Is Creation ex nihilo

[JimL]

You are describing some kind of Ex Deo. Someone else was arguing for that, I think. Not me.

Also, I do not believe God is a "simple substance". I believe that God is a person/persons. (This is a theological discussion for another thread).



Neither. They have always existed; the principles of element and entities of free will are just as eternal as God is. Ex Materia is creation out of something that already existed.

The other two options, which I reject, are creation Ex Deo or creation Ex Nihilo.



And I am arguing that the world we exist in is not well explained by a God who creates "out of nothing".




The Bible doesn't teach annihilation of the damned. So, there is no contradiction.

-7up

There is only one reason to believe in 2 distinct and eternal existences, its agenda driven. If the natural world is eternal, then there is no reason to believe that a distinct efficient cause is needed to move and shape it.

[logician bones]

No. If there are already entities of free will that have existed forever

Well now you're getting into the causality proof territory. Suffice to say:

1) This is a different view in addition to mere creation of beings out of a substance outside himself (and the other views I listed that were within the category of God creating beings). From earlier posts in your topic, I had thought you believed this, but in THIS topic you have been presenting it as creation of them out of a substance outside himself, rather than their being uncreated beside him.

2) It has the same fatal flaw as atheism in that it supposes a more specific structure to existence than the end-result of the causality analysis, the single totally cohesive (and thus able to be infinite) source (which must have all the traits to cause everything else). So at some point along the line, you either need to deny causality, or say that actually these beings DID have their origin in God, but prior to the start of making matter/etc. (Which would defeat the purpose you're trying to accomplish in having them eternally separate.)

If God truly can see ALL possibilities, and if God is truly creating Ex Nihilo, then God can create reality to be exactly what God wants it to be

We've been over this. It's no and yes in different senses. Might as well list these too:

1) No -- in that his self-consistent nature makes him ultimately want us all to get along with each other and him perfectly, but as said before, logic demands that he not only make beings like that right away, but have an initial (actually second, but the first two moved into the second almost immediately) state where he must allow things he does NOT want (read James). If you accept that he is omniscient and omnipotent, this is a logical necessity, if you think it through.

2) However, in the sense that, once this is known, he may set up the world in a wide variety of different ways to lead to (among other factors) more people coming to loyalty, understanding the best, etc., he does choose what he wants of the "least of all evils" if you will. And he wants the good end result that comes out of this for those who do accept.

See , you are already dedicated to your assumption of Ex Nihilo

What assumption? I don't make assumptions, 7. I've referred to several possibilities earlier; are you referring to one of them?

and then you have to try and justify it

No, I don't work that way. I hold no view until it has sound support, but do consider all possibilities and experimentally try to justify them all (including yours), and pick the one that the sound support is behind (and if I don't yet see one, I continue to not have an opinion). :)

The point is, this empathy is possible. There exists a kind of being that God could have created Ex Nihilo, who is intelligent enough to understand the consequences of evil, rather than having to experience that evil themselves. If you try to claim that it is impossible, then you might as well pretend that humans aren't capable of any kind of empathy at all

That's an obvious false dichotomy, 7. They can be capable of empathy without knowing directly from experience what it is like.

you are admitting that those who die in infancy don't have to experience the consequences of evil in order to experience heaven.

Actually, that doesn't literally work, but I know what you mean (they die in infancy due to evil, either being killed, or, for most, as an indirect effect of the Fall). No big deal, just a matter of word choice. :) (But by entering heaven right away, they ARE experiecing a consequence of evil -- and being robbed of their chance to earn higher honor of the form that we get. Which is a big part of why abortion is wrong.)

"for this to work", some people "have to" experience evil and suffering, but [why would] a God creating from Ex Nihilo would require it[?]

You're mostly mixing up two unrelated categories, though I do think ultimately it's fair to say that. But both are arrived at from very different paths.

People have to experience "rah", and I've listed many reasons why, including above in this post.

And God has to create, with that creation ultimately being rooted causally in him and being the way that 1) is logically demanded and 2) in the all-things-considered sense is what he wants (but not the ideal sense of what he wishes was logically possible). And, as said many times before, "ex nihilo" might be the most useful well-known term to differentiate between making new matter and reshaping existing matter.

This distinction is useful because the Bible describes both -- making new matter at the very start, then reshaping it into other substances besides "water" and reshaping those to make humans (and almost certainly animals and plants). And because we today make things by the reshaping method, except in the rare sense of examples like the virtual world and braille machines (I'm sure there are others but those are the main two I've thought of over the years).

In Ex Nihilo, God could create any kind of being possible, including the kind of beings (perhaps like those who die in infancy) who do NOT require the personal experience of evil and suffering.

No he can't, and we're going through why...

I never argued that "God has to be weakened". That is your mischaracterization of it.

No, you're not being honest about what your own argument logically means. You are seriously losing credibility in my eyes by doing this. You HAD a good route to take when I challenged you this way -- if you had simply said "Yes, my view has him weaker than yours, but for good reason, and here's why", I could have respected you much more. Own it, or change it.

You've now argued for yet another weakness, not having him be the ultimate, self-consistent infinite causal source of everything else in yet another way -- not just that there's substance outside of him that he now can't shape the way he wants to, making him also less than omnipotent, but now that there are also eternally existing BEINGS outside of him, which evidently you identity as us or our original ancestors within time.

(If you had been owning your positions like that, I might be more inclined to risk wasting time watching your vids; as it stands, if you perhaps have a transcript, I might analyze that, but I'm not going to type it up for you anytime soon at least. I don't have time.)

At this point I think I should just ask one of the questions that's been on my mind, but I didn't want to risk biasing you additionally and wanted to get as natural an explanation as you would give as if to somebody who knew nothing about Mormonism. That is, do you actually accept the view the CMI has recently claimed that Mormons do believe, that what you call "God" is actually a mere "human" (or something essentially akin to one?) that evolved into God?

If so, as you might imagine, there are strong reasons why that cannot be so, in my understanding.

But we can already judge now that your view fails in one of these respects -- it breaks the rules I have identified for how to have a truly infinite being which is the only possible satisfying of the causality proof, by splitting ultimate existence into conflicted beings. But things that are in conflict limit themselves and cannot be truly infinite, like somebody sawing off the branch they are standing on, etc. The ultimate existence must have infinite variety (which includes life) and be completely self-consistent (which fits to the biblical concept of a perfectly holy being).

This introduces an uncaused yet specific structural element to all existence, which violates the absolute nature of causality.

While my understanding of this does not ban externals outside this universe, it gives them finite energy pools to draw from to sustain their own existence by not being in tune with perfection which enables infinity. If they sin (and God is the one who knows what that is due to being the infinite one, thus able to have omniscience), they limit themselves in this way and become subject to eventual "cold death" (if you will; usually called heat death), and thus cannot be eternal.

It does look like there's no way to avoid getting deeper into the causality proof to do this subject justice. But I still say that what I said originally here to the topic starter's question of ex nihilo would be sufficient to understand that subject. You're actually getting somewhat off-topic here, as I read it, so maybe it would be best if we continued this in your other topic? Up to you/moderators, though.

It IS a closely related subject, though, admittedly.

You have an idea in your mind of a God who magically can conjure up any kind of being possible out of nothing.

Again, did you read my original post? Only "out of nothing" in the nonliteral sense I described there, and have alluded to again several times since then.

I think you can briefly describe your positions in these matters, and that might lead somewhere in the conversation. Is it human nature to sin , or not?

I did, in the other post. You're wanting more details. :P But that's okay I guess, if moderators are okay with it.

I was mainly objecting to this:

every time a new human being is conceived, God creates, from nothing, a child with a "sin nature"

Which, since it's so different from my understanding as already explained in the first reply to this part, made me suspect that you're using a different definition of "sin nature"/human nature than I would. I'm okay with using those terms as long as they're not distorted, but strongly suspect you would distort them into strawman views, based on your past practice...

First, really, you need to accept that God could not, all things considered, create a totally ideal world with no sin, etc. It sounds like you're still objecting on that step, so we can't really get further with this; that's a necessary premise here.

(This is getting long, so let's pause that topic for now.)

all of the eternally existing entities which eventually become humans have a wide range of characteristics, the characteristics that lead people to sin, were not created by God ex nihilo

Thank you for confirming part of my above question (as opposed to creating lesser gods/angels/demons that make us), but still wondering if you mean the original ancestors or every new person. I suspect we'll have to get into my views of just what people are too (I suspect you are falling for another myth of the middle ages that is common also in mainstream Christianity, according to my findings so far).

Anyways, again, in my view, if ex nihilo is a useful term at all, it is useful only for original "instantiation" of the kinds of substances within linear time and the construct of distance between other instantiations (space), to distinguish from re-use of existing substances within that realm.

Since humans are made biologically, not creating from nothing seen, there is not legitimate reason to apply ex nihilo to them. I suspect where you get off track is in the idea of a "ghosty substance" soul that is "attached" to the body? If not, apologies for mis-reading.

The reason I ask is that in my experience those who believe in that idea have never imagined there might be a logical alternative, and you are writing in a way that appears as if you are taking it for granted too. *shrugs*

I will correct you for being wrong. I am saying that IF God creates Ex Nihilo, then He can create a kind of being that is intelligent enough, wise enough, etc. to the point where they DO have the ability to choose

Then you do agree with the first part of that point. I would ask if you agree with the second part, but now it appears irrelevant as that whole discussion was presuming you weren't back on an earlier step where you don't yet realize that all other beings that exist have to be made by God as beings (not just from what substance).

If you did, I would want to know if you recognize that the main purpose of being created with freewill is to be able to love legitimately. It's still relevant since that is my view! Also, would you say that this is a beneficial but incidental result of the ability to choose anyway? (That basically God is relieved these magically also-eternal-yet-uncaused-by-him beings are able to love due to being able to choose?)

I believe that each one of us has something within us that has always existed, and is the basis of our free will.

I agree with that part, and put the source of this in God, which fits into a rational explanation of everything, unlike the eternal disunity view. And specifically I see God putting it into us in the original creation of Adam and Eve (after "ex nihilo" creating substance which he reshapes to make them), programming them with DNA and the various coded mechanisms to reproduce, so (all by reshaping methods) new humans are built (on the cellular and molecular scale) with their same basic pattern.

Part of the strategy of course was to put all humans who currently existed (Adam at first) in charge of creation, in a way that if they sinned, they would become experientially familiar with (again, Genesis clearly teaches this) both evil and good in one world (yes, including what some call "natural evils" due to God removing some of his protective power from all creation). I could go on, but again, this is long (I include this part as it's relevant to one of your earlier questions).

Why wouldn't they really understand the familiarity with sin? People who are saved are familiar with sin.

So do you believe that everybody comes back to loyalty to God in the end? That hell will be either unpopulated or that you do get let out of jail eventually?

And if you wanted to shelter us from for example experiencing rape, torture, etc. then obviously nobody would be experientially familiar with that.

Again, If God is creating Ex Nihilo, only a poorly designed creature would NEED to see terrible consequences before they realize how bad sin is.

No. This is atheist-style oversimplistic thinking at its worst. You're just assuming that by ignoring all other factors of what makes a good design. God, being omniscient, can't ignore them.

God creates those who knows will be saved, and they have free will. Then He creates automatons who do not have free will

NPCs, basically -- yes, this is another possibility I have considered and rejected. There's a huge risk of abuse if you believe that -- you can talk to a person who YOU DON'T KNOW is "just an automaton" and say to their face that they might be, and then you can justify murdering them (I doubt you, 7, would want to! But others buying into your philosophy, concocted to justify wiggling out of the logical necessity of the biblical view, could take it as justification to do that).

Which by itself, admittedly, doesn't disprove it, but God would realize this risk and avoid it.

Also, everybody we know of acts in the same way that we do in terms of freewill, and the Ockham's Razor explanation is that they do this because the cause of the pattern is the same; there isn't anybody just faking it. (And if you say there is and they can fake it in every way, it becomes an untestable hypothesis.)

Besides, in my definition the main meaning of "freewill" is "ability to disobey spoken commands" and I haven't met a human yet who couldn't as far as I can tell. ;)

those will do evil acts that the saved people can witness, (but we don't know who is who, or even that automatons exist) but since the automatons are not real people

It seems that under this possibility you are defining the ones who do evil acts as the automatons. But

1) We all sin.

2) As you acknowledged above, it's not about sinning versus not, but REPENTING versus not.

3) Since you called this one God creating, rather than automatons originating outside him as you have been pushing (incidently, why even discuss this possibility given that?), you have God intentionally programming evil acts!

So basically, you would have God create a robot that goes out and rapes people because he wants it to. Sorry, this is not a viable alternative to God creating freewilled beings who may do this despite him not wanting them to, because he knows that all things considered there is no better way.

No. You still don't get it. In my theology, there IS no better way.

I DO get that. The question is how you can make a logical EXPLANATION of that. That's why I'm testing you with the various options; limiting omniscience, limiting omnipotence, what are actually the logical alternatives, etc.

Pardon the crudeness, but, have you ever heard the expression, "can't polish a turd".

And that's exactly the fatal flaw (well, one of them) with your theology. If God CAN'T "polish" humans who were flawed eternally, then he can't do it at any time.

If he CAN do it later, then he could simply make perfect beings from the start and there's no need to twist yourself into such pretzels just to prop up Mormonism!

yours does not

If it does not, you need to prove that, not just assume that somehow, some other possibility is there. I don't think that can be done. None of us can imagine ALL possibilities. We can only deduce the major lines of reasoning.

We are left with:

1) Proof that God is truly infinite and caused everything (and thus is omniscient, omnipotent, and the source of all other existence).

2) The fact of sin, horrors, etc.

3) And the deduction that he MUST know why making a world where these are possible is right, all things considered. AND the prediction that since we are not omniscient, many of us will struggle to accept that (which is why it's useful to try to deduce as much as we can as to the whys, rather than just relying on "somehow".)

This just doesn't leave room for at least your brand of Mormonism to be true.

Jim:

There is only one reason to believe in 2 distinct and eternal existences, its agenda driven. If the natural world is eternal, then there is no reason to believe that a distinct efficient cause is needed to move and shape it.

I agree with the first (and I see good reason to believe that is impossible).

But the second suffers from the very same flaw for reasons explained above. It is also imagining specific, narrowed-down structures to existence (namely, lacking infinite intelligence).

Both are false for the same basic reasons. You're just doing the same thing as 7 in a superficially different way, but not a significantly different way in terms of the logical requirements of causality being absolute. So by accepting the first point here (because you personally don't have the bias to prop up Mormonism), you just illustrate that it applies to you too -- you want to prop up nature as eternal as a replacement for God due to your agenda.

No agenda-driven view was good enough for me; that's why I had to take a long time to research and think through as many possibilities as I could and ended up seeing sound support for the view I now have. :)

[JimL]

I agree with you on the first (And I see good reason to believe that is impossible.)

Good, so if you see good reason to believe that there is only one eternal existence, and you only see one thing existing, then you should see good reason to believe as well that eternal existence and its efficient cause are one and the same thing. In other words that there is no distinction to be made between the cause and effects of nature.

But the second suffers from the very same flaw for reasons explained above.

Sorry, I just don't have time to go over long posts that are addressed to someone else. You'll need to address what those flaws are to me if I am going to be able to answer them.

It is also imagining specific, narrowed-down structures to existence (namely, lacking infinite intelligence).

Explain?

Both are false for the same reasons. You're just doing the same thing as 7 in a superficially different way, but not a significantly different way in terms of logical requirements of causality being absolute. So accepting the first point here (because you personally don't have the bias to prop up mormonism), you just illustrate that it applies to you too -- you want to prop up nature as the eternal as a replacement for God do to your agenda.

No, I know very little about Mormonism, but I'm propping up nature, as you put it, as being eternal because there is no reason to prop up anything in place of what is observed, which is nature. Maybe I am wrong, but I suspect that in your long and difficult search, you found exactly what it was you were looking for.

No agenda-driven view was good enough for me; that's why I had to take a long time to research and think through as many possibilities as I could and ended up seeing sound support for the view I now have.

And that support is what?

[logician bones]

if you see good reason to believe that there is only one eternal existence

This word choice seems questionable at best. First of all, "eternal" can mean, as previously discussed in one of the two current ex nihilo topics (I forget which), linear time with no start, which does not match my view which has linear time being created out of previous non-linear time (causal connections). I prefer to say something like truly infinite and beyond linear time.

I guess you mean only one ultimate existence that is the source for all other existence. With the above clarification, yes. The key is that it is entirely self-consistent and all causal connections work perfectly throughout it (within infinite variety of total existence, which makes it "inevitable" (not in a sense of having a beginning but I mean, it isn't just plain luck as it might seem if you miss this key to it, and this is a direct consequence of causality being absolute).

Everything else is finite and "spun off" of the core existence.

(Of course, there is only one "total of all existence", AKA "existence" but I think you didn't mean it that way.)

and you only see one thing existing

Again, bizarre word choice. You might mean something logical by it, but it's hard to find things to clearly agree with when you use such questionable wording. In normal terms, which I strongly prefer to stick to, there are many more than just one "thing". But only one truly infinite thing; God. (Aside from total existence itself.)

Lemme do the next part a bit out of order, because it looks like this is a premise for the part I'll quote afterward:

In other words that there is no distinction to be made between the cause and effects of nature.

You've said this before, but what do you mean by it? Are you saying causes and effects are all the same? One effect is in turn a cause for other effects, but it is not its own effect. In circular causality, one thing can be both a causal factor of itself and an effect of (in part) itself, but not the same cause and same effect all in one...

you should see good reason to believe as well that eternal existence and its efficient cause are one and the same thing

I'm guessing that here you're trying to push toward your "if God made the universe out of his own substance he = the universe" claim. Or something else now?

Either way, also unclear. Mostly for the same reasons mentioned above. If you're going to use words like eternal here in such a way, I need to be very sure I understand what you mean by it.

You MIGHT be trying to say that the infinite ultimate existence that causes all else is entirely filled with causality (that no point just starts without any cause). If so, I agree.

Pardon if my attempts to clarify my questions about your meaning are themselves unclear. They probably are if you're accustomed to wording things that way. :P But I'm pretty sure you have error somewhere in the chain here of where you're trying to get because it looks like you're trying to argue that God isn't necessary. *shrugs*

Sorry, I just don't have time to go over long posts that are addressed to someone else. You'll need to address what those flaws are to me if I am going to be able to answer them.

Jim, why would I repeat the same to you when you can just read it where it's already written? I don't have time to type the same thing twice so close together for no reason. (And you would spend the same time reading that if I did... think, man, think!) I told you it's relevant to what you're saying. Read it. ;)

I'm propping up nature, as you put it, as being eternal because there is no reason to prop up anything in place of what is observed, which is nature. Maybe I am wrong, but I suspect that in your long and difficult search, you found exactly what it was you were looking for.

Parts of it, yes, but here's the catch. Sound support does not leave an option for bias to be part of the chain. Whether somebody wants a view to be true or not becomes irrelevant when you rely entirely on this, and this is why it gives us an objective way to sort between all possible options and avoid bias. When we find sound support we know the view is true.

The truth is I wasn't sure what I wanted, which was why I delayed accepting for so long, except that I was sure I wanted the truth. And there are many parts of it deduced from the logic that I hadn't imagined wanting, some parts that are difficult for humans to naturally accept (like that God would allow horrible sin while having the power to stop it, technically -- versus some cheap copout like 7's approach that blames some ad hoc external source for the sin).

As for the first part, would you agree that observation and sound logic work together? Observation builds the true premises, and valid, tested reasoning helps us build the true (sound) conclusions off of that base. And if causality is absolute, what we observe must be explained by what we do not. No?

Every aspect of everything must be explained if this is so.

And if it isn't so, and causality is not infinite, thus some things just pop into existence with no cause at all, then this could and should happen all over the place (what could stop it?). The logical end result is utter chaos in which life is impossible (nor science for that matter). We cannot just have existence stop arbitrarily when what is logically beyond it is something you don't want to face (like God).


Edit: Forgot to add that we observe that nature is decaying and will suffer heat death. That part is worth repeating directly to you because it's so simple -- nature alone cannot be eternal. So yes, any attempt to justify that view WILL be "propping up" a dead weight and does show obvious bias (and lack of clear thinking... no offense, though; I once didn't realize this myself of course).

[Adam]

Yikes!
THREE posts in a row who decline not just to let us trace back to the post addressed but refuse to give us the name of the poster they argue against!
LET'S STRIKE! Ignore these guys and respond only to posters who start us out where we know we are.

[Adam]

No. If there are already entities of free will that have existed forever, then God has to deal with those entities of free will, but also respect their free will. God may have the power to force them, but decide not to. This is the TRUE free will defense for the problem of evil and suffering. This scenario is much different than God deciding to create beings Ex Nihilo, while knowing exactly what they will do before He even decides to create them (or not create them at all if it so pleases Him).
-7up

I'm with you here.
I'm watched half your videos and like them, but even so I object to your constant outside reference to fifteen-minute youtubes that don't necessarily cogently addrees the points you are supporting. The usual rule in all websites is "say it here, cite references that also prove the point FROM OTHER PEOPLE." If it's your own argument, argue it here briefly or lead us to EXACTLY what port of a longer treatise of yours elsewhere argues the point.

[JimL]

This word choice seems questionable at best. First of all, "eternal" can mean, as previously discussed in one of the two current ex nihilo topics (I forget which), linear time with no start, which does not match my view which has linear time being created out of previous non-linear time (causal connections). I prefer to say something like truly infinite and beyond linear time.

It can mean that, but regardless of how you regard time, eternal by definition is that which has never not existed, no beginning or ending.

I guess you mean only one ultimate existence that is the source for all other existence.

Not quite. Rather I would say that there is only one ultimate existence period, one ultimate substance, whose nature is that of change or transformation. Matter is in energy, and energy in matter. If it weren't then then the former could be said to have been created by the latter out of nothing.

With the above clarification, yes. The key is that it is entirely self-consistent and all causal connections work perfectly throughout it (within infinite variety of total existence, which makes it "inevitable" (not in a sense of having a beginning but I mean, it isn't just plain luck as it might seem if you miss this key to it, and this is a direct consequence of causality being absolute).

Everything else is finite and "spun off" of the core existence.

Every particular thing is finite, or temporal if you will, with respect to its form, but they are eternal with respect to their substance. But that doesn't make the substance itself a god since the forms it takes are made of the self same substance.

(Of course, there is only one "total of all existence", AKA "existence" but I think you didn't mean it that way.)

No, I think there is only one substance to which all seemingly particular things pertain. Particular things come into and go out of existence, but the substance of those things are eternal.

Again, bizarre word choice. You might mean something logical by it, but it's hard to find things to clearly agree with when you use such questionable wording. In normal terms, which I strongly prefer to stick to, there are many more than just one "thing". But only one truly infinite thing; God. (Aside from total existence itself.)

When I say "one thing" I am talking of the natural world as opposed to there being something distinct from it such as a supernatural creator. You believe in an infinite god that creates finite things, I believe in an infinite Cosmos wherin finite things are one with the whole. I don't believe we are that far apart in our thinking, accept that you believe that intent and therefore a mind is somehow involved in the process. I would just call it evolution.

Lemme do the next part a bit out of order, because it looks like this is a premise for the part I'll quote afterward:

Okay.

You've said this before, but what do you mean by it? Are you saying causes and effects are all the same? One effect is in turn a cause for other effects, but it is not its own effect. In circular causality, one thing can be both a causal factor of itself and an effect of (in part) itself, but not the same cause and same effect all in one...

No, I'm saying that I believe that both causes and effects are of one and the same substance. The one is in the other, and vice versa. Cause and effect is just the eternal nature of the eternally existing substance.

I'm guessing that here you're trying to push toward your "if God made the universe out of his own substance he = the universe" claim. Or something else now?

Pretty much. Except that if the Cosmos and the particular things which evolve within it are of one and the same substance then there is no distinction to be made between them like creator and created.

Either way, also unclear. Mostly for the same reasons mentioned above. If you're going to use words like eternal here in such a way, I need to be very sure I understand what you mean by it.

When I use the word eternal I always mean the same thing. That which has never not existed, or that which had no beginning and has no end.

You MIGHT be trying to say that the infinite ultimate existence that causes all else is entirely filled with causality (that no point just starts without any cause). If so, I agree.

Sure, except that I would add that the infinite ultimate existence that is filled with causality is also filled with effects. That there is no distinction to be made between the cause and the effects.

Pardon if my attempts to clarify my questions about your meaning are themselves unclear. They probably are if you're accustomed to wording things that way. :P But I'm pretty sure you have error somewhere in the chain here of where you're trying to get because it looks like you're trying to argue that God isn't necessary. *shrugs*

You seem to be ferreting out the intent of my poorly articulated argument quite well. Yes, I see no need or evidence of a creator.

Jim, why would I repeat the same to you when you can just read it where it's already written? I don't have time to type the same thing twice so close together for no reason. (And you would spend the same time reading that if I did... think, man, think!) I told you it's relevant to what you're saying. Read it. ;)

Suit yourself. I'll read it if i get the chance.

Parts of it, yes, but here's the catch. Sound support does not leave an option for bias to be part of the chain. Whether somebody wants a view to be true or not becomes irrelevant when you rely entirely on this, and this is why it gives us an objective way to sort between all possible options and avoid bias. When we find sound support we know the view is true.

Very true, but seemingly sound support is oft times not so sound as one thinks.

The truth is I wasn't sure what I wanted, which was why I delayed accepting for so long, except that I was sure I wanted the truth. And there are many parts of it deduced from the logic that I hadn't imagined wanting, some parts that are difficult for humans to naturally accept (like that God would allow horrible sin while having the power to stop it, technically -- versus some cheap copout like 7's approach that blames some ad hoc external source for the sin).

Interesting. So you believe god to be the cause of the terrible things in the world? If so, is that by intent?

As for the first part, would you agree that observation and sound logic work together? Observation builds the true premises, and valid, tested reasoning helps us build the true (sound) conclusions off of that base.

Sure.

And if causality is absolute, what we observe must be explained by what we do not. No?

Not sure what you mean by causality being absolute. Not sure either how you explain anything by what you do not observe.

And if it isn't so, and causality is not infinite, thus some things just pop into existence with no cause at all, then this could and should happen all over the place (what could stop it?). The logical end result is utter chaos in which life is impossible (nor science for that matter). We cannot just have existence stop arbitrarily when what is logically beyond it is something you don't want to face (like God).

Your Idea of god doesn't seem to be a god of intention, so exactly how are you defining god in a way that distinguishes him from nature and evolution?

Edit: Forgot to add that we observe that nature is decaying and will suffer heat death. That part is worth repeating directly to you because it's so simple -- nature alone cannot be eternal. So yes, any attempt to justify that view WILL be "propping up" a dead weight and does show obvious bias (and lack of clear thinking... no offense, though; I once didn't realize this myself of course).

Heat death is equivelent to equilibrium not non existence.

[logician bones]

Adam, can you please stop posting off-topic things to complain about format and focus on contributing something of substance? I do say the names sometimes along with it, and you would know who was saying what if you were paying attention by what's IN the quotes. I get the picture -- you don't like this style, but I do it for good reasons. It helps avoid focusing on the person (ad hominem) and instead on the argument (a big beef of mine as an informal logician as you might imagine), and forces you to think and pay attention -- both good things. It also mirrors the style used in the Bible, BTW. ;)

To complain about the style making you have to think too hard is frankly proving the very point of why I use it. Though I don't like that it is unpleasant for you. *shrugs*

Compromise for now with the "Name:" format? (Which I don't really mind... but no promises I'll remember. Been doing it this way for over a decade, rapidfire, etc. -- not likely I'll always remember. :P)

Jim:

Not quite. Rather I would say that there is only one ultimate existence period, one ultimate substance, whose nature is that of change or transformation.

Agreed. The way I see it, there must be a single base... "particle" (but not really a particle, but... something kind of like binary code, a reduction down to the base ingredient that in different arrangements makes everything else).

Whatever it is, I suspect that everything else can be reduced to a waveform of it. (Not my idea, to be clear. I heard this part on some YT vid somewhere and it made sense.)

But I think we need to be cautious about even these ideas. It may be a mistake to think of it in any terms of something we can understand that easily because it's supposed to be more fundamental than all of them. Anyways, whatever it is, I agree that "substance" is a good name for it, but you need to be clear that "substance" can and does mean more specific, complex things that are made out of it too. (It's that latter category of substance that is transformed from one type to another, but both made out of the base substance.)

Matter is in energy, and energy in matter.

Matter is clearly made of something more fundamental which I do often call energy, but that word (energy) can be applied to mean almost anything besides matter, so I'm cautious there. We could also reserve that word for only observed "energy" and use some other word for the base "substance" or whatnot, but yeah... unsure.

Every particular thing is finite, or temporal if you will, with respect to its form, but they are eternal with respect to their substance. But that doesn't make the substance itself a god since the forms it takes are made of the self same substance.

Agreed, if I'm understanding you right. (Not that alone.)

Except of course that in a sense, God can also be called a "thing". Probably not the best use of that word though.

When I say "one thing" I am talking of the natural world as opposed to there being something distinct from it such as a supernatural creator.

Okay. I might have to re-read your prior posts knowing this definition.

You believe in an infinite god that creates finite things, I believe in an infinite Cosmos wherin finite things are one with the whole.

Please note that it is not debatable that finite things are part of the whole (which can be fairly described as being "one with" the whole) -- whatever the whole is (the whole of existence). But they are NOT the whole. That is where your earlier logic about going from God creating to God equaling the creation went wrong as I understand it.

So I would say that the universe and everything in it is part of the whole, but I see the whole as everything that exists, whereas it seems like you think the whole is just the universe.

Incidentally, do you deny alternate universes? The multiverse theory?

(Or just not accept, if "deny" is too "atheist versus agnostic" for you. Okay, I guess what I'm asking is if you accept it lol.)

I don't believe we are that far apart in our thinking, accept that you believe that intent and therefore a mind is somehow involved in the process. I would just call it evolution.

Evolution in the sense of change is at least clearly involved somehow or another, and I see that as part of why God is how he is (long story though, probably not very on-topic here), but what I'm mainly wondering about the "eternal" part is how you explain the linear time nature of observational reality.

I just think it's crystal clear that linear time and its related space, and matter (and probably most forms of energy) are constructs, caused somehow by something in a non-linear world of time that is causally prior. (But obviously not just linearly prior.) If that makes any sense. Especially because of the principle of cold death. An eternal, linear universe is not possible.

If you agree that it's nonlinear and infinite, we're getting somewhere, but it seems more like you're just sure that it's "eternal" in some sense and not yet sure on that part?

I'm saying that I believe that both causes and effects are of one and the same substance

Ah. Then I get the impression where you had a problem with my earlier statements is that I was using both definitions of "substance."

Let's say base substance and construct substances, or something like that. All causes and effects are of the base substance (see above for cautions about this, but if we accept that we'll use "substance" as the name regardless of what it's like, it works). Some causes are of a different construct substance than the effects (this is transformation from one construct substance type to another). But ALL construct substances are made out of the base substance. (At least, if we're going with this theory. Please note that it may not be essential to the causality proof, but that's another off-topic long story. So far as matter is concerned and where it comes from, I think this clearly has to be true within that category.)

And in the definition of "ex nihilo" that I originally suggested, matter (and the most closely related forms of energy) are called "things" -- a subcategory of "construct substances."

So other construct substances that are not the substances designed for this universe, in my view, are (in that labeling scheme) called "not things". But still existence. They're within another category (sorry for possibly overcomplicating this here, but it's relevant) which the Bible calls things unseen (obviously we don't see all forms of light, etc. but yeah).

Again, still not sure this is the best labeling system, but just trying to make it clear how it would apply in my thinking.

Note that by this definition system, whether the unseen "not things" existence construct substance is as sevenup suggests or is rooted in God, "ex nihilo" still applies to the moment it becomes matter in this universe, if time, matter, etc. has a start as, as I've said above, I think it clearly has to.

Except that if the Cosmos and the particular things which evolve within it are of one and the same substance then there is no distinction to be made between them like creator and created.

Here's where we need to distinguish between the two meanings of "substance." I don't think I need to add anything else here beyond my listing the clear differences previously like one being alive.

Sure, except that I would add that the infinite ultimate existence that is filled with causality is also filled with effects.

To be clear, I use "causality" to sum up "cause and effect", so effects aren't something else outside it.

Suit yourself. I'll read it if i get the chance.

All I can ask. :)

So you believe god to be the cause of the terrible things in the world? If so, is that by intent?

This was one of the things I believe I cleared up in the part you didn't read. Lemme know if after reading it it's still unclear. (Short answer is, yes and no in different senses, and ultimately the cause is necessary logic that God didn't like but had to work within.)

Not sure what you mean by causality being absolute.

The part you agreed to earlier about there not being any point where something just happens for no reason.

Not sure either how you explain anything by what you do not observe.

Sound logic -- and you evidently agreed with this part just prior to this quote. That's the point -- the sound conclusions are not (necessarily) observed.

Also, you need to have a clear and sound system for HOW to observe things.

I can observe a tree just by looking at it. I cannot observe an infinite God in this way. I can only observe manifestations that may or may not be actually finite. So we need some other way to test it, and this is why it's so crucial the OT focuses on setting up the prophecies as the test, because that is how you logically test to observe a beyond-time, omniscient God.

(Obviously there is a classic agnostic rejoinder you'll probably try here... I'll see if you do since this is long.)

Your Idea of god doesn't seem to be a god of intention, so exactly how are you defining god in a way that distinguishes him from nature and evolution?

To the latter, I think we'll have to work on that in later posts.

To the former, intention is necessary to be somewhere within an infinitely varied lifeform. :P (I think you're not quite to the infinite variety stage of this, though.)

Heat death is equivelent to equilibrium not non existence.

Not my point. A linear (this is why I'm asking about that) temporal existence can only be at equilibrium which makes US impossible, if that's all there is. You can't have a start that's more organized in that system.

That is vital to why virtually everybody now agrees there was a start.


Thank you for a very reasonable response this time. You're on the right track, methinks. We'll see if it leads anywhere. *shrugs* (And thanks for keeping it very relevant to the topic's subject. :P I was worried we were going to get too far off track.)

[Adam]

This is not your thread, LB, so your complaint to me about my complaint should have been in a PM, not a lengthy digression ruining the start of your own post.
And WHOM is it addressed towards? I guess (as you say) it's in there somewhere, but I don't readily see it.
OK. I see it now: "Jim". Good. Better would have been "Jim wrote". Otherwise the first impression is (and remains) that YOU are addressing Jim and YOU are saying the words that follow. Of course, that what follows is in quotes usually means (as here) that Jim is being quoted.
Also would have been better if you had just launched into your reply doing proper identifying instead of berating me. Your "logic" in all this is wanting.

[logician bones]

Adam, the advice is appreciated, and I'll assume it's meant as constructive criticism. :) But no promises, heh. Also, it was posted publically because you weren't the only one saying that (7up "started it", after all -- besides, you posted it publically yourself...). FTR, I did suspect 7 might not be paying attention which was part of why I decided to require it to follow that part. Turns out I was right, apparently. If I spoonfed him everything, I wouldn't have such a quick test of whether he was paying attention or not -- and in that context, if somebody HAD been paying attention there was zero chance of being confused.

As for logic, I know a thing or two about it. :P But I leave it to reasonable people reading along to judge, and if they can point out legitimate flaws, then I can change my mind and become more right, learning from the others in that way as well as just learning new things I didn't know before. That's what discussion is for, right? :) Also, my concern with your "Not normal format, let's ignore it --> it's not logical" strategy is it looks waaaay too easy to be abused as an excuse to try to brush strong critical thinking under the rug. Why not wade in and try to engage with the logic and show where you think it's wrong, and submit your own thinking for review too, if you think yours is stronger?

Was there something specific you were unclear on in my longer posts I could perhaps boil down for you? I don't blame you if you don't like long posts. I don't always have time to read them myself, but I do think I owe the people who do have time and strong interest a thoroughly supported (where possible) explanation of why I conclude what I conclude. That tends to require some length.

(Yes, lol at how long this one is too. :P It's just, format strategy etc. is another thing that fascinates me. )

[seven7up]

7, I've already been over why God creating ex nihilo is not distinct from ex deo. Those who believe this clearly believe God existed previously, and works to cause the creation of matter. You still haven't dealt with this. I would agree that the term can be applied as distinct, but only for atheism with a beginning to existence in linear time (a popular version of atheism currently).

And I essentially agreed. God creating "Ex Nihilo" (ie out of nothing), tends to wash into the idea that, at the very least God is creating "from God's mind". The ideas and thoughts within God's mind are then expressed into a physical creation of the Universe. That is why it can be viewed a kind of "panEntheism".

I also addressed the idea that, historically, Christian theologians have avoided claiming creation "Ex Deo" , because the very "substance of God" is considered as too "pure" to become something sinful. Furthermore, classical Christian theology places a very strict divide between Creator and that which is created. Certainly you are familiar with this theological view in Christian doctrine, the ontological divide between God and creation. If you saw my video series, you will see that Ex Nihilo was made official in the Fourth Lateran council, not creation Ex Deo.

But I digress, whether you want to call it creation "Ex Deo" or creation "Ex Nihilo" ... I reject all of it.

If you want to show that they, or most of them, mean some distinct third form of theistic creation other than taking "nothing" in a limited sense to have a useful name to distinguish between reshaping existing matter (things that are seen), then feel free to show the proof that they mean this. I admit I haven't read all the writings of those who profess this; I'm just deducing that they cannot logically mean something significantly distinct. (You would hope they are being illogical, presumably, but you need to prove they mean it that way.)

Or if anybody else has done this study or knows of a place where somebody else has, it would be appreciated. :)

I am not sure who the "they" is that you are referring to. I have already provided many links of scholars and studies on the subject of Ex Nihilo.

You're still correct, though, that creation rooted causally entirely in God versus creation reshaping existing substance that is always outside him are indeed distinct views.

Correct; they are distinct viewpoints with different theological and logical implications.

(But you also still don't seem to be grasping that where the material comes from isn't really important -- what matters, according to what you have said, is why we are flawed.

I can tell you what IS important. From my theological perspective, there is a large range of eternal entities from those who are like Jesus, all the way down to those who are like Lucifer. Some core aspect of who and what these individuals are has always existed and always had some form of free will. Some are good, like Michael the Archangel, and Abraham and Job and Moses and John the Beloved, etc. Some are bad like Lucifer and Cain and Hitler, etc. And one was perfect, Jesus. Ultimately, with creation Ex Materia, God did not create anybody to be proud or rebellious, as Lucifer was and God did not create anybody to have a sinful nature.

And if God can create us, cure, command demons, allow Satan to attack Job only because he sees a better outcome at the end, etc. etc.

Yes, but why is Job in mortality with all of those trials? It is because Job had room to grow, to change, to develop, to become an even better man than he already was. If Job weren't flawed with regular human nature to begin with, then none of that suffering would have been necessary.

The only rational solution to everything we know is that he has good reasons to make us this way, and indeed the Bible makes no secret of this, as that example of Job especially helps make clear.)

Again, you are starting with the ASSUMPTION of Ex Nihilo, then trying to justify it.

Essentially, you are saying

"Well, God DID create Ex Nihilo, and God DID created us as flawed beings (who will then cause a lot of misery and suffering and evil), THEREFORE, God must have a good reason for creating us that way on purpose".

Your assumptions should be rejected. I believe that God brought chaos into order in order to create the Universe. I believe that God didn't create us to be flawed beings on purpose, but instead we were already imperfect, and God's work and glory is to work with imperfection in order to bring it to perfection ... if we are willing.

-7up

[seven7up]

There is only one reason to believe in 2 distinct and eternal existences, its agenda driven. If the natural world is eternal, then there is no reason to believe that a distinct efficient cause is needed to move and shape it.

Of course there is reason.

If you think that our Universe, and our world, and the existence of life, and you and I as intelligent beings having this conversation all "just happened on its own", then I think it is you who is taking a very unreasonable position.


A couple weeks ago we had a big snowfall. I took my kids out to the park, and we saw three large globes of packed snow; a large one on the bottom, a medium one in the middle, and a smaller one on top. There were two sticks in the sides of the medium one, a carrot in the middle of the top one, etc. I asked my kids, "Do you think that the snow just fell that way, packed itself into that pattern and so on?" Of course they said no, they said that someone had to come out here and make it.

God as creator in the Universe is just as obvious to me as it was obvious for my children that someone built that snowman. And this by no means is a rejection of evolution. God was working "without hands" , so to speak, but it certainly did not happen by itself, and the laws that govern the Universe in such a way for it all to work out this way is not by sheer dumb luck. I am certain of that.

-7up

[seven7up]

Well now you're getting into the causality proof territory. Suffice to say:

1) This is a different view in addition to mere creation of beings out of a substance outside himself (and the other views I listed that were within the category of God creating beings). From earlier posts in your topic, I had thought you believed this, but in THIS topic you have been presenting it as creation of them out of a substance outside himself, rather than their being uncreated beside him.

Let's dive into Mormon theology and be a little more specific here, so that you understand the metaphysics underlying the theology.

There is a core aspect of our being that is eternal, sometimes you will here LDS call this the "intelligences" that have existed from eternity. This "intelligence" was then created/procreated into a "spirit son or daughter of God". To be more illustrative, from our perspective, everything physical in the Universe is patterned after the pre-existing spiritual pattern. For example, when my wife and I had a child, that child was 1) organized from pre-existing substances, such as the nutrition that my wife ate in order to create the child. We believe that a pre-existing spirit then entered the physical body who is our first-born daughter.

Now, keep in mind that this spirit was not forced into entering mortality, we believe that each one of us, including my daughter's spirit chose to do so, as an act of her own free will. As parents, my wife and I have some influence over our children in terms of how they are raised, yet they also each have distinct personalities from the beginning of their lives; and certainly many of those aspects of personality are out of our control; they are uncreated; from our viewpoint they trace back to who and what that spirit is before mortality.

God is in the same position. Before becoming spiritual sons and daughters of God, intelligences must have characteristics that define them, and will likely define what kinds of spirits they will be. Some people ask, "Well, does God know what kind of spirit they will be before they are created/procreated into a spirit child of God?" And I honestly do not know the answer to that question. But let's assume that God DOES know for a moment; this "intelligence" has the will to become something , to become a part of the family of God, and God chooses not to deny that choice of free will. Now, we have a spirit who is beyond just an entity of free will, able to "act, rather than be acted upon"; and this continues on into mortality, if they so choose.

No, I don't work that way. I hold no view until it has sound support, but do consider all possibilities and experimentally try to justify them all (including yours), and pick the one that the sound support is behind (and if I don't yet see one, I continue to not have an opinion). :) ...

And God has to create, with that creation ultimately being rooted causally in him and being the way that 1) is logically demanded and 2) in the all-things-considered sense is what he wants (but not the ideal sense of what he wishes was logically possible). And, as said many times before, "ex nihilo" might be the most useful well-known term to differentiate between making new matter and reshaping existing matter.

It is not logically demanded; and LDS aren't the only ones to hold a view like I am presenting. There are "open theists" and "process theologians" who take a similar stand, and they do so for good reasons. Again I quote David Ray Griffin:




7up wrote: The point is, this empathy is possible. There exists a kind of being that God could have created Ex Nihilo, who is intelligent enough to understand the consequences of evil, rather than having to experience that evil themselves. If you try to claim that it is impossible, then you might as well pretend that humans aren't capable of any kind of empathy at all.

That's an obvious false dichotomy, 7. They can be capable of empathy without knowing directly from experience what it is like.

Exactly my point. If God can create beings who are intelligent enough and empathetic enough to understand and know without directly experiencing what it is like, then the evil and suffering and misery is not necessary!

Actually, that doesn't literally work, but I know what you mean (they die in infancy due to evil, either being killed, or, for most, as an indirect effect of the Fall). ... (But by entering heaven right away, they ARE experiecing a consequence of evil -- and being robbed of their chance to earn higher honor of the form that we get. Which is a big part of why abortion is wrong.)

For starters, you are going to have to deal with the unfairness of God allowing that opportunity of "higher honor" that you speak of being taken away from them.

Second, you are dodging the point. You are admitting that people can die in infancy, and still experience heaven, right? They didn't really have to experiences all the struggles in life that other people have to go through, wrestle with temptation, repent of sin, etc. Yet they still get heaven. Please explain ... according to your theology.

(I'll give you the short version of my answer: Since each eternal individual is distinct, God has no choice work with them in different ways. God knows which individuals require personal experience with mortality, and which ones do not, and manages each case accordingly. Nobody is "robbed" of anything.)

The problem you have is that your version of God , who has the power to create any kind of being that is logically possible from nothing, could create everyone to be the kind of person who does not need to personally experience sin, suffering, evil, etc. in order to appreciate heaven.

7up wrote: I never argued that "God has to be weakened". That is your mischaracterization of it.

No, you're not being honest about what your own argument logically means. You are seriously losing credibility in my eyes by doing this. You HAD a good route to take when I challenged you this way -- if you had simply said "Yes, my view has him weaker than yours, but for good reason, and here's why", I could have respected you much more. Own it, or change it.

Nonsense. Just look at the quote above by David Griffin that I have quoted several times. I have owned it over and over. That wasn't my point.

We all know that Christians theologians will say that, "God can do everything that is logically possible". In that sense , God IS limited. Then let's say that someone goes up to you and says. "My God is NOT limited in that way. My God can make a circle with four corners, therefore YOUR GOD IS WEAK!" Then you would say, "whatever dude, that God doesn't exist."

Or look at it this way, when it comes to "logical impossibility", for me, just add creatio ex nihilo to the other logically impossible things that God can't do. (Note: for a perspective on a Biblical look about what God can't do, here is an article.)

You've now argued for yet another weakness, not having him be the ultimate, self-consistent infinite causal source of everything else in yet another way -- not just that there's substance outside of him that he now can't shape the way he wants to, making him also less than omnipotent, but now that there are also eternally existing BEINGS outside of him, which evidently you identity as us or our original ancestors within time.

Right. There are limits on what God can or can't do. Like I said, for me, omnipotence is being able to do anything that is possible to do. (Please note that many Christians often take the idea "nothing is impossible for God" out of context and twist the meaning. The context is, that for people who sin, it seems that it is impossible for sinners to be saved, but God can save sinners. Then classic theologians try to extrapolate that into the idea that God can do anything in terms of metaphysics, which is an abuse of the text.)

Furthermore, these entities which exist in eternity have free will. Even if God could FORCE them to do something against their will (or not do something), God will not use that power or force because of the violation in ethics by doing so. In this part, the LDS free will defense is similar to that of Plantinga or William Lane Craig, however, they still cannot explain why God created beings flawed/imperfect in the first place.

(If you had been owning your positions like that, I might be more inclined to risk wasting time watching your vids; as it stands, if you perhaps have a transcript, I might analyze that, but I'm not going to type it up for you anytime soon at least. I don't have time.)

Sorry; I have no transcript.

At this point I think I should just ask one of the questions that's been on my mind, but I didn't want to risk biasing you additionally and wanted to get as natural an explanation as you would give as if to somebody who knew nothing about Mormonism. That is, do you actually accept the view the CMI has recently claimed that Mormons do believe, that what you call "God" is actually a mere "human" (or something essentially akin to one?) that evolved into God?

God the Father's origin is pure speculation and there is no direct revelation concerning details. However, Joseph Smith proposed, in the King Follet discourse, that God the Father was the "Christ" of a previous creation. Therefore, just like Jesus, the Father had created "a Universe", performed an Earthly and mortal mission for His heavenly father and atoned for the sins of the "sons of God" from that creation. Then it can be deduced that Jesus Christ will be the "Heavenly Father" of a new creation, and so on, and so on. That is why Joseph Smith took the ring from his finger and likened it to eternity; "one eternal round".

So, I think it is misleading to say that, God the Father, (or likewise, Jesus Christ) is a "mere human". As for God "evolving", Jesus was divine (spiritually perfect) before entering mortality... so, I don't see an "evolution" in that sense. God does obtain more glory , but that isn't really 'evolution'.

If so, as you might imagine, there are strong reasons why that cannot be so, in my understanding.

But we can already judge now that your view fails in one of these respects -- it breaks the rules I have identified for how to have a truly infinite being which is the only possible satisfying of the causality proof, by splitting ultimate existence into conflicted beings. But things that are in conflict limit themselves and cannot be truly infinite, like somebody sawing off the branch they are standing on, etc. The ultimate existence must have infinite variety (which includes life) and be completely self-consistent (which fits to the biblical concept of a perfectly holy being).

Mormons still believe in a perfectly Holy Being, but "infinite" in the modern sense is not the right term to use for the Mormon God. Just like the "mountains are eternal" and the "hills are everlasting" in the Biblical text has a different meaning than modern definitions would imply.

This introduces an uncaused yet specific structural element to all existence, which violates the absolute nature of causality.

Only if you hold to the Greek philosophical model, which says that there must be only ONE cause. This was the "unmoved mover" , the "uncaused cause." That isn't necessarily true though. There could be infinite uncaused causes in an infinite existence.

While my understanding of this does not ban externals outside this universe,...

Well there you go. You will find that many Mormons are fans of the "Multiverse" view, with infinite "universes". Here is a scientific article if anyone is interested: http://www.space.com/18811-multiple-...-theories.html

It does look like there's no way to avoid getting deeper into the causality proof to do this subject justice. But I still say that what I said originally here to the topic starter's question of ex nihilo would be sufficient to understand that subject. You're actually getting somewhat off-topic here, as I read it, so maybe it would be best if we continued this in your other topic? Up to you/moderators, though.

It IS a closely related subject, though, admittedly.

Is Creation Ex Nihilos? Well, I suppose that one could argue from 1) a philosophical perspective , which is what we are doing mostly here, addressing the problem of evil and suffering with the idea of an "omnipotent God". 2) Is Creation Ex Nihilo from a Biblical perspective (I haven't delved into that very much, but just posted some links of scholars and theologians, etc.) 3) Is creation Ex Nihilo from a Scientific perspective? ... which used to be the supposedly proven by "Big Bang" cosmology, but that is based on a Big Bang model that is 20 years out of date and science tends to lean towards the idea that it truly is not "out of nothing". The energy matter does come from somewhere/something.

Again, did you read my original post? Only "out of nothing" in the nonliteral sense I described there, and have alluded to again several times since then.

I have been working under the assumption that you hold, as do others, that God created from "God's own mind", so to speak. Now, I see you going in the direction that God cannot create any being that is logically possible, but instead only what God imagined in his own mind. That is why I told Bill, that this thinking logically leads classical theism into this idea that God is NOT a single being, but instead a multi-billion personality being of both Divine and non-Divine persons, who are then created from that multi-personalitied mind into a physical reality which is then PanEntheistic.

This is the case because in the scenario presented, the Divine God cannot choose who or what to create, but instead MUST create those other non-divine personalities within God's mind which are just as eternal as God is; and God must share power with those non-divine beings as they certainly effect creation and have power over how reality plays out. And even more, you are also forced to admit that, IF those other wills within God's mind are eternally existing within God's mind, they are essentially self-caused or self-existent. Then you get a theology that is essentially a PanENtheistic version of Mormonism!

This Calvinist then lays out the logic hammer upon thee which will do wonders with your "causal" arguments!

- mark hausam

-7up

[logician bones]

So, the question was raised earlier what name would be applied to biblical theism, other than that, and I see 7 is bringing it up again. The claim has been made repeatedly (not just in this topic) that it is "panentheism". Although this is an obscure word not found in Dictionary.com and the top google hits do not look like reputable sites, I found a definition of that in a probably-reliable source, Merriam-Webster:

the doctrine that God includes the world as a part though not the whole of his being

This does not describe biblical theism as I understand it, although Moses did say that God is our "dwelling place" (but in his Psalm, and it is easy to see it as poetic language). God is omnipresent throughout the world, and created the world, but he made it separate from himself.

It needs to be noted that several of the google hits, and even a comment on this Webster page, have it the other way around, and don't seem to include the "part of the being" part -- that it means God in the universe. It's unclear if they mean any part of God in the universe, but in any event, I have reason to think that the whole concept of "part" and "location" is missing the point about how God works (long story, but basically I think location is a construct).

But in a sense, if they don't mean God is CONTAINED in the universe, but simply isn't ENTIRELY outside it (omnipresent), then that definition would be biblical, but I haven't yet seen this from a reputable source (if somebody else has one, would be appreciated). And in that case, we already have a simple and well-known word for it -- omnipresent -- plus neither term really describes the aspects that we have been discussing, of the method of creation, so again it does not seem useful.

As far as the Bible makes clear directly, I do not see strong evidence for the accepted Webster's definition, though, so I would not advise using the word.

Another mark against it is practical -- it's too similar to pantheism. Many could mistake the meaning of saying it. And in fact I have a strong concern that some (like 7) trying to say it is panentheism may in fact be trying to imply a criticism of guilt by association. Also, it seems those saying this are agreeing that even they would only see it as a loose "form of" panentheism -- in other words, not exactly. So it would be better to choose a different word.

Now for 7's latest arguments:

God creating "Ex Nihilo" (ie out of nothing), tends to wash into the idea that, at the very least God is creating "from God's mind". The ideas and thoughts within God's mind are then expressed into a physical creation of the Universe. That is why it can be viewed a kind of "panEntheism".

It does not follow, if the Webster's definition is being used here, that God creating the universe from his substance (as it were) and omniscience that the world is a part of his being. So no, panentheism would not be a good fit.

I get the impression, perhaps it's not intended, that you and some others may mean merely that the omniscient idea about a thing is having that thing as part of them (if, again, you are using the Webster's definition). This is a mystical/metaphysical debate that I think is off-topic here. I saw comments about this in your topic, 7 -- it might be best to discuss it there rather than here. We have agreed that God is omniscient, regardless of whether that makes a sense of panentheism accurate.

I might be reading too much into your meaning there, though, because both perspectives on omniscience were possibilities I considered before, and haven't yet seen clear proof one way or the other. For now, I do think the best Ockham's Razor, commonsense view is probably that the physical existence and the idea are not the same thing, and knowledge of plans and of something you make outside you (will make, are making, have made, from a beyond-time being's POV) are likewise not the same thing.

historically, Christian theologians have avoided claiming creation "Ex Deo" , because the very "substance of God" is considered as too "pure" to become something sinful.

Well, this sounds more Gnostic than Christian; the idea that matter is evil. Paul wrote warningly against that idea in a few places, perhaps some others did as well, unsure offhand. As for the claim that most or a significant number of theologians say that, that's a question that needs careful testing over a long period of time, so it won't go anywhere now. Of course, some theologians throughout history have been influenced by Gnostic/etc. unbiblical ideas, so this wouldn't be surprising even if true.

Regardless, it's off the table, because existence would be set up so there would be an external, never-beginning substance alongside God that would not ever have causal root in him.

God did not create anybody to have a sinful nature [in 7up's understanding of Mormonism]

Since you have said he is omniscient, this can only be true if God did not create them. You say some part existed eternally -- which part? The all-bad part? If God created everything good (as James says), then why would he bother incorporating this bad nature, if it's such a crime to have it in the world? Did they force their way in and he's too weak to stop them?

And if they are all bad, they couldn't really be infinite anyway, unless something infinite was fueling them, and that has to be God according to the causality proof. They would be sawing off the log they're standing on, subject to decay, etc. So even if they had no beginning, they would be sustained and thus somewhat caused by God.

It sounds good if you don't think it through and put it to the test, but it just doesn't work.

Yes, but why is Job in mortality with all of those trials? It is because Job had room to grow, to change, to develop, to become an even better man than he already was. If Job weren't flawed with regular human nature to begin with, then none of that suffering would have been necessary.

Here it seems you're assuming that "room to grow" means "flawed" in a sinful sense. Biblically, this is not so. We have finite knowledge and need to learn; even if we had never sinned, we would still need to learn, and mere head-knowledge would not be enough to truly understand the horror of sin and a world loosed to follow mere nature. Again, this is where Genesis' focus on experiential familiarity comes in.

An omniscient, Holy God (who, being infinite, DOES truly understand these things) can justifiably, indeed must, create beings able to experience evil. I've been over more detail on this. It's not a new subject to Christian theologians outside Mormonism, 7 -- the reasons it works are well understood, though not all details are completely pinned down, admittedly.

Again, you are starting with the ASSUMPTION of Ex Nihilo

Did you read my first post here? I said there and have said repeatedly since then that I'm not sure if ex nihilo is the best word for biblical creation. I see a strong case, but I can also see a reasonable case that it is too confusing as taken literally it doesn't work.

Essentially, you are saying

"Well, God DID create Ex Nihilo, and God DID created us as flawed beings

Once again you're conflating ex nihilo with creation of flawed beings. I get why you do, but it doesn't work in my view. I cannot agree that this is an assumption, in large part because I don't assume things, and even if I did, we have sound support for God creating us as he chose to, and we obviously know from experience that we are flawed.

Again, whether he used material not causally rooted in him or not, if he's omniscient and omnipotent, then the flaws are intentional (and counterbalanced -- this is why the biblical concept of cost, of "wages of sin" is there as I understand it). And if causality is absolute, we're left with no choice but to accept that everything has causal root in God.

Let's dive into Mormon theology and be a little more specific here, so that you understand the metaphysics underlying the theology.

Thank you. :)

There is a core aspect of our being that is eternal, sometimes you will here LDS call this the "intelligences" that have existed from eternity. This "intelligence" was then created/procreated into a "spirit son or daughter of God". To be more illustrative, from our perspective, everything physical in the Universe is patterned after the pre-existing spiritual pattern. For example, when my wife and I had a child, that child was 1) organized from pre-existing substances, such as the nutrition that my wife ate in order to create the child. We believe that a pre-existing spirit then entered the physical body who is our first-born daughter.

Largely agreed up until, at least as the wording seems to imply to me, the last part I quoted here, which seems like the "ghosty substance attaching" idea. And with the earlier caution about the "intelligence existed" (versus simply God's plans for that intelligence to come to exist).

But clearly God's plans for us exist outside linear time and are available at any point, so may be seen as eternal in that sense. The intelligence procreating part seems like an extension of the "existed versus was planned" idea combined with the ghosty substance perhaps, but at least in a poetic sense, could be true in a way. God, after all, considering logically what we would do, requires that his plans for our actions have a "life of their own" in a sense.

And obviously the physical part is correct. I would add, of course, the 'dance' of the DNA and the rest of the cellular machinery. I put the generation of the spirit in here. It could be poetically described loosely as you put this, but I would avoid it.

Now, keep in mind that this spirit was not forced into entering mortality, we believe that each one of us, including my daughter's spirit chose to do so, as an act of her own free will.

I would see it as God knowing the end results from the plans, which in a sense could be like choosing (his nonlinear nature and our consent in heaven in the future are mixed into this, of course, though having infinite intelligence and omniscience he certainly doesn't need to ask us).

Of course, how this works with those who choose eternal shame is trickier, but since that IS their choice, it seems they would on some root level accept.

Note that here is where a serious problem with the idea that plans = fruition comes in. Since God is omniscient, he's aware of ALL possibilities. That means possibilities of beings who would NOT consent to existence would then have to exist simply because God thinks of it. Of course, if this is true, then God couldn't be blamed for it, but it makes sense that he would make real beings of the ones that fit into his 'all things considered' happy medium plan only. Some attempts to wiggle out of that also get into untestable hypothesis territory too.

Some people ask, "Well, does God know what kind of spirit they will be before they are created/procreated into a spirit child of God?" And I honestly do not know the answer to that question.

Reducing the "spirit" part of this out, in light of God being beyond linear time and omniscient, the answer is "yes and no" -- that is, yes, God knows, and the knowledge is available before you come to exist. But no in the sense that the question as phrased seems to assume a merely linear God who is looking forward to the future only (but functionally the same results do come out here).

7, you obviously want me to parse that Griffin quote, so if you insist... but it really isn't that relevant, as, as worded, he is neither saying nor proving what you are saying and wanting proven. Still, it could serve as an opportunity to clarify some things.

1) Power in non-divine sources (beings or otherwise) is not a problem. The problem is supposing that they're not causally related to God, out of an emotionalist fear of God causing sin. This problem is avoided when we consider that God sees all factors and understands that everything -- even never sinning -- has downsides and that temporary sin can be outweighed and lead to even better results for all down the road (and since that time is finite, it will be ever-shrinking in light of eternal life).

2) The existence of everything needs explanation, except existence and causality themselves (since nothing can exist that causes existence or causality, as if neither existed yet, nothing could exist to cause them and could not have the trait of causality). And even there, there's an explanation in infinite variety of existence.

What's going on with God is that he is infinite and non-linear. Not just circular, but like an infinitely complex interconnecting web. Thus, every part of God explains every other part, and the law of decay in linear causality is avoided. So God has no prior cause, which does mean that it's invalid to ask "what caused God?" -- but since there can only be one perfectly consistent set of connections in infinite existence (everything else is discordant), making this one thing infinite as well, it is not valid to argue from the "foot in the door" of one uncaused being to others. That would break the system that enables this to all work, and deny absolute causality because now things are happening for no reason.

However, his logic still works if he does not mean what you mean; if he is saying the other things are still causally rooted in God.

3) "Of itself" is a good summary of the above, so is consistent with absolute causality in God and everything. It is not consistent with your view which is denying the "of-itself-ness", if you will, of reality as a whole.

4) The final line could be taken as a disagreement with you, though it stops short of affirming universal contingency/cause.

They can be capable of empathy without knowing directly from experience what it is like.
Exactly my point.

I know you like to pull that trick, but you clearly portrayed it as the OPPOSITE of your point -- that empathy equals experiential familiarity. It doesn't. And you go on to repeat this:

If God can create beings who are intelligent enough and empathetic enough to understand and know without directly experiencing what it is like, then the evil and suffering and misery is not necessary!

It's also defeating the point -- if God will give them a completely realistic experience of our kind of life in every way, then there's no point in being squeamish about allowing us to physically go through it -- especially since not being familiar with the perfect future (or past) is part of it, so he would have to temporarily wipe our memories of the outside world from this illusion. So he might as well just create it for real. (In fact then you get again into untestable hypothesis territory.)

the unfairness of God allowing that opportunity of "higher honor" that you speak of being taken away from them.

You're forgetting about pros and cons and (as I call it) allocation equality (sometimes called Multiple Intelligences, though I'm applying it to more than merely intelligence). Different people have different strengths and weaknesses, but they all total out the same. This applies both to nature (personality due to genetics) and to nurture (effects of experience). God, being omniscient, has to be aware of this.

Remember the Bible teaches this explicitly, with the analogy of the different parts of the body working together harmoniously. The same will be true in heaven in terms of experience.

[Reading on, it seems you ARE aware of this. So you are shooting yourself in the foot by acting here like you weren't... ]

You are admitting that people can die in infancy, and still experience heaven, right?

It's not an "admission", 7 -- this is a well-known part of biblical doctrine.

The problem you have is that your version of God , who has the power to create any kind of being that is logically possible from nothing, could create everyone to be the kind of person who does not need to personally experience sin, suffering, evil, etc. in order to appreciate heaven.

No he couldn't, because, again, being omniscient, he knows that that doesn't create a cohesive whole of all people. It tries to pick one set of strengths and put everybody else into it like a cookie cutter. That is not what true fairness is...

"God can do everything that is logically possible"

Yes, and you are imagining a God who cannot do some things that ARE logically possible, ergo not omnipotent.

And he is not JUST omnipotent (here's another place where skeptics also typically go wrong); just because he COULD make only beings who never sin doesn't make that RIGHT -- and being omniscient, he knows that all things considered, again, it isn't. He cannot choose that route because he knows it is wrong.

God can make a circle with four corners

Well, I've always thought that was a bad analogy. God can conceive of nonliteral meanings of the phrase and bend space so a circle is circular from its own perspective and a square from outside perspective or vice versa. (But in the same sense and without such systems, no.)

Bottom line is, you're employing Hasty Generalization. There are some things in the category of "things God cannot do" -- this does NOT justify throwing "controlling completely what sort of world he makes" into the mix! You could use that strategy to limit God to just about anything.

The problem is that you are turning "what is possible" into circular reasoning, where the only thing that isn't possible about it is that God is too weak to do it. By that logic, I'm omnipotent because even though I can't lift a mountain using only my arm muscles, it isn't possible for me to do that because I'm too weak. :P


Thanks for clarifying about God/human. Seems worth more research whenever I have time. *shrugs*

Mormons still believe in a perfectly Holy Being

I know, but it's the eternal divide that is the problem. If that is the case, we should NOT have a perfectly Holy being, and as with atheism, we shouldn't really have anything else intelligible either (so either total nonexistence or universal chaos; either way, we couldn't exist). It's clear to me that those who believe such things have not thought this through in light of absolute causality.

"infinite" in the modern sense is not the right term to use for the Mormon God

They at least earn points for consistency in part of my understanding, then. :) But... this is a problem for reasons mentioned above.

Only if you hold to the Greek philosophical model, which says that there must be only ONE cause.

Uh... no. There are infinite causes.

This was the "unmoved mover" , the "uncaused cause." That isn't necessarily true though. There could be infinite uncaused causes in an infinite existence.

That's exactly the problem! If causality isn't absolute, uncaused causes should happen all over the place, as nothing could stop them -- they don't submit to causality! So, again, total chaos. But the simpler explanation would be no existence at all, if causality isn't all connected up.

There's no need for such messes biblically, thankfully. It all works.

You will find that many Mormons are fans of the "Multiverse" view, with infinite "universes".

To be clear, I don't buy into alternate universes except in the sense that God is aware of what they would have been like, and probably will let us know some of it eventually. Long story, though, and we're straying from the topic's subject. Short answer: what's absolute is causality, and universes require a creator, so since God can only give the nod of approval to one, I don't think he makes others real.

Although admittedly the infinite waveform explanation could be interpreted as supporting them (as obviously some scientists accept).

I have been working under the assumption that you hold, as do others, that God created from "God's own mind", so to speak. Now, I see you going in the direction that God cannot create any being that is logically possible, but instead only what God imagined in his own mind.

Getting long so short answers now:

1) I see the "out of" in the various views as talking about substance, not God's plans, as said earlier. This is mixing up two different subjects, though his omniscience is related.

2) God is able in terms of omnipotence alone to create anything logical, but limited by his holiness and omniscience so he creates only the all-pros-and-cons-considered best total world. He imagines everything, so I don't see a point to the last part.

those other non-divine personalities within God's mind which are just as eternal as God is

Saw this in the other topic. In short, no they aren't. ;) See above for most of why, ask if needed.

MUST create [AKA imagine/consider/plan] those other non-divine personalities within God's mind... IF those other wills within God's mind are eternally existing within God's mind, they are essentially self-caused

Self-refuting argument. If he starts the plans somewhere, deduced them from other things, they are by definition not self-caused.




Oh great, you're importing the can of worms of Calvinism into this too?

I'll look over it, but I've done some initial critical studies of Calvinism and found that at least so far, it fails from 1) incoherence in terms of clearly defined, logically testable claims, 2) ignorance of the cultural, contextual meanings of many biblical passages used as proof texts, and 3) circular reasoning. Not to mention, apparently (from Holding's research, a suggestion, though not a conclusion), perhaps a lack of awareness of what Calvin actually DID teach (though I fail here too so yeah :P).

Let's save the analysis of that quote for another post. (And note that in my experience also, you really need whole-work context to even attempt to grasp what the heck Calvinists are trying to say, and even then it so far seems inconclusive... so relying on one paragraph from a Calvinist is dubious, even more so than usual.)

[logician bones]

To your Calvinist quote... and this will be easy as it turns out:

the explanation for the particular choices free creatures make... cannot be found in the fact that God gave his creatures free agency.

In light of my definition of "freewill" (though I prefer to avoid the term and use the definition itself normally, unless the subject is brought up, as here), as ability to disobey spoken or written commands (in favor of nature/nurture causes instead; what you already want inside), it is not hard to see how God could give creatures this, versus making us basically calculators on legs.

It also needs to be considered that, as already explained before, God has to accept some things he doesn't like, for a time (at least for the saved), due to logical necessity. So while they are made possible in part by God's existence and nature, they are both defeated by God, and not desired anyway. Since God sees the good end results (read the life of Joseph at end of Genesis), he can allow it (indeed, must, for reasons explained already).


They're determined by God, and logical necessity (since God is a logical being by virtue of being totally self-consistent and having infinite intelligence).

and first-causal by nature

They aren't.


That would follow if causality wasn't absolute, but that's among the least of the problems with that view!

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.

Seriously, 7, why exactly are you bringing in this quote? You seem to think this is some kind of rebuttal to "my" causal arguments, but it's one of the basic fallacies debunked by the causality proof, and you didn't even need much of that to know this -- tekton has a detailed debunking of this on his site under his Calvinism (TULIP) series. It's simply missing the point of the "all-worlds-considered" requirement from omniscience that I've been pointing out already!

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

That was all an entirely unecessary line of reasoning brought on by that simple false premise, already refuted in this topic...