@ KFunk
You are obviously a highly intellectual individual, but let me attempt to refute some of your points.
1. Initially, we have deduced that the Object was the only thing before the Universe, in which case anything created from it (the Universe) is a part of it. Hence, everything is a product of the Object (by definition of Creation and the only 'materials' were the Object itself. Therefore the Object made the Universe out of itself.) Hence everything humans etc, are parts of this Object. The Object conceives itself (like we know each arm and leg of our body) and hence as everything is a part/product of it, it can conceive everything. Therefore as it can conceive everything, it is omniscient.
2. Also, said Object had the abilities to create something. Destruction of something is merely the reverse process. If one is capable of a process, he is capable of the reverse process. Every force has an equal and opposite force. Therefore it can destroy everthing. Therefore it is omnipotent.
3. Faulty logic etc, are notions, they aren't physical things and hence these are not necessarily consequently part of the Object asc you claim. I mean, can you really prove fact exists at all? And hence, is there really anything such as 'faulty' logic? Faulty logic is an emotional aspect of the mind, it is not a physical object, rather we developed it over time. Also, by the definition of omnipotence proven earlier, even if the Object did create 'faulty logic', then it is potent over logic and hence does not have to abide by logic.
4. Also, yes, entropy does not apply to the Object as it preceded time and space, but it does apply to the beginning of the Universe, which is where I applied the argument. The beginning of the Universe was at time and space 0, which neverhteless still exists as a point in time and space. A useful analogy is the point circle in the Cartesian plane, it had radius zero but nevertheless still exists as a circle albeit as a point-circle. Therefore the laws of entropy apply to the beginnings of the Universe.
5. Also, you claim I misconstrued scientific terms to be relvant in a theological sense, yet how do you know these theological terms aren't symbolic of the scientific terms. Disorder theologically may be symbolic of scientific disorder, not just 'evil' as some people claim. To not link theology to science is to be extremely narrow-minded.
I have numbered your paragraphs for convenience (and I should briefly note that I appreciate the time taken to cosntruct your response. While I disagree with you I can see that you are being thoughtful - a BoS rarity?):
(1) That something is made from me, or arises from my creative force, does not entail that it is part of me. I could make a wig using my own hair, but I would not therefore consider it part of me, or expect to share in its extension or experience, similarly I might donate a kidney. There is no reason to expect any being to have perfect self-knowledge - I have two proofs for this, one of which is empirical/contingent whilst the other derives from logic (i) we lack perfect knowledge of our physical bodies; certainly, we possess experiences associated with our limbs as you indicate, but I have no sense nor necessary knowledge or conception of the enzymatic activities of my pancreas or of hormone production in my thyroid gland, which is enough to show that there is no necessary connection between the physical extension of a being and that being's possessing knowledge of the structure/nature of everything within the area of extension (that is to say, you cannot assume it as a general law - you require a positive proof that this reasoning holds in the case of the
origin), and (ii) IF (big if) cognition can be modelled as an axiomatic or computational system then
Godel's incompleteness theorem would seem to imply a limit to self-knowledge.
Your claim of omniscience is either invalid or in need of further proof.
(2) On creation/destruction: certainly while talking about an intelligent being you can use a workshop metaphor to say, for example, that putting an analogue clock together is much the same as pulling it apart. Note, however, that destruction need not be so ordered - smashing a clock with a sledgehammer is entirely different to unscrewing the parts and removing the cogwheels one by one. The artisan cannot assemble a clock in so violent a manner, for example by summoning together shredded materials with a single movement of a hammer. You seem to depend on a principle of symmetry which does not obtain in many common examples of creation-destruction. Furthermore, the concept of entropy which you invoke depends on asymmetry in such processes:
Thomasina (from Arcadia):
When you stir your rice pudding, Septimus, the spoonful of jam spreads itself round making red trails like the picture of a meteor in my astronomical atlas. But if you stir backward, the jam will not come together again. Indeed, the pudding does not notice and continues to turn pink just as before. Do you think this is odd?
Further, in some cases we are not talking about the kind of creation where the workshop image of the symmetry of ordered destruction even applies in a straight forward way - e.g. the creation of energy, or of being
simpliciter. At such limits of thought I hesitate to extend metaphors of the everyday.
(3) Faulty logic is no
less physical than consciousness, in so far as if you wish to dismiss 'logical capacity' on the basis of its being non-physical then surely the same objection could be levelled at consciousness? Also, following point (2), I reject your claim to ominipotence, or minimally, request a more substantial proof, and hence reject your defence of 'faulty logic' which depends on omnipotence. More than this, I would claim that your argument for creative-destructive omnipotence stands separate from arguments for omnipotence in the realm of the
logos - for example, by varying the terms of the
Euthyphro Dilemma we might ask
"Do the gods set the limits they do in accordance with logic? Or is logic in accordance with the limits set by the gods?". Omnipotence can be conceived in a variety of ways. Proof in one domain does not necessarily extend to others unless some bridging principle can be found between them.
(4) Granted, though I think you still need to explain how an object which is fundamentally
independent of space and time can be bound up, or inscribed, in space and time to the extent required to make entropy applicable.
(5) Simple example: I can conceive of physical systems in which an increase in entropy corresponds to an increase in the degree of 'moral perfection'. Have a think about this (Edit, to provide a simplistic example: destruction, and dissolution of the material, of an atomic bomb).
