Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation


Recommended Posts

When one makes a claim about God (such as God can't do this or that), but cannot acknowledge that it isn't a claim based on facts, but one's faith. Any discussion is simply like spinning ones wheels in the parking lot. 

By the same token, when one makes a claim about God (such as God can do contradictory things), but cannot acknowledge that it isn't a claim based on facts, but one's faith. Any discussion is simply like spinning ones wheels in the parking lot. 

 

 

You know, contradictory things like make a rock so big He can't move it.  Or make a being from nothing with free will.

Link to comment

You made a claim,  "that God of the Bible is not transcendent in the metaphysical sense."

 

Your response is, "there are no verses in the Bible that say that God is transcendent in the metaphysical sense."

 

These two statements are completely different claims. ....

 

The second statement supports the first.

 

As has already been mentioned here, you cannot sit there and claim a belief in "sola scriptura" , and then also claim that the Bible teaches that "God is transcendent in the metaphysical sense". 

 

Nor can you claim that the God that Mormons believe in is "unBiblical".

 

 

-stephen

Link to comment

The second statement supports the first.

Right, the second statement is a statement of faith, just like the first.

 

As has already been mentioned here, you cannot sit there and claim a belief in "sola scriptura" , and then also claim that the Bible teaches that "God is transcendent in the metaphysical sense". 

 

Nor can you claim that the God that Mormons believe in is "unBiblical".

 

 

-stephen

It's one of my favorite things when people tell me what I can and can't believe. The misrepresentation of sola scriptura and what I believe seems to go hand in hand. 

 

What I try and do is demonstrate that LDS theology isn't based on the Bible or derived from the Bible. Sometimes I'm successful, and sometimes not. 

Link to comment

Stephen wrote:  "that God of the Bible is not transcendent in the metaphysical sense."

 

Stephen wrote:  "there are no verses in the Bible that say that God is transcendent in the metaphysical sense."

Right, the second statement is a statement of faith, just like the first.
 

 

No.  The second statement is a fact which backs up the first statement.  In other words, the first statement is backed up by the evidence, the second statement is referring to the evidence.

 

 

 

It's one of my favorite things when people tell me what I can and can't believe. The misrepresentation of sola scriptura and what I believe seems to go hand in hand. 

 

 

 

Please explain how "sola scriptura" has been misrepresented.

 

-stephen

 

- - - -  - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P.S.    I don't know if you have been paying attention the the discussion I am having with Roger Olsen.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/03/c-s-lewis-said-it-gods-goodness-cannot-be-wholly-other/#disqus_thread

 

He appears to be just as shallow as the others.  He claims that I have misrepresented Arminian theology, because "God's foreknowledge as not causative."

 

To which I respond:

You never bothered to read or understand my original posts.

I never said that God's foreknowledge is causative. That isn't the argument at all.....

 

Sound familiar?  If he had bothered to read my actual posts and if he actually understood the reasoning provided by Mark Hausam in the quote, he would know that nobody has argued that God's foreknowledge is causative.  It is Ex Nihilo creation that is causative.  Here is the quote again, whereby Hausam explains that you can't believe in Ex Nihilo, and then logically say that our choices are not caused by God:

 

"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."

 

I placed in bold the exact point that LDS theology makes in this matter.  In LDS theology, the WILL that produces the choice was not created by God; therefore, was not determined by God.

Edited by stephenpurdy
Link to comment

"God is cleaning up a mess He did not create" - this solves so many problems on so many levels. 

 

 

Thank you. 

 

This is a point I made in the video series.  I call this video "the Solitary Problem".  (about 9 minutes long)

 

 

At the end of the video I describe two scenarios.

 

1) God creates a bird with a broken wing.  Then God goes about mending the wing and says, "you should really thank me for fixing this broken wing of yours".

 

2) God happens upon a bird with a broken wing.  God didn't create the brokenness, the bird was already that way.  Then God goes about mending the broken wing.

 

Quite a difference between those two scenarios ... don't you think?

 

-stephen

Edited by stephenpurdy
Link to comment

Thank you. 

 

This is a point I made in the video series.  I call this video "the Solitary Problem".  (about 9 minutes long)

 

 

At the end of the video I describe two scenarios.

 

1) God creates a bird with a broken wing.  Then God goes about mending the wing and says, "you should really thank me for fixing this broken wing of yours".

 

2) God happens upon a bird with a broken wing.  God didn't create the brokenness, the bird was already that way.  Then God goes about mending the broken wing.

 

Quite a difference between those two scenarios ... don't you think?

 

-stephen

 

3) God creates a bird without broken wings out of nothing, then the bird flies off and breaks a wing.  God goes about mending the broken wing because he loves the bird he created out of nothing.  

Link to comment

Stephen wrote:  "that God of the Bible is not transcendent in the metaphysical sense."

 

Stephen wrote:  "there are no verses in the Bible that say that God is transcendent in the metaphysical sense."

 

No.  The second statement is a fact which backs up the first statement.  In other words, the first statement is backed up by the evidence, the second statement is referring to the evidence.

1) Statement of faith, "God is this or that..." 

 

2) Statement of faith "The Bible says this or that about God or doesn't..." 

 

My statement of faith:

 

1) "God is this or that..." 

 

2) "The Bible says this or that about God..." 

 

They are both statements of faith. Your contention is that none of the verses ought to be interpreted as God being transcendent. You trust the teachers that you believe are true. Faith in those teachers. I trust in the teachers that I believe teach the truth. Faith as well. 

 

The difference? History. Yours is based on the supposed restoration. 

 

 

 

Please explain how "sola scriptura" has been misrepresented.

 

-stephen

 

 

You said, "As has already been mentioned here, you cannot sit there and claim a belief in "sola scriptura" , and then also claim that the Bible teaches that "God is transcendent in the metaphysical sense"."

 

Your indictment of sola scriptura is based on your faith commitment that the doctrine of God's transcendence isn't taught in the Bible. 

 

The pattern is the same. 

 

You claim your faith isn't actually a faith commitment, but simply the facts and logic, then claim that my faith isn't supported by the facts and logic that are taught in the Bible.

 

It's actually interesting that you have the same problem that many Atheists I've debated have. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that they are trusting something (having faith in that person or thing or idea).  

Link to comment

 

- - - -  - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P.S.    I don't know if you have been paying attention the the discussion I am having with Roger Olsen.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/03/c-s-lewis-said-it-gods-goodness-cannot-be-wholly-other/#disqus_thread

 

He appears to be just as shallow as the others.  He claims that I have misrepresented Arminian theology, because "God's foreknowledge as not causative."

 

To which I respond:

You never bothered to read or understand my original posts.

I never said that God's foreknowledge is causative. That isn't the argument at all.....

 

Sound familiar?  If he had bothered to read my actual posts and if he actually understood the reasoning provided by Mark Hausam in the quote, he would know that nobody has argued that God's foreknowledge is causative.  It is Ex Nihilo creation that is causative.  Here is the quote again, whereby Hausam explains that you can't believe in Ex Nihilo, and then logically say that our choices are not caused by God:

 

"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."

 

I placed in bold the exact point that LDS theology makes in this matter.  In LDS theology, the WILL that produces the choice was not created by God; therefore, was not determined by God.

 

Right. You continue to push your faith as if it were fact.

 

You believe that God cannot create out of nothing a free moral willed being. That is your faith. Your assumption. You can't test it or put in a test tube for all to see and test. It boils down to a statement of faith on your part. 

 

I believe God can and did create a free moral willed being out of nothing. It is my faith.

 

It is a difference in faith not logic or facts.

Link to comment

Right. You continue to push your faith as if it were fact.

 

You believe that God cannot create out of nothing a free moral willed being. That is your faith. Your assumption. You can't test it or put in a test tube for all to see and test. It boils down to a statement of faith on your part. 

 

I believe God can and did create a free moral willed being out of nothing. It is my faith.

 

It is a difference in faith not logic or facts.

So, you reject the actual words of Scripture because they interfere with your current faith commitment.  You make a priori concepts more important than the Word of God.  At the same time, you throw reason and logic to the winds, thus destroying any appeal to the principle of sola scriptura -- which depends on the ability to read and understand the text of Scripture.

 

You are digging a deeper, and deeper hole for your pretend version of biblical religion -- taken from an unbiblical source.  For you faith is mere pretense as a substitute for the faith tradition which took Scripture seriously.

 

It is precisely that haughty attitude of apriorism which has led to the continuing spread of denominationalism.  Everyone is his own expert, determining for himself what truth might be, and replacing fact with fancy.  Indeed, an appeal to the Holy Spirit is last on their list.  Epistemological questions are never even conisdered.  That is your dilemma, daniel, and you refuse to face it.

Link to comment

So, you reject the actual words of Scripture because they interfere with your current faith commitment.  You make a priori concepts more important than the Word of God.  At the same time, you throw reason and logic to the winds, thus destroying any appeal to the principle of sola scriptura -- which depends on the ability to read and understand the text of Scripture.

 

You are digging a deeper, and deeper hole for your pretend version of biblical religion -- taken from an unbiblical source.  For you faith is mere pretense as a substitute for the faith tradition which took Scripture seriously.

 

It is precisely that haughty attitude of apriorism which has led to the continuing spread of denominationalism.  Everyone is his own expert, determining for himself what truth might be, and replacing fact with fancy.  Indeed, an appeal to the Holy Spirit is last on their list.  Epistemological questions are never even conisdered.  That is your dilemma, daniel, and you refuse to face it.

 

As I have pointed out, at least a couple times. Your statement is incorrect. I don't reject the words of scripture rather, I agree with those scholars that happen to disagree with your positions. Your faith in your scholarship is your faith commitment. 

 

Telling me that I'm digging deeper, confused, have a haughty attitude, and have a pretend version of biblical religion, really doesn't help your case. But, if it makes you feel better, keep it up!  

Link to comment

3) God creates a bird without broken wings out of nothing, then the bird flies off and breaks a wing.  God goes about mending the broken wing because he loves the bird he created out of nothing.  

 

 

Ex nihilo, God created the bird so ignorant, that it doesn't know any better and runs into a wall and breaks it's wing.  And/or God creates a bird so disobedient, that even after God told the bird not to run into a wall the bird did it anyways.

 

God is still culpable.

 

-stephen

Link to comment

 

You believe that God cannot create out of nothing a free moral willed being. That is your faith. Your assumption.

 

 

It is not just "faith" or an "assumption" when it is clearly backed up with logic and reasoning.  You have never even attempted to address this logic and reasoning, not even this short paragraph by Mark Hausam:

 

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."

 

 

Why won't you even begin to try to address it?  Because you CAN'T.  The same is true for Roger Olsen.

 

This IS about logic and facts and reasoning.  But you are ignoring it, plugging your ears, and running away.

 

-Stephen

Link to comment

Ex nihilo, God created the bird so ignorant, that it doesn't know any better and runs into a wall and breaks it's wing. And/or God creates a bird so disobedient, that even after God told the bird not to run into a wall the bird did it anyways.

God is still culpable.

-stephen

 

3) God creates the bird ex nihilo with the ability to go where it wills and do what it wills freely. No problem. [Why would God create an ignorant or disobedient bird? What a strange assertion.] So God creates and releases the bird, it gets confused by a reflection and bang! slams into a window and breaks its wing. God goes about mending the broken wing because he loves the bird he created out of nothing.

Edited by Spammer
Link to comment

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."

'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.'

Unless God creates whatever it is in the will that chooses with the ability to make choices that are self-existent or self-originated. Self-originated choices cannot be the product of a chain of causes and effects that God sets in motion if those choices are to retain the property of being uncaused. Thus, God doesn't set in motion a causal chain that produces whatever it is in the will that has the ability to make self-originating choices. That would indeed be contradictory if we were talking about products of evolutionary forces, matter and material causation. For us, spirit and will are immaterial and are not the product of material forces; when it comes to whatever it is in the created will that chooses self-determinately, God creates that kind of will ex nihilo simply by willing it to be so. And so it is.

Edited by Spammer
Link to comment

It is not just "faith" or an "assumption" when it is clearly backed up with logic and reasoning.  You have never even attempted to address this logic and reasoning, not even this short paragraph by Mark Hausam:

 

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."

 

 

Why won't you even begin to try to address it?  Because you CAN'T.  The same is true for Roger Olsen.

 

This IS about logic and facts and reasoning.  But you are ignoring it, plugging your ears, and running away.

 

-Stephen

 

I've addressed your points, yet you continue to say that it's not faith or assumptions, its logic and facts. I've tried many times. 

 

For example, you make faith claims (as does your friend Mark Hausam) yet you deny that they are faith based claims. 

 

"God cannot create uncaused choices, directly or indirectly."

 

This is a statement of faith, one where not everyone agrees with it. Only those, like yourself, who believe as you do agree with it. 

 

The logical argument based on this faith based statement looks like this:

 

1) God cannot create uncaused choices, directly or indirectly.

2) Since the choice is uncaused, the will that produces the choice must be uncaused.

3) Therefore our will wasn't created by God.

 

Here's another one (this is mine):

 

1) God is Lord of Heaven and Earth. 

2) "Heaven and Earth" Is a Jewish way of saying, "All that exists, Period." 

3) Therefore, there is nothing that exists, that God didn't bring into existence, that relies on him for their very existence, otherwise he couldn't be called "Lord" over it. (this includes our will and all matter)

 

Notice that mine is also based on faith. If one doesn't agree with the premises (faith) then one won't agree with the conclusion either, even though the logic is sound. 

Link to comment

Ex nihilo, God created the bird so ignorant, that it doesn't know any better and runs into a wall and breaks it's wing.  And/or God creates a bird so disobedient, that even after God told the bird not to run into a wall the bird did it anyways.

 

God is still culpable.

 

-stephen

Isn't that in a commercial for a window cleaner so good that birds run into the window as though it isn't there at all?  Your analogy is very apropos.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment

I've addressed your points, yet you continue to say that it's not faith or assumptions, its logic and facts. I've tried many times. 

 

For example, you make faith claims (as does your friend Mark Hausam) yet you deny that they are faith based claims. 

 

"God cannot create uncaused choices, directly or indirectly."

 

This is a statement of faith, one where not everyone agrees with it. Only those, like yourself, who believe as you do agree with it. 

 

The logical argument based on this faith based statement looks like this:

 

1) God cannot create uncaused choices, directly or indirectly.

2) Since the choice is uncaused, the will that produces the choice must be uncaused.

3) Therefore our will wasn't created by God.

 

Here's another one (this is mine):

 

1) God is Lord of Heaven and Earth. 

2) "Heaven and Earth" Is a Jewish way of saying, "All that exists, Period." 

3) Therefore, there is nothing that exists, that God didn't bring into existence, that relies on him for their very existence, otherwise he couldn't be called "Lord" over it. (this includes our will and all matter)

 

Notice that mine is also based on faith. If one doesn't agree with the premises (faith) then one won't agree with the conclusion either, even though the logic is sound. 

It is very unfortunate that you have all along refused to engage the actual debate herewith.  You keep repeating the same issues which have come up and been dealt with effectively.

 

It isn't that there is anything wrong with faith.  It is only that you substitute a fairy faith for the real thing, daniel, and do not ask the hard questions about whether one may even use language if one doesn't know it well enough to understand elementary concepts.  God gave us brains presumably so that we would use them.  If we use them irresponsibly then that is a disappointment to God, and guarantees failure in our humble attempts to understand anything at all -- not to mention specialized knowledge.  Since you have made no attempt to inform yourself about the nature of this debate, you have no chance of understanding it.

Link to comment

The only way to escape the cause/effect chain, is to have no original cause - no beginning.  

If there is a beginning, all of the effects can be traced back to the original cause.

 

Isaiah 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things

 

It's either ex-nihilo creation, in which God really did create evil,

or it is organizational/transformational creation - in which case God "transforms" darkness into light, and transforms evil.  

Edited by changed
Link to comment

The only way to escape the cause/effect chain, is to have no original cause - no beginning.  

If there is a beginning, all of the effects can be traced back to the original cause.

 

Isaiah 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things

 

It's either ex-nihilo creation, in which God really did create evil,

or it is organizational/transformational creation - in which case God "transforms" darkness into light, and transforms evil.  

Correct.  One can posit any sort of God one prefers, but there are always consequences to that particular preference.  Dealing with those consequences is hard for some people.

Link to comment

Ex nihilo is an important Christian doctrine that distinguishes Christianity from Greek philosophy and gnosticism, which hold that matter is eternal.  To cite just one Christian church father, Irenaeus of Lyon (disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John and appointed by John to the bishopric in Smyrna) asserted that ex nihilo creation of matter is of apostolic origin.  He did so in his refutation of the gnostic systems of Basilides and Valentinus (see Irenaeus, Against Heresies). The choice is between Greek philosophy's eternal matter and Christianity's created matter.  As Irenaeus points out, the former elevates matter to the level of God and limits God; the latter preserves God's sovereignty over His creation. 

Edited by Spammer
Link to comment

The eternal nature of matter is a Jewish concept

 

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/vocabulary_studies.html

 

Child Root 
 

heb-anc-lg-hey.jpgheb-anc-lg-nun.jpgheb-anc-lg-quph.jpg

Transliteration: "Qa-NeH"
Meaning: To build a nest.
Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for. 

 

 

 The choice is between Greek philosophy's eternal matter and Christianity's created matter. 

 

It was Jewish before the Greeks picked up on it - The choice is between the original Hebrew, and the English translation of it.

 

See also: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html

Edited by changed
Link to comment

The eternal nature of matter is a Jewish concept

 

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/vocabulary_studies.html

 

Child Root 

 

heb-anc-lg-hey.jpgheb-anc-lg-nun.jpgheb-anc-lg-quph.jpg

Transliteration: "Qa-NeH"

Meaning: To build a nest.

Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for. 

 

 
 

 

It was Jewish before the Greeks picked up on it - The choice is between the original Hebrew, and the English translation of it.

 

See also: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html

 

Van Wolde's thesis regarding creation as separation is not new.  Jewish scholars and philosophers have debated ex nihilo vs ex materia creation for centuries, including debating whether ex materia notions are original to the Hebrew religion or borrowed from Greek philosophy. 

 

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4730-creation

 

Good thing we have Revelation and the apostolic tradition to set us straight.

Edited by Spammer
Link to comment

Here's another one (this is mine):

 

1) God is Lord of Heaven and Earth. 

2) "Heaven and Earth" Is a Jewish way of saying, "All that exists, Period." 

3) Therefore, there is nothing that exists, that God didn't bring into existence, that relies on him for their very existence, otherwise he couldn't be called "Lord" over it. (this includes our will and all matter)

 

4) Since "our will and all matter" "relies on him for their very existence" then our will is exactly what he created it to be. 

5) Therefore God is responsible for all evil.

 

Just taking the logic to where it goes.

Link to comment

4) Since "our will and all matter" "relies on him for their very existence" then our will is exactly what he created it to be. 

5) Therefore God is responsible for all evil.

 

Just taking the logic to where it goes.

Unless God created it with the ability to make moral choices independent of the creator. At which point those choices are not determined by God and not the responsibility of the creator.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...