PDA

View Full Version : No true Free Will exists if Ex Nihilo creation is true



seven7up
05-05-2014, 12:29 AM
Well, I copied our posts to another thread. I'd honestly rather take the time to do one video per thread honestly. Let's just stop with this thread and the other one and start with video #1, deal?


OK

Ex Nihilo is criticized in Video 1 by first describing the concept and then entering the discussion of Free Will and how it cannot exist in a real sense under Ex Nihilo creation theology. While the video is 13:34 minutes long, really it is just the first 10 minutes to deal with.

So, the first video introduces the series of videos and introduces the Free will discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWsQiyc832k

Video 1B goes into a more detailed deconstruction of free will in the Ex Nihilo framework and is also only 10 minutes of material:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxOiYvKDack

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It is best to start with the first video just so we have the ground work laid out, however, you may want to at least watch both before getting into it.

Now, also keep this in mind, that in the second video, I only use "randomness" as a representation of someone making a free will choice from various options. In fact, I specifically say that it is only meant to be "representative" of free will choices in the video. I repeat, I am not saying that randomness and free will are necessarily the same thing. Even when randomness and free will choices are not considered the same thing, the logic of my argumentation still holds.

Enjoy.

-7up

RBerman
05-05-2014, 05:05 AM
Just another example of how unbiblical notions of free will get us into trouble.

Sparko
05-05-2014, 06:37 AM
Your video fails horribly.

Even in the video, your hypothetical God has to decide to create person A or person B, depending on what choices that person will make that aligns with his plans. In other words, they have free choice and God chose which one to create. If they had no free will, then God would not have to decide which person to create, because anyone he created would do exactly what he made them do.

If I have a maze with two end points, and two mice, and I know that mouse one will choose to go to point A, and mouse two will choose to go to point B, that doesn't mean that the mice don't freely choose their path. They clearly do. So if I want a mouse to go to point A, I would put mouse 1 into the maze. He would still use his free will choice to go to point A and it would align with my desired plan. I did not destroy his free will, I just took advantage of my knowledge of what it would be to accomplish my plan.

Kind Debater
05-05-2014, 07:04 AM
Oh good, there's another new thread. It's only been 5 minutes since someone created a new thread where 7up singlehandedly takes on CP, Bill, Sparko and anyone else who cares to join. I mean, we wouldn't want you to get bored or anything, 7up. It's too bad, though, that you have to bring up your philosophical and moral objections to "traditional" Christianity again, because as you know that sort of thing bores me to tears. Debate...God's moral perfection...people's relationships with God...totally not my thing.

I guess I should look on the bright side, though. At least I won't be tempted to spend hours posting, only to worry that you'll get overwhelmed with the sheer number of posts and/or Sierra Mist (i.e. your better half :teeth:) will get ticked off and hide your computer in the dryer and all my effort will have gone to naught. Nope, no problem here at all. My house will be totally spic and span and I'll have done all my reading for my church classes because I won't even be tempted to start posting again. :brood:

:ponder:

The Remonstrant
05-05-2014, 08:45 AM
Just another example of how unbiblical notions of free will get us into trouble.

It is always refreshing to see atheists and Calvinists in essential agreement with each other on certain points. Neo-atheism's biological determinism is the counterpart to Reformed-Calvinism's exhaustive divine determinism (EDD).1 Neither allow for anything resembling libertarian human freedom, with or without a God (or god, if one prefers).

From my perspective, however, if Scripture provides support for creatio ex nihilo and indeterministic (or nondeterministic) human freedom, I am content leaving philosophical enigmas aside and affirming both. For my part, I would personally be more inclined to warn others of "unbiblical notions" of divine sovereignty (as in EDD) and the nature of the world God has created rather than the purported dangers of libertarian freedom.


Note

1 While I recognize that the individual who started this thread is a Mormon and not an atheist, I find it an interesting observation nevertheless.

seven7up
05-05-2014, 07:42 PM
Even in the video, your hypothetical God has to decide to create person A or person B, depending on what choices that person will make that aligns with his plans. In other words, they have free choice and God chose which one to create. If they had no free will, then God would not have to decide which person to create, because anyone he created would do exactly what he made them do.

Let's separate the two arguments, because you are correct that I am taking this on from 2 different angles.

1) God knows what characteristics of an individual would lead to certain choices in certain circumstances. God is creating every single characteristic (every aspect) of a person's being, purely from God's own mind. Therefore, the person who God creates will do exactly what God created that individual to do, in every circumstance.

2) God knows what "choices" a person is going to make before God even decides to create that person from God's own imagination. There are an infinite number of possible persons that God could create. Different possible persons would do different things in different circumstances. By deciding which person to create, knowing the outcome, God determines all outcomes.



If I have a maze with two end points, and two mice, and I know that mouse one will choose to go to point A, and mouse two will choose to go to point B, that doesn't mean that the mice don't freely choose their path. They clearly do.

You have to look a little closer at the Ex Nihilo doctrine, before you realize that they don't.

1) If a mouse decides to make a right turn, where did that decision come from? Why did the mouse turn right? The choices we make, and the behaviors we have are a reflection of our internal characteristics. Where do those internal characteristics come from? Who created them?



So, if I want a mouse to go to point A, I would put mouse 1 into the maze. He would still use his free will choice to go to point A and it would align with my desired plan. I did not destroy his free will, I just took advantage of my knowledge of what it would be to accomplish my plan.

You are only working from the false premise that free will exists in Ex Nihilo to begin with (see argument 1). The problem is, as my video shows in detail, that if God decides to create mouse A from God's own mind, then God had already predestined where the mouse will end up, as well as every step along the way.

Would God place mouse 2 into the maze, if God did not want mouse 2 to go to point B?

Oh, and let's say that point A is Heaven and eternal bliss / happiness ... and point B is Hell, eternal damnation with endless suffering and misery.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

And thus this discussion of free will is an introduction to the video series, which eventually leads into the bigger problem of evil and suffering which is a devastating argument against the Ex Nihilo framework.

-7up

Sparko
05-06-2014, 06:18 AM
Let's separate the two arguments, because you are correct that I am taking this on from 2 different angles.

1) God knows what characteristics of an individual would lead to certain choices in certain circumstances. God is creating every single characteristic (every aspect) of a person's being, purely from God's own mind. Therefore, the person who God creates will do exactly what God created that individual to do, in every circumstance.

OK you seem to be confusing Ex Nihilo with Ominscience. You are using a classical argument against God knowing the future. I will go into that in a minute but first:

There is no difference between God creating out of existing material, or creating the material and then creating the universe. Nothing except what he starts with. Once the universe is created, it is the same universe in both cases. Even starting with existing material, your LDS God, if he was omniscient, could use that material to create anything he wanted to and have absolute control over everything down to which way each molecule will move around.




2) God knows what "choices" a person is going to make before God even decides to create that person from God's own imagination. There are an infinite number of possible persons that God could create. Different possible persons would do different things in different circumstances. By deciding which person to create, knowing the outcome, God determines all outcomes.


OK now on to Omniscience. If God knows what someone is going to choose that does not mean that God is making them choose it. It just means he KNOWS what they will choose because he can see the future. If they were to decide to do something else, God would know that too. If I tape a baseball game where team A wins against Team B, then could somehow send that video back in time a week and give it to you, then you would know which team would win. You are not influencing their decisions, you just know them. If by chance Team B won, then you would know that too. If I never sent you the video, the outcome would still be the same even though you didn't know about it. Knowing the future free will choices of someone doesn't take away their free will choices.

Again that has nothing to do with Ex Nihilo.

Ex Nihilo never says that God creates every instant in the universe from start to finish as a fixed thing. It doesn't even mean that he creates YOU specifically. Your mom and dad created you. God might or might not influence which sperm meets which egg, and various circumstances in your life that form you into who you are today. But that would be the case in the LDS version of God or a God who created Ex Nihilo (out of nothing). Ex Nihilo just refers to HOW God creates and specifically to the initial creation.

If I could create ex nihilo and you could not, and we each wanted to make a statue, I would just snap my finger and the statue would appear. You would take a large rock and carve out the statue, but when we are done, the statues are the same. From that point forward there is no difference in what happens with that statue. They are identical.





1) If a mouse decides to make a right turn, where did that decision come from? Why did the mouse turn right? The choices we make, and the behaviors we have are a reflection of our internal characteristics. Where do those internal characteristics come from? Who created them? The mouse has a mind and likes and dislikes. It is a unique individual mouse that likes what is at its end of the maze. So it explored the maze, found the reward and memorized it. Now it can go there any time it wants that treat. It learned. It made free will choices.






You are only working from the false premise that free will exists in Ex Nihilo to begin with (see argument 1). The problem is, as my video shows in detail, that if God decides to create mouse A from God's own mind, then God had already predestined where the mouse will end up, as well as every step along the way.
But nothing in Ex Nihilo says God creates people Ex Nihilo out of his own mind. It refers to creating the universe. Do you regularly notice anyone popping into existence out of nothing? I don't.



Would God place mouse 2 into the maze, if God did not want mouse 2 to go to point B?
If God knows which mouse would accomplish his goals, then that is the mouse he would use to accomplish his goals. Why did God use Moses instead of someone else? Because God knew that Moses would accomplish his plan. Moses still had free will and God even had to correct him a few times along the way. So we do have free will, and God CAN override that free will if he wants to by forcing us to do something if he needs us to (like Jonah).

Bill the Cat
05-06-2014, 09:09 AM
This turns into a big whine on God "should have been able to" only create those who would choose salvation.

Bill the Cat
05-06-2014, 09:11 AM
Would God place mouse 2 into the maze, if God did not want mouse 2 to go to point B?



Yes.

seven7up
05-07-2014, 07:52 PM
OK you seem to be confusing Ex Nihilo with Ominscience. You are using a classical argument against God knowing the future. I will go into that in a minute but first:

There is no difference between God creating out of existing material, or creating the material and then creating the universe. Nothing except what he starts with. Once the universe is created, it is the same universe in both cases. Even starting with existing material, your LDS God, if he was omniscient, could use that material to create anything he wanted to and have absolute control over everything down to which way each molecule will move around.

In LDS doctrine, we are not just "molecules". Let me give you a few quotes here to help you understand where Mormons are coming from here. First, let's Joseph Smith who spoke about this:

"The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-eternal with God himself. . . . Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end."

"[T]he mind of man—the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; . . . We say that God himself is a self-existent being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles."

Here is an Ensign article that discusses this as well:

The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation

Eternal life is also possible, in part, because an element of every human being is divine and eternal. Joseph Smith used several different terms to refer to that eternal essence—spirit, soul, mind, and intelligence. He received the knowledge that “man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.” (D&C 93:29.) He taught that “the mind of man is as immortal as God himself” and that “the Spirit of Man [meaning intelligence] is not a created being.”

He did not define, however, this element’s form and substance, nor did he identify its attributes, other than its eternal nature. This eternal element of intelligence or light of truth is something other than the spirit bodies God created later; these later entities were “the intelligences that were organized” and were the spirits that Abraham saw. ... In our own primeval births, the eternal intelligence part of us was “organized”.



OK now on to Omniscience. If God knows what someone is going to choose that does not mean that God is making them choose it.

I agree with you. God's foreknowledge, in and of itself, does not determine outcomes. It is the combination of Ex Nihilo, Omniscience and Omonipotence. In the video, I make the inference that foreknowledge alone is not the problem. Start at 4:00 , where I give the Ex Nihilo view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxOiYvKDack

Then at 6:50, I give a contrasting view, whereby God is not creating Ex Nihilo, but instead for entities of free will that already exist.


Again that has nothing to do with Ex Nihilo.

My argument has to do with Ex Nihilo. You are arguing against the concept that you wish I were making, rather than the argument I am actually making. You are going to have to pay closer attention than that.


Ex Nihilo never says that God creates every instant in the universe from start to finish as a fixed thing. It doesn't even mean that he creates YOU specifically. Your mom and dad created you. God might or might not influence which sperm meets which egg, and various circumstances in your life that form you into who you are today. But that would be the case in the LDS version of God or a God who created Ex Nihilo (out of nothing). Ex Nihilo just refers to HOW God creates and specifically to the initial creation.

In mainstream Christian theology, where does your spirit come from? When does your spirit come into existence?


If I could create ex nihilo and you could not, and we each wanted to make a statue, I would just snap my finger and the statue would appear. You would take a large rock and carve out the statue, but when we are done, the statues are the same. From that point forward there is no difference in what happens with that statue. They are identical.

No, because IF you wanted to make a statue out of superior characteristics, ex nihilo, let's say out of gold for example, .... I would be stuck with working on sandstone, or whatever material I had available to work with.


The mouse has a mind and likes and dislikes. It is a unique individual mouse that likes what is at its end of the maze.

Who created the mouse's mind, and therefore ultimately created the mouse's likes and dislikes?


But nothing in Ex Nihilo says God creates people Ex Nihilo out of his own mind. It refers to creating the universe. Do you regularly notice anyone popping into existence out of nothing? I don't.

People are included as part of the the Ex Nihilo creation in your theology. Consider this quote from Ravi Zacharias and Norman Geisler:

"The only place the world "existed" before God made it was as an idea in God's mind."

You can replace the word "world" with anything that God imagined before creation. The only place that "you" existed before God created the Universe was as an idea in God's mind. The only place that "Hitler" existed before God created the Universe was as an idea in God's mind. The only place that "rape" existed before God created the Universe was as an idea in God's mind.

You get the idea.

-7up

seven7up
05-07-2014, 08:01 PM
Quote Originally Posted by seven7up
Would God place mouse 2 into the maze, if God did not want mouse 2 to go to point B?



Yes.


You nailed it Bill. That is exactly the Calvinist perspective, which is the logical conclusion from Ex Nihilo doctrine. God creates people to go to hell. In fact, in that theology, God created all of us from God's own mind in such a way that the grand majority of us would end up in misery and damnation forever. ... and puts the blame squarely on the creations which God conjured up purely from His own imagination.

When really, if God knew someone would go to hell, and didn't want that person to end up in hell, then God could have simply NOT created that person in the first place.


God created me to be Mormon Bill. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Him. I don't have a say in the matter ... right?



This turns into a big whine on God "should have been able to" only create those who would choose salvation.

No. I don't have to whine about a false and invented theology. I just point out the problems that exist inside the framework of that false and invented theology.


-7up

Sparko
05-08-2014, 05:48 AM
In LDS doctrine, we are not just "molecules". Let me give you a few quotes here to help you understand where Mormons are coming from here. First, let's Joseph Smith who spoke about this:

"The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-eternal with God himself. . . . Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end."

"[T]he mind of man—the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; . . . We say that God himself is a self-existent being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles."

Here is an Ensign article that discusses this as well:

The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation

Eternal life is also possible, in part, because an element of every human being is divine and eternal. Joseph Smith used several different terms to refer to that eternal essence—spirit, soul, mind, and intelligence. He received the knowledge that “man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.” (D&C 93:29.) He taught that “the mind of man is as immortal as God himself” and that “the Spirit of Man [meaning intelligence] is not a created being.”

He did not define, however, this element’s form and substance, nor did he identify its attributes, other than its eternal nature. This eternal element of intelligence or light of truth is something other than the spirit bodies God created later; these later entities were “the intelligences that were organized” and were the spirits that Abraham saw. ... In our own primeval births, the eternal intelligence part of us was “organized”.




I agree with you. God's foreknowledge, in and of itself, does not determine outcomes. It is the combination of Ex Nihilo, Omniscience and Omonipotence. In the video, I make the inference that foreknowledge alone is not the problem. Start at 4:00 , where I give the Ex Nihilo view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxOiYvKDack

Then at 6:50, I give a contrasting view, whereby God is not creating Ex Nihilo, but instead for entities of free will that already exist.

You are still making the assumption that God could not create our spirits with free will and end up with the exact same spirit as if it existed forever as in the LDS scenario. He could. That is what omnipotence is.








My argument has to do with Ex Nihilo. You are arguing against the concept that you wish I were making, rather than the argument I am actually making. You are going to have to pay closer attention than that.



In mainstream Christian theology, where does your spirit come from? When does your spirit come into existence?


It is created during conception. I don't believe that God chooses to personally make your spirit. I believe it is all part of the process of being conceived. Just like God didn't choose your parents and your genetic makeup. He KNEW you would be born, but I don't think he forced your entire lineage just to create you personally. Other than extreme calvinists, I don't think any Christian thinks that.

Let me ask you a question. When your God creates spirit babies, who decides which intelligences will inhabit them out of the infinite number of intelligences out there? How was the intelligence of Jesus chosen from among those intelligences and put into a spirit baby? Did the Father decide, or did he just get really lucky that his very first son was so good and perfect, better than any other intelligence out there?



No, because IF you wanted to make a statue out of superior characteristics, ex nihilo, let's say out of gold for example, .... I would be stuck with working on sandstone, or whatever material I had available to work with.


:doh: I was using an example of coming up with the same statue by two different means: You doing it by carving, me doing it by fiat. In that scenario, the statues would be identical at the end. There is nothing to stop an all powerful God from creating people with free will just because he created the universe out of nothing. Whether he started with nothing or a pile of sand, the universe once created could be the same universe.



Who created the mouse's mind, and therefore ultimately created the mouse's likes and dislikes?


The mouse's parents, and his environment.



People are included as part of the the Ex Nihilo creation in your theology. Consider this quote from Ravi Zacharias and Norman Geisler:

"The only place the world "existed" before God made it was as an idea in God's mind."

You can replace the word "world" with anything that God imagined before creation. The only place that "you" existed before God created the Universe was as an idea in God's mind. The only place that "Hitler" existed before God created the Universe was as an idea in God's mind. The only place that "rape" existed before God created the Universe was as an idea in God's mind.

You get the idea.

-7up

Your own God had to create a universe from his own mind too. He just used existing material to shape the universe and the real God created the material and the universe. No difference in free will.

Bill the Cat
05-08-2014, 06:17 AM
Quote Originally Posted by seven7up
Would God place mouse 2 into the maze, if God did not want mouse 2 to go to point B?





You nailed it Bill. That is exactly the Calvinist perspective, which is the logical conclusion from Ex Nihilo doctrine.

So, God places the mouse in the maze, despite not wanting it to go to point B, and you think that is Calvinism??? :rofl: The Calvinist believes in the absolute sovereignty of God and His ability to have everything He desires occur. If God places the mouse in the maze, it will only go exactly where God wanted it to go. You don't even understand that basic concept... :no:


God creates people to go to hell. In fact, in that theology, God created all of us from God's own mind in such a way that the grand majority of us would end up in misery and damnation forever. ... and puts the blame squarely on the creations which God conjured up purely from His own imagination.

That's Calvinism for you. Which is why I do not proscribe to it.


When really, if God knew someone would go to hell, and didn't want that person to end up in hell, then God could have simply NOT created that person in the first place.

Again, here is your real whine. COULD and SHOULD are different concepts. COULD He have? Absolutely. SHOULD He have? That's the real beef you have with Ex Nihilo. You think you know better than God on what He SHOULD do than He does.



God created me to be Mormon Bill. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Him. I don't have a say in the matter ... right?

From a Calvinist argument, you are correct. But since I am not a Calvinist, I will rely on God's wisdom for creating you the way He chose to and follow His command to preach the Gospel to you, since I do not know God's intent for you.




No. I don't have to whine about a false and invented theology. I just point out the problems that exist inside the framework of that false and invented theology.

Absolutely false. Sparko has also explained this to you how your complaints are based solely on how YOU prefer that God SHOULD have behaved, not how He CHOSE to do so. Who do you think you are to tell God what He should do? Does He seek YOUR counsel before doing things? Do you not trust His ability to make decisions that conflict with yours?

As I said, it is nothing more than a whiny complaint.

RBerman
05-08-2014, 07:50 AM
God created me to be Mormon Bill. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Him. I don't have a say in the matter ... right?

God created you to start Mormon. Just like God created Saul/Paul to start as a persecutor of Christians, until God directly intervened to radically change the direction of his thinking. God created me and Bill to call you to Christ, through whose life and death and resurrection you can be reckoned right before God through faith, not through various efforts to keep God's commands. I pray that God will open your heart to his love.

RBerman
05-08-2014, 07:51 AM
That's Calvinism for you. Which is why I do not proscribe to it.

"Proscribe" means "forbid." I would be delighted to hear that you do not proscribe Calvinism, but I suspect you meant that you do not subscribe to it. :lol:

Back to the original idea of this thread: If God is omnipotent, then he is still "on the hook" in some sense for the way the universe is, ex nihilo creation or not.

Bill the Cat
05-08-2014, 10:08 AM
"Proscribe" means "forbid." I would be delighted to hear that you do not proscribe Calvinism, but I suspect you meant that you do not subscribe to it. :lol:

:doh: See what I get for posting while I am eating... :metro:



Back to the original idea of this thread: If God is omnipotent, then he is still "on the hook" in some sense for the way the universe is, ex nihilo creation or not.

That's what I tried to get him to see before the crash when I explained that God allows the natural disasters to occur, and all of the carnage that follows, despite having the power to stop them, so He is just as responsible for death and misery from a Mormon framework as He is from an ex nihilo, Arminian, or Calvinist one.

seven7up
05-12-2014, 07:39 AM
You are still making the assumption that God could not create our spirits with free will and end up with the exact same spirit as if it existed forever as in the LDS scenario. He could. That is what omnipotence is.

As if God can create a being purely from God's own mind and imagination Ex Nihilo (knowing everything that the creature would do before hand) and then "wash his hands" of what the creature does afterwards?

The kind of creation and omnipotence you speak of implies complete unilateral power. God has TOTAL control and therefore is responsible for every "choice" that the creature makes.

-7up

Sparko
05-12-2014, 07:51 AM
As if God can create a being purely from God's own mind and imagination Ex Nihilo (knowing everything that the creature would do before hand) and then "wash his hands" of what the creature does afterwards?
duh. It's called free will.


The kind of creation and omnipotence you speak of implies complete unilateral power. God has TOTAL control and therefore is responsible for every "choice" that the creature makes.

-7up

Not if he gives them free will. Apparently your idea of an omnipotent God isn't really omnipotent if he can't create free will.

seven7up
05-12-2014, 11:38 PM
BILL: So, God places the mouse in the maze, despite not wanting it to go to point B, and you think that is Calvinism?

No. In Calvinism (or Ex Nihilo), God WILLS people to go to hell, and therefore they do. If God did not want them to go to hell 1) He could have created those particular individuals differently OR 2) He could have refrained from creating those individuals to begin with.



7UP: God creates people to go to hell. In fact, in that theology, God created all of us from God's own mind in such a way that the grand majority of us would end up in misery and damnation forever. ... and puts the blame squarely on the creations which God conjured up purely from His own imagination.


BILL: That's Calvinism for you.

Calvinism is the logical conclusion that is drawn from Ex Nihilo creation theology.



BILL: Sparko has also explained this to you how your complaints are based solely on how YOU prefer that God SHOULD have behaved, not how He CHOSE to do so.

No. My arguments are simply based in logic. "Preference" has not much to do with it.


Who do you think you are to tell God what He should do? Does He seek YOUR counsel before doing things? Do you not trust His ability to make decisions that conflict with yours?

This ol' straw man again Bill? You and I both know that, from my perspective, God did everything perfectly. He did the very best possible with the eternal intelligences that He had to work with. The very fact that Had to work with flawed entities with free will is why we find sin and suffering in our world. It is not because God created flawed spirits Ex Nihilo.


it is nothing more than a whiny complaint.

Do you think that repeating the terms "whiny" and "complaint" are sufficient to overcome the arguments of free will that you wish could exist in your theology Bill? You are going to have to do better than that. Try a substantive response for once.

While you think on that, I will have a Calvinist preach to you:

"In Calvinism, there is no conflict between the will and nature of God and the nature of ultimate reality, or the basic laws of reality. Whereas in an Arminian or an LDS view, sin and suffering, to the extent that they occur, are indications of the failure of God to attain his desires and reminders that God is limited by a universe he did not create and over which he does not have full control, in the Calvinist view, sin and suffering, like all things, are outworkings of the free plan of God. There are no “lawlike structures or principles” which are coeternal and not identical with God himself. Rather, in Calvinism, all the laws of reality are rooted in him, in his nature and will. He is in full control of reality. ...

Creation ex nihilo implies a radical metaphysical dependence upon God, one that logically guarantees that the creature will not be independent from God or be capable of independent contributions to reality in the ways envisioned in Arminian thought. In fact, creation ex nihilo logically leads directly to Calvinistic determinism. So, there is a conflict between ex nihilo creation and some of the central features of the Arminian universe. ...

To put it another way, the explanation for the particular choices free creatures make, in the Arminian view, cannot be found in the fact that God gave his creatures free agency. God’s act of creation was a cause that had some effects. By definition, an effect is something that exists by means of having been determined by some preceding action as its cause. If our choices are undetermined by God and first-causal by nature, they therefore cannot be effects of God’s creative activity. They cannot be explained by it or traced back to it. They are wholly self-existent or self-originated. God cannot create uncaused choices, directly or indirectly. " - Mark Hausam

-7up

seven7up
05-12-2014, 11:49 PM
duh. It's called free will.

Even Evangelical Christians usually admit that God is not omnipotent in the sense that there are no logical contradictions. God cannot, for example, create a circle with four corners.

The argument that you are attempting to use here fails under this category. I explained it in the video; you simply have not grasped it. I provided a quote to Bill which explains the concept in summary. Please read it carefully.




Not if he gives them free will. Apparently your idea of an omnipotent God isn't really omnipotent if he can't create free will.


You have not even begun to demonstrate any understanding that is necessary for the level of discussion being addressed here. I will try to be patient.


-7up

seven7up
05-13-2014, 12:29 AM
7UP: In mainstream Christian theology, where does your spirit come from? When does your spirit come into existence?


It is created during conception. I don't believe that God chooses to personally make your spirit. I believe it is all part of the process of being conceived.

You are just trying to be "indirect" about it. It doesn't matter how "indirectly" you try to twist your way out of it. An omniscient and omnipotent God has complete unilateral control. Reality will be EXACTLY what God created it to be and what God envisioned in His own mind before He even created it, down to the very most intricate detail, including what you "decided" to eat for breakfast this morning.

Christian Philosopher Thomas Oord relates two significant points as follows:

*Problem of Evil: If God once had the power to create from absolutely nothing, God essentially retains that power. But a God of love with this capacity appears culpable for failing to prevent evil.

*Empire Problem: The kind of divine power implied in creatio ex nihilo supports a theology of empire, based upon unilateral force and control of others.




Let me ask you a question. When your God creates spirit babies, who decides which intelligences will inhabit them out of the infinite number of intelligences out there? How was the intelligence of Jesus chosen from among those intelligences and put into a spirit baby?

The intelligences are entities of free will. If you have thought long and hard about this theological framework, we can consider the possibility that these entities themselves decide to enter into that spiritual form.

The difference is that when placed at a higher level of existence, this entity may begin to act out its free will in a more meaningful way. This is especially true for us as human beings living by faith in mortality. Right now we are given tremendous amounts of freedom, outside of God's presence, to see what we are really made of.



7up: IF you wanted to make a statue out of superior characteristics, ex nihilo, let's say out of gold for example, .... I would be stuck with working on sandstone, or whatever material I had available to work with.


I was using an example of coming up with the same statue by two different means: You doing it by carving, me doing it by fiat.

And you decide to miss the point of that analogy. The intelligences (and subsequently spirits) that became these individuals had unique characteristics.

John the Baptist, for example, would have been an entity/intelligence, represented by gold, with superior characteristics which eventually resulted in better moral decision making when "tested by fire" , than ... let's say ... the decision making of Cain, or Hitler, which is represented by sandstone and results in poor moral decision making.


Your own God had to create a universe from his own mind too. He just used existing material to shape the universe and the real God created the material and the universe. No difference in free will.

Contrary to the Ex Nihilo view, the world we live in today is the result, not only ultimately of the plan of God being carried out, but it is influenced by the different wills, sometimes contrary voices, which are "self-determined" and "first-causal" in nature. LDS do not accept your theological framework, which is based on the Greek philosophical view (Greek philosophical monotheism) known as the single "Unmoved Mover", which was turned into God the Father in order to make Christianity more acceptable to the Roman world.

The reality that we witness is not only the result of the will and plan of God, but also the result of the wills of all those who have free agency, whether they be human, spiritual, divine, angelic, etc. In other words, the history of the world is not written solely by God, while I admit that his hand is in all of it, but history is also coauthored by all of us. LDS theology allows for true interpersonal relationships. God does not simply to enjoy himself and his own contributions to reality which are entirely a result of his own imagination; this would be nothing more than a relationship with Himself, or the diverse aspects of God's own mind. Instead, God wants to be enriched by relationships with independent beings who truly add something to reality other than God's own self projections.

As I have discussed previously, Ex Nihilo creation theology is a veiled form of Pantheism, whereby the created Universe is a projection of God's own creative imagination which results in nothing more and nothing less than what God imagined it would be in His own mind before deciding to create it.

-7up

seven7up
05-13-2014, 12:51 AM
Back to the original idea of this thread: If God is omnipotent, then he is still "on the hook" in some sense for the way the universe is, ex nihilo creation or not.

As you will be forced to see in this discussion, the hook and barb are much larger in the Ex Nihilo view. Christian theologians continue to insist on Ex Nihilo doctrine. It is one of the reasons that critics have so successfully demonstrated philosophical problems with this view of God and creation; and rightly so. By continuing to preach "creation from nothing", you are only helping the adversary undermine Christianity. You are unwittingly working against yourselves ... and God, by presenting a false religion that cannot stand up to scrutiny. Even as a teenager, I could see the flaws in your system of dogma.


God created me and Bill to call you to Christ, through whose life and death and resurrection you can be reckoned right before God through faith, not through various efforts to keep God's commands.

Feel free to start a thread concerning the relationship between Faith, Grace, and Works. I will be happy to address that topic with you, time permitting. Just know that it is large groups within the Evangelical community that have fooled countless people into believing that they are saved without repentance. That will be on your heads (or their heads), not mine. Fortunately, I have seen a change for the better in some of these Christian circles, as some of them are actually turning more towards a balanced, and quite frankly, a more LDS view. Refusing to take grace as a "license to sin" is not the same as supposedly trying to earn your way into heaven. I hope that you all can appreciate that contrast.

-7up

Sparko
05-13-2014, 05:41 AM
Even Evangelical Christians usually admit that God is not omnipotent in the sense that there are no logical contradictions. God cannot, for example, create a circle with four corners.

The argument that you are attempting to use here fails under this category. I explained it in the video; you simply have not grasped it. I provided a quote to Bill which explains the concept in summary. Please read it carefully.






You have not even begun to demonstrate any understanding that is necessary for the level of discussion being addressed here. I will try to be patient.


-7up

It is you who does not grasp it.

Free will is not logically impossible under ex nihilo. That's just idiotic.:ahem:

Sparko
05-13-2014, 05:57 AM
7UP: In mainstream Christian theology, where does your spirit come from? When does your spirit come into existence?



You are just trying to be "indirect" about it. It doesn't matter how "indirectly" you try to twist your way out of it. An omniscient and omnipotent God has complete unilateral control. Reality will be EXACTLY what God created it to be and what God envisioned in His own mind before He even created it, down to the very most intricate detail, including what you "decided" to eat for breakfast this morning.

Christian Philosopher Thomas Oord relates two significant points as follows:

*Problem of Evil: If God once had the power to create from absolutely nothing, God essentially retains that power. But a God of love with this capacity appears culpable for failing to prevent evil.

*Empire Problem: The kind of divine power implied in creatio ex nihilo supports a theology of empire, based upon unilateral force and control of others.

Just making such a claim does not make it true, 7up. There is no reason a God who creates out of nothing could not make beings with free will.






The intelligences are entities of free will. If you have thought long and hard about this theological framework, we can consider the possibility that these entities themselves decide to enter into that spiritual form.


So basically, you are saying that it was just pure luck that God's first born was Jesus and not YOU? Or Satan? That the Father had no say in the matter? I thought the LDS believed that the "intelligences" had no actual mind, able to make decisions or do anything until they were placed in spirit form?

Here is another problem with eternal and infinite intelligences floating around out there. If there truly are an infinite number of them, then there is no way they can all become spirit beings or humans. No matter how many you take from the pool of infinite intelligences, there will be an infinite number left. So the LDS idea of intelligences basically condemns these beings to an eternity of limbo. And if as you suggest they are conscious, then it is torture to exist forever with a mind but no body or ability to do anything but float around. No spirit, no body, just basically a "brain in a jar" existence. Forever and ever, for an infinite number of intelligences.

The LDS doctrines of intelligences is worse than any hell you guys accuse Christians of coming up with.





As I have discussed previously, Ex Nihilo creation theology is a veiled form of Pantheism, whereby the created Universe is a projection of God's own creative imagination which results in nothing more and nothing less than what God imagined it would be in His own mind before deciding to create it.

-7up

If anything christian theology is not pantheistic, but more panentheistic. At least try to understand the terms you toss about. So far you have shown you have no understanding of ex nihilo, the trinity, infinity, eternity, free will, and pantheism.

Bill the Cat
05-13-2014, 09:23 AM
No. In Calvinism (or Ex Nihilo), God WILLS people to go to hell, and therefore they do.

Calvinism, yes. Ex Nihilo, not necessarily. Calvinism is a systematic theology while Ex Nihilo is a theory of creation. Apples and oranges. What you are using is the determinism of Calvinism and equating that to a method of creation.


If God did not want them to go to hell 1) He could have created those particular individuals differently OR 2) He could have refrained from creating those individuals to begin with.

And here is the whine I predicted at the beginning. What God COULD do and what He DOES are two different things that EVERY system suffers from, including yours. It would be unjust for God to decide not to create them based solely on what He knows they will do.



Calvinism is the logical conclusion that is drawn from Ex Nihilo creation theology.

It is A conclusion that can be drawn from Ex Nihilo. Molinism is another.



No. My arguments are simply based in logic. "Preference" has not much to do with it.

:rofl: What an entity "Could" or "should" have done is not a logical argument. It is a preference that places your own wisdom above the decision making of the entity's.




This ol' straw man again Bill? You and I both know that, from my perspective, God did everything perfectly. He did the very best possible with the eternal intelligences that He had to work with. The very fact that Had to work with flawed entities with free will is why we find sin and suffering in our world. It is not because God created flawed spirits Ex Nihilo.

It's not a straw man. Either your god is impotent, clueless about the future, or he doesn't give a flying crap that he is in charge, and ultimately responsible for allowing the lost to even come to earth. If he knew satan was eventually going to rebel, and allowed satan to be spirit born in the first place, he is just as culpable as what you claim he is in Ex Nihilo.



Do you think that repeating the terms "whiny" and "complaint" are sufficient to overcome the arguments of free will that you wish could exist in your theology Bill? You are going to have to do better than that. Try a substantive response for once.

Your claims are whiny complaints against what God "should" have done. You are placing YOUR morals and reason above God's.


While you think on that, I will have a Calvinist preach to you:

"In Calvinism, there is no conflict between the will and nature of God and the nature of ultimate reality, or the basic laws of reality. Whereas in an Arminian or an LDS view, sin and suffering, to the extent that they occur, are indications of the failure of God to attain his desires and reminders that God is limited by a universe he did not create

Straw man #1. In an Arminian view, God DID create the universe. And God does NOT always get His desires, so this guy is bating a big fat ".000" from the get-go...


and over which he does not have full control,

Straw man #2. We believe God is in full control. We do not believe He is MAKING every action occur though. That's not control. That's doing it yourself.


in the Calvinist view, sin and suffering, like all things, are outworkings of the free plan of God.

Translation: It's all one big puppet show.


There are no “lawlike structures or principles” which are coeternal and not identical with God himself.

That's your guys burden to bear, not Arminians.


Rather, in Calvinism, all the laws of reality are rooted in him, in his nature and will. He is in full control of reality. ...

Arminians have no issue with that statement in its context.



Creation ex nihilo implies a radical metaphysical dependence upon God, one that logically guarantees that the creature will not be independent from God or be capable of independent contributions to reality in the ways envisioned in Arminian thought.

Back that bull dozer up on this pile of stinking poo... This guy is basically arguing that God runs a giant puppet show and is incapable of allowing His creation to act at all. it is ultimately God acting through them. That means that God is the one who is responsible for the sin of mankind. God, through Adam, broke His own commandment. Therefore, it is God, and not man, who is responsible for the first sin, and thus, God is the real sinner. That's the logic that must flow out of Calvinistic determinism when it is described the way this fellow is doing.


In fact, creation ex nihilo logically leads directly to Calvinistic determinism.

This assumes that man is acting as a puppet, and thus, not responsible for their own sin.


So, there is a conflict between ex nihilo creation and some of the central features of the Arminian universe. ...

Utterly false. There is a conflict between determinism and Arminianism, but Ex Nihilo still functions within Arminianism just fine.


To put it another way, the explanation for the particular choices free creatures make, in the Arminian view, cannot be found in the fact that God gave his creatures free agency.

Sure it can. Knowledge of the choice does not imply causation of the choice, even by creation of the being that chooses it.


God’s act of creation was a cause that had some effects.

Which makes God responsible for the consequences, not the creation.


By definition, an effect is something that exists by means of having been determined by some preceding action as its cause.

So, blaming the effect for the action of the cause is unjust.


If our choices are undetermined by God and first-causal by nature, they therefore cannot be effects of God’s creative activity.

They are consequences of God's creating our nature, not inevitibilities forced by it. or else, there would be no such thing as "acting contrary to your nature".


They cannot be explained by it or traced back to it.

They can be products of it. Without the choice being real, it is unjust to punish someone for the results.


They are wholly self-existent or self-originated.

False. They are consequences of a created nature, which God DID create. They are not independent of our existence, and no Arminian claims that. For something to truely be "self-existent", it has to be able to exist without any other factor. So, remove the individual, and the choice should still exist if it were "self-existent". But it is contingent on our existence. So, strawman #3


God cannot create uncaused choices, directly or indirectly. " - Mark Hausam

Nor can choices truly exist independent from the chooser or the object to be chosen.

Bill the Cat
05-13-2014, 09:33 AM
An omniscient and omnipotent God has complete unilateral control. Reality will be EXACTLY what God created it to be and what God envisioned in His own mind before He even created it, down to the very most intricate detail, including what you "decided" to eat for breakfast this morning.
-7up

How does this differ from your god? Does yours not have the control over which intelligences to organize into spirit children? If he could choose Christ first, why could he not choose only the ones who would not rebel, like Lucifer did? If he knows what will happen (through omniscience), and allows that agent to come into existence, why is he not just as guilty as what you accuse ours of?

seven7up
05-14-2014, 08:03 PM
It is you who does not grasp it.

Free will is not logically impossible under ex nihilo. That's just idiotic.:ahem:


Yes. It is logically impossible. Watch the videos (1a and 1b) and pay attention closely. So far, your commentary has demonstrated that you have not grasped the depth being addressed here.

Let it simmer.

-7up

seven7up
05-14-2014, 09:12 PM
How does this differ from your god? Does yours not have the control over which intelligences to organize into spirit children?

Complete unilateral control, in the sense that God has in Ex Nihilo creation? No. He does not. I would say that God COULD control these intelligences. In other words, God has the power to force them, but that would be oppressive.




If he could choose Christ first, why could he not choose only the ones who would not rebel, like Lucifer did?

It isn't only a matter of God choosing. We are talking about eternal entities of free-will. They have a choice in any action as well.


If he knows what will happen (through omniscience), and allows that agent to come into existence, why is he not just as guilty as what you accuse ours of?

God did not "allow that agent to come into existence." The agent already existed.

Let's see how David Ray Griffin addresses the issue:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I find the following 7-step statement to be most helpful in eliminating ambiguities, thereby allowing one to see just which premise is being rejected by the various theodicies.

1. To be God, a being must be omnipotent (with an “omnipotent being” defined as one whose power to bring about what it wills is essentially unlimited––except [perhaps] by logical impossibilities).
2. An omnipotent being could unilaterally bring about a world devoid of genuine evil (with “genuine evil” defined as anything that makes the world worse than it could have otherwise been).
3. To be God, a being must be morally perfect.
4. A morally perfect being would want to bring about a world devoid of genuine evil.
5. If there is a God, there would be no genuine evil.
6. But there is genuine evil in the world.
7. Therefore there is no God.
...

....

I now turn to the solution I favor, to which the rejection of creatio ex nihilo is fundamental. In fact, the problem of evil is uniquely a problem for those theistic positions that hold the doctrine of omnipotence implied by the doctrine of creation out of nothing. For, the problem of evil can be stated as a syllogism entailing the non-existence of deity only if deity is defined as omnipotent in the sense of having no essential limitations upon the exercise of its will. And it is precisely omnipotence in this sense that the speculative hypothesis of creatio ex nihilo is designed to support.

Two issues are involved. First, if God in creating our world necessarily worked with some pre-existent actualities, these actualities might well have some power of their own with which they could partially thwart the divine will. Second, there might be some eternal, uncreated, necessary principles (beyond purely logical truths) about the way these actualities can be ordered which limit the sorts of situations that are really possible. But if God created this world out of absolutely nothing, then the beings of this world are absolutely dependent upon God. Any power they have is not at all inherent, but is totally a gift of God, and as such can be overridden (or, which amounts to the same thing, withdrawn) at any time. And if there has not always been a multiplicity of finite actualities, it does not make sense to think of any uncreated and hence necessary principles as to how the actualities of the world can be ordered. Any such principles would be purely contingent ones, created along with the actualities whose behavior they describe, and hence alterable at (divine) will.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


-7up

seven7up
05-14-2014, 09:20 PM
If anything christian theology is not pantheistic, but more panentheistic. At least try to understand the terms you toss about.


I understand the terms Sparko.

If you were to have actually watched my video series, you will see that I specified quite clearly that the form of pantheism that is implied by Ex Nihilo is in fact, panENtheism.

That video is found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qduIGkSy1Ro

-7up

Sparko
05-15-2014, 06:03 AM
Yes. It is logically impossible. Watch the videos (1a and 1b) and pay attention closely. So far, your commentary has demonstrated that you have not grasped the depth being addressed here.

Let it simmer.

-7up

I watched the videos. You are wrong. Everything you have argued so far is basically, as Bill said, whining. Your reasoning is not logical. There is no reason God can't create people with free will. Despite you repeating yourself and wanting people to watch your dumb videos which basically just repeat the same whining.

Lay it out for us in a logical statement with no LDS preconceptions. Go for it.

Sparko
05-15-2014, 06:07 AM
I understand the terms Sparko.

If you were to have actually watched my video series, you will see that I specified quite clearly that the form of pantheism that is implied by Ex Nihilo is in fact, panENtheism.

That video is found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qduIGkSy1Ro

-7up

Will you stop trying to market your videos? It basically boils down to argument by weblink and pure laziness on your part to do the work in this thread.

Present your arguments in THIS thread, and forget your videos. Argument by weblink is not allowed.

Bill the Cat
05-15-2014, 06:51 AM
Complete unilateral control, in the sense that God has in Ex Nihilo creation? No. He does not. I would say that God COULD control these intelligences. In other words, God has the power to force them, but that would be oppressive.

That's not what I am talking about. I mean the transition from intelligence to spirit. Who controls that transition? Do they do it of their own volition, or does Elohim, through his power, do the organizing? Or do they simply tell Elohim that they want to be spirits and he makes them spirits? Either way, unless they tell Elohim what to do, he is in control of who does and doesn't get organized into a spirit... Unless Elohim is thoroughly ignorant on the events yet to occur, he has the moral obligation to not allow them to be organized.




It isn't only a matter of God choosing. We are talking about eternal entities of free-will. They have a choice in any action as well.

To which Elohim seems ignorant. Did Elohim not know before organizing him as a spirit that Lucifer would rebel?



God did not "allow that agent to come into existence." The agent already existed.

But not as a spirit baby. They need to be organized before they can affect creation, yes?


Let's see how David Ray Griffin addresses the issue:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I find the following 7-step statement to be most helpful in eliminating ambiguities, thereby allowing one to see just which premise is being rejected by the various theodicies.

1. To be God, a being must be omnipotent (with an “omnipotent being” defined as one whose power to bring about what it wills is essentially unlimited––except [perhaps] by logical impossibilities).
2. An omnipotent being could unilaterally bring about a world devoid of genuine evil (with “genuine evil” defined as anything that makes the world worse than it could have otherwise been).
3. To be God, a being must be morally perfect.
4. A morally perfect being would want to bring about a world devoid of genuine evil.
5. If there is a God, there would be no genuine evil.
6. But there is genuine evil in the world.
7. Therefore there is no God.
...

....

I now turn to the solution I favor, to which the rejection of creatio ex nihilo is fundamental. In fact, the problem of evil is uniquely a problem for those theistic positions that hold the doctrine of omnipotence implied by the doctrine of creation out of nothing. For, the problem of evil can be stated as a syllogism entailing the non-existence of deity only if deity is defined as omnipotent in the sense of having no essential limitations upon the exercise of its will. And it is precisely omnipotence in this sense that the speculative hypothesis of creatio ex nihilo is designed to support.

Two issues are involved. First, if God in creating our world necessarily worked with some pre-existent actualities, these actualities might well have some power of their own with which they could partially thwart the divine will. Second, there might be some eternal, uncreated, necessary principles (beyond purely logical truths) about the way these actualities can be ordered which limit the sorts of situations that are really possible. But if God created this world out of absolutely nothing, then the beings of this world are absolutely dependent upon God. Any power they have is not at all inherent, but is totally a gift of God, and as such can be overridden (or, which amounts to the same thing, withdrawn) at any time. And if there has not always been a multiplicity of finite actualities, it does not make sense to think of any uncreated and hence necessary principles as to how the actualities of the world can be ordered. Any such principles would be purely contingent ones, created along with the actualities whose behavior they describe, and hence alterable at (divine) will.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


-7up

I'd rather debate you than Mr. Griffin, who is not available for further comment... much of what he said was extremely incomplete or unnecessarily rudimentary in nature, anyway.

seven7up
05-17-2014, 10:15 AM
Present your arguments in THIS thread, ....

I did. You have not yet been able to respond. All you have done in your response is demonstrate that you have not understood the arguments. You have not even addressed this first one, which I posted near the beginning.

1) God knows what characteristics of an individual would lead to certain "choices" in certain circumstances. God is creating every single characteristic (every aspect) of a person's being, purely from God's own mind. Therefore, the person who God creates will do exactly what God created that individual to do, in every circumstance.

-7up

seven7up
05-17-2014, 10:35 AM
That's not what I am talking about. I mean the transition from intelligence to spirit. Who controls that transition?

It is not a matter of unilateral control. An eternal entity of free will has characteristics that God chooses not to violate (otherwise God would be a bully/oppressor). In LDS theology, the physical existence is a parallel of the spiritual existence. We believe that our spirits chose to enter physical bodies, and therefore, the possibility exists that the eternal intelligence had some kind of will to enter a spiritual body.


Unless Elohim is thoroughly ignorant on the events yet to occur, he has the moral obligation to not allow them to be organized.

That is like an atheist saying to a Christian that God had a moral obligation to never allow Hitler to be born.


To which Elohim seems ignorant. Did Elohim not know before organizing him as a spirit that Lucifer would rebel?

I do not pretend to know the nature of God's foreknowledge in such matters. But to make things interesting, let's say that God knows for sure that Lucifer would rebel, would God be oppressive enough to deny Lucifer's intelligence entrance into spirituality?

Surely you can see the difference between
1) God allowing an eternal free agent, who has certain characteristics, to make choices
2) God creating the creature, and every single characteristic that the creature possesses, from God's own imagination

First, if God in creating our world necessarily worked with some pre-existent actualities, these actualities might well have some power of their own with which they could partially thwart the divine will. Second, there might be some eternal, uncreated, necessary principles (beyond purely logical truths) about the way these actualities can be ordered which limit the sorts of situations that are really possible. - Griffin


I'd rather debate you than Mr. Griffin, who is not available for further comment... much of what he said was extremely incomplete or unnecessarily rudimentary in nature, anyway.

If it is so "rudimentary", then you should have no problem addressing the issues Bill.

-7up

Sparko
05-17-2014, 12:00 PM
I did. You have not yet been able to respond. All you have done in your response is demonstrate that you have not understood the arguments. You have not even addressed this first one, which I posted near the beginning.

1) God knows what characteristics of an individual would lead to certain "choices" in certain circumstances. God is creating every single characteristic (every aspect) of a person's being, purely from God's own mind. Therefore, the person who God creates will do exactly what God created that individual to do, in every circumstance.

-7up

That is crap. I did respond to your argument. Your response was to watch your videos.

Your argument is basically, God made you into a robot and programmed you so you have no free will.

It is a circular argument. God doesn't determine or create every characteristic of our personality. He doesn't make us make decisions. You basically are arguing "God didn't give you free will therefore you don't have free will"

He created us with free will, we observe it in ourselves and others. If you want to prove that just because he created out of nothing we don't have free will, you have to prove that with a logical argument. Just asserting it is not an argument.

Bill the Cat
05-17-2014, 04:43 PM
It is not a matter of unilateral control.

So, your god is not in full control of existence. Therefore he is not "all powerful" because something else can thwart his will.


An eternal entity of free will has characteristics that God chooses not to violate (otherwise God would be a bully/oppressor).

Not if his way is better. It is irresponsible to not stop something you are capable of stopping. (This is the same argument you are trying to use against us)


In LDS theology, the physical existence is a parallel of the spiritual existence. We believe that our spirits chose to enter physical bodies, and therefore, the possibility exists that the eternal intelligence had some kind of will to enter a spiritual body.

With full consent of Elohim, right? Is he even capable of saying no?



That is like an atheist saying to a Christian that God had a moral obligation to never allow Hitler to be born.

If God is solely benevolent, then yes. It is a valid charge.




I do not pretend to know the nature of God's foreknowledge in such matters. But to make things interesting, let's say that God knows for sure that Lucifer would rebel, would God be oppressive enough to deny Lucifer's intelligence entrance into spirituality?

Absolutely. If He is "all powerful", then his will can not be thwarted. By allowing Lucifer to fall, and take 1/3 of his children with him, Elohim's will was thwarted. Therefore, your god is not all powerful. If he knew Lucifer would fall, and take 1/3 of them down with him, and had the power to stop it, he should have. Or does your god think that sacrificing 1/3 to give the other 2/3 a shot is an acceptable loss? He COULD have chosen to not allow Lucifer to be organized, and that could have saved at least SOME of the 1/3. So, by your same "Could have" and "Should have" criteria for rejecting ex nihilo, you should reject Elohim organizing spirits he knew would fall and be destroyed.



Surely you can see the difference between
1) God allowing an eternal free agent, who has certain characteristics, to make choices
2) God creating the creature, and every single characteristic that the creature possesses, from God's own imagination

But that's not the real story. It should be:

1) God, who ultimately controls which spirits get organized, allows those spirits to be organized, despite knowing they will be destroyed
2) God created the creature from His imagination, despite knowing they will be destroyed.

In both your belief and mine, God is ultimately responsible for creating creatures he knows will be destroyed. You can wiggle and squirm all you want, but either your god is "all powerful" or he is not.


First, if God in creating our world necessarily worked with some pre-existent actualities, these actualities might well have some power of their own with which they could partially thwart the divine will.[quote]

Which eliminates the possibility of "omnipotent".

[quote] Second, there might be some eternal, uncreated, necessary principles (beyond purely logical truths) about the way these actualities can be ordered which limit the sorts of situations that are really possible. - Griffin

Then the principles themselves are more powerful than God, thus eliminating the possibility of "omnipotent".




If it is so "rudimentary", then you should have no problem addressing the issues Bill.

-7up

Again, now you have to fight for Griffin without knowing the thought behind his arguments. It's a fool's endeavor and a waste of time.

seven7up
05-19-2014, 09:40 PM
Your argument is basically, God made you into a robot and programmed you so you have no free will.

It is a circular argument.

No. The argument that God created us out of nothing AND created us with free will BECAUSE God created us ex nihilo with free will is a circular argument. My argument goes far beyond that. I have elaborated on the other thread for Kind Debater, to see if someone is finally ready to address the issues.


God doesn't determine or create every characteristic of our personality.

Alright then. Where does every characteristic of our personality come from, if not from God, in the Ex Nihilo framework? Please explain for the audience.


He created us with free will, we observe it in ourselves and others.

There is your circular reasoning again.

-7up

seven7up
05-19-2014, 10:26 PM
7UP: It is not a matter of unilateral control.


So, your god is not in full control of existence. Therefore he is not "all powerful" because something else can thwart his will.

1 Timothy 2:4 God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

Do you believe in universal salvation? God wants everyone to be saved. Since that is God's will, can something thwart that desire?


7UP: An eternal entity of free will has characteristics that God chooses not to violate (otherwise God would be a bully/oppressor).


Not if his way is better. It is irresponsible to not stop something you are capable of stopping. (This is the same argument you are trying to use against us)

It isn't the same argument, because your system is Ex Nihilo.


7up: In LDS theology, the physical existence is a parallel of the spiritual existence. We believe that our spirits chose to enter physical bodies, and therefore, the possibility exists that the eternal intelligence had some kind of will to enter a spiritual body.


With full consent of Elohim, right? Is he even capable of saying no?

Is God capable of preventing a rapist from raping a child? Yes. But He doesn't.

The difference between your view and mine - is that God, in your theology, is creating a rapist from God's own imagination (ie from nothing). In my theology, there already existed a flawed intelligence from eternity. That flawed and imperfect intelligence progressed into humanity, and to deny any step of that progression could have been a violation of that individual's free will.


That is like an atheist saying to a Christian that God had a moral obligation to never allow Hitler to be born.


7UP: If God is solely benevolent, then yes. It is a valid charge.

And what are you going to do about that charge, Bill?



7UP: I do not pretend to know the nature of God's foreknowledge in such matters. But to make things interesting, let's say that God knows for sure that Lucifer would rebel, would God be oppressive enough to deny Lucifer's intelligence entrance into spirituality?


Absolutely. If He is "all powerful", then his will can not be thwarted.

Is "all powerful" supposed to mean being able to do EVERYTHING, even if it is logically contradictory? Does omnipotence imply that God will necessarily infringe on the agency of an eternal entity with free will?


By allowing Lucifer to fall, and take 1/3 of his children with him, Elohim's will was thwarted. Therefore, your god is not all powerful. If he knew Lucifer would fall, and take 1/3 of them down with him, and had the power to stop it, he should have. Or does your god think that sacrificing 1/3 to give the other 2/3 a shot is an acceptable loss? He COULD have chosen to not allow Lucifer to be organized, and that could have saved at least SOME of the 1/3. So, by your same "Could have" and "Should have" criteria for rejecting ex nihilo, you should reject Elohim organizing spirits he knew would fall and be destroyed.

Your argument is flawed Bill , and your attempted point fails entirely on the premise on which we disagree, which is Ex Nihilo.

In your theology, God was the only entity in existence. Then God created Lucifer purely from God's own mind. To make it worse, God created Lucifer from God's own mind knowing exactly what the eternal destination of that miserable being would be. That being didn't even supposedly have free will (which is impossible anyways in this framework) until AFTER God decided to create that being to begin with.

In LDS theology, Lucifer ALREADY existed, as an eternal intelligence. Perhaps God COULD have denied Lucifer's will to enter a spiritual body, but we can say that to do so would be a rejection of that particular intelligence's choice of progression from the get go, which is an oppression against free will.

As you can see, the burden falls on your theology and on your God, because that entity did not exist AT ALL, before God decided how, if, and when to create it.

It is astounding to see how unwilling you are to come to terms with the differences in these view points.


7UP: Surely you can see the difference between
1) God allowing an eternal free agent, who has certain characteristics, to make choices
2) God creating the creature, and every single characteristic that the creature possesses, from God's own imagination


But that's not the real story. It should be:

1) God, who ultimately controls which spirits get organized, allows those spirits to be organized, despite knowing they will be destroyed
2) God created the creature from His imagination, despite knowing they will be destroyed.

In both your belief and mine, God is ultimately responsible for creating creatures he knows will be destroyed. You can wiggle and squirm all you want, but either your god is "all powerful" or he is not.

It isn't the same Bill. You are in denial. In your theology God is "ultimately" responsible. In my theology, it is just the way it is.



Griffin: First, if God in creating our world necessarily worked with some pre-existent actualities, these actualities might well have some power of their own with which they could partially thwart the divine will.


Which eliminates the possibility of "omnipotent".

Depending on what you mean by "omnipotent" and also how God righteously decides to use His power.



Griffin: Second, there might be some eternal, uncreated, necessary principles (beyond purely logical truths) about the way these actualities can be ordered which limit the sorts of situations that are really possible. - Griffin


Then the principles themselves are more powerful than God, thus eliminating the possibility of "omnipotent".

"Principles" have no will. They have no personal relationship with others (ie are not interpersonal). Furthermore, that is like arguing against Christians who say that God cannot overcome logical contradictions. Are logical contradictions, or is logic in general, more powerful than the evangelical God?


-7up

Sparko
05-20-2014, 06:44 AM
No. The argument that God created us out of nothing AND created us with free will BECAUSE God created us ex nihilo with free will is a circular argument. My argument goes far beyond that. I have elaborated on the other thread for Kind Debater, to see if someone is finally ready to address the issues.
merely repeating your assertions is not a logical proof.




Alright then. Where does every characteristic of our personality come from, if not from God, in the Ex Nihilo framework? Please explain for the audience.

The same way it does for the LDS folks. Free will, circumstances in our lives, environment, genetics.




There is your circular reasoning again.

-7up

No that is observational evidence. We do have free will. We can experience it, and we observe it and we use it. So whether we have free will or not is not up for question. We do. The question is whether if God created ex nihilo, would that mean that free will does not exist.

You made the assertion but you have not proven it using any sort of logical argument.

You merely repeat your assertions and reference your arguments elsewhere as in your videos, where you just make the same assertions without proof. It's pretty comical.

Bill the Cat
05-20-2014, 07:18 AM
7UP: It is not a matter of unilateral control.



1 Timothy 2:4 God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

Do you believe in universal salvation? God wants everyone to be saved. Since that is God's will, can something thwart that desire?

His passive desire and His active will are somewhat different.


Isaiah 14:27
27 For the Lord of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate it?





It isn't the same argument, because your system is Ex Nihilo.

It IS the same. The method may be different, but the results are the same.



7up: In LDS theology, the physical existence is a parallel of the spiritual existence. We believe that our spirits chose to enter physical bodies, and therefore, the possibility exists that the eternal intelligence had some kind of will to enter a spiritual body.



Is God capable of preventing a rapist from raping a child? Yes. But He doesn't.

Then He is responsible for not stopping it, if He has the power to do so.




The difference between your view and mine - is that God, in your theology, is creating a rapist from God's own imagination (ie from nothing).

For His own purposes. For, if God is to not create the rapist, then He is filtering evil based on arbitrary criteria. If God decides not to create the rapist because rape is evil, then He would have to not create ANY of us, because we ALL think evil thoughts from time to time.


In my theology, there already existed a flawed intelligence from eternity.

Which dictates to God what it will and will not do. God then becomes its slave.


That flawed and imperfect intelligence progressed into humanity

Which was 1) facilitated by God based on the demand of the flawed intelligence (which makes Him subject to their will), 2) commanded by God based on a plan that God has (which violates their free will), or 3) arranged by God out of ignorance of what their plans were (which makes Him not omniscient)


, and to deny any step of that progression could have been a violation of that individual's free will.

So, their will is greater than His. Now I see how you came to the conclusion that you can be His equal one day.



7UP: If God is solely benevolent, then yes. It is a valid charge.

And what are you going to do about that charge, Bill?

Nothing. Free will explains that, as does our fallen natures.


7UP: I do not pretend to know the nature of God's foreknowledge in such matters. But to make things interesting, let's say that God knows for sure that Lucifer would rebel, would God be oppressive enough to deny Lucifer's intelligence entrance into spirituality?



Is "all powerful" supposed to mean being able to do EVERYTHING, even if it is logically contradictory? Does omnipotence imply that God will necessarily infringe on the agency of an eternal entity with free will?

For the things He is responsible for, absolutely. Who organized Lucifer? Did God know he would rebel? If you could see the future, that your child was going to be killed the next day by a car in the street, and you still let him go out and play in that street at that exact time, are you not responsible for letting him go out?



Your argument is flawed Bill , and your attempted point fails entirely on the premise on which we disagree, which is Ex Nihilo.

No it isn't. As my analogy above shows, if you have the knowledge and the power to stop a tragedy, and you don't, then you are responsible. Or are you going to claim that God is like Peter Parker in Spiderman 1 where he said "I missed the part where that's my problem"




In your theology, God was the only entity in existence. Then God created Lucifer purely from God's own mind. To make it worse, God created Lucifer from God's own mind knowing exactly what the eternal destination of that miserable being would be. That being didn't even supposedly have free will (which is impossible anyways in this framework) until AFTER God decided to create that being to begin with.

And in yours, God was the only spiritual being in existence (with the possible exception of Heavenly mom, but she was probably doing the dishes while God was busy at the office). Then, either God was ordered by Lucifer to organize him into a spirit or God picked the worst intelligence he could find and organized him into a spirit, even though God knew exactly what the eternal destination of that miserable being would be. That being didn't even have a chance to stay good because he was so flawed, which God knew, so God either set Lucifer up to fail or was completely impotent to stop his demands.


In LDS theology, Lucifer ALREADY existed, as an eternal intelligence. Perhaps God COULD have denied Lucifer's will to enter a spiritual body, but we can say that to do so would be a rejection of that particular intelligence's choice of progression from the get go, which is an oppression against free will.

So, you are admitting that the intelligence's choice to progress trumps God's sovereignty on who gets to be organized and who doesn't. That the intelligence gets to demand God's obeissance?


As you can see, the burden falls on your theology and on your God, because that entity did not exist AT ALL, before God decided how, if, and when to create it.

That's not a burden. That's the basics of it. But again, His active will is that all come to Him, but His permissive will allows for those created to not choose Him.



It is astounding to see how unwilling you are to come to terms with the differences in these view points.

Oh, I see the differences in method of creation. What is the same is culpability for things over which one has control, knowledge, and ability.



7UP: Surely you can see the difference between
1) God allowing an eternal free agent, who has certain characteristics, to make choices
2) God creating the creature, and every single characteristic that the creature possesses, from God's own imagination



It isn't the same Bill. You are in denial. In your theology God is "ultimately" responsible. In my theology, it is just the way it is.


See, you keep saying that my theology posits "every single characteristic that the creature possesses" when that is not the case. All creation is initially created innocent and good, just as we are. God creates us via ex nihilo as innocent beings (hence why babies do not go to hell by default). It is through the free will sinful decisions we make (with His awareness of them before creating us) that we fall from that innocence. Despite knowing the results of these decisions, He chooses to make us exactly the way we are anyway. He does not make the decisions for us, nor does He simultaneously create our personalities at the time we make them. As Sparko said, they are a result of our environment and upbringing. Our creation is a one time event for each of us. It is not ongoing. God does not modify our personality for us before each decision we make. He created us to freely choose and when we fail, His knowledge of that failure does not make Him responsible for them any more than it does in your theology. It's just the way it is.



Griffin: First, if God in creating our world necessarily worked with some pre-existent actualities, these actualities might well have some power of their own with which they could partially thwart the divine will.



Depending on what you mean by "omnipotent" and also how God righteously decides to use His power.

But it isn't God deciding to use His power if the "pre-existent actualities" are the ones ultimately in charge of deciding whether they want to be organized. They demand to progress, and God has no choice but to obey. He can not command them to be organized, nor can he deny them. He is a slave to their demands.




Griffin: Second, there might be some eternal, uncreated, necessary principles (beyond purely logical truths) about the way these actualities can be ordered which limit the sorts of situations that are really possible. - Griffin



"Principles" have no will. They have no personal relationship with others (ie are not interpersonal). Furthermore, that is like arguing against Christians who say that God cannot overcome logical contradictions. Are logical contradictions, or is logic in general, more powerful than the evangelical God?

:ahem: Logical contradictions are non-existent, so something that is non-existent is logically not more powerful than the one who controls existence itself. And logic is a result of God and His laws, which are subsets of His nature. That which He decrees is not more powerful than Him. Principles exist because God exists. So, again, Griffith isn't here to defend his ideas, so please stop trying to expound on someone else's argument when you do not know them at all.

seven7up
05-28-2014, 06:52 PM
7up: No. The argument that God created us out of nothing AND created us with free will BECAUSE God created us ex nihilo with free will is a circular argument. My argument goes far beyond that. I have elaborated on the other thread for Kind Debater, to see if someone is finally ready to address the issues.



merely repeating your assertions is not a logical proof.

My assertions have the logic included.

7UP: Alright then. Where does every characteristic of our personality come from, if not from God, in the Ex Nihilo framework? Please explain for the audience.


The same way it does for the LDS folks. Free will, circumstances in our lives, environment, genetics.

So ... You deny that God created us ex nihilo? Or do you believe that when God created us from nothing (or from his own mind) that God had no control whatsoever concerning what kinds of creatures He was creating?


No that is observational evidence. We do have free will. We can experience it, and we observe it and we use it. So whether we have free will or not is not up for question. We do. The question is whether if God created ex nihilo, would that mean that free will does not exist.

Perhaps free will is an illusion within the ex nihilo framework. It appears and seems like we have it.

However, for the sake of argument, I agree with you. We have free will.

I agree that where we disagree is on the ex nihilo issue. I argue that the very fact that we have free will is just another evidence that we were not created ex nihilo.

Further discussion found with India (Kind Debater) here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2044-KD-and-7up-on-ex-nihilo-free-will-and-evil

-7up

seven7up
05-28-2014, 08:27 PM
From the other thread, and rather than bouncing between both threads:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7UP: It is not a matter of unilateral control. 1 Timothy 2:4 God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." Do you believe in universal salvation? God wants everyone to be saved. Since that is God's will, can something thwart that desire?



His passive desire and His active will are somewhat different.

Isaiah 14:27
27 For the Lord of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate it?

Please expand your argument here on passive and active.

From my point of view, God has plans that cannot be frustrated, but those plans are based on God knowing that there are non-divine entities that God has to work with in reality, which may have less than desirable results.

In the Ex Nihilo scenario, God truly is starting from scratch, and God could create any kind of creature or reality that is logically possible.

7UP: It isn't the same argument, because your system is Ex Nihilo.


It IS the same. The method may be different, but the results are the same.

(Bill puts on the blinders, plugs his ears, and says LA , LA , LA , LA , LA , LA , LA , LA !)

7up: In LDS theology, the physical existence is a parallel of the spiritual existence. We believe that our spirits chose to enter physical bodies, and therefore, the possibility exists that the eternal intelligence had some kind of will to enter a spiritual body.

Is God capable of preventing a rapist from raping a child? Yes. But He doesn't.



Then He is responsible for not stopping it, if He has the power to do so.

True. Both of us believe that God has the power to stop it. However, in your theology, God foreknew the rape before God even decided to create the rapist from God's own mind; the rape was nothing but a concept in God's mind before God decided to make it into reality.

In my theology, the rapist already existed and God simply allows free will to continue.


For His own purposes. For, if God is to not create the rapist, then He is filtering evil based on arbitrary criteria. If God decides not to create the rapist because rape is evil, then He would have to not create ANY of us, because we ALL think evil thoughts from time to time.

God would be abstaining from creating evil from God's own mind (whether you find it arbitrary or not is besides the point). Again, you are blind if you don't see the difference between my view and yours.

7up: In my theology, there already existed a flawed intelligence from eternity.


Which dictates to God what it will and will not do. God then becomes its slave.

No more than your God is a "slave" to logic (or logical contradictions).

7UP: That flawed and imperfect intelligence progressed into humanity


Which was 1) facilitated by God based on the demand of the flawed intelligence (which makes Him subject to their will),,,

No more than God is "subject to your will", Bill.


2) commanded by God based on a plan that God has (which violates their free will),,,

Please explain why you think it is a violation of their free will.


or 3) arranged by God out of ignorance of what their plans were (which makes Him not omniscient)

I repeat, I don't pretend to know the nature of God's foreknowledge. I can say that God knows all that is possible to know.


7UP: , and to deny any step of that progression could have been a violation of that individual's free will.


So, their will is greater than His. ....

Not at all. God COULD stop the progression (just like he could stop the rapist). However, God allows free will. That is not the same as saying that our will is greater than God's. If you attempt that argument, you are arguing against yourself.

7UP: If God is solely benevolent, then yes. It is a valid charge. And what are you going to do about that charge, Bill?


Nothing. Free will explains that, as does our fallen natures.

Ex nihilo does not allow for free will, not true free will. Why did Adam and Eve fall? Why was Eve so easily deceived? Why were they so ignorant and irrational? Who created them that way?

In your theology, God created every single aspect of their being to be exactly as they were, and God was limited only by logical contradictions in God's own mind.

In my theology, God is limited by the logical contradictions inherent with dealing with eternal entities which already had some kind of characteristics, and thus has a superior explanation for why the world is the way it is. There is no way you can try to wiggle your way out of this.

Joseph Smith revealed the truth, and the truth cuts its own way.

7UP: I do not pretend to know the nature of God's foreknowledge in such matters. But to make things interesting, let's say that God knows for sure that Lucifer would rebel, would God be oppressive enough to deny Lucifer's intelligence entrance into spirituality?

Is "all powerful" supposed to mean being able to do EVERYTHING, even if it is logically contradictory? Does omnipotence imply that God will necessarily infringe on the agency of an eternal entity with free will?


For the things He is responsible for, absolutely. Who organized Lucifer? Did God know he would rebel? If you could see the future, that your child was going to be killed the next day by a car in the street, and you still let him go out and play in that street at that exact time, are you not responsible for letting him go out?


For the things He is responsible for, absolutely. Who organized Lucifer? Did God know he would rebel?

Lucifer was organized by some kind of spiritual procreation, the details of which have not been revealed to us, and perhaps we couldn't understand it at this time anyways. However, think of the physical procreation of a child. Can you choose if the child has red hair or brown? Can you choose the child's personality traits? What if the generation of all of the spirits has to occur all at once and some that are procreated are good and others are bad? The point is that there are non-divine realities that God must deal with in LDS theology. That is not the case in Ex Nihilo theology, because God was the only thing in existence before God decided to create.


7up: Your argument is flawed Bill , and your attempted point fails entirely on the premise on which we disagree, which is Ex Nihilo.


No it isn't. As my analogy above shows, if you have the knowledge and the power to stop a tragedy, and you don't, then you are responsible.

(Bill arguing against himself.)


His knowledge of that failure does not make Him responsible for them any more than it does in your theology.

You wish that were the case, but you fail to admit that there is a fundamental difference between the implications from your theology and the LDS view.

Griffin: First, if God in creating our world necessarily worked with some pre-existent actualities, these actualities might well have some power of their own with which they could partially thwart the divine will.

7UP: Depending on what you mean by "omnipotent" and also how God righteously decides to use His power.


But it isn't God deciding to use His power if the "pre-existent actualities" are the ones ultimately in charge of deciding whether they want to be organized.

In that case, it would be God refraining from using God's power in order to prevent it (assuming that is how it works). Again, you can think of it as refraining from using God's power to prevent a rapist from attacking the victim. God is still in charge, is He not?


They demand to progress, and God has no choice but to obey. He can not command them to be organized, nor can he deny them. He is a slave to their demands.

Again, I will point out your contradictory arguments. Here is what you are attempting:

The rapist demands to rape, and God has no choice but to allow it. He can command the rapist not to rape, but the rapist can deny the command. Thus: God is a slave to the rapist.


Griffin: Second, there might be some eternal, uncreated, necessary principles (beyond purely logical truths) about the way these actualities can be ordered which limit the sorts of situations that are really possible. - Griffin

7UP: "Principles" have no will. They have no personal relationship with others (ie are not interpersonal). Furthermore, that is like arguing against Christians who say that God cannot overcome logical contradictions. Are logical contradictions, or is logic in general, more powerful than the evangelical God?


Logical contradictions are non-existent, so something that is non-existent is logically not more powerful than the one who controls existence itself. And logic is a result of God and His laws, which are subsets of His nature.

Therefore, God could logically and lawfully create a rational and moral being of free will out of nothing. If God's nature limits God to creating imperfect creatures from God's own imagination, then that is an indictment against God's nature or abilities.


Griffith isn't here to defend his ideas, so please stop trying to expound on someone else's argument when you do not know them at all

Stop trying to avoid the issues Bill. Trying to hide behind the silly comments of "he isn't here" doesn't help you. I'm here, and Griffith is merely bringing up the same kinds of points and concept that I have explained.

7up: In your theology, God was the only entity in existence. Then God created Lucifer purely from God's own mind. To make it worse, God created Lucifer from God's own mind knowing exactly what the eternal destination of that miserable being would be. That being didn't even supposedly have free will (which is impossible anyways in this framework) until AFTER God decided to create that being to begin with.


And in yours, God was the only spiritual being in existence (with the possible exception of Heavenly mom, but she was probably doing the dishes while God was busy at the office). ...

Wrong. AND you added mockery in order to make an even bigger fool of yourself. Nice.

7up: In LDS theology, Lucifer ALREADY existed, as an eternal intelligence. Perhaps God COULD have denied Lucifer's will to enter a spiritual body, but we can say that to do so would be a rejection of that particular intelligence's choice of progression from the get go, which is an oppression against free will.


So, you are admitting that the intelligence's choice to progress trumps God's sovereignty on who gets to be organized and who doesn't. That the intelligence gets to demand God's obeissance?

I am only raising the possibility that free will can be part of the process. Free will choices does not necessarily "trump God's sovereingty". You know that. It is becoming abundantly clear that you like to speak out of both sides of your mouth. Sorry Bill. I won't let you get away with it. I will point it out every time you attempt it.

7UP: As you can see, the burden falls on your theology and on your God, because that entity did not exist AT ALL, before God decided how, if, and when to create it.


That's not a burden. That's the basics of it. But again, His active will is that all come to Him, but His permissive will allows for those created to not choose Him.

Then why actively create from nothing those that God knows won't choose Him, or with characteristics which God knows will lead those individuals not to choose Him. As we have discussed, merely being irrational will lead to sinful choices. Is God not capable of creating rational beings?

In my theology, irrationality may be an eternally inherent characteristic.

7up: It is astounding to see how unwilling you are to come to terms with the differences in these view points.


Oh, I see the differences in method of creation. What is the same is culpability for things over which one has control, knowledge, and ability.

There isn't the same control. There are eternal non divine realities in LDS theology that are outside of God's control.

Your mind is not flexible enough to comprehend this concept, OR you are being purposefully obtuse.

7UP: Surely you can see the difference between
1) God allowing an eternal free agent, who has certain characteristics, to make choices
2) God creating the creature, and every single characteristic that the creature possesses, from God's own imagination



See, you keep saying that my theology posits "every single characteristic that the creature possesses" when that is not the case.

It IS the case. The creature did not exist in any way shape or form, thus did not have ANY characteristics, until God created that creature from 'nothing', and all of the creatures characteristics with it.


All creation is initially created innocent and good, just as we are.

"Goodness" and "innocence" alone do not account for such a poor choice as represented by Adam and Eve. Amorality, disobedience, ignorance, lack of wisdom/knowledge and irrationality explain it. Where did these characteristics come from?


He does not make the decisions for us, nor does He simultaneously create our personalities at the time we make them. As Sparko said, they are a result of our environment and upbringing.

Where did the environment come from? If God created a "better" Garden, would that have made the difference?

As you can see, your defense still fails, because in your theology, God controls the environment as well. You cannot turn to environment and upbringing as a way out. (Furthermore, as an additional point, every parent knows that children are born with personalities/characteristics.)


-7up

seven7up
05-28-2014, 08:53 PM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7UP wrote:

A) Let's say that God is going to create, Ex Nihilo, 3 individual 6 sided cubes. They roll as follows:
1) 4, 4, 2, 5, 2
2) 1, 2, 4, 3, 5
3) 3, 1, 1, 3, 6

Let's say, for example, that even numbers are moral (good) decisions, and odd numbers are amoral (bad) decisions.

Now, one aspect of problem of ex nihilo includes the idea that, if God is going to decide to create one of these (knowing what will happen beforehand), which one would he create? Especially considering that amoral decisions will lead to eternal damnation.

The logic of my argument still holds even with your attempt to deny it. Look again at three possible cubes that God could decide to create above.

Instead of odd being amoral and even being moral, let's say that all of the numbers are amoral, except the number 6, which is the single choice necessary for redemption.

Happy Bill?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It assumes that God is the one rolling the dice, also known as hard determinism. Accusing a Molinist of believing in hard determinism is called a straw man.

I already explained exactly how my first argument does NOT depend on who is rolling the dice. It does NOT depend on if it is random. It does NOT depend if it is not random.

It depends on God knowing what combinations will be rolled, and God having the ability to choose what God creates. That's it.

If you cannot comprehend the conversation, or do not want to pay attention then please bow out.

-7up

Bill the Cat
05-29-2014, 06:54 AM
http://www.mathewingram.com/work/wp-content/uploads/thisjustinlogo.png

Since the other thread is between you and India, I will not clutter that one up with responses to your posts there. I will move them back here where they belong.

seven7up
05-29-2014, 07:28 AM
http://www.mathewingram.com/work/wp-content/uploads/thisjustinlogo.png

Since the other thread is between you and India, I will not clutter that one up with responses to your posts there. I will move them back here where they belong.

I agree.

-7up

Bill the Cat
05-29-2014, 09:48 AM
7UP: It is not a matter of unilateral control. 1 Timothy 2:4 God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." Do you believe in universal salvation? God wants everyone to be saved. Since that is God's will, can something thwart that desire?

Please expand your argument here on passive and active.

There are those things God actively wills, that MUST come to pass, independent of human free will (such as bringing about the end of days), and others that He passively desires, but does not force (such as His desire for all to be saved).


From my point of view, God has plans that cannot be frustrated, but those plans are based on God knowing that there are non-divine entities that God has to work with in reality, which may have less than desirable results.

If the plan cannot be frustrated, then WHO is available to work with is irrelevant. God plans it. It happens. End of story. That is God’s active will.


In the Ex Nihilo scenario, God truly is starting from scratch, and God could create any kind of creature or reality that is logically possible.

But only ONE will fit with that reality. Only ONE that is based on God’s foreknowledge of the free will decisions that agent will make. The possibilities are limited by environment and birth, such as Noah could not have chosen to ride on an airplane.

In your dice scenario, the life choices (simplified for brevity’s sake) for me would be:

1,4,3,6,5,4.

Now, in the third choice for example, there were 6 possible futures God could have created for me based on that choice. But, He knew before I was created that I would choose the 3, therefore the possible worlds of 1,2,4,5, and 6 were not actualized. He did not MAKE me to choose 3, He simply didn’t actualize the other 5 worlds based on His foreknowledge of me choosing 3. Same with every other die roll. Could He have made me to choose 4? Absolutely, had He foreknown that I would choose 4 instead. That is called Middle Knowledge.


7UP: It isn't the same argument, because your system is Ex Nihilo.

(Bill puts on the blinders, plugs his ears, and says LA , LA , LA , LA , LA , LA , LA , LA !)

It is the same, despite your feeble attempt at hand-waving the obvious. It is irresponsible to not stop something drastically detrimental to another being if you are capable of stopping it, whether you knew about it in advance (as in my view) or if you merely saw it in time to prevent it (as in yours.) unless there is a higher motive involved.



7up: In LDS theology, the physical existence is a parallel of the spiritual existence. We believe that our spirits chose to enter physical bodies, and therefore, the possibility exists that the eternal intelligence had some kind of will to enter a spiritual body.

Is God capable of preventing a rapist from raping a child? Yes. But He doesn't.

My point exactly. God’s knowledge of an event does not cause it, nor is He morally responsible for it.



True. Both of us believe that God has the power to stop it. However, in your theology, God foreknew the rape before God even decided to create the rapist from God's own mind; the rape was nothing but a concept in God's mind before God decided to make it into reality.

It was a possible world. For God to actively create a world where the entity could not choose what He willed violates the entity’s free will. Again, you are seeing ex nihilo on a linear scale where God is writing the script and men are playing the role as a puppet, which ignores God’s foreknowledge of the agent’s choices.

Let’s take your dice example again, for grins and giggles. The rape would be a 1 on that die. God COULD have created a world where the rapist would simply pass by the victim (roll a 2), walk to the other side of the street (roll a 3), turn around and run (roll a 4), meet the person without raping them (roll a 5), or simply murder them on sight (roll a 6), but God’s foreknowledge was that the person would rape the victim, so He created world 1, and simply did not create world 2-6, even though they theoretically also existed in God’s mind. And by doing so, the person exercised their free will without God violating it by creating a world that He thought would be better for that person.


In my theology, the rapist already existed and God simply allows free will to continue.

So, your god is a rubber stamper, basically. Completely inept at denying even the simplest demand. He is at the beck and call of every intelligence, and he must comply at their leisure. I’m not impressed.



God would be abstaining from creating evil from God's own mind (whether you find it arbitrary or not is besides the point). Again, you are blind if you don't see the difference between my view and yours.

In doing so, He would be violating the free will choice to do evil by the potential entity that exists in His mind.




No more than your God is a "slave" to logic (or logical contradictions).

:rofl: Logic exists because of who God is. It is a consequence of His nature. It is subject to Him. In your view, an intelligence wishes to progress, and therefore Elohim has to comply. He is subject to them.



No more than God is "subject to your will", Bill.
Completely untrue. If God desired that I not exist, I would not have existed. He did not NEED my ok to create me. He was not subject to my demand to create me.



Please explain why you think it is a violation of their free will.

If they did not want to come, and He made them based on the need to fill a spirit body with an intelligence, then he violated their will.



I repeat, I don't pretend to know the nature of God's foreknowledge. I can say that God knows all that is possible to know.

Was it possible for God to know that satan planned to rebel, or did that act take Him by surprise?



Not at all. God COULD stop the progression (just like he could stop the rapist). However, God allows free will. That is not the same as saying that our will is greater than God's. If you attempt that argument, you are arguing against yourself.

So, now that we have established that, we now see that God’s will is not thwarted by the existence of an entity’s free will - nor the exercise of it. Even though He knows full well the repercussions of allowing that choice will be less than the optimum situation. He still creates the world despite knowing there will be those who fall. Your objection to my view comes apart yet again.


Ex nihilo does not allow for free will, not true free will.

Yes it does.


Why did Adam and Eve fall?

Because they chose to fall, and God created them and reality that way based on His foreknowledge of them choosing to fall.


Why was Eve so easily deceived?

Because she was innocent and did not know right from wrong.


Why were they so ignorant and irrational?

Because ignorance is simply lack of knowledge, which is gained by experience for us humans. No experiences, no knowledge. And they were irrational because rationality comes from wisdom, which is merely applied knowledge.


Who created them that way?

God, based on His foreknowledge of what they were going to freely choose.


In your theology, God created every single aspect of their being to be exactly as they were, and God was limited only by logical contradictions in God's own mind.

Correct. But as a result of His foreknowing what they would choose. For God to create them differently than what they would choose would be a violation of logic.



In my theology, God is limited by the logical contradictions inherent with dealing with eternal entities which already had some kind of characteristics, and thus has a superior explanation for why the world is the way it is. There is no way you can try to wiggle your way out of this.

You are just shifting their existence out of God’s imagination and into an external entity prior to creation. That’s what you don’t get. All of your bluster really boils down to that simple difference – WHERE we existed prior to our creation.


Joseph Smith revealed the truth, and the truth cuts its own way.

:rofl: Joseph Smith was a liar and a thief. He made this “intelligences” crap up wholesale, and changed it as he saw fit.



There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven. . . . Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it." (HC 6:311.)


Is "all powerful" supposed to mean being able to do EVERYTHING, even if it is logically contradictory?

Stopping an injustice before it happens is not a logical contradiction.


Does omnipotence imply that God will necessarily infringe on the agency of an eternal entity with free will?[/I]

When that entity relies on God for its progression, yes.



Lucifer was organized by some kind of spiritual procreation, the details of which have not been revealed to us, and perhaps we couldn't understand it at this time anyways.

Yes it has.

"[God] created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be."
— Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:122.




However, think of the physical procreation of a child. Can you choose if the child has red hair or brown?

Geneticists think it is possible.


Can you choose the child's personality traits?

Is God incapable of changing a man?

Ezekiel 36:26-27
26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.



What if the generation of all of the spirits has to occur all at once and some that are procreated are good and others are bad?

Joseph F. Smith didn’t think of them that way:

Some of our writers have endeavored to explain what an intelligence is, but to do so is futile, for we have never been given any insight into this matter beyond what the Lord has fragmentarily revealed. We know, however, that there is something called intelligence which always existed. It is the real eternal part of man, which was not created or made. This intelligence combined with the spirit constitutes a spiritual identity or individual

He claims that the LDS church doesn’t even know WHAT an intelligence is, much less has it defined that it is an individual capable of good or bad prior to being joined with spirit material.


The point is that there are non-divine realities that God must deal with in LDS theology.

As there are in Ex Nihilo, since all of His creation is “non-divine realities”.


That is not the case in Ex Nihilo theology, because God was the only thing in existence before God decided to create.

Wrong. They existed eternally in His mind through His foreknowledge of creation.




(Bill arguing against himself.)

Not even close. Knowing and causing are two different things.

You wish that were the case, but you fail to admit that there is a fundamental difference between the implications from your theology and the LDS view.

The only real difference is the location of the being prior to creation. And calling that “fundamental” is actually pretty accurate from the standpoint of whether we are independent eternal beings or not, which Joseph F. Smith says is not doctrinally even claimed by the LDS.



Again, I will point out your contradictory arguments. Here is what you are attempting:

The rapist demands to rape, and God has no choice but to allow it. He can command the rapist not to rape, but the rapist can deny the command. Thus: God is a slave to the rapist.


Griffin: Second, there might be some eternal, uncreated, necessary principles (beyond purely logical truths) about the way these actualities can be ordered which limit the sorts of situations that are really possible. - Griffin

7UP: "Principles" have no will. They have no personal relationship with others (ie are not interpersonal). Furthermore, that is like arguing against Christians who say that God cannot overcome logical contradictions. Are logical contradictions, or is logic in general, more powerful than the evangelical God?


Griffin postulates that there MIGHT exist eternal principles. But in reality, there are not. So, there is simply no contradiction there.



Therefore, God could logically and lawfully create a rational and moral being of free will out of nothing.

Correct. But that being has to choose to be rational and moral for God to actuate that choice’s reality.


If God's nature limits God to creating imperfect creatures from God's own imagination, then that is an indictment against God's nature or abilities.

No it isn’t.



Stop trying to avoid the issues Bill. Trying to hide behind the silly comments of "he isn't here" doesn't help you. I'm here, and Griffith is merely bringing up the same kinds of points and concept that I have explained.

It’s part and parcel for your incompetence. You quote (and rarely give attributions) those who you think have answered or asked the right questions with little understanding of how to respond.


Wrong. AND you added mockery in order to make an even bigger fool of yourself. Nice.

Joseph Smith was the fool for even suggesting a “heavenly mother”. One cannot truly mock what does not exist, only the idea that it exists. And mock that, I will.


I am only raising the possibility that free will can be part of the process. Free will choices does not necessarily "trump God's sovereignty". You know that. It is becoming abundantly clear that you like to speak out of both sides of your mouth. Sorry Bill. I won't let you get away with it. I will point it out every time you attempt it.

Well, since this is an entirely futile attempt to dissect the messy nonsense that is Mormon pre-existence doctrine, it is bound to cause some problems. The point of it all is that man is not co-eternal. Even J.F. Smith says that your belief is merely speculation, and that “intelligences” were not pre-existing individual humans waiting to be organized as spirits.


7UP: As you can see, the burden falls on your theology and on your God, because that entity did not exist AT ALL, before God decided how, if, and when to create it.



Then why actively create from nothing those that God knows won't choose Him, or with characteristics which God knows will lead those individuals not to choose Him.

Because denying their creation is denying their future free will.


As we have discussed, merely being irrational will lead to sinful choices. Is God not capable of creating rational beings?

Again, this assumes what God is capable of is what He will always do. You have argued against that fact ad nauseum. And the exact arguments you used to show that from your POV work for mine.


In my theology, irrationality may be an eternally inherent characteristic.

And in mine, it is a foreknown characteristic that is freely exercised by the entity.


There isn't the same control. There are eternal non divine realities in LDS theology that are outside of God's control.

No. They are not. They are within his control, he just chooses to not intervene. You admitted that above.


Your mind is not flexible enough to comprehend this concept, OR you are being purposefully obtuse.

No. You have an “unknown” doctrine that you are trying to defend with your theories, none of which are proclaimed by the LDS church according to J. F. Smith. And you are having difficulty admitting that maybe, just maybe, you don’t understand how the orthodox Christians see free will and ex nihilo creation.


7UP: Surely you can see the difference between
1) God allowing an eternal free agent, who has certain characteristics, to make choices
2) God creating the creature, and every single characteristic that the creature possesses, from God's own imagination

Sure, but that’s not all I believe on the subject that has direct relevance to nearly every word meaning you listed. Nor is that all you have claimed that you believe.

seven7up
06-04-2014, 07:08 PM
There are those things God actively wills, that MUST come to pass, independent of human free will (such as bringing about the end of days), and others that He passively desires, but does not force (such as His desire for all to be saved).

So, you are saying that God will create persons out of nothing, all of whom God desires to be saved, but God knows before he creates them that there will be among those who God desires to be saved, who will not be saved.

You try to mediate this problem by claiming that the latter desire is "passive", but you can't get past the fact that in your theology, the very existence of the individual in the first place is "active".

7UP: From my point of view, God has plans that cannot be frustrated, but those plans are based on God knowing that there are non-divine entities that God has to work with in reality, which may have less than desirable results.


If the plan cannot be frustrated, then WHO is available to work with is irrelevant. God plans it. It happens. End of story. That is God’s active will.

I can plan to make a bridge out of steel, IF I have steel to work with. If all I have to work with is straw, then I would not plan to make a bridge out of it, but instead would have a limited range in my plans.

Likewise, if God is working with realities that already exist, God has to work within the limits of the intelligences of free will that are ready.

On the other hand, IF God is creating any kind of possible being from nothing, then God himself is responsible for the kinds of beings He has to work with. (He can just create the steel or anything else out of nothing, and can make any kind of reality He wants.)

7UP: In the Ex Nihilo scenario, God truly is starting from scratch, and God could create any kind of creature or reality that is logically possible.


But only ONE will fit with that reality.

Fit with what reality? The reality that God himself is creating from nothing.


Only ONE that is based on God’s foreknowledge of the free will decisions that agent will make. The possibilities are limited by environment and birth, ...

In your theology, God created the environment from God's own mind as well. This is what I mean by Complete Unilateral Control.

- - - - - - - - - - -
7UP wrote:

Let's say that God is going to create, Ex Nihilo, 3 individual 6 sided cubes. God knows before hand that they will roll as follows:
1) 4, 4, 2, 5, 2
2) 1, 2, 4, 3, 5
3) 3, 1, 1, 3, 6

.... let's say that all of the numbers are amoral, except the number 6, which is the single choice necessary for redemption.

Now, one aspect of the problem of ex nihilo includes the idea that, if God is going to decide to create one of these (knowing what will happen beforehand), which one would he create? Especially considering that amoral decisions will lead to eternal damnation.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - -


In your dice scenario, the life choices (simplified for brevity’s sake) for me would be:

1,4,3,6,5,4.

Now, in the third choice for example, there were 6 possible futures God could have created for me based on that choice. But, He knew before I was created that I would choose the 3, therefore the possible worlds of 1,2,4,5, and 6 were not actualized. He did not MAKE me to choose 3, He simply didn’t actualize the other 5 worlds based on His foreknowledge of me choosing 3. Same with every other die roll. Could He have made me to choose 4? Absolutely, had He foreknown that I would choose 4 instead. That is called Middle Knowledge.

Right. He COULD have created a cube that God foreknew would roll ANY POSSIBLE combination that God wants, by simply refraining from creating the cubes that God does not want.

7UP: It isn't the same argument, because your system is Ex Nihilo.


It is the same, despite your feeble attempt at hand-waving the obvious. It is irresponsible to not stop something drastically detrimental to another being if you are capable of stopping it, ....

You mean like creating every aspect of a person from nothing while knowing before hand that the individual will go to hell for eternity?

7up: Is God capable of preventing a rapist from raping a child? Yes. But He doesn't.


My point exactly. God’s knowledge of an event does not cause it, nor is He morally responsible for it.

7UP: True. Both of us believe that God has the power to stop it. However, in your theology, God foreknew the rape before God even decided to create the rapist from God's own mind; the rape was nothing but a concept in God's mind before God decided to make it into reality.


It was a possible world.

Yes, a possible world and a possible individual. A God creating purely from God's own mind has control over any kind of world or individual that would exist, because there were no previously existing realities which would limit the possibilities.


For God to actively create a world where the entity could not choose what He willed violates the entity’s free will. Again, you are seeing ex nihilo on a linear scale where God is writing the script and men are playing the role as a puppet, which ignores God’s foreknowledge of the agent’s choices.

I am not arguing what you claim at all. The first aspect of my argument against ex nihilo, and how it does not explain reality, deals with the concept that God has the free will to decide which persons exist, and which do not exist. That in and of itself determines outcomes.


Let’s take your dice example again, for grins and giggles. The rape would be a 1 on that die. God COULD have created a world where the rapist would simply pass by the victim (roll a 2), walk to the other side of the street (roll a 3), turn around and run (roll a 4), meet the person without raping them (roll a 5), or simply murder them on sight (roll a 6), but God’s foreknowledge was that the person would rape the victim, so He created world 1, and simply did not create world 2-6, even though they theoretically also existed in God’s mind.

And by creating that world, and by creating that person, God determined which of all the possible outcomes would occur. Thus God determined every aspect of that person and that world.

7UP: In my theology, the rapist already existed and God simply allows free will to continue.


So, your god is a rubber stamper, basically. Completely inept at denying even the simplest demand. He is at the beck and call of every intelligence, and he must comply at their leisure.

God doesn't have to do what the individuals want God to do. Furthermore, God must balance, in his discretion, what He will allow beings of free will to do , but without over stepping bounds which would be oppressive.

-7up

seven7up
06-04-2014, 08:07 PM
7UP: God would be abstaining from creating evil from God's own mind (whether you find it arbitrary or not is besides the point). Again, you are blind if you don't see the difference between my view and yours.


In doing so, He would be violating the free will choice to do evil by the potential entity that exists in His mind.

Really? Now you are going to argue that God violates a free will choice of a being that doesn't even exist? A being that God has not even decided to create yet?


7UP: No more than your God is a "slave" to logic (or logical contradictions).


Logic exists because of who God is. It is a consequence of His nature. It is subject to Him.

All the more reason to believe, that in your view, God could have created any kind of being at all, including a perfectly moral person who has free will.


In your view, an intelligence wishes to progress, and therefore Elohim has to comply. He is subject to them.

7UP: No more than God is "subject to your will", Bill.

And it isn't a matter that God "must" comply, but instead God chooses to comply, because God decides not to oppressive to the free will of that individual who would like to progress.

7UP: No more than God is "subject to your will", Bill.


Completely untrue. If God desired that I not exist, I would not have existed. He did not NEED my ok to create me. He was not subject to my demand to create me.

And therefore God decides which beings exist, and which do not. By that simple fact, God determines which choices will be made, because the choices of any particular individual would NOT have been made, if God had not decided to create that individual.

(Here Bill attempt to argue that, in the LDS view, God has no choice but to create spiritual sons and daughters who were intelligences who desire to progress, yet at the same Bill contradicts himself by trying to argue that God violated their free will by creating them.)

7UP: Please explain why you think it is a violation of their free will.


If they did not want to come, and He made them based on the need to fill a spirit body with an intelligence, then he violated their will.

Who said that God would force intelligences into spirit bodies if they did not want to? (Remember, there is a parallel with the LDS view that each spirit chooses to enter a physical body in mortality.)

7UP: I repeat, I don't pretend to know the nature of God's foreknowledge. I can say that God knows all that is possible to know.


Was it possible for God to know that satan planned to rebel, or did that act take Him by surprise?

There are many theories in the LDS faith concerning this. I will give you three of the possibilities:

1) God knew exactly which intelligence would rebel before creating that individual (Lucifer), but God allowed for the spiritual creation of that individual because to deny the progression of that person would be a violation of Lucifer's free will.

This is the theoretical position that I have been giving to you on this thread.

2) There is a reality that simply exists, and God must deal with it. One of the realities/rules that exist concerning the creation of a "generation" of spiritual offspring includes the idea that this generation MUST include many individuals all at once, and this includes a range of individuals with characteristics both good and bad. God cannot pick and choose which ones progress and which ones do not. God may be able to deny the entire generation from progressing, but that would not be fair to the "good" ones.

I mentioned this theoretical possibility in the video series.

3) God knows everything that is possible to know, however, perhaps it is impossible to see the characteristics of an intelligence until it enters a spiritual body, and therefore it is impossible to predict what that individual would do in any given situation until after becoming a spirit.

This goes back to the idea of not knowing exactly the nature of God's foreknowledge.


He still creates the world despite knowing there will be those who fall.

See three possibilities above.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(this next part of the discussion goes back to possibility 1 above)

7UP: God COULD stop the progression (just like he could stop the rapist). However, God allows free will. That is not the same as saying that our will is greater than God's. If you attempt that argument, you are arguing against yourself.


So, now that we have established that, we now see that God’s will is not thwarted by the existence of an entity’s free will - nor the exercise of it. Even though He knows full well the repercussions of allowing that choice will be less than the optimum situation.

But in your theology, God could have refrained from creating that entity from nothing to begin with.

7UP: Is "all powerful" supposed to mean being able to do EVERYTHING, even if it is logically contradictory?


Stopping an injustice before it happens is not a logical contradiction.

Nor is refraining from creating a being from nothing who God knows before hand will participate in horrible atrocities.

7up: Does omnipotence imply that God will necessarily infringe on the agency of an eternal entity with free will?


When that entity relies on God for its progression, yes.

Then why will God resurrect humans who are damned, or why even keep them in existence at all, in your theology? Your version of God could just wipe them out of existence in the same way that God brought them into existence.

7UP: Why did Adam and Eve fall?


Because they chose to fall, and God created them and reality that way based on His foreknowledge of them choosing to fall.

Let's say that God decided not to create Adam and Eve, but instead two different individuals, Bob and Sara. Would they have fallen as well? If so, why? If not, why did God create Adam and Eve instead of Bob and Sara?

7UP: Why was Eve so easily deceived?


Because she was innocent and did not know right from wrong.

And who's fault is that?

Could God, who is able to create any kind of being from nothing, able create a being that is innocent and also knows right and wrong? Does knowing right from wrong automatically make a person unable to be innocent?

7UP: Why were they so ignorant and irrational?


Because ignorance is simply lack of knowledge, which is gained by experience for us humans. No experiences, no knowledge.

So, do I need to fornicate or commit adultery by personal experience before I can gain the knowledge that those things are wrong?


And they were irrational because rationality comes from wisdom, which is merely applied knowledge.

Are you saying that God could not impart wisdom upon Adam and Eve in an effective way?

7UP: Who created them that way?


God, based on His foreknowledge of what they were going to freely choose.

That does not help you with the Ex Nihilo problem.

7up: In your theology, God created every single aspect of their being to be exactly as they were, and God was limited only by logical contradictions in God's own mind.


Correct. But as a result of His foreknowing what they would choose. For God to create them differently than what they would choose would be a violation of logic.

So, God was forced to create the kind of individuals that God created because those are the individuals that God imagined to begin with.

7UP: In my theology, God is limited by the logical contradictions inherent with dealing with eternal entities which already had some kind of characteristics, and thus has a superior explanation for why the world is the way it is. There is no way you can try to wiggle your way out of this.


You are just shifting their existence out of God’s imagination and into an external entity prior to creation. That’s what you don’t get. All of your bluster really boils down to that simple difference – WHERE we existed prior to our creation.

And thus we get to my video presentation concerning the "Solitary Problem". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qduIGkSy1Ro

Where did we exist prior to creation according to Ex Nihilo theology? In God's own mind. Reality is nothing more than an outward expression of God's own imagination. This is PanENtheism. Details are given in that video.

7UP: Joseph Smith revealed the truth, and the truth cuts its own way.


He made this “intelligences” crap up wholesale, ...

Then he must have been a religious genius, because the theology revealed in the LDS faith resolves most of these problems that accompany your Ex Nihilo dogma.


-7up

Bill the Cat
06-05-2014, 06:39 AM
So, you are saying that God will create persons out of nothing, all of whom God desires to be saved, but God knows before he creates them that there will be among those who God desires to be saved, who will not be saved.

Yes.


You try to mediate this problem by claiming that the latter desire is "passive", but you can't get past the fact that in your theology, the very existence of the individual in the first place is "active".

So? That "active" act of creation is based on the actualization of the world that corresponds to the free will decisions of that entity.


7UP: From my point of view, God has plans that cannot be frustrated, but those plans are based on God knowing that there are non-divine entities that God has to work with in reality, which may have less than desirable results.


I can plan to make a bridge out of steel, IF I have steel to work with. If all I have to work with is straw, then I would not plan to make a bridge out of it, but instead would have a limited range in my plans.

And if I had the power to change straw into steel, I would use steel.


Likewise, if God is working with realities that already exist, God has to work within the limits of the intelligences of free will that are ready.

And would you claim that God would not stop their desire to progress under any circumstances?


On the other hand, IF God is creating any kind of possible being from nothing, then God himself is responsible for the kinds of beings He has to work with. (He can just create the steel or anything else out of nothing, and can make any kind of reality He wants.)

But, that gets back to the root of the argument. What makes you think that this isn't the reality He wanted? Who are you to claim that this reality that He created is flawed? Why is your moral standard greater than His?


7UP: In the Ex Nihilo scenario, God truly is starting from scratch, and God could create any kind of creature or reality that is logically possible.


Fit with what reality? The reality that God himself is creating from nothing.

Based on Him actuating it as a result of the foreknowledge of the choices the free will agent makes.



In your theology, God created the environment from God's own mind as well. This is what I mean by Complete Unilateral Control.

Well, yes. God created every single thing. We do not self-exist, nor does anything else.



- - - - - - - - - - -
7UP wrote:

Let's say that God is going to create, Ex Nihilo, 3 individual 6 sided cubes. God knows before hand that they will roll as follows:
1) 4, 4, 2, 5, 2
2) 1, 2, 4, 3, 5
3) 3, 1, 1, 3, 6

.... let's say that all of the numbers are amoral, except the number 6, which is the single choice necessary for redemption.

Now, one aspect of the problem of ex nihilo includes the idea that, if God is going to decide to create one of these (knowing what will happen beforehand), which one would he create? Especially considering that amoral decisions will lead to eternal damnation.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - -



Right. He COULD have created a cube that God foreknew would roll ANY POSSIBLE combination that God wants, by simply refraining from creating the cubes that God does not want.

But He doesn't because refraining from creating them would be a violation of His middle knowledge and the agent's free will. If He foreknows something will happen, He makes it happen. He does not refrain from creating it. He refrains from creating the realities where other possibilities were not chosen. What you refuse to understand is that what He COULD DO and what He DOES are different things. And using human fallibility to judge Him as lacking for that is simply infantile.



7UP: It isn't the same argument, because your system is Ex Nihilo.



You mean like creating every aspect of a person from nothing while knowing before hand that the individual will go to hell for eternity?

Exactly. And this is where a greater good comes into play. As I said, it is the same argument for both systems.


7up: Is God capable of preventing a rapist from raping a child? Yes. But He doesn't.



7UP: True. Both of us believe that God has the power to stop it. However, in your theology, God foreknew the rape before God even decided to create the rapist from God's own mind; the rape was nothing but a concept in God's mind before God decided to make it into reality.



Yes, a possible world and a possible individual. A God creating purely from God's own mind has control over any kind of world or individual that would exist, because there were no previously existing realities which would limit the possibilities.

But there is foreknowledge. If God had actuated any other world where the rapist did not rape the victim, then He would have violated the free will of the rapist, and violated His own middle knowledge of reality. He then forces the opposite choice onto the now "not free" entity with determinism instead of foreknowledge.




I am not arguing what you claim at all. The first aspect of my argument against ex nihilo, and how it does not explain reality, deals with the concept that God has the free will to decide which persons exist, and which do not exist. That in and of itself determines outcomes.

And that is exactly what I said you are claiming. God writes the script, and men have to play along because that's how God made them to be. And that is not Ex Nihilo, nor is it free will.




And by creating that world, and by creating that person, God determined which of all the possible outcomes would occur.

Only insofar as He foreknew which outcome the agent would choose.


Thus God determined every aspect of that person and that world.

No. The foreknowledge of the choices the agent makes determines which aspects God actuates and which ones He doesn't.


7UP: In my theology, the rapist already existed and God simply allows free will to continue.



God doesn't have to do what the individuals want God to do. Furthermore, God must balance, in his discretion, what He will allow beings of free will to do , but without over stepping bounds which would be oppressive.

So, is stopping progression NOT oppressive under any circumstance in your view? If an agent desired progression, God will allow it?


7UP: God would be abstaining from creating evil from God's own mind (whether you find it arbitrary or not is besides the point). Again, you are blind if you don't see the difference between my view and yours.



Really? Now you are going to argue that God violates a free will choice of a being that doesn't even exist? A being that God has not even decided to create yet?

Yes. Because that being exists in God's middle knowledge.



7UP: No more than your God is a "slave" to logic (or logical contradictions).



All the more reason to believe, that in your view, God could have created any kind of being at all, including a perfectly moral person who has free will.

If there was ever such a thing in all existence, yes. God would have created it.




7UP: No more than God is "subject to your will", Bill.

And it isn't a matter that God "must" comply, but instead God chooses to comply, because God decides not to oppressive to the free will of that individual who would like to progress.

And at what point does He choose to be oppressive to an individual who wants to progress?


7UP: No more than God is "subject to your will", Bill.



And therefore God decides which beings exist, and which do not.

No. He has the ability to decide not to create a being, but does not act on that ability because of His foreknowledge of that being's choices.


By that simple fact, God determines which choices will be made, because the choices of any particular individual would NOT have been made, if God had not decided to create that individual.

But God does not decide not to create an individual He foreknows. Nor does He create them any other way than what He foreknows. In my hamburger example, God would not create you to choose a chicken sandwich if He foreknew you would choose a hamburger. He created you to choose the hamburger because He foreknew you would choose it. He did not determine the choice, He actuated it.


(Here Bill attempt to argue that, in the LDS view, God has no choice but to create spiritual sons and daughters who were intelligences who desire to progress, yet at the same Bill contradicts himself by trying to argue that God violated their free will by creating them.)

7UP: Please explain why you think it is a violation of their free will.



Who said that God would force intelligences into spirit bodies if they did not want to?

So, if God decided to create a spirit body, and no intelligences were willing to inhabit it, what happens?


(Remember, there is a parallel with the LDS view that each spirit chooses to enter a physical body in mortality.)

Actually, J.F. Smith said otherwise.


7UP: I repeat, I don't pretend to know the nature of God's foreknowledge. I can say that God knows all that is possible to know.



There are many theories in the LDS faith concerning this. I will give you three of the possibilities:

1) God knew exactly which intelligence would rebel before creating that individual (Lucifer), but God allowed for the spiritual creation of that individual because to deny the progression of that person would be a violation of Lucifer's free will.

This is the theoretical position that I have been giving to you on this thread.

2) There is a reality that simply exists, and God must deal with it. One of the realities/rules that exist concerning the creation of a "generation" of spiritual offspring includes the idea that this generation MUST include many individuals all at once, and this includes a range of individuals with characteristics both good and bad. God cannot pick and choose which ones progress and which ones do not. God may be able to deny the entire generation from progressing, but that would not be fair to the "good" ones.

I mentioned this theoretical possibility in the video series.

3) God knows everything that is possible to know, however, perhaps it is impossible to see the characteristics of an intelligence until it enters a spiritual body, and therefore it is impossible to predict what that individual would do in any given situation until after becoming a spirit.

This goes back to the idea of not knowing exactly the nature of God's foreknowledge.

So, when we claim to not understand the nature of God's decisions on why He creates with the knowledge that some would be damned, you jump all over us, yet you think you get a free pass claiming this? :ahem: Don't try to dismantle someone else's mystery when you have ones you can't explain.




See three possibilities above.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(this next part of the discussion goes back to possibility 1 above)

7UP: God COULD stop the progression (just like he could stop the rapist). However, God allows free will. That is not the same as saying that our will is greater than God's. If you attempt that argument, you are arguing against yourself.



But in your theology, God could have refrained from creating that entity from nothing to begin with.

No He couldn't. That is a violation of the entity's free will, and God's middle knowledge. For the being to exist in God's mind, and for God to foreknow them, they have to exist. If God chooses not to create them, then they never existed in God's mind, and thus God does not foreknow them. It creates a logical contradiction. Something can not be A and NOT A at the same time.


7UP: Is "all powerful" supposed to mean being able to do EVERYTHING, even if it is logically contradictory?



Nor is refraining from creating a being from nothing who God knows before hand will participate in horrible atrocities.

Actually, it is. It creates an A = Not A contradiction. If God refrained from creating the being, then the atrocities would not exist, which means there would be no reason to refrain from creating the entity, so God would decide to create them, which means the atrocities would exist, which would mean God would refrain from creating them, and around and around. It's a logical contradiction.


7up: Does omnipotence imply that God will necessarily infringe on the agency of an eternal entity with free will?



Then why will God resurrect humans who are damned, or why even keep them in existence at all, in your theology?

Final judgment requires making every man whole again. One can not truly be blessed (or damned) without both body and soul.


Your version of God could just wipe them out of existence in the same way that God brought them into existence.

There are those who believe that is exactly what happens. I do not because of the immortality of the human soul. Since it comes from God's pwn spirit/breath, I do not believe that it can be extinguished.



7UP: Why did Adam and Eve fall?



Let's say that God decided not to create Adam and Eve, but instead two different individuals, Bob and Sara.

Ok.


Would they have fallen as well?

No clue. They never existed in God's mind, so they were never actuated


If so, why? If not, why did God create Adam and Eve instead of Bob and Sara?

Because Adam and Eve were who God imagined, not Bob and Sara.


7UP: Why was Eve so easily deceived?



And who's fault is that?

No one's. It was a result of her lack of experiences. Do you blame a brand new 15 year old driver for not being able to win the Indy 500?


Could God, who is able to create any kind of being from nothing, able create a being that is innocent and also knows right and wrong?

Able? Yes. But that was not who existed in God's mind.


Does knowing right from wrong automatically make a person unable to be innocent?

No. Experiences do though.


7UP: Why were they so ignorant and irrational?



So, do I need to fornicate or commit adultery by personal experience before I can gain the knowledge that those things are wrong?

If your aim is to lose your innocence in those matters, yes.




Are you saying that God could not impart wisdom upon Adam and Eve in an effective way?

Without knowledge to apply it to? Yes.


7UP: Who created them that way?



That does not help you with the Ex Nihilo problem.

Sure it does.


7up: In your theology, God created every single aspect of their being to be exactly as they were, and God was limited only by logical contradictions in God's own mind.



So, God was forced to create the kind of individuals that God created because those are the individuals that God imagined to begin with.

No. God created them because those are the individuals that God foreknew. They were brought into existence because He foreknew they would exist.


7UP: In my theology, God is limited by the logical contradictions inherent with dealing with eternal entities which already had some kind of characteristics, and thus has a superior explanation for why the world is the way it is. There is no way you can try to wiggle your way out of this.



And thus we get to my video presentation concerning the "Solitary Problem". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qduIGkSy1Ro

Which I've already answered in the other thread. Your video is nothing more than a "if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" fallacy.


Where did we exist prior to creation according to Ex Nihilo theology?

Since time begins at creation, there is no such thing as "prior to creation"


In God's own mind. Reality is nothing more than an outward expression of God's own imagination. This is PanENtheism. Details are given in that video.

We've had this out before. Your definition of PanENtheism is insufficient. If you would use Jürgen Moltmann's definitions, you will find that his description of Panentheism is much closer to classical monotheistic theism. In fact, he describes pantheism as holding to a god who is really no different from his creation, so using his definition, and your tactics, I can call Mormonism pantheistic. Or, we can both stop using reductio ad absurdum claims with vague forced parallels using barely similar vocabulary.


7UP: Joseph Smith revealed the truth, and the truth cuts its own way.



Then he must have been a religious genius, because the theology revealed in the LDS faith resolves most of these problems that accompany your Ex Nihilo dogma.

So you claim... and in doing so, he created so many more problems that blatantly contradict the Bible itself.

Sparko
06-05-2014, 07:20 AM
So, you are saying that God will create persons out of nothing,

um nobody has claimed that.

He created the UNIVERSE out of nothing.

He created Adam from the dust of the earth. Eve from Adam's rib, and everyone else was created by the process of conception and gestation.

seven7up
06-05-2014, 09:31 PM
7UP: However, think of the physical procreation of a child. Can you choose if the child has red hair or brown?


Geneticists think it is possible.

You are missing the point of the analogy. I am comparing the concept of how there are characteristics of our physical offspring that are out of control , to the concept that there are characteristics of God's spiritual offspring that are out of God's control.

7UP: Can you choose the child's personality traits?


Is God incapable of changing a man?

You mean by force?

Ezekiel 36:26-27
26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

Do you think that this scripture teaches that God will change people against their will?

7UP: What if the generation of all of the spirits has to occur all at once and some that are procreated are good and others are bad?


Joseph F. Smith didn’t think of them that way:

Some of our writers have endeavored to explain what an intelligence is, but to do so is futile, for we have never been given any insight into this matter beyond what the Lord has fragmentarily revealed. We know, however, that there is something called intelligence which always existed. It is the real eternal part of man, which was not created or made. This intelligence combined with the spirit constitutes a spiritual identity or individual

He claims that the LDS church doesn’t even know WHAT an intelligence is, much less has it defined that it is an individual capable of good or bad prior to being joined with spirit material.

It is true that there are many possibilities, and we don't know the details. I was just providing one of the possibilities for you. I don't see how you think that helps your argument against me.

7UP: The point is that there are non-divine realities that God must deal with in LDS theology.


As there are in Ex Nihilo, since all of His creation is “non-divine realities”.

That is not the case in Ex Nihilo theology, because God was the only thing in existence before God decided to create.


Wrong. They existed eternally in His mind through His foreknowledge of creation.

Then God created beings who would fulfill nothing more and nothing less than the very actions that God himself imagined them to fulfill before God even decided to bring those beings into reality. Thus it is God's own mind which determined every action that has ever been acted out.


Not even close. Knowing and causing are two different things.

So, God has no choice but to create any kind of being that enters God's imagination?

7UP: You wish that were the case, but you fail to admit that there is a fundamental difference between the implications from your theology and the LDS view.


The only real difference is the location of the being prior to creation. And calling that “fundamental” is actually pretty accurate from the standpoint of whether we are independent eternal beings or not, which Joseph F. Smith says is not doctrinally even claimed by the LDS.

Joseph F. Smith said in that quote, "there is something called intelligence which always existed. It is the real eternal part of man, which was not created or made".

(Is God a slave to entities of free will?)

7UP: Again, I will point out your contradictory arguments. Here is what you are attempting: The rapist demands to rape, and God has no choice but to allow it. He can command the rapist not to rape, but the rapist can deny the command. Thus: God is a slave to the rapist.

Griffin: Second, there might be some eternal, uncreated, necessary principles (beyond purely logical truths) about the way these actualities can be ordered which limit the sorts of situations that are really possible. - Griffin

7UP: "Principles" have no will. They have no personal relationship with others (ie are not interpersonal). Furthermore, that is like arguing against Christians who say that God cannot overcome logical contradictions. Are logical contradictions, or is logic in general, more powerful than the evangelical God?


Griffin postulates that there MIGHT exist eternal principles. But in reality, there are not.

According to your theology there are not, but there might be.

7UP: Therefore, God could logically and lawfully create a rational and moral being of free will out of nothing.


Correct. But that being has to choose to be rational and moral for God to actuate that choice’s reality.

You are trying to but "that being" BEFORE God, but in your theology God created that being based on what God imagined that being to be BEFORE God even created that being. Indeed, God created that being to be what that being is, in Ex Nihilo theology.

7UP: If God's nature limits God to creating imperfect creatures from God's own imagination, then that is an indictment against God's nature or abilities.


No it isn’t.

You have no good explanation.


7UP: Griffith is merely bringing up the same kinds of points and concept that I have explained.


It’s part and parcel for your incompetence. You quote (and rarely give attributions) those who you think have answered or asked the right questions with little understanding of how to respond.

You have not demonstrated that in the slightest.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - -

7UP: Wrong. AND you added mockery in order to make an even bigger fool of yourself. Nice.


Joseph Smith was the fool for even suggesting a “heavenly mother”. One cannot truly mock what does not exist, only the idea that it exists. And mock that, I will.

And in this life or the next, you will be very sorry that you did mock. Let's hope it is in this life.

7UP: I am only raising the possibility that free will can be part of the process. Free will choices does not necessarily "trump God's sovereignty". You know that. It is becoming abundantly clear that you like to speak out of both sides of your mouth. Sorry Bill. I won't let you get away with it. I will point it out every time you attempt it.


Well, since this is an entirely futile attempt to dissect the messy nonsense that is Mormon pre-existence doctrine, it is bound to cause some problems. The point of it all is that man is not co-eternal. Even J.F. Smith says that your belief is merely speculation, and that “intelligences” were not pre-existing individual humans waiting to be organized as spirits.

He did not say that they weren't. He only said that the details are not specifically defined. This possibility, and many others, exist.

7UP: As you can see, the burden falls on your theology and on your God, because that entity did not exist AT ALL, before God decided how, if, and when to create it. Then why actively create from nothing those that God knows won't choose Him, or with characteristics which God knows will lead those individuals not to choose Him.


Because denying their creation is denying their future free will.

7UP: As we have discussed, merely being irrational will lead to sinful choices. Is God not capable of creating rational beings?


Again, this assumes what God is capable of is what He will always do.

Therefore, in your theology, God is capable of creating rational beings out of nothing, but God chooses to create an inferior/irrational being instead. But then God punishes that being because of the results that occur due to the irrationality of that being, which is an irrationality that God purposefully created.

7UP: In my theology, irrationality may be an eternally inherent characteristic.


And in mine, it is a foreknown characteristic that is freely exercised by the entity.

However, with Ex Nihilo, the irrational being was created by God. That being is what God created it to be, nothing more and nothing less. This pertains to the second argument in the Free Will videos. Creating a rational being out of nothing, and then praising it for being rational OR creating an irrational being and punishing the being for being irrational ... is not a sensible point of view. I equated it to God creating Helium and rewarding Helium for rising in air or creating Lead and punishing it for sinking in water.

7UP: There isn't the same control. There are eternal non divine realities in LDS theology that are outside of God's control.


No. They are not. They are within his control, he just chooses to not intervene. You admitted that above.

No. The very fact that these intelligences exist, is outside of God's control. The characteristics that may exist within this eternal part of man are outside of God's control.

7UP: Your mind is not flexible enough to comprehend this concept, OR you are being purposefully obtuse.


No. You have an “unknown” doctrine that you are trying to defend with your theories, none of which are proclaimed by the LDS church according to J. F. Smith. And you are having difficulty admitting that maybe, just maybe, you don’t understand how the orthodox Christians see free will and ex nihilo creation.

Orthodox Christians just claim that they believe in free will, without understanding exactly how their theological framework denies the possibility. They are living in denial and ignorance.

7UP: Surely you can see the difference between
1) God allowing an eternal free agent, who has certain characteristics, to make choices
2) God creating the creature, and every single characteristic that the creature possesses, from God's own imagination


Sure, but that’s not all I believe on the subject that has direct relevance to nearly every word meaning you listed. Nor is that all you have claimed that you believe.

And we are going through the details now.


-7up

Bill the Cat
06-06-2014, 10:35 AM
7UP: However, think of the physical procreation of a child. Can you choose if the child has red hair or brown?



You are missing the point of the analogy. I am comparing the concept of how there are characteristics of our physical offspring that are out of control , to the concept that there are characteristics of God's spiritual offspring that are out of God's control.

7UP: Can you choose the child's personality traits?



You mean by force?

Ezekiel 36:26-27
26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

Do you think that this scripture teaches that God will change people against their will?

7UP: What if the generation of all of the spirits has to occur all at once and some that are procreated are good and others are bad?



It is true that there are many possibilities, and we don't know the details. I was just providing one of the possibilities for you. I don't see how you think that helps your argument against me.

7UP: The point is that there are non-divine realities that God must deal with in LDS theology.



That is not the case in Ex Nihilo theology, because God was the only thing in existence before God decided to create.



Then God created beings who would fulfill nothing more and nothing less than the very actions that God himself imagined them to fulfill before God even decided to bring those beings into reality. Thus it is God's own mind which determined every action that has ever been acted out.



So, God has no choice but to create any kind of being that enters God's imagination?

7UP: You wish that were the case, but you fail to admit that there is a fundamental difference between the implications from your theology and the LDS view.



Joseph F. Smith said in that quote, "there is something called intelligence which always existed. It is the real eternal part of man, which was not created or made".

(Is God a slave to entities of free will?)

7UP: Again, I will point out your contradictory arguments. Here is what you are attempting: The rapist demands to rape, and God has no choice but to allow it. He can command the rapist not to rape, but the rapist can deny the command. Thus: God is a slave to the rapist.

Griffin: Second, there might be some eternal, uncreated, necessary principles (beyond purely logical truths) about the way these actualities can be ordered which limit the sorts of situations that are really possible. - Griffin

7UP: "Principles" have no will. They have no personal relationship with others (ie are not interpersonal). Furthermore, that is like arguing against Christians who say that God cannot overcome logical contradictions. Are logical contradictions, or is logic in general, more powerful than the evangelical God?



According to your theology there are not, but there might be.

7UP: Therefore, God could logically and lawfully create a rational and moral being of free will out of nothing.



You are trying to but "that being" BEFORE God, but in your theology God created that being based on what God imagined that being to be BEFORE God even created that being. Indeed, God created that being to be what that being is, in Ex Nihilo theology.

7UP: If God's nature limits God to creating imperfect creatures from God's own imagination, then that is an indictment against God's nature or abilities.



You have no good explanation.


7UP: Griffith is merely bringing up the same kinds of points and concept that I have explained.



You have not demonstrated that in the slightest.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - -

7UP: Wrong. AND you added mockery in order to make an even bigger fool of yourself. Nice.



And in this life or the next, you will be very sorry that you did mock. Let's hope it is in this life.

7UP: I am only raising the possibility that free will can be part of the process. Free will choices does not necessarily "trump God's sovereignty". You know that. It is becoming abundantly clear that you like to speak out of both sides of your mouth. Sorry Bill. I won't let you get away with it. I will point it out every time you attempt it.



He did not say that they weren't. He only said that the details are not specifically defined. This possibility, and many others, exist.

7UP: As you can see, the burden falls on your theology and on your God, because that entity did not exist AT ALL, before God decided how, if, and when to create it. Then why actively create from nothing those that God knows won't choose Him, or with characteristics which God knows will lead those individuals not to choose Him.



7UP: As we have discussed, merely being irrational will lead to sinful choices. Is God not capable of creating rational beings?



Therefore, in your theology, God is capable of creating rational beings out of nothing, but God chooses to create an inferior/irrational being instead. But then God punishes that being because of the results that occur due to the irrationality of that being, which is an irrationality that God purposefully created.

7UP: In my theology, irrationality may be an eternally inherent characteristic.



However, with Ex Nihilo, the irrational being was created by God. That being is what God created it to be, nothing more and nothing less. This pertains to the second argument in the Free Will videos. Creating a rational being out of nothing, and then praising it for being rational OR creating an irrational being and punishing the being for being irrational ... is not a sensible point of view. I equated it to God creating Helium and rewarding Helium for rising in air or creating Lead and punishing it for sinking in water.

7UP: There isn't the same control. There are eternal non divine realities in LDS theology that are outside of God's control.



No. The very fact that these intelligences exist, is outside of God's control. The characteristics that may exist within this eternal part of man are outside of God's control.

7UP: Your mind is not flexible enough to comprehend this concept, OR you are being purposefully obtuse.



Orthodox Christians just claim that they believe in free will, without understanding exactly how their theological framework denies the possibility. They are living in denial and ignorance.

7UP: Surely you can see the difference between
1) God allowing an eternal free agent, who has certain characteristics, to make choices
2) God creating the creature, and every single characteristic that the creature possesses, from God's own imagination



And we are going through the details now.


-7up

All of this is either directly or indirectly addressed by my last reply (Post 49), so for the sake of legibility, I will await your reply to that one instead of repeating myself.