An excellent concise and accurate statement of the interactive dualism theory of mind

Creation by divine fiat? Sure... but why do mind and matter have to be created external to God? It implies God not being infinite... God is a mind? If God is still infinite, what use is a mind? Does God have a body ~ then God is not infinite. Actually, why does God need a mind and a body? How does God make them interact? Where did God get a separate mind and body to begin with? What is God creating from? The void? Itself? Why does an infinite being just not create fully within itself? That's what the Hindu Brahman is ~ a transcendental cosmic principle that contains reality within.

I don't understand how God being Infinite would mean there's no use for a mind?

Also unclear to me that bodies have to be finite. Consider the idea that all true soul-bodies of all conscious entities are infinite, and your current body is merely a temporary incarnation within what Attanasio calls the "Cosmic Immensity" of your soul. Perhaps, however, the term "body" to you depends on a limitation?

Besides that I agree God making stuff out of Nothing is logically flawed.

I don't understand how God being Infinite would mean there's no use for a mind?

Minds I consider to be finite things, thus we can distinguish them from not-mind ~ and from other minds. If something is infinite, it cannot be comprehended or observed. Besides... maybe something appears to be "infinite" to our senses, but is actually just finite, albeit vast.

Also unclear to me that bodies have to be finite. Consider the idea that all true soul-bodies of all conscious entities are infinite, and your current body is merely a temporary incarnation within what Attanasio calls the "Cosmic Immensity" of your soul. Perhaps, however, the term "body" to you depends on a limitation?

A "body" I consider to be form, and all known forms are describable, thus being finite in quality, and so, knowable. I consider even soul-bodies to be finite ~ just really vast in scope and nature. An "infinite body" thus to me is a oxymoron ~ it cannot exist, because there is nothing to observe or distinguish compared to something else. The essential existence of a soul might be infinite ~ but for that to exist, it must take form, thus it must take on a "body", even if the nature of it is something too vast to comprehend.

Besides that I agree God making stuff out of Nothing is logically flawed.

Unless Nothing is also part of God, in which case the distinction becomes meaningless...

Unless Nothing is also part of God, in which case the distinction becomes meaningless...

Well I don't think this would make sense logically.

Nothing is just total absence. Admittedly I think this is more an abstraction, with the Real being Eternal, as I lean toward some Monism like Panentheism though I would rather "theism" use the more neutral moniker of the One than "God". The One might be a Person, or it might be common grounding of the Many...or some other option.

A potter makes things out of clay, because the potential to be whatever the potter sculpts - cups, vases, etc - lay in the clay. Causality is not just the active action of the potter (or the active action of fire, electricity, and so on) but also the receptiveness of the clay (or the receptiveness of wood to burning, the receptiveness of wiring for conduction, and so on).

But there cannot be potential in literal Nothing, and as such no receptiveness to God's creative activity....whatever "God" is...

Well I don't think this would make sense logically.

Nothing is just total absence. Admittedly I think this is more an abstraction, with the Real being Eternal, as I lean toward some Monism like Panentheism though I would rather "theism" use the more neutral moniker of the One than "God". The One might be a Person, or it might be common grounding of the Many...or some other option.

A potter makes things out of clay, because the potential to be whatever the potter sculpts - cups, vases, etc - lay in the clay. Causality is not just the active action of the potter (or the active action of fire, electricity, and so on) but also the receptiveness of the clay (or the receptiveness of wood to burning, the receptiveness of wiring for conduction, and so on).

But there cannot be potential in literal Nothing, and as such no receptiveness to God's creative activity....whatever "God" is...

Well... we can sort of "experience" to a total absence... but that just appears as it is ~ a complete skip in time and awareness. But we have no memories or recall of such a state. What about Void experiences in NDEs? Is that an experience of Nothing?

For me... Nothing is merely the appearance of total absence, where there appears to be the absence of anything at all, because as you say, there is no such thing as literal Nothing. But there can be potential even in something at perfect stillness. Just potential not made manifest or existent, so not appearing to be potential.

For there be Some-thing, there must be No-thing ~ finity can only exist in infinity, in contrast.

In spiritual and mystical traditions, there is the concept of Nothingness before Creation, though that may be more of a conceptual thing that our minds require due to being entities that exist and think within a forward, continuous flow of time in space.