>Really inconvenient to talk about why would God do X if you're going to insist I can't say "God felt X" "God thought Y"
Wouldn't really be God if He wasn't unchanging, y'know? We're not talking about indra. Omniscient actors (and omniscient non-actors, I guess) aren't really in the habit of thinking.
>I feel like I cannot possibly convince you that God would create the world, If I say He did it unintentionally that's basically gnostic heresy.
Every account of emanation that regards a transcendent God that I can recall implies that creation is illusionary and without meaning, anyway. That is, the solution become "it is as if He did not create it" or indeed simply just "it doesn't exist".
>If I say He did it intentionally there's your argument that God is perfect and complete in His perfection and wouldn't have reason to create anything beside himself.
Well yeah. Epicurus put forward the same argument about less holistic gods that were not creators. That argument is the problem of evil, or epicurus' solution thereto (and the gods in that solution do not act, which obviously isn't the case in jewish/christian theory).
Pretty sure common doctrine is that God wasn't created, though I guess as usual you can do whatever semantic trickery you want with the Son.
>I'm not saying Peter has agency like the Lord does.
>I'm saying Peter has agency like a brick that falls to the ground when you let it loose.
But I didn't make the brick, or gravity, nor am I responsible for the synchronicity thereof and I certainly don't have meaningful let alone complete knowledge of the system. Peter has agency like a piece of red paper in my memory (N.B. that it is defined as such) has agency over my impression of it having been red. Well, obviously he has a lot less agency than that because I err and God does not, but I you understand what I'm getting at. He has no agency whatsoever outside of God. Inside of God, which necessarily we are, what we do is orchestrated by unerring goodness.
>You're talking as if reality is a bundle of instants stitched in order.
The stiching in order is a false perception but yes, of course?
>If God knows all consequences, that's indistinguishable from it existing.
God knows all consequences in all (theoretical) situations by definition. He is omniscient. Are you not then claiming that it follows that God has created every possible sequence and animates them all? In that case it's incoherent to then say that any sequence is a straying from God's will, surely? That is, this is an aside from the actual point; the exact semantics or consequences of phrases like "God contains all possibilities" don't really reflect one way or another on the fact that anything that He is responsible for anything that DOES exist.
>If we consider something like a hypothetical non-existing Universe X then you're saying God knew all consequences of it, decided not to create it, and hence never knew all consequences of it.
I'm certainly not putting decisions in God's mouth, so to speak. You've incidentally struck pretty close to my actual position (with respect to God all things that are temporal do not exist, so beyond the transient illusions there is Nothing that is ~abiding, unchanging and eternal) but obviously it's not a christian position.
>In my head God "computes" every instant how the world progresses according to its past. People and things behave according to their natures, and they can be meaningfully responsibilized for their actions.
God isn't fucking contextual in time. A God that is subject to the limitiations of time's arrow isn't really what you'd call omnipotent or even transcendent. Your god-in-the-machine is obviously not unchanging nor uncreated if it's being made anew by every degree of man-perceived time in fucking finite reality.
>and they can be meaningfully responsibilized for their actions
The semantics of whether or not a man is responsible for himself are irrelevant. If the man exists (in creation), God is responsible for the man (whether or not He is solely so) and for the man's actions, and God is all-good and all-knowing. The man's actions are a subset of God's actions (Creation).
>To you the world history is a single thing fixed thing in God's head, so it's all pointless.
World history is a single fixed thing in any case, but that isn't a comment on transcendent metaphysics. Regardless of your opinion on physical time, surely we can both agree that it's not something God is 'subject' to or constrained by?