Determinism, Compatibilsm, Free Will, Ex Nihilo

[seven7up]

You've lost me 7up. What is the point that you are trying to make? At this point I'm not sure if you advocating atheism or theism.

If God creates "Ex Materia" (ie, from something(s) that already exist), and if there are "free-wills" that are just as eternal as God's free will, then God is not creating from God's own mind.

This places limits upon what God can create and what God cannot create. It puts limits on what kind of beings God can create. God is doing the best possible with what God has to work with.

Even IF God knows what the wills will do exactly (I'm not saying that He does, I am just saying IF) then foreknowledge in and of itself does not determine outcomes.

-7up

[shunyadragon]

If God creates "Ex Materia" (ie, from something(s) that already exist), and if there are "free-wills" that are just as eternal as God's free will, then God is not creating from God's own mind.

I seriously question the anthropomorphic perspective of 'God's own mind.' If you believe in a theistic God as a Creator, defining how, when or what God Created is beyond the scope of human knowledge.

I believe in an eternal, infinite primal existence that exists in the image of God from which the Creation of our physical existence naturally arose.

This places limits upon what God can create and what God cannot create. It puts limits on what kind of beings God can create. God is doing the best possible with what God has to work with.

There are no limits 'upon God' from the limited fallible human perspective, if God exists.

Even IF God knows what the wills will do exactly (I'm not saying that He does, I am just saying IF) then foreknowledge in and of itself does not determine outcomes.

I avoid this hypothetical area of the nature of God's will and knowledge.

[seer]

I seriously question the anthropomorphic perspective of 'God's own mind.' If you believe in a theistic God as a Creator, defining how, when or what God Created is beyond the scope of human knowledge.

No it isn't, if God tells us.

I believe in an eternal, infinite primal existence that exists in the image of God from which the Creation of our physical existence naturally arose.

How do you know that? I thought you said it was "beyond the scope of human knowledge?"

[shunyadragon]

No it isn't, if God tells us.

Problem here of consistency. Many different people claim that God(s) tell them a different story.

How do you know that? I thought you said it was "beyond the scope of human knowledge?"

By the evidence. Fallible human beings are not consistent enough to be reliable on anecdotal issues.

[seer]

Problem here of consistency. Many different people claim that God(s) tell them a different story.

It doesn't matter, the point is that men can have knowledge about how God created if He tells us.

By the evidence. Fallible human beings are not consistent enough to be reliable on anecdotal issues.

No Shuny, you said that existence "exists in the image of God." What evidence shows that? Be specific please.

[shunyadragon]

It doesn't matter, the point is that men can have knowledge about how God created if He tells us.

'Can' is questionable. It does not conclude that any one of the diverse beliefs is true.

No Shuny, you said that existence "exists in the image of God." What evidence shows that? Be specific please.

There is no objective evidence that shows that, therefore it is a belief.

[seer]

'Can' is questionable. It does not conclude that any one of the diverse beliefs is true.

I did not claim that any particular belief is true, only that your statement doesn't follow. You said these questions were beyond the scope of human knowledge - well no, not if God informs us. Then it is not beyond our knowledge.

There is no objective evidence that shows that, therefore it is a belief.

What? I asked you why you believed this and you said "by the evidence" - what evidence? And how can you, a human being, have knowledge of this if these things are beyond human knowledge? Shuny, you are not making any sense.

[shunyadragon]

I did not claim that any particular belief is true, only that your statement doesn't follow. You said these questions were beyond the scope of human knowledge - well no, not if God informs us. Then it is not beyond our knowledge.

Again, there are to many different claims that 'God informs us.' to amount to anything more than an anecdotal argument held by 'faith.'

What? I asked you why you believed this and you said "by the evidence" - what evidence? And how can you, a human being, have knowledge of this if these things are beyond human knowledge? Shuny, you are not making any sense.

I make perfect sense, I acknowledge the basic fallible nature of human nature including my own, which you apparently fail to do.

[seer]

Again, there are to many different claims that 'God informs us.' to amount to anything more than an anecdotal argument held by 'faith.'

Are you dense Shuny? That is not at all the point, and you know it. Your statement was false. We certainly can know these things if God decided to tell us.

I make perfect sense, I acknowledge the basic fallible nature of human nature including my own, which you apparently fail to do.

Nonsense, you claimed to have evidence of your belief that creation reflects the image of God - so produce your evidence.

[Jichard]

Then I must not understand the nuances it is describing, because what you are ascribing to it is not what I believe, nor what I have been explaining.

Then you need a refresher on what occasionalism is.

No it doesn't...

Yes it does, and you didn't even bother to address the explanation of why it does. To recap, on your absurd occasionalist position, principle 6 applies:

6: If X causes Y to exist, then X is the real causal factor, while Y has no genuine causal effects

That principle that HIV does not cause AIDS, since HIV was caused to eixst. Instead, on occasionalism, God causes AIDS, while HIV does not. And that's just AIDS denialism.

Well, it's a good thing that's not what I believe then.

No, it is what you believe. You believe principle 6. That's why you denied that humans will's are causes and claimed that God is the actual cause: because you think the human will was caused by God. Similarly so for you denying that my parents caused me to exist: you deny that, since you think my parents were caused to exist by God. Well, if you're going to claim that, then (on pain of special pleading), you're going to have to deny that HIV causes AIDS, since HIV was caused to exist.

God created (caused) the material and mechanisms that allow the HIV virus to interact with the human body to cause the human body to develop a deficiency of autoimmune responses. When I say "God caused", I mean He is the ultimate source for the actual existence of something, not the actual cause of any decision or interaction (beyond being the source of how things interact)

First, God did not cause any of those things.

Second, that's not what the term "caused" means.

Well, humans didn't CAUSE it.

No, we did cause it. Humans did cause global warming; that's why it's called "AGW" for "anthropogenic global warming". Do you not know what "anthropogenic" means? Do you know what the "A" in "ACC" stands for?

We are merely contributing to it, if the current science is to be accepted.

Please don't lie to me about what the science is, Bill. It's already been explained to you, and I don't have much patience for your continue denialism on this. Humans have caused the vast majority of recent global warming (>90% of it); that's what the science shows, no matter how much you use denialist tactics to claim otherwise.

But that's an aside. AGW is merely us facilitating processes that are already in play. We did not create the processes, we are merely taking advantage of them.

Irrelevant to whether or not human's caused climate change. Humans can cause climate change, regardless of whether or not humans caused all climatological processes. Similarly, HIV can cause AIDS, even if HIV did not create all known viral processes in existence.

Again, I never argued that. You are beating up on a strawman.

Yes you did. You said that human will does not create anything, since God made humans. This is absurd, and would entail that humans didn't create AGW.

Whatever. Since that's not what I am arguing, I really don't care.

It is, in fact, what you're arguing, unless you're not backtracking from your advocacy of occasionalism. You claimed that occasionalism makes the most sense from a theistic perspective.

Sure they do.

No they don't, for the reasons already gone over (which you didn't address).

It is an example of "building to a known concept". I never said the blueprint was actually what did the building.

The blueprint would need to build the building, in order for your analogy to be an apt one.

Meaning they produce what they know per the instructions.

Again, your analogy fails, since humans need not cause things based on instructions from God. Furthermore, you again undermine your own analogy, since if humans are analogous to the builders in your analogy, then you just admitted that humans created stuff, and thus you were wrong when you claimed that the human will did not create.

If occasionalism means what you described above, it isn't mine, so

So when you claimed that occasionalism makes the most sense from a theistic perspective, you actually had no clue what "occasionalism" was, even though I gave you link explained what occasionalism was? Why am I not surprised?

Oh, I agree. And that's the point I made to 7up.

How could you agree, when the following statement from you conflates representation/depiction with causation?:

"If the foreman is bound to follow the blueprint exactly, as God is bound by His foreknowledge exactly, the blueprints direct the foreman on exactly how to "cause" the house."

Exactly. As I said, that knowledge is the parameter with which He creates reality. It does not create, but limits what is explicitly created to its instructions.

Nope; no more than my knowledge of a dog limits the dog in any way.

I didn't suggest it did.

You actually did, as quoted above. But whatever.

I said what you do binds GOD to what He creates. In that, He causes me to exist in the exact time that what He knows will happen actually happens.

First, in your response to me, you did not claim that "what you do binds GOD to what He creates". You instead said that humans don't create anything, since God creates stuff.

Second, God did not cause me to exist. We've been over this; my parents caused me to exist. There's plenty of eveidece for that, and no evidence for your claim that God created me.

Third, God knowing an event will occur is not the same as God causing the event occur. So even if God were to know that I am going to exist, that does not mean caused me to exist.

Again, I am not referring to "causation" as anything more than actual physical creation.

And I'm using "causation" in the standard way it's used in philosophy. I'm discussing creatio ex materia, the way every known thing (that has a cause) has been caused to exist.

God's foreknowledge and His creative activity are complementary. Everything He knows, He causes to exist.

Again, false. By that logic, God caused AIDS to exist, as opposed to HIV causing AIDS. After all, God knows that AIDS exists, right? So God must have caused AIDS. This is just absurd occasionalism; you end up with AIDS denialism. Once again: knowing X does not entail causing X.

Sorry, you lost me. What are you arguing here? That just because God's foreknowledge itself is not what actually does the creating, as I have said myself, that God does not exactly create BASED ON what He knows?

To explain to you the conflation you made between causal relationships and non-causal relationships.

Not what I mean. The foreman moves things around into specific pattrerns. He does not "create" the material used to construct the house. Nor does he deviate from what is on the blueprint.

Irrelevant. One does not need o create the materials for the house, in order for one to create the house. You seem to be fallaciously assuming that:

8: In order for X to cause Y to exist, X must have caused Z exist, where Z is the material that Y is made out of

This is false, and runs afoul of creatio ex materia. In creatio ex materia, one can create something by acting on existent materials, without causing those materials to exist. For example, a builder creates the building by arranging various non-building materials, regardless of whether or not the builder created those materials. If you don't know what creatio ex materia is, then please look it up.
Also, the foreman is free to deviate from the blueprint. They just might lose their job if they do.

Considering that wasn't what I claimed... The blueprint is merely the known instructions the builder (creator) is following. The instructions in and of themselves are powerless to do anything, but the builder can not create anything without them and the materials to move around.

First, the blueprints do have the power to do something. For example, they can cause mental states in the builder's head, through photons bouncing off the blueprint, interacting with the builder's eyes, that message heading down the optic nerve to the builder's brains, etc.

Second, the builder can create a building without a blueprint. It's the builder's choice to use a blueprint. Is that really what you want to claim for God; that it's our choice whetehr or not to follow what God knows?

Well, that's true. But we are talking about God creating the US based on a map, not a pre-existing US. If the US didn't exist until the map did, then whoever created it would be the cause of its existence while the map would be the parameters of how it should look.

And you're still missing the point: the maker of the US map, need not cause the US to exist. Similarly, God can know about things without needing to cause those things to exist. For example, God can know that AIDS exist, without causing AIDS to exist. You seem to instead be assuming that if God knows about X, then God must have caused X. This is absurd, and just amounts to a form of occasionalism.

But that's not foreknowledge, so that's an irrelevant point.

It rebuts your point that blueprints must come before the house.

But if one's knowledge of X is absolute, there is no way that Y can happen if X =/= Y.

Which does nothing to address what I actually wrote: "one's knowledge of X, need not cause X."

Also, adding "absolute" is not required. After all, "knowing that X" entails that "X is true", regardless of whether said knowledge is "absolute" or not. That's just how propositional knowledge is defined.

[Jichard]

Tha'ts not what your occasionalism says. On occasionalism, God causes what people think, will, do, and so on. The human will is not a cause of anything. Instead, God causes all of reality (except for God itself).

Then you've ascribed something to me that I don't believe.

Good. Because I don't believe in that.

Yet you said this:

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?

You are using "caused" in a way that does not imply "creation" as I am using it. Holes aren't "created", nor are knives, in the classical theist definition I am using. What you are describing is moving things from place to place.

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.

Yes it was.

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.

He caused the elements they are comprised of to exist.

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.

Which is what I am claiming. And as a result of His creating them, He also sustains their existence in reality as their cause.

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.

No one is claiming otherwise.

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.

Not how I am describing it.

That's what causation and creation actually are.

No, you merely changed what was already there. Nothing was created.

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

It's still the same materials, just changed from their prior placement.

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.

Without a creator, of course it is incoherent.

No, it's incoherent. Period.

But "eternal matter" is just as incoherent, if not more so.

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

Laws still exist. What changes is our understanding of them.

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.

But some other law that governs that state of matter will apply.

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.

By creating all matter and energy ex nihilo, yes He did.

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

Not alongside. More like a consequence of how matter is created and how it exists. Matter could not be created without consequences to govern its existence.

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

And you have none that I am wrong. I don't really care if you accept what I am claiming. I made the comment for support of the rest of my argument's coherence.

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.

No they didn't. Every single atom in your body has existed since God created the universe.

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.

Your parents simply adhered to a physical process that allowed for your atoms to come together in a specific pattern.

My parents created me via creatio ex materia.

God created your atoms,

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

and He created your soul.

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

Your parents created nothing.

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.

I do know that.

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

And if you don't know that your atoms existed prior to your conception, then you need to go back to 4th grade Science class.

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.

Never claimed otherwise.

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.

You assume that matter is somehow eternal. That the "stuff" that makes up your atoms has always existed in one form or another.

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.

I do not. I believe there was a specific time in history that every single atom in existence came about by creative decree of God out of nothing but His power and foreknowledge. Whether you agree with me or not is wholly immaterial. I'm not arguing your POV. I am arguing against 7up's.

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

Never said otherwise.

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

Since I believe in the human soul, I believe He did. And since I believe in creation ex nihilo, I believe He created every atom in your body, thus ultimately "causing" you to exist.

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.

Not going to lie. I really don't.

I knew that you didn't know that.

It makes sense at a basic level that if we are talking about existence, then there is no other cause except God.

False claim that runs afoul of creatio ex materia.

If we are talking about actions and concepts, then there are many "causes". But, again, I am not talking about non-material things like motion when I refer to "creation". Those are consequences, which are not "created".

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.

No you wouldn't. There would simply be nothing. Because God would have never created anything in the beginning.

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

That's ridiculously over-complicating what I said. And I mean RIDICULOUSLY so.

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?

From most theistic frameworks, if God/gods had never decided to create in the beginning, there would be nothing created. Therefore, God/Gods is necessary in order to begin the process of creation.

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 not created things in the same way ex nihilo means the term.

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

They are merely the consequences of earlier temporal actions. Moving a lamp does not create the lamp in the new location.

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.

It merely changed its location. And "moving" isn't a tangibly created thing. It's an action with consequences.

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.

[shunyadragon]

I did not claim that any particular belief is true, only that your statement doesn't follow. You said these questions were beyond the scope of human knowledge - well no, not if God informs us. Then it is not beyond our knowledge.

Yes, it is beyond our ability to define it based objective knowledge. It is based on our 'belief.'

What? I asked you why you believed this and you said "by the evidence" - what evidence? And how can you, a human being, have knowledge of this if these things are beyond human knowledge? Shuny, you are not making any sense.

Misrepresenting me concerning my use of 'evidence.' Please quote me properly and I will respond.

[JimL]

If God creates "Ex Materia" (ie, from something(s) that already exist), and if there are "free-wills" that are just as eternal as God's free will, then God is not creating from God's own mind.

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!

This places limits upon what God can create and what God cannot create. It puts limits on what kind of beings God can create. God is doing the best possible with what God has to work with.

How do you figure? If there are free willed beings that are just as eternal as god, then they were not created by god.

Even IF God knows what the wills will do exactly (I'm not saying that He does, I am just saying IF) then foreknowledge in and of itself does not determine outcomes.

Yeah, but there are 2 problems with your argument, 1) if free willed beings existed eternally, then it makes no sense to argue that they were created, and 2), if they are free willed beings, then it is logically impossible for god to have any foreknowledge of their future actions. Free will and foreknowledge are just not compatible, and if you believe that they are, you need to give a logical explanation as to how that would work.

[seer]

Yes, it is beyond our ability to define it based objective knowledge. It is based on our 'belief.'

What is more objective than God?

Misrepresenting me concerning my use of 'evidence.' Please quote me properly and I will respond.

You said: I believe in an eternal, infinite primal existence that exists in the image of God from which the Creation of our physical existence naturally arose.

I said: How do you know that? I thought you said it was "beyond the scope of human knowledge?

You said: By the evidence. Fallible human beings are not consistent enough to be reliable on anecdotal issues.

So again Shuny, what is the evidence

[shunyadragon]

What is more objective than God?

I am using the word 'objective' differently here. Objective here means verifiable by evidence in repeated observations and falsifiable by scientific methods, and observation.

So again Shuny, what is the evidence

So again seer, quote me correctly and I will respond.

Basically there is no objective evidence for an ultimate purpose of humanity other then the physical journey in this universe. Any other ultimate purpose would by defined by our belief system of a world beyond this physical world, and not 'evidence.'