The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation

[Ahab]

The reason why I addressed the Ex Nihilo creation theology here, is because the grand majority of believers in God espouse this view. This is the picture of God that is being presented to the world, and it is wrong fundamentally. The nature and relationship of God and creation is being misrepresented, which makes it more easy to reject.

Again, my skeptical view point as a teenager was valid, "Why would God damn me for being what God created me to be?" The answer: 'Well, God gave you free will", was not sufficient, because it is impossible within the framework of ex nihilo. I provided the reasons why here.

Skeptics of religion have a reason to be skeptical, especially with "the problem of evil and suffering" within the scenario whereby God created all of existence entirely from God's own mind. That kind of theology is indefensible.

Ex Nihilo also causes misinterpretations on other issues as well. Consider the Trinity. What was the debate? Is Jesus Christ eternal or was he created? Under the ex nihilo framework, it had to be one or the other, when in reality, the answer is "both".

-Stephen

Unfortunately, even though your reasoning and ideas are true, many people who espouse those ideas and beliefs which you can see are not true will continue to espouse those false beliefs until the day that they die, and possibly even in the spirit world after others like you point out the reasons that what they believe is not true. Not even God will force them to change their minds. With free will they will continue to be able to hold on to false beliefs while they believe they are true regardless of what anyone does to teach them what really is true. But kudos to you for at least doing something to try to teach them the truth! I hope you will keep up the good work.

[danielwoods]

They simply don't. There are no instruments to measure assumptions.

 

I'm going to steal that line one day... 

[Ahab]

I'm going to steal that line one day...

No need to steal. Those words are free to anyone who wants to use them. Anytime. Even when wrong.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Then God lies because he has told us we must walk by faith not science. If you are right, there is no plan of salvation.

 

That is for moral agency, not for creation or the natural world. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Most people learn basic logic in high school geometry class.  Others get it in college classes on critical thinking, logic, and philosophy.   No mathematician, physcist or chemist can function without mastery of logic.  Hawking, who is a profound thinker in physics and math, has likely found that normative Christian dogma is not logical and therefore rejects it.  For many that is the source of their rejection of religion in general -- even though some religions, such as the LDS faith, are quite logical.  However, Hawking  is not likely to want to waste time doing a survey of religions.  He doesn't believe in God because the god offered to him by mainstream religion is illogical and self-contradictory.

 

A good, short primer on logic is A. J. Ayer, Language, Truth, and Logic (1936), which is available online at https://ia802605.us....uthAndLogic.pdf or at  http://s-f-walker.or...dfs/ayerLTL.pdf .  Another good way to be introduced to the subject is to take a course on critical thinking at a local college.

The idea that Hawking is a profound thinker in areas of theology is a huge error. 

.............................................................................................   

I am not aware of anyone fatuous enough to call Stephen Hawking a theologian, or who have claimed that he does theology, and he himself would likely deny that he knows theology.  So, I don't understand your point here.  You are certainly not replying to my comments.

 

 

Do you believe that God is limited in any way?  For example, do you believe (with the LDS faith) that God is limited, that He is part of time and space, and that He was once a man like us?  Then, of course, free will is possible -- because humans (who are of the same basic nature as God) are considered to be coeternal with God.  Only thus is free choice possible.

 

If you believe that God is the only uncreated being, then you cannot logically have any other uncreated beings; moreover, any beings which are created are fully contingent on that God; that means that they have no free will (Presbyterians at least admit that God is fully sovereign and that salvation is not a matter of human choice, because God decides who is predestined to be saved).  These logical issues have been fully discussed in philosophical and theological works for over a century.  If you need some recommendations for reading, just let me know.

 

....................................................................

Your statement does not follow if God is able to create us in his image, as he claimed. 

God did not claim to "create" humans ex-nihilo.  The Hebrew text of Genesis tells us very clearly that God "organized" humans and everything else from pre-existent materials.  Read the translation-commentary by the late Ephraim Speiser for Anchor Bible (Doubleday, 1964).  Speiser says that, despite normative Judeo-Christitan dogma, we should allow the text to speak for itself.

 

Elohim (the Gods) did indeed organize humans in their image and in their likeness, just as it plainly declares in Gen 1:26 (in the plural).

 

But what does that mean in specific terms?  For Brigham Young that meant that all humans are reproduced sexually and that this applies to Adam & Eve as to anyone else.  In Brigham's view, it is figurative to say that man was formed from the clay or dust, while a woman was formed from Adam's rib.  For him all that language was figurative, and they were formed the same way all humans are conceived, developed in a womb, and then were delivered as newborn infants..

Edited June 29, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[danielwoods]

 

I am not aware of anyone fatuous enough to call Stephen Hawking a theologian, or who have claimed that he does theology, and he himself would likely deny that he knows theology.  So, I don't understand your point here.  You are certainly not replying to my comments.

 

 

 

God did not claim to "create" humans ex-nihilo.  The Hebrew text of Genesis tells us very clearly that God "organized" humans and everything else from pre-existent materials.  Read the translation-commentary by the late Ephraim Speiser for Anchor Bible (Doubleday, 1964).  Speiser says that, despite normative Judeo-Christitan dogma, we should allow the text to speak for itself.

 

Elohim (the Gods) did indeed organize humans in their image and in their likeness, just as it plainly declares in Gen 1:26 (in the plural).

 

But what does that mean in specific terms?  For Brigham Young that meant that all humans are reproduced sexually and that this applies to Adam & Eve as to anyone else.  In Brigham's view, it is figurative to say that man was formed from the clay or dust, while a woman was formed from Adam's rib.  For him all that language was figurative, and they were formed the same way all humans are conceived, developed in a womb, and then were delivered as newborn infants..

 

 

The passage in Genesis uses the word organized, because God created man out of the ground and breathed life into him and at that moment he *became* a living being. Before that he was not existing and not living. 

 

The concept that all of the Universe was created out of pre-existing matter (and intelligences) that are eternal with God is not a concept found in Judaism or Christianity, but from the LDS. 

[tagriffy]

The passage in Genesis uses the word organized, because God created man out of the ground and breathed life into him and at that moment he *became* a living being. Before that he was not existing and not living. 

 

The concept that all of the Universe was created out of pre-existing matter (and intelligences) that are eternal with God is not a concept found in Judaism or Christianity, but from the LDS. 

 

If so, so what?

[mfbukowski]

I'm going to steal that line one day... 

I kinda

Liked it myself!

[mfbukowski]

That is for moral agency, not for creation or the natural world.

Oh gosh! Total equivocation. The issue was whether or not science can prove the existence of God. You have proved my point for me. You bring up Hume's distinction between is and ought, which means we take religious and moral matters on faith, and scientific matters based on replicable observation.

That was my whole point.

You just did a complete 180.

This is a waste of time.

Edited June 29, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

The passage in Genesis uses the word organized, because God created man out of the ground and breathed life into him and at that moment he *became* a living being. Before that he was not existing and not living.

So, a baby does not exist and is not living until he as been delivered and the doctor slaps him on the rump?  Till he takes his first breath?  Did he not exist in the womb?  Did he  not exist as an ovum and spermatazoan?  The chicken-egg question . . .

 

The concept that all of the Universe was created out of pre-existing matter (and intelligences) that are eternal with God is not a concept found in Judaism or Christianity, but from the LDS.

What I said, Bro.

However, even though mainstream Judeo-Christian dogma does opt for creatio ex nihilo, many other religions accept pre-existent matter, and that even includes science.  Of course, in ancient times, the Israelites accepted pre-existent matter.  That is how the Hebrew Bible reads.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[danielwoods]

So, a baby does not exist and is not living until he as been delivered and the doctor slaps him on the rump?  Till he takes his first breath?  Did he not exist in the womb?  Did he  not exist as an ovum and spermatazoan?  The chicken-egg question . . .

 

What I said, Bro.

However, even though mainstream Judeo-Christian dogma does opt for creatio ex nihilo, many other religions accept pre-existent matter, and that even includes science.  Of course, in ancient times, the Israelites accepted pre-existent matter.  That is how the Hebrew Bible reads.

 

The question of when life begins for us is a little different than when we are talking about Adam. He obviously didn't get slapped on the rump… 

 

The dogma that one accepts dictates the conclusions one makes at the end of the day. As was stated above, there is no instrument to test ones assumptions, so we are left making our own best guesses based on our own faith. The attack of ex nihilo comes from a point of view that has made different assumptions which also are not tested and are based on their faith. 

[mfbukowski]

The question of when life begins for us is a little different than when we are talking about Adam. He obviously didn't get slapped on the rump… 

 

The dogma that one accepts dictates the conclusions one makes at the end of the day. As was stated above, there is no instrument to test ones assumptions, so we are left making our own best guesses based on our own faith. The attack of ex nihilo comes from a point of view that has made different assumptions which also are not tested and are based on their faith. 

Dang I gotta hand it to you.  We actually agree.

 

The only problem as I see it is then why be discussing it at all?   From my point of view, maybe Adam really did get slapped on the rump- but I don't have a clue, but the answer to that is hardly "obvious"

 

So all I am saying I guess is examine the implications of your assumptions that you are taking on faith and be consistent with them.

 

I can see how ex nihilo is consistent with your assumptions but not consistent with mine, which make it not obvious at all that "Adam" was or was not "slapped on the rump".

 

Same with the Trinity.  You stick with the traditional assumptions, I do not.

 

That's why you pretty much don't see me responding to these kind of threads except to question the assumptions themselves, attempting to show how they are not consistent with other assumptions etc.  Other than that, there's not a whole lot to talk about as far as I am concerned on all these topics- free will, the Trinity, ex nihilo, "salvation", etc.

 

You see it one way and I see it another.  Pretty much, end of story.

[danielwoods]

Dang I gotta hand it to you.  We actually agree.

 

The only problem as I see it is then why be discussing it at all?   From my point of view, maybe Adam really did get slapped on the rump- but I don't have a clue, but the answer to that is hardly "obvious"

 

So all I am saying I guess is examine the implications of your assumptions that you are taking on faith and be consistent with them.

 

I can see how ex nihilo is consistent with your assumptions but not consistent with mine, which make it not obvious at all that "Adam" was or was not "slapped on the rump".

 

Same with the Trinity.  You stick with the traditional assumptions, I do not.

 

That's why you pretty much don't see me responding to these kind of threads except to question the assumptions themselves, attempting to show how they are not consistent with other assumptions etc.  Other than that, there's not a whole lot to talk about as far as I am concerned on all these topics- free will, the Trinity, ex nihilo, "salvation", etc.

 

You see it one way and I see it another.  Pretty much, end of story.

 

Why talk about this (might be another topic... ha ha ha ha.... sorry the irony was killing me)? 

 

Well, when someone states that this or that isn't logical (ex nihilo, trinity, you name it), then the discussion starts and I try and point out that logic alone doesn't end these disagreements. Which get's really difficult when someone denies they are making any assumptions based on faith and are only using "Logic"... ha! 

[TheSkepticChristian]

Oh gosh! Total equivocation. The issue was whether or not science can prove the existence of God. You have proved my point for me. You bring up Hume's distinction between is and ought, which means we take religious and moral matters on faith, and scientific matters based on replicable observation.

That was my whole point.

You just did a complete 180.

This is a waste of time.

 

I said the plan of Salvation is not science, I also said that perhaps science can someday answer the question about God. 

 

God (a person) ≠ Plan of Salvation

Edited June 29, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[mfbukowski]

Why talk about this (might be another topic... ha ha ha ha.... sorry the irony was killing me)? 

 

Well, when someone states that this or that isn't logical (ex nihilo, trinity, you name it), then the discussion starts and I try and point out that logic alone doesn't end these disagreements. Which get's really difficult when someone denies they are making any assumptions based on faith and are only using "Logic"... ha! 

Logic is strictly rules of inference.  Put simply, garbage in, garbage out.

[mfbukowski]

I said the plan of Salvation is not science, I also said that perhaps science can someday answer the question about God. 

 

God (a person) ≠ Plan of Salvation

Huh? This is getting stranger by the minute. Here is the actual discussion:

God is too smart to use the scientific method. Heck the scientific method doesn't even show that God can exist! On that premise God would not even believe in himself!

Science is progressing, perhaps someday science will answer your question.

Then God lies because he has told us we must walk by faith not science. If you are right, there is no plan of salvation.

That is for moral agency, not for creation or the natural world.

I have no clue what you are even talking about. I am out.

[TheSkepticChristian]

I have no clue what you are even talking about. I am out.

 

The plan of salvation and faith require moral agency, not science. 

 

I said that science may one-day answer the question about the existence of God. 

 

I believe God is an alien that uses Science for creation. 

Edited June 30, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[stephenpurdy]

I agree the problem of evil is a big problem for ex nihilo, but not necessarily free will

 

 

 

You posted that video as if I didn't already explain it. 

 

Or ... you probably just didn't watch my video, which SPECIFICALLY addresses exactly what Katu was referring to.

 

 

 

Katu refers to electron mobility, I spoke about electron mobility.  Katu refers to "God rolling the dice" ... and I specifically use that as a model in my video.

 

 

-Stephen

Edited July 1, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[stephenpurdy]

Clearly this is true.

 

So now the question becomes, do you go after converts in the mass of people who have already been misled, or do you go after those who do not have preconceived ideas and who just want happier lives?   It becomes a kind of marketing question.

 

Does google or linux go after microsoft devotees who will never change, or those who are looking to solve the problems microsoft has created?

 

Do you go after entrenched believers in error, or do you go after those who are looking to solve problems in their lives and have no clue how to solve them?

 

 

 

These philosophical debates are kind of a hobby.  I actually find that serving in my calling at church, home teaching, etc. is much more productive than anything else.  I only get involved in these debates if I have spare time at the end of the day ... which doesn't happen every day.

 

Usually, when having a philosophical debate, or a debate about the Bible, or whatever ... you aren't going to convince the person you are debating against.  There is too much pride .... too much invested in their viewpoint.   However, those who are observing on the side can see what is going on in the debate and then reflect upon it, hopefully pray about it, and then go from there.

 

-Stephen

Edited July 1, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[danielwoods]

You posted that video as if I didn't already explain it. 

 

Or ... you probably just didn't watch my video, which SPECIFICALLY addresses exactly what Katu was referring to.

 

 

 

Katu refers to electron mobility, I spoke about electron mobility.  Katu refers to "God rolling the dice" ... and I specifically use that as a model in my video.

 

 

-Stephen

 

Which is answered below:

 

This guy needs to stick to physics and keep out of philosophy.  He is acting as if scientific research and theory is relevant to the question.  It is not.

 

Philosophy questions why science is even relevant to free will and even if science can teach us "truth" in the first place.

 

Philosophy is about analyzing the fundamental assumptions behind knowledge claims.

 

Scientists just unquestioning think they know about "reality" and don't even ask the questions or analyze their own assumptions.   What scientists DO know about are what mathematical theories seem to make things work.  Scientists are essentially highly brilliant mechanics and engineers. Einstein was not a philosopher.

 

They make things go, they do not ask what things are or why they are important.  The mere fact that they comment on these topics proves they don't know what they are talking about

 

Their basic assumption is that all that is important is discoverable through the scientific method.   It is not. 

[mfbukowski]

I always wonder why people don't have hobbies like building atomic bombs.

 

I think philosophy should carry a label "Caution- Hazardous Activity! Don't try this at home!- you might confuse yourself and other people for the rest of your life!"

[stephenpurdy]

The passage in Genesis uses the word organized, because God created man out of the ground and breathed life into him and at that moment he *became* a living being. Before that he was not existing and not living. 

 

 

Because in order to be considered "living" , you have to have a spirit AND a body .... right?

 

 

 

 

The concept that all of the Universe was created out of pre-existing matter (and intelligences) that are eternal with God is not a concept found in Judaism or Christianity, but from the LDS. 

 

The concept that the Universe (or anyone in it) was created "out of nothing" is not a concept found in scripture.

 

 

Stephen wrote:  Can God cause an uncaused cause?   Yes or no.

 

Daniel wrote:  In answer to your question about an uncaused cause. Yes and no.

 

Nice one.  

 

You are just going to insist that God can create a free moral agent "out of nothing" ... just because , well, because God just did .... o.k.  Because you say so; forget even trying to address specifically the actual arguments that have been presented to you.

 

Ahab nailed it:

 

Ahab wrote:  Unfortunately, even though your reasoning and ideas are true, many people who espouse those ideas and beliefs which you can see are not true will continue to espouse those false beliefs until the day that they die, and possibly even in the spirit world after others like you point out the reasons that what they believe is not true. Not even God will force them to change their minds. With free will they will continue to be able to hold on to false beliefs while they believe they are true regardless of what anyone does to teach them what really is true.

 

 

-Stephen

Edited July 1, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[stephenpurdy]

You don't have to be a scientist or a philosopher to understand what I have explained.

 

Again, I addressed the issue from two different perspectives. 

 

1) Let's say that in Ex Nihilo creation, our "choices" have absolutely NOTHING TO DO with our created characteristics (this is the example I give in the video of the six-sided cubes). 

 

2) Let's say that our created characteristics DO influence our free will choices (this is the example I gave in the video of different elements in the periodic table).

 

Either way, I demonstrated how, with Ex Nihilo creation, God Himself determines outcomes.

 

Again, with Ex Nihilo, God Himself created every single aspect of existence and every single aspect of every single being.  The result would be exactly the Universe and beings that God imagined it to be.  Nothing more and nothing less.  That Universe would be nothing more and nothing less than an extension and representation of God's own mind.  PanENtheism.

 

-Stephen

Edited July 1, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[mfbukowski]

The concept that the Universe (or anyone in it) was created "out of nothing" is not a concept found in scripture.

 

-Stephen

Actually it can be interpreted either way.

 

There is no point in my continuing here.  You guys can say "Yes it is" and "No it isn't" just fine without me

[mfbukowski]

You don't have to be a scientist or a philosopher to understand what I have explained.

 

Again, I addressed the issue from two different perspectives. 

 

1) Let's say that in Ex Nihilo creation, our "choices" have absolutely NOTHING TO DO with our created characteristics (this is the example I give in the video of the six-sided cubes). 

 

2) Let's say that our created characteristics DO influence our free will choices (this is the example I gave in the video of different elements in the periodic table).

 

Either way, I demonstrated how, with Ex Nihilo creation, God Himself determines outcomes.

 

-Stephen

No you didn't

 

This is the oldest argument in the world.  I don't even know what "created characteristics" are.

 

That's ok.

 

Have fun, but don't take it too seriously.  You really can mess up the ways you think about things.  I wasn't kidding.  I would suggest some formal study on these arguments if you intend to base you life on these beliefs.