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]

If you are a sinner while alive but you are not a sinner in heaven, having been sterilised and unsexed in some way, what makes you think that the heavenly you is really you? Your analysis suggests that YOU do not survive your death; only some useless spare part that can’t stop smiling for all eternity, does.

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

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

God magically provides every mature adult with a little totally autonomous free will to make the one choice of accepting or rejecting God’s charity.

[firstfloor]

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

I expect the shops in heaven don’t sell much mascara. Pity.

[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".

God magically provides every mature adult with a little totally autonomous free will to make the one choice of accepting or rejecting God’s charity.

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:

"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. He cannot create them directly, nor can he start in motion a chain of causes and effects that eventually leads to them, for the very simple reason that they are, by definition, uncaused or self-caused. And the choices here cannot be separated from the person choosing. Since the choice is uncaused, the will that produces the choice must be uncaused. Since God did not create (even indirectly) any of the actual choices of the will, he did not create whatever it is in the will that is the cause of the actual choices we make. Even proponents of libertarian freedom will admit, although paradoxically, that the choices we make are the results of the motivations, desires, loves, values, priorities, beliefs, etc., that constitute who we are, that make up the real essence of our actual being. That is why our choices reveal who we are. If our choices were not produced from the essence of our being, they would not be our choices fundamentally and would not reveal anything about who we are. Therefore, if God were the creator of our being or the essence of who we are, as a logically consistent account of creation ex nihilo would affirm, he would also be the creator and cause, at least indirectly, of the actual choices we make." - 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".

First off: Our “nature” has not changed from Adam and Eve prior to their sinning, but our knowledge has changed. The problem is not with sinning, but with humbly accepting God’s Charity in the form of forgiveness. 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), since the objective is to desire, seek and accept forgiveness. “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…”.

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:

"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. He cannot create them directly, nor can he start in motion a chain of causes and effects that eventually leads to them, for the very simple reason that they are, by definition, uncaused or self-caused. And the choices here cannot be separated from the person choosing. Since the choice is uncaused, the will that produces the choice must be uncaused. Since God did not create (even indirectly) any of the actual choices of the will, he did not create whatever it is in the will that is the cause of the actual choices we make. Even proponents of libertarian freedom will admit, although paradoxically, that the choices we make are the results of the motivations, desires, loves, values, priorities, beliefs, etc., that constitute who we are, that make up the real essence of our actual being. That is why our choices reveal who we are. If our choices were not produced from the essence of our being, they would not be our choices fundamentally and would not reveal anything about who we are. Therefore, if God were the creator of our being or the essence of who we are, as a logically consistent account of creation ex nihilo would affirm, he would also be the creator and cause, at least indirectly, of the actual choices we make." - 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?

First off: Our “nature” has not changed from Adam and Eve prior to their sinning, but our knowledge has changed.

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?

It could be 0% to 100% at any one time without being totally random it will not result in 50%. It appears selfishness wins out over the humble desire to become unselfish so more have in the past refused God’s charity and I do not see how it would change.

Where does this nature come from? Who created it?

Every adult mature adult at some point in life has the best “nature” possible to accept God’s pure charity, but since free will is the real factor in the rejection or selection of God’s charity man has a real choice in spite of his nature.

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

The “sinful nature” is the result of our needed instinct to survive (self-awareness and selfishness). Since there is no other way for us to obtain for ourselves this unique “Godly type Love”, without first sinning, God allows us to sin.

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?

Unfortunately, sometimes the best way to learn is through making mistakes (read the prodigal son story again Luke 15: 11-32). Are we created somewhat “selfish”, yes, but that is the result of our need for the survival instinct and it will give eternal life value.
The “punishment” is better defined disciplining and there is nothing wrong with correctly going through a loving disciplining.

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".

I do not agree with there being a “fall”, since the Bible does not call it a “fall” and would call it a transitioning.
The Bible does not suggest man’s nature changed, but our knowledge increased.
Again, Adam and Eve prior to sinning had a “nature” that would eventually sin, so our nature does not have to change from theirs. We all will sin, but again sin is not the “problem”, so a nature that will sin eventually is not a problem.
God cannot create beings instinctively with Godly type Love, so whatever lesser “love” God puts in man would be a robotic type love.
Godly type Love is way beyond human ability to learn, develop, payback, or really logically understand. We are not even choosing to have such a love, but are just being asked to humbly accept such a Love as charity out of a huge need we have. You just cannot teach a person to be totally unselfish, but God can gift us with this Love if we accept His Love (forgiveness).

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.

Godly type Love (totally unselfish Love) is not “logical”, so the only means of obtaining such a Love would be miraculously.

[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.

It could be 0% to 100% at any one time without being totally random it will not result in 50%. It appears selfishness wins out over the humble desire to become unselfish so more have in the past refused God’s charity and I do not see how it would change.

Perhaps by creating creatures who are not as selfish.

.... the rejection or selection of God’s charity man has a real choice in spite of his nature. ....

The “sinful nature” is the result of our needed instinct to survive (self-awareness and selfishness).

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?

....Since there is no other way for us to obtain for ourselves this unique “Godly type Love”, without first sinning, God allows us to sin.

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.

... Are we created somewhat “selfish”, yes, but that is the result of our need for the survival instinct and it will give eternal life value.

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?

The “punishment” is better defined disciplining and there is nothing wrong with correctly going through a loving disciplining.

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

I do not agree with there being a “fall”, since the Bible does not call it a “fall” and would call it a transitioning.
The Bible does not suggest man’s nature changed, but our knowledge increased.

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.

God cannot create beings instinctively with Godly type Love, so whatever lesser “love” God puts in man would be a robotic type love.

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

.
The being God creates has to have a survival instinct (place value on personal continued existence), but that also results in self-awareness, self-desires and self-worth. All this emphasis on self; results to some degree in selfishness to begin, but also makes us want to happily live on.

God does not accept charity from anyone, so it is not wrong to avoid having to accept charity if it is not needed.

God’s charity is not cheap or insignificant, so it cannot be treated lightly.

Again, you have to give some thought to the situation beyond what first pops into your head:

God has established and arranged all the details in the world to allow every mature adult at some time in their life to come to their senses (like the prodigal son starving to death in the pigsty Luke 15:11-32), but that does not mean the person in the pigsty of life will automatically be willing to humbly accept the father’s pure charity. It appears most people would rather do the macho thing, take the punishment they fully deserve, pay the piper, save what pride they have (a false pride), avoid bothering their father more, and not have to listen to their brother criticism.

We are made to want to survive and have a life (like the prodigal son), so accepting the father’s charity is as easy as it can be, but you still have to make a free will choice to willingly accept.

It has to be a real choice with likely alternatives or it is not a choice. We choose to accept or reject God’s Love (charity). Those who reject God’s Love really do not like Godly type love, so they would be extremely unhappy in heaven where there is only Godly type Love and a huge Love feast.

Perhaps by creating creatures who are not as selfish.

Like the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) it was his selfish desire to continue to live and have some kind of a life, that convinced him to humbly go back to the father willing to accept the father’s charity.

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?

There is no “problem” since God is not asking us to go against our selfish “nature”, but actually use our selfish desire to continue to live and have a life to help us go to Him. Our selfish nature should help us overcomes our false pride, help be humble and accepting.

The prodigal son’s had selfish motivations for going to the father and accepting the Father’s charity.

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.

Intellectual or academic knowledge is not the best way to know something. Intelligence and even wisdom does not keep a person from sinning (you can ask Solomon about that).

We all (even Adam and Eve needed to know this) need to know that we cannot be obedient (like Christ) under our own ability. We need to be reliant on God and be willing to humbly accept God’s help (charity).

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?

Salvation goes to those that want Godly type Love and to be Love with Godly type Love. Heaven can be appreciated by all those that desire Godly type Love, but those that desire to be “loved” for how they want others to perceive them to be are not wanting Godly type Love. A baby is very accepting of Godly type Love.

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 the nature does not have to change for you to come to your senses and selfishly and logically accept the desperately needed charity. It is the individual’s free will choice.

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?

God created beings for earth that as mature adults would best have the disposition (nature) to make the free will choice to accept His Charity, but that does not mean they automatically will accept his charity, since selfishness is part of the best “nature”. You accept God’s charity partly at least because you selfishly want to continue to live and have a livable life.

Robots can be self-aware and have a desire for continued existence, but they cannot be programmed to have Godly type love.

[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?

God created beings for earth that as mature adults would best have the disposition (nature) to make the free will choice to accept His Charity, but that does not mean they automatically will accept his charity, since selfishness is part of the best “nature”. You accept God’s charity partly at least because you selfishly want to continue to live and have a livable life.

Robots can be self-aware and have a desire for continued existence, but they cannot be programmed to have Godly type love.

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:

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. He cannot create them directly, nor can he start in motion a chain of causes and effects that eventually leads to them, for the very simple reason that they are, by definition, uncaused or self-caused. And the choices here cannot be separated from the person choosing. Since the choice is uncaused, the will that produces the choice must be uncaused. Since God did not create (even indirectly) any of the actual choices of the will, he did not create whatever it is in the will that is the cause of the actual choices we make. Even proponents of libertarian freedom will admit, although paradoxically, that the choices we make are the results of the motivations, desires, loves, values, priorities, beliefs, etc., that constitute who we are, that make up the real essence of our actual being. That is why our choices reveal who we are. If our choices were not produced from the essence of our being, they would not be our choices fundamentally and would not reveal anything about who we are. Therefore, if God were the creator of our being or the essence of who we are, as a logically consistent account of creation ex nihilo would affirm, he would also be the creator and cause, at least indirectly, of the actual choices we make." - mark hausam


-7up