Lds View Of Godhead / Trinity

[stephenpurdy]

Just as an example, this is a circular argument.

 

What does the word "nature" mean??  ...

 

It has nothing to do with "nature", a completely meaningless word.

 

OK  that's it for today.  

 

Apparently, you were not paying attention to the conversation, and now ... finally you are trying to hop in.

 

I made it clear that the term "nature" or its meaning, is not necessary in the second argument.  It doesn't matter what you call it. Do you want to call it "essence" or how about "characteristics" or the "design" or the "make-up" of an individual? 

 

It doesn't matter.    In Ex Nihilo creation, every single aspect of a creature was created from the mind of an all-knowing and all-powerful God.  There is no part of a person that was NOT created by God in that theology, so playing word games (as many often try to do) won't work. 

 

Again, let's just start from the first argument, then we can go back to this one later.  The first argument is key to understanding this one.

 

-Stephen

[mfbukowski]

Sure it does, and quite frankly, those from the days of Aquinas have not addressed this, which now appears to demonstrate that you haven't bothered to understand the concepts that I have presented either, which surprises me.

There are two arguments. You, like Daniel and Spammer, have not addressed the first one at all. Nobody here has even attempted to address it and the second one which you attempted to address cannot be dealt with until we deal with the first.

Watch the video from 2:38 until 7:10

That is just a few minutes, and the argument is not convoluted at all. It is very straightforward. Many people think that my argument is that God's foreknowledge is causative. That is not the argument, and I am very careful to illustrate that.

Remember, this is the illustration (from 2:38 to 7:10) whereby there are no characteristics which influence choices. Here, there is no "created characteristics" which would influence an individual make any particular choice In other words, the "choices" in this illustration are not a reflection of who or what we are as a person. Once you have this first argument understood, then it is easier to go on to the next.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxOiYvKDack

As for Spammer, I agree with you that he should NOT respond .... That is ... he should not respond if he is not willing to watch 4 minutes, think about it for a bit, understand what is being said, and then thoughtfully respond. In fact, nobody should respond if they are not willing to do that. Daniel has been dancing around it for months and he never even made an attempt... just wasted time.

-Stephen

I listened. No change in my assessment. It is exactly what I said.

[mfbukowski]

Using video is a handicap.

It makes it too hard to diagram the arguments due to extraneous words, which abound here

[stephenpurdy]

I listened. No change in my assessment. It is exactly what I said.

 

 

Using video is a handicap.

It makes it too hard to diagram the arguments due to extraneous words, which abound here

 

The video is just a tool.  We have many tools at our disposal, but that short clip of 4 minutes gets the point across real quick.  While, I think you are purposefully trying to avoid the logic here ....  Let's describe it in written words step by step, ...  shall we? 

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

The video describes God creating any number of six sided cubes (dice) from nothing.

 

Let's say that God is the only Being in existence, then decides to create some six sided cubes that roll randomly 7 times and then die (pun intended)   Note:  Keep in mind that the logic holds true even if they are twenty sided dice, or if they roll a hundred times or whatever.   In this case, these cubes will roll as follows:

 

A) 1, 3, 5, 1, 1, 5, 3...

B) 2, 6, 4, 6, 6, 4, 2...

C) 2, 2, 4, 6, 2, 4, 3...

D) 1, 1, 5, 5, 2, 6, 3...

 

 

God knows what the combination is going to be before he even decides to create any one of these cubes.  Now, let's say that God, in his mind says, "I like even numbers, not odd numbers.  I am going to create the cube that will randomly roll as cube B did, because they are all even.  I definitely don't want A ... so I will not create it.  I don't want to create D either.  Maybe I will let C slide because it is pretty good." (But God doesn't have to create C if he doesn't want, of course, because there are many other combinations that God can choose from, as we will see.)

 

So, God decides to create ONLY cube B .. and C if he feels like it. 

 

Are you with me so far?

 

Do you agree that there is a "possible cube" that would randomly roll 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2?

 

 

-Stephen

 

 

P.S.  Fun fact - there are 279,936 "possible cubes" (possible number combinations) when rolling the die seven times.

Edited October 21, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[mfbukowski]

God is still deciding the outcome. The cubes are a smokescreen confusing the issue.

[mfbukowski]

All the argument is, is that in ex nihilo,God decides everything and therefore there's no freewill.

That point was made long before your dice and videos, and doesn't follow.

[stephenpurdy]

God is still deciding the outcome. 

 

 

Correct.  Even though AFTER the cubes are created, they are rolling "randomly" (God does not control any individual roll), God ultimately controls exactly what the number combination is going to be by deciding which cube to create in the first place.

 

 

The cubes are a smokescreen confusing the issue.

 

 

Please explain (ie back up your assertion that it is a "smokescreen").  

 

Would it be less confusing to talk about Enoch and Cain?

 

Let's say that God is going to create two people.  Enoch and Jacob.

 

Cain makes some bad choices, refuses to repent and goes to hell for eternity.

 

Enoch makes some good choices, when making mistakes he repents, and goes to heaven for eternity.

 

 

The omniscient and omnipotent God knows before hand who is going to heaven and who is going to hell.  God, seeing that Cain is going to hell, could simply decide not to create Cain in the first place. 

 

Deciding NOT to create Cain would not take away from Enoch, his life choices, or his "choosing" to go to heaven.

 

All the argument is, is that in ex nihilo,God decides everything and therefore there's no freewill.

 

No.  That isn't the first argument.  You are jumping to the second argument.  

 

The first argument is simply that reality, in Ex Nihilo theology, will reflect exactly what God wants.  If God did not want Johnny to sin by punching his brother in the face on March 28th in the spring of 1982, then God could have created another Johnny who would have done something else instead.

 

If God wanted everyone to go to heaven, then God could have created a reality whereby that happens.  

 

Again, the first argument is that, with Ex Nihilo, reality is simply an extension of God's own mind and God's own will.  (Essentially PanENtheism)

 

 

That point was made long before your dice and videos, and doesn't follow.

 

You are jumping the gun.

 

This first argument simply addresses the idea that our reality, a reality with sin and evil and suffering (and in mainstream Christianity a whole lot of people going to hell for eternity) cannot be explained by a benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God who creates everything from His own mind and reflecting His own desires.  No being in any situation or doing any thing would exist if God did not want it to occur, (including rape etc.) , and it cannot be argued that God had to let these horrible things happen because of "free will".

 

Now, on the other thread, I wrote:

 

.... God was the only Being/Substance in existence, then this being caused every other thing/creature to come from existence as designed by the "mind" of this single and eternal Being/Substance.  There are logical implications from this kind of theology that cannot be escaped.  Certainly you can appreciate how problematic this is.

 

To which you replied: No in fact I can't. Contemporary philosophers see these for the most part as semantic issues. Free will and determinism are often seen as compatible.

 

Of course there are problems with it, and it goes well beyond semantics.  When it comes to the first argument, free will/determinism (or whether they are compatible) is not the issue.  Ex Nihilo is the issue.  

 

The nature of our existence and the nature of God is the issue, and how we view these critically depend on whether or not you reject Ex Nihilo doctrine.  

 

It is like the point that Ostler made by using the quote by Stephen Parrish, "No theology should be countenanced as possibly true, much less considered true, if it cannot account for what we know about the world we live in.”

 

 

 

mfbukowski wrote:  I have mentioned compatibilism to you more than once, and yet you refuse to reply or take it into account. 

 

I do take it into account.  In fact, I presented a plausible example of LDS compatibilism in the video.  It is brief, but it is there (6:48 to 7:10). 

 

 

-Stephen

 

 

P.S.  The second argument is briefly summarized in the same video from about 8:30 to the end.

Edited October 21, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[Spammer]

delete

Edited October 21, 2015 by Spammer

[Spammer]

Ok, jumping in briefly. I don't see human beings or free will in the video. I see dice rolling and randomness. Your video and argument presupposes that ex nihilo precludes free will. A better analogy would be God thinks a human being into existence ex nihilo and gives the human. I mean die. consciousness, self-determination, and free will. The die begins its existence in the 6 position, God's desired number for the die, but the die gets curious one day about what something besides 6 is like and the die says "I think I'll choose to be 4 today." The die rolls itself over to the 4 position. "I changed my mind; I'll be 2". It rolls itself to the 2 position, and so forth, making innumerable decisions, voluntarily taking on this value or that value through the course of its existence. To an observer, the die appears to be rolling itself around on the table and engages in pointless philosophical disputations with a neighbor about whether the die is truly self-mobile and self-determining or if an outside force is determining the outcomes either directly or indirectly through creating a die that randomly rolls. None of this matters to the die because it's self-aware and self-rolling. The die lives out the course of its 'diey life' and then [ahem] dies.

Your argument falls flat because it presupposes an intrinsic incompatibility between ex nihilo and free will. Your proposition is unprovable. You think you're demonstrating the proof of that proposition by positing a God who creates six-sided, randomly-rolling dice. Your presupposition requires you to choose an object that yields randomized outcomes, so you choose dice. But for us, God didn't create any number of six-sided, randomly-rolling dice from nothing, as in your video. God created any number of six-sided, freely-self-determing, self-rolling dice from nothing. So, is there a "possible cube" that would roll 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2? Of course! A conscious, freely-self-determining, self-rolling die would simply choose to roll and choose to land on 2 six times in a row. No problem.

No doubt you'll think up other ways to frame your argument and discuss other objects besides dice and I'll keep ascribing properties of self-awareness and self-determination to those objects.

These are all just word games anyway. The propositions "God cannot create free-willed beings ex nihilo" and "God can create free-willed beings ex nihilo" are uprovable, just as the propositions "God is anthropomorphic and in time" and "God is immaterial and not in time" are unprovable. We can keep playing word games and providing counter examples, but I don't see the point. We'll get nowhere. Pages and pages will be written and then this thread will be locked. So, no, I don't think I'll continue this part of the conversation.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

Stephen

First argument, second is irrelevant. It's all the same.

Bottom line despite all the words it is question begging. Spammer is right. You presume ex nihilo equals determinism and then conclude it. Sorry you don't see it.

Ex nihilo does not always entail determinism. I have given many examples and reasons why not.

[Spammer]

Correct. Even though AFTER the cubes are created, they are rolling "randomly" (God does not control any individual roll), God ultimately controls exactly what the number combination is going to be by deciding which cube to create in the first place.

Here's another word game. Self-rolling cubes are created. God does not control any individual roll. God creates a freely self-determining, self-rolling cube that is self-replicable which is able to roll itself to achieve any possible permutation of roll combinations (for a 6-sided die) as desired over the course of its existence. This self-replicable die replicates itself, creating a second die with the exact same properties and that one also self-replicates, ultimately yielding innumerable self-replicating dice each of which is free to self-determine its self-rolling permutations as it sees fit within the given constraints. The only thing God determined is the six-sided nature of the dice and the matrix within which the universe of self-rolling dice roll themselves. Within those constraints, all outcomes are freely determined by the dice themselves. Free-willed dice exist.

It's all in the unprovable presuppositions.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

Sillygism: (Yes that was intended)

A-God creates ex nihilo

Therefore

B-God ultimately controls exactly what the number combination is going to be by deciding which cube to create in the first place.

I think there are a few assumptions missing to get from A to B which are not provided.

Like perhaps that "Ex nihilo= God creates/controls every subsequent cause"

That is the extra assumption you are inserting and which is not called for.  The old clockwork universe thing- God is the first cause so then he controls every subsequent cause.  That is not necessarily the case.

We are arguing that God does not create/control every cause DESPITE ex nihilo.

There are many alternate ways of seeing it. The assumption that he DOES control every subsequent cause is unwarranted.

I do not believe in ex nihilo but your argument doesn't help our cause.

Both ex nihilo and pre-existent matter are matters of faith.  Yes we presume either and draw conclusions based on faith.  Anything else is unknowable anyway so it doesn't really matter.  Besides both of those alternatives are quasi-scientific statements which are about what actually happened to "cause" the universe.

One could just as well argue that God used pre-existent matter to control all the subsequent causes.  Then the organization of pre-existent matter controls every subsequent cause/choice.

God "creating" and God "organizing" makes little practical difference in the argument.  Take your random cubes.  Suppose he organized the cubes from pre-existent matter but still controlled the rolls because of the way they were "organized" instead of "created"

No difference in outcome.

So the manner of creation is irrelevant to the determinism argument, and ultimately the determinism argument is irrelevant to free will because of compatiblism

In short, your argument does not stand.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

"Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem, which concerns a disputed incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism."

[mfbukowski]

I want to underline this one point, lest anyone missed it in the larger post.

 

In the argument against ex nihilo the point is often made that ex nihilo entails God's control over everything, and from that, usually that determinism follows, and that because of determinism, free will is not possible. Therefore if ex nihilo, freedom is impossible.

 

My point is that ex nihilo is irrelevant to the view that God has control over everything and determinism follows.

 

One can just as well argue that because God "organized" matter unorganized, his act of "organization" as opposed to "creation" results in his control over everything and thus determinism follows just as logically from his "organizing" pre-existent matter as "creating" matter from nothing.

 

No difference.

 

As LDS I think we would all do well to note this and see that this alleged contrast between pre-existing matter entailing determinism and ex nihilo entailing determinism does not exist.

 

We would do well therefore to avoid using such an argument and comparing it with our "open canon" as an argument in favor of freedom, in contrast to the Creedal Christians with the implication that their theology implies determinism where ours does not.

 

That is simply not the case.

Edited October 21, 2015 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

I want to underline this one point, lest anyone missed it in the larger post.

 

In the argument against ex nihilo the point is often made that ex nihilo entails God's control over everything, and from that, usually that determinism follows, and that because of determinism, free will is not possible. Therefore if ex nihilo, freedom is impossible.

 

My point is that ex nihilo is irrelevant to the view that God has control over everything and determinism follows.

 

One can just as well argue that because God "organized" matter unorganized, his act of "organization" as opposed to "creation" results in his control over everything and thus determinism follows just as logically from his "organizing" pre-existent matter as "creating" matter from nothing.

 

No difference.

 

As LDS I think we would all do well to note this and see that this alleged contrast between pre-existing matter entailing determinism and ex nihilo entailing determinism does not exist.

 

We would do well therefore to avoid using such an argument and comparing it with our "open canon" as an argument in favor of freedom, in contrast to the Creedal Christians with the implication that their theology implies determinism where ours does not.

 

That is simply not the case.

 

Mark, I appreciate what you are saying. But what about your doctrine of the pre-existence? Maybe I don't understand, but something called intelligences would seem to have freedom, quite apart from God, and preceding His work of "organization", to use your term. For us, God created the human soul out of nothing. It isn't just the matter. We are nothing except what God made us. While Mormons seemed to have been very much something before God formed you. I am not trying to make the case...but that is why I have never suggested that Mormons have the same philosophical problem about determinism as us ex nihilos. You have thought of this I am sure. Perhaps I misunderstand what an intelligence is in LDS cosmology. Maybe I am making it out to be more significant than it is. Maybe an intelligence would lack free will?  

Edited October 22, 2015 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

Mark, I appreciate what you are saying. But what about your doctrine of the pre-existence? Maybe I don't understand, but something called intelligences would seem to have freedom, quite apart from God, and preceding His work of "organization", to use your term. For us, God created the human soul out of nothing. It isn't just the matter. We are nothing except what God made us. While Mormons seemed to have been very much something before God formed you. I am not trying to make the case...but that is why I have never suggested that Mormons have the same philosophical problem about determinism as us ex nihilos. You have thought of this I am sure. Perhaps I misunderstand what an intelligence is in LDS cosmology. Maybe I am making it out to be more significant than it is. Maybe an intelligence would lack free will?

Yes I believe we were able to make decisions in the pre-existence- not based on evidence or any good reason for believing that logically. Certainly the scriptures imply it. but there isn't much more on that question.

That is in fact one of the reasons I do not believe in the contingency of the self but that gets complicated

But that was not the issue here. The issue here was simply whether or not ex nihilo entails determinism and it does not.

If it is your personal belief that you are "nothing but what God made you" that seems to entail determinism, but that does not follow necessarily from ex nihilo.

If I were Catholic, I would, and did not, believe that I was "nothing but what God made me". That really seems to entail determinism. Maybe God made you with freedom which is what the founding fathers believed - that we are endowed with "inalienable rights" which grant a kind of "freedom".

But my whole point here has been to show these are all independent questions that really do not logically entail any of the other positions.

Determinism can be compatible with Freedom. Ex nihilo can be compatible therefore with either free will or determinism. One could believe that God "organized" pre-existent matter and be a determinist who did not believe in freedom or someone who did believe in freedom. And this does not include all the choices- I would have to put together a grid of some kind to account for all the variables

But the bottom line is that none of these possibilities seem to automatically entail any of the others logically, or at least I don't see how they do.

These issues are so complicated and non-verifiable that there is always a way to make them work logically even if at first blush they might seem incompatible.

It's word soup, and there is always a way to draw a distinction in interpretation and meaning which reverses what seems at first to be the obvious choice. In this arena it is always possible to create an exception for every "rule"

Edited October 22, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Remember that logic is logic even if it is nonsense.

This is perfect logic, yet nonsense

If George Washington was President, the moon is made of green cheese

Washington was president

Therefore

The moon is made of green cheese.

That conclusion follows perfectly from those assumptions. Of course the assumptions are ridiculous.

Unfortunately it works both ways- you can have assumptions that seem to be reasonable but yet have the conclusion not follow logically from the reasonable assumptions

Edited October 22, 2015 by mfbukowski

[stephenpurdy]

Ok, jumping in briefly. I don't see human beings or free will in the video. I see dice rolling and randomness. 

 

In the first part, yes.   The first argument is talking about randomness, but the principle translates to something meaningful when you add the second argument.  Just a few posts ago I explained the first argument this way:

 

Remember, this is the illustration (from 2:38 to 7:10) whereby there are no characteristics which influence choices. Here, there is no "created characteristics" which would influence an individual make any particular choice.  In other words, the "choices" in this illustration are not a reflection of who or what we are as a person.

 

So, in the first argument.  God determines outcomes because God decides which cubes to create.  However, God does not control each roll individually.  Those are simply random with the dice, and you could even claim "choice" with people, however, this is where this quote from Hausam plays in: 

 

"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."

 

To recap, the first argument illustrates that divine determinism is a direct result of ex nihilo.   While you could say that the resulting dice truly are "random" (each roll is not controlled by God) ; God does ultimately control exactly what the number combinations will be.  

 

For people, God would be ultimately determining which "choices" would be made, by deciding which 'possible person' to create.  But each individual "choice" itself is not directly caused by God. 

 

A real life example would be this:  If God did not want me to eat cocoa puffs this morning, he could have refrained from creating the "Stephen" who ate cocoa puffs this morning, but instead could have created (from infinite possibilities) a "Stephen" who would have "chosen" to eat fruit and yogurt instead.

 

Now, the reason I put "choice" in quotations here and above, is because in this example as explained in blue (me) above and in red (Hausam) above, this illustration is from the viewpoint, as you also suggested, that choices are RANDOM, as if they have nothing to do with the characteristics of an individual or their motivations, desires, essence, nature or anything about them that makes up who or what they are.  If a "choice" is random, then it is not truly our choice ... is it?

 

Now, it is from there that we can begin to look at the second argument.

 

 

Your argument falls flat because it presupposes an intrinsic incompatibility between ex nihilo and free will.

 

No.  The argument is not that there is an incompatibility between ex nihilo and free will "just because".  You have to go through this step by step and you haven't even captured the first step quite yet.

 

 

-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

Stephen

First argument, second is irrelevant. It's all the same.

Bottom line despite all the words it is question begging. Spammer is right. ...

 

 

Hold up a minute.  Let's walk this through.

 

Let's say that the "correct choice" that God WANTS the cube to roll is the number 2.  Or we could say that "choosing" a 2 is NOT a "sin" and every other number is a sin.  You say that Spammer is right, and he says this:

 

Spammer wrote: So, is there a "possible cube" that would roll 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2? Of course! A conscious, freely-self-determining, self-rolling die would simply choose to roll and choose to land on 2 six times in a row. No problem.

 

Now, my last post dealt with some of the other issues, so real quick I want to make this point as a side note:

 

According to this argument by Spammer above, God had the option, of creating a "conscious, freely-self-determining" being who would ALWAYS make the right decision.  Yet God chose not to create that?

 

Why not?

 

 

 

mfbukowski wrote: Ex nihilo does not always entail determinism.

 

So, are you saying that God cannot choose or determine which combinations will exist?  Please explain why the God creating Ex Nihilo would not be able to pick and choose which "cubes" to create or not create.

 

 

-Stephen

Edited October 22, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[mfbukowski]

Now, my last post dealt with some of the other issues, so real quick I want to make this point: 

According to this argument by Spammer, God had the option, of creating a "conscious, freely-self-determining" being who would ALWAYS make the right decision.  Yet God chose not to create that?

Why not?

 

-Stephen

Huh?

What does that have to do with anything? Our story is that we were to have choice and that Satan's plan would entail always making the right decision. We need choice to learn evil as well as good.

So what does that have to do with ex nihilo?

Drop all the cube stuff- it's irrelevant

Edited October 22, 2015 by mfbukowski

[stephenpurdy]

 

One can just as well argue that because God "organized" matter unorganized, his act of "organization" as opposed to "creation" results in his control over everything and thus determinism follows just as logically from his "organizing" pre-existent matter as "creating" matter from nothing.

 

No difference.

 

 

 

You are wrong.

 

Let's say that God does NOT create the cubes ex nihilo.  (Remember that LDS theology allows for "intelligences" , which can represent "self existing wills" which already existed).

 

Let's look at the cubes again (this was illustrated in 6:38 to 7:10 of the video):

 

A) 1, 3, 5, 1, 1, 5, 3...

B) 2, 6, 4, 6, 6, 4, 2...

C) 2, 2, 4, 6, 2, 4, 3...

D) 1, 1, 5, 5, 2, 6, 3...

 

These cubes already exist.  Even if God knows what number combination they are going to roll, God cannot pick and choose which cubes to "bring into existence from nothing". 

 

Big difference.

 

-Stephen

[mfbukowski]

"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."

Baloney.

[stephenpurdy]

Stephen wrote:

Let's say that the "correct choice" that God WANTS the cube to roll is the number 2.  Or we could say that "choosing" a 2 is NOT a "sin" and every other number is a sin.  You say that Spammer is right, and he says this:

 

Spammer wrote: So, is there a "possible cube" that would roll 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2? Of course! A conscious, freely-self-determining, self-rolling die would simply choose to roll and choose to land on 2 six times in a row. No problem.

 

Now, my last post dealt with some of the other issues, so real quick I want to make this point as a side note:

 

According to this argument by Spammer above, God had the option, of creating a "conscious, freely-self-determining" being who would ALWAYS make the right decision.  Yet God chose not to create that?

 

Why not?

 

Huh?

What does that have to do with anything? Our story is that we were to have choice and that Satan's plan would entail always making the right decision. We need choice to learn evil as well as good.
 

 

 

You are the one bringing in something that has nothing to do with the conversation.  In this scenario, nobody FORCED the die to roll 2.  God simply created the die that God knew would freely and randomly roll 2.

 

 

 

You keep trying to argue against an argument that I am not actually making, rather than the argument that I am actually making.

 

 

-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

"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."

Baloney.

 

 

Don't just claim "Baloney". 

 

Please explain why you think so.  Are you saying that our choices have NOTHING to do with our motivations, desires, loves, values, priorities, beliefs, etc?

 

Are you saying that our choices IN NO WAY represent who we are (our essence, our nature, our make up, our being)?

 

 

If this is true, would you say that we cannot trust God, because at any moment God could start making decisions which are entirely contradictory to God's divine characteristics or His divine nature?

 

Sorry, but saying "Baloney" doesn't cut it with me.  You are going to have to face the implications of simply claiming "Baloney".

 

-Stephen

[mfbukowski]

God simply created the die that God knew would freely and randomly roll 2.

So?

[mfbukowski]

Don't just claim "Baloney". 

 

Please explain why you think so.  Are you saying that our choices have NOTHING to do with our motivations, desires, loves, values, priorities, beliefs, etc?

 

Are you saying that our choices IN NO WAY represent who we are (our essence, our nature, our make up, our being)?

 

 

If this is true, would you say that we cannot trust God, because at any moment God could start making decisions which are entirely contradictory to God's divine characteristics or His divine nature?

 

Sorry, but saying "Baloney" doesn't cut it with me.  You are going to have to face the implications of simply claiming "Baloney".

 

-Stephen

Hume, causality.

You cannot ascribe those to be "causes" of action

"Nature" is a meaningless word. You are not reading my posts