god is literally in accordance with his desires in the example you used

idk if youre trolling me

Your entire thesis is based on false assumptions

you just said "muh omnipotence fixes everything" when omnipotence is part of whats in question.

@Spergerger god having desires at all is the problem

no

yes

stay on track

god having potentiality would be the problem

yes

desire necessitates potentiality

lmao

but his desires have no potentiality because he is already in accordance with them

lmao then they wouldnt be desires

but they are

desiring you to come to me of your own free will is not a desire?

it doesnt matter if youre in accord with them

ok youre fucking moving goalposts now

yes desiring someone to come to you freely is a desire

you literally are saying that it is a desire

than saying it isnt in the same sentence

yes
but you have yet to prove that desire implies potentiality in this context

i already have shown that

your example was nosensical

lemme restate

material jew

see if u can think of just one more

just one other example

needs a material god

p1: desire means that theres a state of affairs that someone can *potentially* be in or out of accord with

@Otto ye come in here with irrelevant bs

lmao

no

Ignore him and stick to the point with spergerger

otto just spergs on me about me being jewish, materialistic, and ignores any point thats made

also
are u unironically conflating gods desires with the desires of man?

or just doesnt grasp it

@Joywolf Ignore him and stick to the point with spergerger

@Spergerger two things

1: youd have to make an argument for there being a difference between the two
2: then youd have to show what is the *same* about them that makes them both a desire
3: then youd have to show that the difference takes away concern of potentiality

3 things