Determinism, Compatibilsm, Free Will, Ex Nihilo

[seven7up]

7up wrote: But the Goal of God is not to gain novelty, it is to bring imperfection to perfection, an amazing accomplishment...., to glorify His children, which brings glory to God. .... While God may experience time differently than we do, I believe God still exists in a temporal reality. I believe that God has to live according to the laws of existence (ie: there are things that God cannot do).

Wouldn't classical theism disagree with that characterization?

Sorry, I missed your post.


Clearly, I disagree with "classical" theism. So, you will have to ask one of the other guys here.

-7up

[bling]

You are not "sterilized" but you do loss your unneeded sexuality, is that the only way you identify yourself?

[bling]

I never said you don't give an option.

You are proposing that God creates an equally balanced individual (almost as if they were 50% likely to choose good and 50% to choose bad); and none of their created characteristics have anything to do with influencing the kind of choice they would make.

Does that describe the world we live in?

Do you think that 50% of people are going to hell, and 50% to heaven?

-7up

[firstfloor]

You are not "sterilized" but you do loss your unneeded sexuality, is that the only way you identify yourself?

[The Thinker]

Let's start simple and pretend for a moment that God can create beings who are free to choose. There are assumptions made with this idea/statement, some of them false, but just play along for a moment.

Let's say that God creates 20 people, numbered below. And let's say that the even numbers will choose salvation and the odd numbers damnation.


Saved
2) Bob, 4) Frank, 6) Sara, 8) Marcus, 10) Isabel, 12) Johnny, 14) Matilda, 16) Joseph, 18) Simon, 20) Karina


Unsaved
1) Cain , 3) Matt, 5) Alicia, 7) Carmen, 9) Nathan, 11) Jeremy, 13) Candace, 15) Javier, 17) Jose, 19) Mary




Would those who chose salvation be any less free if God simply did not create unsaved in the first place? (Would they not have free will?)

In other words, isn't there a false logical assumption to believe that God must create people He knows will be damned in order for there to be free will for those who God knows will be saved?


There is much more to discuss here; I just wanted to get the ball rolling.


-7up

I think I would agree that this assumption is false. God could simply create the even numbered people or a world only filled with even numbered people.

[Jichard]

Read most of the thread, but not all of it, so excuse me if I'm repeating anything. Bill isn't describing Occasionalism (which is mostly an Islamic conception of God where he hands-on, directly intervenes with his creation), but of Molinism and Middle Knowledge. Bill, I agree with pretty much everything you've said on the topic except that I may disagree with you on God and his relationship with time. I'm more in line with William Craig's view that "God ought to be considered as timeless sans creation and temporal subsequent to creation."

Incorrect. The following is occasionalism, not molinism:

No, I get it. But what YOU don't get is that your theory here still means that OUR WILL, even as God's foreknowledge, is just as effective and at creating reality as God's will.

Wrong. Our will does not create. It is the blueprint by which God creates. Do the blueprints build the house, or does the builder? DO the blueprints have any ability to lift a brick? To spackle the drywall? To lay the insulation?

Molinism is about God's knowledge of counterfactuals of freedom (as Plantinga tends to call them); it says nothing about humans not creating or the human will not creating. To say otherwise is to make the conflation I mentioned in response to Bill the Cat, where one confuses (God) knowing that X with (God and not humans) causing X. Or do you really think that folks like Plantinga and Craig (advocates of molinism) think the the human will creates nothing? Because we both know you won't be able to produce a place where they said that. After all, Craid goes to great lengths to explain how human personal agency can create stuff, as his (attempt at a) non-question-begging examples for how an immaterial mind could engage in something other than event causation.

[seven7up]

No God does not make 50% to choose good and the other 50% choose bad???

That isn't what I said. If God gives people free autonomy to choose either good or evil, and it could go one way or the other (no bias either way), then would you say that 50% of people end up going to heaven and 50% going to hell?

Let me repeat this point.

Ex Nihilo essentially teaches that , after the Fall, God is creating people with a "sin nature" ... from nothing. The inclination is to sin and make unwise choices; yet you claim that we all have "free will" rather than this sinful nature being "programmed" or "robotic". Yet if God were to create people with a "love" nature or people who are intelligent enough to make wise choices, suddenly you claim that such a nature would be "robotic".

I think "magically" is the right word for it.

That is the word people use when they realize that something doesn't make sense.

People need to chew on the logic a little bit. Take the time to analyze this, it is worth it:

- mark hausam

-7up

[bling]

That isn't what I said. If God gives people free autonomy to choose either good or evil, and it could go one way or the other (no bias either way), then would you say that 50% of people end up going to heaven and 50% going to hell?

People are not choosing between being good and being evil.
God gives each mature adult individual the one totally autonomous choice of accepting or rejecting His pure charity, so there would be no randomness to the choice. You cannot say it is 50/50.

Ex Nihilo essentially teaches that , after the Fall, God is creating people with a "sin nature" ... from nothing. The inclination is to sin and make unwise choices; yet you claim that we all have "free will" rather than this sinful nature being "programmed" or "robotic". Yet if God were to create people with a "love" nature or people who are intelligent enough to make wise choices, suddenly you claim that such a nature would be "robotic".

I think "magically" is the right word for it.

That is the word people use when they realize that something doesn't make sense.

People need to chew on the logic a little bit. Take the time to analyze this, it is worth it:

- mark hausam

Mark Hausam is not the first to realize this and I agree if we are talking about scientifically natural occurring events (cause and effect). But an all-powerful autonomist willed God can miraculously give a being just a small piece of autonomy to possibly become like Himself, than you can have a free will choice made by that being.

[seven7up]

People are not choosing between being good and being evil.
God gives each mature adult individual the one totally autonomous choice of accepting or rejecting His pure charity, so there would be no randomness to the choice. You cannot say it is 50/50.

I didn't say random.
You are insinuating that it takes a simple choice, either "accepting or rejecting His pure charity."

What percentage of people who have ever lived on the Earth do you believe accepts or rejects this offer?



Where does this nature come from? Who created it?

All people including Adam and Eve will eventually do bad stuff, which is all part of the plan (this does not mean God desires us to do bad stuff),...

If God does not want us to do bad stuff, then why create a sinful nature?

You keep avoiding the problem here. Your theology demands that God creates beings Ex Nihilo with a sinful nature, and then enacts a punishment when they do what it is in their nature to do. You don't see a problem with that?

I repeat again: Ex Nihilo essentially teaches that , after the Fall, God is creating people with a "sin nature" ... from nothing. The inclination is to sin and make unwise choices; yet you claim that we all have "free will" rather than this sinful nature being "programmed" or "robotic". Yet if God were to create people with a "love" nature or people who are intelligent enough to make wise choices, suddenly you claim that such a nature would be "robotic".

Mark Hausam is not the first to realize this and I agree if we are talking about scientifically natural occurring events (cause and effect). But an all-powerful autonomist willed God can miraculously give a being just a small piece of autonomy...

Again, all you are doing is dismissing the obvious logic that has presented to you. You say "magic" or "miracoulously" in order to hand wave the problem away. "Um ... move on ... nothing to see here."

... And all to defend a man made doctrine developed in the mid to end of the second century A.D.

-7up

[bling]

I didn't say random.
You are insinuating that it takes a simple choice, either "accepting or rejecting His pure charity."

Yes, humbly accepting God's forgiveness which is pure charity.

What percentage of people who have ever lived on the Earth do you believe accepts or rejects this offer?

Where does this nature come from? Who created it?

If God does not want us to do bad stuff, then why create a sinful nature?

You keep avoiding the problem here. Your theology demands that God creates beings Ex Nihilo with a sinful nature, and then enacts a punishment when they do what it is in their nature to do. You don't see a problem with that?

I repeat again: Ex Nihilo essentially teaches that , after the Fall, God is creating people with a "sin nature" ... from nothing. The inclination is to sin and make unwise choices; yet you claim that we all have "free will" rather than this sinful nature being "programmed" or "robotic". Yet if God were to create people with a "love" nature or people who are intelligent enough to make wise choices, suddenly you claim that such a nature would be "robotic".

Again, all you are doing is dismissing the obvious logic that has presented to you. You say "magic" or "miracoulously" in order to hand wave the problem away. "Um ... move on ... nothing to see here."

... And all to defend a man made doctrine developed in the mid to end of the second century A.D.

[seven7up]

Sorry, I missed your last post. Let me respond, .... albeit late.

Yes, humbly accepting God's forgiveness which is pure charity.

What kind of being is God creating "from nothing"?

The kind of being that will, more often than not, willfully reject pure charity?

Again, this appears to be a design flaw.

Perhaps by creating creatures who are not as selfish.

You try to twist out of it, but in the end you go back to it.

God expects us ... to go against our nature then?

And God is expected to punish those who act according our nature (the nature that God created us to have). Do you seriously NOT see the problem here?

Godly type love requires a selfish and sinful nature?

Unfortunately, sometimes the best way to learn is through making mistakes...

Incorrect. The best way to learn is to be intelligent enough to know the results/consequences without having to make the mistakes in the first place. Flawed and ignorant people, like us, simply aren't wise enough to learn that way ... so yes, we have to learn another way ... by and through our mistakes and suffering the consequences.

So, the only way to appreciate eternal life, is to become sinful first. Can you think of anyone who appreciates eternal life without having to experience a normal mortal life? Babies who die, .... or even Jesus?

So, you don't believe in "eternal damnation".


I totally agree with you. I'm glad that you realize that the "nature" of humanity did not change with "the fall". Only then knowledge. But Ex Nihilo still has the same problem. God created the very nature/essence of those who God intends to either punish/reward. Every aspect of each individual is created by God himself, so why would God punish/reward anybody who behaves in a way that MUST logically be the result of the nature/essence that God Himself created.

Again, you are being inconsistent. You say that God creates people to be selfish by nature, and DENY that this is "robotic", yet on the other hand if God creates them as "loving" then that MUST be robotic.

If God creates Ex Nihilo, are the characteristics/nature/essence of those created creatures robotic ... or not?

-7up

[bling]

What kind of being is God creating "from nothing"?
The kind of being that will, more often than not, willfully reject pure charity?

Again, this appears to be a design flaw

Perhaps by creating creatures who are not as selfish.

You try to twist out of it, but in the end you go back to it.

God expects us ... to go against our nature then?

And God is expected to punish those who act according our nature (the nature that God created us to have). Do you seriously NOT see the problem here?

Godly type love requires a selfish and sinful nature?

Yes initially, look at the prodigal son.

Incorrect. The best way to learn is to be intelligent enough to know the results/consequences without having to make the mistakes in the first place. Flawed and ignorant people, like us, simply aren't wise enough to learn that way ... so yes, we have to learn another way ... by and through our mistakes and suffering the consequences.

So, the only way to appreciate eternal life, is to become sinful first. Can you think of anyone who appreciates eternal life without having to experience a normal mortal life? Babies who die, .... or even Jesus?

So, you don't believe in "eternal damnation".

I believe in Hell, which is not discipline, but punishment partly for not accepting the discipline while here on earth.

I totally agree with you. I'm glad that you realize that the "nature" of humanity did not change with "the fall". Only then knowledge. But Ex Nihilo still has the same problem. God created the very nature/essence of those who God intends to either punish/reward. Every aspect of each individual is created by God himself, so why would God punish/reward anybody who behaves in a way that MUST logically be the result of the nature/essence that God Himself created.

Again, you are being inconsistent. You say that God creates people to be selfish by nature, and DENY that this is "robotic", yet on the other hand if God creates them as "loving" then that MUST be robotic.
If God creates Ex Nihilo, are the characteristics/nature/essence of those created creatures robotic ... or not?

[seven7up]

7up wrote: Again, you are being inconsistent. You say that God creates people to be selfish by nature, and DENY that this is "robotic", yet on the other hand if God creates them as "loving" then that MUST be robotic. If God creates Ex Nihilo, are the characteristics/nature/essence of those created creatures robotic ... or not?


I will leave it up to the other readers of this thread to decide whether your responses are adequate for the problem we were discussing.

I certainly do not think so.

And keep in mind, that this quote was not honestly addressed:

- mark hausam


-7up