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

KD and 7up on ex nihilo, free will and evil

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    7up,

    You need to stop responding with video clips and quoting articles as your argument. Nobody here wants to or can argue with a video clip or someone else's article. They are not here to respond.

    Make your own arguments, and feel free to support them with quips from articles, but don't go pasting entire passages AS your argument.

    We have a rule here at tweb against arguing by weblink and you are breaking it.
    I will avoid large quotes in the future.

    I have referred to my own videos, and in my defense, I have explained what the video says in writing on this forum, so watching the video presentation is helpful, but optional.

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    Since it's the two of us on this thread, I don't mind if he posts articles. What I do mind is 1) posting the same lengthy quote for the bazillionth time and 2) argument by video/podcast. Especially when it's like three hours of podcast.
    You don't have to respond to that podcast. It was only in case you wanted to see how LDS discuss such issues amongst ourselves. I do the same kind of research when trying to understand the views of evangelical Christians. In fact, I was hoping that we could go back to William Lane Craig's use of Plantinga's possible VS feasible world theory ... which is found in a video, if you are willing.

    Also, when quoting Hausam, It wasn't like he was addressing entirely new concepts, and I let Hausam argue for me. He is simply explaining the same things that I have already explained. I took a specific piece of that explanation from within the local context, and expanded on it in order to demonstrate how it relates to the discussion at hand and the explanations that I have given in my own words.

    I agree that the section of context that I gave was too long, so I apologize, but I only expected you to focus on the small portion of the text that I zeroed in on.

    -7up

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally Posted by Mark Hausam
      "If our choices are undetermined by God and first-causal by nature, they therefore cannot be effects of God’s creative activity. They cannot be explained by it or traced back to it. They are wholly self-existent or self-originated. God cannot create uncaused choices, directly or indirectly..."


      Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
      I think you and Hausam are setting up a false dichotomy, where the only choices are a) we are uncaused causes and have free will or b) we are created by God and don't have free will.

      I don't think we have to be an uncaused cause in order to have free will.
      I know that is what you would like to think, because your theology depends on it. However, the logic here is sound. If God is the only source of every aspect of our being, you cannot "have your cake and eat it too."

      Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
      I think God is the indirect cause of the choices we make, since he did after all create us and foreknew us and what we would do. But there is a world of difference between his being an indirect cause and a direct cause.
      In this case, the indirect would be like God creating a being ex nihilo with taste buds that are stimulated in a way that promotes his enjoyment of chocolate. Then, when given the choice between vanilla and chocolate, that being "decides" to choose chocolate.

      Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
      Why are you saying the same thing for the 10,000th time? If you think I haven't understood something about your argument, then why don't you rephrase your argument?
      That is why I quoted Hausam. He explained the same argument that I have made, thus it was "rephrased" for you. Of course, he is a Calvinist who embraces the deterministic implications of assuming a God who creates Ex Nihilo. The section I wanted you to focus on from Hausam is here:

      "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."

      So, this is what I illustrated earlier, namely, that what we choose to do externally is a reflection of who we are internally. If this were not the case, then our "choices" may as well be considered completely random.

      Of course, I argue that with the six sided cube "rolling randomly", an omniscient and omnipotent God creating out of nothing would still be able to determine outcomes, but I rounded out the argument by addressing this concept as well, whereby God determines outcomes because every single one of our characteristics themselves were entirely created by God's own mind.

      Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
      Meanwhile, I have been trying to respond to your argument, but you keep falling back to this response of "You haven't understood me, so let me say yet again that if God created every aspect of us, he must be responsible for everything we do." Have you understood my responses? If so, please demonstrate that by stating my argument in your own words.
      You have attempted to argue that God can create everything about us, with complete and unilateral control and with perfect foreknowledge of what we will do, yet at the same time can divorce Himself of responsibility of the actions that we make after God creates us ex nihilo.

      If you want me to explain your rationality behind your point of view, well, I cannot help you there, because it is this very assertion that you have not been able to explain in any significant way.

      7UP: In order to have free will, some aspect of our personal being must be uncaused. If every single aspect of who and what we are comes from God Himself, then we are exactly what God created us to be; nothing more and nothing less.

      KD: So are you saying that a consciousness with free will can't be created, essentially by (this) definition of free will?

      Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
      Suppose it turned out that the pre-existing intelligences you believe in were not created per se by an intelligent being, but just sort of came about by some randomized physical process. Like a primordial soup that spawns intelligences rather than cells. Would you still have free will, or would you say your will was really the "will" of the random process that spawned your intelligence?
      I would say that "randomness" is not the same as free will. That is why my presentation was worded carefully, as saying that these "random rolls" of the dice only represent possible free choices that could be made, not necessarily that free will choices are just randomness. As Hausam explains above, if our "choices" have nothing to do with who and what we are, like with randomness, then they wouldn't truly be our choices.

      7UP: It isn't creation "out of nothing", so it isn't the same kind or concept either way.

      Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
      I am asking these questions because I'm trying to understand your viewpoint better. I would appreciate you going into a bit more detail here.
      But you are trying to say that my viewpoint argues for pre-existing intelligences that were "created" by an intelligent being. However, my viewpoint is that those pre-existing intelligences were not created, but instead were already there, just as God was already there.

      Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
      So by "caused" and "uncaused" in regards to your first statement, do you really mean "designed" and "undesigned"? So far we have, in your view:

      Soul/intelligence "just is" -> free will
      Soul/intelligence purposefully created by God -> no free will
      The second one you put down is incomplete. I would say:

      Soul/intelligence purposefully created by God PURELY FROM GODS OWN MIND/IMAGINATION -> no free will

      Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
      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)?
      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
      I did mean to answer your question; I wasn't trying to be evasive. In heaven, people won't continue to sin but will have free will. (Not sure about people in hell.)

      As for Adam and Eve, I think they were tested by God (the tree) and tempted by Satan. If they weren't tempted, I don't know if they would have eventually failed the test on their own or not. If they were in heaven (no temptation or tests) then they wouldn't sin.

      Why didn't God do that from the beginning? I will have to go into more detail in my next post, but I explained it before when I was going into my theodicy. God demonstrates his love for us by proving that he loves us even when we sin, in fact and not just in theory. God puts his perfect attributes into action by forgiving, being patient and merciful, punishing sin, etc.

      All that is something I first had to address many years ago, back in the late 20th century when I first ventured onto alt.atheism.moderated and got interested in apologetics. One of the first hard questions I got was "If we have free will in heaven, why didn't God just create heaven?" I've been evolving my theodicy since then. I haven't gotten around to rewriting it lately, but you can see the current version on my website at http://rationalchristianity.net/evil.html (as well as a whole bunch of other stuff, like my article on hell which I'm also in the process of revising: http://rationalchristianity.net/hell.html).
      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?

      Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
      No, not lately; the last debate with an atheist I had was in email over a year ago. I've been debating you instead, and slowly working on revising some stuff on my website. Why do you ask?
      I ask because I would be interested to see how you respond to the problems of evil and suffering when in a debate with an atheist/agnostic. Then I could show you how I would respond to the things that they would say to you.

      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.

      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.

      -7up

      Comment


      • #33
        7up, I'm going to be pretty busy for the next couple weeks at least. Do you have a preference between me giving partial responses as I can or waiting until I can respond to everything at once? If the former, feel free to mark some part of your posts as higher priority.

        ETA: I'm 36 minutes into the WLC video. I get his concept of logically possible vs. actualizable, but disagree in that heaven is an actualizable state AFAIK. I.e. it's a place where people are free and don't sin or suffer. Is that what you were after regarding the video?
        Last edited by Kind Debater; 06-20-2014, 08:30 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          For clarity: This is a response to the rest of post 26 and post 27.

          7up: Do you have a good reason why God would purposefully create morally fallible persons...?

          KD: Yes, God does purposefully create people he knows are morally fallible. He doesn't create them as sinful, but he does create them as less than perfect because he "can't" create a being who would essentially be another God.
          ...whatever God creates, he owns (Ps 100:3, 95:5). If God created another god, he would own that god. That god would be created for God's glory (Is 43:7, 21) and God would have rights over him as he does over all his creation (Is 29:16, 45:9). Furthermore, if there was a created God, then Isaiah 40:13-14 would not apply to him (i.e. he would be a god who had gained his wisdom from his creator; Is 40:13-14 implies that God is wise in and of himself and that that's one reason why he is God and deserves worship).

          7up: (responding to last part) Just apply all of these from God the Father related to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is begotten from God the Father. Does God "own" Jesus Christ? No. It is a relationship, but certainly Christ glorifies the Father. Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, in a certain sense, yet Christ was the creator of the Universe, and is an eternal intelligence above and beyond all the other spiritual sons of God. These scriptures do not hold up as an argument against me in the way that perhaps you had hoped, as it is comparing the wisdom of Deity against to wisdom of man.

          Just to be clear, we're not talking about the LDS doctrine of exaltation (though there is a lot of overlap), but why God in my theology can't create another god. I'm answering your question above, why God creating ex nihilo did not create people who wouldn't sin.

          Jesus was begotten, not made. I'm not clear on what "begotten" is exactly, but it's not created/made, for "through him all things were made that have been made." Therefore your analogy doesn't prove your point. Jesus "belongs" to God in the same sense that the world "belongs" to us (1 Cor 3:21-23), but God doesn't own him as a potter owns the pot he makes, which is the sense in which God owns us, and would own any being that he created ex nihilo.

          You also did not address Isaiah 40:13-14 and the argument that if God created another god, that god would gotten his intelligence, wisdom, strength, etc. from God the Father and would not be self-existing like God is.

          7up: Assuming that an individual knows the difference between right and wrong and has a complete understanding of the consequences, why would someone who is rational choose eternal damnation rather than eternal life?

          KD: Pride. ...

          7up: Why create ... from nothing, a being with such immense pride. Especially when knowing that creating such a being would have such detrimental results for that individual.

          Well, now you're bringing up another subject, which I believe you brought up in your latest post as well (so I will respond to it there) but not the argument you were originally making in this particular conversation.

          Someone who is rational can choose eternal damnation over eternal life due to pride. If you disagree, provide a counter-argument.

          7up: In fact, if you simply take the point that sinning is irrational, especially when you take into consideration the consequences involved. Therefore, beings who are rational would not choose to sin.

          KD: There are plenty of people who are fully aware that they're making a irrational, morally wrong choice, yet choose to do it anyway.

          7UP: Do those individuals truly understand the full extent of the consequences to such morally wrong decisions? They may try to justify the decision in some way, but it is irrational to think that coming up with justifications will take away the consequences of those decisions.

          KD: You have never done something and later said (or said at the time), "Yeah, I know I shouldn't have done that"? ...
          Do you know that staying up too late and not getting enough sleep will affect you the next day? ... Do you ever procrastinate and put off things you know you're supposed to do?

          7up: Yes. I make those errors. And the choices I make in those cases are entirely irrational, when considering the implications / consequences.

          So your choices may be irrational, but you yourself are not irrational. Therefore, beings who are rational do sometimes choose to sin.

          KD: Does perfect rationality enable one to be kind? One needs empathy as well.

          7up: Is God incapable of creating a being who can understand the position of another human being?

          KD: In order to perfectly understand all others, one would have to either be omniscient or have experienced the equivalent of thousands or millions of lives.

          7up: Do you have to be a smoker in order to understand that you shouldn't smoke?

          I'm talking about empathy, not understanding of basic moral facts (I'm guessing that's what your analogy is for, though to be honest it doesn't seem to fit). In order to not sin, one would have to be perfectly kind and loving, and that requires perfect empathy. I will repost what I said earlier: Do you always understand why your wife and kids feel and act the way they do? Don't you ever just not get it, and they get angry with you for not understanding and reacting appropriately?

          And also, Heb 2:17-18 and 4:15 say that experiencing life as a tested human enables Jesus to sympathize with us and help us. (I think God in his omniscience knows exactly what we feel, but Jesus having actually experienced what he did adds another dimension to his understanding, at least in his human nature (his divine nature being omniscient as well). Or at least that's how I interpret these.)

          KD: Does perfect rationality enable one to have perfect control over one's feelings and reactions?

          7up: It works for Spock. Well, most of the time. He is half human after all.

          KD: Was that a serious rebuttal or are you just being humorous?

          7up: A small amount of humor. Not much.

          I was asking if you were serious because I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. You're using a fictional character to prove your point? That's like arguing that going back in time is possible because you've seen it on sci-fi shows.

          Let me take a wild guess here that you're a Myers-Briggs NT, possibly an INTJ like me (if you don't know what I'm talking about, read this description of NTs and see if it sounds like you). Assuming you are, it makes perfect sense that you hold rationality in high regard and are arguing that perfect rationality is all that is needed to be perfectly good. I too wish I could be perfectly logical, self-controlled and efficient. But I've come to find out that that's because I really don't like dealing with emotions and don't trust them, not because being perfectly rational would truly make me happier or even make me a better person.

          If you asked an NF Idealist, they'd likely come up with a convincing argument that perfect empathy, not perfect logic, is what's needed for people to be perfectly good; and they'd sort of have a point, since the foundation of morality is love, not logic. The two greatest commands are to love God and love others. But perfect empathy without perfect rationality (and self-control and the other attributes I mentioned) wouldn't enable one to not sin either.

          What I'm getting at here is that you may be very biased towards this particular argument. With all due respect, I don't think your counter-arguments here are very strong.

          KD: The only options besides the current world are a) God creates heaven and its permanent residents only (i.e. a world without any testing or trials) or b) God creates beings that have all divine characteristics except eternal existence.

          7UP: If God is creating superior beings, would there be a need for testing and trials?

          KD: I think there are some benefits to having tests. It brings glory to God when people choose to follow him despite being tested/tempted. Our faith is put into action when we trust God in a trial -- it's more real. Just like God's love is proven by his choosing to love sinners.

          7up: I agree with all of that. Except it would not be real in the Ex Nihilo theological framework.

          Just to clarify, you are agreeing with me that A is not a viable option in either your theology or mine (aside from your argument about there being no true free will in ex nihilo, which is a separate argument)?

          Originally posted by seven7up View Post
          My point is that beings of free will in reality are not entirely "independent". The choices available depend on many different factors.
          Ok.

          Originally posted by seven7up View Post
          Isaiah 48:2 is arguably speaking about false idols, and not God's children. I have several scriptures that trump your misused citation with ease. Let me post just a couple:

          Rom 8:16-17 "The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be GLORIFIED with him."

          2 Cor 3:18 "we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit."
          In my previous post I pretty much already responded to what you just said:

          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
          1. As you probably noticed, I am saying that Isaiah 42:8 refers to God's divine glory, i.e. the special glory he has due to being God and being perfectly holy and having all the other divine attributes. As I noted elsewhere, 1 Cor 15:40-41 says there are different kinds of glory. Some glory God shares with us (John 17:22). Some glory he doesn't. Unless you're seriously going to argue that Isaiah 42:8 is false, what glory do you think it is that God doesn't share? If that non-shared glory is not his divine glory, why would he share his divine glory and not this other kind? What glory is more special and unique than divine glory?
          Sure, God's talking about false idols in Is 42:8. But he's also making a point about not giving his glory to anyone else. He doesn't say, "I only share my glory with those who are worthy" or "I don't give my glory or my praise to carved idols." He says:

          Source: ESV


          I am the Lord; that is my name;
          my glory I give to no other,
          nor my praise to carved idols.

          © Copyright Original Source



          Call me a literalist, but I think when he says, "my glory I give to no other," he means "no one" and not just false idols. So there is some kind of glory that he does not share.

          If you look at the larger context of the book of Isaiah, God is arguing for his uniqueness and his glory not just against manmade idols, but men themselves -- anything that people might worship or place their trust in besides God himself. E.g. 30:1-2, 30:15-17, 37:24-29, 40:15-17, 44:24-25, 45:14, 47:10-15. The other arguments God makes in Isaiah focus on his uniqueness: no one else has his power or knowledge, and therefore certainly not false idols (or seers, or the nation of Egypt, or anyone else that Israel looked to for help).

          Finally, 48:9-11 makes it even clearer that there is some principle of God not sharing his glory, period:

          Source: ESV


          For my name's sake I defer my anger,
          for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you,
          that I may not cut you off.
          Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver;
          I have tried you in the furnace of affliction.
          For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it,
          for how should my name be profaned?
          My glory I will not give to another.

          © Copyright Original Source



          Again, what glory is it that God will not give to another?

          Concerning 2 Cor 3:18, the ESV and NRSV translate it as:

          Source: NRSV


          And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit.

          © Copyright Original Source



          Source: ESV


          And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

          © Copyright Original Source



          In other words, it's talking about a) degrees of glory and b) us progressing from one degree of glory to the next. This does not support the idea of us having the exact same divine glory that God does.

          Originally posted by 7up
          Now with your letters.

          Most of them come down to this:

          Your version of God is immutable, immense, metaphysically unchanging, literally omnipresent, the only substance which is uncreated, etc.

          Therefore, even a morally perfect human being with free will would not be God, due to these attributes which classic theologians consider to be impossible for God to give to creations. So, you still would not have more than one God.
          But you would have someone who is perfectly good, when only God is good. So again: How can God create someone who is perfectly good without violating Isaiah 42:8, 48:11, Mark 10:18, Psalm 115:1, etc.? And to strengthen my case, passages like 1 Cor 1:19-31, 2 Cor 12:9, Eph 2:9 imply that God purposefully made it so that only he is perfectly good so that we would learn to trust in him and not boast, so that his power would be displayed through our weakness, etc. In other words, what Jesus said about only God being good was not just an observation but a declaration: Only God is perfectly good, even when tested as Jesus was, and therefore only God deserves worship.

          Also, I've been arguing that in order to be morally perfect in this world, one would need at least some divine attributes, and that you can't have some divine attributes without having all of them. I.e. the only options are God creating another god or God creating a non-divine being which is necessarily morally fallible. Which is why only God is perfectly good.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
            7up, I'm going to be pretty busy for the next couple weeks at least. Do you have a preference between me giving partial responses as I can or waiting until I can respond to everything at once? If the former, feel free to mark some part of your posts as higher priority.

            ETA: I'm 36 minutes into the WLC video. I get his concept of logically possible vs. actualizable, but disagree in that heaven is an actualizable state AFAIK. I.e. it's a place where people are free and don't sin or suffer. Is that what you were after regarding the video?
            Plantinga and William Lane Craig discuss the idea of "possible worlds" and "feasible worlds". This is an important part of the "free will defense" for Christian theologians. In particular, there is a part of the discussion where he discusses an individual who would do in world 2 (W2) and world 3 (W3). This is the part that you seem to agree with.

            He says that IF that individual was placed in the exact situation in world 2 as he is placed in world 3, what would happen? Would that individual make the same decision?

            Why do you think that is?

            -7up

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
              For clarity: This is a response to the rest of post 26 and post 27.

              7up: Do you have a good reason why God would purposefully create morally fallible persons...?

              KD: Yes, God does purposefully create people he knows are morally fallible. He doesn't create them as sinful, but he does create them as less than perfect because he "can't" create a being who would essentially be another God.

              The created being wouldn't be another God in your theology. Your God is literally omnipresent, for starters. Also, a morally infallible creature doesn't need to know Calculus in order to make good moral decisions, therefore, that created being doesn't need to be omniscient either.

              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
              ...whatever God creates, he owns (Ps 100:3, 95:5). If God created another god, he would own that god..
              But at least the god would be a being who is moral , intelligent, rational, humble, etc.

              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
              Jesus was begotten, not made. I'm not clear on what "begotten" is exactly,
              You should just look at how the term "begotten" is used everywhere else in the Bible. That would be a helpful start.

              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
              Jesus "belongs" to God in the same sense that the world "belongs" to us (1 Cor 3:21-23), but God doesn't own him as a potter owns the pot he makes, which is the sense in which God owns us, and would own any being that he created ex nihilo.
              The potter / clay concept is referring to our physical existence (ie "tabernacle of clay"). It should not be meant to refer to our spirit.

              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
              You also did not address Isaiah 40:13-14 and the argument that if God created another god, that god would gotten his intelligence, wisdom, strength, etc. from God the Father and would not be self-existing like God is.
              In your view, you are correct. God is the only "self-existing" entity, as everything else (and everyone else) was created by God ex nihilo. So, in your theology, any creature that God creates could never be Deity in any way.

              7up: Assuming that an individual knows the difference between right and wrong and has a complete understanding of the consequences, why would someone who is rational choose eternal damnation rather than eternal life?

              KD: Pride. ...

              7up: Why create ... from nothing, a being with such immense pride. Especially when knowing that creating such a being would have such detrimental results for that individual.

              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
              Well, now you're bringing up another subject, which I believe you brought up in your latest post as well (so I will respond to it there) but not the argument you were originally making in this particular conversation.
              I always provided TWO arguments. The first argument has to do with God deciding which beings to create and which not to create (Bill's latest response appears to be that God has no choice what to create). The second has to do with God, when creating every single aspect of a person from "nothing", also creates the characteristics of that individual who is being created. One of those characteristics, is pride.

              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
              Someone who is rational can choose eternal damnation over eternal life due to pride. If you disagree, provide a counter-argument.
              If a rational being has two options 1) Eternal happiness and bliss 2) eternal damnation and misery ....
              What is the rational choice?

              7up: In fact, if you simply take the point that sinning is irrational, especially when you take into consideration the consequences involved. Therefore, beings who are rational would not choose to sin.

              KD: There are plenty of people who are fully aware that they're making a irrational, morally wrong choice, yet choose to do it anyway.

              7UP: Do those individuals truly understand the full extent of the consequences to such morally wrong decisions? They may try to justify the decision in some way, but it is irrational to think that coming up with justifications will take away the consequences of those decisions.

              KD: You have never done something and later said (or said at the time), "Yeah, I know I shouldn't have done that"? ...
              Do you know that staying up too late and not getting enough sleep will affect you the next day? ... Do you ever procrastinate and put off things you know you're supposed to do?

              7up: Yes. I make those errors. And the choices I make in those cases are entirely irrational, when considering the implications / consequences.

              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
              So your choices may be irrational, but you yourself are not irrational. ....
              If I make irrational choices, it is because I am irrational. Our outward behaviors are a reflection of who and what we are. I hope to, with God's help, become more and more rational. However, I am not to that point yet.

              KD: Does perfect rationality enable one to be kind? One needs empathy as well.

              7up: Is God incapable of creating a being who can understand the position of another human being?

              KD: In order to perfectly understand all others, one would have to either be omniscient or have experienced the equivalent of thousands or millions of lives.

              7up: Do you have to be a smoker in order to understand that you shouldn't smoke?

              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
              I'm talking about empathy, not understanding of basic moral facts (I'm guessing that's what your analogy is for, though to be honest it doesn't seem to fit). In order to not sin, one would have to be perfectly kind and loving, and that requires perfect empathy.
              Jesus Christ was perfectly moral prior to entering mortality. One of the things which occurred with Christ entering mortality, is that Christ gained empathy for all of us. But he was sinless already.

              17 For this reason he had to be made like them,[k] fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. (Heb 2:17-18)

              I will repost what I said earlier: Do you always understand why your wife and kids feel and act the way they do? Don't you ever just not get it, and they get angry with you for not understanding and reacting appropriately?[/QUOTE]

              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
              Heb 2:17-18 and 4:15 say that experiencing life as a tested human enables Jesus to sympathize with us and help us. (I think God in his omniscience knows exactly what we feel, but Jesus having actually experienced what he did adds another dimension to his understanding, at least in his human nature (his divine nature being omniscient as well). Or at least that's how I interpret these.)
              See above. And, for your information, from the LDS point of view, God the Father knows empathy because God the Father did the same thing that Jesus Christ, and Christ is following in the Father's footsteps.

              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
              ... Assuming you are, it makes perfect sense that you hold rationality in high regard and are arguing that perfect rationality is all that is needed to be perfectly good. ....If you asked an NF Idealist, they'd likely come up with a convincing argument that perfect empathy, not perfect logic, is what's needed for people to be perfectly good;
              It appears, from the scripture above, even according to your own interpretation, that Jesus was perfectly good / moral even before mortality, and even during mortality before being tempted or suffering.

              KD: The only options besides the current world are a) God creates heaven and its permanent residents only (i.e. a world without any testing or trials) or b) God creates beings that have all divine characteristics except eternal existence.

              7UP: If God is creating superior beings, would there be a need for testing and trials?

              KD: I think there are some benefits to having tests. It brings glory to God when people choose to follow him despite being tested/tempted. Our faith is put into action when we trust God in a trial -- it's more real. Just like God's love is proven by his choosing to love sinners.

              7up: I agree with all of that. Except it would not be real in the Ex Nihilo theological framework.

              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
              Just to clarify, you are agreeing with me that A is not a viable option in either your theology or mine (aside from your argument about there being no true free will in ex nihilo, which is a separate argument)?
              LDS do not believe that testing or trial will be removed. Our free will is to remain intact. Mormons tend to believe that, during the Millenium for example, Satan will be "bound" because the wicked will be removed from the Earth, not because we lose our free will and not because God will suddenly change who and what we are.
              Isaiah 48:2 is arguably speaking about false idols, and not God's children. I have several scriptures that trump your misused citation with ease. Let me post just a couple:

              Rom 8:16-17 "The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be GLORIFIED with him."

              2 Cor 3:18 "we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit."

              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
              Sure, God's talking about false idols in Is 42:8. But he's also making a point about not giving his glory to anyone else. He doesn't say, "I only share my glory with those who are worthy" or "I don't give my glory or my praise to carved idols." He says:

              Source: ESV


              I am the Lord; that is my name;
              my glory I give to no other,
              nor my praise to carved idols.

              © Copyright Original Source



              Call me a literalist, but I think when he says, "my glory I give to no other," he means "no one" and not just false idols. So there is some kind of glory that he does not share.

              If you look at the larger context of the book of Isaiah, God is arguing for his uniqueness and his glory not just against manmade idols, but men themselves -- anything that people might worship or place their trust in besides God himself. E.g. 30:1-2, 30:15-17, 37:24-29, 40:15-17, 44:24-25, 45:14, 47:10-15. The other arguments God makes in Isaiah focus on his uniqueness: no one else has his power or knowledge, and therefore certainly not false idols (or seers, or the nation of Egypt, or anyone else that Israel looked to for help).

              Source: ESV


              ....
              For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it,
              for how should my name be profaned?
              My glory I will not give to another.

              © Copyright Original Source

              It isn't being about "literalist" or not. It is all about context, which is obviously idols. You are right that God criticizes men as well in the book of Isaiah. He criticized men for who and what they are, but there is hope given to become something better in the next life. The only way that man kind can gain God's glory, is to become less like men, align their will with God's, and thus become more like God in the future eternities, and as the apostle Peter taught, "partake of the divine nature."

              I think you are confusing the issues. There is the difference of who and what men are now, compared to what God plans to make us, if we are willing.

              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
              ... to strengthen my case, passages like 1 Cor 1:19-31, 2 Cor 12:9, Eph 2:9 imply that God purposefully made it so that only he is perfectly good so that we would learn to trust in him and not boast, so that his power would be displayed through our weakness, etc. ...
              You HAVE to believe that God creates our spiritual weaknesses. Ex Nihilo demands that view point. Your interpretations MUST be viewed through that lens.

              From my point of view, God gives us PHYSICAL weakness, so that we can learn to be humble in a spiritual sense, which is the true issue. God wants us to spiritually and morally strong, and much of His effort is put into helping us do just that.

              Purposefully making us spiritually and morally flawed, and then turning around and punishing us for being spiritually and morally flawed, is not a defensible position.


              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
              Also, I've been arguing that in order to be morally perfect in this world, one would need at least some divine attributes, and that you can't have some divine attributes without having all of them.
              Therefore, you believe that, even in the next life, we will not have any divine attributes?

              -7up
              Last edited by seven7up; 06-27-2014, 01:27 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Just a quick response since I see we're both online (I have insomnia).

                1. I'm still getting the feeling you're not reading my posts all the way through and thinking about them before responding.

                2. Dude, check your PMs.

                3. Do you think we are finite state automatons? Or that human decision making boils down to that? I'm getting that feeling from the Hausam quote and some of the things you said. I'm trying to work on a response to post 32...

                4. "He says that IF that individual was placed in the exact situation in world 2 as he is placed in world 3, what would happen? Would that individual make the same decision?" I'm thinking probably yes, but it's not guaranteed he would, because it's not guaranteed he would have exactly the same thoughts every time.

                5. "Therefore, you believe that, even in the next life, we will not have any divine attributes?" Yes, where "divine attribute" means having the attribute to a perfect degree.
                Last edited by Kind Debater; 06-27-2014, 01:24 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                  3. Do you think we are finite state automatons? Or that human decision making boils down to that? I'm getting that feeling from the Hausam quote and some of the things you said. I'm trying to work on a response to post 32...
                  I believe that our actions reflect who and what we are. However, as beings who have, in some sense, always existed ... we are not "programmed" by someone or something else.

                  7up: 4. "He says that IF that individual was placed in the exact situation in world 2 as he is placed in world 3, what would happen? Would that individual make the same decision?"

                  Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                  I'm thinking probably yes, but it's not guaranteed he would, because it's not guaranteed he would have exactly the same thoughts every time.
                  The reason why I ask is because, while he glosses over that quickly, his argument depends on the idea that the choice would be the same in each "possible world" if the individual were in the exact same position.

                  The section of the video in question starts around 16:30 and goes to about 25:00.

                  This is the "free will defense" for the existence of evil and suffering, as described by Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig.

                  7up: 5. "Therefore, you believe that, even in the next life, we will not have any divine attributes?"

                  Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                  Yes, where "divine attribute" means having the attribute to a perfect degree.
                  The reason why I asked this, is because there are many scriptures explaining how God plans to share everything with us, and we will be like Jesus.

                  Anyways, if it is to a lesser degree, will it be a greater degree than we have now?

                  -7up


                  P.S. As for 1 Cor 15:40-41 , the context of that verse is concerning the resurrection of man kind. I did not address it, because I do not see how it fits in with the conversation. Paul gives an example of how "bright" or beautiful different objects are (whether on earth or in the sky). Then he compares that to the different glories (levels of "brightness" or levels of glory) that will exist with different kinds of people after the resurrection.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    7up: 4. "He says that IF that individual was placed in the exact situation in world 2 as he is placed in world 3, what would happen? Would that individual make the same decision?"

                    The reason why I ask is because, while he glosses over that quickly, his argument depends on the idea that the choice would be the same in each "possible world" if the individual were in the exact same position.
                    I thought the argument was that there was not a possible world in which the guy would freely choose to not commit the evil act. That's not quite the same. The guy might have different lines of thought but still end up choosing the same action because he wouldn't choose a completely different one in this particular case.

                    7up: 5. "Therefore, you believe that, even in the next life, we will not have any divine attributes?"

                    The reason why I asked this, is because there are many scriptures explaining how God plans to share everything with us, and we will be like Jesus.

                    Anyways, if it is to a lesser degree, will it be a greater degree than we have now?
                    I guess so. There's passages that talk about God creating a new/clean heart in us that I assume apply to either heaven or the resurrection.
                    Last edited by Kind Debater; 06-27-2014, 05:45 AM. Reason: removed part about 1 Cor 15

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      My in-laws have come and gone, so I should have some more time now.

                      Your definition of free will

                      Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                      ...the logic here is sound. If God is the only source of every aspect of our being, you cannot "have your cake and eat it too."

                      Originally posted by 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)?
                      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.
                      Technically, your logic is valid but not necessarily sound. Its soundness depends on the truth of your definition of free will.

                      Let me spell this out just to be sure I understand it and we are both on the same page regarding your viewpoint. From what I understand, your definition of free will is a conscious being's ability to perform actions of which they are the root cause, such that their actions reflect who they are and what they want, as opposed to what someone else wants. In other words they can choose actions that reflect the nature of their soul, which for purposes of this discussion means the essence of who they are, their innate traits, preferences, goals, etc.

                      Being the root cause of their actions requires that the entity's soul is an uncaused cause. If it's not an uncaused cause, but was brought into being by something else (whether a conscious entity or a mechanistic process), that something else determined who the conscious being would be, i.e. determined their preferences, abilities, personality, etc. Thus what the being did would be the result of the creating process/being and not the being itself.

                      Loose definition: An entity with free will must be able to make choices that reflect their preferences/will.

                      Strict definition: An entity with free will must be able to make choices that reflect their preferences/will and not the will of someone else. The entity must also be the first, primary cause of those choices, meaning their preferences, desires, and whatever else that determines/influences their choices must originate with them and not come from another source (which you are arguing requires the entity's soul to be uncaused).

                      Now for some questions and objections:

                      1. Would you say that as long as the person is making choices that reflect the will that is part of their essential, uncaused nature, they have free will, even if those choices have the potential to be limited or influenced by someone else? E.g. if someone buys something they didn't really want because they were influenced by a pushy salesman, are they still making a free will choice to buy the product?

                      2. God decided when and where you would be born, and that affects not only your available choices but many of your preferences and beliefs, as we are all influenced by our families and cultures to some degree. To use your Cocoa Puffs example, God is part of the reason you choose Cocoa Puffs over Rice Krispies, because he placed you in a time and place where you would encounter chocolate and discover your preference for it. Suppose God placed you when and where he did because for whatever reason, one of the things he wanted you to do is to eat Cocoa Puffs, and so to that extent in fulfilling your free will you are also fulfilling his. Is that a problem?

                      3. Your argument for the stricter definition of free will seems to be that you yourself must be the cause of your actions and not something that isn't you, but that since your preferences determine your actions, no one besides you can be the creator or determiner of your preferences. You said that even if you were created by a mechanistic process, you would not have free will because your attributes would be determined by something that wasn't you.

                      But if you are pre-existent, an uncaused cause, your attributes were still not caused by you. They exist regardless of what you would have wanted them to be, if you were given a choice. They weren't determined by you. Therefore, according to your reasoning, you don't have free will even in your own theology. In order for your will to truly be free, you would have had to have created yourself, because only then would your preferences, goals, etc. and the resulting choices truly reflect your will. But creating oneself is of course impossible.

                      Assuming you disagree, please explain precisely why you have free will if you are an uncaused cause vs. the result of a natural, undesigned process. In both cases, you have attributes that determine your choices that were not caused by you but were not caused by any other conscious entity.

                      4. In terms of intuitively understanding free will, what difference does it make where your preferences and desires come from? You aren't any less who you are if God created you; the things that you are saying define who you are (preferences, goals, etc.) are still the things that define who you are, regardless of their origins. If we're talking about an RPG game, the characters are still defined by the information on their character sheets, regardless of whether that information was created by someone or they were randomly generated or they existed from eternity past.

                      More to the point, you can avoid the problems with the strict definition by simply using the loose definition.

                      5. Doesn't it strike you as odd to say you have free will only if you're an uncaused cause, but if even one step happened prior to that -- if, for instance, your consciousness came about by two pre-existent semi-consciousnesses naturally combining -- suddenly you don't have free will? Is it really that critical to be an uncaused cause? If you or another LDS you trusted had a revelation from God that there was a step like this in the "creation" of souls, would it really throw you for a loop and cause you to believe that either you don't have free will or the revelation was false?

                      Originally posted by 7up
                      That is why I quoted Hausam. He explained the same argument that I have made, thus it was "rephrased" for you.
                      But you've quoted him several times. At any rate, I feel I understand the intuitive appeal of your argument, which is perhaps what you wanted me to see. If there's something you think I still am not getting, you'll have to do something besides quote Hausam or talk about dice or atoms, because any mention of those will make my eyes glaze over.

                      Originally posted by 7up
                      Originally posted by KD
                      I am asking these questions because I'm trying to understand your viewpoint better. I would appreciate you going into a bit more detail here.
                      But you are trying to say that my viewpoint argues for pre-existing intelligences that were "created" by an intelligent being.
                      where did you get that from? I meant what I said, I was asking questions to understand your viewpoint. I wasn't even thinking about making the argument you say I'm trying to make.


                      My conception of free will

                      Originally posted by 7up
                      Originally posted by KD
                      I don't think we have to be an uncaused cause in order to have free will.
                      I know that is what you would like to think, because your theology depends on it.
                      My theology doesn't depend on using your definition of free will. My conception of free will has to do more with the loose definition above. I have no problems with God having created me and affecting my choices by having given me a preference for one thing over another. God may very well have created me in a certain way and placed me in a certain time and place because he wants me to do particular things. This is in line with Ephesians 2:8-10 (and BTW, how do you reconcile Eph 2:10 with your hands-off idea of God?). And that doesn't bother me at all; instead it gives me great comfort, because it means I'm supposed to be here and I'm supposed to be the way I am (meaning my essential, God-given nature, not my sinful nature). It also doesn't mean he's forcing me to go along with his plan; I still have to make a choice every day whether or not to follow him, whether or not to follow my preferences (whether they are from my created nature or my sinful nature), etc. Thus my conception of free will has more to do with whether or not the agent in question is the last cause in the chain of causes leading to a particular event, rather than the first or uncaused cause of the event. God, other people, etc. can have made all sorts of choices leading to me being in a particular situation, but I am still the one who decides what I do.

                      Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                      Originally posted by Kind Debater
                      I think God is the indirect cause of the choices we make, since he did after all create us and foreknew us and what we would do. But there is a world of difference between his being an indirect cause and a direct cause.
                      In this case, the indirect would be like God creating a being ex nihilo with taste buds that are stimulated in a way that promotes his enjoyment of chocolate. Then, when given the choice between vanilla and chocolate, that being "decides" to choose chocolate.
                      1. But it's not like they will necessarily choose chocolate 100% of the time. There are lots of possible scenarios where they would willingly choose another flavor, despite having a preference for chocolate. E.g. a friend persuades them to try the friend's favorite flavor, or the friend can't eat chocolate for some reason and they don't want to eat chocolate in front of their friend. They most likely do not have such an overwhelming preference for chocolate that they would be forced to choose chocolate (meaning through an irresistable urge) when there are reasons why they might choose differently. So yes, they are still deciding to choose chocolate.

                      2. Put another way, if you're going to say that someone who was created ex nihilo doesn't freely choose chocolate because God gave them a preference for it, how is that different from saying that a rapist isn't responsible for his actions because he has a strong natural desire for sex and/or power?

                      Suppose his desire to rape can be traced to his growing up with rapists and thus associating rape with what "real men" are supposed to do, and that if he had grown up in a healthy environment he wouldn't have raped anyone. Since the desire isn't an innate part of him and he's not its root cause, does that mean he's not freely choosing to rape?

                      Originally posted by 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?
                      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. )

                      God creating morally fallible creatures - we've already been discussing this.

                      God putting humans in situations where he knows they'll fail - why would God not have the right to do this? The only thing that I can think of off the top of my head is if you're going to argue that God is morally responsible to prevent all evil/sin from occurring, but doing so would undermine your own theodicy, which appears to depend on the principle that God's allowing human agency and moral/spiritual progression is a higher moral priority than preventing evil.

                      God sending "the grand majority" to hell, etc. - we will have to get into this on another thread. Which I will leave it to you to start when you're ready, since you have hinted elsewhere that you're busy with multiple threads and possibly multiple forums.

                      Originally posted by 7up
                      I ask because I would be interested to see how you respond to the problems of evil and suffering when in a debate with an atheist/agnostic. Then I could show you how I would respond to the things that they would say to you.

                      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.
                      I've already understood that. That doesn't make me any more likely to adopt your views, though. Universalism and annihilationism are appealing views that make faith easier to defend to atheists as well, but that doesn't mean they're true.

                      Originally posted by 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.
                      We already discussed, on this very thread, that I don't believe this. See post 21 and post 17.

                      This is the sort of statement that makes me wonder if you are really reading through and thinking about what I say before responding, or if you're just assuming I'm saying the same things other Christians have said and are responding automatically. I have spent a lot of time and energy in trying to understand your viewpoint, including watching some of your videos, and in trying to write good posts that address your objections. I would appreciate it if you would at least read through my posts and make sure you understand what I'm saying (which may require a quick review of the prior discussion) before you respond.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by seven7up View Post

                        7up: Do you have a good reason why God would purposefully create morally fallible persons...?

                        KD: Yes, God does purposefully create people he knows are morally fallible. He doesn't create them as sinful, but he does create them as less than perfect because he "can't" create a being who would essentially be another God.

                        The created being wouldn't be another God in your theology. Your God is literally omnipresent, for starters.
                        But what I'm saying is that a being may not be able to have one divine attribute and not have the others.

                        Originally posted by 7up
                        Also, a morally infallible creature doesn't need to know Calculus in order to make good moral decisions, therefore, that created being doesn't need to be omniscient either.
                        They might need to know calculus, physics, etc. to be able to accurately predict the physical effects of their actions. But, point taken, there is some knowledge that is seemingly not related to moral decisions (the number of grains of sand on the beach, for instance).

                        However, a morally perfect being would have to have perfect patience, self-control, love, etc. as well as a great deal of knowledge. The amount of knowledge required -- not only a perfect understanding of morality, but understanding how everyone feels in each situation they're in, knowing what effect any of their actions will have on others, etc. -- may be close enough to omniscience (especially compared to what a typical human is capable of knowing) that if they were able to know all those things, they might as well be fully omniscient. There are multiple attributes required in order to be perfectly good, because a perfect being not only has to have perfect knowledge of what is good in each situation they're in, they have to have the perfect ability to complete the good actions they've decided on.

                        Originally posted by 7up
                        Originally posted by KD
                        ...whatever God creates, he owns (Ps 100:3, 95:5). If God created another god, he would own that god.
                        But at least the god would be a being who is moral, intelligent, rational, humble, etc.
                        You might be okay with the concept of God creating gods, but that doesn't fly in my theology; and we're talking about my theology here. You're asking if my theology has a coherent explanation for why God creates beings that sin instead of morally perfect beings, and I'm explaining why, in my theology, God doesn't create gods. "But I don't have a problem with an entity being a god and being owned by God" isn't an adequate rebuttal.

                        Originally posted by 7up
                        Originally posted by KD
                        Jesus "belongs" to God in the same sense that the world "belongs" to us (1 Cor 3:21-23), but God doesn't own him as a potter owns the pot he makes, which is the sense in which God owns us, and would own any being that he created ex nihilo.
                        The potter / clay concept is referring to our physical existence (ie "tabernacle of clay"). It should not be meant to refer to our spirit.
                        Try reading Romans 9 with that view of "potter" and "clay." It doesn't make any sense. Paul is responding there to the very question you're asking -- why does God blame us for what we do wrong, when he's the one who made us and no one can resist his will? Paul's answer is, "God gets to make people how he makes them," not "Your physical body is what causes you to sin, but God gets to make your physical body how he wants to."

                        Originally posted by 7up
                        In your view, you are correct. God is the only "self-existing" entity, as everything else (and everyone else) was created by God ex nihilo. So, in your theology, any creature that God creates could never be Deity in any way.
                        Well, yes, but I was trying to draw out an argument for why a perfectly moral human would have to be God and therefore couldn't be created.




                        7up: Assuming that an individual knows the difference between right and wrong and has a complete understanding of the consequences, why would someone who is rational choose eternal damnation rather than eternal life?

                        KD: Pride. ...

                        7up: Why create ... from nothing, a being with such immense pride. Especially when knowing that creating such a being would have such detrimental results for that individual.

                        KD: Well, now you're bringing up another subject, which I believe you brought up in your latest post as well (so I will respond to it there) but not the argument you were originally making in this particular conversation.

                        7up: I always provided TWO arguments. The first argument has to do with God deciding which beings to create and which not to create (Bill's latest response appears to be that God has no choice what to create). The second has to do with God, when creating every single aspect of a person from "nothing", also creates the characteristics of that individual who is being created. One of those characteristics, is pride.

                        Yes, you have provided those two arguments. What I was pointing out is that I was addressing your "rational people wouldn't sin" argument and then you simply asked another question belonging to another line of thought, rather than rebutting or agreeing with my answer. One thing at a time.

                        1. Could a person who meets your definition of being rational still have pride (or lack of empathy, or...) and therefore sin, despite being rational?

                        2. To answer your second question, God creates people with good attributes (though they don't possess them to a perfect, infinite degree). He doesn't directly create sinful attributes like pride. People become proud on their own. Yes, God knows in advance they will become proud and sin in various ways, but he is not the direct cause of either their pride or sin.

                        Originally posted by 7up
                        If a rational being has two options 1) Eternal happiness and bliss 2) eternal damnation and misery....

                        What is the rational choice?
                        1. Are you making a rational choice in choosing to be a Latter-Day Saint?

                        If yes, then does making a rational choice mean you are rational? According to the logic in your quote below, it does:

                        Originally posted by 7up
                        If I make irrational choices, it is because I am irrational. Our outward behaviors are a reflection of who and what we are.
                        But according to that same quote, you are also irrational.

                        So are you rational or irrational? Or is it that you are rational (definitions: agreeable to reason; having or exercising reason or good sense; endowed with the faculty of reason) but not perfectly so, and may make irrational choices despite having the ability to reason (which gives you the knowledge that you are making an irrational choice)?

                        2. For the sake of argument, suppose you are confronted with irrefutable proof that God is not good and loving, but instead is an evil tyrant who sends almost everyone to hell, except for those who sacrifice their firstborn child to him. If you sacrifice your child, both you and your sacrificed child experience eternal happiness and bliss, and your wife will join you, assuming she willingly agrees to the sacrifice. (Your remaining child would have to have or adopt a child and sacrifice them in order to join you.)

                        The rational choice is to sacrifice your child, thereby ensuring eternal bliss for you, your wife and at least one child.

                        The moral choice is arguably to not worship such a god. Therefore, the rational choice is not always the right choice.

                        3. Some people decide to paint the God who actually exists as an evil tyrant and view their refusal to follow him as a noble, moral sacrifice. Are they rational or irrational? (I would say they are rational but self-deceived, and have used their rational faculties to come up with reasons for rejecting God that seem logical to them but are based on falsehoods.)

                        To be frank -- and I say this out of honest concern, not a desire to be mean -- I think you fall into this category. You don't like the God who actually exists and you don't want to worship him or serve him. And to make this irrational choice acceptable to your rational mind, you have exaggerated and distorted the parts of him you dislike so that you can paint a picture of him as an evil god that no moral person would worship:

                        Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                        And thus we arrive at the idea of the who and what the evangelical god is.

                        Instead of a loving Father who wants the very best for His children,

                        You have an ego-maniacal monster, a being who purposefully creates inferior beings so that he can dominate and rule over them for his own selfish purposes - including creating billions from nothing, so that the grand majority can suffer in misery and damnation forever. Adherents to such religion do so because they fear that if they deviate from this viewpoint, then they themselves will go along with to majority, to eternal hell fire. Your dogma is abhorrent.
                        If you come to find out that Smith was a false prophet, what then? Are you going to worship the God of the Bible, even though you apparently view him as an "ego-maniacal monster", and trust that your issues with evil, free will, etc. will be resolved in a different way, or will you revert back to atheism?




                        Originally posted by 7up
                        Originally posted by KD
                        In order to not sin, one would have to be perfectly kind and loving, and that requires perfect empathy.
                        Jesus Christ was perfectly moral prior to entering mortality. One of the things which occurred with Christ entering mortality, is that Christ gained empathy for all of us. But he was sinless already.

                        17 For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. (Heb 2:17-18)

                        ...

                        It appears, from the scripture above, even according to your own interpretation, that Jesus was perfectly good / moral even before mortality, and even during mortality before being tempted or suffering.
                        Of course Jesus was perfectly good -- and fully empathetic -- prior to the incarnation. Being divine, he had more than enough knowledge (omniscience) and love to be empathetic. As I said already:

                        Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                        I think God in his omniscience knows exactly what we feel, but Jesus having actually experienced what he did adds another dimension to his understanding, at least in his human nature (his divine nature being omniscient as well).
                        You have still not answered the point that perfect morality requires perfect empathy as well as the perfect patience, self-control and wisdom necessary to act on that empathy in the right way.

                        Originally posted by 7up
                        LDS do not believe that testing or trial will be removed. Our free will is to remain intact. Mormons tend to believe that, during the Millenium for example, Satan will be "bound" because the wicked will be removed from the Earth, not because we lose our free will and not because God will suddenly change who and what we are.
                        This isn't making any sense to me. Are you saying there's sin in the afterlife? And that there have to be opportunities to sin in order to have free will? And that Satan can only act by influencing others, so if the people he can influence are removed, he's "bound"?

                        Originally posted by 7up
                        Isaiah 48:2 is arguably speaking about false idols, and not God's children. ...

                        It isn't being about "literalist" or not. It is all about context, which is obviously idols.
                        Yes, the context is idols. But what is God's argument against idols in these chapters? God is saying that idols are not gods because they are obviously inanimate objects who can't even keep themselves from toppling over, they can't do any of the things he can do and has done because only he can do them, and he himself is the only God so it's not even logically possible for them to be gods. He's arguing that idols can't be gods because he himself is unique, and no one can compare to him. That argument loses its punch and makes much less sense if other gods can exist and will exist in the future.

                        Sorry, but "my glory I give to no other" and "My glory I will not give to another" seem incredibly clear to me. Even trying to view it from the lens of "He just means he won't share his glory with someone who isn't a God and isn't worthy," I just can't see it as not plainly saying that God won't share his divine glory. If your interpretation is true, why isn't God saying "My glory I will not give to idols" instead of "My glory I won't give to another?"

                        But since your theology requires you to interpret it your way, I doubt you will come to agree with me. So maybe we will just have to agree to disagree here.

                        Originally posted by 7up
                        I think you are confusing the issues. There is the difference of who and what men are now, compared to what God plans to make us, if we are willing.
                        And Isaiah talks about spiritual Israel's future glory, but it's still in the context of God glorifying himself by what he will do with/for us:

                        Source: ESV


                        And he said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified." (Is 49:3)

                        Arise, shine, for your light has come,
                        and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you.
                        2 For behold, darkness shall cover the earth,
                        and thick darkness the peoples;
                        but the Lord will arise upon you,
                        and his glory will be seen upon you. (Is 60:1-2)

                        the Lord will be your everlasting light,
                        and your God will be your glory. (60:19)

                        Your people shall all be righteous;
                        they shall possess the land forever,
                        the branch of my planting, the work of my hands,
                        that I might be glorified. (60:21)

                        to grant to those who mourn in Zion—
                        to give them a beautiful headdress instead of ashes,
                        the oil of gladness instead of mourning,
                        the garment of praise instead of a faint spirit;
                        that they may be called oaks of righteousness,
                        the planting of the Lord, that he may be glorified. (61:3)

                        you shall be called the priests of the Lord;
                        they shall speak of you as the ministers of our God;
                        you shall eat the wealth of the nations,
                        and in their glory you shall boast. (61:6)
                        (Note that here "glory" is the wealth of the nations, clearly not God's divine glory but a lesser glory)

                        The nations shall see your righteousness,
                        and all the kings your glory,
                        and you shall be called by a new name
                        that the mouth of the Lord will give.
                        3 You shall be a crown of beauty in the hand of the Lord,
                        and a royal diadem in the hand of your God.
                        4 You shall no more be termed Forsaken,
                        and your land shall no more be termed Desolate,
                        but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her,
                        and your land Married;
                        for the Lord delights in you,
                        and your land shall be married. (62:2-4)
                        (Note that this future glory of God's people is still in the context of God's glory and serves to glorify him.)

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        We exist for God's glory, and any glory he gives us is for his sake, not for our sake.

                        Originally posted by 7up
                        Originally posted by KD
                        ... to strengthen my case, passages like 1 Cor 1:19-31, 2 Cor 12:9, Eph 2:9 imply that God purposefully made it so that only he is perfectly good so that we would learn to trust in him and not boast, so that his power would be displayed through our weakness, etc. ...
                        You HAVE to believe that God creates our spiritual weaknesses. Ex Nihilo demands that view point. Your interpretations MUST be viewed through that lens.
                        I don't have to believe that God created sins/sinfulness directly. I do have to believe that God created us as less than divine and therefore with the potential to sin.

                        But you are not answering my point, which is that God has a moral reason for not making us perfect/divine. If we were only physically weak/flawed, we would only learn to trust God for physical help/provision, and his moral and spiritual qualities would no longer be unique, his moral power and mercy would not be displayed through us, etc.

                        Originally posted by 7up
                        From my point of view, God gives us PHYSICAL weakness, so that we can learn to be humble in a spiritual sense, which is the true issue. God wants us to spiritually and morally strong, and much of His effort is put into helping us do just that.
                        I don't disagree with that. God wants us to be humble and to grow spiritually and morally.

                        Originally posted by 7up
                        Purposefully making us spiritually and morally flawed, and then turning around and punishing us for being spiritually and morally flawed, is not a defensible position.
                        It may not be defensible; but it's not my position, so it's not my problem if it's indefensible. If you'd like to convince me of something, you'll have to start understanding what my view is, why I hold it and then arguing against my actual view.

                        God doesn't punish us for being the way he created us; he creates us as good and punishes us for freely choosing to disobey him. We are the ones who decide to be evil and sin. I already explained my theory on the origin of evil here.

                        7up:He says that IF that individual was placed in the exact situation in world 2 as he is placed in world 3, what would happen? Would that individual make the same decision?

                        KD: I'm thinking probably yes, but it's not guaranteed he would, because it's not guaranteed he would have exactly the same thoughts every time.

                        7up: The reason why I ask is because, while he glosses over that quickly, his argument depends on the idea that the choice would be the same in each "possible world" if the individual were in the exact same position.

                        Ok, I watched that part of the video again. I think there are cases where an individual would always do the same act in the same circumstances, so Craig's argument still holds -- just because it's theoretically possible for an individual to choose good over evil in a particular situation, that doesn't mean that they ever would. All I was saying is that there are cases where our actions depend on a particular train of thought that is not always reproducible. I.e. a writer in world 1 and in world 2 might write a similar story in both, but not necessarily the exact same story using the exact same words.

                        Originally posted by 7up
                        P.S. As for 1 Cor 15:40-41 , the context of that verse is concerning the resurrection of man kind. I did not address it, because I do not see how it fits in with the conversation. Paul gives an example of how "bright" or beautiful different objects are (whether on earth or in the sky). Then he compares that to the different glories (levels of "brightness" or levels of glory) that will exist with different kinds of people after the resurrection.
                        My point was that there are different kinds of glory, some which God will grant to individuals and at least one which is solely for God, the one he does not share with any other; which reconciles the passages that talk about us having glory or being given glory with Is 42:8 and 48:11.




                        Now, to recap, this is my argument for why God can't create morally perfect beings:

                        1. A morally perfect being would have to have several perfect attributes (not just perfect reason). But:

                        A. Moral perfection would eventually require their having all or nearly all of the divine attributes.

                        B. Only God can have perfect attributes, because only God is infinite and therefore capable of having any perfect attributes. (This is a new argument.)

                        Therefore a morally perfect created being would have to be a god, but this is not possible (a created being is not eternal, God owns what he creates but a true god cannot be owned by God, this created god would share God's glory, etc.)

                        2. A morally perfect, created being would detract from God's uniqueness as the only one who is good, perfectly wise, etc. and therefore the only one who deserves worship (e.g. 1 Cor 1:19, 25, 28-29)

                        3. A morally perfect human would be able to earn their place in heaven and would not be dependent on God's grace, which is a contradiction of Rom 11:32 and Eph 2:9 -- God wants us to depend on him and be drawn closer to him because of our dependence on his grace and mercy (c.f. Luke 7:47). (This is sort of new, but I have been bringing up Eph 2:9.)

                        So far you have been focusing on 1, and the only thing you have convinced me of is that someone wouldn't have to be technically omniscient to be morally perfect (and I don't concede that that disproves the argument); and you haven't really addressed 2 and 3.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          This post is far too long to respond to in a single sitting. I hope you don't mind.
                          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                          7up: Do you have a good reason why God would purposefully create morally fallible persons...?

                          KD: Yes, God does purposefully create people he knows are morally fallible. He doesn't create them as sinful,

                          First, I don't think you can say God creates people who are morally fallible, but not sinful. Those are essentially equivalent. Anybody who is morally fallible will inevitably sin, don't you think?

                          but he does create them as less than perfect because he "can't" create a being who would essentially be another God.

                          7up: The created being wouldn't be another God in your theology. Your God is literally omnipresent, for starters.

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          But what I'm saying is that a being may not be able to have one divine attribute and not have the others....a morally perfect being would have to have perfect patience, self-control, love, etc. as well as a great deal of knowledge. The amount of knowledge required -- not only a perfect understanding of morality, but understanding how everyone feels in each situation they're in, knowing what effect any of their actions will have on others, etc. -- may be close enough to omniscience (especially compared to what a typical human is capable of knowing) that if they were able to know all those things, they might as well be fully omniscient. There are multiple attributes required in order to be perfectly good, because a perfect being not only has to have perfect knowledge of what is good in each situation they're in, they have to have the perfect ability to complete the good actions they've decided on.
                          From what I understand of mainstream Christian theology, and you can correct me if I am wrong, there are what you all call "communicable attributes of God". Omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence are aspects of God that cannot be given to other individuals. However, from what I understand, Christians tend to believe that in the resurrection, they will have perfect morality. Do you disagree with this?

                          7up: Also, a morally infallible creature doesn't need to know Calculus in order to make good moral decisions, therefore, that created being doesn't need to be omniscient either.

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          They might need to know calculus, physics, etc. to be able to accurately predict the physical effects of their actions. But, point taken, there is some knowledge that is seemingly not related to moral decisions (the number of grains of sand on the beach, for instance).
                          A sweet and innocent child appears to make better moral decisions than many intelligent adults.

                          KD: ...whatever God creates, he owns (Ps 100:3, 95:5). If God created another god, he would own that god.

                          7up: But at least the god would be a being who is moral, intelligent, rational, humble, etc.

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          You might be okay with the concept of God creating gods, but that doesn't fly in my theology; and we're talking about my theology here.
                          I was alluding to the idea that "the Most High God" of the Bible is referred to as the "God of gods, and Lord of lords". I believe that the text does not mean that God is the God of "false idols". But I digress ...

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          You're asking if my theology has a coherent explanation for why God creates beings that sin instead of morally perfect beings, and I'm explaining why, in my theology, God doesn't create gods. "But I don't have a problem with an entity being a god and being owned by God" isn't an adequate rebuttal.
                          My main point was that in your theology, God cannot create Gods because there are these "non-communicable attributes" like being eternal, omnipresent, etc. Therefore, God creating a morally perfect human would still not be considered as creating another "God", because that sinless human still would not have the other attributes of Deity.

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          Try reading Romans 9 with that view of "potter" and "clay." It doesn't make any sense.
                          I disagree with your interpretation. The "tabernacle of clay" is always in reference to the physical existence or the place where the spirit dwells. It is not referring to the spirit. God makes a tabernacle of clay (body) which will house a dishonorable spirit, and another tabernacle which will hold an honorable spirit.

                          Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                          Paul is responding there to the very question you're asking -- why does God blame us for what we do wrong, when he's the one who made us and no one can resist his will? Paul's answer is, "God gets to make people how he makes them," not "Your physical body is what causes you to sin, but God gets to make your physical body how he wants to."
                          Well, if you interpret it that way, then God DOES purposefully create some people for hell and others purposefully for salvation, and neither you or I or anybody else has any say in the matter ... so why bother arguing about it? God in that theology already determined who was going where and we have no choice about it.

                          I have to reject that kind of theology entirely. The "tabernacle" or the "vessel" is our physical body. Our spirit (whether honorable or dishonorable) will react a certain way to the desires, appetites, etc. of the flesh. God created this tabernacle/vessel in a certain way, designed in a specific fashion, and that is large part of our mortal probation. Some vessels (those who house dishonorable spirits) are fitted for destruction, and others (who contain honorable spirits) are vessels of mercy being prepared for glory.

                          That is why I quoted Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, as I agree with him when he said, "We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience."

                          -7up

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                            This post is far too long to respond to in a single sitting. I hope you don't mind.
                            That's okay. What I do when I respond to yours is copy and paste the text into Notepad and then work on it there, because it often takes me multiple sessions to respond.

                            7up: Do you have a good reason why God would purposefully create morally fallible persons...?

                            KD: Yes, God does purposefully create people he knows are morally fallible. He doesn't create them as sinful,

                            First, I don't think you can say God creates people who are morally fallible, but not sinful. Those are essentially equivalent. Anybody who is morally fallible will inevitably sin, don't you think?
                            You can pick whatever terms you like, but I am going to be a stickler about the definitions because it's an important theological point.

                            What I'm saying is this: At the moment God creates someone, they are not morally perfect but they are not sinful either. They have not done anything good or bad that could characterize them as righteous or sinful. What I mean by "morally fallible" is that they are not morally perfect and have the potential to sin. What I mean by "sinful" is someone who has already sinned or at the very least is riddled with sinful desires -- something that would innately cause them to sin. God doesn't create people as sinful because he does not create them with evil desires.

                            From what I understand of mainstream Christian theology, and you can correct me if I am wrong, there are what you all call "communicable attributes of God". Omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence are aspects of God that cannot be given to other individuals. However, from what I understand, Christians tend to believe that in the resurrection, they will have perfect morality. Do you disagree with this?
                            We talked about this earlier in this thread (page 3). People in heaven will be "perfect" in that they won't sin, and the reason they won't sin is because they will no longer have any unmet needs, temptations or sinful desires. The environment will be such that there will be no temptation to sin or tests of faith, and the effects of the fall and whatever sinful desires we acquired during life will be gone. People in heaven won't have the sort of perfect morality that would be necessary for them to behave perfectly on earth as Jesus did, i.e. the perfect righteousness that only God himself has.

                            7up: Also, a morally infallible creature doesn't need to know Calculus in order to make good moral decisions, therefore, that created being doesn't need to be omniscient either.

                            KD: They might need to know calculus, physics, etc. to be able to accurately predict the physical effects of their actions. But, point taken, there is some knowledge that is seemingly not related to moral decisions (the number of grains of sand on the beach, for instance).

                            7up: A sweet and innocent child appears to make better moral decisions than many intelligent adults.
                            And why is that, in the cases where it happens to be true? Is it because the child has the necessary moral knowledge to be truly righteous? Of course not. Surely you wouldn't want your kids to grow up without receiving any further moral instruction.

                            In the cases you're thinking of -- say, a fairly nice preschooler compared to a hard-core gangster -- it's because the child has not learned how to hurt people as the adults they're being compared to have. It's because the child has not lived long enough to experience all the hurts and temptations the adults have. In other words, the child is ignorant of evil, so no, they're not going to be as evil as someone who's thoroughly versed in evil. They're also ignorant of morality and the way the world works, and they're not going to be as righteous as a mature Christian adult.

                            My main point was that in your theology, God cannot create Gods because there are these "non-communicable attributes" like being eternal, omnipresent, etc. Therefore, God creating a morally perfect human would still not be considered as creating another "God", because that sinless human still would not have the other attributes of Deity.
                            I understand what you're saying, but I'm saying it's still not possible for someone to be morally perfect during a life of trials and temptations on Earth without being God.

                            Well, if you interpret it that way, then God DOES purposefully create some people for hell and others purposefully for salvation, and neither you or I or anybody else has any say in the matter ... so why bother arguing about it? God in that theology already determined who was going where and we have no choice about it.
                            Not so. God's sovereignty and humans' free choices to obey or sin are both involved. The very next chapter talks about people needing to believe and confess and Israel rejecting God in spite of God's efforts.

                            The "tabernacle" or the "vessel" is our physical body. Our spirit (whether honorable or dishonorable) will react a certain way to the desires, appetites, etc. of the flesh. God created this tabernacle/vessel in a certain way, designed in a specific fashion, and that is large part of our mortal probation. Some vessels (those who house dishonorable spirits) are fitted for destruction, and others (who contain honorable spirits) are vessels of mercy being prepared for glory.
                            So what is your theology here exactly? Did dishonorable spirits get bodies that are more subject to temptation or weaker in some way?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              7up: Do you have a good reason why God would purposefully create morally fallible persons...?

                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              KD: Yes, God does purposefully create people he knows are morally fallible. He doesn't create them as sinful,
                              First, I don't think you can say God creates people who are morally fallible, but not sinful. Those are essentially equivalent. Anybody who is morally fallible will inevitably sin, don't you think?
                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              You can pick whatever terms you like, but I am going to be a stickler about the definitions because it's an important theological point.
                              I agree.

                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              What I'm saying is this: At the moment God creates someone, they are not morally perfect but they are not sinful either. They have not done anything good or bad that could characterize them as righteous or sinful. What I mean by "morally fallible" is that they are not morally perfect and have the potential to sin. What I mean by "sinful" is someone who has already sinned or at the very least is riddled with sinful desires -- something that would innately cause them to sin. God doesn't create people as sinful because he does not create them with evil desires.
                              See, we are going to disagree here I think. Even Jesus Christ hat the potential to sin. Yet being morally infallible, he always chose not to sin. This may just be another difference between Mormons and Evangelicals. Perhaps you think that God has no choice?

                              From my view, a morally fallible person who is presented with choices and the opportunity to act will inevitably make mistakes (ie sin). A morally infallible person, like Jesus, will always make the correct decision (without sin). This is the most straightforward and logical way to look at those who are sinful, like all of us, and one who is sinless, like Deity.

                              7up: From what I understand of mainstream Christian theology, and you can correct me if I am wrong, there are what you all call "communicable attributes of God". Omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence are aspects of God that cannot be given to other individuals. However, from what I understand, Christians tend to believe that in the resurrection, they will have perfect morality. Do you disagree with this?

                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              We talked about this earlier in this thread (page 3). People in heaven will be "perfect" in that they won't sin, and the reason they won't sin is because they will no longer have any unmet needs, temptations or sinful desires. The environment will be such that there will be no temptation to sin or tests of faith, and the effects of the fall and whatever sinful desires we acquired during life will be gone.
                              Where is your Biblical support for such a concept that we will be "perfect" because God no longer give us the option to make poor choices? I disagree entirely, and it is as if you are ignoring the entire concept of sanctification.

                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              People in heaven won't have the sort of perfect morality that would be necessary for them to behave perfectly on earth as Jesus did, i.e. the perfect righteousness that only God himself has.
                              Again, where is your Biblical support for these kinds of statements. I have a scripture for you. Jesus said,

                              Matt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

                              7up: Also, a morally infallible creature doesn't need to know Calculus in order to make good moral decisions, therefore, that created being doesn't need to be omniscient either.

                              KD: They might need to know calculus, physics, etc. to be able to accurately predict the physical effects of their actions. But, point taken, there is some knowledge that is seemingly not related to moral decisions (the number of grains of sand on the beach, for instance).

                              7up: A sweet and innocent child appears to make better moral decisions than many intelligent adults.

                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              And why is that, in the cases where it happens to be true? Is it because the child has the necessary moral knowledge to be truly righteous? Of course not. Surely you wouldn't want your kids to grow up without receiving any further moral instruction.
                              I believe that these children are doing what they believe is right at that moment. I believe that children are often trained over time to become more selfish, greedy, proud, etc, thus they can lose some of these moral traits.

                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              In the cases you're thinking of -- say, a fairly nice preschooler compared to a hard-core gangster -- it's because the child has not learned how to hurt people as the adults they're being compared to have. It's because the child has not lived long enough to experience all the hurts and temptations the adults have. In other words, the child is ignorant of evil, so no, they're not going to be as evil as someone who's thoroughly versed in evil. They're also ignorant of morality and the way the world works, and they're not going to be as righteous as a mature Christian adult.
                              I see your point some here, however,

                              Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

                              he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

                              7up: My main point was that in your theology, God cannot create Gods because there are these "non-communicable attributes" like being eternal, omnipresent, etc. Therefore, God creating a morally perfect human would still not be considered as creating another "God", because that sinless human still would not have the other attributes of Deity.

                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              I understand what you're saying, but I'm saying it's still not possible for someone to be morally perfect during a life of trials and temptations on Earth without being God.
                              This is true, but the LDS view is that God wants us to learn and change so that when we face temptations, we will be able to do what God wants us to do. Again, this is part of the "sanctification" process.

                              7up: Well, if you interpret it that way, then God DOES purposefully create some people for hell and others purposefully for salvation, and neither you or I or anybody else has any say in the matter ... so why bother arguing about it? God in that theology already determined who was going where and we have no choice about it.

                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              Not so. God's sovereignty and humans' free choices to obey or sin are both involved.
                              This goes back to the Ex Nihilo two-fold argument that I presented to you. If God created every single aspect of who and what we are, then God also determined what we would "choose" to do, and there is no true free will.

                              7up: The "tabernacle" or the "vessel" is our physical body. Our spirit (whether honorable or dishonorable) will react a certain way to the desires, appetites, etc. of the flesh. God created this tabernacle/vessel in a certain way, designed in a specific fashion, and that is large part of our mortal probation. Some vessels (those who house dishonorable spirits) are fitted for destruction, and others (who contain honorable spirits) are vessels of mercy being prepared for glory.


                              Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                              So what is your theology here exactly? Did dishonorable spirits get bodies that are more subject to temptation or weaker in some way?
                              Not at all. God simply knew which spirits were dishonorable and which ones were honorable before they were placed in bodies to begin with.

                              -7up

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                KD... to strengthen my case, passages like 1 Cor 1:19-31, 2 Cor 12:9, Eph 2:9 imply that God purposefully made it so that only he is perfectly good so that we would learn to trust in him and not boast, so that his power would be displayed through our weakness, etc. ...

                                7up: You HAVE to believe that God creates our spiritual weaknesses. Ex Nihilo demands that view point. Your interpretations MUST be viewed through that lens.

                                Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                                Do you think we are finite state automatons? Or that human decision making boils down to that?
                                IF we are created Ex Nihilo, then that is one of two options. The other option is that the choices we make is not based on our attributes/characteristics, but instead was made to be "random", which isn't true free will either.

                                7up: Plantinga and William Lane Craig discuss the idea of "possible worlds" and "feasible worlds". This is an important part of the "free will defense" for Christian theologians. In particular, there is a part of the discussion where he discusses an individual who would do in world 2 (W2) and world 3 (W3). This is the part that you seem to agree with. He says that IF that individual was placed in the exact situation in world 2 as he is placed in world 3, what would happen? Would that individual make the same decision?


                                Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                                "He says that IF that individual was placed in the exact situation in world 2 as he is placed in world 3, what would happen? Would that individual make the same decision?" I'm thinking probably yes, ....
                                Yes, but WHY? The greatest minds in Christian theology on this issue take the position that the choice is made based on the attributes of that individual, therefore, the individual will make the same choice if in the exact same situation.

                                Where do the attributes of an individual come from in Ex Nihilo theology?

                                From God himself. Therefore, in Ex Nihilo, God creates and determines the attributes and characteristics of each individual, and therefore God also determines what each individual would do in any given situation.

                                -7up

                                Comment

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