Some questions I encountered

I have no problem with copy-pasting as long as the relevant information is clearly there. 1. The razor is a criterion for choosing between two explanations that explain the phenomenon. But the naturalistic explanation does not explain the phenomena. After all, you could say that a theory with an electric field alone is simpler than a theory that also contains a magnetic field. So why do we think there is a magnetic field? Because the theory without a magnetic field does not explain the phenomena. See the third and fourth notebooks on the website why God is needed to explain the phenomena. 2. Here you are confusing two different questions: A. Why does he need to satisfy his needs through the world and cannot do without it? B. Why does he have needs? First, there is a logical error. For example, I am omnipotent and want to own a triangle, so I create a triangle. Is it appropriate to ask why I am the owner of the triangle and not the owner of a triangle without creating a triangle? This is exactly how I fulfill my will. Even someone who is omnipotent cannot own a triangle without creating a triangle to own. This is a logical rule, and God is also “subject” to logic. See an explanation of this here . In the second question, it is a matter of definition. Suppose he has desires and not needs. It is not that he lacks them, but rather what he believes is right and proper. 3. Here too, the formulation is not successful. The problem is not with a personal sense of self (what is a “sense” of God anyway? That is nonsense) but whether things exist at all. This is why I say that there is an existence outside of God. The reduction is as simple as that. It is sometimes accepted to say that there is none, but this is a mistake. For example, we are not He. The world is not He. See the second book for a discussion on pantheism. 4. God is not subject to time, but our perception of Him is within the framework of concepts of time. You also assume that time is infinite, but at least in physics today it is accepted that it is not. And in general, the concept of concrete infinity is conceptually problematic. On concrete and potential infinity, see the second notebook. You can always say that from the beginning he had a desire that when such and such a point in time came to create the world. This was his desire from the beginning, and nothing was renewed at that point in time (such as Einstein’s letter to the family of his friend Basso after his death). This is certainly true in the deterministic view and therefore it is at least consistent even if not true. And if so, there is no reason to ask this idea from them only regarding this discussion even if I am not a determinist in my view. 5. God knows the future, just not our actions, which depend on choice. Knowing in advance the outcome of a free choice is an oxymoron (it means that the choice is not free. See Newcomb’s paradox, which I also discussed here before ). See again the link in section 2.