F
feltmeanings23
Guest
I just don’t think he proved that the sentient first cause is perfectly good.What is unsatisfactory about Feser’s explanation?
Last edited:
I just don’t think he proved that the sentient first cause is perfectly good.What is unsatisfactory about Feser’s explanation?
Would you say that what you believe in is a type of pantheism?I basically just use “Brahman” as a title for the universal consciousness that we all comprise.
I don’t think you read the OP.Human misuse of freedom.
This just presupposes free will. It could be the case that I was determined to respond to the messages, and I had no ultimate control in the matter.…the fact you are choosing to respond to messages…
A rather dangerous approach, this. See, a tree is good, for it was created by God. Evil is not the absence of a tree, or of all trees. Evil is that which delights in the destruction of trees. Unfortunately this can be extended to man (i.e. substitute “man” for “tree”), and indeed to God’s entire Creation: evil is that which delights in debasing and destroying what God created. It has an agenda.We see the effects of evil, but evil is not something that exists.
Of course He doesn’t. God doesn’t make “choices”. Which subverts the counter-argument you’re trying to make in your first paragraph.God does not have libertarian free will*
You are here interpreting “existence” as applied to God in a way that applies only to created things. Or to use another poster’s terminology, you are anthropomorphizing God to the point where it no longer aids understanding, but hinders it. God is not “helpless” in the face of the fact of his own existence, because His existence is not an existence in the sense of a created thing’s existence. God is not created, He is not a thing or a creature or a someone, nor is He “out there somewhere” – but you seem to lose sight of this throughout your arguments.God can’t control the fact that He exists;
No. Which subverts all of your last paragraph. But to elaborate a little bit: in your argument you conceive of the future as given “data”, to which God, as another “given”, stands in relation as either knowing of that data, or unknowing. But the future isn’t “given data”. It is that which arises as God continues forever to interact with His Universe.doesn’t your Church infallibly teach that God knows the future?