Arguments against Soul

[GrandizerII]

I'll have a lash.

In order for God to be God, there must be nothing he cannot know (Plantinga, Aquinas).

God's knowledge is not discursive - that is, God does not deduce conclusions from premises.  God knows all things at all times (Aquinas, Kretzmann).

An evil act is a 'thing' (Hume)

In order for God to have complete knowledge, God must have knowledge of the experience of God committing an evil act and must have always had this knowledge (Molina).

It is not enough for God to have the knowledge of what evil entails (see above), as that would not give him knowledge of the personal experience of evil (Molina).

In order for God to be God, God must have committed at least one evil act (Boru).


Boru

That seems like a reasonable argument. I'm going to argue back based on two points:

1) That God has no knowledge in the way that people have knowledge. Because God is entirely simple and undivided, there can't be two things, i.e. God (the knower) and evil (the thing that is known). 

2) God, as impassible, eternal, and ideal, takes no action. Therefore, he can't have "committed" any acts at all -- good or evil. 

I realize this is too simple as stands, but it's time for me to go out for the day. I'll come back to it this evening.

Such a God has no experiential knowledge, no discursive knowledge, takes no action. This is a God that has been reduced to something that, in my mind, is not worth even arguing against, because there's nothing anyone can say to counter such a reduced being other than it's extraneous and explains too much (or trivially true, depending on how it's being defined exactly). And aside from the argument that all things we do is moved in his direction, or whatever the exact wording is, he has no impact on my life whatsoever.

And taking such a stance about God, if God cannot do badly, he cannot do "goodly" either. He's as "infallible" as a rock is.

This is hardly the God that most Christians who come here argue for ... or even of the many Christians I've been in acquaintance with and discussed the faith with, from various stripes (whether Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant). This is far divorced from the God of the Bible (or rather, the various depictions of God in the Bible) and is not even a God that someone like William Lane Craig or other famed modern Christian apologists would want to defend (because arguments like the Kalam Cosmological Argument would then be rendered pointless). Yes, I know, I know, you're going to tell me we can safely ignore them, but they're not "ignorable" ... this reduced God, on the other hand, is.

But the thing here is that even some of those Christians who do argue for the God you refer to still believe in a literal Trinity, a literal Hypostatic Union, and a literal Incarnation and Resurrection (suggesting a deity that is not really simple and is one that actually does take action), so what gives? God knows, lol.