f5c4364b20c6d5fec9d514436fd20308dd62310d
pages/essays/god-and-free-will.md
| ... | ... | @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ |
| 1 | +--- |
|
| 2 | +title: God and Free Will |
|
| 3 | +abstract: |
|
| 4 | +--- |
|
| 5 | +--- |
|
| 6 | +This article was inspired by a post on |
|
| 7 | +[r/LatterDayTheology](https://www.reddit.com/r/LatterDayTheology/comments/1ixy1vo/what_cant_god_the_father_do/). |
|
| 8 | + |
|
| 9 | +# Summarize this post into a single paragraph as an explanation for the rest of this article, please, AI! |
|
| 10 | + |
|
| 11 | +It's sometimes said that our conception of God is "maxipotent" rather than "omnipotent", since there are things our theology contemplates that God cannot do. |
|
| 12 | + |
|
| 13 | +Does it come down to just this: |
|
| 14 | + |
|
| 15 | +God can't exercise the agency of an otherwise independent intelligence while preserving the independence of the intelligence? |
|
| 16 | + |
|
| 17 | +God can't produce theosis in humankind without the aggregate quantum of suffering we observe? |
|
| 18 | + |
|
| 19 | +The first is a logical impossibility, the equivalent of saying God can't make a square without four 90 degree corners. I doubt anyone, Nicene or otherwise, considers this sort of thing a limitation on God's omniscience. |
|
| 20 | + |
|
| 21 | +So, is it really just the second? And isn't the second a sort of logical impossibility, as well, if theosis is produced by an independent agent overcoming adverse matter? |
|
| 22 | + |
|
| 23 | +# End summary, AI |