It seems Mr. Enyart believes in a very sectarian, limited god. One who does not have overall control and who is unaware of what will happen in the future. In other words, a god who is limited in power and subject to relative time. Oddly enough, Mr. Enyart says that he goes against a Greek conception of god, but actually his conception is very much in line with the Greek gods who were limited in power (usually exhibiting some amount of power in some particular aspect of the world or universe) and who were not in full knowledge of the future.
Mr. Enyart only addresses two theistic philosophies: fatalist theism and open theism - basically implying that one either believes all events are predestined and thus automatically God's will, or that one believes that God hasn't predestined anything and doesn't know the future exactly but is thus saved from being responsible for seemingly "evil" actions or events. This argument is fallacious because there is another option. It is possible for a supreme being to have knowledge of the future, yet not be directly responsible for every occuring event in the universe. The presumption that Mr. Enyart makes - the only presumption wherefrom a mutually exclusive situation arises in the nature of God - is that of the idea that God creates according to His sole desires. If we say that God creates everything (that is created) with only His desires in mind, then if He is all-knowing, it must be logically admitted that all events and outcomes are this omniscient God's predestined plan. In order to avoid this reasoning, Mr. Enyart eliminates the idea that God is all-knowing. But clearly there is another option, as I have mentioned. Instead of eliminating God's omniscience, we can eliminate the idea that God creates solely for His desire. And actually, this makes most sense. Simply ask yourselves, what fulfillment can an eternal and infallible God find in created, temporal, decaying material objects? I think the answer is obvious. A Supreme Being would find no fulfillment in such inferior manifestations. And actually, this Supreme God would only take enjoyment in eternal things. This is a key to understanding why God cares about individual souls. It invariably shows - and backed up by the testament of religious texts like the Bible, Koran and Vedas - that individual souls must also be eternal beings because God's concern for them is continually exhibited. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the reconciling point. After we conclude that God would not create according to His sole desires, the next obvious question is, "then whose desires constitute creation?" Now that we understand eternal souls to exist, we automatically have a second party that can fill that obligation.
I hope everyone will give this some serious thought. I look forward to all the questions and arguments. And I don't know if Mr. Enyart frequents his own forums, but I would definitely like to deliberate with him on these ideas and see what we come out with.
To give everyone some background information, I grew up siding with my father on religious and philosophical issues, which were more or less atheist or agnostic. At around the age of 18 I began studying various religious philosophies and for just over the last four years have been studying and practicing Vedanta as per the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition. I have frequented Reginald Finley's (Infidel Guy) website and after hearing this first portion of his and Bob Enyart's discussion, I have become very interested in discussing these issues with Mr Enyart as well as others who support his philosophy.
Hare Krishna & God bless!
