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

[Kind Debater]

I will respond now to the parts of your post that aren't directly related to your "no free will in ex nihilo" argument. Hopefully we will get somewhere new with the free will discussion.

Let's think of Adam/Eve. They were:

1) ignorant (they did not know good and evil like God does)
2) easily deceived
3) disobedient
4) irrational

Are you telling me that out of any kind of creature possible from your God's infinite mind, that this is the kind of being that He came up with?

...
How could they be blamed, when they did not even understand good or evil?

Before you respond to my response, just think for a minute here about the purpose of this part of the discussion, okay? The point you're trying to make here is that God could have created people who were better than Adam and Eve, people who would at least have not eaten the forbidden fruit and lasted a while longer in Eden. Now, why are you trying to make this point? Is it because

A. you want me to see their flaws and agree that God could have done better, and therefore be more likely to accept your view

B. you're ultimately just testing out the veracity of your views and arguments, so you want me to try and fail to convince you that God did a good enough job creating them, thereby reaffirming in your mind that you're right and Adam and Eve's flaws are a solid point in favor of your view?

Maybe it's some of both. In any event, if you wish to achieve goal A, you are going to have to first understand my view of Adam and Eve and then convince me that my view is wrong by pointing out the flaws in my view rather than the benefits of your view. I have no reason to even consider accepting your view when I think my view is totally fine.

If your main goal is B, you should still try to understand my view on its own terms and determine if it's coherent in and of itself, because if it's not coherent or logically consistent then you can clearly reject it as something that isn't a worthy alternative to your current beliefs. B is, naturally, a much more attainable goal than A; but if you're focusing on goal B, you're certainly not going to achieve goal A.

So, what is your goal, anyway?

Meanwhile, while my overall goal is to convince you to reject those of your beliefs that I think are false, my immediate goal is to show that the problems you have with ex nihilo theology can be addressed, i.e. that there is a logically consistent, viable, Biblical ex nihilo theology, since you seem to think there isn't one and that appears to be one of the biggest reasons why you reject traditional Christian theology. Showing that such a theology exists and can be defended is IMO the first of many steps towards getting you to accept traditional Christian theology. If that's not the case, feel free to direct me towards what an appropriate first step would be.

That being said, here is my take on the problems you bring up with Adam and Eve.

1) Their ignorance was not necessarily ignorance of the general concepts of good and evil, but of particular things being evil. They knew what they needed to know in Eden: that God was good (i.e. that he was trustworthy and should be obeyed) and that they shouldn't eat the fruit of a certain tree or they would die. And they understood this, because in order to tempt them Satan had to argue that they wouldn't die if they ate the fruit.

Yes, they were ignorant of things like nakedness vs. modesty; but I see that as being more innocence than ignorance of necessary knowledge. Eph 5:12 says "For it is shameful even to speak of the things that {evildoers} do in secret." So in a way there is a goodness in ignorance of evil. We're both parents -- while it's necessary to teach our children about "worldly" matters, there's something sweet about them being little and not knowing about all the ways that people can sin and hurt each other. Likewise, there's something sweet about God creating a new world that not only has no acts of sin, but whose inhabitants don't even know for the most part what sin is, apart from a general notion of it involving disobedience to God.

4) Given that Eve was deceived, her decision was not irrational. Her decision to trust Satan, who she didn't know, versus God who had created her, the garden, etc. was naive but not illogical -- it was not due to a lack of intelligence or reasoning ability.

2) and 3), yes, Eve was deceived, Adam failed to intervene and they both disobeyed. They made wrong choices. Those choices weren't due to a lack of necessary knowledge or reasoning ability. God wouldn't do that any more than he would tell them to tend the garden but create them paralyzed. I could expand here on my theory of the origins of evil; but I've probably given you more than enough to disagree with already.

Doesn't it make more sense instead to understand that the possibilities were limited by the intelligences that God had available to work with? I describe a theology that explains why the world is the way it is, and why we are the way we are.

Sure, your theology makes sense. I can see where it would be very appealing. But that isn't a measure of its truthfulness. One would expect a man-made theology to be readily understandable and appealing on one or many levels (e.g. per Col 2:20-23). Fables and mythologies are understandable and at least entertaining if they aren't particularly appealing. Meanwhile, Jesus said things that seemed to be logical contradictions (how can the Messiah be both David's son and his Lord?) and told people a number of things that were upsetting, even revolting, to them. John starts his gospel out with a blatant contradiction (the Word was with God, and the Word was God).

This is not to say that logical consistency, etc. don't matter when determining the truthfulness of a theology, but rather that a true theology of God, someone who is perfect and infinite, is not always going to make sense to finite, imperfect people. Just like God's perfect moral standard is going to rub us sinners wrong in some areas, and we're bound to disagree with it because our morals are flawed.

Meanwhile, I see zero Biblical support for any of your notions of people being pre-existent intelligences that weren't created by God and whose inherent flaws limited God's work.

With Ex Nihilo, not only is evil done under God's supervision, it is done by God's will.

I assume you understand the difference between God's sovereign/decretive will and his will of disposition?

It wouldn't be a "loaded" die. It is still actually a randomly rolling cube. However, since God has all of the possible of cubes to choose from, God decides which cubes to create, and therefore God is choosing which number combinations will exist in reality. It is too bad that you didn't get that from the video presentation. The illustration was quite clear on that.

The way you stated it in your post:

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

seemed to imply that God could create a die that rolled an even number every time it was rolled, which would be the equivalent of a perfect life. If you're talking about dice that are only going to be rolled five times total, then sure, God could set things up to have the five results he wanted. But the analogy breaks down when you're talking about actual human beings living lives where they make hundreds of decisions every day. It's extremely unlikely for a fair die to roll even numbers every time in a series of a million rolls.

Your argument still seems to assume that God has the option of creating a perfect person. And I'm still saying I don't see that as a viable possibility. Even if you say they wouldn't be fully perfect but would happen to make the right decision in all the situations they were in throughout their lives, I would say they would still have to be perfect even to do that, because in an ordinary life they will be tested -- unless they are perfect, they will have finite willpower and it will run out.

For someone to be good all the time, even when tested, wouldn't they have to be God?

No. Your assertion here is especially wrong in "classic theism". Don't you believe in an ontological divide between God and man? That would distinguish you from God even if you become morally perfect. Do you believe that we will be morally perfect in the next life? Does that make us God?

Furthermore, do you believe that we will have free will after the resurrection? How will our morality be then?

We won't sin in heaven, but that's because all sources of sin and evil will have been removed, not because we will be perfect in the sense that God is perfect (e.g. able to resist all forms of temptation). Which is why I stated explictly in my OP:

2. I hypothesize that God "could not" create someone who would be morally perfect in their life on Earth (that is, in a life outside of heaven where they are subject to temptations and physical weaknesses).

The moral perfection we'll have in heaven -- where it's "easy" to be moral -- is not like God's moral perfection and doesn't imply we will have the divine characteristic of true moral perfection (i.e. equivalent to God's).

This is the classic part of this discussion where people make the false assumption that God MUST create morally flawed beings in order for them to be free.

Why, because they would have to be able to choose to sin in practice in order to be free? I don't believe that. Is that what you were getting into here:

Do you believe that God has free will?

I believe he does, but since he is perfectly good he does not use his freedom to sin.

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.

There are plenty of people who are fully aware that they're making a irrational, morally wrong choice, yet choose to do it anyway. I would even venture that all people do this sometimes. Everyone eats something they know is purely junk, or doesn't exercise when they know they should, etc. The problem of sin can't be reduced to one of irrationality.

In fact, people with greater reasoning ability can be more capable of sinning because their higher intelligence allows them to rationalize their sin. My DD's therapist told me that it's harder to work with kids with above-average intelligence for this very reason -- they can argue with what the therapist is saying and defend their way of doing things, whereas a kid with below-average intelligence is more likely to accept the therapist telling them they need to change.

I agree that physical limitations are not the same as moral flaws. However, I believe that one of the reasons God gives us physical limitation is BECAUSE we have moral flaws. That is not the same as saying someone gets cancer specifically because they made a specific sin. We all need humilty to be taught to us, because we are by nature, lacking in that characteristic. Sometimes individuals need to be taught how to be charitable to others who have physical limitations.

Ok.

[Kind Debater]

Definition of free will

Ok, I was doing some more thinking this morning and read some stuff about free will.

... we may think of a person as free when bound only by her own will and not by the will of another. Her actions then express her own will and not the will of someone or something else.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#Aut

Is this what you're saying, that having free will requires being an uncaused cause? That if someone is created by God, then to the extent that their desires, etc. come from God they are not free? And that in your view, you have free will because your soul "just was" and wasn't created by anyone else?

[Kind Debater]

7up, I am working on a response to your post. I have a lot written but I'm trying to get to a point where we aren't simply repeating ourselves. To that end, let me just say one thing here and see if that helps.

God does not force change upon an individual. God COULD prevent scenarios where they would make wrong choices, but then those individuals would never learn the consequences of making mistakes. There is little opportunity for progress and learning in such a scenario.

So individuals can learn and change. In this case, for the better. In some cases, for the worse, per Romans 1, since they can make choices that either bring them closer to God or take them further away. Either way, they change -- they don't remain the same as when they started.

Even if when they started was when God created them ex nihilo.

If you're going to say that if God created ex nihilo, then he should have created mini-Gods who would never change because they couldn't improve and would never make a wrong choice, then I guess this isn't going to go anywhere. If you can at least say that God could create ex nihilo someone who wasn't perfect but, in theory, had the tools to obey the finite set of commands God gave him -- which is what I'm going to argue was Adam and Eve's original state -- then don't you agree that such a person could change, for better or for worse? That they could have experiences, learn, decide to do things differently the next time -- or make mistakes?

[Kind Debater]

I think this thread is for KD and 7up, according to the title. Therefore others should not post here unless Kind Debater (the thread starter) gives permission.

Thanks, Sparko.

[Sparko]

I think this thread is for KD and 7up, according to the title. Therefore others should not post here unless Kind Debater (the thread starter) gives permission.

[Bill the Cat]

7UP wrote:

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

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

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



Your objection is simply and patently absurd.

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

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

Happy Bill?

It assumes that God is the one rolling the dice, also known as hard determinism. Accusing a Molinist of believing in hard determinism is called a straw man.

Another point I made in the video, which is illustrated in a clear way ... is that, creating Ex Nihilo, there is an infinite number of possible cubes that God could create, and each with it's own unique number combination. If God wants a cube to have the supposedly "random" combination of

4 1 2 3 5 4 4 3 3 4 4 5 1 2 6 1 5 3 5 6 6 5 1 3 2 5 3 2 ,

then God can simply decide to create this cube that God knows before hand will roll that very same combination.

Or He could simply not decide to create it. Or He could decide to create one that the one actually rolling it will roll a different combination. Every roll has the POTENTIAL and OPPORTUNITY to roll a 6 by the sheer existence of the side labeled 6. It is up to God to say what is His decisions for creating that particular "dice roller" is. That is God's justice.

The problem is that we are not "rolls of the dice", nor are our decisions. They are not "random". Dice rolls are really a poor analogy, but since you have invested so much of your argument in that analogy, you will never admit that it is a poor one.

If there is another combination that God does not want, then He can simply refrain from creating it.

Or He can create it anyway, allowing it the free will to "load the dice" if it chooses.

Like I said, this is one aspect whereby the Ex Nihilo framework gives God complete and unilateral control of every single "choice" we supposedly make within the context of creation from God's own mind.

-7up

And that is why your false summation of it is wrong.

[seven7up]

7UP: How we behave is a reflection of who and what we are. Why do you believe that God, creating every single minute detail of our being, can essentially deny culpability of the actions of those beings He creates out of nothing?

God did create people while knowing in advance that they would do evil. However:

1. God did not directly create evil -- he did not design people to do evil, give them evil desires, etc. Evil begins when people use their independent thinking processes to devise immoral ways of trying to meet their natural needs/wants.

Let's think of Adam/Eve. They were:

1) ignorant (they did not know good and evil like God does)
2) easily deceived
3) disobedient
4) irrational

Are you telling me that out of any kind of creature possible from your God's infinite mind, that this is the kind of being that He came up with?

Doesn't it make more sense instead to understand that the possibilities were limited by the intelligences that God had available to work with? I describe a theology that explains why the world is the way it is, and why we are the way we are.

God did create people while knowing in advance that they would do evil. However:

2. What evil does occur is under God's supervision, if you will. ... All who suffer the effects of evil will either be restored or be punished justly for their own evil acts.

With Ex Nihilo, not only is evil done under God's supervision, it is done by God's will.

But this argument presupposes that God can and will create a loaded die that will only roll even numbers, as in your first example. That is what I am arguing against. For someone to be good all the time, even when tested, wouldn't they have to be God?

It wouldn't be a "loaded" die. It is still actually a randomly rolling cube. However, since God has all of the possible of cubes to choose from, God decides which cubes to create, and therefore God is choosing which number combinations will exist in reality. It is too bad that you didn't get that from the video presentation. The illustration was quite clear on that.

For someone to be good all the time, even when tested, wouldn't they have to be God?

No. Your assertion here is especially wrong in "classic theism". Don't you believe in an ontological divide between God and man? That would distinguish you from God even if you become morally perfect. Do you believe that we will be morally perfect in the next life? Does that make us God?

Furthermore, do you believe that we will have free will after the resurrection? How will our morality be then?

This is the classic part of this discussion where people make the false assumption that God MUST create morally flawed beings in order for them to be free.

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.

7UP: If God creates me with a gluten allergy, I may avoid cereal altogether. Some people have a short fuse; get angry easily. Some people are greedy; some lazy. Some people have homosexual tendencies. You get the point.

God may create people with physical limitations, for his own reasons (e.g. the man born blind so that Jesus could heal him). I don't think he directly creates the desire to sin, though. Since we are finite beings and for various reasons he can't create us as deities, he gives us finite strength;

I agree that physical limitations are not the same as moral flaws. However, I believe that one of the reasons God gives us physical limitation is BECAUSE we have moral flaws. That is not the same as saying someone gets cancer specifically because they made a specific sin. We all need humilty to be taught to us, because we are by nature, lacking in that characteristic. Sometimes individuals need to be taught how to be charitable to others who have physical limitations.

"You were blameless in your ways from the day that you were created, until iniquity was found in you." --Ezekiel 28:15

How could they be blamed, when they did not even understand good or evil?

7UP: If God creates every aspect of who and what I am from God's own imagination, and God knows how I will respond in any given situation, and God knows that by creating me differently would result in different "choices" in certain scenarios, then God truly has complete and total unilateral control.

I disagree with the first statement here. God creates us but doesn't predetermine every thought we come up with. You have not addressed what I said in the OP:

Our thoughts and behaviors are external reflections of who and what we are on the inside. Who created every aspect of our being India? Again I point to Mark Hausam, a Calvinist, who explains that your view is clearly a logical contradiction.

God cannot create uncaused choices, directly or indirectly. He cannot create them directly, nor can he start
in motion a chain of causes and effects that eventually leads to them, for the very simple reason that they are, by definition, uncaused or self-caused. And the choices here cannot be separated from the person choosing. Since the choice is uncaused, the will that produces the choice must be uncaused. Since God did not create (even indirectly) any of the actual choices of the will, he did not create whatever it is in the will that is the cause of the actual choices we make. Even proponents of libertarian freedom will admit, although paradoxically, that the choices we make are the results of the motivations, desires, loves, values, priorities, beliefs, etc., that constitute who we are, that make up the real essence of our actual being. That is why our choices reveal who we are. If our choices were not produced from the essence of our being, they would not be
our choices fundamentally and would not reveal anything about who we are. Therefore, if God were the creator of our being or the essence of who we are, as a logically consistent account of creation ex nihilo would affirm, he would also be the creator and cause, at least indirectly, of the actual choices we make. But since these cannot be causally traced back to God, in Arminianism, the essence of who we are that our choices flow from, and thus reveal and express, must also be unable to be traced back to God or his creative activity. Whatever God created ex nihilo when he created human beings, he thus did not create that which constitutes the real essence of our being and character. So we can see that, in Arminian theology, the main implications of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo are negated and the doctrine itself is thus, in effect, relegated to practical unimportance, since the most important part of who we are, that which defines our primary essence, is not created by God, but is self-existent or self-created.

7UP: Why do you think it is possible?

Because all things are possible with God, and no one's shown me that it's not possible.

I have, in many ways, you just aren't listening. Review Mark Hausam's discussion above. Maybe he can show you. The logical contradiction, which you claim exists and limits God, is right in front of your face. You are contradicting yourself even on this post to me that God cannot create "deities" for many reasons. One of those reasons is that you consider created beings to be entirely contingent (not first-causal by nature).

The fact that God doesn't share his glory with another is just one more reason why his creating another god is not an option.

The glory that Christ was given by the throne of His Father is the same glory that He will share with us (see Rev. 3:21) and God gains more glory when we are glorified in Christ. A God of gods is more glorious and superior than a God of feeble mutts.

I also disagree with the third statement insofar as it implies that God could create someone in such a way that they will do the right thing in any given scenario. Matt 24:22 makes it clear that there are trials that no human can pass unaided by God.

But what is it about an individual who is humble enough to accept aid from God?

In your view of things, why doesn't God a) fix the things that are wrong (give one person more patience, take away the other person's homosexual interest) and/or b) prevent scenarios where they would make wrong choices, e.g. by creating the world so that people's needs are always met?

God does not force change upon an individual. God COULD prevent scenarios where they would make wrong choices, but then those individuals would never learn the consequences of making mistakes. There is little opportunity for progress and learning in such a scenario.

Are you nothing more than a complex finite state machine? If you do something wrong, do you blame it on the imperfections of your pre-existant intelligence and the conditions you happened to be in at the time?

You seem to be saying that in your view of ex nihilo, a person's actions can be determined by some set of variables (taste, strengths and weaknesses, environment, etc.), all of which are under God's control. But in LDS ex materia, all those same variables are still present and predetermined, either by God or by whatever stuff was in your pre-existing intelligence. What is the difference between these two scenarios that makes you think you have free will in one but not the other? (I think I asked this last time, but I don't remember what you said.)

My response was this. Do you believe that God has free will?


As for God "fashioning" our souls, that is all fine and good, as long as you consider that God is limited in how He creates an individual, by what He has to work with.

-7up

[seven7up]

7UP wrote:

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

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

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

This is simply and patently absurd. The thief on the cross lived a life of amoral decisions, while one single moral decision redeemed him.

Your objection is simply and patently absurd.

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

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

Happy Bill?



Another point I made in the video, which is illustrated in a clear way ... is that, creating Ex Nihilo, there is an infinite number of possible cubes that God could create, and each with it's own unique number combination. If God wants a cube to have the supposedly "random" combination of

4 1 2 3 5 4 4 3 3 4 4 5 1 2 6 1 5 3 5 6 6 5 1 3 2 5 3 2 ,

then God can simply decide to create this cube that God knows before hand will roll that very same combination.

If there is another combination that God does not want, then He can simply refrain from creating it.

Like I said, this is one aspect whereby the Ex Nihilo framework gives God complete and unilateral control of every single "choice" we supposedly make within the context of creation from God's own mind.

-7up

[Paprika]

2. I hypothesize that God "could not"* create someone who would be morally perfect in their life on Earth (that is, in a life outside of heaven where they are subject to temptations and physical weaknesses). Moral perfection -- in this case meaning moral perfection even when tested or tempted -- is a divine attribute, because as Jesus himself said, "God alone is good." I hypothesize that only God possesses divine attributes -- that if someone were morally perfect, they would have to have all the other divine attributes as well, including the attribute of eternal existence, which would mean they could not have been created.

Also, since God alone is good, for God to create someone else who was perfectly good, wouldn't that person's consciousness have to be the same as God's -- i.e. wouldn't this other good person have to essentially be a fourth member of the Godhead, someone whose thoughts and will were perfectly aligned with the Father?

Furthermore, if God did create a morally perfect person, that person would be deserving of glory for their innate righteousness -- yet God does not share his glory with others (Is 42:8)

[Kind Debater]

How we behave is a reflection of who and what we are. Why do you believe that God, creating every single minute detail of our being, can essentially deny culpability of the actions of those beings He creates out of nothing?

God did create people while knowing in advance that they would do evil. However:

1. God did not directly create evil -- he did not design people to do evil, give them evil desires, etc. Evil begins when people use their independent thinking processes to devise immoral ways of trying to meet their natural needs/wants.

2. What evil does occur is under God's supervision, if you will. Take the book of Job, for instance. God permitted Satan to test Job, but placed limits around what Satan could do and for how long he could do it. At the end of the test, God healed Job, restored his fortune and enabled him to have a second family (and presumably Job is currently reunited with both sets of children). Satan will ultimately be punished and locked up forever. It's the same with any evil that occurs -- God is aware of it before it happens, he limits it, punishes it and ultimately brings it to an end. All who suffer the effects of evil will either be restored or be punished justly for their own evil acts. And finally, God can bring good out of evil since he is sovereign.

The reason why I recommend the video is because concepts are much more easily understood when you combine audio/visual illustrations.

You do realize I'm India and that we've had this discussion before, right? I did watch a couple of your videos before, but I'm really a visual person so the video presentation didn't really help to further my understanding of your points.

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

1) 4, 4, 2, 6, 2

2) 1, 2, 5, 3, 6

3) 3, 5, 1, 3, 1

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

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

But this argument presupposes that God can and will create a loaded die that will only roll even numbers, as in your first example. That is what I am arguing against. For someone to be good all the time, even when tested, wouldn't they have to be God? The primary moral command is to love, but to love an imperfect being perfectly at all times requires perfect patience, mercy, perseverance, etc. We humans can't even love God, who is perfect, perfectly.

B) As I said, randomness is not necessarily how our choices work. When I go downstairs for breakfast, I don't choose cocoa puffs rather than cheerios "randomly". I have a reason or a preference for making a decision. Anybody who has children knows that every child is unique. You could have identical twins who you raise in the same way, but their personalities will be different. My daughter has an aversion to chocolate. She always has from age 2. Still doesn't like chocolate. She will choose Cheerios over cocoa puffs every time.

My husband and his family don't like chocolate either. More chocolate for me, I say.

If God creates me with a gluten allergy, I may avoid cereal altogether. Some people have a short fuse; get angry easily. Some people are greedy; some lazy. Some people have homosexual tendencies. You get the point.

God may create people with physical limitations, for his own reasons (e.g. the man born blind so that Jesus could heal him). I don't think he directly creates the desire to sin, though. Since we are finite beings and for various reasons he can't create us as deities, he gives us finite strength; but that's not the same as directly creating us with evil desires (see Romans 1). Improper anger, greed, laziness and sexual impurity are all corruptions of natural, God-given desires for justice, adequate physical provision, rest and marital intimacy.

"You were blameless in your ways from the day that you were created, until iniquity was found in you." --Ezekiel 28:15

If God creates every aspect of who and what I am from God's own imagination, and God knows how I will respond in any given situation, and God knows that by creating me differently would result in different "choices" in certain scenarios, then God truly has complete and total unilateral control.

I disagree with the first statement here. God creates us but doesn't predetermine every thought we come up with. You have not addressed what I said in the OP:

You can say all you want to about God creating our personalities, interests, strengths and controlling our environment, but even those together don't dictate every thought that comes into our heads. If someone invents a new word or writes a song or even just asks, "What happens if I put these two things together?", those are creative ideas that can't be predetermined by looking at the knowable facts about that person.

I also disagree with the third statement insofar as it implies that God could create someone in such a way that they will do the right thing in any given scenario. Matt 24:22 makes it clear that there are trials that no human can pass unaided by God.

In your view of things, why doesn't God a) fix the things that are wrong (give one person more patience, take away the other person's homosexual interest) and/or b) prevent scenarios where they would make wrong choices, e.g. by creating the world so that people's needs are always met?

Would God create both silver and helium out of nothing, and then blame and punish silver because it sinks in water? Would God blame and punish Helium because it rises in air?

Are you nothing more than a complex finite state machine? If you do something wrong, do you blame it on the imperfections of your pre-existant intelligence and the conditions you happened to be in at the time?

You seem to be saying that in your view of ex nihilo, a person's actions can be determined by some set of variables (taste, strengths and weaknesses, environment, etc.), all of which are under God's control. But in LDS ex materia, all those same variables are still present and predetermined, either by God or by whatever stuff was in your pre-existing intelligence. What is the difference between these two scenarios that makes you think you have free will in one but not the other? (I think I asked this last time, but I don't remember what you said.)

Would you say that the God you believe in purposefully creates amoral persons because He does not want to share glory with anyone else? God purposefully creates inferior beings, even though He could potentially create better ones?

No, I'm saying his choice was to create people as they are or not create them at all. If my hypothesis is true, God couldn't create a morally perfect person any more than he can create a square circle, because only someone with divine characteristics can be morally perfect, and in my theology, a being with divine characteristics must be God and God can't be created. The fact that God doesn't share his glory with another is just one more reason why his creating another god is not an option.

"Only in the Lord, it shall be said of me, are righteousness and strength" --Isaiah 45:24

Why do you think it is possible?

Because all things are possible with God, and no one's shown me that it's not possible.

You would like to think that it is possible, because defending your religious dogma depends on it. Your wishful thinking cannot wash away the problems with the theological construct of creation "out of nothing", which is an extra-Biblical assumption to begin with.

The "problems" you refer to are your problems which exist in your way of thinking. They aren't problems for me, any more than the average atheist's objections are problems for me (or for you, for that matter). If Anna the atheist says she can't believe in God because she sees no evidence for his existence, that's reason for her not to believe; but it isn't reason for me not to believe, because I've seen plenty of evidence. Likewise, your moral and philosophical objections to ex nihilo are not problems for me. I see no contradiction between free will, ex nihilo and God's sovereignty. I have no objections to God being in control of the universe and permitting evil and creating people that he knows will end up in hell. I have zero reason to doubt God's goodness.

As to whether or not ex nihilo is Biblical -- it seems to me, having skimmed your arguments with Bill, that it comes down to the meaning of various Hebrew/Greek words, and once it gets to that point each side will produce testimony from language experts that supports their particular view. In other words, if you want to read the verses as supporting ex nihilo, you can read them that way, and if you really want to read them as supporting ex materia, you can read them that way too. IMO there's enough Biblical support for ex nihilo that it's credible, to say the least, and there isn't anything that explicitly rules it out. But as I said, since you're determined to believe in ex materia, and you've examined the passages that would seem to support ex nihilo and ruled them out, I don't see that our discussing the various passages is going to bear any more fruit than your discussion with Bill has.

That being said, I think there is some indirect Biblical support for the idea of God fashioning our souls, whether you want to say he did so ex nihilo or ex materia.

1) Passages like Ex 35:30-35, Is 44:21-45:13, Pr 16:4, Luke 1:14-17, Rom 9:17-21 imply that God created specific people for specific purposes, gave them specific talents, etc.

2) There is the concept of us belonging to God because he made us, and that doesn't seem to be valid or important if he only created our bodies and not our minds/souls. There may be more/better passages for this, but for instance Is 43:1, 43:6-7, 43:20-21, 44:1-5, 29:16, and again, Pr 16:4 and Rom 9:20-23.

[Bill the Cat]

... Especially considering that amoral decisions will lead to eternal damnation.

This is simply and patently absurd. The thief on the cross lived a life of amoral decisions, while one single moral decision redeemed him.

[seven7up]

Let me describe a few more things in more detail that nobody has bothered to address. In the presentation, I give an example concerning a scientific concept - electron mobility. The idea is that the "location" of an electron can be considered to be "random". I am not saying that randomness is necessarily the same as free will, only that this can be used as a parallel in thinking about different choices/options that a person may have with free will. My argument of rolling dice makes a point that is valid even if it were entirely random. So:

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

1) 4, 4, 2, 6, 2

2) 1, 2, 5, 3, 6

3) 3, 5, 1, 3, 1

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

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

In the video, I invite someone to contrast that scenario with the idea that there are entities that already exist. In that case, God may know which combination will be rolled before hand, but God is not deciding which ones will exist and which ones will not exist. He has to deal with the entities of free will which are already there.

While all of this under section A here is quite problematic for someone who believes in an omnipotent and omniscient God creating Ex Nihilo, that point is only a small aspect of the discussion. It argues a point as if our characteristics have nothing to do with any decision we might make. But the point is still valid nonetheless. Now to the next one.

B) As I said, randomness is not necessarily how our choices work. When I go downstairs for breakfast, I don't choose cocoa puffs rather than cheerios "randomly". I have a reason or a preference for making a decision. Anybody who has children knows that every child is unique. You could have identical twins who you raise in the same way, but their personalities will be different. My daughter has an aversion to chocolate. She always has from age 2. Still doesn't like chocolate. She will choose Cheerios over cocoa puffs every time. If God creates me with a gluten allergy, I may avoid cereal altogether. Some people have a short fuse; get angry easily. Some people are greedy; some lazy. Some people have homosexual tendencies. You get the point.

If God creates every aspect of who and what I am from God's own imagination, and God knows how I will respond in any given situation, and God knows that by creating me differently would result in different "choices" in certain scenarios, then God truly has complete and total unilateral control.

C) Also in the presentation, I provide an illustration of atoms. On one hand, the atoms appear to have electrons that may be at random locations within the electron cloud. However, based on the make-up of of any particular atom, you have certain properties. This is an interesting analogy because you have a combination of set characteritics based on the subatomic particles present in the atom, but you also have the randomness of the electron locations in the cloud.

Despite a certain amount of variability and randomness, the atoms are rather predictable. Mercury behaves differently than lead. Helium behaves differently than Oxygen. Would God create both silver and helium out of nothing, and then blame and punish silver because it sinks in water? Would God blame and punish Helium because it rises in air?

Furthermore, if God did create a morally perfect person, that person would be deserving of glory for their innate righteousness -- yet God does not share his glory with others (Is 42:8)

Would you say that the God you believe in purposefully creates amoral persons because He does not want to share glory with anyone else? God purposefully creates inferior beings, even though He could potentially create better ones?

In Ex Nihilo creation, your point appears to be true, but I don't think that pointing it out is going to help your case.

1. I don't see why it should not be possible for God, being omnipotent and all, to create a separate, creative consciousness that is capable of coming up with its own thoughts, thoughts that would not have originated with God ...

Why do you think it is possible? You would like to think that it is possible, because defending your religious dogma depends on it. Your wishful thinking cannot wash away the problems with the theological construct of creation "out of nothing", which is an extra-Biblical assumption to begin with.

-7up

[seven7up]

You can say all you want to about God creating our personalities, interests, strengths and controlling our environment, but even those together don't dictate every thought that comes into our heads.

How we behave is a reflection of who and what we are. Why do you believe that God, creating every single minute detail of our being, can essentially deny culpability of the actions of those beings He creates out of nothing?

Nobody has been very specific. The analogies in the video are very, very detailed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxOiYvKDack
The reason why I recommend the video is because concepts are much more easily understood when you combine audio/visual illustrations. The "knee-jerk" reaction to me saying that there is no free will with ex nihilo, is to say ... "God can just create ex nihilo AND give free will. Problem solved." Yet they do not think the issues through, or even demonstrate in their responses that they have tried to understand the concepts presented.

So, I will try to bring the issues to light in even greater detail for you, Kind Debater.

-7up

[Cerebrum123]

We need an empty popcorn smiley so I can accuse those of using it before me of hogging all of it.

[Bill the Cat]