Could God create someone like Himself?

[Winman]

I do not believe God can create absolute perfection, because absolute perfection belongs to God himself.

One thing that has puzzled me is that in the New Jerusalem, the leaves of the tree of life are for the healing of the nations.

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

So, perhaps heaven is not quite what we imagine. Perhaps we will have to eat of the tree of life and make medicine from the leaves to counter aging and injury.

Can a person make a mistake in heaven? John seemed to;

Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Rev 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

John twice made the mistake in heaven of worshiping either a man or angel, and was corrected. So it seems folks can make mistakes in heaven. Perhaps we will be able to physically injure ourselves as well.

That said, scripture says our spirit is joined to the Holy Spirit when we are saved;

1 Cor 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

We are partakers of the divine nature;

2 Pet 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

We now partake or share in the divine nature. We are still in bodies of flesh that tempt us to sin, but after the resurrection we will have incorruptible bodies that will not tempt us, so perhaps we will never sin.

Just have to wait till we get there.

 

[Skandelon]

No one who ever walked the face of the earth or will can our could address this.

Yet you are...

The danger of absurd discussions like this is that unnecessary and false doctrines arise out of them.

It's absurd to discuss whether we believe God has the ability to create people with the power to make "free" choices? I'll be sure to pass that on to the host of theologians throughout all of history who have discussed and wrote about such matters. Glad you are here to set us all straight.

Even "discussions" have repercussions. It is always in error to try to go beyond what scripture reveals.

Scripture does reveal that we are created in his image. It reveals we are held responsible and that we make choices that for which we are held accountable. It speaks of God's divine intervention in the lives of men. It speaks of his hardening men's hearts, and his appealing for their wills to be changed. All of these are issues introduced to us in the scriptures and to which we must seek to better understand. There is nothing absurd about that.

What's absurd is riding on a high horse into a forum created for the purpose of discussing such matters and calling people 'puffed up' and their thoughts stupid. I beseech you to stop such immature behavior or leave the forum. Thank you.

 

[Winman]

Yet you are...

It's absurd to discuss whether we believe God has the ability to create people with the power to make "free" choices? I'll be sure to pass that on to the host of theologians throughout all of history who have discussed and wrote about such matters. Glad you are here to set us all straight.

Scripture does reveal that we are created in his image. It reveals we are held responsible and that we make choices that for which we are held accountable. It speaks of God's divine intervention in the lives of men. It speaks of his hardening men's hearts, and his appealing for their wills to be changed. All of these are issues introduced to us in the scriptures and to which we must seek to better understand. There is nothing absurd about that.

What's absurd is riding on a high horse into a forum created for the purpose of discussing such matters and calling people 'puffed up' and their thoughts stupid. I beseech you to stop such immature behavior or leave the forum. Thank you.

How can anyone deny free will when God himself said men have free will?

Lev 1:1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.
4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

Why is this even a question? God himself said if ANY MAN among the Jews were to bring an offering to the LORD, that he was to bring it of HIS OWN VOLUNTARY WILL.

Now, that settles it for me. God himself said any man has free will.

And note that God said this offering shall be ACCEPTED TO MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HIM.

So much for total inability. :laugh:

 

[Luke2427]

What kind of logic are you referring to? Syllogistic logic, Propositional logic, Predicate logic, Modal logic, Informal reasoning, Mathematical logic,Philosophical logic, Computational logic, or what? And what is the logical formulation which necessitates the impossibility of an infinite, omniscient Divine Being forming a creature with the ability to make choices that the Divine has not determined?

The fundamental laws of logic also known as the laws of thought.

I'll wait with great expectation to hear your response...


Love, Logic and Holiness as defined by Plato, Socrates or Webster? Or by Luke?

By necessity.

For example, If God can both do something and NOT do that something at the same time and in the same sense then nothing anybody ever says about anything matters at all.

It is the fact that God is logical that enables us to reason AT ALL.

If things can be and not be at the same time and in the same sense then anything that we can say about those things is meaningless.

God's promises are meaningless if the fundamental laws of logic do not apply.

God can promise something and do it and not do it at the same time in the same sense.

Nothing is at all meaningful, nothing is at all reasonable if the laws of logic do not apply.

 

[Luke2427]

No one who ever walked the face of the earth or will can our could address this.

Sure they can. They do it all the time. These discussions are fundamental to our understanding of anything.

God cannot create God. There are attributes of God which are his and his alone.

Theologians call these attributes the "incommunicable attributes."

I suppose every theologian in the history of the WORLD has addressed these things- as they SHOULD.

 

[percho]

Did anyone read post 10.

I think all need to go back and read the what is man text in Heb 2.

Just what is God doing through his Son Jesus Christ relative to men?

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Matt 19:26

John 3:7

What about John 17? Are we going to be one with him as Jesus is one whit him or not?

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. V21

 

[Skandelon]

The fundamental laws of logic also known as the laws of thought.

That is not even close to addressing my question...

You do know there are different views of logic and reason, right? Surely you don't believe that your form and application of logic is the only one that exists, do you? You act as if proving that logic is necessary and that God is logic that somehow proves you're view is right.

Question beg much?



I'll leave you with the question that you failed to address: Can you provide a definition or explanation of LOGIC which necessitates the impossibility of an infinite, omniscient Divine Being forming a creature with the ability to make choices that the Divine has not determined?

I'm still waiting....

 

[Luke2427]

That is not even close to addressing my question...

You do know there are different views of logic and reason, right? Surely you don't believe that your form and application of logic is the only one that exists, do you? You act as if proving that logic is necessary and that God is logic that somehow proves you're view is right.

I know that ALL LOGIC depends upon the fundamental laws of logic.

I know that discussing anything outside the bounds of those laws is utterly useless.

And yes, I know about the various forms of logic.

Question beg much?

And, as I predicted, almost on cue... you get snotty.

 

[OldRegular]

No He wouldn't for God (existing in Trinity) is an uncreated being. If God created another being "like" Him it wouldn't be "like" His since it would be created.

That's all folks.

Remarkably insightful response!

 

[Skandelon]

I know that ALL LOGIC depends upon the fundamental laws of logic.

I know that discussing anything outside the bounds of those laws is utterly useless.

And yes, I know about the various forms of logic.

And yet you once again avoid the question I clearly asked several times, proving once again that the strength of one's argument is not typically revealed in the part that he opponent addresses, but in the part that he ignores.

I'll restate it: "Can you provide a definition or explanation of LOGIC which necessitates the impossibility of an infinite, omniscient Divine Being forming a creature with the ability to make choices that the Divine has not determined?"

I'm still waiting....

And, as I predicted, almost on cue... you get snotty.

I thought is was an easy way of pointing out your continued use of a debate fallacy, sorry if I offended you, but to presume that your application of logic (which you have yet to reveal) necessitates the inability of an omnipotent being to create contra-causally free creatures is question begging at its very worse.

 

[Luke2427]

And yet you once again avoid the question I clearly asked several times, proving once again that the strength of one's argument is not typically revealed in the part that he opponent addresses, but in the part that he ignores.

I'll restate it: "Can you provide a definition or explanation of LOGIC which necessitates the impossibility of an infinite, omniscient Divine Being forming a creature with the ability to make choices that the Divine has not determined?"

I'm still waiting....

I thought is was an easy way of pointing out your continued use of a debate fallacy, sorry if I offended you, but to presume that your application of logic (which you have yet to reveal) necessitates the inability of an omnipotent being to create contra-causally free creatures is question begging at its very worse.

If you'll notice, since the OP, for three pages, all you have done is ask questions.

Make assertions every once in a while so we can interrogate your position.

Answering questions for three pages is wearisome for anybody.

But here goes one more time...

The Law of Identity

God cannot be the only being in the universe whose actions are uncaused and NOT be the only being in the universe whose actions are uncaused.

A completely dependent being cannot be independent.

There you go.

Now, explain to us how a created being that is totally dependent on the forces that make everything about him and sustain everything about him all the time can "cause his own decisions."

Explain to us how that works.

I'll be waiting with baited breath...

 

[Skandelon]

The Law of Identity

For those reading along here is a summary of this law:

In logic, the law of identity is the first of the three classical laws of thought. It states that: “each thing is the same with itself and different from another”: “A is A and not ~A”. By this it is meant that each thing (be it a universal or a particular) is composed of its own unique set of characteristic qualities or features, which the ancient Greeks called its essence. Consequently, things that have the same essence are the same thing, while things that have different essences are different things.[1] In its symbolic representation“A is A”), the first element of the proposition represents the subject (thing) and the second element, the predicate (its essence), with the copula “is” signifying the relation of “identity”.[2] Further, since a definition is an expression of the essence of that thing with which the linguistic term is associated, it follows that it is through its definition that the identity of a thing is established.[3] For example, in the definitive proposition:[4]"A lawyer is a person qualified and authorized to practice law", the subject (lawyer) and the predicate (person qualified and authorized to practice law) are declared to be one and the same thing (identical). Consequently, the Law of Identity prohibits us from rightfully calling anything other than "a person qualified and authorized to practice law" a "lawyer".
In logical discourse, violations of the Law of Identity (LOI) result in the informal logical fallacy known as equivocation.[5] That is to say, we cannot use the same term in the same discourse while having it signify difference senses or meanings – even though the different meanings are conventionally prescribed to that term. In everyday language, violations of the LOI introduce ambiguity into the discourse, making it difficult to form an interpretation at the desired level of specificity.

Now, can you put 2 and 2 together to show us how this law necessitates the impossibility of an infinite, omniscient Divine Being forming a creature with the ability to make choices that the Divine has not determined? Are you attempting to imply that in my view is 'equivocation?' If so, how so?

If you don't wish to explain it, then link to a scholar who developed this logical proof...or is this one original with you?

God cannot be the only being in the universe whose actions are uncaused and NOT be the only being in the universe whose actions are uncaused.

Huh?

Who believes that God's actions are uncaused? We both agree that God is the cause of His actions. What are you trying to say?

A completely dependent being cannot be independent.

Aren't you just presuming your position by presuming creatures must have been created to be dependent?

Now, explain to us how a created being that is totally dependent

That's your presumption...thus the question begging charge from before...

Question begging is when you presume true the very point up for debate. The point up for debate is whether or not God could create creatures which are not 'dependent' (as you are now putting it) on their creator to determine their choices.

 

[Luke2427]

For those reading along here is a summary of this law:



Now, can you put 2 and 2 together to show us how this law necessitates the impossibility of an infinite, omniscient Divine Being forming a creature with the ability to make choices that the Divine has not determined? Are you attempting to imply that in my view is 'equivocation?'

Precisely.

If so, how so?

God's ability to make decisions or do ANYTHING independent upon anything but himself is an INCOMMUNICABLE ATTRIBUTE OF GOD.

It is, in a way, THE incommunicable attribute of God.

It is the essence of his identifying himself as "I am".

"I am of my own self. I do what I do based on myself. I depend on nothing or no one to guide me or enable me in any way to do what I do. I am self-existing. That is what I am that no one else is. This very attribute is how you know I am God."

It is the foundation of the very NAME of God.

Huh?

Who believes that God's actions are uncaused? We both agree that God is the cause of His actions. What are you trying to say?

A cannot be A and not be A.

God cannot BE the only being who is himself uncaused, whose actions are uncaused by anything outside of himself (independency) and NOT be the only being who is those things.

The Law of Identity

Aren't you just presuming your position by presuming creatures must have been created to be dependent?

Not created TO BE...

Created DEPENDENT.

Creatures are dependent upon something outside of themselves for their very existence.

The only being who is totally independent in any way is named Jehovah.

That's your presumption...thus the question begging charge from before...

It is no more my presumption that created beings are dependent being and that God alone is truly independent than it is my presumption that created beings are not almighty beings and God alone is truly almighty.

For WHAT, Skandelon, does man NOT depend upon God?

Name one thing that he does not depend upon God for.

Now, when you name that thing, explain how it came to be and why it is not like everything else in the universe which looks completely to God for its constant sustaining and existence.

 

[Luke2427]

Now, explain to us how a created being that is totally dependent on the forces that make everything about him and sustain everything about him all the time can "cause his own decisions."

Explain to us how that works.

I'll be waiting with baited breath...

Still waiting....

 

[Skandelon]

Precisely.

I asked 'how so' and that is what you ignored, proving that you either don't know because just making stuff up, or you're not interested in actually engaging me in a debate. If you commit a fallacy, like you did in the last post and continue to do, I point it out and explain exactly why its a fallacy. For example, you once again reposted your fallacious question, which presumes the very point up for debate, and expect me to answer it. You can't answer a question begging fallacy except by calling it a fallacy. It's like trying the answer that age old question, "When did you stop beating your wife." The question presumes true something you believe to be untrue, just as your question does.

Again, do you understand this fallacy, Luke? Do I need to explain it again?

Now, can you treat me with the same respect and actually explain how I have committed the fallacy of equivocation?

I'll wait...

 

[Rippon]

No He wouldn't for God (existing in Trinity) is an uncreated being. If God created another being "like" Him it wouldn't be "like" His since it would be created.

That's all folks.

Yep,Skan's OP is a non-starter on that basis alone.

 

[Rippon]

These kind of discussions are nothing more than a practice in absurdity coming from people trying to speak far above their pay grade... discussions like this only serve, I repeat only serve, to puff up those who like to think they have more intellectual prowess than they actually do. This is nothing more than a practice in vanity and is just plain stupid.

I agree with everything RM said above. And that's saying something since we differ on so much.

 

[Rippon]

The OP is an absurd question and its answers) and follows the lines of disobedience to 2 Timothy 2:23 and the results of disobeying it.



1 Cor. 13:11 is in order here.

In full agreement with you here.

 

[Skandelon]

God's ability to make decisions or do ANYTHING independent upon anything but himself is an INCOMMUNICABLE ATTRIBUTE OF GOD.

Where are you getting this? Is it just something you think must be true because you can't imagine it otherwise? Or is there a particular verse which teaches that God really makes every decision ever made and we are merely reactionary creatures doing as we were predetermined to do by God?

God cannot BE the only being who is himself uncaused, whose actions are uncaused by anything outside of himself (independency) and NOT be the only being who is those things.

The Law of Identity

Ok, let's unpack this one.

We agree that God's EXISTENCE is uncaused...a mysterious and some would argue 'illogical' perspective based on some of the same 'laws' you are relying upon, mind you, but that is another topic...

We agree that our EXISTENCE is caused by God.

Thus, we would agree that God is the only uncaused existent being. However that is different from saying "he must be the only being whose actions are uncaused by anything outside of himself." That is, once again, something you are just presuming...question begging. One can dependent on a creator for his existence without necessarily be depending upon his creator for making decisions, especially if you accept the possibility that the creator made the agent to have that ability....'response-ability'

Creatures are dependent upon something outside of themselves for their very existence.

agreed, but how does that translate into God being unable to create us to exist as independent choice makers?

For WHAT, Skandelon, does man NOT depend upon God?

For deciding to rape, kill, and eat children, maybe? Or maybe you believe people do depend on God to make that decision in your worldview.....and that is one of the many reasons I reject your deterministic view so VEHEMENTLY!

 

[Luke2427]

I asked 'how so' and that is what you ignored,

Reread it. The words UNDER the quote wherein you said "how so" are the answer to the query in the quote.

proving that you either don't know because just making stuff up, or you're not interested in actually engaging me in a debate. If you commit a fallacy, like you did in the last post and continue to do, I point it out and explain exactly why its a fallacy. For example, you once again reposted your fallacious question, which presumes the very point up for debate, and expect me to answer it. You can't answer a question begging fallacy except by calling it a fallacy.

The will makes decisions based on what parts of the self?

The desires- where'd they come from?

The intelligence? How was it developed?

If the the reasons the will chose what it chose were not part of the will itself then the will was not independent when it chose what it chose.

It's like trying the answer that age old question, "When did you stop beating your wife." The question presumes true something you believe to be untrue, just as your question does.

I am very well aware of what "question begging" is.

I am not just begging the question concerning the dependence of the will- I am demonstrating how the dependence of the will is obvious.