Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse  Hello Caleb,
Fair enough. So, playing the role of a thoughtful atheist, I would point out that your use of “absolute control” is either mis-defined or at best ill-defined. That is to say, before we can move the argument forward we need to decide what it means for God to have absolute control over creation. |
In my defense, I initially put ‘’ around the word ‘(absolute)’. But you are correct, a better word is in order. Let’s call it *possibility* control. I will explain this below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse OK, you are making a distinction between something being metaphysically possible and metaphysically impossible. You have given an example of each, but they are not exact parallels. Can you define metaphysical possibility? |
Keep in mind I have read only about 5 pages describing modal logic…With that in mind, here is my definition.
Metaphysical possibility: having the capability of existing in a logically possible world.
According to the Christian, The Christian God exists in all possible worlds. This includes all of God’s attributes, which includes his control over creation. There is a possible world in which the rapist doesn’t exist, or at least God has stopped the rapist from committing the crime. *But*, the ability to create an object/rock God cannot lift hits at the heart of his attributes, and thus the Christian God himself. Thus in order for it to be the case for God to be able to create a rock which he cannot lift, this would affect all possible worlds, for it would change God’s attributes. But God cannot change, for the Christian God (with all his attributes) exists in all possible worlds. Thus the ‘rock scenario’ is a metaphysical impossibility. God has possibility control over the rapist, but not over the rock.
I am arguing that the rock scenario violates the creator/creature distinction, giving more “power” to the creation so to speak than the biblical view does.