The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation

[stephenpurdy]

Stephen asked how, exactly, Daniel feels that I have mischaracterized his position.

 

 
 

Let's just take your recent post (quoted above):
 
1)  that I am not curious about the reasons some scholars disagree with me
2) that I am not willing to consider a different point of view
3) I can't explain the world we live in.
4) ENC can't explain evil and suffering
5) Your video explains that ENC cannot account for the world we live in. 
6) I only have faith because a majority believe it.
 

 

1 and 2) 

 

IF you really were curious about those reasons, and IF you were willing to consider a different point of view, then when I present an argument, THEN you would discuss the argument (and thus demonstrate that you understand it), and then explain why you disagree with it.  Just saying "you have faith" isn't going to cut it on an intellectual level.

 

In the initial discussion and video, I explained that man does not have free will in the ex nihilo creation theology, because a, b, c....

 

A person who is truly thinking about the arguments may say, "I see what you are saying with a, but I disagree with your presentation of b and c, because x, y , and z."  .... and then a coherent discussion can be developed.  You have not even begun to address it at that level. 

 

 

3, 4, and 5)

 

You have not presented your theodicy here.  If you think you have, then please point to the specific post or posts which you think explain it.

 

If you want to have a legitimate discussion, you can get a good example in my post #429 on this thread.

 

I present the argument that was developed by Alvin Plantinga and explained by William Lane Craig, (and even posted a video clip and the time where he explains it).  I presented understanding of the argument that was given.

Then I gave specific reasons why that argument is not valid.

 

Again, you have been unwilling to do anything at that level.  You cannot even point to a single post that you have provided on this thread which demonstrates that you understand, for exammple,  the "six sided cube" demonstration that I explained (AND provided video) at the very beginning of this discussion. 

 

6) This is the appeal that you made, but you have not demonstrated that you even understand why you feel that it is a superior viewpoint to the alternative that has been presented to you.  You have not demonstrated that you even understand those who argue for your point of view.  Where is your defense of Plantinga's / WLC's possible verses feasible worlds theory?   You just skipped over post #429 entirely.

 

Instead you say something like, "But, since this belief/faith isn't testable. Your accusation and/or arguments are invalid because they are also based on your own faith, which is not testable either."

 

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.  I made very specific arguments about substantive issues that people you yourself have quoted in order to defend your position.  And when that doesn't seem to be going your way, you just ignore it and then wave your hand and say, "I'm not going to address that because faith isn't testable".

 

-stephen

[Bobbieaware]

I asked you, "Do you believe that God is capable of creating a being like Himself?" Your claim was "yes".

Now you are saying that God is NOT like us, because God does not have free will like man does. So, now you have to flip again.

Do you see where this is going?

-Stephen

P.S. IF God does not have free will, then God does not truly love us.

And so here we see another manifestation of the principle over which the war in heaven was fought: So it seems although Paul tells us that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty," the Lord, who is the source of that same Spirit of liberty, has no liberty or freedom of thought and action for himself. Rather, he is a sort of automaton who feels no emotion, including the emotion of love, because, as they say, love is a choice. And one wonders why a God without freedom of choice would have created creatures in his image who have freedom of choice? Wouldn't he be better off creating a race of fellow automatons who would never make a mistake and therefore not have to risk spending eternity in hell if they incorrectly use that freedom?

I'm wondering if the proponents of the God without freedom to choose also believe Christ had no freedom of choice? It would seem strange if they do because if the Godhead is one being, why would one personage in the Trinity have freedom of choice while another personage in the same perfectly unified Trinity not have freedom to choose? But if they do believe Christ does have freedom to choose, it would seem the personages of the Trinity are not perfectly unified in all attributes.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[stephenpurdy]

.... But if they do believe Christ does have freedom to choose, it would seem the personages of the Trinity are not perfectly unified in all attributes.

 

And it would mean that it is possible for a person with free will to have moral perfection at all times, without being an "automaton".   And IF that is possible, then why wouldn't God create everyone that way.  As my video series states, If God can create any kind of reality possible out of God's own mind, then "God could have created a world full of Jesuses".

 

-Stephen

Edited July 15, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[danielwoods]

Round we go again. How does filling the blanks using other resources constitute not letting the text speak for itself? I've let the text speak for itself. Where the text doesn't say anything one way or the other, I am free to fill in blanks with whatever resources I have available.

 

Second, my claim that Genesis depicts matter as already being there when God began to create is true. "In the beginning when created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void." According to Genesis, matter was already there when God began to create. You'll find no mainstream scholar who will maintain otherwise, and there are even Evangelical scholars who admit Genesis doesn't settle the issue on whether God created ex nihilo. See Vos and Wenham on the passage. If you want to fill in the blank with ex nihilo creation, be my guest. You want to say the text says it, you better do your homework.

 

 

My opinions on what the text states is generated by the text. When I study the text, I make the effort to set aside my position and faith and let the text speak for itself as much as possible. When you've proven Genesis depicts creatio ex nihilo, then we can discuss how my view of the text was generated.

 

The statement in the Jewish Encyclopedia was "it is clear that the Prophets and many of the Psalms accept without reservation the doctrine of creation from nothing" as you emphasized by with the bold font. Actually, it is not clear that the Prophets and Psalms accept creation from nothing, let alone they do so without reservation. The cited texts either use metaphors that assume pre-existing matter or simply don't say anything one way or the other. I can go through the cited texts and demonstrate it if you wish.

 

And no, the doctrine of eternal matter would not have to be accepted. The text depicts creation being accomplished using matter that existed when God created the heavens and the earth. That's it. It doesn't say where the material came from; it doesn't say whether it was created beforehand; it doesn't say the matter was eternal. It's simply a blank. If you want to fill in that blank with creatio ex nihilo, go right ahead. That's not my problem.

 

1) How does filling the blanks using other resources constitute not letting the text speak for itself? 

If the other resources you used or the concepts ended up conflicting with known teaching from the text, that is how. 

 

2) If God didn't create the matter out of nothing and the matter he used already existed, and you claim that the doctrine of eternal matter would not have to be accepted. Where did the matter come from then if it's not eternal? 

 

3) I agree there are many opinions on this issue, even among Evangelical scholars. The two you cited appear to agree with you that God didn't create ex nihilo according to Genesis. They also don't appear to accept that God created in six literal days. This is why I think the fallacy of an appeal to authority, in this case "most scholars believe…" is just another way of expressing ones own faith. Because, one will simply side with the scholars that they agree with. 

 

4) To me Genesis does support ex nihilo creation, as do other passages. 

Edited July 15, 2015 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

Stephen says:  I have faith that God created "from something".

 

Daniel says:  I have faith that God created "from nothing".

 

Oh, O.K.   Nice debate.  Next topic.

 

Not much of a debate there Daniel.

Notice that I said the key to this debate is faith. The debate hinges on our different faiths and the assumptions that are derived from them. I didn't say that the debate ends or is only faith. The key is how and why our different faiths disagree. Up to this point you appear to be arguing that logic and reason is enough to refute the ENC position. What is missing in an acknowledgement of one's faith and why one should hold the faith assumptions that you do and abandon the traditional view. 

 

 

 

By the way, I posted a paragraph from Blake Ostler on post 426.  Did you read it?  Do you understand it?  Do you agree with it?

 

If you don't agree with any part or argument within that paragraph, then why not? 

 

This is exactly what I am referring to when I make the claim that you are not addressing the arguments being presented to you.  That is not an "ad hominem" attack.  It is an accurate description on how you are handling this conversation.

 

 

-Stephen

I don't agree with Ostler, he makes the same fallacious arguments that you make, well maybe you got them from him, I don't know. The idea that God could have just made morally infallible creatures if he wanted. Which is like saying a not so free, free willed being. 

 

And the paragraph wasn't addressed as an argument to me, so I didn't respond to it. People make statements about what they believe all the time. I don't feel compelled to comment on all of them. 

[tagriffy]

1) How does filling the blanks using other resources constitute not letting the text speak for itself? 

If the other resources you used or the concepts ended up conflicting with known teaching from the text, that is how. 

 

 

Um, it's a blank. By definition it basically means you can't conflict with it no matter what you do to try to fill it. There is nothing there to conflict with.

 

 

2) If God didn't create the matter out of nothing and the matter he used already existed, and you claim that the doctrine of eternal matter would not have to be accepted. Where did the matter come from then if it's not eternal? 

 

 

It's not a question the text either raises nor answers. The question itself goes beyond the text, and therefore answering it goes beyond the text. One possibility is that matter is eternal. Another possibility is God created it ex nihilo at some point before the text begins. Left with the text alone, the question is simply unanswerable. You therefore answer it with whatever resources you can bring to bear on it. And however one answers the question, no one else would have to accept it.

 

 

3) I agree there are many opinions on this issue, even among Evangelical scholars. The two you cited appear to agree with you that God didn't create ex nihilo according to Genesis. They also don't appear to accept that God created in six literal days. This is why I think the fallacy of an appeal to authority, in this case "most scholars believe…" is just another way of expressing ones own faith. Because, one will simply side with the scholars that they agree with. 

 

 

The difference is that they do allow the text to speak for itself. Vos does accept creation from nothing, he just says that it can't be proven from Genesis. I don't remember what Wenham said about his personal thought on the matter, only that creation from nothing isn't depicted by Genesis. That isn't what is remarkable about such statements, though. The remarkable part is that you have scholars with a prior faith commitment to creatio ex nihilo, who still affirm the doctrine, yet still conclude the doctrine isn't found in Genesis. Siding with them is hardly just expressing one's own faith.

 

 

4) To me Genesis does support ex nihilo creation, as do other passages.

 

That's because you're not letting the text speak for itself, instead imposing the doctrine on the text.

[danielwoods]

How would you know?  So far you have ignored most of the arguments presented to you.

 

 

 

 

What do you mean by "eternal"?  On the other thread, I presented to you these usages:

עוֹלָם `owlam

Deut 33:15 describes the hills/mountains as "everlasting/eternal". Yet clearly the Bible teaches that the Earth along with the hills and mountains were created.

This is the same term used in the Psalms for God being “from everlasting to everlasting”. Yet most of the time we find this word translated as “ancient”. Other examples include “ancient people” (Isa 44:7), ancient landmark (Prov 22:28), and so forth.

Similarly, we have the Hebrew wordעַד `ad

Job 20:4 "Haven't you known this from ***everlasting/eternal***, since mankind was placed on the earth?

So here, having known since the beginning of the Earth is sufficient to be considered eternal/everlasting. The meaning is "antiquity or of old'. (Interesting also that Isaiah uses this same term in 57:15 to say that God “inhabits eternity.” Almost as if eternity can also be considered a place.)

Keep in mind that this is the same term that is used in Isaiah 9:6 for the “everlasting/eternal Father”.

Lets look at some New Testament words, like Ἀΐδιος aïdios

Jude 1:6 uses the term to describe “everlasting chains” for the angels who “kept not their first estate” which they will have “unto the judgement of the great day.” So, did these chains under darkness exist (in eternal past) before God supposedly created everything Ex Nihilo, including the angels themselves?

Yet this term is the same word used to describe God's “eternal power and Godhead” in Romans 1:20.

How about another term, from which we get aeon. Αἰών Aiōn

Sometimes this one it is not just understood as long periods of time, but as “the worlds” or the Cosmos/Universe, which, as we both know, are created by God, so does not really fit your definition of something that always has been.

Finally, we have χρόνος and Αἰώνιος aiōnios ,

It is used over and over to describe both eternal salvation/redemption/

inheritance as well as eternal judgment/fire/destruction.

It is also used to describe a whole host of other things, like the “eternal weight of glory” to be bestowed upon the faithful. It is used by Paul to describe an “everlasting covenant” between God and man. It is used in conjunction with another Hebrew term to say “since the world began”. It as also used to things that will exist in the future, for example, when comparing our earthly tabernacle, which is temporal, to the tabernacle we will have in the resurrection. (2 Cr 5:1).

So, we should be asking whether or not our definition or meaning of “eternal” is consistent with how these terms were actually used and understood in ancient scripture.

- - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - -

After I posted this, your claim was essentially that "eternal", when referring to God, MUST mean something different than it means everywhere else in the Biblical text.  Just another "extra-Biblical assumption" on your part.

I agree with what William Lane Craig stated:

"One tack Mormons use is the appeal to a word's etymology to grasp its meaning. B.H. Roberts does so in the instance of the word create, which is indeed a precarious route to take. He admits what The Jewish Encyclopedia indicates - namely, that "most of the Jewish philosophers find in Gen. 1:1 that 'creation' meant 'creation out of nothing.'"21 This fact is quite telling and, of course, supports the traditional understanding of creation, as opposed to the LDS view. Then Roberts commits the exegetical fallacy of appealing to etymology to support the LDS interpretation of the text: "The Jewish Encyclopedia says that the etymological meaning of the verb ("create") is 'to cut out and [to] put into shape' [fashion], and thus presupposes the use of material." 22 He then extrapolates the theological point that God's creation involved a fashioning "out of pre-existent material."23 He adds later: "the etymology of the verb 'create' implies creation from pre-existing materials."24

"However, modern linguists and exegetes have shown that using etymology to establish word meaning is misguided. For example, the English word nice has apparently been derived from the Latin nescius, which means "ignorant."25 So we do not therefore imply that a "nice" person is an ignoramus! In most cases, the synchronic26 usage of a word rarely means what it originally meant (i.e., etymologically). As biblical scholar Moisés Silva emphatically states: "Modern studies compel us to reject this attitude [i.e., appealing to etymology as giving us the 'basic' or 'real' meaning of a word] and distrust a word's history."27 Again, James Barr asserts: "The main point is that the etymology of a word is not a statement about its meaning but about its history."28

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/creatio-ex-nihilo-a-critique-of-the-mormon-doctrine-of-creation

I realize he it talking here about the word create, but the principle is the same. When using a word in the context of God in the usage of the terms above change it's meaning. You obviously disagree, and that's fine.

 

 

 

That isn't what the text says.  It says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God.…"

 

First question.  In the Beginning of what?   The beginning of creation. Sorry, but the text does not say, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and nothing else existed in any way."

 

The Bible starts with the "creation".  God existed before/beyond "creation".  Certainly, in that sense, creation is not coeternal with God. 

 

I lay out the New Testament issues very plainly here:

 

-Stephen

Tell me where the bible differentiates between his creation and matter? 

 

In other words the difference you make is meaningless. "In the beginning God…" is the same either in Genesis or in John. The beginning refers to the beginning of time, or creation of time which includes all of matter/creation. John 1:1 tells us who or what was there before the beginning and in the beginning. 

[danielwoods]

I asked you, "Do you believe that God is capable of creating a being like Himself?"  Your claim was "yes".

 

Now you are saying that God is NOT like us, because God does not have free will like man does.   So, now you have to flip again.

 

Do you see where this is going?

 

-Stephen

 

P.S.  IF God does not have free will, then God does not truly love us.

 

The two questions are quite different. Your conclusions indicate your lack of acknowledgement of the fundamental difference  between our views, that is of course our faiths. 

 

Can man become God? No.

Was God ever a man, No.

Can man become *like* God? Yes.

Does God have free will like man does? NO, because God can't be against himself. 

 

Notice the above statements are statements that are rooted and sourced from my faith. Your disparaging of them doesn't count as a discussion or even something worth responding to.  

 

Your final statement that if God doesn't have free will, then he must not truly love us, is a statement of your faith. It's also a misunderstanding of free will and freedom as it relates to God. God has the freedom to love us, and true love is based on that freedom, and I agree without freedom there is not true love (or a love based relationship). This is the whole purpose of creation, to share his love. What he can't do is be against himself, which is why he doesn't have free will, like we do. 

[danielwoods]

Stephen asked how, exactly, Daniel feels that I have mischaracterized his position.

 

 

1 and 2) 

 

IF you really were curious about those reasons, and IF you were willing to consider a different point of view, then when I present an argument, THEN you would discuss the argument (and thus demonstrate that you understand it), and then explain why you disagree with it.  Just saying "you have faith" isn't going to cut it on an intellectual level.

 

In the initial discussion and video, I explained that man does not have free will in the ex nihilo creation theology, because a, b, c....

 

A person who is truly thinking about the arguments may say, "I see what you are saying with a, but I disagree with your presentation of b and c, because x, y , and z."  .... and then a coherent discussion can be developed.  You have not even begun to address it at that level.

 

 So, unless I discuss each and every argument (and thus demonstrate that I understand it), and then explain why I disagree with, then I

1) that I am not curious about the reasons some scholars disagree with me

2) that I am not willing to consider a different point of view

 

In other words unless I act just as you think I should act, then the above must be true about me. Did I get that right? 

 

I am guessing that you will continue to mischaracterize my positions then. 

 

3, 4, and 5)

 

You have not presented your theodicy here.  If you think you have, then please point to the specific post or posts which you think explain it.

 

If you want to have a legitimate discussion, you can get a good example in my post #429 on this thread.

 

I present the argument that was developed by Alvin Plantinga and explained by William Lane Craig, (and even posted a video clip and the time where he explains it).  I presented understanding of the argument that was given.

Then I gave specific reasons why that argument is not valid.

 

Again, you have been unwilling to do anything at that level.  You cannot even point to a single post that you have provided on this thread which demonstrates that you understand, for exammple,  the "six sided cube" demonstration that I explained (AND provided video) at the very beginning of this discussion.

 

I have responded to your points. I wasn't aware that I was required to post a whole fully developed theodicy here. Oh well. 

 

 You give specific reasons why ENC can't explain evil and suffering. And I pointed out that your arguments are only valid in the context of your faith, with the faith assumptions that you make. My faith assumptions are different, and as a result, your characterization of my position is incorrect. It does explain the world we live in. Thanks. 

3) I can't explain the world we live in.

4) ENC can't explain evil and suffering

5) Your video explains that ENC cannot account for the world we live in.

 

6) This is the appeal that you made, but you have not demonstrated that you even understand why you feel that it is a superior viewpoint to the alternative that has been presented to you.  You have not demonstrated that you even understand those who argue for your point of view.  Where is your defense of Plantinga's / WLC's possible verses feasible worlds theory?   You just skipped over post #429 entirely.

 

Instead you say something like, "But, since this belief/faith isn't testable. Your accusation and/or arguments are invalid because they are also based on your own faith, which is not testable either."

 

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.  I made very specific arguments about substantive issues that people you yourself have quoted in order to defend your position.  And when that doesn't seem to be going your way, you just ignore it and then wave your hand and say, "I'm not going to address that because faith isn't testable".

 

-stephen

6) I only have faith because a majority believe it.

 

What's interesting is not only is your claim about me incorrect, you don't even deal directly with the issue in your reply above. 

 

First, I have faith for the same reason that the LDS do. Personal revelation or connection to God. I couldn't care less what the majority believe or not. 

Second, your claims aren't testable. Yet, you continue to talk as if they are. Maybe you can let us all know how you have tested these claims of yours? 

Edited July 16, 2015 by danielwoods

[Vance]

To me it's the height of arrogance to tell the originators of the text, that they got it wrong and you got it right.

Good thing we don't do that.

 

What we say is that YOU got it and get it wrong.

[Vance]

 You acknowledge above, that the Bible doesn't say that matter is co-eternal, yet it says in many places that God is alone the eternal one.

I, for one, would like to see at least three of these "many places" where the Bible says what you are claiming.

 

Consider this a CFR.

[Vance]

For some reason this thread is making me think about Alma 12:10-11.

[stephenpurdy]

Daniel wrote: You acknowledge above, that the Bible doesn't say that matter is co-eternal, yet it says in many places that God is alone the eternal one.

 

I, for one, would like to see at least three of these "many places" where the Bible says what you are claiming.

 

Consider this a CFR.

 

Just for fun, I will provide you with a verse that says something very interesting:

 

2 Corinthians 4:18

So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

 

-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

I don't agree with Ostler, he makes the same fallacious arguments that you make, ....

 

 

 

What fallacious argument did he make?  Can you explain which arguments you feel are fallacious and why?

 The idea that God could have just made morally infallible creatures if he wanted. Which is like saying a not so free, free willed being. 

 

 

Of course they would be free.  They are simply intelligent enough to properly weigh the consequences to poor moral choices and then act accordingly.

 

Why do you feel that the creature must be morally fallible in order to be free?  Again I ask, do you believe that we will be sinners in Heaven after the resurrection?  Will we still have free will at that point?

 

-Stephen

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 

4) To me Genesis does support ex nihilo creation, as do other passages. 

And you base this conclusion on what?  The KJV text?

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Instead of using the fallacy of the appeal to authority (bolded above), why not just explain why or post exactly what this "Hebraist" says that is so persuasive to you? 

I already did that in this thread when I cited the first commentary I ever read on Genesis, the first volume in the Anchor Bible series -- Ephraim Speiser, Genesis (Doubleday, 1964).  I quoted him and gave you the page numbers.  I had no wish to deny creatio ex nihilo and neither did he. He explained the grammar of the text and why it means what it means and asked that the text be allowed to speak for itself -- despite the dogma which his religious background sponsored (Judaism).  Just because he and the vast majority of biblical scholars now agree with this interpretation, you are not required to adopt that view.  We are having a discussion here.  That's all.  You are free to believe anything you like.

[stephenpurdy]

I agree with what William Lane Craig stated:

"One tack Mormons use is the appeal to a word's etymology to grasp its meaning. B.H. Roberts does so in the instance of the word create, which is indeed a precarious route to take. He admits what The Jewish Encyclopedia indicates - namely, that "most of the Jewish philosophers find in Gen. 1:1 that 'creation' meant 'creation out of nothing.'"21 This fact is quite telling and, of course, supports the traditional understanding of creation, as opposed to the LDS view. Then Roberts commits the exegetical fallacy of appealing to etymology to support the LDS interpretation of the text: "The Jewish Encyclopedia says that the etymological meaning of the verb ("create") is 'to cut out and [to] put into shape' [fashion], and thus presupposes the use of material." 22 He then extrapolates the theological point that God's creation involved a fashioning "out of pre-existent material."23 He adds later: "the etymology of the verb 'create' implies creation from pre-existing materials."24

"However, modern linguists and exegetes have shown that using etymology to establish word meaning is misguided. For example, the English word nice has apparently been derived from the Latin nescius, which means "ignorant."25 So we do not therefore imply that a "nice" person is an ignoramus! In most cases, the synchronic26 usage of a word rarely means what it originally meant (i.e., etymologically). As biblical scholar Moisés Silva emphatically states: "Modern studies compel us to reject this attitude [i.e., appealing to etymology as giving us the 'basic' or 'real' meaning of a word] and distrust a word's history."27 Again, James Barr asserts: "The main point is that the etymology of a word is not a statement about its meaning but about its history."28

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/creatio-ex-nihilo-a-critique-of-the-mormon-doctrine-of-creation

I realize he it talking here about the word create, but the principle is the same. When using a word in the context of God in the usage of the terms above change it's meaning. You obviously disagree, and that's fine.

 

 

Thank you for finally producing an argument that we can actually discuss.

 

Here is what I have to say about that point. 

 

1)  You certainly cannot draw "ex nihilo" from the Etymology of the word.  This is the point that the Mormons are making about it.  There is nothing magical or mysterious about the word or etymology of "bara".  Indeed,  the etymological meaning of the verb ("create") is 'to cut out and [to] put into shape' [fashion], and thus presupposes the use of material."   This is just a starting point of our argument... but it is not the whole argument.

 

2) The next step is to describe how that word is used elsewhere in the Biblical text.  This is no longer etymology, but instead word usage in the different Biblical contexts.   Yet again, we find "Bara" being used in the text describing, for example, the creation of Adam.  How was Adam created?  From the dust.  So, the next point about bara, is that  "ex nihilo" is not found within the context of the Biblical usage of the term.  I went into careful detail on this topic here:

 

 

 

Tell me where the bible differentiates between his creation and matter? 

 

 

The Bible does not define "matter" at all.  It simply doesn't go there.  The author of Hebrews simply states:

 

"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." (Heb 11:3)

 

There was something that was "not visible".  Whatever you want to call it, creation was made from those "not visible things". 

 

It isn't a science book.  There is no details given here.  However, the wording indicates that it was something, rather than nothing.  I think it is fairly obvious that just because you can't see something, it does not make it "nothing".  In fact, one point I made in the New Testament video is that God is referred to as being "not seen".  Is God nothing?

 

 

In other words the difference you make is meaningless. "In the beginning God…" is the same either in Genesis or in John. The beginning refers to the beginning of time, or creation of time which includes all of matter/creation. John 1:1 tells us who or what was there before the beginning and in the beginning. 

 

Whether it is Genesis or John, it is simply referring to what was going on, and who was participating In the Beginning of Creation.   It does not say that creation was created "from nothing".

 

If I say, "First thing, I went out and made a sand castle",  you don't just assume that the sand castle was made "from nothing".  The text simply does not say that.

 

In fact, Peter uses terms which scholars point to as this idea of "primordial 'water' of chaos" which was common in ancient times,

 

For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." 5For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water (2 Peter 3:5)

 

In that world view, God separates the "waters" of chaos and makes a space for creation, which is made from this primordial material. 

 

-Stephen

Edited July 17, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[danielwoods]

And it would mean that it is possible for a person with free will to have moral perfection at all times, without being an "automaton".   And IF that is possible, then why wouldn't God create everyone that way.  As my video series states, If God can create any kind of reality possible out of God's own mind, then "God could have created a world full of Jesuses".

 

-Stephen

 

[i've been on vacation…]

 

This is probably the crux of your argument. You've repeated it many times. William L. Craig addressed it specifically.

 

Here I agree with William Lane Craig. In a debate against Dr. Ray Bradley in 1994 3, Craig was asked why God didn't just create heaven as the world and forego the rest.

Craig responded:

"No,Heaven may not be a possible world when you take it in isolation by itself. It may be that the only way in which God could actualize a heaven of free creatures all worshiping Him and not falling into sin would be by having, so to speak, this run-up to it, this advance life during which there is a veil of decision-making in which some people choose for God and some people against God. Otherwise you don't know that heaven is an actualizable world. You have no way of knowing that possibility."

Dr. Bradley:

"You're saying, in effect, that when I characterize heaven as a possible world in which everybody freely receives Christ, I'm wrong insofar as that had to be preceded by this actual world, this world of vale of tears and woe in which people are sinful and the like."

Dr. Craig:

"I'm saying that it may not be feasible for God to actualize heaven in isolation from such an antecedent world."

http://www.comereason.org/free-will-in-heaven.asp

 

I would probably also add, that God could have created our memories intact, and us as already mature beings in heaven, but that defeats the purpose of memories based on past experience, which serve to guide us in our future decisions. 

[danielwoods]

I, for one, would like to see at least three of these "many places" where the Bible says what you are claiming.

 

Consider this a CFR.

Deut. 33:27 The eternal God is your refuge,

And underneath are the everlasting arms;

Psalm 90:2 Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.

1 Tim. 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

Edited July 20, 2015 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

What fallacious argument did he make?  Can you explain which arguments you feel are fallacious and why?

 

Of course they would be free.  They are simply intelligent enough to properly weigh the consequences to poor moral choices and then act accordingly.

 

Why do you feel that the creature must be morally fallible in order to be free?  Again I ask, do you believe that we will be sinners in Heaven after the resurrection?  Will we still have free will at that point?

 

-Stephen

 

The fallacious argument is based on this assumption that "morally infallible" exists. Now, if you wish to argue that Jesus is an example of one (as you have in the past), then this changes the definition quite a bit. Given that Jesus was God in the flesh, he was tempted like we are but didn't give into that temptation. Was he morally infallible? Not really, if "infallible" is to be defined as not capable of sin. 

 

You ask if there will be sinners in Heaven? The answer is no. 

 

You ask if we will still have free will in Heaven? The answer is yes. Just as Jesus had free will on earth. It will be our past experience coupled with our new nature that will give us the ability to say no to sin, just as Jesus did. 

 

As I answered in a couple of posts ago. I agree with Craig, that God couldn't have just made us in heaven without the antecedent of this life. 

[danielwoods]

And you base this conclusion on what?  The KJV text?

 

The context, not any one version. The context of Genesis 1 and the context of other verses that reference creation and the beginning. 

[stephenpurdy]

 

[i've been on vacation…]

 

This is probably the crux of your argument. You've repeated it many times. William L. Craig addressed it specifically.

 

http://www.comereason.org/free-will-in-heaven.asp

 

I would probably also add, that God could have created our memories intact, and us as already mature beings in heaven, but that defeats the purpose of memories based on past experience, which serve to guide us in our future decisions. 

 

But it does not address the crux of my argument at all. 

 

For starters, he simply says "it may not be possible". 

 

He does not explain why it isn't possible.  He is just basing his opinion on the idea the Ex Nihilo is a fact, and then MUST say this in order to justify it.

 

-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

The fallacious argument is based on this assumption that "morally infallible" exists. Now, if you wish to argue that Jesus is an example of one (as you have in the past), then this changes the definition quite a bit. Given that Jesus was God in the flesh, he was tempted like we are but didn't give into that temptation. Was he morally infallible? Not really, if "infallible" is to be defined as not capable of sin. 

 

 

I would not define "infallible" as "not capable of sin".  I would define it as being wise enough, intelligent enough, caring enough, loving enough etc., such that the individual will always make correct moral choices.

 

 

Therefore, moral infallibility is NOT a "fallacious argument".  You just attempted to change the definition such that it would become fallacious so that you could try to bypass it. 

 

You continue to avoid the real problem here.  I guess we are just going to see how long you can dance?

 

 

 

You ask if there will be sinners in Heaven? The answer is no. 

 

You ask if we will still have free will in Heaven? The answer is yes. Just as Jesus had free will on earth. It will be our past experience coupled with our new nature that will give us the ability to say no to sin, just as Jesus did.

 

Tell me about this "new nature".  Why doesn't God just give that to us now ... or to begin with?

 

I mean, this has been an issue that you have been avoiding throughout the entire thread.

 

IF God is creating any kind of being possible out of God's own mind, then God could create a being with any kind of nature that God wanted from the get go.

 

 

 

 

As I answered in a couple of posts ago. I agree with Craig, that God couldn't have just made us in heaven without the antecedent of this life. 

 

Craig just made an assertion, but had no backing to it.   When you read and watch my argumentation, I have explained precisely why I hold my opinions and the logical arguments that lead up to those opinions. 

 

See the difference?

 

-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

Deut. 33:27 The eternal God is your refuge,

And underneath are the everlasting arms;

Psalm 90:2 Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.

1 Tim. 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

 

 

Please explain why you think that those verses are meant to teach that God did not create "from something".

 

 

 

-Stephen

[Bobbieaware]

Please explain why you think that those verses are meant to teach that God did not create "from something".

 

 

 

-Stephen

Probably because Daniel is equating the word "invisible' with immaterial. Yet air is invisible.