Serious Implications of Creation Ex Nihilo

[jwhitlock]

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

Read back on the thread and let me know which of my posts demonstrating that logical impossibility you disagree with and why.

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.

The perhaps you'd like to instruct us, in clear terms, how Someone (under CEN) with full control of the process of bringing us into existence can disavow responsibility for the outcomes of the actions of those things which He creates. There's significant logical disconnect there.

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."

I'll point it out to you, then. If God controls the entire process under CEN, and brings us into existence, He has made us as we are. With full control, there can be no randomness in the outcome. It all proceeds based on the foundation of what God made us into; there is no influence outside of His influence from the beginning.

What CEN backers fail to demonstrate is what outside influence, not under the control of God, came in and altered our being to be something outside of what God made us. The only way God can disavow responsibility for what we are, which controls what we do, is to demonstrate that He lost control of the process of what we are at some point. However, as soon as such a thing is demonstrated, CEN no longer is a real possibility.

The only way we can have true agency is when there is a part of us not created out of nothing by God. Otherwise, though we may appear to act for ourselves, we are only acting based on what God has made us, and so He continues (under CEN) to bear full responsibility for the outcomes of what we do.

My point is that it is up to backers of CEN to demonstrate how a fully created-out-of-nothing being can be given agency to act of its own free will, independent of the fact that it is only what God made it into. Such a thing is a logical impossibility, no matter how the philosophers have tried to work around it.

[jwhitlock]

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?

CEN raises more than a few rational questions when you look at it in depth. Hard core Calvinism is simply the end result of the effort to try to reconcile CEN with the incredible logical contradictions it raises. The end result does not paint a very flattering picture of God.

"Sinners in the hands of an angry God", indeed.

[Vance]

If "our" will was CEN, then it is as God made it. Nothing more.

For it to be truly "our" will it must be, in some way, independent from God and His "creation" from nothing.

[cksalmon]

Read back on the thread and let me know which of my posts demonstrating that logical impossibility you disagree with and why.

No. That's not at all how it works, j. I have flatly denied (and continue to deny) your purported demonstration of logical impossibility. I'm not about to concede that you've actually demonstrated what I deny you've demonstrated in order to demonstrate that you haven't demonstrated what you claim to have demonstrated. Goodness gracious.

Provide the argument. And, in the providing thereof, define "true agency."

The perhaps you'd like to instruct us, in clear terms, how Someone (under CEN) with full control of the process of bringing us into existence can disavow responsibility for the outcomes of the actions of those things which He creates. There's significant logical disconnect there.

I'm not in the least convinced that you are even remotely aware of the vast, vast amount of material out there in the wider world. Define "true agency."

I'll point it out to you, then. If God controls the entire process under CEN, and brings us into existence, He has made us as we are. With full control, there can be no randomness in the outcome. It all proceeds based on the foundation of what God made us into; there is no influence outside of His influence from the beginning.

Again, you strike me as ignorant of the relevant philosophical discussions afoot for, oh, a few several hundred years. I don't have the free time to fill you in. I'm otherwise occupied as of now. Suffice it to say that you need to get up to speed. Define "true agency."

What CEN backers fail to demonstrate is what outside influence, not under the control of God, came in and altered our being to be something outside of what God made us. The only way God can disavow responsibility for what we are, which controls what we do, is to demonstrate that He lost control of the process of what we are at some point. However, as soon as such a thing is demonstrated, CEN no longer is a real possibility.

Assumed but unargued. Define "true agency."

The only way we can have true agency is when there is a part of us not created out of nothing by God. Otherwise, though we may appear to act for ourselves, we are only acting based on what God has made us, and so He continues (under CEN) to bear full responsibility for the outcomes of what we do.

Assumed but unargued. Define "true agency."

My point is that it is up to backers of CEN to demonstrate how a fully created-out-of-nothing being can be given agency to act of its own free will, independent of the fact that it is only what God made it into. Such a thing is a logical impossibility, no matter how the philosophers have tried to work around it.

Assumed but unargued. Define "true agency."

I've seen no demonstration of logical impossibility thus far. Just a challenge to show that your purported demonstration of logical impossibility (yet to be presented) is illogical. Not interested in all that. I might be interested in your (as yet absent) proof. But, again, you'll have to actually define "true agency" (this is crucial, as I hope you are able to discern) and then argue from that point to the impossibility of "true agency" vis-a-vis CEN. Otherwise, I'll be moving on. I'm traveling this week and don't have a whole lot of spare time.

Best.

cks

[jwhitlock]

If "our" will was CEN, then it is as God made it. Nothing more.

For it to be truly "our" will it must be, in some way, independent from God and His "creation" from nothing.

Very simply and concisely put. Let's see if anyone pays attention.

[Vance]

. . . I'm not in the least convinced that you are even remotely aware of the vast, vast amount of material out there in the wider world.

. . .

Again, you strike me as ignorant of the relevant philosophical discussions afoot for, oh, a few several hundred years. I don't have the free time to fill you in. I'm otherwise occupied as of now. Suffice it to say that you need to get up to speed. . . .

Ah . . .

Just more of the "if you knew what I know, you would agree with me" drivel.

If you can't provide a reasoned rebuttal, why do you even bother to post?

[jwhitlock]

No. That's not at all how it works, j. I have flatly denied (and continue to deny) your purported demonstration of logical impossibility. I'm not about to concede that you've actually demonstrated what I deny you've demonstrated in order to demonstrate that you haven't demonstrated what you claim to have demonstrated. Goodness gracious.

Provide the argument. And, in the providing thereof, define "true agency."

Actually, I have provided the argument. It's on the thread. I don't keep repeating myself for those who want me to waste my time doing so.

It's your prerogative to "flatly den[y]" what I have posted. It also simply evades the discussion at hand.

I'm not in the least convinced that you are even remotely aware of the vast, vast amount of material out there in the wider world. Define "true agency."

I'm sure you aren't. I am, after all, just an ignorant Mormon. Heaven forbid that I should think for myself, without the permission of the theologians and philosophers.

See Vance's post. It may be simple, but it's to the point concerning your question.

Again, you strike me as ignorant of the relevant philosophical discussions afoot for, oh, a few several hundred years. I don't have the free time to fill you in. I'm otherwise occupied as of now. Suffice it to say that you need to get up to speed. Define "true agency."

Is a bit of the nastiness you post elsewhere on the Internet slipping through? I find it interesting how dismissive you can be when the precious philosophical irrationality of Calvinism is questioned.

And by the way, bleating the same question - to which I have posted answers, and Vance has succinctly answered - as some kind of debate tactic isn't coming across very well.

Define "true agency."

Define "true agency."

Define "true agency."

Record broken?

I've seen no demonstration of logical impossibility thus far.

No, you're just in a state of simple denial. What you've not done is to directly address a single point I've made.

Think you can just be dismissive and run off? Then the points I have made stand - for want of any cogent rebuttal.

[cksalmon]

Actually, I have provided the argument. It's on the thread. I don't keep repeating myself for those who want me to waste my time doing so.

No, you haven't. Can you, j? At least in a way that meaningfully defines "true agency" and then argues from that definition to the logical impossibility of agency vis-a-vis CEN. Again, I haven't seen it. Can you reproduce it here, for all to see? What you haven't done in the least is define "true agency." That's important.

Think you can just be dismissive and run off? Then the points I have made stand - for want of any cogent rebuttal.

No, I'm still here. Waiting for you to define "true agency." How many times must the broken record spin before you actually step up to the plate?

Waiting.

J: Please define what you mean by "true agency." So, something like: "'true agency' is 'X,'" where you fill in the X.

Thanks.

cks

[jwhitlock]

No, you haven't. Can you, j? At least in a way that meaningfully defines "true agency" and then argues from that definition to the logical impossibility of agency vis-a-vis CEN. Again, I haven't seen it. Can you reproduce it here, for all to see? What you haven't done in the least is define "true agency." That's important.

No, I'm still here. Waiting for you to define "true agency." How many times must the broken record spin before you actually step up to the plate?

Waiting.

J: Please define what you mean by "true agency." So, something like: "'true agency' is 'X,'" where you fill in the X.

Thanks.

cks

Uh, are you really being that obtuse on purpose? Or is those some kind of bizarre debate tactic involving massive amounts of denial?

What part of "see Vance's post" did you miss in my last post?

I thought that would be simple enough for you to catch, even when all you wanted to do was overlook the arguments that I had already made. Perhaps I was wrong.

[cksalmon]

Uh, are you really being that obtuse on purpose? Or is those some kind of bizarre debate tactic involving massive amounts of denial?

What part of "see Vance's post" did you miss in my last post?

I thought that would be simple enough for you to catch, even when all you wanted to do was overlook the arguments that I had already made. Perhaps I was wrong.

What I didn't see in Vance's post was a definition of "true agency." You want me to "see Vance's post." Here it is:

"Ah . . .

Just more of the "if you knew what I know, you would agree with me" drivel.

If you can't provide a reasoned rebuttal, why do you even bother to post?"

Don't play the simple card, j. I beg you; you're better than that. Yes, to be sure, that's the only card Vance is capable of dealing to you, but you needn't capitulate to his triumphalist ignorance. So, seriously: if you want to further the discussion, provide a response:

J: Please define what you mean by "true agency." So, something like: "true agency" is "X," where you fill in the X.

That's what I'm waiting for. And, I've asked this direct question how many times now? It's four, if you're counting. Four times. So, perhaps you can bring yourself to answer?

Thanks in advance for a direct answer to my repeated question.

cks

[Vance]

So, seriously: if you want to further the discussion, provide a response:

Discussion?

What discussion?

Sorry but your ad hominem drivel isn't part of a "discussion".

Apparently that is ALL you've got.

[cksalmon]

Discussion?

What discussion?

Sorry but your ad hominem drivel isn't part of a "discussion".

Apparently that is ALL you've got.

I hope you don't take offense when I say that it's just adorably cute that you're trying, here, Vance. I very sincerely salute you.

cks

[jwhitlock]

What I didn't see in Vance's post was a definition of "true agency." You want me to "see Vance's post." Here it is:

Sigh. Try post #153. It was right before your post where you were demanding a definition of true agency. And my post (#155, to help you out) wondered out loud if anyone would pay attention.

You really, really, really need to read a little before going into denial mode.

Don't play the simple card, j. I beg you; you're better than that. Yes, to be sure, that's the only card Vance is capable of dealing to you, but you needn't capitulate to his triumphalist ignorance. So, seriously: if you want to further the discussion, provide a response:

?Better than that? After you so lovingly characterized me as basically unread? Interesting game you're playing here, trashing Vance in order to give me some kind of "out" in this. Jeesh.

That's what I'm waiting for. And, I've asked this direct question how many times now? It's four, if you're counting. Four times. So, perhaps you can bring yourself to answer?

You can lead an enemy of the Church to the truth, but you can't get him to pay attention.

Thanks in advance for a direct answer to my repeated question.

Frankly, at this point I really don't think you've been paying attention to what's been posted on this thread. Please prove me wrong.

[Vance]

I hope you don't take offense when I say that it's just adorably cute that you're trying, here, Vance. I very sincerely salute you.

cks

Careful now, you are exposing character traits to us that you most likely don't even know you have.

Edited to add, Or the lack there of, as the case may be.

[cksalmon]

Careful now, you are exposing character traits to us that you most likely don't even know you have.

Edited to add, Or the lack there of, as the case may be.

You go get 'em, lil' tiger. What you're saying (that is, you, Vance) is just so incredibly important and insightful. Personally, and I can only speak for myself, I don't know how MADB limped along without your presence for so long.

So, can you, Vance, define "true agency" in a way that is helpful to j's not-yet-made argument?

cks

[Vance]

You go get 'em, lil' tiger. What you're saying (that is, you, Vance) is just so incredibly important and insightful. Personally, and I can only speak for myself, I don't know how MADB limped along without your presence for so long.

So, can you, Vance, define "true agency" in a way that is helpful to j's not-yet-made argument?

cks

You mean "true agency" as opposed to the "false agency" that you CEN believers "claim" God gave man through some "secondary creation"?

[cksalmon]

Sigh. Try post #153."

Post #153:

If "our" will was CEN, then it is as God made it. Nothing more.

For it to be truly "our" will it must be, in some way, independent from God and His "creation" from nothing.

J: I will ask one more time. You haven't yet answered. So, seriously. Here is the question. It is simple. Please answer in your own words:

J: Please define what you mean by "true agency." So, something like: "true agency" is "X," where you fill in the X.

At this point, I must conclude that you are just not equipped to answer this very basic question. You can prove me wrong by answering this very basic question.

It has not been answered. You have not answered it. I have asked it, several times, now. It has not been answered, at all. Again, j:

J: Please define what you mean by "true agency." So, something like: "true agency" is "X," where you fill in the X.

So, what do you say? An answer? Or, would you like to point me again to something Vance wrote that in no way answers the actual question (a basic fact you would know if you understood the question at hand, I think)?

One more time:

J: Please define what you mean by "true agency." So, something like: "true agency" is "X," where you fill in the X.

Is this not a simple question, on your view?

Can you please answer it? Finally?

Please!?

cks

[LifeOnaPlate]

John Piper's book God's Passion for His Glory, freely accessible.

I subtitle this one, "For God So Loved Himself..."

[Vance]

I subtitle this one, "For God So Loved Himself..."

[Ahab]

Agreed, but irrelevant.

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.

The existence of agency IS in question, at least for some people posting in this thread.

Some people are essentially saying God is responsible for everything everyone is doing and thinking. If that were true, there would be NO agency in existence, at least not for anyone else other than God, because all of the rest of us would have no power to do anything other than what God has programmed all of us to do with us having NO power to alter our own programming.

And then there are those who are saying agency did not exist, or could not exist, if there was a person who was the FIRST of our kind of being, with nobody else like us before that moment. These people seem to think that God could not give his creation the power to choose between good and evil if God had been the only thing in existence before that other person or kind of being was created, while the CEN crowd states it is at least possible that Satan could have chosen to rebel against God even if there was no being other than God before that, and while I don

[Vance]

Some people are essentially saying God is responsible for everything everyone is doing and thinking.

You really aren't paying attention.

What they are saying is that UNDER THE ASSUMPTION OF CREATION EX NIHILO, "God is responsible for everything everyone is doing and thinking".

And that is one of the reasons that they REJECT CREATION EX NIHILO!

Please read that until you comprehend it, ok.

If that were true, there would be NO agency in existence, at least not for anyone else other than God, because all of the rest of us would have no power to do anything other than what God has programmed all of us to do with us having NO power to alter our own programming.

UNDER THE ASSUMPTION OF CREATION EX NIHILO, that is true.

And that is one of the reasons that they REJECT CREATION EX NIHILO!

And then, of course, there is the LDS crowd (or those who agree with us/them) who state that everything has gone on like it is now forever, with everyone having the power to choose, with no beginning to everything collectively, including no over-all beginning to agency, and thus no

[jwhitlock]

At this point, I must conclude that you are just not equipped to answer this very basic question. You can prove me wrong by answering this very basic question.

Actually, at this point you're just being purposely obtuse about it.

Unless, of course, you simply cannot make the connection between what Vance says about "be[ing] truly our will" and the concept of "true agency".

Either way, you're not worth conversing with any longer. All you've done so far is engage in condescending dismissals without engaging the discussion in the least. I don't expect anything different at this point.

Oh, and despite your head-in-the-sand bleating, the question has been more than answered. Feel free to continue in this rather interesting demonstration of irrationality without me.

[Ahab]

cksalmon,

I don't know you very well, but I feel like inviting you to my house for dinner!

Not because I agree with you, completely, but I can at least see the logic in your belief.

I think we're two reasonable people who both reasonably disagree, and I can imagine only one thing that would be better.

[cksalmon]

Actually, at this point you're just being purposely obtuse about it.

Unless, of course, you simply cannot make the connection between what Vance says about "be[ing] truly our will" and the concept of "true agency".

But, what I'm asking is for you to make a meaningful connection that can be investigated.

Either way, you're not worth conversing with any longer. All you've done so far is engage in condescending dismissals without engaging the discussion in the least. I don't expect anything different at this point.

Oh, and despite your head-in-the-sand bleating, the question has been more than answered. Feel free to continue in this rather interesting demonstration of irrationality without me.

Hi j:

Whatever suits you. I merely asked that you define what specifically you mean by "true agency." You haven't done so. You've merely pointed me to other posts that make vague connections between "will" and "agency." There's no point in discussing undefined concepts; you're right about that.

Might I suggest, if you're actually interested in the topic:

(1) Kane's Blackwell book: Free Will (in the Blackwell Readings in Philosophy series)

(2) The Wiley-Blackwell publication Four Views on Free Will (in the Great Debates in Philosophy series)

(3) As a basic introduction, Thomas Pink's Free Will (in OUP's Very Short Introduction series)

(4) The essays in the section titled "Is It Possible for Us to Act Freely" in Part Two of Inwagen and Zimmerman's Blackwell publication Metaphysics: The Big Questions.

Familiarizing yourself with the basic contours of the extant literature (and there's a lot more out there) will, I trust, disabuse you of the notions that you've demonstrated logical impossibility and that my request for an actual definition of your view is somehow unreasonable.

Of course, if you wish to summarize for my benefit the answer to my question that you claim has already been adequately expressed more than once...? I'm asking for a concrete definition that we can interrogate, not vague claims with undefined terms.

But, then, my call for clarification and definition you view as "irrational."

To each his own.

cks

EDIT: I should note that I disagree with Pink and Kane. So, I'm providing for your consideration quite notable sources that argue against my own position. FYI.