7up; Really you are just trying to weasel out of the problem.
It is "weaseling out" because it is not logically consistent. The only way out of it is to say, as Joseph Smith did, that we are coeternal with God.
7up: It appears that you are now trying to argue that God is forced to created what he creates, because God foreknew the creatures of creation and their outcomes, and by foreknowing something, God must actuate what He foreknew in his own mind.
7up: In other words, you appear to be arguing here that God is limited by God's own foreknowledge.
I just want to make clear that you are putting more limits on God.
7up; Also, it looks like you are now denying what you said earlier about God knowing possible outcomes of worlds and creatures that He did not decide to actuate.
God thought up the concept of Hitler, and then God was forced to create Hitler, because God thought of Hitler. Got it.
7up: Is it God's foreknowledge that determines whether or not the creature's actions become actualized (God's foreknowledge is the first cause), or are the creature's actions "first causal" by nature and God foreknows those actions?
Your solution then, is to argue that our WILL (the will of human beings) is COETERNAL with God. In other words, your solution to my first argument is to attempt to copy the LDS position. Congratulations.
7up: It is like me deciding to build a car, and I have no choice but to build the very first concept that comes to my mind, whether it is a good concept or not.
Nonsense. It was not your old argument. In fact, at one point you were criticizing my theology, saying that you were appalled by the idea that God would have to bow to the will of the creatures that God Himself was creating, thus putting the will of created creatures on existential par with God's will.
Here is a section of an earlier discussion between you and I:
- - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7up: The difference between your view and mine - is that God, in your theology, is creating a rapist from God's own imagination (ie from nothing).
7up: In my theology, there already existed a flawed intelligence from eternity.
7up: That flawed and imperfect intelligence progressed into humanity
7up: , and to deny any step of that progression could have been a violation of that individual's free will.
(Oh and in the previous post, after I said that we could assume for the moment, to make the debate more fair for you, that God knows which spirits will be good and which will be bad, you responded to this:)
7up: In LDS theology, the physical existence is a parallel of the spiritual existence. We believe that our spirits chose to enter physical bodies, and therefore, the possibility exists that the eternal intelligence had some kind of will to enter a spiritual body.
So Bill, now you are arguing to me that God cannot help but create from nothing those beings which God foreknows. In other words, you are now arguing that God is incapable of saying no. (A concept which you were previously mocking.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - - -
7up: Is the idea that God's own foreknowledge causes God to create what He creates your final answer on this?
If you had this concept from the beginning, you would have said ... "You know what 7up, I agree with you in the sense that I agree that "the will of human beings is coeternal with God." Then we could have skipped the whole first argument, and simply moved on to the second one.
You didn't start to agree with some aspect of a coeternity of will until after an entire month of debate.
7up: ....now your refutation seems to be that God MUST create the cube that God foreknew that He would create. Here you assert that God has no choice in the matter.... God's foreknowledge is the cause. This is quite a circular argument that you have developed.
7up: And we have not even gotten to the second, and more powerful part of the problem for you.
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7UP: So, on to the next part. Second, I argue that God has power over outcomes by designing every single aspect of who and what we are, as Hausam explains above, "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."
7up: Do you expect God to act contrary to God's nature?
And therefore you must argue that God is incapable of creating a being with a pure and moral nature. You must argue that God's imagination is only capable of producing impure beings.
7up: For starters, what is our nature?
I agree that we are sinful by nature. However. I would qualify the statement "unable to do good". Anyways, the point is that we are sinful by nature.
7up: When a child is born in this world, what is the nature of that child.
Are you going to put another limitation on God, by saying that God's imagination is not strong enough to come up with a morally superior creature?
7up; Is the child rational?
You are avoiding the question. Plus, evangelicals imagine Adam and Eve being created as adults, so ...
7up: Why not? When God created Adam and Eve, where did they get their motivations, desires, loves, values, priorities, beliefs, etc., that constitute who they are, that make up the real essence of Adam and Eve's actual being. Where did all of that (their come from?
Correct. In Ex Nihilo theology, all of these characteristics come from God Himself.
7up: If Adam and Eve were rational , why did they make such an obvious blunder with such immense consequences?
So, God is omniscient and omnipotent, but the best thing God can come up with from God's own imagination is a being who is so dumb (or sinful) that they will fall for the first trick that is thrown at them?
7up: The reason I presented the arguments on these two levels, is because first people try, as you did, to say that choices are not simply random. Right. Because they are determined by who and what we are. On the other hand, if you try to go the other way, and try to claim that God does not create our motivations, desires, loves, values, priorities, etc., then you also have no recourse in your argumentation.
I try to keep them together, but sometimes they get far too long.
-7up
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
7up: It appears that you are now trying to argue that God is forced to created what he creates, because God foreknew the creatures of creation and their outcomes, and by foreknowing something, God must actuate what He foreknew in his own mind.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
7up; Also, it looks like you are now denying what you said earlier about God knowing possible outcomes of worlds and creatures that He did not decide to actuate.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
7up: Is it God's foreknowledge that determines whether or not the creature's actions become actualized (God's foreknowledge is the first cause), or are the creature's actions "first causal" by nature and God foreknows those actions?
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
7up: It is like me deciding to build a car, and I have no choice but to build the very first concept that comes to my mind, whether it is a good concept or not.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Here is a section of an earlier discussion between you and I:
- - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7up: The difference between your view and mine - is that God, in your theology, is creating a rapist from God's own imagination (ie from nothing).
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
7up: In LDS theology, the physical existence is a parallel of the spiritual existence. We believe that our spirits chose to enter physical bodies, and therefore, the possibility exists that the eternal intelligence had some kind of will to enter a spiritual body.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
So Bill, now you are arguing to me that God cannot help but create from nothing those beings which God foreknows. In other words, you are now arguing that God is incapable of saying no. (A concept which you were previously mocking.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - - -
7up: Is the idea that God's own foreknowledge causes God to create what He creates your final answer on this?
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
You didn't start to agree with some aspect of a coeternity of will until after an entire month of debate.
7up: ....now your refutation seems to be that God MUST create the cube that God foreknew that He would create. Here you assert that God has no choice in the matter.... God's foreknowledge is the cause. This is quite a circular argument that you have developed.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7UP: So, on to the next part. Second, I argue that God has power over outcomes by designing every single aspect of who and what we are, as Hausam explains above, "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."
7up: Do you expect God to act contrary to God's nature?
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
7up: For starters, what is our nature?
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
7up: When a child is born in this world, what is the nature of that child.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
7up; Is the child rational?
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
7up: Why not? When God created Adam and Eve, where did they get their motivations, desires, loves, values, priorities, beliefs, etc., that constitute who they are, that make up the real essence of Adam and Eve's actual being. Where did all of that (their come from?
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
7up: If Adam and Eve were rational , why did they make such an obvious blunder with such immense consequences?
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
7up: The reason I presented the arguments on these two levels, is because first people try, as you did, to say that choices are not simply random. Right. Because they are determined by who and what we are. On the other hand, if you try to go the other way, and try to claim that God does not create our motivations, desires, loves, values, priorities, etc., then you also have no recourse in your argumentation.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
-7up
Comment