-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Could God create someone like Himself?
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
- Status
Could the Lord stop all rapists and murders from doing what they desired?
Not right now, as He has decreed that for a reason adn a limite dtime, evil and sinn still allowed on His earth...
So what would you have Him to do Skan, eliminate ALL will from Humanity, and make us the robots you claim calvinism creates?
You seem to want free will, but also want to have God the culprit.at fault when sinners start exercising the amount God still grants them to have!
Not right now, as He has decreed that for a reason adn a limite dtime, evil and sinn still allowed on His earth...
So what would you have Him to do Skan, eliminate ALL will from Humanity, and make us the robots you claim calvinism creates?
You seem to want free will, but also want to have God the culprit.at fault when sinners start exercising the amount God still grants them to have!
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Yes, just like he could have stopped Satan from existing, or chose not to make the rule about not eating a fruit in the garden. No one denies that God didn't have to allow freedom of choice or evil actions.
As for the rest of your post, you will need to explain because I didn't understand it.
And what would that reason be? To allow for free will in truth! All of God's ways are judgment in "truth". (Deut 32:4)
You seem to be trying to have free will both ways, true and not true so that it can fit into the Calvinist systematic ways. what you saying that God is responsible for sin and He is not responsible for sin - I see no truth in such a statement! But God is a Truth that must be maintained in one's reasoning or by his reasoning he has no real truth. Think about that! :laugh:
You missed the point. Contingency is what science depends upon. It is what all the knowledge of all time, space and matter and all things with a beginning requires.
You can have no knowledge of anything with a beginning if you don't grant the laws of cause and effect and contingency.
You have drug this on and on and on but the FACT of the matter is that everybody on this board knows that you make decisions based on desires and circumstances that you did not create and that you do not sustain.
Everybody on this board knows that independency is an incommunicable attribute of God and that no other being, no other thing- including and ESPECIALLY yourSELF could ever obtain it.
I have talked to several people who are following this debate and they all acknowledge and affirm something that I suspected to be the case before I talked to them.
You are whipped. Not because I am some great debater, but because you are at the end of your ability to debate this matter- because you are wrong.
You are LITERALLY tossing in the crapper the incommunicable attributes of God- not only so, but the PREMIER incommunicable attribute. And you are doing it so you can defend a man-exalting theology.
The will is contingent just like everything ELSE that is not God- and everybody KNOWS IT.
EVERYBODY KNOWS IT.
EVERYBODY KNOWS IT.
The will cannot say, "I Am that I Am," so it is not independent.
The SELF cannot say, "I Am that I Am," so it is not independent.
EVERYTHING is dependent but God. EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING.
I'm not even sure you can be a CHRISTIAN and deny that- honestly.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Luke, sometimes you just crack me up. You were just proven to not even know what the Question Begging fallacy actually is and ironies of all ironies you turn it into one of the biggest question begging responses of all times.
Question begging is the typically the LOWEST form of debate and a waste of time, but you've gone even lower and you are actually appealing to 'everybody knows it' presumptions??? Seriously? Of course when a Calvinist says 'everybody' does he mean it like the word "all," which is actually just a relatively few? Or maybe its "everybody of all kinds?"
Enjoy basking with EVERYONE because they ALL know you are right....lol
Good bye.
Question begging is the typically the LOWEST form of debate and a waste of time, but you've gone even lower and you are actually appealing to 'everybody knows it' presumptions??? Seriously? Of course when a Calvinist says 'everybody' does he mean it like the word "all," which is actually just a relatively few? Or maybe its "everybody of all kinds?"
Enjoy basking with EVERYONE because they ALL know you are right....lol
Good bye.
You know how you let your son punch you in the stomach and then smile and laugh as if it didn't hurt but as soon as he leaves the room you double over in pain.
That's what this post is. It is trying to save face. Skandelon has been trounced and anybody even remotely objective can see it.
So he keeps posting these little snotty "you crack me up" type posts to try to put on a brave face.
But in this debate he is doubling over in pain.
And here is why.
HIS WHOLE THEOLOGY- his WHOLE PHILOSOPHY of LIFE depends on this one ridiculous notion that the will of man is as independent as GOD ALMIGHTY.
And when you show that it is riddled with flaws logically and theologically- you crush him, and destroy his whole world.
But you have to admire the brave face he tries to put on. Most people will see it for what it is. But he might fool a few gullible souls.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I have a quote for you Luke:
Do you know who said that?
Oh, and another sign of insecurity is to straw-man the others argument by accusing them of believing things a silly as, "will of man is as independent as GOD ALMIGHTY." To suggest some level of true responsibility and independence in our moral determinations is not equating us with the freedom and abilities of God. That is absurd, but hey, if you can't debate the real opponent, just create a lessor straw-man to attack and claim victory over if it makes you feel better.
"A true winner doesn't have to spend his time attempting to convince everyone of his victory, because it is obvious to all and most especially the victor. If however, one feels the necessity to belittle, put down, demean and convince others of his superiority in any given situation they prove themselves to be an immature loser and very insecure in their given undertaking."
Do you know who said that?
Oh, and another sign of insecurity is to straw-man the others argument by accusing them of believing things a silly as, "will of man is as independent as GOD ALMIGHTY." To suggest some level of true responsibility and independence in our moral determinations is not equating us with the freedom and abilities of God. That is absurd, but hey, if you can't debate the real opponent, just create a lessor straw-man to attack and claim victory over if it makes you feel better.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not accusing you- I am telling you that your whole belief system rests upon this ridiculous notion that man's self or man's will is as independent as God Almighty.
That's a fact. You haven't even TRIED to argue otherwise.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I will give you a million dollars right now if you can provide even one quote where I suggest that we are AS INDEPENDENT as God Almighty. Arguing that we have some attributes similar to that of God is a far cry from suggesting that we, finite CREATURES, are AS INDEPENDENT as the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God of the universe. This is just silly Luke. Stop kicking your straw-man, he is dead already...in fact he was never alive to begin with...
You are not arguing that you have SOME attributes that God has. Nobody on EARTH denies that. You are addressing a strawman by saying that I am SAYING that.
It is not that you are arguing that we have SOME attributes like God's- it is that you are saying we have one particular attribute which God ALONE can have. INDEPENDENCY.
You are saying the will or the self is just as independent as God himself.
When you say that ANYTHING is that independent- so independent that it is not contingent upon anything outside of itself you are saying that thing has the same kind of independency that God Almighty has.
That is not a straw man. That is SKANDELON. That is what SKANDELON is saying. In the flesh. Flesh and blood. SKANDELON. He is saying that. That's what SKANDELON is saying.
Now, you don't quite have the courage perhaps to step out from the cloud of ambiguity that protects you, but thinking people can see through your ambiguity. They can put two and two together.
If man's decision is not contingent upon anything- then it has the incommunicable attribute of independency.
Man chooses hamburger over hotdog.
Why?
Because that is what he wanted.
Why?
Because that is what he desired.
"Desired" is just another word for "wanted". Why did he want and desire the hamburger over the hotdog?
Because he just did.
Oh, that makes a lot of sense.
But this is as far as your theology takes you.
"He just did," is not an answer.
His desires and wants are contingent upon his experiences and his make-up. These are things he does not control.
Hence, his will is not contra-causally free. Period. End of discussion. Unless you want to say that he DOES create himself and he does create his own environment in which he is born and in which he learns and develops likes and dislikes.
Then, you make man GOD again. Which is what Arminianism, taken to its logical conclusion, will always do.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
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.
Thanks! The simple truth that should be sufficient for all!
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Question begging A-G-A-I-N... the very point up for debate is whether or not God is able to create people with the ability to make independent choices and you are PRESUMING that this attribute can only belong to God.
I'm arguing that God is able to create us to be independent/responsible in our moral choices. I'm not arguing that we are equal to God, or that we are "as independent as God" or that we aren't created or that we aren't dependent on God for anything or any other straw man argument you want to invent. You believe God is too weak or limited to accomplish anything greater than building robotic type creatures (determined). That is the difference in our views. You believe God had to create determined (robot/programmed like) creatures because he is just not creative or powerful enough to have done otherwise. So be it. I agree that God is perfectly able to create determined creatures, as that is not very hard to imagine. After all, even we can create robots, so why couldn't God? I'm not the one denying the omniscience of God here by suggesting your view is just not possible for the Almighty.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Why not? We answer atheist with "he just is" ... he answers with "I am that I am." Why can't we just say it is what it is because he created it that way? You do know both of our views are THEORIES, right? Its not as if you have some higher moral ground on which to stand with your deterministic theory. You are guessing and ultimately you have to say, 'He just did' about your view too...whether you recognize that or not.
Inspector Javert
Active Member
Here's the problem I'm seeing:
One gigantic series of equivocations.
"Independency" is being exemplified as existing a-se?
By way of example:
Who is arguing that a will is "not contingent upon ANYTHING outside of itself?"
Since when is that a valid definition of the word "Independent"?
We call the United States an "Independent" country and fought a war for "Independence"...are we now insisting that we believe that there is no possible world in which such a thing as the United States of America does not exist??
That's what this argument would entail.
There is no possible world in which God DOES NOT exist.
There are possible worlds in which Libertarian Free Will DOES NOT exist.
Every proponent of L.F.W. that I know of would affirm this, so why are we being accussed of believing that contra-causal will possesses aseity?
No one is arguing that a "free-will" possesses aseity, obviously it is contingent:
1.) Simply to exist (i.e. it must have an agent which possesses it, a "mind" which interacts with it, a brain etc...)
2.) Upon influences: (no one argues that desires, pre-conditions, nature etc...do not influence decisions)
But none of this demonstrates that a will can't be contra-causally free, in the sense of having the categorical ability either to act or refrain from acting independent of sufficient guarantors.
I believe our compatibilist friends are conflating self-existence with independence of action and thus simply equivocating between them.
All L.F.W. belief entails is that: exterior and interior influences, desires etc...are not sufficiently causal. That is all.
Some compatibilists appear to be arguing that if we believe in L.F.W. that we insist it would exist in a vacuum of nothingness. That's not the case. It doesn't exist a-se; it doesn't exist necessarilly, but rather contingently.
Skandelon (rightly I.M.O.) maintains that God (who does exist a-se) is perfectly capable of creating a being and granting it the (very contingent) capacity to make decisions which are not sufficiently caused by pre-existing conditions. That's not a particularly arrogant claim on Skan's part.
One gigantic series of equivocations.
"Independency" is being exemplified as existing a-se?
By way of example:
Here, "Independent" is being defined as "existing by necessity".
Who is arguing that a will is "not contingent upon ANYTHING outside of itself?"
Since when is that a valid definition of the word "Independent"?
We call the United States an "Independent" country and fought a war for "Independence"...are we now insisting that we believe that there is no possible world in which such a thing as the United States of America does not exist??
That's what this argument would entail.
There is no possible world in which God DOES NOT exist.
There are possible worlds in which Libertarian Free Will DOES NOT exist.
Every proponent of L.F.W. that I know of would affirm this, so why are we being accussed of believing that contra-causal will possesses aseity?
No one is arguing that a "free-will" possesses aseity, obviously it is contingent:
1.) Simply to exist (i.e. it must have an agent which possesses it, a "mind" which interacts with it, a brain etc...)
2.) Upon influences: (no one argues that desires, pre-conditions, nature etc...do not influence decisions)
But none of this demonstrates that a will can't be contra-causally free, in the sense of having the categorical ability either to act or refrain from acting independent of sufficient guarantors.
I believe our compatibilist friends are conflating self-existence with independence of action and thus simply equivocating between them.
All L.F.W. belief entails is that: exterior and interior influences, desires etc...are not sufficiently causal. That is all.
Some compatibilists appear to be arguing that if we believe in L.F.W. that we insist it would exist in a vacuum of nothingness. That's not the case. It doesn't exist a-se; it doesn't exist necessarilly, but rather contingently.
Skandelon (rightly I.M.O.) maintains that God (who does exist a-se) is perfectly capable of creating a being and granting it the (very contingent) capacity to make decisions which are not sufficiently caused by pre-existing conditions. That's not a particularly arrogant claim on Skan's part.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am presuming the one thing that all knowledge of the created world depends upon- contingency.
Why can you not get that?
Do you not understand that ALL of science depends on contingency?
Do you not understand that ALL of philosophy depends upon contingency?
The thing that enables us to know ANYTHING about ANYTHING- you want to toss it aside to defend your theology.
You want us to not be able to know anything about anything?
As independent as God himself.
I'm not saying you are arguing that man is omni ANYTHING. I am saying that you claim the will is as independent as God himself.
The premier attribute of God is his independence. That is what he means when he identifies himself as the "I Am." That is the essence of the name Jehovah.
And in order for you to support your theology you snatch the most sacred of all of God's incommunicable attributes and make it replicable and thus meaningless.
No. You don't care about God's independency. You smear it with these words. You spit upon it. You taint God's incommunicable attributes. You don't care that God being God means he CANNOT communicate some of his attributes. You don't care about God being special. You don't care that the thing that identifies him most as God is that he is truly independent. You don't care. You NEED, NEEED, NEEEEEED God to make you as independent as he is.
But you are not independent. You make decisions contingent upon what you are. You do not make yourself what you are so your decisions are decided by forces outside of yourself. That irks you so you make up a theology that denies the source of ALL KNOWLEDGE- contingency. And thus your theology is utterly ridiculous. And I am not saying that to be insulting. I am saying it because it is a fact.
You are at least arguing that the choice a man makes, or the man who makes the choice, is partly self-existent.
Partly.
And whatever that part that exists apart from influences, no matter how small- that part that is truly independent- that part is God- in other words, you are attributing the incommunicable attribute of independency to it.
Yes, you may acknowledge that the will is influenced. But you also argue that a CHOICE is not contingent upon those influences.
So what then is the choice CONTINGENT upon?
What does it depend upon?
If you say, "The chooser," then what does the chooser depend upon to make the choice?
If NOTHING- then the choice or the chooser has the incommunicable attribute of independency or, self-existence.
The choice or the chooser choosing is self-existent depending upon nothing just as God is self-existent depending upon nothing.
Inspector Javert
Active Member
It doesn't exist apart from influences....but the influences are not sufficient guarantors of the content of the choice.
You are defining "independency" as necessary existence, I am not.
The existence of a choice is contingent upon those influences (and many other things)....the particular content of the choice is not completely determined by them.
1.) An agent to posses a "will"
2.) A "mind" to engage in decision making
3.) Influences to give content for deliberation
4.) An ultimate creator to design and create a Universe in which the agent may exist.......
etc.
I am not sure how to take the phrase "depend upon"....so for clarification, I'll wait. But if you mean from where does the chooser derive that ability, that would be God of course.
The choice requires at minimum, a chooser > which is not "nothing"
A chooser requires a God who created him and gave him the capacity to make choices > again that is not "nothing".
Neither of those imply aseity.
Choices, minimally require choosers (thus contingent)
Choosers, minimally require creators (thus contingent)
Thus neither is self-existent.
No.
Why not? And what IS the sufficient guarantor of the "content of the choice"?
Grudem- "God does not need us or the rest of creation for anything, yet we and the rest of creation can glorify him and bring him joy”
You have the choice not NEEDING anything. It may HAVE some things like influences but it does not DEPEND or need them. It does not rest upon them. It is self-existent. Or... you have the CHOOSER being those things.
What does determine the choice then?
How does this address your dilemma?
Not the ability.
A man chooses a hamburger over a hot dog- why?
Yes.. God. We have an accord. The choice requires a chooser and the chooser requires God.
Substitute "depends upon" for "requires" and you will have the clarification you asked for earlier.
Inspector Javert
Active Member
If I can at minimum point to any ONE thing that something is dependent upon for its existence, then I do not and cannot be accused of believing that it exists a-se.
A "choice"- minimally requires a "chooser" (thus it is not being argued to exist a-se)
A "chooser" minimally requires a "creator" (thus it cannot be argued that it exists a-se).
Since choices (the free ones) are not "determined", better we say "make" them.......in that respect the answer is (yes you are tired of hearing it...but...the agent or chooser).
Perhaps, for instance, the choice of either to-or not to- murder a co-worker involves far more complex issues which are not so easily pinned down, or pre-determined.
A "choice"- minimally requires a "chooser" (thus it is not being argued to exist a-se)
A "chooser" minimally requires a "creator" (thus it cannot be argued that it exists a-se).
^^^^it NEEDS (at minimum) the above ^^^^ and the above is "SOMETHING".
By "determine" Skan essentially means to "make" the choice > I think by "determine" you generally mean sufficiently guarantee it....I think (reading you guy's exchanges) that some confusion appears.
Since choices (the free ones) are not "determined", better we say "make" them.......in that respect the answer is (yes you are tired of hearing it...but...the agent or chooser).
My "dilema" is only that you accuse us of not being able to point to any one thing that either the choice itself or chooser requires for it's very existence....See above for the answer to that.
I do not know...but, I suspect it is quite heavily influenced by his beliefs about what hot-dogs are composed of, and whether he is willing to partake of such swill. But what difference does it make whether I know or not? Does my not knowing what was involved mean that there were pre-existing sufficient guarantors? I don't think so. And if the choice betwixt hamburger and hot-dog is a choice which can be sufficiently guaranteed by pre-existing desires, wants, phenomena etc....does that mean that ALL CHOICES are so simply derived?
Perhaps, for instance, the choice of either to-or not to- murder a co-worker involves far more complex issues which are not so easily pinned down, or pre-determined.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status