God is not part of His creation in that nothing of God is created! Do you see? It really makes perfect sense. And yes God is a non-corporeal Spirit…but can take on form without limiting His simultaneous limitlessness.
All known beings exist in time and space. They are material. We know that only beings can create things. In that case, if god is immaterial how can anything be created by that god? If god is material, then creation is possible. But in that case, who created god?
Further, if god is immaterial, how can interaction with the world be possible? Unless, god is material and immaterial at the same time. Is that possible?
How do we know when this activity is taking place? Do we still see miracles? There are many in the bible, but doesn’t appear to be many these days.
This is quite confusing: how can something be limited and limitless at the same time?
God foreknowing all the choices one will make does not stop one from choosing, nor does it cause one to make that choice and only that choice…
Yes, it does. If there is only one option, there is no choice.
Because He is also omnipotent…
In that case, it seems we should discuss the problem of evil.
Well I commend you that you are an agnostic (not denying the possibility, though you have no empirical evidence to sway you one way or the other) and not an Atheist (a totally un-defensible position)…
I am not sure why you would consider atheism to be indefensible. It is only the lack of belief in gods.
Anti-theism is the position that no gods exist.
But the argument that because something cannot be falsified makes it untrue, or that because something can be falsified makes it true, is sheer absurdity and totally illogical!
That is not what I said. If something cannot be falsified then it is unknowable. It is the difference between guilty and not guilty, versus guilty versus innocent. In a court of law we don’t find a person innocent, we have a burden of proof to find them guilty.
If we cannot meet that burde, we find them "not guilty" not "innocent".
…this is like saying because aspects of Darwin’s theory can be falsified (shown to be in error and not true) would be to you proof that it is true…for you then, non-truth equals truth, and truth= non-truth…
I didn’t mention Darwin and I don’t know why you did.
The word theory is science is not the same as the common usage of the word. In science, theory isn’t a hypothesis. It is the best available explanation for some phenomenon.