"Also, in the human sense, there are the usual entanglements of need fulfillment."
I wasn't talking about the human sense. I was talking about your "God", and how he could want something different than what was. And how He could Will something different than what was. And why He would Will something different than what was.
"Of course this violates the definition that I offered and opens the door to all kinds of rational entanglements"
Your definition violates itself if it includes kindness, consideration, and charity. You can't use these as part of your description and then turn around and say that you may not give them any meaning because it would violate your definition.
"It appears to me that my will to do things is motivated by need fulfillment, but I am a human being."
Yes. Apparently so. And what motivated the Will of God when he willed you to be a human being?
"I don’t accept the premise of, “personal incompleteness” of the creator of all things, as this again is an unnecessary violation of the definition that I offered"
Sorry. It is your definition. What could motivate a complete being to change. You do not deny that creation was an event?
A perfect Being cannot be touched or moved or affected. A perfect Being must be indifferent; otherwise, it is not necessary but contingent upon something not itself. If it can be affected or changed then it is not a necessary Being.
"So we may name a couple of problems: 1). What is the motive for "creation", and 2). What is the explanation for "Concern" or "consideration"?”
Since the premise was unacceptable the dependant questions don’t apply."
Forget the premise. What is the explanation for "concern" and "consideration"? They were your words. You must have chosen them because they had a truth value. I am asking you for the explanation. What is the explanation for the event we call "creation"? What is the purpose behind the Willing of a difference? Why was a difference Willed? And what does it have to do with you?
"What does a complete and perfect being who cannot be changed, moved, or affected have to be "concerned" about??”
I don’t know"
You said in a prior post He was concerned. Now you say you don't know what he is concerned about. But to be concerned entails an object. You could not know He was concerned if you did not know the answer to WHAT He was concerned about. If you do not wish to claim that He is concerned in the way that we understand the word to mean (or any other way you might care to define it, for that matter), then why did you use it??
“You say it is perfect.”
You mean God is perfect? Yes, I say that.
You said EVERYTHING was going perfectly acording to plan. Do you mean that evil is perfectly good? Is evil different than good? You just said that saying that "bad" is "good" is silly. So is evil loved by God or is it not? |
