putting words in my mouth, or perhaps misunderstanding me.
Not that "puppets" or "dominoes" are descriptive, but no, nobody and nothing can transcend causation, but God himself. Even if you employ the self-contradictory notion that Transcendent God can make anyone he chooses, (i.e. the whole human race, in your line of theology), to transcend causality, he is still causing that whole scenario.
We have vastly different definitions of suffering, so much so that I'm not sure it's possible to have productive discussion on the topic. Denial of wants is not suffering, and it seems you're making a similar mistake as determinists in not giving culpability to the agent. There was no suffering in the garden, no death or pain, and only one restriction. And that restriction makes absolute sense, because the "fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" was the only thing off limits. Since Adam knew God and had direct communication with Him, the only new knowledge that such a tree could add is knowledge of evil. And when man learned evil, he was corrupted and for his sake the land was cursed so that he would toil on the earth in pain.
Yes, God sets the definitions because He is the author of reality. It is what He says it is, so what He says is always true. There is no reality above Him, no laws to which He is the subject but things like logic and order exist because He is a God of logic and order. Saying "God cannot lie" is not a re-definition of truth, nor is it a matter of moral capability but ontological.
What is the charge of contradiction? I thought it was pretty plain. It is that claim which proposes that God gives up some of his sovereignty to (make way for?) his creatures to have a bit of their own. THAT is self-contradictory. If something else that is not God has some sovereignty, then in whatever way that is so, he is no longer sovereign.
And? Suppose he creates beings with free will. What's your objection here? Seems to be a non-sequitur. You're reasoning seems to be
Intrinsically better? There is no such thing as intrinsic worth. There is, however, merit - acquired by freely choosing what is good. Accordingly, some people have, by free will, established more merit than others. This isn't rocket science. Every sermon preached in the last 2,000 years is grounded in the concept of merit. It's not complicated.
Free choice isn't a matter of chance. For example I can hypothetically conceive of only three causalities capable of moving objects:
See above. Chance falls under category #2. Free will is a distinct category.
Obviously you're not from a third world country, as apparently you've no concept of hunger.
The biblical God is defined, implicitly, as the quintessential ruler. (The word infinitude doesn't appear in Scripture). In my understanding, Yahweh's presence fills the whole universe, He literally has His hand on every particle of matter, monitoring it, managing it, nothing escapes His attention and supervision. And He oversees us with impeccable kindness, righteousness, fairness, skill, love, and justice. Thereby He EASILY fulfills the biblical definition (the quintessential ruler). In other words, He's got a job to do, and He does it quite well, thank you very much. He doesn't give a rat's "butt" - He frankly couldn't care less - whether He fulfills some incoherent philosophical standard of infinitude. As noted earlier, an actualized infinitude is incoherent nonsense because infinity is not a specific/discrete number.
Correct. He is not "God" as defined in idealized philosophy. He's your Father.
LOL. You honestly don't see the irony in your statement? You don't recognize that your predilection for infinitude is a philosophical bias on your part?
Let's start with a couple of points (I'll add at least one more shortly).
While I disagree with your logic, I have no need to refute it directly, because it's really a moot point. Your logic doesn't apply to my metaphysics. You keep saying that God isn't one of us - you see Him as unique somehow. In my metaphysics He IS one of us, He is merely the first of us to achieve full sentience. He is LITERALLY our Father, that and nothing more. We are ALL of the same nature and thus we are ALL First Causes, equally so. (I'll provide some links shortly).
Okay I just gave three reasons already, in response to this post.
