KD: So if the soul/intelligence wasn't, technically speaking, an uncaused cause, but came about in some fashion that didn't involve intelligent design, would it have free will? And would it have free will because it wasn't purposefully designed (i.e. no one else's will was involved in its creation)?
7up: I think it would NOT have free will. It would either have to be deterministic from having a mechanical like origin or it would have to be entirely random. Neither of which works with true freedom of choice.
I think this is a fairly good description, however, it makes it sound a little too much like each individual with free will is entirely independent and isolated from others, and I would not want to leave that impression.
An example of how free will works is God himself. God has true free will. God has an essence which is entirely uncaused, and in the LDS perspective each of us has an essence within us which is entirely uncaused as well.
Yes they are making a free will choice. Making choices while having different influences around is all part of free will. You can't say that "they didn't want to" make that choice. Obviously there was SOMETHING that did make them want to make that decision, otherwise they would not have made that decision.
Being placed in a situation where you have the opportunity to discover a preference (a preference that "pre-exists") is not the same thing as God creating that preference within you ex nihilo.
To me, the "preferences" that you are referring to just seem like an outward expression of the inner characteristics of any given individual.
Incorrect. You are trying to make it as if the attributes of an individual and the individual are two different things. Nope. The attributes/characteristics of a being ARE that being.
As I pointed out to you earlier, (and Bill attempted this as well) if you think that this argument here is correct, logical and sound .... then you have just argued against the idea of God having free will. Are you arguing that God does not have free will?
Oh, and by the way, if God does not have free will, then God does not truly love us.
Like I said, with a being with an essence which is eternal and uncaused, that essence and its attributes are one and the same.
And when it comes to the purely mechanical processes, I likened it to being "random". Randomness which has no reflection of the individual is not free will. It has been a while since we spoke, so I will remind you of the quote I gave from Hausam, with the specific idea for this in bold:
"the choices we make are the results of the motivations, desires, loves, values, priorities, beliefs, etc., that constitute who we are, that make up the real essence of our actual being. That is why our choices reveal who we are. If our choices were not produced from the essence of our being, they would not be our choices fundamentally and would not reveal anything about who we are. Therefore, if God were the creator of our being or the essence of who we are, as a logically consistent account of creation ex nihilo would affirm, he would also be the creator and cause, at least indirectly, of the actual choices we make."
I actually gave a similar example in the very first video I provided. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWsQiyc832k
I discussed a character on an RPG game, and that character has different characteristics and that individual will DO different things based on that characteristics of that individual, and if that individual were to have different characteristics, well ... that individual would do something different.
So again, the origin of those characteristics IS VERY IMPORTANT, because if God determines absolutely every single characteristic of an individual, then God is also determining every single choice that the individual will ever make in any given situation.
I don't see any problems so far.
What is a "semi-consciousness"? When do "semi-conciousnesses" ever "naturally combine"?
Not only are you coming up with entirely invented concepts, but you are attempting to place me in a hypothetical situation where your invented concepts are supposedly going to be part of revealed religion in LDS theology. I don't see the benefit of adding such things to this conversation.
I used the RPG character example, which is one that you also, (by chance?) just entertained. I have presented the concepts in many, many different ways. I am sorry if your eyes glaze over. I don't know what to do about that.
The "loose" definition is just a way for you to ignore and bury the logical implications of Ex Nihilo creation theology. I think it is intellectually dishonest to do that.
If God created every aspect of your being, then it isn't just "an affect" on what YOU choose to do. Every detail of what and who God created you to be determines everything you have ever done and everything you will ever do, period.
LDS have a concept which reflects this kind of thinking as well, but our concept of "foreordination" is clearly different than yours.
The LDS view of God is not "hands-off" at all. God has been working with us personally from eternity past in Mormon thought, and is still working with us in mortality, and will continue to work with us in immortality.
There you go again. Where did the nature of man come from? If God created every aspect of your being, you try to pretend here that God did not create fallible beings, yet in your theology God clearly did create men to be fallible, and therefore sinful. You can't back your way out of that one India.
So, the only decision you ever truly make ... is the last decision you ever make?
But in Ex Nihilo theology, God made everything about what and who you are, and THAT is what determines what you do. The idea that it is truly "your decision" would be nothing more than an illusion.
But what would lead them decide to try something different? Is it because this individual is curious in nature, and thus willing to try new things? Is it because the individual is easily persuaded? All of those still come down to the characteristics of an individual, you are just digging into deeper detail on the intricate nature of personality, but even if an individual has millions or billions of intricate details in their complex personality, that is still something that is ultimately determined by an omnipotent and omniscient God who creates out of nothing. In fact, in that original video cited above, I discuss this concept at minute 7:00.
In my theology, a rapist is entirely responsible for who and what he is, because he is what he is based on his free will existing into the infinite past. His environment is not causing him to be a rapist, but instead his environment merely provides the opportunity.
7up: Has your theodicy been able to work around the ideas that God purposefully creates morally fallible creatures, sets them up in a situation where he knows they will fail, and then sends the grand majority to hell because they fail exactly in the way that God knew they would before He even created them?
[QUOTE=Kind Debater;73636]Technically, a theodicy addresses why God allows evil to exist, not why he punishes people in hell. So no, my theodicy doesn't address all those topics, but my theology does. (It doesn't address them to your satisfaction, I'll wager, but it does address them. )
People going to hell is the result of the existence of evil. But, you know , whatevs.
I am not criticizing God putting humans in the situation where he knew they would fail. I put my own children in situations where it is very likely that they will fail. That is not the issue. The issue is God creating humans from God's own mind in order to be fallible beings, and then turning around and punishing them for being fallible. The supplement video to the first video likens this to God creating lead and helium out of nothing with the characteristics inherent to those elements, then "condemning lead because it sinks in water" or "praising helium because it floats in the air".
We don't even have to get into it. The problems with Ex Nihilo are bad enough with even condemning a single individual to hell for being what God created that person to be. Creating billions out of nothing and condemning most of them to hell just multiplies that single problem by billions.
7up: I suppose I could sum it up like this: LDS must try to address why God allows fallible beings of free will to make choices which will result in suffering. However, classical theists must do this AND ALSO try to explain why fallible beings were created in the first place.
Agreed. In fact, in my video series, I simply say that Universalism is just a non-Biblical concept, which is used to try to make up for the original non-Biblical concept of Ex Nihilo. (The same is true for annihilationism.) It is better to just reject the original non-Biblical concept of creation out of nothing, and then Universalism and annihilationism are no longer necessary false shields to use in defense.
7up: The typical response I get from evangelical Christians is to essentially claim that God MUST create morally fallible creatures, in order for them to have free will. However, that isn't true at all. Logic does not dictate that moral fallibility is a requirement for free will.
I have paid attention to everything you have said and responded accordingly. I am just making sure that you don't try to back out of the positions that you have stated so for, or if you do, making sure that you acknowledge the positions that you have presented. You have stated that God PURPOSEFULLY created us to be fallible. That is the problem I have been addressing with you here. That is why I have often turned to discussing the "philosophical nightmare" of God creating people ex nihilo to be flawed and then sending them to eternal pain and suffering because they are flawed.
That position, in my opinion, is indefensible.
Please tell me when you think I have misunderstood you, and I will address it as soon as possible.
-7up
7up: I think it would NOT have free will. It would either have to be deterministic from having a mechanical like origin or it would have to be entirely random. Neither of which works with true freedom of choice.
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
An example of how free will works is God himself. God has true free will. God has an essence which is entirely uncaused, and in the LDS perspective each of us has an essence within us which is entirely uncaused as well.
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
Oh, and by the way, if God does not have free will, then God does not truly love us.
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
And when it comes to the purely mechanical processes, I likened it to being "random". Randomness which has no reflection of the individual is not free will. It has been a while since we spoke, so I will remind you of the quote I gave from Hausam, with the specific idea for this in bold:
"the choices we make are the results of the motivations, desires, loves, values, priorities, beliefs, etc., that constitute who we are, that make up the real essence of our actual being. That is why our choices reveal who we are. If our choices were not produced from the essence of our being, they would not be our choices fundamentally and would not reveal anything about who we are. Therefore, if God were the creator of our being or the essence of who we are, as a logically consistent account of creation ex nihilo would affirm, he would also be the creator and cause, at least indirectly, of the actual choices we make."
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
I discussed a character on an RPG game, and that character has different characteristics and that individual will DO different things based on that characteristics of that individual, and if that individual were to have different characteristics, well ... that individual would do something different.
So again, the origin of those characteristics IS VERY IMPORTANT, because if God determines absolutely every single characteristic of an individual, then God is also determining every single choice that the individual will ever make in any given situation.
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
7up: Has your theodicy been able to work around the ideas that God purposefully creates morally fallible creatures, sets them up in a situation where he knows they will fail, and then sends the grand majority to hell because they fail exactly in the way that God knew they would before He even created them?
[QUOTE=Kind Debater;73636]Technically, a theodicy addresses why God allows evil to exist, not why he punishes people in hell. So no, my theodicy doesn't address all those topics, but my theology does. (It doesn't address them to your satisfaction, I'll wager, but it does address them. )
People going to hell is the result of the existence of evil. But, you know , whatevs.
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
7up: I suppose I could sum it up like this: LDS must try to address why God allows fallible beings of free will to make choices which will result in suffering. However, classical theists must do this AND ALSO try to explain why fallible beings were created in the first place.
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
7up: The typical response I get from evangelical Christians is to essentially claim that God MUST create morally fallible creatures, in order for them to have free will. However, that isn't true at all. Logic does not dictate that moral fallibility is a requirement for free will.
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
That position, in my opinion, is indefensible.
Originally posted by Kind Debater
View Post
-7up
Comment