(1) Abstaining from creation might not be an option for the one whose ideas authomatically come into existence. (2) Imperfection of creation is not the sufficient reason for abstaining from creation. (3) I assume Him to be the source of the physical law rather than its slave. More "benign physics" may be logically inconsistent with the existence of objects on which love can be bestowed. What we have is already amazingly, incomprehensibly benign. Still you want more. Would you be given more, you'd still want more. (4) Omnipotence does not permit five sided triangles. What cannot be done cannot be done. (5) As you say, you are not all-knowing. Exactly. You do not know what kinds of worlds can be made in self-consistent way in which good and love exist. You do not know on which scale of perfection such worlds are ranked. Yet you (Epicurus) are confident that this is not the best possible world. I respect this position, but I find it weak, just like you find my position weak. At least, I have something to show: our world. It is not good enough for you? Show us better. Imagine this more perfect world, explain how it can be created, prove that you will infinitely love its constituents, and demonstrate that it is indeed better than ours in all possible ways. Then your argument will be complete.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-01-28 08:15 pm (UTC)(2) Imperfection of creation is not the sufficient reason for abstaining from creation. (3) I assume Him to be the source of the physical law rather than its slave. More "benign physics" may be logically inconsistent with the existence of objects on which love can be bestowed. What we have is already amazingly, incomprehensibly benign. Still you want more. Would you be given more, you'd still want more.
(4) Omnipotence does not permit five sided triangles. What cannot be done cannot be done.
(5) As you say, you are not all-knowing. Exactly. You do not know what kinds of worlds can be made in self-consistent way in which good and love exist. You do not know on which scale of perfection such worlds are ranked. Yet you (Epicurus) are confident that this is not the best possible world. I respect this position, but I find it weak, just like you find my position weak. At least, I have something to show: our world. It is not good enough for you? Show us better. Imagine this more perfect world, explain how it can be created, prove that you will infinitely love its constituents, and demonstrate that it is indeed better than ours in all possible ways. Then your argument will be complete.