No, sorry for being unclear, on the theory I (radically over-)summarized God still remains fully God; creation doesn’t reduce the divine infinity. And the 2nd Person (for bi or trinitarianism) is still doing what He always does, though in creating not-God reality He does the same thing a different way so to speak.
Except that ontologically the creation isn’t a necessary characteristic of the self-existent action of God per se. God must self-generate in order to actively self-exist; God does not have to create not-God reality in order to actively self-exist. (But God does have to treat not-God reality in certain ways, in order not to act in contravention to God’s own active self-existence. This has massive and decisive implications in favor of Christian universalism, eventually.)
However, I don’t mean to be saying that temporally there was ever a ‘time’ when God wasn’t creating not-God realities. Within our natural spatio-temporal existence, God is always everywhere creating not-God realities, and as derivative creatures we could only get out of this timeline by going into another created nature, which from within its own perspective will also always everywhere have been being created by God.
Of course, the EM analogy breaks down in that the E and the M always necessarily co-exist, whereas creation doesn’t have ontological co-existence properties with God. (In that sense the EM analogy would better fit the co-existent Persons of God.) I only brought it up for the limited purpose of illustrating right-angle action to a system. Lewis would (and did) say that such an illustration (though I don’t recall him using an EM field, but it was something conceptually similar) substitutes a physical analogy for a temporal one, neither one being fully correct for describing what must be ‘sui generis’.
God doesn’t stop self-generating on my theory, just starts generating something other than Godself. I go into much more detail about what it means to be not-God in the chapters: once I infer that fundamental reality must be rationally active, to account for my own necessarily presumed (but not presumably necessary) rational action capability, one of the obvious next questions is whether I am God, and it doesn’t take a lot of self-examination to see that I am not. That implies distinctions in reality and then the question is how those distinctions relate to each other.
Re: the 3D/2D analogy, I haven’t used that for helping describe how God experiences created time, but it seems to work. (I use the 3D/2D analogies for other purposes.)
Can’t have a responsible argument without it. I don’t think it denies free will as most people understand it, though, since most people on reflection realize there are some pretty obvious limits to creaturely free will even if/though they agree creaturely free will exists.
I don’t regard our natural micro and macro environments as the basis for justice, though; and I noted earlier that so far as I was discussing my argument trail I hadn’t gotten to morality yet. (That’s Section Four, the largest in the book. )
On the contrary, it is entirely possible to choose against the single best perceived option available, for better or for worse. When I’m working out I can intentionally prefer to continue even though realistically I am forced to stop as the single best option available. That preference isn’t merely a feeling; it’s how I search and reach past my currently perceived limitations.