Lds View Of Godhead / Trinity

[stephenpurdy]

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"

 

 

Just to be clear.  In that post, I was presenting the "Creedal" point of view, the view of those who proclaim Ex Nihilo creation theology. 

 

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 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.

 

Again, this is NOT the LDS view or my view.  This is the view that I am arguing against.

 

-stephen

[mfbukowski]

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.  

 

I still do not know what you are arguing and please do not send me to your video. 

 

What "compatibilism" did you have in mind?  What references do you have to this type of compatibilism as opposed to the type I referenced?

 

I am trying to decide if there is something here I have totally missed, and would like to learn if there is.

 

Also if you use colored inks and those colored portions are supposed to indicate something about the argument, please state what the colors are supposed to represent, like perhaps "Blue means I am quoting someone else's position which I do not hold"

 

Is this essentially your argument?:

 

Ex nihilo says that God controls every aspect of personality

If God controls every aspect of personality, we are not free

Therefore

If ex nihilo is the case, we are not free.

 

Christians must have free choice or they do not have moral responsibility

If they do not have moral responsibility God cannot justly sending them to heaven or hell.

Therefore

Ex nihilo is incompatible with Christianity.

 

I am not going to argue with you- we are too far apart to discuss it.  I just would like to see a clear explication of your central argument in a format like the one I am suggesting without cubes and lists of numbers.

 

I just want to know your argument without having to listen to videos and still try to diagram your argument.    I am trying to see how your argument differs from others I have seen

 

It would also be helpful if perhaps you used my model argument above and pointed out the difference between my sample argument and your argument.

Edited October 27, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Just to be clear.  In that post, I was presenting the "Creedal" point of view, the view of those who proclaim Ex Nihilo creation theology. 

 

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 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.

 

Again, this is NOT the LDS view or my view.  This is the view that I am arguing against.

 

-stephen

When you say this

 

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, ..."

 

It sounds like this is your position

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.

 

Since you say that his is "your understanding" I presume it IS YOUR understanding

 

Can you see how unclear this is?

 

I have no clue what YOUR argument is, and would like to see it explicated clearly.  I am sorry I am being so dense about this

 

Please do not reference your video.  Sorry to be so demanding.  Just tell me to go away and I will gladly do so

 

I am simply trying to see if there is something here I am missing

[stephenpurdy]

***Note:  Concerning colored ink.  Blue is used when I am copying and pasting something that I said in a previous post.  Red is usually scripture, or something God says.  (Sometimes I use green to quote scholars).  Sorry if I swayed from this, I will try to be more consistent in the future. 

 

And before I continue, I would like to say that the end game here is Theodicy, isn't it? That is what critics of religion have used to successfully damage belief in God.   How can we explain God and creation and the world we live in?  Why is there Evil and suffering and flawed creatures in existence?

 

Believers say that evil and suffering exist because of "free will"?  However, giving "free will" as an explanation is thwarted by a belief in Ex Nihilo, simply because creation "out of nothing" has logical implications which do not make sense if God is omniscient, benevolent and omnipotent.

 

 

 

What "compatibilism" did you have in mind?  What references do you have to this type of compatibilism as opposed to the type I referenced?

 

 

Let's compare the two types of compatibilism in the example we have already looked at.  I apologize for using the cubes, but there is a very specific reason for it, and I noted it in the last part of this post.  For now, just translate the different numbers as "free will choices of an individual". 

 

Stephen wrote: 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. 

 

Then we agreed that there was a "possible cube" that would randomly/freely roll 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2.   Let's say that 2 represents the best possible choice.  God could create that cube if God wants to, and logically could create it over and over and over, since God has an infinite set of "possible cubes" that God could potentially create from nothing.  Again, God determines the outcome of the combination, but each roll is still "free" or "random".  This is compatibilism and it is one of the reasons why Hausam is a Calvinist.  Calvinism makes perfect sense if you believe in Ex Nihilo. 

 

Interestingly enough, one problem is that when God determines outcomes in this manner, then the Created Universe is exactly what God created it to be, and in a way, an extension of God's own mind and God's own will.  There is no "combination" that comes into existence that was not willed into existence by God.  This is essentially PanEntheism, and is the first argument I have been describing in these threads of conversation.

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

On the other hand, let's say that God is NOT creating the cubes from nothing, but instead each cube (or free will) already exists and has existed from eternity.  Even if God has foreknowledge of what the combination will be, God cannot determine outcomes.  Therefore, God's foreknowledge is compatible with the free will choices, however, in this scenario the choices are not determined by God.  This is more along the lines of one of the LDS points of view.

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

Those are the two types of compatibilism that I had discussed, the Ex Nihilo view and a view more consistent with my LDS theology (although you will find other views in LDS theology as well). 

 

But, again, we have a problem if God decides to create a cube that God knows will roll too many odd numbers ... something that God does not want, and which ... would lead to that individual going to hell for eternity.  Sure, you can blame the individual for the choices made, but God could have avoided the problem in the first place by refraining from creating that individual to begin with, and the "righteous" cube that God created and subsequently rolled 2,2,2,2,2,2,2 was no less free when God decides not to create the other "wicked" cube.  In other words, God could have decided to create ONLY the "righteous" people that God knew before hand would freely choose to go to Heaven.  The funny thing is that once people "get it" and understand this argument, ... do they reject ex nihilo?  No, they usually start to cut in on God's omniscience or something like that.  Calvinists just accept it and say we are in no position to judge God for doing something that we think is wrong (they try to quote "God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts".  Others go on and accept Universal Salvation (everyone eventually will be saved, because God would never knowingly create a being who He knows would suffer miserably for eternity).

 

Is this essentially your argument?:

 

Ex nihilo says that God controls every aspect of personality

If God controls every aspect of personality, we are not free

Therefore

If ex nihilo is the case, we are not free.

 

Christians must have free choice or they do not have moral responsibility

If they do not have moral responsibility God cannot justly sending them to heaven or hell.

Therefore

Ex nihilo is incompatible with Christianity.

 

What you said here is more or less the second argument.  But like I said, you don't have to label it as "personality".  It is EVERYTHING about a person.  This is another problem with Ex Nihilo creation theology.

 

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, ..."  

 

This is the argument that was explained in other words by Hausam and Ostler.

 

Mark Hausam: "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."

 

 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."

 

Again, this is not an argument from authority.  They are just saying the same thing that I have been explaining with the second argument.

 

 

I just want to know your argument without having to listen to videos and still try to diagram your argument.    I am trying to see how your argument differs from others I have seen

 

It would also be helpful if perhaps you used my model argument above and pointed out the difference between my sample argument and your argument.

 

Just keep in mind that there are two steps to the case I have made here, the first argument and the second argument.

 

The first argument is valid EVEN IF our choices have nothing to do with our "created characteristics" (i.e. even if they were practically random like dice). 

 

However, trying to argue that what we choose has nothing to do with who or what we are is rather difficult, don't you think?  If every single aspect of our being was created from God's own mind, and if our nature and being was entirely designed by God "from nothing", then how could God possibly divorce himself from the responsibility of the "choices" that we make as a result of who God created us to be?

 

Both arguments together are a powerful case saying that the "God of the Creeds" , which describe an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God who creates Ex Nihilo, does not adequately explain why we exist in the kind of world we live in.  You cannot reconcile a "good God" with the Theodicy that you get stuck with in that theology.

 

-Stephen

Edited October 29, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[stephenpurdy]

Stephen wrote:  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.

 

When you say this

It sounds like this is your position

Since you say that his is "your understanding" I presume it IS YOUR understanding

 

Can you see how unclear this is?

 

 

I see what you are saying if you just isolate this part of one post.  But I was telling you what "my understanding" of Ex Nihilo creation theology is.  There is a doctrine that dominates in monotheistic religions.  It is called "Ex Nihilo".   I was not saying that I believe in Ex Nihilo, but I was explaining my understanding of that doctrine as it is taught in those religions.  Clearly, my religion (LDS), does not accept that doctrine.

 

After all of this conversation, if you think that I believe in "creation out of nothing", then you really have not understood a single post that I have written.  I have been railing against Ex Nihilo this entire time.

 

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, ..."

(emphasis added)

 

When you say this

It sounds like this is your position

 

Again, I was describing "that theology", the theology of Ex Nihilo.  I was describing the theology of "creation from nothing" which has so many philosophical and theological problems.

 

-Stephen

[Bomgeography]

I think the trinity is false

[Vance]

This thread has been on my mind for a while now and just this week these verses were brought to my attention.

 

Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

 

Isa 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

[stephenpurdy]

This thread has been on my mind for a while now and just this week these verses were brought to my attention.

 

Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

 

Isa 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

 

The clay / vessel is the body.  (the Book of Mormon calls it the "tabernacle of clay").  God has placed a spirit in each vessel. Some will become "vessels of honour" and some "vessels of wrath/dishonour". 

 

 

LDS do not deny the fact that God created the physical Universe, including our physical bodies. 

 

Furthermore, LDS believe that the spirit of each individual was also created by God, however, even the spirit of each individual was not created "Ex Nihilo" (out of nothing).

 

-Stephen