Lds View Of Godhead / Trinity

[mfbukowski]

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

 

 

-Stephen

No actually you are making no arguments at all

Arguments are syllogisms

You are yammering about number series of cubes without saying why that is even relevant to whatever it is you are allegedly arguing.

Sample argument

"Ex nihilo implies x because abc

Abc is incompatible with choice

Therefore ex nihilo implies no freedom"

Or whatever it is you say you are "arguing"

[stephenpurdy]

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

So?

 

So, this is just a side argument, something to chew on.

 

How about creating billions of cubes that will "freely" choose 2?  It is just as possible in Ex nihilo theology.

 

IF our choices have absolutely nothing to do with our created characteristics, then while God is not controlling each roll, He still certainly has absolute control over which number combinations will ultimately exist ...

 

In Ex Nihilo, he could have created a world full of Jesuses, who all "freely choose" to do exactly what God wanted them to do. 

 

Do you think that this reflects the reality we live in?

 

-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.

I am a proponent of a non-contingent self. I do not admit that those words describe causes of my actions.

In fact with Hume, I think one cannot describe ANY "causes" of actions accurately

I and others are counter examples to the above allegation including all compatibilists

Therefore "baloney"

You still have not read the most fundamental article on compatiblism and neither has the guy you are quoting.

I have no time for this. At least read the material which is relevant instead of constantly referring to a minute count on your own condescending videos.

Edited October 22, 2015 by mfbukowski

[stephenpurdy]

Hume, causality.

You cannot ascribe those to be "causes" of action

 

 

And your claim is to say that God causes uncaused causes?

 

Is that really your position?

 

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

 

I am reading your posts and I already responded specifically to this claim of yours.  When you claimed many posts ago that "nature  is a meaningless word", I responded.

 

Stephen wrote:  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.   (emphasis added)

 

-stephen

[mfbukowski]

So, this is just a side argument, something to chew on.

 

How about creating billions of cubes that will "freely" choose 2?  It is just as possible in Ex nihilo theology.

 

IF our choices have absolutely nothing to do with our created characteristics, then while God is not controlling each roll, He still certainly has absolute control over which number combinations will ultimately exist ...

 

In Ex Nihilo, he could have created a world full of Jesuses, who all "freely choose" to do exactly what God wanted them to do. 

 

Do you think that this reflects the reality we live in?

 

-Stephen

None of this follows. Yes he could have, but he did not. So what?

I do not live in a world full of "Jesuses"

Of course it reflects our world.

I have to break off now- this is not going anywhere. Thanks for the discussion. Read up on free will vs determinism

[mfbukowski]

And your claim is to say that God causes uncaused causes?

 

Is that really your position?

 

 

I am reading your posts and I already responded specifically to this claim of yours.  When you claimed many posts ago that "nature  is a meaningless word", I responded.

 

Stephen wrote:  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.   (emphasis added)

 

-stephen

Read Hume on causation

Causes are undefinable. In a sense they don't exist. This is fundamental philosophy- Hume on causation. This is not new stuff.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/

Gotta go

Edited October 22, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

"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. (emphasis added)"

A non substantiated assertion

[stephenpurdy]

Arguments are syllogisms

You are yammering about number series of cubes without saying why that is even relevant to whatever it is you are allegedly arguing.

...

 

I assumed that people had watched and understood the video.  If people wanted to see it, understand it , and talk about it (in agreement or disagreement), then that option was certainly available to them in order to find the relevance.  For the people who paid attention, the steps lead into relevance.  And if I did not explain things fully, then simply ask questions.

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

As you well know, those who argue for free will often note that the Universe seems to have this inherent "freedom" about it.  An example they will point to "electron mobility".  It appears in physics that an electron may be free to move about the nucleus, and it appears may be "randomly located" at any position within its shell.

 

This leads into the "random cubes".  After speaking about the "random cubes" , I go back to this example of electron mobility. 

 

Sure, the electrons may appear to be free to move about within the shell, but if God is going to create an atom from nothing, then the make-up or characteristics of the atom (the number of protons and neutrons, for example) will result in predictable behavior.  Gold has certain characteristics and behaves predictably.  If God would have created mercury atoms rather than gold, then you can expect different behaviors.

 

Thus, in this analogy, if God creates some Lead, then He cannot blame Lead for sinking in water.  If God creates Helium, the fact that it floats in air is not praiseworthy.  These elements are simply behaving exactly the way they were created to behave.

 

 

"Free" or "random" electrons in this example above is like the evangelicals who say, "a human with a "sin nature" is free to choose whichever sin he or she pleases."  Ultimately we are flawed beings and in Ex Nihilo, this is essentially God's fault.

 

And so I quote Blake Ostler , who wrote, "{The "free-will defence" of evangelicals} assumes that God must create morally fallible persons if he creates them free. However, that is not true given evangelical assumptions. If God creates ex nihilo, then he can create any persons that it is logically possible to create. He certainly could have created more morally sensitive and rational persons than we are. Indeed, Francis Beckwith, in his contribution to NMC, argues that perfectly rational beings are perfectly good even though free to choose evil if they wish. If Beckwith is correct, then the fact that a person rationally chooses to always do what is right is not incompatible with libertarian free will. Given the creedal view, there is no reason that God could not have created perfectly rational persons who will always see by the light of reason that always choosing what is right is the most rational course. Thus, God had open to him the possibility of creating more intelligent and morally sensitive creatures who would bring about less evil than we do because of sheer irrationality. God is thus morally indictable for having created creatures who bring about more evil than other creatures he could have created from nothing."

 

-Stephen

[mfbukowski]

I assumed that people had watched and understood the video.  If people wanted to see it, understand it , and talk about it (in agreement or disagreement), then that option was certainly available to them in order to find the relevance.  For the people who paid attention, the steps lead into relevance.  And if I did not explain things fully, then simply ask questions.

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

As you well know, those who argue for free will often note that the Universe seems to have this inherent "freedom" about it.  An example they will point to "electron mobility".  It appears in physics that an electron may be free to move about the nucleus, and it appears may be "randomly located" at any position within its shell.

 

This leads into the "random cubes".  After speaking about the "random cubes" , I go back to this example of electron mobility. 

 

Sure, the electrons may appear to be free to move about within the shell, but if God is going to create an atom from nothing, then the make-up or characteristics of the atom (the number of protons and neutrons, for example) will result in predictable behavior.  Gold has certain characteristics and behaves predictably.  If God would have created mercury atoms rather than gold, then you can expect different behaviors.

 

Thus, in this analogy, if God creates some Lead, then He cannot blame Lead for sinking in water.  If God creates Helium, the fact that it floats in air is not praiseworthy.  These elements are simply behaving exactly the way they were created to behave.

 

 

"Free" or "random" electrons in this example above is like the evangelicals who say, "a human with a "sin nature" is free to choose whichever sin he or she pleases."  Ultimately we are flawed beings and in Ex Nihilo, this is essentially God's fault.

 

And so I quote Blake Ostler , who wrote, "{The "free-will defence" of evangelicals} assumes that God must create morally fallible persons if he creates them free. However, that is not true given evangelical assumptions. If God creates ex nihilo, then he can create any persons that it is logically possible to create. He certainly could have created more morally sensitive and rational persons than we are. Indeed, Francis Beckwith, in his contribution to NMC, argues that perfectly rational beings are perfectly good even though free to choose evil if they wish. If Beckwith is correct, then the fact that a person rationally chooses to always do what is right is not incompatible with libertarian free will. Given the creedal view, there is no reason that God could not have created perfectly rational persons who will always see by the light of reason that always choosing what is right is the most rational course. Thus, God had open to him the possibility of creating more intelligent and morally sensitive creatures who would bring about less evil than we do because of sheer irrationality. God is thus morally indictable for having created creatures who bring about more evil than other creatures he could have created from nothing."

 

-Stephen

I am not impressed by arguments from authority and I think Ostler and Beckwith- were wrong here for the reasons I have detailed which you still have not answered nor appear to have even read or understood.

Have a nice evening

Edited October 22, 2015 by mfbukowski

[stephenpurdy]

Stephen wrote:  So, this is just a side argument, something to chew on.  How about creating billions of cubes that will "freely" choose 2?  It is just as possible in Ex nihilo theology.  IF our choices have absolutely nothing to do with our created characteristics, then while God is not controlling each roll, He still certainly has absolute control over which number combinations will ultimately exist ...In Ex Nihilo, he could have created a world full of Jesuses, who all "freely choose" to do exactly what God wanted them to do.  Do you think that this reflects the reality we live in?

 

 

None of this follows. Yes he could have, but he did not. So what?

I do not live in a world full of "Jesuses"

Of course it reflects our world.
 

 

It does not reflect our world, because we do not live in a world full of "Jesuses".  Or, it does not reflect our God. 

 

We live in a world of people who believe that God is good and benevolent, and who wants the best for all His creations.  You just admitted, that God could have created a world where everyone freely chooses NOT to sin, yet God did not do so. ... but instead decided to create people who would choose to be eternally damned when there were certainly other options available which still allowed for, according to you, free choice / free will?

 

And you still want to claim that there is nothing wrong with Ex Nihilo creation theology?

 

-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

Stephen wrote:  "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. (emphasis added)"

 

A non substantiated assertion

 

Again, you just blurt out a comment, but you don't back it up. 

 

Which characteristic of a person is NOT created by God in Ex Nihilo creation theology?

 

If God created each individual entirely from God's own mind, which aspect of the person is "self-existent" or "self-caused"?

 

 

I am not impressed by arguments from authority

 

Yet you throw out Hume in an attempt to argue from his authority.  You haven't even come close to describing how Hume's arguments counteract what I have presented here.  (Also, you throw in a paper on compatibilism ... as if I don't know what compatibilism is!) 

 

I, on the other hand, explained exactly what the arguments are and I am in the process of laying them out in detail. The Ostler and Hausam quotes are just explaining certain aspects in different terms and their terms are provided to lay out the points already made here in summary.  They are explaining the same concepts that have already been detailed here.

 

You are the one who is just essentially trying to say "Go read Hume! Certainly he already covered this."  You have the beam in your eye attempting to point out my mote and say that I am attempting to argue from authority!!?

 

I think it is obvious that your accusation is not well grounded.

 

 

You attempted to argue with me about this before you even bothered to understand the scope of the arguments, and now you have egg on your face. 

 

The total of my argument does not say that free will and determinism are incompatible.  It says that Ex Nihilo by the God described by mainstream creeds results in determinism, and it only allows for free will IF our choices have nothing to do with our created characteristics ... which were entirely caused (and thus determined) by God.  And even IF you could get around that (and you can't), Ex Nihilo is still problematic because that means that God could have created a perfect society of beings who freely choose to never sin, but God decided not to do it.  This is a disaster in terms of the philosophical problem of evil and suffering (which is another video, by the way). 

 

The very fact that you think that the problems I am presenting are solved by compatibilism proves that you don't understand what is being explained to you.  I know what compatibilism is. ... In fact, I believe in compatibilism!

 

 

-Stephen

Edited October 22, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[mfbukowski]

Stephen wrote:  "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. (emphasis added)"

 

 

Again, you just blurt out a comment, but you don't back it up. 

 

Which characteristic of a person is NOT created by God in Ex Nihilo creation theology?

 

If God created each individual entirely from God's own mind, which aspect of the person is "self-existent" or "self-caused"?

 

 

 

Yet you throw out Hume in an attempt to argue from his authority.  You haven't even come close to describing how Hume's arguments counteract what I have presented here.  (Also, you throw in a paper on compatibilism ... as if I don't know what compatibilism is!) 

 

I, on the other hand, explained exactly what the argument is and I am in the process of laying them out in detail. The Ostler and Hausam quotes are just explaining in different terms and laid out in summary.  They are explaining the same concepts.

 

You just are essentially trying to say "Go read Hume! Certainly he already covered this."  You have the beam in your eye attempting to point out my mote and say that I am attempting to argue from authority?

 

I think it is obvious that your accusation is not well grounded.

 

You attempted to argue with me about this before you even bothered to understand the scope of the arguments, and now you have egg on your face.  My first argument does not say that free will and determinism are incompatible.  The very fact that you think that the problems I am presenting are solved by compatibilism proves that you don't understand what is being explained to you.  I know what compatibilism is.  In fact, I believe in compatibilism!

 

 

-Stephen

Lol

You throw out an assertion about ex nihilo without substantiation and then I do the same you did. Neener neener.

If you had actually read my previous posts and replied you might have a case.

I will actually go back and dig out my post that answered all that.

Oh and it is not my fault that Ostler argues against Hume. I vote for Hume any day.

I linked to Hume. If you do not understand it, let me summarize.

"Causes" cannot be defined. What is the cause of your existence? Romance between your parents? And what was the cause of that? Or was it something in a long story of why your parents met? The decision to go to the same college? The decision which led them to decide when they were children? Or was it your fourth great grandfather who decided to move west because he could not find work in Ohio? Was it the lack of work in Ohio a hundred years ago that was the cause of you existing?

It's all just words and can be defined any way you like. Maybe it was the first amphibian which crawled up on the primeval shore somewhere.

Or maybe it was none of those things. Maybe it wsa all of them. Ultimate Causes are undefinable. What was the cause of World War 2?

The chain of alleged causation is so complex it is irrelevant to even try to assert.

I will look up my other link and then I am done. If I have "egg on my face", lol, then which chicken laid it? What was the cause of the egg on my face? Chicken romance or some chicken farmer who's daughter needed to go to college?

Oh I know. It was the dice. Dang those dice. They made me do it!! I am innocent! God made me do it!

Our views on this are totally incompatible and we are not communicating.

I will look it up and that will be it.

[mfbukowski]

Posts 198 and 199

My quote function is not working again

"I find this highly convoluted

You continually think in a linear fashion as if there is only one way to interpret each word and that each word has almost a numerical value generated in one's mind with no variations possible. You believe that ex nihilo logically entails determinism- it does not.

You are obviously an intelligent fellow, but honestly your arguments date from about 1200 AD as if nothing has happened in logic from the time of Aquinas.

Soon you will be debating whether or not two angels can be at the same location ("dancing on a pinhead")

You do not bring into account any notion of ambiguity in language, other possible interpretations or the fact that many scriptures are allegorical and symbolic.

I have mentioned compatibilism to you more than once, and yet you refuse to reply or take it into account. Free will and determinism are not incompatible, and then there is self-determination, where one makes one's own rules and then freely decides to act as if one is determined when one is in fact not.

A diet is an example- yes we can eat the chocolate cake but because we have promised ourselves not to, we do not. Does that make our choice "determined"?

Obviously that makes the question itself ambiguous. Yes, I am determined by a choice but it was a choice I freely made. It is not one or the other. And maybe tomorrow I will eat the cake and cancel my previous determination to not do so. Is cancelling a promise the same as "breaking it"? Does it matter?

God could have created ex nihilo and then decided to limit his role in areas about which he decided he should be. Perhaps he allowed evolution or directed it for example, for teaching purposes or because he wanted to comply with other natural laws he did not generate. Or perhaps he decided to create some new natural laws. Or perhaps, perhaps perhaps. Perhaps he lets the universe run pretty much on its own and yet creates "miracles" as he sees fit. Perhaps he doesn't do any of that. Perhaps he makes every decision about every sparrow falling from its nest, as is implied in the gospels. Perhaps he delegates that to angels. Perhaps sparrows falling are part of natural law which he observes and knows but decides not to interfere.

There are so many alternate ways of seeing this, they are uncountable

Post

199

Just as an example, this is a circular argument.

What does the word "nature" mean?? The nature of a man is to be manly, the nature of God is to be godly, the nature of a dog is to be like a dog.

In other words, "nature" is a meaningless word on its own. It is a zero, a placeholder in a sentence used to make a point.

The nature of a liar is to lie, the nature of someone with integrity is to tell the truth.

What does the word "nature" ADD TO THE MEANING OF THAT SENTENCE? Nothing. People with integrity do not lie. Liars do lie. Dogs act like dogs. Men act like men.

The word "nature" is useless.

God's "choices" do not reflect his "nature" they are what God is. We define "God" by the choices we imagine him making. He is the Ideal Human.

All this says is that God always acts morally. That is an assumption you are making. Fine, I agree. In fact we define morality by the way we imagine God would act in a situation.

What is the "right" thing to do in this situation? What do the scriptures say? What would Christ do?

Or if an atheist, one might ask "What are the rules of morality I have accepted for myself, and how do they apply to this situation?" What would a good Communist do? What would a good Republican do? A person pro-choice? A person anti-abortion?

"Nature" is an irrelevant addition that serves no purpose but to confuse the conversation. What is the "nature" of a Communist? Of a Republican?

How is their choice limited by their "nature"? It's a ridiculous question.

People do what they think is right, or they do wrong intentionally. They violate their own or the society's standards of morality. We postulate that God is "good" and always makes "moral choices"

Those are our assumptions to start out with.

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

End of quotes.

No more from me.

I have other projects to work on. We are not communicating.

We have a totally different understanding of the role of language and what it can and cannot do.

Aquinas meets Wittgenstein. Good luck on that one. Different planets

Edited October 22, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

Stephen, your first argument is that

 

1) in ex nihilo God created our characteristics out of nothing;

 

2) our choices are the results of those characteristics (motivations, desires, loves, values, priorites, beliefs, etc.);

 

3) so God is responsible for those choices since he created the characteristics that produced them.

 

4) Therefore, God determined our choices.

 

How do you escape the determinism entailed in 2) if our characteristics are uncreated?  You can't.

 

Whether the dice are created out of nothing or are eternally self-existent, what they are is what they are and in both scenarios they are determined by their characteristics.  If created, they're created be be what they are.  If uncreated, they just so happen to be what they are.  Both have characteristics and the characteristics are determining.  "The characteristics of an individual or their motivations, desires, essence, nature or anything about them that makes up who or what they are" is that which chooses.  Whether created or uncreated, our characteristics are what we are.  That's your argument, but you inconsistenly only apply it to created characteristics.  You inexplicably privilege uncreated characteristics and grant them without explanation the property of magically not determining who and what we are (that which chooses).  But this is inconsistent. Characteristics are characteristics are characteristics and they make up what we are.  Free will therefore doesn't exist. Your argument only demonstrates a proof for that conclusion.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Spammer

[Spammer]

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?

Who knows? Ask God. I'll give you the traditional Catholic answer. God is infinite love. Infinite love is infinitely overflowing and outpouring. God, needing nothing, created physical beings whom God could love and created them with the necessary characteristics whereby they could love both God and one another, with this new creation perpetuating itself over time without end in order for infinite love to continue to expand infinitely. Love entails voluntary self-sacrifice on behalf of the beloved, the ability to choose to put the other first. That requires free will. A creature created to be loving removes the ability for the creature to choose to love and involuntary love is not love. Thus, for love to exist, free will must exist and for free will to be free, a person with free will must be free to choose to not love (to choose evil). Creating physical beings with these characteristics requires that God create and grant certain properties whereby those beings could freely choose, with those choices undetermined by the created characteristics.

So there you have it. That's the Catholic story. It's the tale we tell. Those are the definitions and words we use and the kinds of sentences we construct to tell the story. For us, God's desire to create beings with free will who could love explains the existence of evil. God created beings with free will and set whatever it is that chooses free from their created characteristics. Many of those beings choose not to love but to pursue self-love instead. Human choices, made independently from God's causal influences because that's how God created them, are the cause of evil. God is not the cause. See #239 above.

The problem of theodicy is resolved by the existence of human free will. And that brings us back to the pointless dice-rolling exercise of determining whether God can create something within us that chooses independently of our created characteristics. We say God caused something with the properties of an uncaused cause. You say he can't, we say he can. He said, he said ad infinitum. It's all in the assumptions.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Spammer

[3DOP]

Stephen, your first argument is that

 

1) in ex nihilo God created our characteristics out of nothing;

 

2) our choices are the results of those characteristics (motivations, desires, loves, values, priorites, beliefs, etc.);

 

3) so God is responsible for those choices since he created the characteristics that produced them.

 

4) Therefore, God determined our choices.

 

How do you escape the determinism entailed in 2) if our characteristics are uncreated?  You can't.

 

Whether the dice are created out of nothing or are eternally self-existent, what they are is what they are and in both scenarios they are determined by their characteristics.  If created, they're created be be what they are.  If uncreated, they just so happen to be what they are.  Both have characteristics and the characteristics are determining.  "The characteristics of an individual or their motivations, desires, essence, nature or anything about them that makes up who or what they are" is that which chooses.  Whether created or uncreated, our characteristics are what we are.  That's your argument, but you inconsistenly only apply it to created characteristics.  You inexplicably privilege uncreated characteristics and grant them without explanation the property of magically not determining who and what we are (that which chooses).  But this is inconsistent. Characteristics are characteristics are characteristics and they make up what we are.  Free will therefore doesn't exist. Your argument only demonstrates a proof for that conclusion.

 

Spammer, hey. I am thick, but I got that. Who cares about created or uncreated? The argument against free will always remains if we can only do what we are. It shifts the potential blame from God, if we are pre-existent, which is what I am usually distracted with. Maybe we have a faulty understanding of freedom. It is self-evident to me that I am free to choose. I hate to go all subjective. But I know I make choices and philosophical determinism seems to minimize my blame for my bad choices, while maximizing God's blame in the event He has anything to do with me.

 

Anyway...thanks.

 

3DOP

Edited October 22, 2015 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Spammer, hey. I am thick, but I got that. Who cares about created or uncreated? The argument against free will always remains if we can only do what we are. It shifts the potential blame from God, if we are pre-existent, which is what I am usually distracted with. Maybe we have a faulty understanding of freedom. It is self-evident to me that I am free to choose. I hate to go all subjective. But I know I make choices and philosophical determinism seems to minimize my blame for my bad choices, while maximizing God's blame in the event He has anything to do with me.

 

Anyway...thanks.

 

3DOP

 

 

Bobbie thanks! I never expect any rep points when its philosophy. I'll take it though. I know, you meant to click on something else! That's okay. Heh. I've given accidental rep points before too. Or maybe I was unclear? I was saying that I could see with Spammer, that if our characteristics out of ex nihilo means we aren't free, why are we free if made out of something? We are still stuck with characteristics beyond our control. Do we have to be self-created to be free? 

Edited October 22, 2015 by 3DOP

[Bobbieaware]

Bobbie thanks! I never expect any rep points when its philosophy. I'll take it though. I know, you meant to click on something else! That's okay. Heh. I've given accidental rep points before too. Or maybe I was unclear? I was saying that I could see with Spammer, that if our characteristics out of ex nihilo means we aren't free, why are we free if made out of something? We are still stuck with characteristics beyond our control. Do we have to be self-created to be free?

I gave you the rep point because I agree with you it is manifestly obvious that we do indeed have freedom of choice, regardless of how we came to be. Only those folks who have their heads too high up in the stratosphere find themselves struggling with such things, things even little children understand and know to be true.

[stephenpurdy]

Stephen wrote:  "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, ..."

Lol
You throw out an assertion about ex nihilo without substantiation and then I do the same you did. Neener neener.

 

 

Perhaps your definition or understanding of Ex Nihilo creation is different than mine.

 

My understanding is that God is a single substance/Being , the ONLY substance/Being that is eternal.  This substance/Being which is the ONLY uncreated substance/Being brought into existence, from "nothing" (or from the substance/Being's own mind), every other thing or creature.

 

I don't see how you think that my claim above is not substantiated unless you understand Ex Nihilo differently.  In fact, I don't think you are truly arguing from an Ex Nihilo position or you don't understand it. 

 

You said, "Perhaps [God] allowed evolution or directed it for example, for teaching purposes or because [God] wanted to comply with other natural laws he did not generate. Or perhaps he decided to create some new natural laws. Or perhaps, perhaps perhaps. Perhaps he lets the universe run pretty much on its own and yet creates "miracles" as he sees fit. Perhaps he doesn't do any of that. Perhaps he makes every decision about every sparrow falling from its nest, as is implied in the gospels. Perhaps he delegates that to angels. Perhaps sparrows falling are part of natural law which he observes and knows but decides not to interfere.

 

The very fact that you say this shows that you are not representative of Ex Nihilo theology, as you are not consistently presenting its positions.

 

(Note: You mentioned Thomas Aquinas earlier in passing, but curiously you don't go there, but instead point to David Hume rather than Aquinas.  I find this rather odd, for someone trying to argue on behalf of Ex Nihilo... and then you make snide remarks as if I am the one who needs to read up on these subjects.    ?   Ex Nihilists like William Lane Craig specifically denounce David Hume's views and say Hume was wrong, because they say that The Big Bang Theory proves Hume wrong, believing that the Big Bang was Ex Nihilo.)

 

 

Oh and it is not my fault that Ostler argues against Hume. I vote for Hume any day.

 

 

I missed the part where you explained how Ostler and Hume are in disagreement. 

 

I also missed the part where you explained exactly why Ostler is wrong (or Hausam).  Again, yelling "Baloney!" is not a reasoned response with any convincing perspective on the issues.

 

I linked to Hume. If you do not understand it, let me summarize.

"Causes" cannot be defined. What is the cause of your existence? ...

 

Well, In Ex Nihilo creation, the cause of my existence would definitely be God.

 

This isn't just me saying that.  Just ask anybody who believes in Ex Nihilo and I am sure that they will tell you the same.

 

 

Read Hume on causation

Causes are undefinable. In a sense they don't exist. This is fundamental philosophy- Hume on causation. This is not new stuff.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/

Gotta go

 

 

mfbukowski,

 

I am very familiar with Hume, and I find it ironic that you try to use him ... as if his work is somehow an effective argument in your favor for Ex Nihilo in this discussion.

 

Hume's arguments fit far better within LDS theology than they fit within Ex Nihilo creation theology.  That is why you, when I asked, could not specify which arguments by Hume counter anything I have said here concerning the problems with Ex Nihilo creation.  Again, you tried to do what you falsely accused me of doing, ... you tried to argue from Hume's authority.

 

In his, Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, David Hume asked,  "How can anything, that exists from eternity, have a cause, since that relation implies a priority in time and a beginning of existence?"

(emphasis added)

 

It is Hume that argues my case for me, and it is the same explanation I give to Spammer in the next post.  It is our "eternal will" within us that simply exists, and therefore has no cause.

 

 

-Stephen

 

 

(P.S.  Please don't accuse me of not reading and responding to your posts.  I have read and responded to each point or question you made.  Go back through this thread, and perhaps you will see that you may have missed something... Indeed, you will find that it was YOU who did not read and properly respond to MY posts, my points and my questions.)

Edited October 24, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[stephenpurdy]

Stephen, your first argument is that

 

1) in ex nihilo God created our characteristics out of nothing;

 

2) our choices are the results of those characteristics (motivations, desires, loves, values, priorites, beliefs, etc.);

 

3) so God is responsible for those choices since he created the characteristics that produced them.

 

4) Therefore, God determined our choices.

 

How do you escape the determinism entailed in 2) if our characteristics are uncreated?  You can't.

 

Whether the dice are created out of nothing or are eternally self-existent, what they are is what they are and in both scenarios they are determined by their characteristics.  If created, they're created be be what they are.  If uncreated, they just so happen to be what they are.  Both have characteristics and the characteristics are determining.  "The characteristics of an individual or their motivations, desires, essence, nature or anything about them that makes up who or what they are" is that which chooses.  Whether created or uncreated, our characteristics are what we are.  That's your argument, but you inconsistenly only apply it to created characteristics.  You inexplicably privilege uncreated characteristics and grant them without explanation the property of magically not determining who and what we are (that which chooses).  But this is inconsistent. Characteristics are characteristics are characteristics and they make up what we are.  Free will therefore doesn't exist. Your argument only demonstrates a proof for that conclusion.

 

The uncreated WILL that is the core of our being is eternal in LDS theology.  There is nothing like what mfbukowski was referring to.  What came first the chicken or the egg?  Neither.  The will of an individual is just as eternal as God is. There is no beginning to this CORE of someone and is therefore truly self-existent, self-originated and self-determined.

 

On the other hand, in Ex Nihilo creation, it is God who creates it, and there IS a definite beginning to the creature in an ultimate sense, which is entirely created, designed, and caused by God.

 

Again, to argue that LDS theology does not allow for free will, would be the same as arguing that God has no free will (and therefore God does not truly love us).

 

 

-Stephen

Edited October 24, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[stephenpurdy]

Stephen wrote:  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?

 

Who knows? Ask God. I'll give you the traditional Catholic answer. God is infinite love. Infinite love is infinitely overflowing and outpouring. God, needing nothing, created physical beings whom God could love and created them with the necessary characteristics whereby they could love both God and one another, ....

 

Spammer,

 

I did ask God, and the answer is that God was not in the position to create "from nothing"  Or to create "any kind of being that was logically possible".  These problems exist with the assumption of Ex Nihilo creation, which is an assumption that I find to be irreconcilable with the world we live in.

 

 

 Love entails voluntary self-sacrifice on behalf of the beloved, the ability to choose to put the other first. That requires free will. A creature created to be loving removes the ability for the creature to choose to love and involuntary love is not love. Thus, for love to exist, free will must exist and for free will to be free, a person with free will must be free to choose to not love (to choose evil).

 

I agree, but here is the interesting problem about ex nihilo, and this is the FIRST argument being made by me in this discussion:

 

Logically, God could have created billions of people who always freely choose to do exactly what God knew they would choose. This is the part of the compatibilism that mkbukowski always references (which is absolutely correct!... but does not take ex nihilo into consideration)  But here is the thing, even within this assumption, whereby the GOD-created qualities we have supposedly do NOT influece our choices, God still had the option of creating creatures who are BOTH free, AND always freely choose to do good.  You admitted this logical reasoning yourself:

 

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.

 

Therefore, there is an infinite number of "possible persons" that God could create who would fill any position in the world and responding to any given circumstance, and God could choose to create the "combinations" that God wants to exist, which would then freely do God's will.  An omniscient and omnipotent God creating from nothing would be in the position to create people who truly and freely love and truly and freely choose to do good all the time.  Let's break it down one more time:

 

If "2" represents freely choosing the correct choice, and every other number represents freely choosing to sin, then God could choose to create the person who chooses "2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2" just as easily as God could choose to create the person who chooses "3, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3, 1".    Both of these individuals had the true freedom in their choices!  Based on these assumptions, God could have logically created people who truly choose, truly have free will, truly love, and truly always made the correct choice ... who would have chosen to follow Jesus, or, for all practical purposes a world of Jesus-like people.

 

 

-Stephen

 

(Again, this is true EVEN IF we assume that our created nature does not influence our choices.  Now, according to the scriptures, the "natural man" refers to our "sinful nature" and there is a huge problem, I believe, with saying that none of our created characteristics influence our choices, but let's just stick with the FIRST argument for now).

Edited October 24, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[stephenpurdy]

I gave you the rep point because I agree with you it is manifestly obvious that we do indeed have freedom of choice, regardless of how we came to be. Only those folks who have their heads too high up in the stratosphere find themselves struggling with such things, things even little children understand and know to be true.

 

 

Yes, we ALL agree that we have free will.  Compatibilists believe that we have free will, and so to libertarians.  The REAL issue is whether or not the theology we believe in explains the world we live in.  If you do not have a reasonable theodicy, then why would any non-believer give you the time of day?

 

The frustrating thing about mfbukowski here, is that he posts something like this about compatibilism,  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#ComAboFreDoOth

 

Um ... yeah...

 

that isn't the issue being discussed.  Ex Nihilo is the issue, and compatibilism isn't addressing the specific problems that I have raised here, which arise directly from the whole "omniscient and omnipotent God creating from nothing" doctrine.

 

-Stephen

[mfbukowski]

Stephen wrote:  "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, ..."

 

Perhaps your definition or understanding of Ex Nihilo creation is different than mine.

 

My understanding is that God is a single substance/Being , the ONLY substance/Being that is eternal.  This substance Being created, from nothing, every other thing or creature into existence.

 

I don't see how you think that my claim above is not substantiated unless you understand Ex Nihilo differently.

 

 

Well, In Ex Nihilo creation, the cause of my existence would definitely be God.

 

This isn't just me saying that.  Just ask anybody who believes in Ex Nihilo and I am sure that they will tell you the same.

 

 

 

 

mfbukowski,

 

I am very familiar with Hume, and I find it ironic that you try to use him ... as if his work is somehow an effective argument in your favor for this discussion.

 

Hume's arguments fit far better within LDS theology than they fit within Ex Nihilo creation theology.  That is why you, when I asked, could not specify which arguments by Hume counter anything I have said here concerning the problems with Ex Nihilo creation.

 

In his, Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, David Hume asked,  "How can anything, that exists from eternity, have a cause, since that relation implies a priority in time and a beginning of existence?"

 

It is Hume that argues my case for me.  It is that "eternal will" within us that simply exists, and therefore has no cause.

 

-Stephen

I am essentially a postmodernist.

 

You believe in medieval philosophy.  We are about a thousand years apart.

 

LDS doctrine specifically rejects the Creedal notion that God is any kind of "substance"

 

There is no possibility that we will understand each other's arguments.

 

I wish you well.  Now that you have stated your positions I know we have nothing to discuss that will make sense to either of us.  Have a good evening.

Edited October 24, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

If "2" represents freely choosing the correct choice, and every other number represents freely choosing to sin, then God could choose to create the person who chooses "2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2" just as easily as God could choose to create the person who chooses "3, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3, 1".    Both of these individuals had the true freedom in their choices! 

 

Nonsense. Neither individual is free unless they have a choice and if they're created to only choose "2" they don't have a choice and are therefore not free.  Attach the label "freely choosing" to the number "2" all you like, you're still positing the creation of a person whose "free will" is predetermined to select just one outcome.  Your approach erases the distinction between determinism and free will and you're playing this word game because your commitment to refuting ex nihilo requires it.

 

These are just word games and semantics.  I maintain that determinism and free will are distinct conceptually.  We're using different definitions.  We therefore have different presuppositions.  There is no possible way we will ever make any progress.  This is a waste of time.  I'm out.  Have a great day.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Spammer

[stephenpurdy]

Nonsense. Neither individual is free unless they have a choice and if they're created to only choose "2" they don't have a choice and are therefore not free.  Attach the label "freely choosing" to the number "2" all you like, you're still positing the creation of a person whose "free will" is predetermined to select just one outcome.  ...

 

For starters, you just need to read some on combatibilism, you will see that what I said here is correct.  This is what mfbukowski was referring to when he says that determinism and free will are combatible.  However, the problem is that Ex Nihilo and free will are NOT compatible.  

 

So ... Which assumption do you reject?

 

Do you reject that God creates "from nothing" (ex Nihilo)?

 

Do you reject that God is omniscient (or omnipotent)?

 

 

 

 

These are just word games and semantics.  I maintain that determinism and free will are distinct conceptually.  We're using different definitions.  We therefore have different presuppositions.  There is no possible way we will ever make any progress.  This is a waste of time.  I'm out.  Have a great day.

 

 

If you want to believe that the outcomes are not determined by God, then you have to reject one of your assumptions.  If you think it is a matter of "definitions" then just tell me how you want to define the terms, but as you will see, the logic and the concepts remain the same.

 

Or perhaps you accept "Universal Salvation" in order to try to save the theodicy (this is what many people have turned to, but it is just as unBiblical as ex nihilo is).

 

-stephen