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

  • #46
    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?

    Please expand your argument here on passive and active.
    There are those things God actively wills, that MUST come to pass, independent of human free will (such as bringing about the end of days), and others that He passively desires, but does not force (such as His desire for all to be saved).

    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.
    If the plan cannot be frustrated, then WHO is available to work with is irrelevant. God plans it. It happens. End of story. That is God’s active will.

    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.
    But only ONE will fit with that reality. Only ONE that is based on God’s foreknowledge of the free will decisions that agent will make. The possibilities are limited by environment and birth, such as Noah could not have chosen to ride on an airplane.

    In your dice scenario, the life choices (simplified for brevity’s sake) for me would be:

    1,4,3,6,5,4.

    Now, in the third choice for example, there were 6 possible futures God could have created for me based on that choice. But, He knew before I was created that I would choose the 3, therefore the possible worlds of 1,2,4,5, and 6 were not actualized. He did not MAKE me to choose 3, He simply didn’t actualize the other 5 worlds based on His foreknowledge of me choosing 3. Same with every other die roll. Could He have made me to choose 4? Absolutely, had He foreknown that I would choose 4 instead. That is called Middle Knowledge.

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

    (Bill puts on the blinders, plugs his ears, and says LA , LA , LA , LA , LA , LA , LA , LA !)
    It is the same, despite your feeble attempt at hand-waving the obvious. It is irresponsible to not stop something drastically detrimental to another being if you are capable of stopping it, whether you knew about it in advance (as in my view) or if you merely saw it in time to prevent it (as in yours.) unless there is a higher motive involved.

    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.
    My point exactly. God’s knowledge of an event does not cause it, nor is He morally responsible for it.


    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.
    It was a possible world. For God to actively create a world where the entity could not choose what He willed violates the entity’s free will. Again, you are seeing ex nihilo on a linear scale where God is writing the script and men are playing the role as a puppet, which ignores God’s foreknowledge of the agent’s choices.

    Let’s take your dice example again, for grins and giggles. The rape would be a 1 on that die. God COULD have created a world where the rapist would simply pass by the victim (roll a 2), walk to the other side of the street (roll a 3), turn around and run (roll a 4), meet the person without raping them (roll a 5), or simply murder them on sight (roll a 6), but God’s foreknowledge was that the person would rape the victim, so He created world 1, and simply did not create world 2-6, even though they theoretically also existed in God’s mind. And by doing so, the person exercised their free will without God violating it by creating a world that He thought would be better for that person.

    In my theology, the rapist already existed and God simply allows free will to continue.
    So, your god is a rubber stamper, basically. Completely inept at denying even the simplest demand. He is at the beck and call of every intelligence, and he must comply at their leisure. I’m not impressed.


    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.
    In doing so, He would be violating the free will choice to do evil by the potential entity that exists in His mind.


    No more than your God is a "slave" to logic (or logical contradictions).
    Logic exists because of who God is. It is a consequence of His nature. It is subject to Him. In your view, an intelligence wishes to progress, and therefore Elohim has to comply. He is subject to them.

    No more than God is "subject to your will", Bill.
    Completely untrue. If God desired that I not exist, I would not have existed. He did not NEED my ok to create me. He was not subject to my demand to create me.

    Please explain why you think it is a violation of their free will.
    If they did not want to come, and He made them based on the need to fill a spirit body with an intelligence, then he violated their will.


    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.
    Was it possible for God to know that satan planned to rebel, or did that act take Him by surprise?


    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.
    So, now that we have established that, we now see that God’s will is not thwarted by the existence of an entity’s free will - nor the exercise of it. Even though He knows full well the repercussions of allowing that choice will be less than the optimum situation. He still creates the world despite knowing there will be those who fall. Your objection to my view comes apart yet again.

    Ex nihilo does not allow for free will, not true free will.
    Yes it does.

    Why did Adam and Eve fall?
    Because they chose to fall, and God created them and reality that way based on His foreknowledge of them choosing to fall.

    Why was Eve so easily deceived?
    Because she was innocent and did not know right from wrong.

    Why were they so ignorant and irrational?
    Because ignorance is simply lack of knowledge, which is gained by experience for us humans. No experiences, no knowledge. And they were irrational because rationality comes from wisdom, which is merely applied knowledge.

    Who created them that way?
    God, based on His foreknowledge of what they were going to freely choose.

    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.
    Correct. But as a result of His foreknowing what they would choose. For God to create them differently than what they would choose would be a violation of logic.

    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.
    You are just shifting their existence out of God’s imagination and into an external entity prior to creation. That’s what you don’t get. All of your bluster really boils down to that simple difference – WHERE we existed prior to our creation.

    Joseph Smith revealed the truth, and the truth cuts its own way.
    Joseph Smith was a liar and a thief. He made this “intelligences” crap up wholesale, and changed it as he saw fit.

    Source: Joseph Smith



    There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven. . . . Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it." (HC 6:311.)

    © Copyright Original Source



    Is "all powerful" supposed to mean being able to do EVERYTHING, even if it is logically contradictory?
    Stopping an injustice before it happens is not a logical contradiction.

    Does omnipotence imply that God will necessarily infringe on the agency of an eternal entity with free will?[/I]
    When that entity relies on God for its progression, yes.


    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.
    Yes it has.

    "[God] created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be."
    — Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:122.



    However, think of the physical procreation of a child. Can you choose if the child has red hair or brown?
    Geneticists think it is possible.

    Can you choose the child's personality traits?
    Is God incapable of changing a man?

    Ezekiel 36:26-27
    26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.


    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?
    Joseph F. Smith didn’t think of them that way:

    Some of our writers have endeavored to explain what an intelligence is, but to do so is futile, for we have never been given any insight into this matter beyond what the Lord has fragmentarily revealed. We know, however, that there is something called intelligence which always existed. It is the real eternal part of man, which was not created or made. This intelligence combined with the spirit constitutes a spiritual identity or individual

    He claims that the LDS church doesn’t even know WHAT an intelligence is, much less has it defined that it is an individual capable of good or bad prior to being joined with spirit material.

    The point is that there are non-divine realities that God must deal with in LDS theology.
    As there are in Ex Nihilo, since all of His creation is “non-divine realities”.

    That is not the case in Ex Nihilo theology, because God was the only thing in existence before God decided to create.
    Wrong. They existed eternally in His mind through His foreknowledge of creation.


    (Bill arguing against himself.)
    Not even close. Knowing and causing are two different things.
    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.
    The only real difference is the location of the being prior to creation. And calling that “fundamental” is actually pretty accurate from the standpoint of whether we are independent eternal beings or not, which Joseph F. Smith says is not doctrinally even claimed by the LDS.


    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?
    Griffin postulates that there MIGHT exist eternal principles. But in reality, there are not. So, there is simply no contradiction there.

    Therefore, God could logically and lawfully create a rational and moral being of free will out of nothing.
    Correct. But that being has to choose to be rational and moral for God to actuate that choice’s reality.

    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.
    No it isn’t.


    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.
    It’s part and parcel for your incompetence. You quote (and rarely give attributions) those who you think have answered or asked the right questions with little understanding of how to respond.

    Wrong. AND you added mockery in order to make an even bigger fool of yourself. Nice.
    Joseph Smith was the fool for even suggesting a “heavenly mother”. One cannot truly mock what does not exist, only the idea that it exists. And mock that, I will.

    I am only raising the possibility that free will can be part of the process. Free will choices does not necessarily "trump God's sovereignty". 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.
    Well, since this is an entirely futile attempt to dissect the messy nonsense that is Mormon pre-existence doctrine, it is bound to cause some problems. The point of it all is that man is not co-eternal. Even J.F. Smith says that your belief is merely speculation, and that “intelligences” were not pre-existing individual humans waiting to be organized as spirits.

    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.



    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.
    Because denying their creation is denying their future free will.

    As we have discussed, merely being irrational will lead to sinful choices. Is God not capable of creating rational beings?
    Again, this assumes what God is capable of is what He will always do. You have argued against that fact ad nauseum. And the exact arguments you used to show that from your POV work for mine.

    In my theology, irrationality may be an eternally inherent characteristic.
    And in mine, it is a foreknown characteristic that is freely exercised by the entity.

    There isn't the same control. There are eternal non divine realities in LDS theology that are outside of God's control.
    No. They are not. They are within his control, he just chooses to not intervene. You admitted that above.

    Your mind is not flexible enough to comprehend this concept, OR you are being purposefully obtuse.
    No. You have an “unknown” doctrine that you are trying to defend with your theories, none of which are proclaimed by the LDS church according to J. F. Smith. And you are having difficulty admitting that maybe, just maybe, you don’t understand how the orthodox Christians see free will and ex nihilo creation.

    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
    Sure, but that’s not all I believe on the subject that has direct relevance to nearly every word meaning you listed. Nor is that all you have claimed that you believe.
    Last edited by Bill the Cat; 05-29-2014, 11:56 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


    • #47
      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      There are those things God actively wills, that MUST come to pass, independent of human free will (such as bringing about the end of days), and others that He passively desires, but does not force (such as His desire for all to be saved).
      So, you are saying that God will create persons out of nothing, all of whom God desires to be saved, but God knows before he creates them that there will be among those who God desires to be saved, who will not be saved.

      You try to mediate this problem by claiming that the latter desire is "passive", but you can't get past the fact that in your theology, the very existence of the individual in the first place is "active".

      7UP: 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.

      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      If the plan cannot be frustrated, then WHO is available to work with is irrelevant. God plans it. It happens. End of story. That is God’s active will.
      I can plan to make a bridge out of steel, IF I have steel to work with. If all I have to work with is straw, then I would not plan to make a bridge out of it, but instead would have a limited range in my plans.

      Likewise, if God is working with realities that already exist, God has to work within the limits of the intelligences of free will that are ready.

      On the other hand, IF God is creating any kind of possible being from nothing, then God himself is responsible for the kinds of beings He has to work with. (He can just create the steel or anything else out of nothing, and can make any kind of reality He wants.)

      7UP: 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.

      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      But only ONE will fit with that reality.
      Fit with what reality? The reality that God himself is creating from nothing.

      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      Only ONE that is based on God’s foreknowledge of the free will decisions that agent will make. The possibilities are limited by environment and birth, ...
      In your theology, God created the environment from God's own mind as well. This is what I mean by Complete Unilateral Control.

      - - - - - - - - - - -
      7UP wrote:

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

      .... let's say that all of the numbers are amoral, except the number 6, which is the single choice necessary for redemption.

      Now, one aspect of the 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.


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

      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      In your dice scenario, the life choices (simplified for brevity’s sake) for me would be:

      1,4,3,6,5,4.

      Now, in the third choice for example, there were 6 possible futures God could have created for me based on that choice. But, He knew before I was created that I would choose the 3, therefore the possible worlds of 1,2,4,5, and 6 were not actualized. He did not MAKE me to choose 3, He simply didn’t actualize the other 5 worlds based on His foreknowledge of me choosing 3. Same with every other die roll. Could He have made me to choose 4? Absolutely, had He foreknown that I would choose 4 instead. That is called Middle Knowledge.
      Right. He COULD have created a cube that God foreknew would roll ANY POSSIBLE combination that God wants, by simply refraining from creating the cubes that God does not want.

      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, despite your feeble attempt at hand-waving the obvious. It is irresponsible to not stop something drastically detrimental to another being if you are capable of stopping it, ....
      You mean like creating every aspect of a person from nothing while knowing before hand that the individual will go to hell for eternity?

      7up: Is God capable of preventing a rapist from raping a child? Yes. But He doesn't.

      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      My point exactly. God’s knowledge of an event does not cause it, nor is He morally responsible for it.
      7UP: 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.

      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      It was a possible world.
      Yes, a possible world and a possible individual. A God creating purely from God's own mind has control over any kind of world or individual that would exist, because there were no previously existing realities which would limit the possibilities.

      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      For God to actively create a world where the entity could not choose what He willed violates the entity’s free will. Again, you are seeing ex nihilo on a linear scale where God is writing the script and men are playing the role as a puppet, which ignores God’s foreknowledge of the agent’s choices.
      I am not arguing what you claim at all. The first aspect of my argument against ex nihilo, and how it does not explain reality, deals with the concept that God has the free will to decide which persons exist, and which do not exist. That in and of itself determines outcomes.

      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      Let’s take your dice example again, for grins and giggles. The rape would be a 1 on that die. God COULD have created a world where the rapist would simply pass by the victim (roll a 2), walk to the other side of the street (roll a 3), turn around and run (roll a 4), meet the person without raping them (roll a 5), or simply murder them on sight (roll a 6), but God’s foreknowledge was that the person would rape the victim, so He created world 1, and simply did not create world 2-6, even though they theoretically also existed in God’s mind.
      And by creating that world, and by creating that person, God determined which of all the possible outcomes would occur. Thus God determined every aspect of that person and that world.

      7UP: In my theology, the rapist already existed and God simply allows free will to continue.

      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      So, your god is a rubber stamper, basically. Completely inept at denying even the simplest demand. He is at the beck and call of every intelligence, and he must comply at their leisure.
      God doesn't have to do what the individuals want God to do. Furthermore, God must balance, in his discretion, what He will allow beings of free will to do , but without over stepping bounds which would be oppressive.

      -7up

      Comment


      • #48
        7UP: 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.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        In doing so, He would be violating the free will choice to do evil by the potential entity that exists in His mind.
        Really? Now you are going to argue that God violates a free will choice of a being that doesn't even exist? A being that God has not even decided to create yet?


        7UP: No more than your God is a "slave" to logic (or logical contradictions).

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        Logic exists because of who God is. It is a consequence of His nature. It is subject to Him.
        All the more reason to believe, that in your view, God could have created any kind of being at all, including a perfectly moral person who has free will.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        In your view, an intelligence wishes to progress, and therefore Elohim has to comply. He is subject to them.
        7UP: No more than God is "subject to your will", Bill.

        And it isn't a matter that God "must" comply, but instead God chooses to comply, because God decides not to oppressive to the free will of that individual who would like to progress.

        7UP: No more than God is "subject to your will", Bill.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        Completely untrue. If God desired that I not exist, I would not have existed. He did not NEED my ok to create me. He was not subject to my demand to create me.
        And therefore God decides which beings exist, and which do not. By that simple fact, God determines which choices will be made, because the choices of any particular individual would NOT have been made, if God had not decided to create that individual.

        (Here Bill attempt to argue that, in the LDS view, God has no choice but to create spiritual sons and daughters who were intelligences who desire to progress, yet at the same Bill contradicts himself by trying to argue that God violated their free will by creating them.)

        7UP: Please explain why you think it is a violation of their free will.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        If they did not want to come, and He made them based on the need to fill a spirit body with an intelligence, then he violated their will.
        Who said that God would force intelligences into spirit bodies if they did not want to? (Remember, there is a parallel with the LDS view that each spirit chooses to enter a physical body in mortality.)

        7UP: 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.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        Was it possible for God to know that satan planned to rebel, or did that act take Him by surprise?
        There are many theories in the LDS faith concerning this. I will give you three of the possibilities:

        1) God knew exactly which intelligence would rebel before creating that individual (Lucifer), but God allowed for the spiritual creation of that individual because to deny the progression of that person would be a violation of Lucifer's free will.

        This is the theoretical position that I have been giving to you on this thread.

        2) There is a reality that simply exists, and God must deal with it. One of the realities/rules that exist concerning the creation of a "generation" of spiritual offspring includes the idea that this generation MUST include many individuals all at once, and this includes a range of individuals with characteristics both good and bad. God cannot pick and choose which ones progress and which ones do not. God may be able to deny the entire generation from progressing, but that would not be fair to the "good" ones.

        I mentioned this theoretical possibility in the video series.

        3) God knows everything that is possible to know, however, perhaps it is impossible to see the characteristics of an intelligence until it enters a spiritual body, and therefore it is impossible to predict what that individual would do in any given situation until after becoming a spirit.

        This goes back to the idea of not knowing exactly the nature of God's foreknowledge.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        He still creates the world despite knowing there will be those who fall.
        See three possibilities above.
        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
        (this next part of the discussion goes back to possibility 1 above)

        7UP: 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.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        So, now that we have established that, we now see that God’s will is not thwarted by the existence of an entity’s free will - nor the exercise of it. Even though He knows full well the repercussions of allowing that choice will be less than the optimum situation.
        But in your theology, God could have refrained from creating that entity from nothing to begin with.

        7UP: Is "all powerful" supposed to mean being able to do EVERYTHING, even if it is logically contradictory?

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        Stopping an injustice before it happens is not a logical contradiction.
        Nor is refraining from creating a being from nothing who God knows before hand will participate in horrible atrocities.

        7up: 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
        When that entity relies on God for its progression, yes.
        Then why will God resurrect humans who are damned, or why even keep them in existence at all, in your theology? Your version of God could just wipe them out of existence in the same way that God brought them into existence.

        7UP: Why did Adam and Eve fall?

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        Because they chose to fall, and God created them and reality that way based on His foreknowledge of them choosing to fall.
        Let's say that God decided not to create Adam and Eve, but instead two different individuals, Bob and Sara. Would they have fallen as well? If so, why? If not, why did God create Adam and Eve instead of Bob and Sara?

        7UP: Why was Eve so easily deceived?

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        Because she was innocent and did not know right from wrong.
        And who's fault is that?

        Could God, who is able to create any kind of being from nothing, able create a being that is innocent and also knows right and wrong? Does knowing right from wrong automatically make a person unable to be innocent?

        7UP: Why were they so ignorant and irrational?

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        Because ignorance is simply lack of knowledge, which is gained by experience for us humans. No experiences, no knowledge.
        So, do I need to fornicate or commit adultery by personal experience before I can gain the knowledge that those things are wrong?

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        And they were irrational because rationality comes from wisdom, which is merely applied knowledge.
        Are you saying that God could not impart wisdom upon Adam and Eve in an effective way?

        7UP: Who created them that way?

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        God, based on His foreknowledge of what they were going to freely choose.
        That does not help you with the Ex Nihilo problem.

        7up: 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.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        Correct. But as a result of His foreknowing what they would choose. For God to create them differently than what they would choose would be a violation of logic.
        So, God was forced to create the kind of individuals that God created because those are the individuals that God imagined to begin with.

        7UP: 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.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        You are just shifting their existence out of God’s imagination and into an external entity prior to creation. That’s what you don’t get. All of your bluster really boils down to that simple difference – WHERE we existed prior to our creation.
        And thus we get to my video presentation concerning the "Solitary Problem". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qduIGkSy1Ro

        Where did we exist prior to creation according to Ex Nihilo theology? In God's own mind. Reality is nothing more than an outward expression of God's own imagination. This is PanENtheism. Details are given in that video.

        7UP: Joseph Smith revealed the truth, and the truth cuts its own way.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        He made this “intelligences” crap up wholesale, ...
        Then he must have been a religious genius, because the theology revealed in the LDS faith resolves most of these problems that accompany your Ex Nihilo dogma.


        -7up
        Last edited by seven7up; 06-04-2014, 10:10 PM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by seven7up View Post
          So, you are saying that God will create persons out of nothing, all of whom God desires to be saved, but God knows before he creates them that there will be among those who God desires to be saved, who will not be saved.
          Yes.

          You try to mediate this problem by claiming that the latter desire is "passive", but you can't get past the fact that in your theology, the very existence of the individual in the first place is "active".
          So? That "active" act of creation is based on the actualization of the world that corresponds to the free will decisions of that entity.

          7UP: 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.


          I can plan to make a bridge out of steel, IF I have steel to work with. If all I have to work with is straw, then I would not plan to make a bridge out of it, but instead would have a limited range in my plans.
          And if I had the power to change straw into steel, I would use steel.

          Likewise, if God is working with realities that already exist, God has to work within the limits of the intelligences of free will that are ready.
          And would you claim that God would not stop their desire to progress under any circumstances?

          On the other hand, IF God is creating any kind of possible being from nothing, then God himself is responsible for the kinds of beings He has to work with. (He can just create the steel or anything else out of nothing, and can make any kind of reality He wants.)
          But, that gets back to the root of the argument. What makes you think that this isn't the reality He wanted? Who are you to claim that this reality that He created is flawed? Why is your moral standard greater than His?

          7UP: 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.


          Fit with what reality? The reality that God himself is creating from nothing.
          Based on Him actuating it as a result of the foreknowledge of the choices the free will agent makes.


          In your theology, God created the environment from God's own mind as well. This is what I mean by Complete Unilateral Control.
          Well, yes. God created every single thing. We do not self-exist, nor does anything else.

          - - - - - - - - - - -
          7UP wrote:

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

          .... let's say that all of the numbers are amoral, except the number 6, which is the single choice necessary for redemption.

          Now, one aspect of the 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.


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



          Right. He COULD have created a cube that God foreknew would roll ANY POSSIBLE combination that God wants, by simply refraining from creating the cubes that God does not want.
          But He doesn't because refraining from creating them would be a violation of His middle knowledge and the agent's free will. If He foreknows something will happen, He makes it happen. He does not refrain from creating it. He refrains from creating the realities where other possibilities were not chosen. What you refuse to understand is that what He COULD DO and what He DOES are different things. And using human fallibility to judge Him as lacking for that is simply infantile.


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



          You mean like creating every aspect of a person from nothing while knowing before hand that the individual will go to hell for eternity?
          Exactly. And this is where a greater good comes into play. As I said, it is the same argument for both systems.

          7up: Is God capable of preventing a rapist from raping a child? Yes. But He doesn't.



          7UP: 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.



          Yes, a possible world and a possible individual. A God creating purely from God's own mind has control over any kind of world or individual that would exist, because there were no previously existing realities which would limit the possibilities.
          But there is foreknowledge. If God had actuated any other world where the rapist did not rape the victim, then He would have violated the free will of the rapist, and violated His own middle knowledge of reality. He then forces the opposite choice onto the now "not free" entity with determinism instead of foreknowledge.


          I am not arguing what you claim at all. The first aspect of my argument against ex nihilo, and how it does not explain reality, deals with the concept that God has the free will to decide which persons exist, and which do not exist. That in and of itself determines outcomes.
          And that is exactly what I said you are claiming. God writes the script, and men have to play along because that's how God made them to be. And that is not Ex Nihilo, nor is it free will.


          And by creating that world, and by creating that person, God determined which of all the possible outcomes would occur.
          Only insofar as He foreknew which outcome the agent would choose.

          Thus God determined every aspect of that person and that world.
          No. The foreknowledge of the choices the agent makes determines which aspects God actuates and which ones He doesn't.

          7UP: In my theology, the rapist already existed and God simply allows free will to continue.



          God doesn't have to do what the individuals want God to do. Furthermore, God must balance, in his discretion, what He will allow beings of free will to do , but without over stepping bounds which would be oppressive.
          So, is stopping progression NOT oppressive under any circumstance in your view? If an agent desired progression, God will allow it?

          Originally posted by seven7up View Post
          7UP: 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.



          Really? Now you are going to argue that God violates a free will choice of a being that doesn't even exist? A being that God has not even decided to create yet?
          Yes. Because that being exists in God's middle knowledge.


          7UP: No more than your God is a "slave" to logic (or logical contradictions).



          All the more reason to believe, that in your view, God could have created any kind of being at all, including a perfectly moral person who has free will.
          If there was ever such a thing in all existence, yes. God would have created it.


          7UP: No more than God is "subject to your will", Bill.

          And it isn't a matter that God "must" comply, but instead God chooses to comply, because God decides not to oppressive to the free will of that individual who would like to progress.
          And at what point does He choose to be oppressive to an individual who wants to progress?

          7UP: No more than God is "subject to your will", Bill.



          And therefore God decides which beings exist, and which do not.
          No. He has the ability to decide not to create a being, but does not act on that ability because of His foreknowledge of that being's choices.

          By that simple fact, God determines which choices will be made, because the choices of any particular individual would NOT have been made, if God had not decided to create that individual.
          But God does not decide not to create an individual He foreknows. Nor does He create them any other way than what He foreknows. In my hamburger example, God would not create you to choose a chicken sandwich if He foreknew you would choose a hamburger. He created you to choose the hamburger because He foreknew you would choose it. He did not determine the choice, He actuated it.

          (Here Bill attempt to argue that, in the LDS view, God has no choice but to create spiritual sons and daughters who were intelligences who desire to progress, yet at the same Bill contradicts himself by trying to argue that God violated their free will by creating them.)

          7UP: Please explain why you think it is a violation of their free will.



          Who said that God would force intelligences into spirit bodies if they did not want to?
          So, if God decided to create a spirit body, and no intelligences were willing to inhabit it, what happens?

          (Remember, there is a parallel with the LDS view that each spirit chooses to enter a physical body in mortality.)
          Actually, J.F. Smith said otherwise.

          7UP: 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.



          There are many theories in the LDS faith concerning this. I will give you three of the possibilities:

          1) God knew exactly which intelligence would rebel before creating that individual (Lucifer), but God allowed for the spiritual creation of that individual because to deny the progression of that person would be a violation of Lucifer's free will.

          This is the theoretical position that I have been giving to you on this thread.

          2) There is a reality that simply exists, and God must deal with it. One of the realities/rules that exist concerning the creation of a "generation" of spiritual offspring includes the idea that this generation MUST include many individuals all at once, and this includes a range of individuals with characteristics both good and bad. God cannot pick and choose which ones progress and which ones do not. God may be able to deny the entire generation from progressing, but that would not be fair to the "good" ones.

          I mentioned this theoretical possibility in the video series.

          3) God knows everything that is possible to know, however, perhaps it is impossible to see the characteristics of an intelligence until it enters a spiritual body, and therefore it is impossible to predict what that individual would do in any given situation until after becoming a spirit.

          This goes back to the idea of not knowing exactly the nature of God's foreknowledge.
          So, when we claim to not understand the nature of God's decisions on why He creates with the knowledge that some would be damned, you jump all over us, yet you think you get a free pass claiming this? Don't try to dismantle someone else's mystery when you have ones you can't explain.


          See three possibilities above.
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          (this next part of the discussion goes back to possibility 1 above)

          7UP: 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.



          But in your theology, God could have refrained from creating that entity from nothing to begin with.
          No He couldn't. That is a violation of the entity's free will, and God's middle knowledge. For the being to exist in God's mind, and for God to foreknow them, they have to exist. If God chooses not to create them, then they never existed in God's mind, and thus God does not foreknow them. It creates a logical contradiction. Something can not be A and NOT A at the same time.

          7UP: Is "all powerful" supposed to mean being able to do EVERYTHING, even if it is logically contradictory?



          Nor is refraining from creating a being from nothing who God knows before hand will participate in horrible atrocities.
          Actually, it is. It creates an A = Not A contradiction. If God refrained from creating the being, then the atrocities would not exist, which means there would be no reason to refrain from creating the entity, so God would decide to create them, which means the atrocities would exist, which would mean God would refrain from creating them, and around and around. It's a logical contradiction.

          7up: Does omnipotence imply that God will necessarily infringe on the agency of an eternal entity with free will?



          Then why will God resurrect humans who are damned, or why even keep them in existence at all, in your theology?
          Final judgment requires making every man whole again. One can not truly be blessed (or damned) without both body and soul.

          Your version of God could just wipe them out of existence in the same way that God brought them into existence.
          There are those who believe that is exactly what happens. I do not because of the immortality of the human soul. Since it comes from God's pwn spirit/breath, I do not believe that it can be extinguished.


          7UP: Why did Adam and Eve fall?



          Let's say that God decided not to create Adam and Eve, but instead two different individuals, Bob and Sara.
          Ok.

          Would they have fallen as well?
          No clue. They never existed in God's mind, so they were never actuated

          If so, why? If not, why did God create Adam and Eve instead of Bob and Sara?
          Because Adam and Eve were who God imagined, not Bob and Sara.

          7UP: Why was Eve so easily deceived?



          And who's fault is that?
          No one's. It was a result of her lack of experiences. Do you blame a brand new 15 year old driver for not being able to win the Indy 500?

          Could God, who is able to create any kind of being from nothing, able create a being that is innocent and also knows right and wrong?
          Able? Yes. But that was not who existed in God's mind.

          Does knowing right from wrong automatically make a person unable to be innocent?
          No. Experiences do though.

          7UP: Why were they so ignorant and irrational?



          So, do I need to fornicate or commit adultery by personal experience before I can gain the knowledge that those things are wrong?
          If your aim is to lose your innocence in those matters, yes.


          Are you saying that God could not impart wisdom upon Adam and Eve in an effective way?
          Without knowledge to apply it to? Yes.

          7UP: Who created them that way?



          That does not help you with the Ex Nihilo problem.
          Sure it does.

          7up: 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.



          So, God was forced to create the kind of individuals that God created because those are the individuals that God imagined to begin with.
          No. God created them because those are the individuals that God foreknew. They were brought into existence because He foreknew they would exist.

          7UP: 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.



          And thus we get to my video presentation concerning the "Solitary Problem". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qduIGkSy1Ro
          Which I've already answered in the other thread. Your video is nothing more than a "if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" fallacy.

          Where did we exist prior to creation according to Ex Nihilo theology?
          Since time begins at creation, there is no such thing as "prior to creation"

          In God's own mind. Reality is nothing more than an outward expression of God's own imagination. This is PanENtheism. Details are given in that video.
          We've had this out before. Your definition of PanENtheism is insufficient. If you would use Jürgen Moltmann's definitions, you will find that his description of Panentheism is much closer to classical monotheistic theism. In fact, he describes pantheism as holding to a god who is really no different from his creation, so using his definition, and your tactics, I can call Mormonism pantheistic. Or, we can both stop using reductio ad absurdum claims with vague forced parallels using barely similar vocabulary.

          7UP: Joseph Smith revealed the truth, and the truth cuts its own way.



          Then he must have been a religious genius, because the theology revealed in the LDS faith resolves most of these problems that accompany your Ex Nihilo dogma.
          So you claim... and in doing so, he created so many more problems that blatantly contradict the Bible itself.
          Last edited by Bill the Cat; 06-05-2014, 10:19 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


          • #50
            Originally posted by 7up
            So, you are saying that God will create persons out of nothing,
            um nobody has claimed that.

            He created the UNIVERSE out of nothing.

            He created Adam from the dust of the earth. Eve from Adam's rib, and everyone else was created by the process of conception and gestation.

            Comment


            • #51
              7UP: However, think of the physical procreation of a child. Can you choose if the child has red hair or brown?

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              Geneticists think it is possible.
              You are missing the point of the analogy. I am comparing the concept of how there are characteristics of our physical offspring that are out of control , to the concept that there are characteristics of God's spiritual offspring that are out of God's control.

              7UP: Can you choose the child's personality traits?

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              Is God incapable of changing a man?
              You mean by force?

              Ezekiel 36:26-27
              26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.


              Do you think that this scripture teaches that God will change people against their will?

              7UP: 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?

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              Joseph F. Smith didn’t think of them that way:

              Some of our writers have endeavored to explain what an intelligence is, but to do so is futile, for we have never been given any insight into this matter beyond what the Lord has fragmentarily revealed. We know, however, that there is something called intelligence which always existed. It is the real eternal part of man, which was not created or made. This intelligence combined with the spirit constitutes a spiritual identity or individual

              He claims that the LDS church doesn’t even know WHAT an intelligence is, much less has it defined that it is an individual capable of good or bad prior to being joined with spirit material.
              It is true that there are many possibilities, and we don't know the details. I was just providing one of the possibilities for you. I don't see how you think that helps your argument against me.

              7UP: The point is that there are non-divine realities that God must deal with in LDS theology.

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              As there are in Ex Nihilo, since all of His creation is “non-divine realities”.
              That is not the case in Ex Nihilo theology, because God was the only thing in existence before God decided to create.

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              Wrong. They existed eternally in His mind through His foreknowledge of creation.
              Then God created beings who would fulfill nothing more and nothing less than the very actions that God himself imagined them to fulfill before God even decided to bring those beings into reality. Thus it is God's own mind which determined every action that has ever been acted out.

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              Not even close. Knowing and causing are two different things.
              So, God has no choice but to create any kind of being that enters God's imagination?

              7UP: 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.

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              The only real difference is the location of the being prior to creation. And calling that “fundamental” is actually pretty accurate from the standpoint of whether we are independent eternal beings or not, which Joseph F. Smith says is not doctrinally even claimed by the LDS.
              Joseph F. Smith said in that quote, "there is something called intelligence which always existed. It is the real eternal part of man, which was not created or made".

              (Is God a slave to entities of free will?)

              7UP: 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
              Griffin postulates that there MIGHT exist eternal principles. But in reality, there are not.
              According to your theology there are not, but there might be.

              7UP: Therefore, God could logically and lawfully create a rational and moral being of free will out of nothing.

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              Correct. But that being has to choose to be rational and moral for God to actuate that choice’s reality.
              You are trying to but "that being" BEFORE God, but in your theology God created that being based on what God imagined that being to be BEFORE God even created that being. Indeed, God created that being to be what that being is, in Ex Nihilo theology.

              7UP: 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
              No it isn’t.
              You have no good explanation.


              7UP: Griffith is merely bringing up the same kinds of points and concept that I have explained.

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              It’s part and parcel for your incompetence. You quote (and rarely give attributions) those who you think have answered or asked the right questions with little understanding of how to respond.
              You have not demonstrated that in the slightest.
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - -

              7UP: Wrong. AND you added mockery in order to make an even bigger fool of yourself. Nice.

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              Joseph Smith was the fool for even suggesting a “heavenly mother”. One cannot truly mock what does not exist, only the idea that it exists. And mock that, I will.
              And in this life or the next, you will be very sorry that you did mock. Let's hope it is in this life.

              7UP: I am only raising the possibility that free will can be part of the process. Free will choices does not necessarily "trump God's sovereignty". 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.

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              Well, since this is an entirely futile attempt to dissect the messy nonsense that is Mormon pre-existence doctrine, it is bound to cause some problems. The point of it all is that man is not co-eternal. Even J.F. Smith says that your belief is merely speculation, and that “intelligences” were not pre-existing individual humans waiting to be organized as spirits.
              He did not say that they weren't. He only said that the details are not specifically defined. This possibility, and many others, exist.

              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. 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.

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              Because denying their creation is denying their future free will.
              7UP: As we have discussed, merely being irrational will lead to sinful choices. Is God not capable of creating rational beings?

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              Again, this assumes what God is capable of is what He will always do.
              Therefore, in your theology, God is capable of creating rational beings out of nothing, but God chooses to create an inferior/irrational being instead. But then God punishes that being because of the results that occur due to the irrationality of that being, which is an irrationality that God purposefully created.

              7UP: In my theology, irrationality may be an eternally inherent characteristic.

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              And in mine, it is a foreknown characteristic that is freely exercised by the entity.
              However, with Ex Nihilo, the irrational being was created by God. That being is what God created it to be, nothing more and nothing less. This pertains to the second argument in the Free Will videos. Creating a rational being out of nothing, and then praising it for being rational OR creating an irrational being and punishing the being for being irrational ... is not a sensible point of view. I equated it to God creating Helium and rewarding Helium for rising in air or creating Lead and punishing it for sinking in water.

              7UP: There isn't the same control. There are eternal non divine realities in LDS theology that are outside of God's control.

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              No. They are not. They are within his control, he just chooses to not intervene. You admitted that above.
              No. The very fact that these intelligences exist, is outside of God's control. The characteristics that may exist within this eternal part of man are outside of God's control.

              7UP: Your mind is not flexible enough to comprehend this concept, OR you are being purposefully obtuse.

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              No. You have an “unknown” doctrine that you are trying to defend with your theories, none of which are proclaimed by the LDS church according to J. F. Smith. And you are having difficulty admitting that maybe, just maybe, you don’t understand how the orthodox Christians see free will and ex nihilo creation.
              Orthodox Christians just claim that they believe in free will, without understanding exactly how their theological framework denies the possibility. They are living in denial and ignorance.

              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
              Sure, but that’s not all I believe on the subject that has direct relevance to nearly every word meaning you listed. Nor is that all you have claimed that you believe.
              And we are going through the details now.


              -7up

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                7UP: However, think of the physical procreation of a child. Can you choose if the child has red hair or brown?



                You are missing the point of the analogy. I am comparing the concept of how there are characteristics of our physical offspring that are out of control , to the concept that there are characteristics of God's spiritual offspring that are out of God's control.

                7UP: Can you choose the child's personality traits?



                You mean by force?

                Ezekiel 36:26-27
                26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.


                Do you think that this scripture teaches that God will change people against their will?

                7UP: 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?



                It is true that there are many possibilities, and we don't know the details. I was just providing one of the possibilities for you. I don't see how you think that helps your argument against me.

                7UP: 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.



                Then God created beings who would fulfill nothing more and nothing less than the very actions that God himself imagined them to fulfill before God even decided to bring those beings into reality. Thus it is God's own mind which determined every action that has ever been acted out.



                So, God has no choice but to create any kind of being that enters God's imagination?

                7UP: 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.



                Joseph F. Smith said in that quote, "there is something called intelligence which always existed. It is the real eternal part of man, which was not created or made".

                (Is God a slave to entities of free will?)

                7UP: 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?



                According to your theology there are not, but there might be.

                7UP: Therefore, God could logically and lawfully create a rational and moral being of free will out of nothing.



                You are trying to but "that being" BEFORE God, but in your theology God created that being based on what God imagined that being to be BEFORE God even created that being. Indeed, God created that being to be what that being is, in Ex Nihilo theology.

                7UP: 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.



                You have no good explanation.


                7UP: Griffith is merely bringing up the same kinds of points and concept that I have explained.



                You have not demonstrated that in the slightest.
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - -

                7UP: Wrong. AND you added mockery in order to make an even bigger fool of yourself. Nice.



                And in this life or the next, you will be very sorry that you did mock. Let's hope it is in this life.

                7UP: I am only raising the possibility that free will can be part of the process. Free will choices does not necessarily "trump God's sovereignty". 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.



                He did not say that they weren't. He only said that the details are not specifically defined. This possibility, and many others, exist.

                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. 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.



                7UP: As we have discussed, merely being irrational will lead to sinful choices. Is God not capable of creating rational beings?



                Therefore, in your theology, God is capable of creating rational beings out of nothing, but God chooses to create an inferior/irrational being instead. But then God punishes that being because of the results that occur due to the irrationality of that being, which is an irrationality that God purposefully created.

                7UP: In my theology, irrationality may be an eternally inherent characteristic.



                However, with Ex Nihilo, the irrational being was created by God. That being is what God created it to be, nothing more and nothing less. This pertains to the second argument in the Free Will videos. Creating a rational being out of nothing, and then praising it for being rational OR creating an irrational being and punishing the being for being irrational ... is not a sensible point of view. I equated it to God creating Helium and rewarding Helium for rising in air or creating Lead and punishing it for sinking in water.

                7UP: There isn't the same control. There are eternal non divine realities in LDS theology that are outside of God's control.



                No. The very fact that these intelligences exist, is outside of God's control. The characteristics that may exist within this eternal part of man are outside of God's control.

                7UP: Your mind is not flexible enough to comprehend this concept, OR you are being purposefully obtuse.



                Orthodox Christians just claim that they believe in free will, without understanding exactly how their theological framework denies the possibility. They are living in denial and ignorance.

                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




                And we are going through the details now.


                -7up
                All of this is either directly or indirectly addressed by my last reply (Post 49), so for the sake of legibility, I will await your reply to that one instead of repeating myself.
                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

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