Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

No true Free Will exists if Ex Nihilo creation is true

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    I understand the terms Sparko.

    If you were to have actually watched my video series, you will see that I specified quite clearly that the form of pantheism that is implied by Ex Nihilo is in fact, panENtheism.

    That video is found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qduIGkSy1Ro

    -7up
    Will you stop trying to market your videos? It basically boils down to argument by weblink and pure laziness on your part to do the work in this thread.

    Present your arguments in THIS thread, and forget your videos. Argument by weblink is not allowed.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by seven7up View Post
      Complete unilateral control, in the sense that God has in Ex Nihilo creation? No. He does not. I would say that God COULD control these intelligences. In other words, God has the power to force them, but that would be oppressive.
      That's not what I am talking about. I mean the transition from intelligence to spirit. Who controls that transition? Do they do it of their own volition, or does Elohim, through his power, do the organizing? Or do they simply tell Elohim that they want to be spirits and he makes them spirits? Either way, unless they tell Elohim what to do, he is in control of who does and doesn't get organized into a spirit... Unless Elohim is thoroughly ignorant on the events yet to occur, he has the moral obligation to not allow them to be organized.


      It isn't only a matter of God choosing. We are talking about eternal entities of free-will. They have a choice in any action as well.
      To which Elohim seems ignorant. Did Elohim not know before organizing him as a spirit that Lucifer would rebel?


      God did not "allow that agent to come into existence." The agent already existed.
      But not as a spirit baby. They need to be organized before they can affect creation, yes?

      Let's see how David Ray Griffin addresses the issue:

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      I find the following 7-step statement to be most helpful in eliminating ambiguities, thereby allowing one to see just which premise is being rejected by the various theodicies.

      1. To be God, a being must be omnipotent (with an “omnipotent being” defined as one whose power to bring about what it wills is essentially unlimited––except [perhaps] by logical impossibilities).
      2. An omnipotent being could unilaterally bring about a world devoid of genuine evil (with “genuine evil” defined as anything that makes the world worse than it could have otherwise been).
      3. To be God, a being must be morally perfect.
      4. A morally perfect being would want to bring about a world devoid of genuine evil.
      5. If there is a God, there would be no genuine evil.
      6. But there is genuine evil in the world.
      7. Therefore there is no God.
      ...

      ....

      I now turn to the solution I favor, to which the rejection of creatio ex nihilo is fundamental. In fact, the problem of evil is uniquely a problem for those theistic positions that hold the doctrine of omnipotence implied by the doctrine of creation out of nothing. For, the problem of evil can be stated as a syllogism entailing the non-existence of deity only if deity is defined as omnipotent in the sense of having no essential limitations upon the exercise of its will. And it is precisely omnipotence in this sense that the speculative hypothesis of creatio ex nihilo is designed to support.

      Two issues are involved. First, if God in creating our world necessarily worked with some pre-existent actualities, these actualities might well have some power of their own with which they could partially thwart the divine will. Second, there might be some eternal, uncreated, necessary principles (beyond purely logical truths) about the way these actualities can be ordered which limit the sorts of situations that are really possible. But if God created this world out of absolutely nothing, then the beings of this world are absolutely dependent upon God. Any power they have is not at all inherent, but is totally a gift of God, and as such can be overridden (or, which amounts to the same thing, withdrawn) at any time. And if there has not always been a multiplicity of finite actualities, it does not make sense to think of any uncreated and hence necessary principles as to how the actualities of the world can be ordered. Any such principles would be purely contingent ones, created along with the actualities whose behavior they describe, and hence alterable at (divine) will.

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


      -7up
      I'd rather debate you than Mr. Griffin, who is not available for further comment... much of what he said was extremely incomplete or unnecessarily rudimentary in nature, anyway.
      That's what
      - She

      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
      Stephen R. Donaldson

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        Present your arguments in THIS thread, ....
        I did. You have not yet been able to respond. All you have done in your response is demonstrate that you have not understood the arguments. You have not even addressed this first one, which I posted near the beginning.

        1) God knows what characteristics of an individual would lead to certain "choices" in certain circumstances. God is creating every single characteristic (every aspect) of a person's being, purely from God's own mind. Therefore, the person who God creates will do exactly what God created that individual to do, in every circumstance.

        -7up

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          That's not what I am talking about. I mean the transition from intelligence to spirit. Who controls that transition?
          It is not a matter of unilateral control. An eternal entity of free will has characteristics that God chooses not to violate (otherwise God would be a bully/oppressor). In LDS theology, the physical existence is a parallel of the spiritual existence. We believe that our spirits chose to enter physical bodies, and therefore, the possibility exists that the eternal intelligence had some kind of will to enter a spiritual body.

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          Unless Elohim is thoroughly ignorant on the events yet to occur, he has the moral obligation to not allow them to be organized.
          That is like an atheist saying to a Christian that God had a moral obligation to never allow Hitler to be born.

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          To which Elohim seems ignorant. Did Elohim not know before organizing him as a spirit that Lucifer would rebel?
          I do not pretend to know the nature of God's foreknowledge in such matters. But to make things interesting, let's say that God knows for sure that Lucifer would rebel, would God be oppressive enough to deny Lucifer's intelligence entrance into spirituality?

          Surely you can see the difference between
          1) God allowing an eternal free agent, who has certain characteristics, to make choices
          2) God creating the creature, and every single characteristic that the creature possesses, from God's own imagination

          First, if God in creating our world necessarily worked with some pre-existent actualities, these actualities might well have some power of their own with which they could partially thwart the divine will. Second, there might be some eternal, uncreated, necessary principles (beyond purely logical truths) about the way these actualities can be ordered which limit the sorts of situations that are really possible. - Griffin

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          I'd rather debate you than Mr. Griffin, who is not available for further comment... much of what he said was extremely incomplete or unnecessarily rudimentary in nature, anyway.
          If it is so "rudimentary", then you should have no problem addressing the issues Bill.

          -7up

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by seven7up View Post
            I did. You have not yet been able to respond. All you have done in your response is demonstrate that you have not understood the arguments. You have not even addressed this first one, which I posted near the beginning.

            1) God knows what characteristics of an individual would lead to certain "choices" in certain circumstances. God is creating every single characteristic (every aspect) of a person's being, purely from God's own mind. Therefore, the person who God creates will do exactly what God created that individual to do, in every circumstance.

            -7up
            That is crap. I did respond to your argument. Your response was to watch your videos.

            Your argument is basically, God made you into a robot and programmed you so you have no free will.

            It is a circular argument. God doesn't determine or create every characteristic of our personality. He doesn't make us make decisions. You basically are arguing "God didn't give you free will therefore you don't have free will"

            He created us with free will, we observe it in ourselves and others. If you want to prove that just because he created out of nothing we don't have free will, you have to prove that with a logical argument. Just asserting it is not an argument.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
              It is not a matter of unilateral control.
              So, your god is not in full control of existence. Therefore he is not "all powerful" because something else can thwart his will.

              An eternal entity of free will has characteristics that God chooses not to violate (otherwise God would be a bully/oppressor).
              Not if his way is better. It is irresponsible to not stop something you are capable of stopping. (This is the same argument you are trying to use against us)

              In LDS theology, the physical existence is a parallel of the spiritual existence. We believe that our spirits chose to enter physical bodies, and therefore, the possibility exists that the eternal intelligence had some kind of will to enter a spiritual body.
              With full consent of Elohim, right? Is he even capable of saying no?


              That is like an atheist saying to a Christian that God had a moral obligation to never allow Hitler to be born.
              If God is solely benevolent, then yes. It is a valid charge.


              I do not pretend to know the nature of God's foreknowledge in such matters. But to make things interesting, let's say that God knows for sure that Lucifer would rebel, would God be oppressive enough to deny Lucifer's intelligence entrance into spirituality?
              Absolutely. If He is "all powerful", then his will can not be thwarted. By allowing Lucifer to fall, and take 1/3 of his children with him, Elohim's will was thwarted. Therefore, your god is not all powerful. If he knew Lucifer would fall, and take 1/3 of them down with him, and had the power to stop it, he should have. Or does your god think that sacrificing 1/3 to give the other 2/3 a shot is an acceptable loss? He COULD have chosen to not allow Lucifer to be organized, and that could have saved at least SOME of the 1/3. So, by your same "Could have" and "Should have" criteria for rejecting ex nihilo, you should reject Elohim organizing spirits he knew would fall and be destroyed.


              Surely you can see the difference between
              1) God allowing an eternal free agent, who has certain characteristics, to make choices
              2) God creating the creature, and every single characteristic that the creature possesses, from God's own imagination
              But that's not the real story. It should be:

              1) God, who ultimately controls which spirits get organized, allows those spirits to be organized, despite knowing they will be destroyed
              2) God created the creature from His imagination, despite knowing they will be destroyed.

              In both your belief and mine, God is ultimately responsible for creating creatures he knows will be destroyed. You can wiggle and squirm all you want, but either your god is "all powerful" or he is not.

              [quote]First, if God in creating our world necessarily worked with some pre-existent actualities, these actualities might well have some power of their own with which they could partially thwart the divine will.[quote]

              Which eliminates the possibility of "omnipotent".

              Second, there might be some eternal, uncreated, necessary principles (beyond purely logical truths) about the way these actualities can be ordered which limit the sorts of situations that are really possible. - Griffin
              Then the principles themselves are more powerful than God, thus eliminating the possibility of "omnipotent".


              If it is so "rudimentary", then you should have no problem addressing the issues Bill.

              -7up
              Again, now you have to fight for Griffin without knowing the thought behind his arguments. It's a fool's endeavor and a waste of time.
              That's what
              - She

              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
              Stephen R. Donaldson

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                Your argument is basically, God made you into a robot and programmed you so you have no free will.

                It is a circular argument.
                No. The argument that God created us out of nothing AND created us with free will BECAUSE God created us ex nihilo with free will is a circular argument. My argument goes far beyond that. I have elaborated on the other thread for Kind Debater, to see if someone is finally ready to address the issues.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                God doesn't determine or create every characteristic of our personality.
                Alright then. Where does every characteristic of our personality come from, if not from God, in the Ex Nihilo framework? Please explain for the audience.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                He created us with free will, we observe it in ourselves and others.
                There is your circular reasoning again.

                -7up

                Comment


                • #38
                  7UP: It is not a matter of unilateral control.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  So, your god is not in full control of existence. Therefore he is not "all powerful" because something else can thwart his will.
                  1 Timothy 2:4 God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

                  Do you believe in universal salvation? God wants everyone to be saved. Since that is God's will, can something thwart that desire?


                  7UP: An eternal entity of free will has characteristics that God chooses not to violate (otherwise God would be a bully/oppressor).

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  Not if his way is better. It is irresponsible to not stop something you are capable of stopping. (This is the same argument you are trying to use against us)
                  It isn't the same argument, because your system is Ex Nihilo.


                  7up: In LDS theology, the physical existence is a parallel of the spiritual existence. We believe that our spirits chose to enter physical bodies, and therefore, the possibility exists that the eternal intelligence had some kind of will to enter a spiritual body.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  With full consent of Elohim, right? Is he even capable of saying no?
                  Is God capable of preventing a rapist from raping a child? Yes. But He doesn't.

                  The difference between your view and mine - is that God, in your theology, is creating a rapist from God's own imagination (ie from nothing). In my theology, there already existed a flawed intelligence from eternity. That flawed and imperfect intelligence progressed into humanity, and to deny any step of that progression could have been a violation of that individual's free will.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  That is like an atheist saying to a Christian that God had a moral obligation to never allow Hitler to be born.

                  7UP: If God is solely benevolent, then yes. It is a valid charge.

                  And what are you going to do about that charge, Bill?



                  7UP: I do not pretend to know the nature of God's foreknowledge in such matters. But to make things interesting, let's say that God knows for sure that Lucifer would rebel, would God be oppressive enough to deny Lucifer's intelligence entrance into spirituality?

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  Absolutely. If He is "all powerful", then his will can not be thwarted.
                  Is "all powerful" supposed to mean being able to do EVERYTHING, even if it is logically contradictory? Does omnipotence imply that God will necessarily infringe on the agency of an eternal entity with free will?

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  By allowing Lucifer to fall, and take 1/3 of his children with him, Elohim's will was thwarted. Therefore, your god is not all powerful. If he knew Lucifer would fall, and take 1/3 of them down with him, and had the power to stop it, he should have. Or does your god think that sacrificing 1/3 to give the other 2/3 a shot is an acceptable loss? He COULD have chosen to not allow Lucifer to be organized, and that could have saved at least SOME of the 1/3. So, by your same "Could have" and "Should have" criteria for rejecting ex nihilo, you should reject Elohim organizing spirits he knew would fall and be destroyed.
                  Your argument is flawed Bill , and your attempted point fails entirely on the premise on which we disagree, which is Ex Nihilo.

                  In your theology, God was the only entity in existence. Then God created Lucifer purely from God's own mind. To make it worse, God created Lucifer from God's own mind knowing exactly what the eternal destination of that miserable being would be. That being didn't even supposedly have free will (which is impossible anyways in this framework) until AFTER God decided to create that being to begin with.

                  In LDS theology, Lucifer ALREADY existed, as an eternal intelligence. Perhaps God COULD have denied Lucifer's will to enter a spiritual body, but we can say that to do so would be a rejection of that particular intelligence's choice of progression from the get go, which is an oppression against free will.

                  As you can see, the burden falls on your theology and on your God, because that entity did not exist AT ALL, before God decided how, if, and when to create it.

                  It is astounding to see how unwilling you are to come to terms with the differences in these view points.


                  7UP: Surely you can see the difference between
                  1) God allowing an eternal free agent, who has certain characteristics, to make choices
                  2) God creating the creature, and every single characteristic that the creature possesses, from God's own imagination


                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  But that's not the real story. It should be:

                  1) God, who ultimately controls which spirits get organized, allows those spirits to be organized, despite knowing they will be destroyed
                  2) God created the creature from His imagination, despite knowing they will be destroyed.

                  In both your belief and mine, God is ultimately responsible for creating creatures he knows will be destroyed. You can wiggle and squirm all you want, but either your god is "all powerful" or he is not.
                  It isn't the same Bill. You are in denial. In your theology God is "ultimately" responsible. In my theology, it is just the way it is.



                  Griffin: First, if God in creating our world necessarily worked with some pre-existent actualities, these actualities might well have some power of their own with which they could partially thwart the divine will.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  Which eliminates the possibility of "omnipotent".
                  Depending on what you mean by "omnipotent" and also how God righteously decides to use His power.



                  Griffin: Second, there might be some eternal, uncreated, necessary principles (beyond purely logical truths) about the way these actualities can be ordered which limit the sorts of situations that are really possible. - Griffin

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  Then the principles themselves are more powerful than God, thus eliminating the possibility of "omnipotent".
                  "Principles" have no will. They have no personal relationship with others (ie are not interpersonal). Furthermore, that is like arguing against Christians who say that God cannot overcome logical contradictions. Are logical contradictions, or is logic in general, more powerful than the evangelical God?


                  -7up

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                    No. The argument that God created us out of nothing AND created us with free will BECAUSE God created us ex nihilo with free will is a circular argument. My argument goes far beyond that. I have elaborated on the other thread for Kind Debater, to see if someone is finally ready to address the issues.
                    merely repeating your assertions is not a logical proof.


                    Alright then. Where does every characteristic of our personality come from, if not from God, in the Ex Nihilo framework? Please explain for the audience.
                    The same way it does for the LDS folks. Free will, circumstances in our lives, environment, genetics.


                    There is your circular reasoning again.

                    -7up
                    No that is observational evidence. We do have free will. We can experience it, and we observe it and we use it. So whether we have free will or not is not up for question. We do. The question is whether if God created ex nihilo, would that mean that free will does not exist.

                    You made the assertion but you have not proven it using any sort of logical argument.

                    You merely repeat your assertions and reference your arguments elsewhere as in your videos, where you just make the same assertions without proof. It's pretty comical.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                      7UP: It is not a matter of unilateral control.



                      1 Timothy 2:4 God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

                      Do you believe in universal salvation? God wants everyone to be saved. Since that is God's will, can something thwart that desire?
                      His passive desire and His active will are somewhat different.


                      Isaiah 14:27
                      27 For the Lord of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate it?



                      It isn't the same argument, because your system is Ex Nihilo.
                      It IS the same. The method may be different, but the results are the same.

                      7up: In LDS theology, the physical existence is a parallel of the spiritual existence. We believe that our spirits chose to enter physical bodies, and therefore, the possibility exists that the eternal intelligence had some kind of will to enter a spiritual body.



                      Is God capable of preventing a rapist from raping a child? Yes. But He doesn't.
                      Then He is responsible for not stopping it, if He has the power to do so.



                      The difference between your view and mine - is that God, in your theology, is creating a rapist from God's own imagination (ie from nothing).
                      For His own purposes. For, if God is to not create the rapist, then He is filtering evil based on arbitrary criteria. If God decides not to create the rapist because rape is evil, then He would have to not create ANY of us, because we ALL think evil thoughts from time to time.

                      In my theology, there already existed a flawed intelligence from eternity.
                      Which dictates to God what it will and will not do. God then becomes its slave.

                      That flawed and imperfect intelligence progressed into humanity
                      Which was 1) facilitated by God based on the demand of the flawed intelligence (which makes Him subject to their will), 2) commanded by God based on a plan that God has (which violates their free will), or 3) arranged by God out of ignorance of what their plans were (which makes Him not omniscient)

                      , and to deny any step of that progression could have been a violation of that individual's free will.
                      So, their will is greater than His. Now I see how you came to the conclusion that you can be His equal one day.


                      7UP: If God is solely benevolent, then yes. It is a valid charge.

                      And what are you going to do about that charge, Bill?
                      Nothing. Free will explains that, as does our fallen natures.

                      7UP: I do not pretend to know the nature of God's foreknowledge in such matters. But to make things interesting, let's say that God knows for sure that Lucifer would rebel, would God be oppressive enough to deny Lucifer's intelligence entrance into spirituality?



                      Is "all powerful" supposed to mean being able to do EVERYTHING, even if it is logically contradictory? Does omnipotence imply that God will necessarily infringe on the agency of an eternal entity with free will?
                      For the things He is responsible for, absolutely. Who organized Lucifer? Did God know he would rebel? If you could see the future, that your child was going to be killed the next day by a car in the street, and you still let him go out and play in that street at that exact time, are you not responsible for letting him go out?


                      Your argument is flawed Bill , and your attempted point fails entirely on the premise on which we disagree, which is Ex Nihilo.
                      No it isn't. As my analogy above shows, if you have the knowledge and the power to stop a tragedy, and you don't, then you are responsible. Or are you going to claim that God is like Peter Parker in Spiderman 1 where he said "I missed the part where that's my problem"



                      In your theology, God was the only entity in existence. Then God created Lucifer purely from God's own mind. To make it worse, God created Lucifer from God's own mind knowing exactly what the eternal destination of that miserable being would be. That being didn't even supposedly have free will (which is impossible anyways in this framework) until AFTER God decided to create that being to begin with.
                      And in yours, God was the only spiritual being in existence (with the possible exception of Heavenly mom, but she was probably doing the dishes while God was busy at the office). Then, either God was ordered by Lucifer to organize him into a spirit or God picked the worst intelligence he could find and organized him into a spirit, even though God knew exactly what the eternal destination of that miserable being would be. That being didn't even have a chance to stay good because he was so flawed, which God knew, so God either set Lucifer up to fail or was completely impotent to stop his demands.

                      In LDS theology, Lucifer ALREADY existed, as an eternal intelligence. Perhaps God COULD have denied Lucifer's will to enter a spiritual body, but we can say that to do so would be a rejection of that particular intelligence's choice of progression from the get go, which is an oppression against free will.
                      So, you are admitting that the intelligence's choice to progress trumps God's sovereignty on who gets to be organized and who doesn't. That the intelligence gets to demand God's obeissance?

                      As you can see, the burden falls on your theology and on your God, because that entity did not exist AT ALL, before God decided how, if, and when to create it.
                      That's not a burden. That's the basics of it. But again, His active will is that all come to Him, but His permissive will allows for those created to not choose Him.


                      It is astounding to see how unwilling you are to come to terms with the differences in these view points.
                      Oh, I see the differences in method of creation. What is the same is culpability for things over which one has control, knowledge, and ability.


                      7UP: Surely you can see the difference between
                      1) God allowing an eternal free agent, who has certain characteristics, to make choices
                      2) God creating the creature, and every single characteristic that the creature possesses, from God's own imagination




                      It isn't the same Bill. You are in denial. In your theology God is "ultimately" responsible. In my theology, it is just the way it is.
                      See, you keep saying that my theology posits "every single characteristic that the creature possesses" when that is not the case. All creation is initially created innocent and good, just as we are. God creates us via ex nihilo as innocent beings (hence why babies do not go to hell by default). It is through the free will sinful decisions we make (with His awareness of them before creating us) that we fall from that innocence. Despite knowing the results of these decisions, He chooses to make us exactly the way we are anyway. He does not make the decisions for us, nor does He simultaneously create our personalities at the time we make them. As Sparko said, they are a result of our environment and upbringing. Our creation is a one time event for each of us. It is not ongoing. God does not modify our personality for us before each decision we make. He created us to freely choose and when we fail, His knowledge of that failure does not make Him responsible for them any more than it does in your theology. It's just the way it is.


                      Griffin: First, if God in creating our world necessarily worked with some pre-existent actualities, these actualities might well have some power of their own with which they could partially thwart the divine will.



                      Depending on what you mean by "omnipotent" and also how God righteously decides to use His power.
                      But it isn't God deciding to use His power if the "pre-existent actualities" are the ones ultimately in charge of deciding whether they want to be organized. They demand to progress, and God has no choice but to obey. He can not command them to be organized, nor can he deny them. He is a slave to their demands.


                      Griffin: Second, there might be some eternal, uncreated, necessary principles (beyond purely logical truths) about the way these actualities can be ordered which limit the sorts of situations that are really possible. - Griffin



                      "Principles" have no will. They have no personal relationship with others (ie are not interpersonal). Furthermore, that is like arguing against Christians who say that God cannot overcome logical contradictions. Are logical contradictions, or is logic in general, more powerful than the evangelical God?
                      Logical contradictions are non-existent, so something that is non-existent is logically not more powerful than the one who controls existence itself. And logic is a result of God and His laws, which are subsets of His nature. That which He decrees is not more powerful than Him. Principles exist because God exists. So, again, Griffith isn't here to defend his ideas, so please stop trying to expound on someone else's argument when you do not know them at all.
                      Last edited by Bill the Cat; 05-20-2014, 09:20 AM.
                      That's what
                      - She

                      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                      Stephen R. Donaldson

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        7up: No. The argument that God created us out of nothing AND created us with free will BECAUSE God created us ex nihilo with free will is a circular argument. My argument goes far beyond that. I have elaborated on the other thread for Kind Debater, to see if someone is finally ready to address the issues.


                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        merely repeating your assertions is not a logical proof.
                        My assertions have the logic included.

                        7UP: Alright then. Where does every characteristic of our personality come from, if not from God, in the Ex Nihilo framework? Please explain for the audience.

                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        The same way it does for the LDS folks. Free will, circumstances in our lives, environment, genetics.
                        So ... You deny that God created us ex nihilo? Or do you believe that when God created us from nothing (or from his own mind) that God had no control whatsoever concerning what kinds of creatures He was creating?

                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        No that is observational evidence. We do have free will. We can experience it, and we observe it and we use it. So whether we have free will or not is not up for question. We do. The question is whether if God created ex nihilo, would that mean that free will does not exist.
                        Perhaps free will is an illusion within the ex nihilo framework. It appears and seems like we have it.

                        However, for the sake of argument, I agree with you. We have free will.

                        I agree that where we disagree is on the ex nihilo issue. I argue that the very fact that we have free will is just another evidence that we were not created ex nihilo.

                        Further discussion found with India (Kind Debater) here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-will-and-evil

                        -7up

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Comparing Ex Nihilo to the LDS view

                          From the other thread, and rather than bouncing between both threads:
                          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                          7UP: It is not a matter of unilateral control. 1 Timothy 2:4 God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." Do you believe in universal salvation? God wants everyone to be saved. Since that is God's will, can something thwart that desire?


                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          His passive desire and His active will are somewhat different.

                          Isaiah 14:27
                          27 For the Lord of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate it?
                          Please expand your argument here on passive and active.

                          From my point of view, God has plans that cannot be frustrated, but those plans are based on God knowing that there are non-divine entities that God has to work with in reality, which may have less than desirable results.

                          In the Ex Nihilo scenario, God truly is starting from scratch, and God could create any kind of creature or reality that is logically possible.

                          7UP: It isn't the same argument, because your system is Ex Nihilo.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          It IS the same. The method may be different, but the results are the same.
                          (Bill puts on the blinders, plugs his ears, and says LA , LA , LA , LA , LA , LA , LA , LA !)

                          7up: In LDS theology, the physical existence is a parallel of the spiritual existence. We believe that our spirits chose to enter physical bodies, and therefore, the possibility exists that the eternal intelligence had some kind of will to enter a spiritual body.

                          Is God capable of preventing a rapist from raping a child? Yes. But He doesn't.



                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Then He is responsible for not stopping it, if He has the power to do so.
                          True. Both of us believe that God has the power to stop it. However, in your theology, God foreknew the rape before God even decided to create the rapist from God's own mind; the rape was nothing but a concept in God's mind before God decided to make it into reality.

                          In my theology, the rapist already existed and God simply allows free will to continue.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          For His own purposes. For, if God is to not create the rapist, then He is filtering evil based on arbitrary criteria. If God decides not to create the rapist because rape is evil, then He would have to not create ANY of us, because we ALL think evil thoughts from time to time.
                          God would be abstaining from creating evil from God's own mind (whether you find it arbitrary or not is besides the point). Again, you are blind if you don't see the difference between my view and yours.

                          7up: In my theology, there already existed a flawed intelligence from eternity.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Which dictates to God what it will and will not do. God then becomes its slave.
                          No more than your God is a "slave" to logic (or logical contradictions).

                          7UP: That flawed and imperfect intelligence progressed into humanity

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Which was 1) facilitated by God based on the demand of the flawed intelligence (which makes Him subject to their will),,,
                          No more than God is "subject to your will", Bill.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          2) commanded by God based on a plan that God has (which violates their free will),,,
                          Please explain why you think it is a violation of their free will.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          or 3) arranged by God out of ignorance of what their plans were (which makes Him not omniscient)
                          I repeat, I don't pretend to know the nature of God's foreknowledge. I can say that God knows all that is possible to know.


                          7UP: , and to deny any step of that progression could have been a violation of that individual's free will.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          So, their will is greater than His. ....
                          Not at all. God COULD stop the progression (just like he could stop the rapist). However, God allows free will. That is not the same as saying that our will is greater than God's. If you attempt that argument, you are arguing against yourself.

                          7UP: If God is solely benevolent, then yes. It is a valid charge. And what are you going to do about that charge, Bill?

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Nothing. Free will explains that, as does our fallen natures.
                          Ex nihilo does not allow for free will, not true free will. Why did Adam and Eve fall? Why was Eve so easily deceived? Why were they so ignorant and irrational? Who created them that way?

                          In your theology, God created every single aspect of their being to be exactly as they were, and God was limited only by logical contradictions in God's own mind.

                          In my theology, God is limited by the logical contradictions inherent with dealing with eternal entities which already had some kind of characteristics, and thus has a superior explanation for why the world is the way it is. There is no way you can try to wiggle your way out of this.

                          Joseph Smith revealed the truth, and the truth cuts its own way.

                          7UP: I do not pretend to know the nature of God's foreknowledge in such matters. But to make things interesting, let's say that God knows for sure that Lucifer would rebel, would God be oppressive enough to deny Lucifer's intelligence entrance into spirituality?

                          Is "all powerful" supposed to mean being able to do EVERYTHING, even if it is logically contradictory? Does omnipotence imply that God will necessarily infringe on the agency of an eternal entity with free will?


                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          For the things He is responsible for, absolutely. Who organized Lucifer? Did God know he would rebel? If you could see the future, that your child was going to be killed the next day by a car in the street, and you still let him go out and play in that street at that exact time, are you not responsible for letting him go out?
                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          For the things He is responsible for, absolutely. Who organized Lucifer? Did God know he would rebel?
                          Lucifer was organized by some kind of spiritual procreation, the details of which have not been revealed to us, and perhaps we couldn't understand it at this time anyways. However, think of the physical procreation of a child. Can you choose if the child has red hair or brown? Can you choose the child's personality traits? What if the generation of all of the spirits has to occur all at once and some that are procreated are good and others are bad? The point is that there are non-divine realities that God must deal with in LDS theology. That is not the case in Ex Nihilo theology, because God was the only thing in existence before God decided to create.


                          7up: Your argument is flawed Bill , and your attempted point fails entirely on the premise on which we disagree, which is Ex Nihilo.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          No it isn't. As my analogy above shows, if you have the knowledge and the power to stop a tragedy, and you don't, then you are responsible.
                          (Bill arguing against himself.)

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          His knowledge of that failure does not make Him responsible for them any more than it does in your theology.
                          You wish that were the case, but you fail to admit that there is a fundamental difference between the implications from your theology and the LDS view.

                          Griffin: First, if God in creating our world necessarily worked with some pre-existent actualities, these actualities might well have some power of their own with which they could partially thwart the divine will.

                          7UP: Depending on what you mean by "omnipotent" and also how God righteously decides to use His power.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          But it isn't God deciding to use His power if the "pre-existent actualities" are the ones ultimately in charge of deciding whether they want to be organized.
                          In that case, it would be God refraining from using God's power in order to prevent it (assuming that is how it works). Again, you can think of it as refraining from using God's power to prevent a rapist from attacking the victim. God is still in charge, is He not?

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          They demand to progress, and God has no choice but to obey. He can not command them to be organized, nor can he deny them. He is a slave to their demands.
                          Again, I will point out your contradictory arguments. Here is what you are attempting:

                          The rapist demands to rape, and God has no choice but to allow it. He can command the rapist not to rape, but the rapist can deny the command. Thus: God is a slave to the rapist.


                          Griffin: Second, there might be some eternal, uncreated, necessary principles (beyond purely logical truths) about the way these actualities can be ordered which limit the sorts of situations that are really possible. - Griffin


                          7UP: "Principles" have no will. They have no personal relationship with others (ie are not interpersonal). Furthermore, that is like arguing against Christians who say that God cannot overcome logical contradictions. Are logical contradictions, or is logic in general, more powerful than the evangelical God?

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Logical contradictions are non-existent, so something that is non-existent is logically not more powerful than the one who controls existence itself. And logic is a result of God and His laws, which are subsets of His nature.
                          Therefore, God could logically and lawfully create a rational and moral being of free will out of nothing. If God's nature limits God to creating imperfect creatures from God's own imagination, then that is an indictment against God's nature or abilities.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Griffith isn't here to defend his ideas, so please stop trying to expound on someone else's argument when you do not know them at all
                          Stop trying to avoid the issues Bill. Trying to hide behind the silly comments of "he isn't here" doesn't help you. I'm here, and Griffith is merely bringing up the same kinds of points and concept that I have explained.

                          7up: In your theology, God was the only entity in existence. Then God created Lucifer purely from God's own mind. To make it worse, God created Lucifer from God's own mind knowing exactly what the eternal destination of that miserable being would be. That being didn't even supposedly have free will (which is impossible anyways in this framework) until AFTER God decided to create that being to begin with.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          And in yours, God was the only spiritual being in existence (with the possible exception of Heavenly mom, but she was probably doing the dishes while God was busy at the office). ...
                          Wrong. AND you added mockery in order to make an even bigger fool of yourself. Nice.

                          7up: In LDS theology, Lucifer ALREADY existed, as an eternal intelligence. Perhaps God COULD have denied Lucifer's will to enter a spiritual body, but we can say that to do so would be a rejection of that particular intelligence's choice of progression from the get go, which is an oppression against free will.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          So, you are admitting that the intelligence's choice to progress trumps God's sovereignty on who gets to be organized and who doesn't. That the intelligence gets to demand God's obeissance?
                          I am only raising the possibility that free will can be part of the process. Free will choices does not necessarily "trump God's sovereingty". You know that. It is becoming abundantly clear that you like to speak out of both sides of your mouth. Sorry Bill. I won't let you get away with it. I will point it out every time you attempt it.

                          7UP: As you can see, the burden falls on your theology and on your God, because that entity did not exist AT ALL, before God decided how, if, and when to create it.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          That's not a burden. That's the basics of it. But again, His active will is that all come to Him, but His permissive will allows for those created to not choose Him.
                          Then why actively create from nothing those that God knows won't choose Him, or with characteristics which God knows will lead those individuals not to choose Him. As we have discussed, merely being irrational will lead to sinful choices. Is God not capable of creating rational beings?

                          In my theology, irrationality may be an eternally inherent characteristic.

                          7up: It is astounding to see how unwilling you are to come to terms with the differences in these view points.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Oh, I see the differences in method of creation. What is the same is culpability for things over which one has control, knowledge, and ability.
                          There isn't the same control. There are eternal non divine realities in LDS theology that are outside of God's control.

                          Your mind is not flexible enough to comprehend this concept, OR you are being purposefully obtuse.

                          7UP: Surely you can see the difference between
                          1) God allowing an eternal free agent, who has certain characteristics, to make choices
                          2) God creating the creature, and every single characteristic that the creature possesses, from God's own imagination



                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          See, you keep saying that my theology posits "every single characteristic that the creature possesses" when that is not the case.
                          It IS the case. The creature did not exist in any way shape or form, thus did not have ANY characteristics, until God created that creature from 'nothing', and all of the creatures characteristics with it.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          All creation is initially created innocent and good, just as we are.
                          "Goodness" and "innocence" alone do not account for such a poor choice as represented by Adam and Eve. Amorality, disobedience, ignorance, lack of wisdom/knowledge and irrationality explain it. Where did these characteristics come from?

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          He does not make the decisions for us, nor does He simultaneously create our personalities at the time we make them. As Sparko said, they are a result of our environment and upbringing.
                          Where did the environment come from? If God created a "better" Garden, would that have made the difference?

                          As you can see, your defense still fails, because in your theology, God controls the environment as well. You cannot turn to environment and upbringing as a way out. (Furthermore, as an additional point, every parent knows that children are born with personalities/characteristics.)


                          -7up

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                            7UP wrote:

                            A) Let's say that God is going to create, Ex Nihilo, 3 individual 6 sided cubes. They roll as follows:
                            1) 4, 4, 2, 5, 2
                            2) 1, 2, 4, 3, 5
                            3) 3, 1, 1, 3, 6

                            Let's say, for example, that even numbers are moral (good) decisions, and odd numbers are amoral (bad) decisions.

                            Now, one aspect of problem of ex nihilo includes the idea that, if God is going to decide to create one of these (knowing what will happen beforehand), which one would he create? Especially considering that amoral decisions will lead to eternal damnation.

                            The logic of my argument still holds even with your attempt to deny it. Look again at three possible cubes that God could decide to create above.

                            Instead of odd being amoral and even being moral, let's say that all of the numbers are amoral, except the number 6, which is the single choice necessary for redemption.

                            Happy Bill?

                            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                            It assumes that God is the one rolling the dice, also known as hard determinism. Accusing a Molinist of believing in hard determinism is called a straw man.
                            I already explained exactly how my first argument does NOT depend on who is rolling the dice. It does NOT depend on if it is random. It does NOT depend if it is not random.

                            It depends on God knowing what combinations will be rolled, and God having the ability to choose what God creates. That's it.

                            If you cannot comprehend the conversation, or do not want to pay attention then please bow out.

                            -7up

                            Comment


                            • #44


                              Since the other thread is between you and India, I will not clutter that one up with responses to your posts there. I will move them back here where they belong.
                              Last edited by Bill the Cat; 05-29-2014, 09:01 AM.
                              That's what
                              - She

                              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                              Stephen R. Donaldson

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post


                                Since the other thread is between you and India, I will not clutter that one up with responses to your posts there. I will move them back here where they belong.
                                I agree.

                                -7up

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X