Serious Implications of Creation Ex Nihilo

[jwhitlock]

God gave us our agency, but he isn't responsible if we choose to use it to do or be something evil.

The agency originates with God. The agency is used by a being wholly created out of nothing by God. God has control of both, and is responsible for the outcomes emanating from that combination. It's really that simple - if you're working from the foundation of CEN.

It simply defies logic that God can bring something into existence, turn it loose on its own (as if such a thing were possible under CEN), and then disavow any responsibility for the outcomes. You've failed to point to any other controlling influence that affected that creation, and so under CEN, the buck stops with God.

For everything.

There is no other logical conclusion.

[Ahab]

The agency originates with God.

Yes, I agree.

The agency is used by a being wholly created out of nothing by God.

As far as those who believe God created ex nilo are concerned, yes, I agree.

God has control of both, and is responsible for the outcomes emanating from that combination.

God has control of the person God created, as well as control of his/her agency?

I still don't agree, and I don't believe a person who accepts the idea that God created ex nilo does either, and instead of repeating myself over and over again, I'll now try to pretend to be someone who does accept those ideas for a moment.

To a person who accepts those ideas that you think are inherent with the idea that God created ex nilo, what does that person say is the reason some people choose to do things that are evil if God is the one essentially making all of the choices that the person making evil choices is making?

That would mean God is now the one who is doing everything we are doing, absolutely everything, with everyone else simply doing whatever God makes him/her do with no ability to choose to do anything else.

God would be speaking through everyone while contradicting himself, sometimes.

Nobody would be doing anything which is really evil, if God is the one doing it all, because everything God is now doing is what people generally refer to as "good".

How ludicrous! How totally illogical! Who in their right mind would believe that is what is happening now?

It's really that simple - if you're working from the foundation of CEN.

Not really, and I am saying that as someone who once believed in the idea that God created everything out of nothing.

Do you hear me now? I was once a proponent of the idea that God created ex nilo, and I didn't believe what you are claiming people who believe that believe.

It simply defies logic that God can bring something into existence, turn it loose on its own (as if such a thing were possible under CEN), and then disavow any responsibility for the outcomes. You've failed to point to any other controlling influence that affected that creation, and so under CEN, the buck stops with God.

For everything.

There is no other logical conclusion.

The key to understanding this issue is: agency.

Either we have it, or we don't.

If we do hae it, there are some of us would not tolerate a so-called God doing something like that to us.

[jwhitlock]

The key to understanding this issue is: agency.

Either we have it, or we don't.

If we do hae it, there are some of us would not tolerate a so-called God doing something like that to us.

You're correct. The key to understanding is the fact that we have agency.

The fact that we have agency disproves the doctrine of CEN. Why?

Because when God - as I have noted - is the sole source of all creation, and when (under CEN) there are no other controlling sources in our creation other than God, then God is ultimately responsible for the entire outcome of what He brings into existence.

Under such a scenario, true agency is a logical impossibility.

But we do have agency. Hence, it logically follows that there is something about us that God did not create out of nothing; that something is self-existent in its own right. Only under those conditions can there be true agency - which we have.

The crucial point in all this is that under CEN there can be no other controlling source of existence other than God. Hence, God (under CEN) is fully responsible for the entire outcome of what He brings into existence. Agency can only be truly granted if we are entities unto ourselves, and not beholden to God for some part of our existence.

That's the simple, rational point of all this.

Otherwise, under CEN we make our choices because of who we are, and who we are is what God made us - out of nothing. And God cannot ultimately disavow responsibility under those circumstances, nor can He truly grant agency to a CEN being.

Simply claiming that God somehow granted us agency and cut us loose on our own does not make rational sense under the concept of CEN.

[Calm]

One of the differences beween a person and a computer is that a person can create their own program.

I believe there have been enough advances now that one could say that some computers can create their own programs....based on parameters set up by a previous program. Is this not the same thing that is happening when God creates a human being out of nothing and gives him/her the ability to choose and change?

A very basic example---God creates a human whose nature includes loving strawberries. Every time the individual eats out, they will choose a dessert with strawberries. How is the choice made for the strawberries not ultimately God's?

[Zeta-Flux]

Dear Rob,

Starting from what you wrote lastly:

I'm not sure what I wrote that led you to think that I'm not a Calvinist. In fact, my theology would be generally characterized as Calvinist or Reformed (although not specifically Presbyterian, for example). I normally don't trumpet my Calvinism because my focus is on the essentials of the evangelical Christian faith. Given that there is much confusion about what Calvinism does and does not teach, may I request that you not jump to any conclusions about what my self-description as Calvinist must imply about my beliefs? Feel free to ask me any questions, though.

I will, of course, acquiesce to your request. To answer your implicit question, the few Calvinists I've dialogued with have denied the free-agency of man. They have posited that God ultimately controls the creature, to the point of forcing a creature against its will (or changing its will, against said will) to be saved. From what you wrote previously, it seemed like you disagree with this position (at some level) but if I read wrongly feel free to correct me.

My answer to your first four questions is Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes, although "timeless" would not be my preferred term. I would describe God as transcendent with respect to time; he is not excluded from time (as "timeless" might seem to imply), but nor is he locked into the flow of time.

Question #5: What I mean when I say that God created the universe is that he brought it into existence. This entails that God acted intentionally; he purposed to create this universe, not another one; he knew that this universe would be the result of his deliberate choice in bringing it into existence.

I imagine that you may see some possible or inevitable conflicts between some of these answers. I don't. For example, from the premise that God is necessarily the way he is it does not follow, in my view, that God could only have created one universe, viz., this one. God could have chosen not to create at all, or to create a somewhat different universe. Classical Christian theism maintains that God is self-sufficient, so that he does not need a creation to be fulfilled. Creation is therefore a free act of God, something he was under no necessity to do.

You are correct that I see some possible conflicts, but they are not the ones you presented. Perhaps I might ask a few questions which will help you see my confusion.

I'm going to discuss things as if time existed before God's creation, just to get my point across. Of course, if this is where my error lies, feel free to point it out.

My image of your position is something like this: God decides to create. There is no force, outside of Himself, which gives Him this desire. It is completely caused by God's own will to create. And yet, God is necessarily the way He is. What could be different, and yet not destroy the necessity of God's character, which would have resulted in a lack of creation? My take on what you said is that the answer is God's choice could have been different. Are you implicitly saying that God's character has no bearing on whether God chose to create? Or rather that God's character was not sufficient to decide that question? Or maybe that the choice was uncaused? Or something else entirely?

It seems to me that if one posits that (A) there is nothing which must exist except God, (B) God is necessarily the way He is, and © these facts are not sufficient to tell us what God wills, then I'm not certain what (B) says about God or His choices.

[ERayR]

The question still remains if everything was created ex nihilo then God created evil but that can't be or else God would be evil and that conclusion is unacceptable. So where did evil come from?

[ERayR]

(deleted duplicate post)

[Rob Bowman]

Zeta-Flux,

Hi again. You wrote:

To answer your implicit question, the few Calvinists I've dialogued with have denied the free-agency of man. They have posited that God ultimately controls the creature, to the point of forcing a creature against its will (or changing its will, against said will) to be saved. From what you wrote previously, it seemed like you disagree with this position (at some level) but if I read wrongly feel free to correct me.

Calvinists believe that God the Holy Spirit turns or changes the hearts of unbelieving persons to bring them to repentance and faith, but we would not describe this as "forcing" the individual to believe. The language 'changing his will" would not be inaccurate, but this needs to be understood as an act of mercy in which God softens the hard heart of the unbelieving person. It is not referring to God violating the person's will.

You wrote:

You are correct that I see some possible conflicts, but they are not the ones you presented. Perhaps I might ask a few questions which will help you see my confusion.

I'm going to discuss things as if time existed before God's creation, just to get my point across. Of course, if this is where my error lies, feel free to point it out.

My image of your position is something like this: God decides to create. There is no force, outside of Himself, which gives Him this desire. It is completely caused by God's own will to create. And yet, God is necessarily the way He is. What could be different, and yet not destroy the necessity of God's character, which would have resulted in a lack of creation? My take on what you said is that the answer is God's choice could have been different. Are you implicitly saying that God's character has no bearing on whether God chose to create? Or rather that God's character was not sufficient to decide that question? Or maybe that the choice was uncaused? Or something else entirely?

It seems to me that if one posits that (A) there is nothing which must exist except God, (B) God is necessarily the way He is, and

[Rob Bowman]

ERayR,

You wrote:

The question still remains if everything was created ex nihilo then God created evil but that can't be or else God would be evil and that conclusion is unacceptable. So where did evil come from?

As I have explained, God did not create every specific thing ex nihilo. For example, he did not create you ex nihilo. God created the universe ex nihilo, and brought things within that universe into existence through secondary means.

Also, as Christians classically have argued ever since Augustine, evil is not "a thing," and therefore God did not need to create it for it to "exist." Evil is a moral status of beings and their actions, not a thing in and of itself. It comes about because some of God's creatures are endowed with the capacity to make choices, both good and evil.

[ERayR]

ERayR,

You wrote:

As I have explained, God did not create every specific thing ex nihilo. For example, he did not create you ex nihilo. God created the universe ex nihilo, and brought things within that universe into existence through secondary means.

Also, as Christians classically have argued ever since Augustine, evil is not "a thing," and therefore God did not need to create it for it to "exist." Evil is a moral status of beings and their actions, not a thing in and of itself. It comes about because some of God's creatures are endowed with the capacity to make choices, both good and evil.

That doesn't make sense. If he created the universe then that which is in it is part of the creation and was therefore created ex nihilo.

Evil is either part of that creation or it is independent of God thus making God less than omnipotent.

[Vance]

As I have explained, God did not create every specific thing ex nihilo. For example, he did not create you ex nihilo. God created the universe ex nihilo, and brought things within that universe into existence through secondary means.

This is a failed attempt to remove responsibility from God for what He caused (assuming CEN).

Trying to introduce a "secondary means" changes nothing. That "secondary means" can only function in a manner that God CAUSED!! Therefore, His responsibility is not removed or eliminated.

[Zeta-Flux]

Calvinists believe that God the Holy Spirit turns or changes the hearts of unbelieving persons to bring them to repentance and faith, but we would not describe this as "forcing" the individual to believe. The language 'changing his will" would not be inaccurate, but this needs to be understood as an act of mercy in which God softens the hard heart of the unbelieving person. It is not referring to God violating the person's will.

Thank you for your clarification.

The "necessity" of God's being has to do with his fundamental attributes or characteristics (he is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-holy, all-good, etc.), not with his actions. God is under no internal compulsion to create at all. Creation is an outward display of his character, not something necessitated by his character. God's choice to create is not caused by anything external to himself, nor by any inner compulsion, but is his free choice. If he chooses to create, he must, of course, create something consistent with his character. God would not create a world in which there was absolute chaos, in which you never knew which end was up, the rules kept changing all the time as to what was moral and what was not, etc. God would not create a world that would end in total, abject failure. But within the parameters of creating in a way consistent with his nature, God was free to make a different world than the one in which he lived. For example, I don't think he was under any necessity to create a human race with two genders. I'm glad he did, but I'm sure he could have come up with a different world and it would have had its own good features.

I don't believe you really addressed the questions I asked. I understand God couldn't be inconsistent. I understand that you believe God's omniscience, omnipotence, and so forth, are fundamental necessary conditions. What I don't understand (among other things) is how/why God chose to create, and how that act could be viewed as a non-moral one, etc... If my questions were not clear, feel free to ask for clarification, but I would appreciate if you would reread them and try to address the issues I presented.

Best,

Zeta-Flux

[cksalmon]

What I don't understand (among other things) is how/why God chose to create...

Hi Zeta:

Granted you asked Bowman, but I would highly recommend for your consideration Jonathan Edward's "The End for Which God Created the World." You can access it online here, in John Piper's book God's Passion for His Glory, freely accessible.

Best.

cks

[Zeta-Flux]

Hi Zeta:

Granted you asked Bowman, but I would highly recommend for your consideration Jonathan Edward's "The End for Which God Created the World." You can access it online here, in John Piper's book God's Passion for His Glory, freely accessible.

Best.

cks

Dear cks,

Reading the abstract at the link, I would go so far as to agree with much of the statement (i.e. that God created [the world] to glorify Himself and give His creations as much happiness as possible). But it seems to me that believing God could have avoided creating us (or anything) and that would have been just as good of Him, is a strange one. But I'll wait for Rob to explain his position a little more thoroughly on that point.

[Ahab]

I believe there have been enough advances now that one could say that some computers can create their own programs....based on parameters set up by a previous program. Is this not the same thing that is happening when God creates a human being out of nothing and gives him/her the ability to choose and change?

LOL. Okay. Maybe I shouldn't have used computers as an example if computers can essentially do what I thought only people could do, in that regard, and in that case, yes, that example might actually help you to understand what someone who accepts creation ex nilo believes.

A very basic example---God creates a human whose nature includes loving strawberries. Every time the individual eats out, they will choose a dessert with strawberries. How is the choice made for the strawberries not ultimately God's?

You're close, but I think your scenario reflects what I consider to be a misunderstanding of creation ex nilo as I believe it is commonly understood by those who accept that premise, and in the interest of trying to foster a good understanding of that concept I'd like to try to clear this up with you, again.

Your scenario seems to rest on a premise that it is God who instills a love of either good or evil within a person, inherently.

My premise rests on the idea that it is up to each person to choose to love either good or evil.

Let's see if there is any way to harmonize both of our ideas.

From the perspective of someone who accepts the idea of creation ex nilo, when God created the very first person (whenever that was), that person was a good person, and then God gave that person the choice to either remain good or become evil.

To use your strawberry analogy as an example, let's consider strawberries to be a good thing, and let's also consider the idea that any good person would inherently love strawberries, because we're considering strawberries to be a "good" thing while also thinking that all good persons inherently love all things that are good.

Now let's consider the moment when God would have given that person his or her agency, and that with that agency came the power to choose to love strawberries, as they already did inherently, or actually hate them.

Does that help any at all?

Each person may start out with a love of strawberries, or anything that is inherently good, but at the moment when that person receives his or her agency that person then has the power to override that inherent "programming", if you can think of it that way, essentially choosing to not love something they were programmed to love to begin with.

And whose responsibility is it to choose to override his or her own inherent programming?

It is the responsibility of the person who thus exercises his/her agency in that way, with God responsible only for creating that person and giving that person his or her agency.

[Vance]

LOL. Okay. Maybe I shouldn't have used computers as an example if computers can essentially do what I thought only people could do, in that regard, and in that case, yes, that example might actually help you to understand what someone who accepts creation ex nilo believes.

You're close, but I think your scenario reflects what I consider to be a misunderstanding of creation ex nilo as I believe it is commonly understood by those who accept that premise, and in the interest of trying to foster a good understanding of that concept I'd like to try to clear this up with you, again.

Your scenario seems to rest on a premise that it is God who instills a love of either good or evil within a person, inherently.

My premise rests on the idea that it is up to each person to choose to love either good or evil.

Let's see if there is any way to harmonize both of our ideas.

From the perspective of someone who accepts the idea of creation ex nilo, when God created the very first person (whenever that was), that person was a good person, and then God gave that person the choice to either remain good or become evil.

To use your strawberry analogy as an example, let's consider strawberries to be a good thing, and let's also consider the idea that any good person would inherently love strawberries, because we're considering strawberries to be a "good" thing while also thinking that all good persons inherently love all things that are good.

Now let's consider the moment when God would have given that person his or her agency, and that with that agency came the power to choose to love strawberries, as they already did inherently, or actually hate them.

Does that help any at all?

Each person may start out with a love of strawberries, or anything that is inherently good, but at the moment when that person receives his or her agency that person then has the power to override that inherent "programming", if you can think of it that way, essentially choosing to not love something they were programmed to love to begin with.

And whose responsibility is it to choose to override his or her own inherent programming?

It is the responsibility of the person who thus exercises his/her agency in that way, with God responsible only for giving that person his or her agency.

Ahab,

Apparently you MISSED this.

The problem is you fail to understand the incongruity between CEN and the Agency of man.

Your premise is that;

A) Man has agency.

B) God created "ex nihilo".

and then your conclusion is,

Therefore there is no incongruity between CEN and the Agency of man.

We agree with your premise A.

We disagree with your premise B.

And a logical argument has been made that CEN and the Agency of man are mutually exclusive.

And you have NOT countered the argument with ANY logic.

[Ahab]

You're correct. The key to understanding is the fact that we have agency.

That helps, but that alone doesn't do it, because those who accept CEN also believe we were given agency when we were first created.

The main difference between those who accept CEN and those who don't are that those who accept CEN believe there was a point before which there was nobody and nothing else other than God (and with God limited to only 3 persons), while those who don't believe that instead believe that all things have been going on as they are forever and ever, with no beginning to everything, collectively, at all.

On everything else we're pretty much in agreement, at least in theory, even if the CEN crowd doesn't admit it.

The fact that we have agency disproves the doctrine of CEN. Why?

It actually doesn't disprove it, and Why?

Because those who accept CEN believe God is capable of giving his creation the power to choose, even if God has only been creating for only a portion of eternity.

Because when God - as I have noted - is the sole source of all creation, and when (under CEN) there are no other controlling sources in our creation other than God, then God is ultimately responsible for the entire outcome of what He brings into existence.

Not true, because agency gives that power to man at the very moment he is created, whenever that is.

You seem to think there would only be good to choose from if God created us (our kind of being) from out of nothing and then gave that creation the power to choose, but that is not true because even then there would be a choice between doing good or NOT doing good. Of being good, or NOT being good. Of obeying, or rebelling. Of saying Yes, or saying No, the very first one of which we would now refer to as Satan.

Under such a scenario, true agency is a logical impossibility.

Not so, and while the fact that we disagree shows that each of us has agency now, we can do nothing to show when all of this started or if all of this has been going on forever.

The crucial point in all this is that under CEN there can be no other controlling source of existence other than God.

Not so, because there was also US, when WE were first created, individually.

At that moment, we could either obey God, or rebel against him/them.

[Vance]

It actually doesn't disprove it, and Why?

Actually it DOES. And how it does has been presented to you.

You on the other hand HAVEN'T shown any flaws in the logic.

Is this because you can't?

Because those who accept CEN believe God is capable of giving his creation the power to choose, even if God has only been creating for only a portion of eternity.

You may believe whatever you want.

BUT you haven't provided a logical argument in support of your belief.

THAT is the problem you have.

Not true, because agency gives that power to man at the very moment he is created, whenever that is.

That is what you believe.

BUT you haven't provided a logical argument in support of your belief that CEN and agency are compatible.

You seem to think there would only be good to choose from if God created us (our kind of being) from out of nothing . . . .

What is available to choose is irrelevant.

AND you haven't provided a logical argument to show that God can give agency to CEN creatures, whereas a logical argument has been provided that God CAN'T give agency to CEN creatures.

. . . and then gave that creation the power to choose, . . .

STILL waiting for a logical argument that God can give agency to CEN creatures.

but that is not true because even then there would be a choice between doing good or NOT doing good.

What is available to choose is irrelevant.

AND you haven't provided a logical argument to show that God can give agency to CEN creatures, whereas a logical argument has been provided that God CAN'T give agency to CEN creatures.

Not so, and while the fact that we disagree shows that each of us has agency now, we can do nothing to show when all of this started or if all of this has been going on forever.

Is that the best you can come up with?

What a bunch of drivel.

Not so, because there was also US, when WE were first created, individually.

What a bunch of drivel.

At that moment, we could either obey God, or rebel against him/them.

Bald assertion.

You still haven't provided a coherent argument that logically shows that God can give agency to man.

Continuing to just assert that He didn't doesn't show compatibility between CEN and Agency.

I am beginning to question if you can comprehend this fact.

[Ahab]

Actually it DOES. And how it does has been presented to you.

No, the fact that people have agency now does NOT prove that people did not have agency when God first created someone ELSE (such as Adam) when God created HIM.

You may believe whatever you want.

So may you, even to the point of believing a lie when the truth has been presented to you.

BUT you haven't provided a logical argument in support of your belief.

Yes I have. You simply refuse to accept what I have told you.

What is available to choose is irrelevant.

The whole point of having agency is to have opposing choices to choose from.

Good vs Evil, with all that involves.

You apparently don't even understand what agency is all about.

STILL waiting for a logical argument that God can give agency to CEN creatures.

I've given that to you, and here you are saying "nuh uh" again.

I think we're done here.

[Vance]

No, the fact that people have agency now does NOT prove that people did not have agency when God first created someone ELSE (such as Adam) when God created HIM.

You really weren't pay attention were you!

So may you, even to the point of believing a lie when the truth has been presented to you.

Psychological projection.

Yes I have. You simply refuse to accept what I have told you.

Your delusion continues.

The whole point of having agency is to have opposing choices to choose from.

Good vs Evil, with all that involves.

You apparently don't even understand what agency is all about.

What is available to choose is irrelevant to this discussion.

Sorry that you can't figure that out.

You also don't seem able to figure out that you haven't presented any logical argument as to why CEN and agency are NOT mutually exclusive.

Simply asserting that they are not mutually exclusive is NOT an argument.

I've given that to you, and here you are saying "nuh uh" again.

Because, again, ALL YOU HAVE DONE IS ASSERT YOUR BELIEFS. You STILL haven't provided a logical explanation as to why God can give agency to CEN creatures.

I think we're done here.

Well, UNTIL you provide a logical explanation as to why God can give agency to CEN creatures, this discussion can't move forward.

[Ahab]

You really weren't pay attention were you!

Comments like this are not conducive to a good discussion.

Please step it up a notch if you'd like some more input from me.

You STILL haven't provided a logical explanation as to why God can give agency to CEN creatures.

I believe there are 3 sub-issues involved here, namely:

First, agency is all about having the power to choose, and to have power to choose, there must be choices.

Are we agreed with each other at this point?

If so, you can stop saying things like "it doesn't matter what there is to choose from", because what there is to choose from is an important element in whether or not there can be such a thing as "agency".

Secondly, the issue of whether or not God can give his creation the power to choose depends on whether or not God has that kind of power.

If not, God never did it, whether that creation was the first of its kind or one that never had a beginning.

And then there is the issue of whether or not you are currently capable of recognizing logic if it is placed right in front of your face, because if not, you could continue to call that logic illogical forever and ever, without end.

Well, UNTIL you provide a logical explanation as to why God can give agency to CEN creatures, this discussion can't move forward.

This discussion also can't move forward if you can't recognize logic when it is placed right in front of your face.

You do an excellent job of calling logic illogical, however. Bravo!

Now let's see how long you can continue to keep this up.

[jwhitlock]

That helps, but that alone doesn't do it, because those who accept CEN also believe we were given agency when we were first created.

I've demonstrated the logical impossibility of God giving true agency to something He brought into existence.

I've also noted the fallacy of thinking that God can do things which are logically impossible. Giving agency to a fully contained, ex nihilo creation, and then trying to disavow responsibility for the outcome is simply logically impossible.

You haven't presented any evidence to the contrary; such evidence would entail some other influence in the ex nihilo creation.

You can continue just to claim that God gave us agency when He brought us into existence, but that is simply speculation. The fact that we have agency is strong evidence against CEN - unless someone can demonstrate otherwise.

[Vance]

Comments like this are not conducive to a good discussion.

Please step it up a notch if you'd like some more input from me.

Well, basing your conclusions on unsupported premises/assertions isn't really a logical argument but conclusions based on unsupported premises/assertions.

Repeating it over again doesn't make it more valid.

I believe there are 3 sub-issues involved here, namely:

First, agency is all about having the power to choose, and to have power to choose, there must be choices.

Are we agreed with each other at this point?

Agreed, but irrelavent.

If so, you can stop saying things like "it doesn't matter what there is to choose from", because what there is to choose from is an important element in whether or not there can be such a thing as "agency".

IF the existence of "agency" were in question, then it would be relevant, BUT it's existence is NOT in question, therefore it is irrelevant to this discussion.

But go ahead, keep pounding on an issue that is NOT in question here. It will just waste time for everybody.

Secondly, the issue of whether or not God can give his creation the power to choose depends on whether or not God has that kind of power.

This is where you fail to address the issue. You simply assert that God can give agency to a CEN creature without providing a logical explanation of how this is possible. And you certainly HAVEN'T refuted any of the argument presented.

In summary,

If God's creations were organized from existing constituents then it is possible for God to allow them agency/choice.

BUT if God's creations were CEN then they are what He created them to be and they will function as He made them, THEREFORE, ANY actions taken by them are the result of how God made them, THEREFORE, He (God) is fully responsible for their actions and NOT them. THEREFORE, they acted NOT OUT OF AGENCY but ONLY as He made them.

Try that logic on for size.

If not, God never did it, . . .

A false conclusion based on NO EVIDENCE or LOGIC.

. . . whether that creation was the first of its kind or one that never had a beginning.

More false conclusion based on NO EVIDENCE or LOGIC

And then there is the issue of whether or not you are currently capable of recognizing logic if it is placed right in front of your face, because if not, you could continue to call that logic illogical forever and ever, without end.

More pyschological projection?

This discussion also can't move forward if you can't recognize logic when it is placed right in front of your face.

DITTO

You do an excellent job of calling logic illogical, however. Bravo!

More pyschological projection?

Now let's see how long you can continue to keep this up.

Well, we are just about there.

[cksalmon]

I've demonstrated the logical impossibility of God giving true agency to something He brought into existence.

I haven't seen any such demonstration, j. Can you link it? You must be assuming that "true agency" is identical with "libertarian freedom."

I've also noted the fallacy of thinking that God can do things which are logically impossible. Giving agency to a fully contained, ex nihilo creation, and then trying to disavow responsibility for the outcome is simply logically impossible.

You haven't read much Craig, apparently. But, again, you assume a certain view of "agency," an issue that is certainly not at all settled in the relevant philosophical literature.

You can continue just to claim that God gave us agency when He brought us into existence, but that is simply speculation. The fact that we have agency is strong evidence against CEN - unless someone can demonstrate otherwise.

Again, see Craig for a view that differs from my own. And, again, you assume that your (yet unexplicated) view of "agency" (again, it's called "libertarian freedom") just is the case. Alternately, you might demonstrate that compatibilist freedom is not commensurate with "agency." The point is, I haven't seen you demonstrate anything approaching your claim that "God cannot give 'true agency' to something he brought into existence."

First, you'd need to hammer out explicitly what you mean by "true agency," and then you'd have to argue, from that point, to its logical impossibility in the face of CEN.

Best.

cks

[Cold Steel]

God did not create us out of nothing, He created us out of Himself. We share in His self-existence.

This is one of those things that sound wonderful in an existential discussion group, but it's based on nothing scriptural that I'm aware of. It's true that an argument can be made that we're on a divine journey, but if so, it's only because of the Atonement.

Even those who are evil and condemned to hell by Him? This still makes God responsible for everything that happens - even more so.

Yes, but isn't this Calvinism? The idea that some are born to eternal life and some to eternal damnation is an entrenched and morally reprehensible doctrine -- one that the Lord might call an abomination. Free will makes it absolutely essential that our existence on Earth be according to our own consent. If created ex nihilo, we're no more or less than running computer programs. It's the thing inside that makes ex nihilo unlikely. If God is capricious and arbitrary, He cannot be just. Ex nihilo requires that God be capricious and arbitrary.

The greatest argument against ex nihilo, in my opinion, is this: If God could have made the Earth and all life thereon in a blink of an eye, why didn't He? Why did it require seven "eras" to do it?