Determinism, Compatibilsm, Free Will, Ex Nihilo

[Bill the Cat]

Yet you said this:



I am using "caused" and "creation" is just the way they are used in philosophy. If you don't know what "creatio ex materia" is, then look it up. To say that you are using "the classical theist definition" makes no sense, since classical theists (including many Christians) already used the idea of "creatio ex materia". They basically lifted it from Greeks like Aristotle, though of course, some theists came up with the idea independently of the Greeks.

And yes, knifes are created... via creatio ex materia, the only observed form of creation. Creatio ex nihilo is unobserved nonsense, that likely isn't even coherent.



No, it wasn't, and you don't have a shred of evidence that it was, anymore than a witchdoctor has evidence that evil spirits caused a sickness. The materials were caused to exist by previously existent matter.



Again, no he didn't. The elements were caused to exist by previously existent elements.

And as I told you before, causing the existence of X's distal causal presursors is not the same thing as causing X's existence.



That's not all your claiming. You're claiming that since God acts as a cause, humans can't. Also, fallacious reasoning on your part: causing the existence of X's distal causal presursors is not the same thing as sustaining X's existence in reality. For example, my grandparents made by infant parents, and my infant parents are a distal causal presursor of me. Yet that does not mean my grandparents sustain my existence in reality. In fact, my grandparents could die, and I would still exist.



You're claiming otherwise since you're the one claiming that causing the existence of X's distal causal presursors is same thing as causing X's existence.



That's what causation and creation actually are.



No, something new was created via creatio ex materia. What was created was a new mental state that was not there before.



Again, you seem to have no clue what "creatio ex materia" is. Creatio ex materia does not require that one create brand new materials ex nihilo. And there is something new: some new state that was not present before. Saying that "[i]t's still the same materials", does nothing to change this.



No, it's incoherent. Period.



A claim for which you likely have no evidence. Knowing you, you're probably just equivocate on the term "eternal".



You seem to be missing the point. You made a point about laws of gravitation being made by God. I then pointed out to you that:

"Even if one is a theist one can't claim that, since on even on contemporary physics, there was a state of affairs at which the modern laws of physics (including those for gravity) break down. So laws of gravitation would not apply at that state of matter."

Notice that I didn't say our undrstanding of the laws breaks down. Instead, the laws themselves breakdown; that is: the laws no longer apply. So your point about "our understanding" does not apply to what I said. Furthermore, I just showed you're making stuff up: you're just randomly claiming that God made stuff, without any evidence that God made that stuff. For instance, you claimed that God made the laws of gravitation, even though we already know that there were early stages in the universe's existence, where such gravitational laws breakdown and thus were not existent. Yet you claim they were in existence and were mad by God. Bill, this is what happens when you simply make stuff up for the sake of your theology, without understanding what you're discussing.



A claim for which you have no evidence. There are quite a number of scientists who'd argue that the state in question was lawless.



Made-up, incoherent claims for which you have no evidence.



Again, you're making stuff up. There are quite a number of scientists who'd argue that the state in question was lawless.



Of course I have evidence you're wrong. Spent a thread discussing it. You just ignore that evidence, sort of like how you ignore evidence on AGW. That's how your denialist works.



Again, you're making stuff up about physics. You really have to be ill-informed on physics, to think that all my body's atoms have existed since the beginning of the universe (if the universe began to exist). For example, you'd have to be ignorant of how nuclear fusion resulted in the existence of new, heavier atoms, via creatio ex materia.



My parents created me via creatio ex materia.



Nope, as reflected in your lack of understanding of how atoms are created via creatio ex materia.



That's nice. Tell me when you have evidence for your claims.



My parents created me via creatio ex materia. If you doubt this, then it's looks like you're a denialist about reproductive biology as well.



If you know that, then you'd admit that my parents created me via creatio ex materia. Yet you seem unable to do that.



Irrelevant, since my parents can create me via creatio ex materia, without my parents needing to create all of my atoms ex nihilo and even if my atoms existed before I existed. Again, I seriously suggest you look up what creatio ex materia is, because you don't seem to have any idea what it is, even though it's apart of classical theism and contemporary theism.



Actually, you would need to claim that in order to claim that God (as opposed to my parents) made me; you'd need to introduce some magical gaps in the biological process via which my parents would have made me, so God could sneak in and cause me to exist. Hence occasionalism.



No I don't. Please try not to make stuff up. Thanks.

Even if this universe is past finite, it still would be the case that your God does not exist and your God did not cause the universe to exist.



You are arguing against him by using an incoherent theology composed of made-up, knowably false claims.



You're saying otherwise, as you invent supernatural causes for natural occurences.



Again, knowably false nonsense. I already know who caused me to exist: my parents, via creatio ex materia. It's absurd to claim that God caused me to exist as opposed to my parents being the cause, just as it's absurd to claim that God caused AIDS to exist as opposed to HIV being the cause.



I knew that you didn't know that.



False claim that runs afoul of creatio ex materia.



You think motion is "non-material"? *sigh* It's a material process.

And you seem to fallaciously assume that if something is a consequence, then that thing cannot be created. That's absurd. For example, I'm a (causal) consequence of a my parents having sex, but that doesn't change the fact that my parents caused me to exist via creatio ex materia. And heat is a (broadly logical) consequence of the motion of particles, but that doesn't change the fact that heat can be caused to exist.



Yes I would, since there are quite a number of metaphysically possible scenarios under which I would exist, but God would not.



No, I'm just applying something to you that you're apparently not familiar with: actual contemporary Christian theology. What I said to you comes from folks like Plantinga, Swinburne, and Craig. Do you think Christian theology is overly complicated?



Same mistake that Christians philosophers like Plantinga and Swinburne have taken pains to correct. Remember, that your claim was that God was logically necessary:

"But if God "ceased to exist" exist (which is a logical impossibility since He is necessary in a theistic framework), so would you."

So the necessity under discussion here is logical necessity. Given this, your conclusion that:

"God/Gods is necessary in order to begin the process of creation"

does not follow from what you wrote. To see why, note that we've known since at least Hume that causes are not logically necessary for their effects. For example, suppose a ball's movement is caused by the motion of a baseball bat. It's still logically possible for the ball's movement to have been caused by something else, such as the motion of a foot. Similarly, suppose I was caused to exist by my parents, via creatio ex materia. It's still logically possible for me to have been caused to exist via IVF through creatio ex materia. So pointing out that God caused the universe to exist, does not show that God is logically necessary for the beginning of creation. There are other logically possible scenarios under which the universe begins, without God. To put it in a slogan form: causal necessity is not logical necessity. This is a point that many Christian philosophers like Plantinga and Swinburne, take pains to emphasize. And as I explained to you before, God's existence is not logically necessary, even on traditional theism. At best, God's existence would be metaphysically necessary, though I wouldn't even grant that, for the reasons I went over in my previous post.



Occurrences are created via creatio ex materia, the only observed form of creation.



No, but re-arranging non-lamp materials into a lamp, creates a new lamp in that location; that is: the lamp is created via creatio ex materia.



Motion is an observable, material process. It can be created via creatio ex materia, just like any other material process. For example, I can create some motion by causally affecting the door of my front door.

Look, I've explained everything I set out to explain. You are a naturalist, so ex nihilo naturally makes no sense to you. And I am a Christian, so ex material is not actually creation to me. Never will our positions make sense to each other. SO I bid you adieu from this thread ...

[Bill the Cat]

7up: I never said I know what kind of foreknowledge God has.



When? Where?


7up wrote: because with creation Ex Materia, God is doing the "best possible with what God has to work with", which is eternally-existing non-divine entities.



Because they recognize that God is vastly superior: more wise, more intelligent, more loving, more powerful, more capable, etc.



The same?

Bill,

You believe that the Damned will be in Hell, FOREVER. You also believe that the Saved will be in Heaven, FOREVER. Your statement above is like saying that since both will be FOREVER ... then it is "the same". Um, no ... it clearly isn't.

The quantity of how long we have been existing, or how long we will be existing is not the same of the quality of that existence.



Where do you get that it comes from "chance"? Where do you get that it is evolved "a bit further"?

How can you get all of this wrong over, and over and over?

-7up

I'd rather deal with this in the Mormonism section. When I return from vacation this week, I'll start a thread there for just us.

[Cerebrum123]

I'd rather deal with this in the Mormonism section. When I return from vacation this week, I'll start a thread there for just us.

Well, if you want a thread for just the two of you it should go in the Arena.

[Jichard]

Similarly so for AGW denialism; since God caused climate change, humans didn't cause climate change.

Well, humans didn't CAUSE it. We are merely contributing to it, if the current science is to be accepted.

Do you enjoy making stuff up? Or do your ideologically-motivated fabrications ever affect your conscience? You know how easy it is fact-check the nonsense you make up, right?

""

"Views among these more narrow subgroups of AAAS [American Association for the Advancement of Science] members are quite similar to those for the sample as a whole. For instance, 87% of all the AAAS members in our survey said they believe climate change is mostly due to human activity, compared with 88% of Working Ph.D. Scientists, 90% of Active Research Scientists and 93% of working Ph.D. Earth scientists who hold the same view."

This has all been explained to you before, Bill. So stop making stuff up. It's getting old.

[seven7up]

You seem to be suggesting that free will is something that exists of itself in a vacuum. It doesn't. So, if there are free willed beings, that are just as eternal as god, then in what sense did god create them? He didn't!

Sure he did. It just is not a creation "Ex Nihilo". God helped that "free will" that has always existed to become something more.

-7up

[JimL]

Sure he did. It just is not a creation "Ex Nihilo". God helped that "free will" that has always existed to become something more.

I don't think that you are making sense 7up? What do you mean by "free will" has always existed? Free will is not a thing that has existence.

[bling]

The best God could do, in making any kind of being that is logically possible, is make two ignorant , disobedient, and easily deceived people?

They did not know they were naked. They appeared to be in a child-like state of innocence.

Why wasn't knowledge of good and evil "needed"? God knows good from evil, so that means it isn't a bad thing. If they were being asked to make a moral choice (good or evil), then what makes you think it wasn't needed?

Why? Sounds like God should have made people to be naturally more humble.

As I said in a previous post; In mainstream Christian theology, there are non-communicable attributes of God (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and having "always existed"). I am not talking about creating another being with any of those attributes. You are just dodging the question.

So, you believe that God is NOT omniscient?

No! God knows everything that can be known at any and all times, but not something that cannot be known at any time.

Why create the ones that He knew were going to Hell?

So, you believe that when people get to Heaven, they will no longer sin ... because God will take away their ability to sin? Take away their free will?

Choosing between eternal damnation and eternal salvation seems like a pretty obvious choice to any rational being. Choosing Heaving is good for God, good for your family , and yes ... it is self-seeking because it is good for you too!

Again; seems like God created us with some design flaws. Your theology demands that it is God's fault ... not ours.

-No, there are two conflicting abilities we all have (being humbly and wanting to survive).

[JimL]

Accept that we already have that knowledge and experience here on earth and it doesn't stop us from freely choosing to sin. So knowledge and experience in and of themselves wouldn't make any difference.

We are no longer sexual beings (sexual beings compete for good reason), so we are prone to covet.

So we will no longer be desirous of anything? If thats what the creator wanted, he could have created us that way to begin with. So that is not a sensible answer.

We will have spiritual eyes to not only feel the presence of the Holy Spirit, but literally see Him, with us always.

Thats another problem the creator could have solved from the get go. If literally seeing god, and thereby knowing with certainty of his reality, solves the problem of sin, then why would god keep that certainty of knowledge from us?

The big think is we have it all so there is no wanting, since our most generous Father has given us everything we truly unselfishly want.

Again, this makes no sense. If within a world where there is no wanting, where we have it all, if within such a world there is no sin, then god could have created that world in the first place. And if your argument is then that god did create that world in the first place, aka Eden, and that we sinned anyway, then you are contradicting your own argument.

[Adrift]

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."

[bling]

Accept that we already have that knowledge and experience here on earth and it doesn't stop us from freely choosing to sin. So knowledge and experience in and of themselves wouldn't make any difference.

So we will no longer be desirous of anything? If thats what the creator wanted, he could have created us that way to begin with. So that is not a sensible answer.

Thats another problem the creator could have solved from the get go. If literally seeing god, and thereby knowing with certainty of his reality, solves the problem of sin, then why would god keep that certainty of knowledge from us?

Look at man's objective will here on earth given above.

Man's objective while on earth is not to: "never ever sin". Sin will happen, so the objective is to humble accept God's charity in the form of forgiveness to obtain Godly type Love.

Again, this makes no sense. If within a world where there is no wanting, where we have it all, if within such a world there is no sin, then god could have created that world in the first place. And if your argument is then that god did create that world in the first place, aka Eden, and that we sinned anyway, then you are contradicting your own argument.

Sin is not the problem, while unforgiven sin is a huge problem.

[seven7up]

I don't think that you are making sense 7up? What do you mean by "free will" has always existed? Free will is not a thing that has existence.

Call it whatever you want. An "entity" with free will.

The theodicy in ex materia is that each individual was an "intelligence" that existed from eternity past. This "intelligence" then was created (possibly even procreated) into a spirit being. Then, the spirit was placed into a physical body which was also created by God.

-7up

[seven7up]

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

[seven7up]

For starters, it is all arbitrary IF God creates from nothing. For example, God could have created a reality ... where it IS good to be naked. Where it IS good to punch your sister in the face. .... but let's continue for now ...

You missed the point. The point is ... they didn't have the knowledge of good and evil; yet God is trying to get them to make a moral decision between something good and something evil ... when they aren't in the position to judge the difference.

It is a difficult passage of scripture; For full disclosure, if you want my full position on the Fall of Adam and Eve, you will find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHMu...lH9MxxLwwWnAea

You did not explain what you think the "teaching experience" was all about. As I said, I explain it clearly in that link above, from my perspective (keep in mind that I am Mormon).

Sin is needed and the burden sin creates is needed

I think that what I emphasized in Bold above is indicative of your thinking here. From your point of view, it seems that you think that God purposefully HAD to create creatures who would have a sinful nature. Again, I don't think that a God, creating ex nihilo, would be so constrained. Again, Blake Ostler put it this way, concerning Alvin Plantinga's "free will defence" of the existence of evil and suffering:



Think about it. If we know that sin leads to misery and damnation, and righteousness leads to happiness and eternal life, what choice would any rational creature make? Look at the world around you Bling? Look at what the text of scripture says about human nature? With Ex Nihilo creation, the only explanation about how evil and rotten we are is the explanation that you yourself admitted ... God HAD to have created us with a sinful nature on purpose. But then, as Ostler says, God is morally indictable for evil and suffering that results from sin.

I am glad I am not in the poor position of having to defend a creation "from nothing" theodicy. It is a philosophical nightmare... and you know it.

I think that you and I have both met people who simply seem to be naturally more humble than others. It just seems to be their nature. I can simply say to you that there is some aspect to our nature, some part of our being that is "uncreated". It always existed. Thus, God is not morally indictable.

You have to say that God purposefully created people to be selfish, ... then and only then will they sin; and then when they sin; it forces them to realize how bad they are ... which will hopefully humble some of them ... and then when they are humble then some of them will repent and turn to God.

Come on. Certainly you can see that this theology is a disaster.

It wouldn't be a robotic type love, because you INSIST that God can create Ex Nihilo AND with free will (I disagree with that point, but I am humoring you for now on that point in order to make a different point.) On one hand, you are saying that God can create us with a sinful nature, a selfish nature, etc. ... yet we still have free will. Why aren't you claiming that this "selfishness" is robotic?

See your contradiction here?

No! God knows everything that can be known at any and all times, but not something that cannot be known at any time.

This is the amazing thing about people who insist on Ex Nihilo creation. They will never let go of the idea that God creates absolutely "out of nothing" (which is not even a Biblical concept). They hold onto Ex Nihilo so tightly, that when challenged on it, they would rather let go of the idea that God is truly omniscient (which has a much stronger Biblical argument - see Eph 1:4).

So, now that you are entering this totally non-Biblical viewpoint, I will humor you again.

You are saying that God is going to create a being from absolutely nothing. God has no idea what this person will be like, or what this person will do. God has no idea whether or not the person will end up in heaven or hell for eternity. So, before God flips the cosmic coin by bringing this individual into existence, what do you think the odds are? Is it 50/50?

Now let's think about the world you live in. Bling, do you believe that an individual has to be a Christian in order to go to Heaven? What percentage of individuals who have lived in the history of this world do you believe fall into that category? What kind of odds is God playing with here when it comes to the eternal destiny of the individuals God is bringing into existence from nothing?

Jim addressed some of your later comments, so let me just add one more question. Would you rather exist in eternal damnation; suffering for eternity .... or would you rather not exist at all?

Ex nihilo also begs the question "If God brings beings into existence from nothing; why not return them to nothing if they don't turn out right." Again, your best options are non-Biblical ones (ie - universal salvation and annihilation).

-7up

[seven7up]

Accept that we already have that knowledge and experience here on earth and it doesn't stop us from freely choosing to sin. So knowledge and experience in and of themselves wouldn't make any difference.

So we will no longer be desirous of anything? If thats what the creator wanted, he could have created us that way to begin with. So that is not a sensible answer.

Thats another problem the creator could have solved from the get go. If literally seeing god, and thereby knowing with certainty of his reality, solves the problem of sin, then why would god keep that certainty of knowledge from us?

Again, this makes no sense. If within a world where there is no wanting, where we have it all, if within such a world there is no sin, then god could have created that world in the first place. And if your argument is then that god did create that world in the first place, aka Eden, and that we sinned anyway, then you are contradicting your own argument.

Bling responded to this post, but he missed the point.

IF God is creating Ex Nihilo, then God as no need to go through any "process". Why go through billions of years in a developing universe to have stars create denser elements which will then be useful for creating life etc?

God could have simply POOF! Made it all happen all at once, making the Universe exist as it does now, with no really, really, really long process at all. That is how many Evangelicals find the idea of the Earth being only 7,000 years old appealing. They believe in Ex Nihilo! Heck, why even create the Earth in 7 days; could have done it in just one day, one hour, ... one second! POOF!

(Never mind the fact that the Genesis creation story is actually a temple text, whereby in ancient temple dedication ceremonies, they would teach about the creation over a period of 7 days as temple dedication rituals .... i.e. the text was never literally saying that God created the Earth in 7 days. See John H. Walton on this ... http://www.blackhawkchurch.org/archi...ces/walton.pdf ... Oh , by the way, he is another Biblical scholar who rejects the idea that the scriptures teach Ex Nihilo.)

Anyways, the point I was making when I brought it up was this: IF Christians believe that we will still have free will in Heaven, and there is no suffering or evil in heaven, and IF God is creating Ex Nihilo and there are conditions under which humans will refrain from sinning, then why not create those people and set up those conditions in the first place!




All the while, the simple answer is right there in front of them. The false assumption is Ex Nihilo creation.



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

I also suspect that he will miss the point of my other post, as I have said it already and they always avoid it.

IF our "choices" have nothing to do with our characteristics (if they have nothing to do with who are what we are as individuals), then the the "decisions" we make can essentially be considered as RANDOM rather than truly being our choices.

"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." - Mark Hausam

The problem is that, in Ex Nihilo Creation, God created everything we are, and therefore everything that results from that. And we are back to divine determinism.


-7up

[firstfloor]