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

The meta-thread about the ex nihilo threads

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

  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    7up; Really you are just trying to weasel out of the problem. It is "weaseling out" because (your argument) is not logically consistent.



    I have said this MANY, many times. It is amazing that you keep getting this wrong after the lengthy discussions we have had. I NEVER argued that foreknowledge is the same as causation. I argue that creation Ex Nihilo is the same as causation.
    Since creatio ex nihilo is all about foreknowledge, then you are equating the two whether you want to admit it or not.

    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.
    That is absolutely and demonstrably false. Existing "outside" of God's mind before creation would imply a separate and non-contingent existence, meaning that God Himself could be removed but that which existed "outside" of Him would remain in existence. The concepts are different.

    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.
    Creating a different being than God foreknew is. It would be like having the blueprints for a Ferrari and building a Pinto.

    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.
    Wrong. God foreknew that we would be how we are, ignorant and disobedient, and He created us based on those "blueprints". Changing the blueprints would violate what He foreknew, thus causing a logical contradiction.

    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.
    You keep seeing this in Mormon linear thinking. God's foreknowledge is in the present. There are no "sequences" in God's foreknowledge of events. He always knew that I would be typing this response to you at this precise moment long before I ever existed in our time.

    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.
    Yes. And any attempt by God to change what Hitler would do would be a violation of Hitler's free will, and a violation of God's perfect foreknowledge.



    You are proposing that they existed as part of God.
    As foreknowledge, yes. Not a tangible separate being, like you propose, but as knowledge.


    And really, I think LDS theology would call eternally existing entities "interdependent" rather than "independent". Nobody is truly independent.
    Your eternal existence is not reliant on anyone else for its existence. You just exist. Had Elohim never organized you, you would still exist. Had Elohim never been organized himself, you would still exist. THAT is what I mean by "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.
    Yes I did. The answer is neither. God creates as the "first cause", but His creation is limited to the parameters of His foreknowledge of our decisions. They both work together simultaneously for God to be our cause while our decisions are our own to be judged.

    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.
    And why I said you were wrong. You are stretching Pantheism well beyond what it really is.

    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.
    AS FOREKNOWLEDGE. That's what you simply refuse to grasp. As foreknowledge, we did not exist as temporal created entities who aged, experienced things, or any of the other things that come along with created existence. We existed merely as perfect foreknowledge.



    Yours does worse than that. Yours creates us to be disobedient, ignorant, etc, and then condemns us for being that way.
    Because if He changed any of that, He would be violating our free will to do so.



    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.
    And you complain about my theology?? At least I have a response that is logically coherent. All you have is "we don't know", which is typical for the on-the-fly crap Joseph Smith made up.



    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.
    But when they see that they are not in the presence of the Father, why would they not desire a higher kingdom? And then why would He deny their progression?

    - - - - - - - -- - 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.
    And this is the best that you have... "We don't know"



    What reason would that be?
    Incompetence.

    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.
    Only as perfect knowledge, not as a separate entity.

    Otherwise, you can not attempt to use that argument. You have no alternative logical choice.
    I agree. There is no other logical choice that can manage foreknowledge, free will, and contingency.

    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.

    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.
    And that would have meant that He would not have foreknown their original nature, which is a contradiction of His perfect foreknowledge. In order for God to CHANGE something about their initial created nature, He has to violate His foreknowledge of what He was changing in the first place.

    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?
    Because that's what He foreknew.

    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?
    Ours.

    Why is it that ALL of the human souls turn out wicked if there were other possibilities or potentials?
    My soul isn't wicked. It has been redeemed, blood-bought, saved, sanctified, and washed clean.

    7up: You must argue that God's imagination is only capable of producing impure beings.



    In that case, what comes first?
    Neither. They are simultaneous.

    Are you saying that the free will of the being that God foreknows comes first, BEFORE God's imagination?
    No.

    If so, then our WILL and character is just as eternal as God is. Welcome to thinking like a Mormon.
    I'm sorry, but Mormons think that our very existence is eternal, and that we are no more reliant on God for our essential existence than we are for the existence of coal.

    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.
    If He foreknew that apple would exist, yes. It is what limits what gets actuated and what doesn't, not His desire for "better" or "different". Therefore His will is limited by His foreknowledge. Your god has no excuse why he won't create a rainbow colored apple. It's just a matter of taste for him.


    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.
    They are matters of foreknowledge.

    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.
    My answer is consistent with God's foreknowledge, with free will, and with contingency. It is not dodging anything. It directly addresses your attempt at a rebuttal.

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    7up; Really you are just trying to weasel out of the problem. It is "weaseling out" because (your argument) is not logically consistent.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Yes it is. You just can't seem to grasp that foreknowledge is not the same as causation.
    I have said this MANY, many times. It is amazing that you keep getting this wrong after the lengthy discussions we have had. I NEVER argued that foreknowledge is the same as causation. I argue that creation Ex Nihilo is the same as causation.

    7up: The only way out of it is to say, as Joseph Smith did, that we are coeternal with God.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    No. Joseph said we were independently co-eternal as external entities. I am saying that God's foreknowledge of us and our choices is eternal.
    The concept is essentially the same, whether we existed outside of God's mind or inside of God's mind. See below.

    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.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    No more so than He is "limited" by His inability to destroy Himself, or make a square circle.
    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.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    It's a logical issue, not a limitation.
    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.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    No, no NO!! God foreknew Hitler, and then God created Hitler because God foreknew Hitler.
    Hitler existed eternally within the mind of God ... is the implication of what you are saying here.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Let's look at this from a simpler perspective since you don't seem to be getting it.

    I have a red apple in my hand. God foreknew this apple would be red at this very instant in time. So, He created the red apple to be red at this very instant in time because He foreknew it. There are other possible realities where the apple could have been green or yellow. There are also impossible realities where the apple would be rainbow colored, but those are not important at this moment. The reason why I do not have a green apple in my hand is because God did not foreknow that I would have a green apple, despite it being a possibility due to the existence of green apples. Hence a choice was made by me of which color apple to choose, which God foreknew before I ever existed. So, He foreknew me and the red apple in His mind, not as independent co-eternal beings, but as knowledge that will be actuated into reality when the time was right. Neither I or the apple actually existed beside God as separate and independent beings.
    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.

    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.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Wrong. God's foreknowledge of our will belongs to God's existence.
    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.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    And rightly so. Your theology posits separate and independent beings that instruct God on their desires to progress. They do not originate within God as far as their existence goes.
    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.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    All your god does is basically buy them clothes, pat them on the head, and wish them the best of luck.
    Yours does worse than that. Yours creates us to be disobedient, ignorant, etc, and then condemns us for being that way.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    You claim that your god won't deny them progression, ....
    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.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    You claim that your god won't deny them progression, yet he does that very thing when he denies those who get assigned to the telestial kingdom.
    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.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Which dictates to God what it will and will not do. God then becomes its slave.
    7up: That flawed and imperfect intelligence progressed into humanity

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Which was 1) facilitated by God based on the demand of the flawed intelligence (which makes Him subject to their will), 2) commanded by God based on a plan that God has (which violates their free will), or 3) arranged by God out of ignorance of what their plans were (which makes Him not omniscient)
    7up: , and to deny any step of that progression could have been a violation of that individual's free will.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    So, their will is greater than His. Now I see how you came to the conclusion that you can be His equal one day.
    (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.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat
    With full consent of Elohim, right? Is he even capable of saying no?
    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.)
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - - -
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    No I am not saying God is incapable of saying no. I am saying that IF He said no, then He would have foreknown that He said no, and the "yes" would never have been actuated, meaning He would never have foreknown the "yes".
    Please re-read what you wrote here. It pretty much summarizes the best that you can come up with in this debate.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    What I am saying is that God is incapable of creating something different from which He foreknew, even a "no". Your god can't say no for a different reason.
    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.


    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    But it isn't "co-eternal with God" in the way you are using that term. A human's will is "with God" in that He foreknew it and created it, but it is not "co-eternal"
    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.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    You still don't get it. There is no "aspect" of co-eternity of will, especially the way you believe.
    See above and below.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

    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
    Of course not. But we are not God. His nature is pure and consistent. Ours is impure and consistent.
    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.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Nope. He is capable. It is a possibility. But if there was never in all of existence such a created creature, then it remains only an unactuated 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.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Wrong. God's imagination only produces those beings He foreknew.
    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?

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Again, you presuppose causation. Is God strong enough to come up with a rainbow colored apple? If He were, and He did, would He then have foreknown the apple was red, or rainbow? Would a red apple have existed if He created it a rainbow color?
    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?

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    God
    7up: Correct. In Ex Nihilo theology, all of these characteristics come from God Himself.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Based on His foreknowledge of what they would be like. Eve had a temper because God foreknew Eve would have a temper, therefore He created her to have a temper. This is the very basics of foreknowledge.
    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
    Because they listened to the serpent. I do not fathom to question why they did that, since scripture does not say why
    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?

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Yes because God foreknew they would be "dumb". Had He changed that, they would not have ever been "dumb", and He would not have foreknown their "dumbness", but this would have violated their free will to be "dumb" if they chose to be dumb, so God did not change them, and therefore He did not foreknow them as "intelligent".
    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.

    -7up

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    7up; Really you are just trying to weasel out of the problem.



    It is "weaseling out" because it is not logically consistent.
    Yes it is. You just can't seem to grasp that foreknowledge is not the same as causation.

    The only way out of it is to say, as Joseph Smith did, that we are coeternal with God.
    No. Joseph said we were independently co-eternal as external entities. I am saying that God's foreknowledge of us and our choices is eternal.

    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.
    No more so than He is "limited" by His inability to destroy Himself, or make a square circle.


    I just want to make clear that you are putting more limits on God.
    It's a logical issue, not a limitation.

    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.
    No, no NO!! God foreknew Hitler, and then God created Hitler because God foreknew Hitler. Let's look at this from a simpler perspective since you don't seem to be getting it.

    I have a red apple in my hand. God foreknew this apple would be red at this very instant in time. So, He created the red apple to be red at this very instant in time because He foreknew it. There are other possible realities where the apple could have been green or yellow. There are also impossible realities where the apple would be rainbow colored, but those are not important at this moment. The reason why I do not have a green apple in my hand is because God did not foreknow that I would have a green apple, despite it being a possibility due to the existence of green apples. Hence a choice was made by me of which color apple to choose, which God foreknew before I ever existed. So, He foreknew me and the red apple in His mind, not as independent co-eternal beings, but as knowledge that will be actuated into reality when the time was right. Neither I or the apple actually existed beside God as separate and independent beings.

    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.
    Wrong. God's foreknowledge of our will belongs to God's existence.

    In other words, your solution to my first argument is to attempt to copy the LDS position. Congratulations.
    Wrong.

    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.
    Yes it was.

    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.
    And rightly so. Your theology posits separate and independent beings that instruct God on their desires to progress. They do not originate within God as far as their existence goes. All your god does is basically buy them clothes, pat them on the head, and wish them the best of luck. You claim that your god won't deny them progression, yet he does that very thing when he denies those who get assigned to the telestial kingdom.

    Here is a section of an earlier discussion between you and I:
    It's you and ME. not 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.)
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - - -
    No I am not saying God is incapable of saying no. I am saying that IF He said no, then He would have foreknown that He said no, and the "yes" would never have been actuated, meaning He would never have foreknown the "yes". What I am saying is that God is incapable of creating something different from which He foreknew, even a "no". Your god can't say no for a different reason.

    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.
    But it isn't "co-eternal with God" in the way you are using that term. A human's will is "with God" in that He foreknew it and created it, but it is not "co-eternal"

    You didn't start to agree with some aspect of a coeternity of will until after an entire month of debate.
    You still don't get it. There is no "aspect" of co-eternity of will, especially the way you believe.

    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.
    Nope. He is capable. It is a possibility. But if there was never in all of existence such a created creature, then it remains only an unactuated potential.

    You must argue that God's imagination is only capable of producing impure beings.
    Wrong. God's imagination only produces those beings He foreknew.

    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.
    Good.

    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?
    Again, you presuppose causation. Is God strong enough to come up with a rainbow colored apple? If He were, and He did, would He then have foreknown the apple was red, or rainbow? Would a red apple have existed if He created it a rainbow color?

    7up; Is the child rational?



    You are avoiding the question.
    No, I am answering what you asked.

    Plus, evangelicals imagine Adam and Eve being created as adults, so ...
    Physically, yes, but not experientially.

    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.
    Based on His foreknowledge of what they would be like. Eve had a temper because God foreknew Eve would have a temper, therefore He created her to have a temper. This is the very basics of foreknowledge.

    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?
    Yes because God foreknew they would be "dumb". Had He changed that, they would not have ever been "dumb", and He would not have foreknown their "dumbness", but this would have violated their free will to be "dumb" if they chose to be dumb, so God did not change them, and therefore He did not foreknow them as "intelligent".

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    7up; Really you are just trying to weasel out of the problem.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Um, no. It is a central tenet of the Arminian system that God has foreknowledge of the free will choices of the moral agent. How is a central belief a "weaseling out"?
    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.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Bingo
    7up: In other words, you appear to be arguing here that God is limited by God's own foreknowledge.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Correct!! As I said, since He foreknows it, it comes to pass. If it does not come to pass, He did not foreknow it as an actuality, only a potential.
    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.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Nope. A possible world is not an actuated world. Only the world God foreknew will exist is actuated.
    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?

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    They exist simultaneously in God's mind, not in a "first and then" relationship.
    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.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    For Him to choose otherwise would violate the cube's free will, and would change what God foreknew. That has been my argument all along, even in the old TWeb debate. It's just obviously taken you this long to get it.
    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).

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    For His own purposes. For, if God is to not create the rapist, then He is filtering evil based on arbitrary criteria. If God decides not to create the rapist because rape is evil, then He would have to not create ANY of us, because we ALL think evil thoughts from time to time.
    7up: In my theology, there already existed a flawed intelligence from eternity.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Which dictates to God what it will and will not do. God then becomes its slave.
    7up: That flawed and imperfect intelligence progressed into humanity

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Which was 1) facilitated by God based on the demand of the flawed intelligence (which makes Him subject to their will), 2) commanded by God based on a plan that God has (which violates their free will), or 3) arranged by God out of ignorance of what their plans were (which makes Him not omniscient)
    7up: , and to deny any step of that progression could have been a violation of that individual's free will.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    So, their will is greater than His. Now I see how you came to the conclusion that you can be His equal one day.
    (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.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat
    With full consent of Elohim, right? Is he even capable of saying no?



    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
    Yes. It was my first answer too.
    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.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    And it is logically sound. Any deviation from that violates another portion of God's attributes.
    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?

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Of course not. But we are not God. His nature is pure and consistent. Ours is impure and consistent.
    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?

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Sinful. Unable to do good. Do you need the Bible verses that say that?
    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.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Sinful, but innocent.
    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?

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    No. That part of the brain doesn't fully develop until we reach about 23.
    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?

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    God.
    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?

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Because they listened to the serpent. I do not fathom to question why they did that, since scripture does not say why.
    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.


    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Would you PLEASE stop splitting up my posts? If you do it again, I am going to report you for back to back posts!
    I try to keep them together, but sometimes they get far too long.

    -7up
    Last edited by seven7up; 06-25-2014, 09:57 PM. Reason: cleaner

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    Hausam: "Creation ex nihilo implies a radical metaphysical dependence upon God, one that logically guarantees that the creature will not be independent from God or be capable of independent contributions to reality in the ways envisioned in Arminian thought."



    He didn't just assert it. He goes into detail as to exactly why this is the case.

    No. He details why he THINKS that it is the case. And he misses. Horribly so.

    Hausam: In fact, creation ex nihilo logically leads directly to Calvinistic determinism.



    Middle knowledge does not help your case in the slightest.
    Middle knowledge IS my case. Sheesh!

    Furthermore, Calvinistic determinism is the result even if you consider God as creating individual spirits ex nihilo at conception.
    No it isn't.


    Hausam: So, there is a conflict between ex nihilo creation and some of the central features of the Arminian universe.



    Your arguments here make no sense.
    Yes it does. It makes perfect sense. You even go on to describe it (while disagreeing)

    Really you are just trying to weasel out of the problem.
    Um, no. It is a central tenet of the Arminian system that God has foreknowledge of the free will choices of the moral agent. How is a central belief a "weaseling out"?

    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.




    In other words, you appear to be arguing here that God is limited by God's own foreknowledge.
    Correct!! As I said, since He foreknows it, it comes to pass. If it does not come to pass, He did not foreknow it as an actuality, only a potential.

    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.
    Nope. A possible world is not an actuated world. Only the world God foreknew will exist is actuated.

    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.
    That's right. Except this car isn't just a hunk of impersonal metal, but an alive and breathing entity with the ability to choose. Some things are possible to choose (like whether to drive or park) while others are not (like whether to actually be a house plant). And within those possibilities, you know in advance what the car will do, so you create it based on that knowledge.

    7up: First, as alluded to in the introduction of this post, I start out with the idea that even IF, choices were entirely random (like random dice) and had nothing to do at all with our created characteristics (or nothing to do with who or what God created us to be), God still determines outcomes by deciding which random cubes would exist, and which would not, .... thus simply by that creation, would determine which "choices" would be made. However, as you already admitted yourself, choices are not simply random.



    Because 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.
    For Him to choose otherwise would violate the cube's free will, and would change what God foreknew. That has been my argument all along, even in the old TWeb debate. It's just obviously taken you this long to get it.

    Do you think God can create a cube that He has absolutely no idea what it will roll within an ex nihilo framework?


    And why does God not have the option of creating an entirely different cube, which would roll 1-5? What forces or limits God to create the cube that rolls a 6?
    Perfect knowledge of the outcome. It's not possible for God to create something He knows will not exist, potentially possible or not. He can't create a world where the possible roll of a 3 is real, nor can He create a world where an impossible 7 is rolled. He must create what He foreknows will be the real world.

    Is the idea that God's own foreknowledge causes God to create what He creates your final answer on this?
    Yes. It was my first answer too.

    Hausam: If our choices are undetermined by God and first-causal by nature, they therefore cannot be effects of God’s creative activity.



    God's foreknowledge is the cause. This is quite a circular argument that you have developed.
    And it is logically sound. Any deviation from that violates another portion of God's attributes.

    And we have not even gotten to the second, and more powerful part of the problem for you.
    There is no problem here that God's perfect foreknowledge can't answer.

    Hausam: They cannot be explained by it or traced back to it.



    If God didn't create the creature, then the choices that creature makes would never be made to begin with.
    And there would have never been foreknowledge of those choices, and therefore the creature would not have really existed in God's mind as anything other than a potential.


    You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth again.
    No I am not. It is perfectly consistent. You simply can't refute it because you have to steal arguments from elsewhere.

    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?
    They exist simultaneously in God's mind, not in a "first and then" relationship.

    Hausam: 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.



    It doesn't matter if it is linear or not.
    It matters absolutely!

    Is God's choice the cause OR is the creature's choice the cause?
    You worded it wrong. It is God's foreknowledge of the creature's choice. And they both are the cause, together, as both exist simultaneously in God's mind. God is the source of its creation while the presently known future choice of the agent is the direction it is created in.

    Would you PLEASE stop splitting up my posts? If you do it again, I am going to report you for back to back posts!

    Originally posted by seven7up 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."



    Do you expect God to act contrary to God's nature?
    Of course not. But we are not God. His nature is pure and consistent. Ours is impure and consistent.

    For starters, what is our nature?
    Sinful. Unable to do good. Do you need the Bible verses that say that?

    When a child is born in this world, what is the nature of that child.
    Sinful, but innocent.

    Is the child rational?
    No. That part of the brain doesn't fully develop until we reach about 23.

    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.
    God.

    Where did all of that come from?
    From His foreknowledge.

    If Adam and Eve were rational , why did they make such an obvious blunder with such immense consequences?
    Because they listened to the serpent. I do not fathom to question why they did that, since scripture does not say why.

    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 dismiss your circular argumentation, which does not address the issue at all. You are trying to have it both ways.
    It addresses it just fine. You can dismiss it all you like, but you can't refute it. And I think that pisses you off to no ends knowing that you can't refute what I've explained. It works, and it works well within my system. It is consistent and logical.

    Is the creature's choice the reason for the choice being made? (Hausam calls this "first causal by nature") OR is God as creator the first cause?

    7up: Like I said Bill. You have nothing. You are too dense to realize it.
    I have a logically coherent argument that neither you or Hausam can dent. And your incompetence has been put on display by it, so you whine and humorously run off claiming victory. It's a pathetic ploy.


    I found Hausam's article AFTER I created the videos. If I had found it before, I would have quoted him along with all of the other scholars I quoted in the video series. In fact, now that I have his explanation, I plan on creating another video which includes his perspective and terminology.
    Are you going to set the video's score to "If I only had a brain"?



    7UP: Before the Forum crashed last year, at least Apologia Phoenix had the logic and sense to say from the get go that Ex Nihilo was not an essential aspect of his theology. That was smart of him to allow himself an out, unlike you.



    It is not working for you. You are just contradicting yourself.
    No I am not. I am logically consistent, and you can't stand it or refute it.


    Like I said, ego and intelligence don't have anything to do with it, other than your pride refusing to accept the obvious.
    You have an ego the size of Saturn! And it is on display here like you were competing for a Tony award...

    The smartest person in the world couldn't defendat your position.
    -7up
    FIFY N/C

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    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."

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    This would make it literally impossible to act contrary to our natures, yet we can do so.
    Do you expect God to act contrary to God's nature?

    For starters, what is our nature? When a child is born in this world, what is the nature of that child. Is the child rational? 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 come from? If Adam and Eve were rational , why did they make such an obvious blunder with such immense consequences?

    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
    Sure I do. The two levels of your argument rest on your dismissing of God perfectly knowing NOW what WILL happen, and through HIS foreknowledge of those events, actuates reality to conform to that foreknowledge, which exists in Him alone.
    I dismiss your circular argumentation, which does not address the issue at all. You are trying to have it both ways.

    Is the creature's choice the reason for the choice being made? (Hausam calls this "first causal by nature") OR is God as creator the first cause?

    7up: Like I said Bill. You have nothing. You are too dense to realize it.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    No, 7. It's you who has nothing. That's why you have had to use other peoples' arguments.
    I found Hausam's article AFTER I created the videos. If I had found it before, I would have quoted him along with all of the other scholars I quoted in the video series. In fact, now that I have his explanation, I plan on creating another video which includes his perspective and terminology.

    7UP: Before the Forum crashed last year, at least Apologia Phoenix had the logic and sense to say from the get go that Ex Nihilo was not an essential aspect of his theology. That was smart of him to allow himself an out, unlike you.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    It's not essential to mine either. I just believe it is the most logically defensible.
    It is not working for you. You are just contradicting yourself.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Perhaps you should deflate that over inflated ego of yours.
    Like I said, ego and intelligence don't have anything to do with it, other than your pride refusing to accept the obvious. The smartest person in the world couldn't defend your position. It is indefensible.

    -7up

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Hausam is wrong. I don't know why you keep bringing him into this discussion. But because I am a glutton for laughs, I'll respond to him too...
    Hausam: "Creation ex nihilo implies a radical metaphysical dependence upon God, one that logically guarantees that the creature will not be independent from God or be capable of independent contributions to reality in the ways envisioned in Arminian thought."

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Asserted. And I disagree.
    He didn't just assert it. He goes into detail as to exactly why this is the case.

    Hausam: In fact, creation ex nihilo logically leads directly to Calvinistic determinism.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Only if middle knowledge is left completely out of the picture. However, when, as Hausam does, one treats creation as a giant wind-up toy, then it can lead there.
    Middle knowledge does not help your case in the slightest. Furthermore, Calvinistic determinism is the result even if you consider God as creating individual spirits ex nihilo at conception.

    Hausam: So, there is a conflict between ex nihilo creation and some of the central features of the Arminian universe.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    There is no "first causal" when it comes to foreknowledge. It simply "is". Nothing can exist that God did not foreknow would exist, and He causes them to exist based on His foreknowledge of their existence, not His determining of their outcomes.

    ... They are an action of God in that He actuates the reality that corresponds with it. Without God actuating that reality, it would not exist. Therefore, it can not be said to be "first" causal, since it existed as foreknowledge in God's mind before God created.
    ...
    But it does not explain foreknowledge of the outcome. God did not create and then PREDICT the outcome, He created BECAUSE of the outcome.
    Your arguments here make no sense. Really you are just trying to weasel out of the problem. 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. In other words, you appear to be arguing here that God is limited by God's own foreknowledge. 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.

    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.

    7up: First, as alluded to in the introduction of this post, I start out with the idea that even IF, choices were entirely random (like random dice) and had nothing to do at all with our created characteristics (or nothing to do with who or what God created us to be), God still determines outcomes by deciding which random cubes would exist, and which would not, .... thus simply by that creation, would determine which "choices" would be made. However, as you already admitted yourself, choices are not simply random.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    And I've already refuted that part. God does not determine the outcomes by choosing which cubes would exist.
    Because 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.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    If the roll is a 6, it is because God both 1) knew the roll would be a 6 before it was ever rolled, and 2) Knew that the roll would not be a 1-5 before it was ever rolled. So, God creates the reality where the 6 is rolled, but DOES NOT ROLL IT HIMSELF, and does not create the one where a 1-5 was rolled. And He did so, not because He desired (or forced) the 6 to be rolled, but because He knew the 6 would be rolled.
    And why does God not have the option of creating an entirely different cube, which would roll 1-5? What forces or limits God to create the cube that rolls a 6?

    Is the idea that God's own foreknowledge causes God to create what He creates your final answer on this?

    Hausam: If our choices are undetermined by God and first-causal by nature, they therefore cannot be effects of God’s creative activity.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Well, it's a good thing that they aren't "first causal". They existed in God's mind as foreknowledge, and He caused based on His foreknowledge.
    God's foreknowledge is the cause. This is quite a circular argument that you have developed. And we have not even gotten to the second, and more powerful part of the problem for you.

    Hausam: They cannot be explained by it or traced back to it.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    This again is wrong.
    If God didn't create the creature, then the choices that creature makes would never be made to begin with.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    They are wholly self-existent or self-originated.
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Nope. They can not exist without God.
    You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth again. 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?

    Hausam: 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.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Yes He can. It's because He is not confined to linear time experience..
    It doesn't matter if it is linear or not. Is God's choice the cause OR is the creature's choice the cause? Which are you going to argue now?

    -7up

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    First, let's address "middle knowledge".

    7UP: God is creating not only every person and everything about that person from nothing, but God also engineers the environment in which that person will enter.

    In the video presentation, I gave examples of different 6 sided cubes. Let's say that I take one die and it rolls as follows:

    2,4,2,5,1

    However, let's say that the cube was rolled on a surface made of wood. If it were rolled on a rubber surface, that very same cube would have rolled:

    5,6,1,3,2

    on a glass surface , 3,4,2,5,1 on the moon (with less gravity) perhaps it would roll 1,2,1,4,3

    The point is that with "middle knowledge", God would know how an individual cube would roll in any kind of environment.
    Partially correct. He would also know which environment it would actually be rolled on, and the others would be mere counterfactuals that did not exist as anything more than possibilities. He would create the world where the actual combination will happen. But, again, the "middle knowledge" is not forcing the dice roll to be a certain thing God determines by creating an environment where there is no other possibility. That's where Hausam goes horribly awry.

    And guess what? Pointing out the idea of God having "middle knowledge" does not help you in the slightest in your argument against me. Sorry Bill.
    It makes everything work. So, trying to handwave it away because you just don't understand it doesn't work on me. Sorry 7.



    I agree with your claim that, in creation ex nihilo, God both creates the creatures out of nothing as well as the environment in which that creature is placed to react in. This is one of the reasons why God is determining all outcomes according to your theology.
    No He isn't. This statement alone shows you have no clue how God's foreknowledge and middle knowledge work. By determining the outcome instead of simply knowing the outcome in advance and creating the world where that outcome comes to pass, that contradicts my theology. So, this is a straw man you are building.

    7UP: Furthermore, with middle knowledge, God would know how each person that God may want to create from God's mind would react
    ...I chose my words correctly Bill....God knows how each person WOULD react, in each of the "potential realities".




    You are simply misusing language. WILL refers to something that DOES happen. This is referring to the reality that exists (ie the reality that God DID create).
    Exactly. He knew it WILL happen exactly the way it does. Knowing what someone WOULD do in a situation is not the same as knowing what they WILL do. The first is only predictive knowledge while the other is exhaustive knowledge.

    WOULD is referring to the potential realities that God COULD HAVE created, but decided not to create.
    Wrong. Those are the "would not", since they were not created.

    You cannot say that these realities WILL happen, if God never created them in the first place.
    Exactly my point. When God knows what we WILL do, He creates exactly based on that knowledge.

    Here is what you said in the previous post:



    Talking to you is like talking to a brick.
    That's funny coming from the strawman king who can't even get the basics of my theology correct.

    You just completely reversed what I have been explaining this entire time. That is exactly the OPPOSITE of how I have been explaining Ex Nihilo.
    That's how Hausam is explaining it. Which is why he is absolutely wrong on Ex Nihilo leading directly to determinism. Thank you for that admission. Now, will you stop using his bass ackwards explanation?

    You correctly describe what I have been explaining all along HERE:



    Right. That is why in my video presentation, I show the different number combinations as being different "potential, but unactuated realities". Which is exactly what you said here.
    And that part, you have at least grasped. That there are possibilities that are not created. Where you fail horribly to understand from the Arminian views of free will and ex nihilo is WHY they are not created.


    Correct.
    Ergo Ex Nihilo and free will are compatable.



    I myself will not speculate on the nature of God's foreknowledge, however, I do recognize that this is how you understand it. And it does not help your position in the slightest. In fact, it only makes matters worse for your dogma from a philosophical perspective.
    Au contraire. It fits hand in glove.

    7UP: ...and therefore, by deciding which individuals to make real, determined which "reactions" by those individuals would become reality.



    It is not a logical contradiction for God to know which potential realities COULD exist, and what WOULD occur IF God would have created that potential reality. You yourself argued for the concept above.
    It is a logical contradiction for God to create a different reality than the one He foreknew would be the actual reality. I'll give you a quick example. God perfectly knows that next Monday, I will visit the vending machine and select a candy bar. Now, God knows that I am a diabetic, and the candy bar is not the best choice I can make. But because He already perfectly knows that I will choose that candy bar, He will not actuate a world where I choose the protein packed cashews. Doing so would violate His exhaustive perfect foreknowledge and my free will choice. There is a POSSIBLE world where I will choose the cashews, but not an actual one, therefore, I will freely choose the candy bar, and God will actuate that world based on His knowledge of what my choice will be. For me, right now, that world does not exist. For God, it does in His mind.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kind Debater
    replied
    Um, 7up, did you miss Sparko's warning about the huge Hausam quotes? http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post67951

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    First, let's address "middle knowledge".

    7UP: God is creating not only every person and everything about that person from nothing, but God also engineers the environment in which that person will enter.

    In the video presentation, I gave examples of different 6 sided cubes. Let's say that I take one die and it rolls as follows:

    2,4,2,5,1

    However, let's say that the cube was rolled on a surface made of wood. If it were rolled on a rubber surface, that very same cube would have rolled:

    5,6,1,3,2

    on a glass surface , 3,4,2,5,1 on the moon (with less gravity) perhaps it would roll 1,2,1,4,3

    The point is that with "middle knowledge", God would know how an individual cube would roll in any kind of environment.

    And guess what? Pointing out the idea of God having "middle knowledge" does not help you in the slightest in your argument against me. Sorry Bill.


    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Therefore my point remains unrebutted. But, you continue in your post to act like you don't agree with my claim, despite you agreeing here.
    I agree with your claim that, in creation ex nihilo, God both creates the creatures out of nothing as well as the environment in which that creature is placed to react in. This is one of the reasons why God is determining all outcomes according to your theology.

    7UP: Furthermore, with middle knowledge, God would know how each person that God may want to create from God's mind would react
    ...I chose my words correctly Bill....God knows how each person WOULD react, in each of the "potential realities".


    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    No you didn't. Your choice of words shows that you do not understand the first thing about middle knowledge.

    ... He knows how they WILL react - meaning He is already aware of what the outcome of the choice will be. And through that foreknowledge, He actuates the world that corresponds with the conditions that will exist in the outcome of that choice.
    You are simply misusing language. WILL refers to something that DOES happen. This is referring to the reality that exists (ie the reality that God DID create).

    WOULD is referring to the potential realities that God COULD HAVE created, but decided not to create. You cannot say that these realities WILL happen, if God never created them in the first place. Here is what you said in the previous post:

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat
    For what you are wrongly claiming, it would be like God is Burger King, and knows that you would only order a hamburger, so there was never anything called a chicken sandwich even possible. That is how you are trying to explain ex nihilo.
    Talking to you is like talking to a brick. You just completely reversed what I have been explaining this entire time. That is exactly the OPPOSITE of how I have been explaining Ex Nihilo. You correctly describe what I have been explaining all along HERE:

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat
    The correct view is that there are multiple possible realities, one where there are only hamburgers, one where there are only chicken sandwiches, and one with both. All three are logically potential creations, but because God has exhaustive foreknowledge, He already knows which one you will choose, and therefore, actuates the only reality with the choice you made. The other realities still exist in God's mind as potential, but unactuated, realities.
    Right. That is why in my video presentation, I show the different number combinations as being different "potential, but unactuated realities". Which is exactly what you said here.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat
    And those who He "decides" not to place never existed in the first place.
    Correct.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat
    His foreknowledge is perfect and complete. He knows the beginning from the end. If He foreknows something, it will exist just as He has foreknown it. He does not make it happen, but He knows exactly how it will happen.
    I myself will not speculate on the nature of God's foreknowledge, however, I do recognize that this is how you understand it. And it does not help your position in the slightest. In fact, it only makes matters worse for your dogma from a philosophical perspective.

    7UP: ...and therefore, by deciding which individuals to make real, determined which "reactions" by those individuals would become reality.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat
    Again, this assumes that there are potential beings He foreknows, and then subsequently decides not to create, making them not foreknown, yet they were foreknown. It's a logical contradiction that you simply refuse to grasp.
    It is not a logical contradiction for God to know which potential realities COULD exist, and what WOULD occur IF God would have created that potential reality. You yourself argued for the concept above.

    Make up your mind Bill. I will discuss Mark Hausam's quote in my next post.

    -7up

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    7UP: God is creating not only every person and everything about that person from nothing, but God also engineers the environment in which that person will enter.



    Exactly.
    Therefore my point remains unrebutted. But, you continue in your post to act like you don't agree with my claim, despite you agreeing here.

    7UP: Furthermore, with middle knowledge, God would know how each person that God may want to create from God's mind would react



    I chose my words correctly Bill.
    No you didn't. Your choice of words shows that you do not understand the first thing about middle knowledge.

    God knows how each person WOULD react, in each of the "potential realities".
    No!! He knows how they WILL react - meaning He is already aware of what the outcome of the choice will be. And through that foreknowledge, He actuates the world that corresponds with the conditions that will exist in the outcome of that choice.

    Yet God decided which individuals to place into the actuated reality,
    And those who He "decides" not to place never existed in the first place. There is no "discard pile" for God. His foreknowledge is perfect and complete. He knows the beginning from the end. If He foreknows something, it will exist just as He has foreknown it. He does not make it happen, but He knows exactly how it will happen.

    and therefore, by deciding which individuals to make real, determined which "reactions" by those individuals would become reality.
    Again, this assumes that there are potential beings He foreknows, and then subsequently decides not to create, making them not foreknown, yet they were foreknown. It's a logical contradiction that you simply refuse to grasp.


    That is simply the first point that I made in the discussion; but only part 1.
    And it betrays your abysmal lack of understanding on the simplest matters of middle knowledge.

    I have already beaten you on this Bill.



    I have already answered all your responses beyond your ability.
    You don't even understand the basic fallacy you are making. Your "abilities" are a joke.

    Not that ability has anything to do with it. I have the benefit of having truth on my side.
    No you don't. You have gone all-in with a pair of deuces hoping no one will see through your bluff. Well, this full house here at TWeb can see through you like cheap celophane wrap.

    All you are doing are repeating things on a level far too shallow , which demonstrates your inability to understand.
    Says the clown who can't even see the first year fallacy he is making...

    I will allow Mark Hausam, to make a few points for a moment, which lead into my second point on the subject:
    Hausam is wrong. I don't know why you keep bringing him into this discussion. But because I am a glutton for laughs, I'll respond to him too...
    "Creation ex nihilo implies a radical metaphysical dependence upon God, one that logically guarantees that the creature will not be independent from God or be capable of independent contributions to reality in the ways envisioned in Arminian thought.
    Asserted. And I disagree.

    In fact, creation ex nihilo logically leads directly to Calvinistic determinism.
    Only if middle knowledge is left completely out of the picture. However, when, as Hausam does, one treats creation as a giant wind-up toy, then it can lead there.

    So, there is a conflict between ex nihilo creation and some of the central features of the Arminian universe.
    Again, only if you ignore one of the most central tenets

    The concept of “free will” allows the force of creation ex nihilo to be effectually negated so that the independence Arminianism requires can exist.
    No it doesn't. It allows for God to have foreknowledge of the independent free will decisions of the moral agent and create accordingly so as not to cause a logical contradiction or to create an automaton.

    It does this by creating a “causal gap” between God’s creative activity and the actual essence of our will and choices.
    And the "gap" is filled by His perfect foreknowledge.

    Whatever God did in creating humans and their free agency, in the Arminian view, he did not create an unbroken causal chain from himself, or from his act of creating us and our agency, to the actual choices made by his creatures. Those choices are still undetermined by God.
    Correct. But before we were created, those choices were perfectly known to God, so even though God did not determine the choices, He created based on those choices before the creature even existed.

    The reason for their existence, since they are undetermined and first-causal, cannot be anything God has done.
    Not true. There is no "first causal" when it comes to foreknowledge. It simply "is". Nothing can exist that God did not foreknow would exist, and He causes them to exist based on His foreknowledge of their existence, not His determining of their outcomes.

    They are not traceable to any creative action of God, but are wholly self-originated in their nature.
    False. They are an action of God in that He actuates the reality that corresponds with it. Without God actuating that reality, it would not exist. Therefore, it can not be said to be "first" causal, since it existed as foreknowledge in God's mind before God created.

    To put it another way, the explanation for the particular choices free creatures make, in the Arminian view, cannot be found in the fact that God gave his creatures free agency.
    That's EXACTLY where it is found.

    God’s act of creation was a cause that had some effects.
    Which were exactly foreknown by God.

    By definition, an effect is something that exists by means of having been determined by some preceding action as its cause.
    But it does not explain foreknowledge of the outcome. God did not create and then PREDICT the outcome, He created BECAUSE of the outcome.

    If our choices are undetermined by God and first-causal by nature, they therefore cannot be effects of God’s creative activity.
    Well, it's a good thing that they aren't "first causal". They existed in God's mind as foreknowledge, and He caused based on His foreknowledge.

    They cannot be explained by it or traced back to it.
    This again is wrong.

    They are wholly self-existent or self-originated.
    Nope. They can not exist without God.

    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.
    Yes He can. It's because He is not confined to linear time experience.

    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."
    The rest of this is more of the same rambling nonsense built on a strictly linear-based premise that fails a basic scrutiny of how foreknowledge works. Just like you fail to grasp it.


    Now, based on our previous conversations on this, I can almost guarantee that most of what Mark Hausam explained above went over your head,
    No it didn't. It is really simple. Hausam's strawman explanation of "god" in an Arminian view completely confines this god to a temporal sequence of events, of which He has no control or knowledge of the results. It uses terms like "first" and "after" which hold no meaning to God's foreknowledge's ability NOW to know exactly what WILL happen without Him being the lone cause of it happening. He claims these things are "free will" yet completely misses the meaning of free will as a cooperation between God's foreknowledge and our ability to choose - instead focusing on knocking over a strawman that boils down to "wholly independent will", like we are the ones creating the reality we choose.

    therefore, I will try to tie it into our previous conversations on the videos that I provided in a way that will hopefully be comprehended by even you. The main arguments I made on this topic, which addresses my points as related to this issue are found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxOiYvKDack
    Stop posting links to your videos. You've been warned before.

    First, as alluded to in the introduction of this post, I start out with the idea that even IF, choices were entirely random (like random dice) and had nothing to do at all with our created characteristics (or nothing to do with who or what God created us to be), God still determines outcomes by deciding which random cubes would exist, and which would not, .... thus simply by that creation, would determine which "choices" would be made. However, as you already admitted yourself, choices are not simply random.
    And I've already refuted that part. God does not determine the outcomes by choosing which cubes would exist. If the roll is a 6, it is because God both 1) knew the roll would be a 6 before it was ever rolled, and 2) Knew that the roll would not be a 1-5 before it was ever rolled. So, God creates the reality where the 6 is rolled, but DOES NOT ROLL IT HIMSELF, and does not create the one where a 1-5 was rolled. And He did so, not because He desired (or forced) the 6 to be rolled, but because He knew the 6 would be rolled.



    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."
    This would make it literally impossible to act contrary to our natures, yet we can do so. And God designs us based on His foreknowledge of us.

    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.
    Sure I do. The two levels of your argument rest on your dismissing of God perfectly knowing NOW what WILL happen, and through HIS foreknowledge of those events, actuates reality to conform to that foreknowledge, which exists in Him alone.


    So, you come into this new thread and accuse me of not knowing about "middle knowledge". Then I demonstrated that not only did I know about it, but I addressed it specifically, and demonstrated that it does not affect the significance of my arguments.
    You demonstrated that you are ignorant of it. That much is plainly obvious.

    In fact, if you had paid attention to the initial video, those "potential dice" that God decided not to create are the very representation of "middle knowledge".
    Not really. The sides of a single dice may be seen as representations of it, but not the dice themselves. For every dice roll, there are 5 counterfactuals. God knows of all 6 possibilities, but only actuates the one that He knows will be rolled. This does not negate the existence of the possibility of the other 5 results, nor does it mean that God directly caused the result despite creating the reality where it existed. He simply knew through middle knowledge which one of the 6 "realities" would be rolled and created it based on that knowledge.

    Like I said Bill. You have nothing. You are too dense to realize it.
    No, 7. It's you who has nothing. That's why you have had to use other peoples' arguments.

    Before the Forum crashed last year, at least Apologia Phoenix had the logic and sense to say from the get go that Ex Nihilo was not an essential aspect of his theology. That was smart of him to allow himself an out, unlike you.
    It's not essential to mine either. I just believe it is the most logically defensible.

    You have nothing more to offer on this conversation. Perhaps you should simply bow out, and just follow the thread with Kind Debater as an observer.
    Perhaps you should deflate that over inflated ego of yours. I've answered every single one of your infantile claims and proven that you do not even begin to understand Ex Nihilo from the standpoint of middle knowledge. But, I'm sure you will still feign ignorance on what I am saying and continue to make the same empty blustering rants that have been thoroughly defeated.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    I'm thinking more and more that 7Up is NRAJeff.

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    7UP: God is creating not only every person and everything about that person from nothing, but God also engineers the environment in which that person will enter.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Based on His foreknowledge of their choices in the situation.
    Exactly.

    7UP: Furthermore, with middle knowledge, God would know how each person that God may want to create from God's mind would react

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    No. God knows how each person WILL react, not simply WOULD, and thus actuates the single reality that corresponds to that choice. The difference is subtle, but important to this discussion.

    ....The other realities still exist in God's mind as potential, but unactuated, realities.
    I chose my words correctly Bill. God knows how each person WOULD react, in each of the "potential realities". Yet God decided which individuals to place into the actuated reality, and therefore, by deciding which individuals to make real, determined which "reactions" by those individuals would become reality.

    That is simply the first point that I made in the discussion; but only part 1.

    I have already beaten you on this Bill. I have already answered all your responses beyond your ability. Not that ability has anything to do with it. I have the benefit of having truth on my side.

    All you are doing are repeating things on a level far too shallow , which demonstrates your inability to understand. I will allow Mark Hausam, to make a few points for a moment, which lead into my second point on the subject:


    "Creation ex nihilo implies a radical metaphysical dependence upon God, one that logically guarantees that the creature will not be independent from God or be capable of independent contributions to reality in the ways envisioned in Arminian thought. In fact, creation ex nihilo logically leads directly to Calvinistic determinism. So, there is a conflict between ex nihilo creation and some of the central features of the Arminian universe. The concept of “free will” allows the force of creation ex nihilo to be effectually negated so that the independence Arminianism requires can exist. It does this by creating a “causal gap” between God’s creative activity and the actual essence of our will and choices. Whatever God did in creating humans and their free agency, in the Arminian view, he did not create an unbroken causal chain from himself, or from his act of creating us and our agency, to the actual choices made by his creatures. Those choices are still undetermined by God. The reason for their existence, since they are undetermined and first-causal, cannot be anything God has done. They are not traceable to any creative action of God, but are wholly self-originated in their nature. To put it another way, the explanation for the particular choices free creatures make, in the Arminian view, cannot be found in the fact that God gave his creatures free agency. God’s act of creation was a cause that had some effects. By definition, an effect is something that exists by means of having been determined by some preceding action as its cause. 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. 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."


    Now, based on our previous conversations on this, I can almost guarantee that most of what Mark Hausam explained above went over your head, therefore, I will try to tie it into our previous conversations on the videos that I provided in a way that will hopefully be comprehended by even you. The main arguments I made on this topic, which addresses my points as related to this issue are found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxOiYvKDack

    First, as alluded to in the introduction of this post, I start out with the idea that even IF, choices were entirely random (like random dice) and had nothing to do at all with our created characteristics (or nothing to do with who or what God created us to be), God still determines outcomes by deciding which random cubes would exist, and which would not, .... thus simply by that creation, would determine which "choices" would be made. However, as you already admitted yourself, choices are not simply random. 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."

    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
    7up does not understand middle knowledge, nor does he even try to account for it. And that is the central flaw in his thesis that ex nihilo creation does not allow for free will.
    So, you come into this new thread and accuse me of not knowing about "middle knowledge". Then I demonstrated that not only did I know about it, but I addressed it specifically, and demonstrated that it does not affect the significance of my arguments. In fact, if you had paid attention to the initial video, those "potential dice" that God decided not to create are the very representation of "middle knowledge".

    Like I said Bill. You have nothing. You are too dense to realize it. Before the Forum crashed last year, at least Apologia Phoenix had the logic and sense to say from the get go that Ex Nihilo was not an essential aspect of his theology. That was smart of him to allow himself an out, unlike you.

    You have nothing more to offer on this conversation. Perhaps you should simply bow out, and just follow the thread with Kind Debater as an observer.

    -7up
    Last edited by seven7up; 06-18-2014, 03:24 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    I DO understand middle knowledge. I DO account for it. In fact, my argument is more powerful when you consider God's middle knowledge, and I have detailed those aspects of the discussion as well.
    We will see below that you don't.

    God is creating not only every person and everything about that person from nothing, but God also engineers the environment in which that person will enter.
    Based on His foreknowledge of their choices in the situation.

    Furthermore, with middle knowledge, God would know how each person that God may want to create from God's mind would react
    No. God knows how each person WILL react, not simply WOULD, and thus actuates the single reality that corresponds to that choice. The difference is subtle, but important to this discussion.

    For what you are wrongly claiming, it would be like God is Burger King, and knows that you would only order a hamburger, so there was never anything called a chicken sandwich even possible. That is how you are trying to explain ex nihilo. The correct view is that there are multiple possible realities, one where there are only hamburgers, one where there are only chicken sandwiches, and one with both. All three are logically potential creations, but because God has exhaustive foreknowledge, He already knows which one you will choose, and therefore, actuates the only reality with the choice you made. The other realities still exist in God's mind as potential, but unactuated, realities. Hence, God does not dictate the choice by His creating the reality that we freely choose.

    to any given circumstances before God ever even decided to create that individual, therefore existence is the exact result of what God created it to be; nothing more, and nothing less.
    This is true to a certain extent. However, it assumes there was no foreknowledge involved of the free choices, and of the potential to create a world where the other choices could be real.

    That is covered, in part, in the "Solitary Problem" video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qduIGkSy1Ro
    Your whole video is nothing more than a "If a tree falls in the forest with no one around, does it make a sound?" You really have an over inflated view of your arguments.

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    I'm just about done with this topic. 7up does not understand middle knowledge, nor does he even try to account for it. And that is the central flaw in his thesis that ex nihilo creation does not allow for free will.

    I DO understand middle knowledge. I DO account for it. In fact, my argument is more powerful when you consider God's middle knowledge, and I have detailed those aspects of the discussion as well.

    God is creating not only every person and everything about that person from nothing, but God also engineers the environment in which that person will enter. Furthermore, with middle knowledge, God would know how each person that God may want to create from God's mind would react to any given circumstances before God ever even decided to create that individual, therefore existence is the exact result of what God created it to be; nothing more, and nothing less.

    That is covered, in part, in the "Solitary Problem" video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qduIGkSy1Ro


    -7up

    Leave a comment:

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