The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation

[danielwoods]

I get it. You want to say nothing influences our free will, albeit no competent observer will say so. Set that aside for a moment and ask did God know what Adam would do? Did he know how Adam would exercise his free will? And if so, why not simply roll the dice again as it were until he made somebody who would use their free will the right way (irrespective of influences - a moot matter ultimately)? Or, did God not know beforehand how Adam would exercise his free will to bring ruination down on his perfect creation?

 

At the core of your hypothetical is a concept of God that is too small. 

 

At the moment that God decided to create and share his love and life with other free willed beings, he knew the outcome of all the infinite possible creation scenarios. So, did Adam surprise him? No, of course not. God knows all. 

So, your question, why not "roll the dice again" and only allow those who made the right choices to be created? The question comes from a misunderstanding of free willed beings. They all fail. As scripture states pretty plainly, all have sinned. God created us to need him. Rejecting this need is the very crux of sin, to reject his help and decide we don't need him. 

[Nofear]

I'm sure the hypothetical good Adam and Eve (v2.0), even in their paradisical garden, would still have needed God. But instead your version has God damning them and billions to endless woe just so a few will worship him even as you acknowledge it could have been otherwise. God *chose* to let this version happen.

Nice. I think I'm going to stick with the Mormon version.

[Robert F. Smith]

The "argument" that their nature will ultimately govern their will, thus making it not free is not validated in reality and doesn't negate the idea that God gave us the freedom to choose right or wrong.

 

If this argument was an accurate description of reality, we'd find that all poor people with the same nature would react the same way to their poor situation. But, that isn't the case at all. Everyone doesn't react the same way to equal conditions. 

 

The error of your last question is the same as before. If God is influencing our free will, that is by definition not free will. 

 

At the core of your hypothetical is a concept of God that is too small.

 

At the moment that God decided to create and share his love and life with other free willed beings, he knew the outcome of all the infinite possible creation scenarios. So, did Adam surprise him? No, of course not. God knows all. 

So, your question, why not "roll the dice again" and only allow those who made the right choices to be created? The question comes from a misunderstanding of free willed beings. They all fail. As scripture states pretty plainly, all have sinned. God created us to need him. Rejecting this need is the very crux of sin, to reject his help and decide we don't need him. 

 

You make a number of freewheeling and hopeful assertions here, but the issue you are addressing is not new and was settled through careful logic already a century ago.  The problem is that positing an absolute God who creates all else means that all else (including humans) is contingent on God.  He is entirely responsible for everything he creates.  If it is good, he has produced good.  If it is evil, he has produced evil.  In no logical sense can he fob the blame for evil off on some other entity, for, by definition, all other entities are his responsibility.  It makes no logical sense to posit creation from nothing, or that God need only give free will and, shazam, we have free will.  Only a non-contingent being can have free will.  Assertion is not the same as fact or evidence, even if it sounds wonderful.

[danielwoods]

I'm sure the hypothetical good Adam and Eve (v2.0), even in their paradisical garden, would still have needed God. But instead your version has God damning them and billions to endless woe just so a few will worship him even as you acknowledge it could have been otherwise. God *chose* to let this version happen.

Nice. I think I'm going to stick with the Mormon version.

 

I don't care whose version is true, but that's the one I'm interested in following. 

 

As for your description of what I wrote, you will notice that those "billions" are not damned by God, but by their own choice. As I'm sure you'll understand, God is just, and makes a righteous judgement, he gives everyone ample opportunity to follow him. There is no sense of damning people "just because", rather his heart breaks at the actions of those who reject him. It's their choice. He does everything he can to woo them his way, however, it's still their choice. 

[danielwoods]

 

 

 

You make a number of freewheeling and hopeful assertions here, but the issue you are addressing is not new and was settled through careful logic already a century ago.  The problem is that positing an absolute God who creates all else means that all else (including humans) is contingent on God.  He is entirely responsible for everything he creates.  If it is good, he has produced good.  If it is evil, he has produced evil.  In no logical sense can he fob the blame for evil off on some other entity, for, by definition, all other entities are his responsibility.  It makes no logical sense to posit creation from nothing, or that God need only give free will and, shazam, we have free will.  Only a non-contingent being can have free will.  Assertion is not the same as fact or evidence, even if it sounds wonderful.

 

 

By all means be my guest and provide said evidence that the Almighty God of the Universe cannot create a moral free willed being from nothing. 

[mfbukowski]

At the core of your hypothetical is a concept of God that is too small. ...

 

 God created us to need him.

What can I say?

 

How much smaller can you get than to need US to need him?

[TheSkepticChristian]

Please explain how you know that God can't be both inside and outside of time. 

 

You are the one that has a lot of explaining to do 

Edited June 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[danielwoods]

You are the one that has a lot of explaining to do

 

 Your claim of a "another logical contradiction" is vacuous without said explanation about how God can't be in and outside of time. 

[Robert F. Smith]

By all means be my guest and provide said evidence that the Almighty God of the Universe cannot create a moral free willed being from nothing. 

I have no problem with the fantasy story approach to this issue, because no evidence or logic need be involved.  Mere imagination and assertion is all you need.  

 

However, from the point of view of logic and science, there can be no justification for such wild assertions.  And, yes, I am well aware that normative Jewish, Christian (well maybe not the Presbyterians),, and Muslim dogma is based on just such empty assertions as free will just because God declares it by fiat.  Such a theological position is incoherent and is the major reason why such an absolute God is obsolete and dead..

 

The late editor John W. Campbell was always very annoyed with science fiction writers who didn't know math or science.  They may come up with magical and entertaining scenarios, but there is little substance to their claims.  You need to own the fact that your claims are fanciful and illogical.  The more such empty assertions are made, the more secular society becomes in reaction.

[danielwoods]

I have no problem with the fantasy story approach to this issue, because no evidence or logic need be involved.  Mere imagination and assertion is all you need.  

 

However, from the point of view of logic and science, there can be no justification for such wild assertions.  And, yes, I am well aware that normative Jewish, Christian (well maybe not the Presbyterians),, and Muslim dogma is based on just such empty assertions as free will just because God declares it by fiat.  Such a theological position is incoherent and is the major reason why such an absolute God is obsolete and dead..

 

The late editor John W. Campbell was always very annoyed with science fiction writers who didn't know math or science.  They may come up with magical and entertaining scenarios, but there is little substance to their claims.  You need to own the fact that your claims are fanciful and illogical.  The more such empty assertions are made, the more secular society becomes in reaction.

No evidence? Then all you have are assertions as well. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

 Your claim of a "another logical contradiction" is vacuous without said explanation about how God can't be in and outside of time. 

 

That is called shifting the burden of proof. 

You need to explain how God is outside and inside time at the same time? 

 

How can 3 persons be in one being (what ever that means)? 

 

How can God think outside time? 

 

Edited June 24, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Robert F. Smith]

No evidence? Then all you have are assertions as well. 

I guess you misunderstood:  The "no evidence" part is the part that applies to your claims.  Those who use logic and science have evidence, and they can cite it.  One of the reasons why secularism and atheism are becoming increasingly popular is due to the lack of evidence for mainstream religious belief in modern times.  For example, in the 1948 debate between Bertrand Russell and Father F. C. Coplestone, it became embarrassingly apparent that the very intelligent Jesuit Priest relied on faith tradition rather than logic in his claims, and was thus defeated in debate.  https://philosophicalinvestigations.co.uk/philosophy/as/cosmological-argument/719-the-copleston-russell-debate .

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

By all means be my guest and provide said evidence that the Almighty God of the Universe cannot create a moral free willed being from nothing. 

Prove a negative? You know the burden of proof is on you to show that God can create a moral free willed being from nothing. So far you cannot even do that with the bible. Let alone anything scientific.

[danielwoods]

That is called shifting the burden of proof. 

You need to explain how God is outside and inside time at the same time? 

 

How can 3 persons be in one being (what ever that means)? 

 

How can God think outside time? 

 

 

So you can't explain how it's a logical contradiction. I guess it isn't then. 

 

As far as your reference to Stephen Hawking, you aren't serious are you? He doesn't even believe God exists, so he's not even a credible reference for a theological discussion. 

 

The crux of the issue isn't inside of time, because we all can see that God interacts inside of time. The question is outside of time. Setting aside for now the definition of time, let's look at a couple of scriptures.

"This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, 10 but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior," (2 Tim. 1:9,10)

"2 in the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time," (Titus 1:2)

 

So it doesn't explain how God thinks before the beginning of time, but it says that he does. His grace was given to us in Christ, before the beginning of time, and the hope of eternal life was promised before the beginning of time. So, logically if one is giving and promising, one is also thinking before the beginning of time. Which means before time existed. 

 

"15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1)

 

In this passage we learn that in Christ, all things were created. Visible and invisible. Now, this is where our differences are most pronounced. I believe what it states here. That all things were created by Christ, which includes time (since it's invisible).

 

All of us exist within the constraints of time, therefore it's hard for us to imagine an existence without a reference to time. Though it's difficult to imagine, it seems to me that God exists or shall I say transcends the constraints of time as we know them. 

[danielwoods]

I guess you misunderstood:  The "no evidence" part is the part that applies to your claims.  Those who use logic and science have evidence, and they can cite it.  One of the reasons why secularism and atheism are becoming increasingly popular is due to the lack of evidence for mainstream religious belief in modern times.  For example, in the 1948 debate between Bertrand Russell and Father F. C. Coplestone, it became embarrassingly apparent that the very intelligent Jesuit Priest relied on faith tradition rather than logic in his claims, and was thus defeated in debate.  https://philosophicalinvestigations.co.uk/philosophy/as/cosmological-argument/719-the-copleston-russell-debate .

 

Should I expect that you will cite your evidence? Since you claim that your position is based on it, and of course you claim mine is not?

[TheSkepticChristian]

"This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, 10 but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior," (2 Tim. 1:9,10)

 

How is that possible? You need time to give or receive something. Just another logical contradiction. 

[danielwoods]

Prove a negative? You know the burden of proof is on you to show that God can create a moral free willed being from nothing. So far you cannot even do that with the bible. Let alone anything scientific.

 

The claim is made that God is limited (with respect to creating a moral free agent). I'm simply asking for evidence of this claim. If none can be provided, then why believe it? 

[danielwoods]

How is that possible? You need time to give or receive something. Just another logical contradiction. 

 

So you reject the scripture based on your understanding of logic? 

[TheSkepticChristian]

So you reject the scripture based on your understanding of logic? 

 

How do you know my mathematical logic is wrong? 

[danielwoods]

How do you know my mathematical logic is wrong? 

 

You assume it applies to scripture/theology. 

[stephenpurdy]

And others can't understand why God *can* create, out of nothing, a moral free willed being. The argument there is that their nature will contribute to the exercise of their free will and thus ultimately govern it. Seeing how we don't understand how free will operates, either position is just one having an unsubstantiated opinion.

I obviously side with our nature is uncreate as opposed to merely being influential (though our created bodies do influence us, that is accepted as well). The question the creatio ex nihilo advocates need to answer is *how* much does our body, nature, and soul influence the exercise of our free will. And if they *can* influence the nature of our free will, why did God not simply create an Adam that would have been influenced to be obedient as opposed to creating some reprobate who would destroy the peaceful harmony of God's creation. Why do that?

 

Interestingly enough, I tackled this concept from two different perspectives.  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).  On the other hand, lets 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, with Ex Nihilo creation, God Himself determines outcomes.

 

-stephen

[stephenpurdy]

At the core of your hypothetical is a concept of God that is too small.....

 

 

 

The opposite is true.  Your God is incapable (too small) to create a being of free will who is good enough to make wise free will choices.

 

Daniel:  God created us to need him. Rejecting this need is the very crux of sin, to reject his help and decide we don't need him.

 

Why create beings who don't realize that we need God?  That sounds like a created design flaw.

 

 

Daniel:  So, your question, why not "roll the dice again" and only allow those who made the right choices to be created? The question comes from a misunderstanding of free willed beings.

 

The misunderstanding is yours Daniel.  You assume that God MUST create morally fallible creatures in order for them to be free.  That is a fallacious argument.  IF God is creating any kind of being ex nihilo that is logically possible to create, then God can create a being who is loving enough, wise enough, sensitive enough, etc. to make the correct choices.

 

Daniel:  The question comes from a misunderstanding of free willed beings. They all fail.

 

Jesus doesn't have free will?  Is your God incapable of creating a world full of Jesuses?  Is your God "too small" to do this?  Is God going to take away our free will in order to make us like Jesus?

 

Daniel:  By all means be my guest and provide said evidence that the Almighty God of the Universe cannot create a moral free willed being from nothing.

 

It is impossible for anyone to "provide evidence" of something that never happened.  God simply didn't create that way.  I did provide the logical arguments for why such a theoretical creation would mean that God determines all outcomes.  That is found in that supplemental video 1b that I posted previously.

 

Daniel wrote: I don't understand why God can't create, out of nothing, a moral free willed being.

 

Maybe the paragraphs by Mark Hausam were too long for you, or maybe the 10 minute video was too extensive for you.  Let's try to break it up into smaller pieces.  Let's start with this quote from Hausam,

 

"...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."

 

Do our choices reflect who and what we are?  Agree or disagree?

 

Let's start with that.

 

-Stephen

Edited June 25, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[stephenpurdy]

So you reject the scripture based on your understanding of logic? 

 

Daniel, this is simple. 

 

Can God cause an uncaused cause?   Yes or no.

 

Furthermore, my argument is not that free will is nonexistent.  I DO believe that we have free will.

 

My argument is that free will would not exist IF God creates ex nihilo.  I have demonstrated that very clearly.

 

Daniel:  You base your conclusion on the assumption that God couldn't create free will out of nothing.

 

Wrong again Daniel.  If you would have bothered to watch the videos, you would see what my assumptions are concerning classic theology, including:

 

 1) God is omnipotent

 2) God is omniscient

 3) God creates "out of nothing"

 

Based on those assumptions, I go through a short logical series of arguments .... and the CONCLUSION is that God cannot create a being who determines its own fate.  There is a difference between an assumption and a conclusion. 

 

You can debate whether or not my logic is sound between those assumptions and my conclusions, but that would require you to actually look at the arguments that have been presented, which so far you have been unwilling to do.

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

 

Daniel:   "2 in the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time," (Titus 1:2)

 

Which is also translated:

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

 

Who did he promise?  When did that happen?  In the beginning?  .... In the beginning of what?  It is YOU who makes the assumptions.

 

Old Testament scholar John H. Walton wrote:

"If we are to reach an understanding of an ancient text such as Genesis 1, we have to be able to think about the issues the way that they [the ancient writers and audience] would have.  A foundational issue is the way people think about existence.  In the ancient world, they believe something existed when it had a role and function in an ordered system.  This is in stark contrast to our way of thinking, that something exists when it has material properties.  In our [modern] world, to cause something to exist (i.e. to create), involves giving something material properties.  In the ancient world, to cause something to exist involves giving it a function and a role.  In Hebrew, the word translated “create” (bara') expresses this very idea."

 

-stephen

Edited June 25, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[danielwoods]

The opposite is true.  Your God is incapable (too small) to create a being of free will who is good enough to make wise free will choices.

The misunderstanding is yours Daniel.  You assume that God MUST create morally fallible creatures in order for them to be free.  That is a fallacious argument.  IF God is creating any kind of being ex nihilo that is logically possible to create, then God can create a being who is loving enough, wise enough, sensitive enough, etc. to make the correct choices.

Jesus doesn't have free will?  Is your God incapable of creating a world full of Jesuses?  Is your God "too small" to do this?  Is God going to take away our free will in order to make us like Jesus?

 

In each of your three statements above you make the same mistake. It appears you think that controlling a free willed being is still creating free will. It is not. 

Your last statement about Jesus is interesting. Because that is in essence what Jesus is doing. Creating a heaven full of Jesus', we are all participating in that process as we become more and more like him. 

 

Daniel:  God created us to need him. Rejecting this need is the very crux of sin, to reject his help and decide we don't need him.

 

Why create beings who don't realize that we need God?  That sounds like a created design flaw.

 Notice I didn't say created beings who don't realize they need God, I said those who decide they don't need him. Quite a difference there. 

 

Daniel:  By all means be my guest and provide said evidence that the Almighty God of the Universe cannot create a moral free willed being from nothing.

 

It is impossible for anyone to "provide evidence" of something that never happened.  God simply didn't create that way.  I did provide the logical arguments for why such a theoretical creation would mean that God determines all outcomes.  That is found in that supplemental video 1b that I posted here.

 

-Stephen

After watching your videos, I replied in post #168 (copied below for your connivence). In essence, you assume your conclusion is true, but you haven't explained what limits God from creating a moral free willed being. 

 

 

I don't disagree with logic, I disagree with your assumptions and assertions. 

 

You base your conclusion on the assumption that God couldn't create free will out of nothing. Then logically infer that since that is true, something must have existed for God to create free will out of, since he can't create it out of nothing or himself. And logically that something must have an eternal nature as God does. 

 

I disagree with your base assumption. That God can't create a moral free willed being out of nothing. You make and reference many arguments in an attempt to defend your position, but you don't explain why God has this particular limitation.

calmoriah said that, "It is equivalent to God creating a rock he cannot lift." Which, if that is also your argument, you need to explain why. I can understand why God cannot create a rock he cannot lift. I don't understand why God can't create, out of nothing, a moral free willed being. Which in my mind is the very core of why God created anything in the first place and the very essence of his "image" in us. Freedom to choose him or not.

 

[danielwoods]

Daniel, this is simple. 

 

Can God cause an uncaused cause?   Yes or no.

 

Furthermore, my argument is not that free will is nonexistent.  I DO believe that we have free will.

 

My argument is that free will would not exist IF God creates ex nihilo.  I have demonstrated that very clearly.

 

Daniel:  You base your conclusion on the assumption that God couldn't create free will out of nothing.

 

Wrong again Daniel.  If you would have bothered to watch the videos, you would see what my assumptions are concerning classic theology, including:

 

 1) God is omnipotent

 2) God is omniscient

 3) God creates "out of nothing"

 

Based on those assumptions, I go through a short logical series of arguments .... and the CONCLUSION is that God cannot create a being who determines its own fate.  There is a difference between an assumption and a conclusion. 

 

You can debate whether or not my logic is sound between those assumptions and my conclusions, but that would require you to actually look at the arguments that have been presented, which so far you have been unwilling to do.

 

Your patronizing gets old. I have watched your videos, and I disagree with your assumptions, which lead to your conclusions. 

 

In answer to your question about an uncaused cause. Yes and no. If we are talking about a moral free agent, yes. Because God stated that he created mankind in his image. His image contains a moral free will, hence, he created exactly that inside of us.