tiltbillings wrote:I am addressing the direct implications of the ontological questions raised, which directly goes to the coherence of the ontological claims of a god's existence. As pointed out, you are simply trying to shift the goal posts, again. I can understand why you would not want to address the problem of suffering in the world created by your god, but it is part and parcel of the issue of the existence of such a thing.
The is very much to the point: Freser: "At least where the sheer existence of things is concerned, He and He alone is directly causing them at every instant."
There are living and non-living things. An example of living thing is human being. An example of a non-living thing is a spatula. A spatula is just a "thing". It has no process or operation.
And so is will a thing. There is nothing in Freser’s quote that limits what a thing is.
A living thing is something which has processes and operations. The processes are the moments of actualizing the potential in its organs. The operations are actions. One of those operations is will. When given multiple choices (objects), as every situation is, the person determines itself to the object which is deemed through reason to be the better of the choices. God at the moment of an evil act is giving life to the person doing the evil at that moment, acts at the moment as the object of desire (inclines it to good), and moves the will to its operation. God wills the will to will itself, i.e., the sheer existence of free will as a possibility.
Yes, even though this god knows that what is being willed will cause great suffering, but you have not shown any free will, because we cannot will other than how the supposedly omniscient, omnipotent god knows how we are going to will, even before the supposed act of free will comes into being. We cannot act other than how the god knows we are going to act, and all of that is the god’s creation
God wills the will to will itself,
There it is, the god’s responsibility for what is being willed. Add to that what we will cannot be outside the god’s knowledge, cannot be outside what the god’s knows is going to happen because it all is the god’s creation.
As to the actual willed action, that is where we choose to act. Feser's statement is that God lays the ground that make free will possible -- "sheer existence".
Which the god created, along with the will to act, but by what you say there is no will to act without god’s willing us to act. The god willed Hitler to act, knowing fully and completely how Hitler would act and knowing fully and completely what the consequences would be. Simply, the god by withholding its will, no Shoah. Also, how Hitler would act is totally dependent on how the god set up its creation, knowing even before an atom of it was in place how it would unfold.
In a court of law this god would be held fully liable for the consequences of this action.
As for evil, you treat it like a positive reality, instead of a negation. Evil is a negation.
Pain and suffering are not negations any more than happiness and pleasure are negations.
If it was a positive reality, then nobody, not even the Buddha, could escape from it.
As has been pointed out to you via textual evidence, the Buddha was able to attain awakening because there is no unchanging eternal existent self that we truly are.
So where did he start then? With our actions. If an evil doer is determined, then the Buddha's path is a waste.
Fortunately that is not a problem in the Buddha’s universe, but it is the fatal flaw in the theistic universe you describe.
If an evil doer has free choice, then evil is not inherent, but a negation of good. If good is not inherent, then Nibbana is impossible.
And what Buddhist text says that?
The act of God lays the groundwork for free action. he doesn't do the actions, but provides the conditions of existence for the action to take place.
Exactly, knowing full well what the action and its consequences will be, and knowing that the action and the consequences are all a result of its very creative act and exist because, by your own admission, it is what the god directly, purposely wills.
If you admit that they are determined, then you must also admit that Buddhism is a waste of time.
In the theistic universe you are positing, it is a total waste of time, but fortunately that does not seem to be the universe we live in.
So as you can see the implications of your line of reasoning are against both the theory of hylomorphism and Buddhism.
You have yet to show that hylomorphism has any empirical, functional basis, and it certainly has not a thing to do with what the Buddha taught, so this comment of your carries no weight.