Originally posted by seven7up
View Post
7up: The only way out of it is to say, as Joseph Smith did, that we are coeternal with God.
The concept is essentially the same, whether we existed outside of God's mind or inside of God's mind.
The concept is essentially the same, whether we existed outside of God's mind or inside of God's mind.
7up: It appears that you are now trying to argue that God is forced (later you call it like being a "slave) to create 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. (note in parenthesis added)
7up: In other words, you appear to be arguing here that God is limited by God's own foreknowledge.
Creating rational beings with free will is not a logical contradiction.
7up: In other words, you appear to be arguing here that God is limited by God's own foreknowledge.
Creating rational beings with free will is not a logical contradiction.
Your rational leads you to something like: God first thought of ignorant and disobedient beings, therefore God was forced to create ignorant and disobedient beings.
7up: I just want to make clear that you are putting more limits on God.
God would be "limited" to creating the first kind of being that He comes up with, even if it is a crappy one.
God would be "limited" to creating the first kind of being that He comes up with, even if it is a crappy one.
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.
Hitler existed eternally within the mind of God ... is the implication of what you are saying here.
Hitler existed eternally within the mind of God ... is the implication of what you are saying here.
You are proposing that they existed as part of God.
And really, I think LDS theology would call eternally existing entities "interdependent" rather than "independent". Nobody is truly independent.
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?
You did not answer this question.
You did not answer this question.
The answer (either way) falls in line with Mark Hausam explained in his article.
7up: Your solution then, is to argue that our WILL (the will of human beings) is COETERNAL with God.
If our wills essentially existed IN God's mind and then the actualized Universe is an external manifestation of what existed within God, then you can see why I previously mentioned how Ex Nihilo is drawn back into a form of Pantheism.
7up: Your solution then, is to argue that our WILL (the will of human beings) is COETERNAL with God.
If our wills essentially existed IN God's mind and then the actualized Universe is an external manifestation of what existed within God, then you can see why I previously mentioned how Ex Nihilo is drawn back into a form of Pantheism.
7up: ... 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.
It doesn't make much of a difference when compared to what you just proposed. You essentially proposed that God's unembodied mind included the unembodied minds/wills of those that God had not actuated yet, but our minds/wills existed within God's mind nonetheless.
It doesn't make much of a difference when compared to what you just proposed. You essentially proposed that God's unembodied mind included the unembodied minds/wills of those that God had not actuated yet, but our minds/wills existed within God's mind nonetheless.
Yours does worse than that. Yours creates us to be disobedient, ignorant, etc, and then condemns us for being that way.
First of all, I gave the POSSIBILITY that God would be violating free will if He denies them progression. The other options include the idea that it is impossible for God to know the nature of a spirit child that has not yet been created OR that all spirit children are created in a single event. We don't know. I was just giving you a possibility to work with.
LDS don't usually view it that way. People choose not to progress. They will end up in the kingdom that they are most suited for and that they are most comfortable in.
- - - - - - - -- - Earlier discussion pertaining to this one- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - - -
Please re-read what you wrote here. It pretty much summarizes the best that you can come up with in this debate.
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.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - - -
Please re-read what you wrote here. It pretty much summarizes the best that you can come up with in this debate.
What reason would that be?
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.
The argument you just attempted would require that the characteristics and will of each individual would have had to co-eternally exist in God's mind.
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.
The argument you just attempted would require that the characteristics and will of each individual would have had to co-eternally exist in God's mind.
Otherwise, you can not attempt to use that argument. You have no alternative logical choice.
7up: You didn't start to agree with some aspect of a coeternity of will until after an entire month of debate.
See above and below.
See above and below.
All I see is that you still don't get how perfect foreknowledge works. Or you are intentionally ignoring it.
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 thus you are forced to admit my point, that our nature, which God created (in your theology created out of nothing), is why we are flawed (ignorant, disobedient, etc.) In other words, we act according to our nature, just as God acts according to God's nature. If God would have created Adam and Eve with a different nature, then they would act according to that nature.
7up: Do you expect God to act contrary to God's nature?
And thus you are forced to admit my point, that our nature, which God created (in your theology created out of nothing), is why we are flawed (ignorant, disobedient, etc.) In other words, we act according to our nature, just as God acts according to God's nature. If God would have created Adam and Eve with a different nature, then they would act according to that nature.
There can be different kinds of beings, with different kinds of natures, and all of those different kinds could have free will. So why create a being with the nature of disobedience, ignorance, and so easily deceived?
7up: And therefore you must argue that God is incapable of creating a being with a pure and moral nature.
And who's fault is it, that God did not actuate this potential?
And who's fault is it, that God did not actuate this potential?
Why is it that ALL of the human souls turn out wicked if there were other possibilities or potentials?
7up: You must argue that God's imagination is only capable of producing impure beings.
In that case, what comes first?
In that case, what comes first?
Are you saying that the free will of the being that God foreknows comes first, BEFORE God's imagination?
If so, then our WILL and character is just as eternal as God is. Welcome to thinking like a Mormon.
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. .... 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?
A God creating any kind of apple out of God's own imagination can create any kind and color of fruit that God wants to.
A God creating any kind of apple out of God's own imagination can create any kind and color of fruit that God wants to.
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 whole being) come from?
7up: 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?
7up: 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?
Being "dumb" is not a matter of free will. Being rational is not a matter of free will.
7up: 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?
7up: 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?
Being "dumb" is not a matter of free will. Being rational is not a matter of free will.
There are smart people or rational with free will and there are dumb people or irrational people with free will. So your "answer" here is not a real answer at all, but instead dodging the real issue.
Leave a comment: