feel free to smite me for the ping. Idk what the rules are here yet but I was hoping to get some feedback. (Sorry its long) I feel like im missing something here and I cant figure out if im just wrong or im just getting in my head about this. I also might not be unique in this and im just wrestling with an already established thing from Sijuwade. I dislike divine psychology, and try to avoid it as much as possible. But in my discussions about the PoE I always find that I end up having to do divine psychology when trying to do an axiological shift in the conversation.
My usual chain of infrence is like this- God is the sole fudamentalia for existence. -> God Created us -> created things have a purpose -> there is a stance independent purpose to our existence, that being, to be persons with fully actualized eudimonic psychological axiologies.
I recently came across 3 axiologies regarding goodness from Joshua Sijuwade. From my understanding he uses them to express why God would create, but I think if I take a page from rasmussen's book I can take it even further using his composition principle. I think it might be superior way to go about this without having to resort to divine psychology. The 3 axiologies are:
Goodness: All possible entities have goodness to a certain degree
Diffusiveness: goodness is necessarily diffusive of itself.
Potentiality: No genuine potentially can remain unfulfilled.
These three together, assuming I am applying them correctly, could entirely solve the issue. If God is the fundamentalia for the universe, it would have diffusive goodness from him, and if all potential goodness must be accomplished and exists at least at some point, then eudimonic psychology axiologies such as virtue and meaning must exist, finally, virtue and meaning logically entail suffering in order for them to be accomplished.
So Goodness, Diffusiveness, and Potentiality ⊨ the existence of suffering.