Could God create someone like Himself?

[OldRegular]

Some folks are chasing their tails, using fancy words, in response to an asinine Op. In my opinion of course. Preachinjesus gave a very early and correct response to the OP!

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.

 

[Rippon]

From Isaiah

42:8 :I am the LORD;that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another...

43:10...Before me no god was formed,nor will there be one after me.

43:11 : I,even I,am the LORD,and apart from me there is no saviour.

44:6 : ...I am the first and the last;apart from me there is no god.

44:7 : Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people,and what is yet to come --yes,let them foretell what will come.

45:5 : I am the LORD,and there is no other;apart from me there is no God...

45:6 : ...there is none beside me. I am the LORD,and there is no other.

_______________________________________________________

All Scripture is from NIV.

 

[Luke2427]

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).

^^^^it NEEDS (at minimum) the above ^^^^ and the above is "SOMETHING".

No, no. You have PART of the choice or the chooser relying upon other things. But you have this weird mysterious part which relies upon nothing. That part is as independent as God Himself in your theology.

You can't have the will PARTLY depending upon things (influences, natural desires, etc...) but still be independent unless you divide the will up into the parts that are dependent and this mysterious part that is independent. You say the choice is dependent upon the chooser and the chooser is dependent upon God. BINGO!! That is precisely what I have been saying all along.

The second floor (choice) rests upon the first floor (chooser) which rests upon the ground (God). So the second floor rests upon the ground. There is no part of it that floats on its own. Every part of the second floor that rests upon the first floor depends upon the ground.

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.

The CHOICE points to GOD then for its existence. Now, keep in mind what a choice is. It is not an ABILITY to choose. It is what the ability to choose... CHOSE. The choice, the thing chosen, can point to God for why it is what it is, right?

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?

But you do know. You know for the same reason you know ANYTHING. Contingency. All of science and philosophy depends upon it. This happens because this happened and so on and so on... All the knowledge we have about anything relies upon contingency.

But you and Skan all of that fact of life to defend your theology.

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.

Why?

And you failed to address some questions and comments of mine in my previous post like:

Why not? And what IS the sufficient guarantor of the "content of the choice"?

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.

 

[Skandelon]

in response to an asinine Op. In my opinion of course.

So I suppose the author of Genesis was 'asinine' to suggest that we were created in God's image? How is that different from the question posed in the OP?

 

[OldRegular]

So I suppose the author of Genesis was 'asinine' to suggest that we were created in God's image? How is that different from the question posed in the OP?

I will let you figure it out but I highlighted part of the OP to help.

In another discussion a poster is attempting to argue that it would be impossible for God to create contra-causally free creatures, because that is a quality unique only to God.

I have accused him of having a weak view of God because he is claiming God is unable to create someone who is free and responsible to make choices. He continues to argue that 'God can't create God,' as if God creating a free/responsible creature is equal to Him recreating himself.

That got me to thinking. If God so desired, could He recreate a creature with His powers? Again, that is not what I'm saying God does. I simply believe God has created us in His imagine and with contra-causal free will, but I'm just taking this point a bit further for the sake of discussion.

Why couldn't God, if He so chose, create a creature with abilities like His own?

Incidentally God did create

someone who is free and responsible to make choices.

His name was Adam and her name was Eve!

 

[Inspector Javert]

Luke....you appear not to realize that, fundamentally, we are insisting on debating the "existence" of an abstraction right?

A "choice" is an abstraction just as the number 7 is:

Does the number 7 "Exist" in the sense of a concrete noun?....does a "choice"?

What are the number 7's properties? What properties does a "choice" posses?
Redness?
Sphericity?
An inflatable rubber composition?

I know, I know! :wavey:.....it's a beach ball!!! :wavey:

A choice is merely an idea, Luke. It possesses no properties, it may not have temporal becoming of any sort, and it does not cease to exist either. It does not in some real sense....EXIST at all!

All things have as their source God and God alone. NOTHING...including logical truths, mathematical values, or even similar abstractions such as "choices" have any meaning outside of or apart from God. None of it "exists" a-se...........They don't really...."exist" either.

A "choice"....is a noun which merely describes the idea of taking an action.
It "exists" in the same sense that my going on a "hike" or a "walk" exists.
It's an abstract idea that merely refers to an action which has been taken.

I am one week away from taking a "vacation". (Yay for me! :godisgood
Does my vacation then "exist"?
Did my walk?
Just because those are nouns doesn't mean that it is proper to debate whether they are contingent or necessary.....Only my person (which very much "exists") which takes said action exists either contingently or necessarily.
And, it so happens that God has created me with the capacity and ability to take these walks and hikes and vacations.

I exist contingently...so also do my choices "exist" contingently. Thus, it is not proper to debate whether they are either a-se or not! Of course they are not! They depend (at minimum) upon ME for them to have any meaning or frame of reference at all.

I have entertained this line of questioning so far, and am not unwilling to continue to do so, but it is fundamentally based upon a category mistake....the same category mistake I mentioned in another thread that a "choice" is a "thing" that exemplifies what properly can be defined as "existence".....
It's a category mistake I've seen some certain Calvinists argue (I tend to theorize that it all came from the same singular source and most compatibilists never questioned it's veracity because they thought it sounded cool) but it is essentially fundamentally flawed to begin with.

I am more than willing to continue this conversation...but, I think we should consider that this is, indeed becoming the equivalent of debating the number of angels who can fit on the tip of a needle...... (453 b.t.w.).:thumbsup:

You are not merely insisting that Compatibilism is true, and L.F.W. false....you are submitting that it is incoherent. That's a rather sweeping claim.

I'd like for you to consider this if you would like to continue this line of debate.

 

[Skandelon]

I will let you figure it out but I highlighted part of the OP to help.

And the part you did not embolden, "Again, that is not what I'm saying God does. I simply believe God has created us in His imagine..." so the question was for discussion regarding God's abilities to give others similar qualities and powers like himself, it was not to suggest that God made us exactly like himself, which you seemed to miss.

 

[Skandelon]

Luke....you appear not to realize that, fundamentally, we are insisting on debating the "existence" of an abstraction right?

A "choice" is an abstraction just as the number 7 is:

Does the number 7 "Exist" in the sense of a concrete noun?....does a "choice"?

What are the number 7's properties? What properties does a "choice" posses?
Redness?
Sphericity?
An inflatable rubber composition?


A choice is merely an idea, Luke. It possesses no properties, it doesn't likely have temporal becoming of any sort, and it does not cease to exist either. It does not in some real sense....EXIST at all!

All things have as their source God and God alone. NOTHING...including logical truths, mathematical values, or even similar abstractions such as "choices" have any meaning outside of or apart from God. None of it "exists" a-se...........They don't really...."exist" either.

A "choice"....is a noun which merely describes the idea of taking an action.
It "exists" in the same sense that my going on a "hike" or a "walk" exists.
It's an abstract idea that merely refers to an action which has been taken.

I am one week away from taking a "vacation". (Yay for me! :godisgood
Does my vacation then "exist"?
Did my walk?
Just because those are nouns doesn't mean that it is proper to debate whether they are contingent or necessary.....Only my person (which very much "exists") which takes said action exists either contingently or necessarily.
And, it so happens that God has created me with the capacity and ability to take these walks and hikes and vacations.

I exist contingently...so also do my choices "exist" contingently. Thus, it is not proper to debate whether they are either a-se or not! Of course they are not! They depend (at minimum) upon ME for them to have any meaning or frame of reference at all.

I have entertained this line of questioning so far, and am not unwilling to continue to do so, but it is fundamentally based upon a category mistake....the same category mistake I mentioned in another thread that a "choice" is a "thing" that exemplifies what properly can be defined as "existence".....
It's a category mistake I've seen some certain Calvinists argue (I tend to theorize that it all came from the same singular source and most compatibilists never questioned it's veracity because they thought it sounded cool) but it is essentially fundamentally flawed to begin with.

I am more than willing to continue this conversation...but, I think we should consider that this is, indeed becoming the equivalent of debating the number of angels who can fit on the tip of a needle...... (453 b.t.w.).:thumbsup:

You are not merely insisting that Compatibilism is true, and L.F.W. false....you are submitting that it is incoherent. That's a rather sweeping claim.

I'd like for you to consider this if you would like to continue this line of debate.

:thumbsup: Well stated......

 

[Luke2427]

Luke....you appear not to realize that, fundamentally, we are insisting on debating the "existence" of an abstraction right?

A "choice" is an abstraction just as the number 7 is:

Does the number 7 "Exist" in the sense of a concrete noun?....does a "choice"?

What are the number 7's properties? What properties does a "choice" posses?
Redness?
Sphericity?
An inflatable rubber composition?

I know, I know! :wavey:.....it's a beach ball!!! :wavey:

A choice is merely an idea, Luke.

An idea requires a mind and a mind, unless it is God's is filled with information that it RECEIVED. The mind is thoroughly contingent and so is the idea and choices that come from it.

It possesses no properties, it may not have temporal becoming of any sort, and it does not cease to exist either. It does not in some real sense....EXIST at all!

All things have as their source God and God alone. NOTHING...including logical truths, mathematical values, or even similar abstractions such as "choices" have any meaning outside of or apart from God.

My point exactly.

A man makes a choice BASED on something. If you say he makes it based on himself, that is a meaningless statement. What does it mean to base something on yourself? It means to base it on your desires, your intellect, your abilities and all the external things that make you what you are. ALL OF THOSE THINGS are contingent- they are dependent- fully reliant upon God.

A choice, as you said, "REQUIRES" many things. That is my very point.

There is NO REASON to assume that there is this mysterious freedom where the making of a choice is different from all other things in the universe which are fully contingent, dependent things which, as you say "require" things outside of themselves to make them and to sustain them.

A choice like a rock or like an accident or like an idea REQUIRES or depends upon things outside of itself to make it what it is.

A choice is no more independent than an idea or an accident. To HAPPEN, to come to be, it is brought to pass by forces outside of itself.

There are factors outside of itself which brought it into existence and made it what it is.

That is true of everything in the universe- even the number 7.

What Skandelon wants to do is create this contra-causal choice which is unlike everything else in the universe. Like nothing else in the universe but God ALONE- it is not brought to pass by factors outside of itself. The choice can share that property with nothing else that exists but God. God and the choice are the only things that exist that are not brought to pass by forces outside of themselves. The choice, like God, is UNCAUSED.

It is UNCAUSED. The problem is that this ABOVE ALL ELSE is an incommunicable attribute of God.

Skandelon attributes the PREMIER incommunicable attribute of God, God's very "I Amness" to a man's choice.

He tries to get out of it by retorting, "A choice is based on the CHOOSER!!! That is not NOTHING!!!"

But he just backs up his dilemma by one step. If the choice is based on the chooser and the chooser is fully dependent upon outside forces for his existence and actions then the choice is still dependent upon those forces.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon attributes the PREMIER incommunicable attribute of God, God's very "I Amness" to a man's choice.

It's not an incommunicable attribute because you say it is Luke. Can you quote me the verse where it says that is the incommunicable attribute of God? This is why I'm constantly accusing you of question begging. You presume truth the very point up for debate...and based on what? An argument? A scripture? NO, just because you 'say so.'

I say God created man in His image, because He said so. I believe we are responsible because he says we are responsible. I believe we are able to make choices. And I believe in the meaning of words like "responsible" and "choice" and don't need to redefine them into meaningless concepts as you do.

 

[Luke2427]

It's not an incommunicable attribute because you say it is Luke. Can you quote me the verse where it says that is the incommunicable attribute of God? This is why I'm constantly accusing you of question begging. You presume truth the very point up for debate...and based on what? An argument? A scripture? NO, just because you 'say so.'

Let me just clarify. You want me to prove biblically for you that God's independency is one of his incommunicable attributes??

Do you believe God HAS incommunicable attributes?

I say God created man in His image, because He said so.

And???

What theist on EARTH disagrees with that!?!?!?!?!

I believe we are responsible because he says we are responsible.

Yep, me too. So???

I believe we are able to make choices.

Along with every other human being who has ever lived I suppose. So what???

And I believe in the meaning of words like "responsible" and "choice" and don't need to redefine them into meaningless concepts as you do.

Then you need to do TWO THINGS.

Define them for us or give us your favorite definition and show where "contra-causal" free will is a necessary part of those definitions.

And show how I have made them meaningless.

 

[OldRegular]

And the part you did not embolden, "Again, that is not what I'm saying God does. I simply believe God has created us in His imagine..." so the question was for discussion regarding God's abilities to give others similar qualities and powers like himself, it was not to suggest that God made us exactly like himself, which you seemed to miss.

Perhaps your OP is just too esoteric for usens! All except "preachinjesus" that is. He hit the proverbial nail on the head with one blow.

 

[percho]

And the part you did not embolden, "Again, that is not what I'm saying God does. I simply believe God has created us in His imagine..." so the question was for discussion regarding God's abilities to give others similar qualities and powers like himself, it was not to suggest that God made us exactly like himself, which you seemed to miss.

Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 1 Cor 12:27
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; from Col 1:18
Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. from Eph 2:20-22
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Col 2:9

Well, Skandelon; Right? Or wrong?

Just some thought.

For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: Eph 4:12,13 ------Does that speak of the parts or of the whole? I'm not sure.

 

[Skandelon]

Let me just clarify. You want me to prove biblically for you that God's independency is one of his incommunicable attributes??

No, I want you to prove biblically that being responsible to make your own decisions is an incommunicable attribute of God.

And???

What theist on EARTH disagrees with that!?!?!?!?!

Just surprised you aren't interpreting that to mean we think we are EXACTLY LIKE God, or something...because you do have a tendency to overstate your opponents claim in order to strawman them.

Yep, me too. So???

Nope. Not unless you redefine the word "responsible" to mean, "responseunable" or "unable to respond." That is what total inability is all about. You can't have your cake and eat it too, Luke. Pick one.

Along with every other human being who has ever lived I suppose. So what???

Only if you define "choice" as "the appearance of picking from more than one available option, but in reality only doing what your creator predetermine for you to do. As in, 'The robot chose to pick up the trash, as it was programmed to do by its maker.'"

Then you need to do TWO THINGS.

Define them for us or give us your favorite definition and show where "contra-causal" free will is a necessary part of those definitions.

Responsibility: "the ability or authority to act or decide on one's own..." (Collins English Dictionary)

Responsible: "Able to make moral or rational decisions on one's own and therefore answerable for one's behavior." (American Heritage Dictionary)

These perfectly define contra-causal freedom...no need to change it in any way. That is why I don't use those other terms that often but continue to refer to the original language being used. It means what it says. Men are RESPONSE - ABLE.

Choosing: To select from a number of possible alternatives; decide on and pick out.

Again, no need to change a thing. It is what it is. There are no real 'alternatives' in an preset world view like yours. Choice is non-existent in your world view...just own that.

 

[Luke2427]

No, I want you to prove biblically that being responsible to make your own decisions is an incommunicable attribute of God.

Why would I need to do that when have repeatedly stated that I believe that we are responsible to God for the decisions we make?

Just surprised you aren't interpreting that to mean we think we are EXACTLY LIKE God, or something...because you do have a tendency to overstate your opponents claim in order to strawman them.

Your OP was vague. You want men to be as free as only God can be and then imply that we who deny that are saying that God does not make people in his image. That's quite a leap on your part.

Nope. Not unless you redefine the word "responsible" to mean, "responseunable" or "unable to respond." That is what total inability is all about. You can't have your cake and eat it too, Luke. Pick one.

I don't have a problem with the word responsible. I have a problem with you equating man's choices (or the self that makes them) with the Uncaused Causer; I have a problem with you implying that God's incommunicable attribute of independency is communicable.

Only if you define "choice" as "the appearance of picking from more than one available option, but in reality only doing what your creator predetermine for you to do. As in, 'The robot chose to pick up the trash, as it was programmed to do by its maker.'"

False dichotomy. The latter does not negate the former.

Responsibility: "the ability or authority to act or decide on one's own..." (Collins English Dictionary)

Responsible: "Able to make moral or rational decisions on one's own and therefore answerable for one's behavior." (American Heritage Dictionary)

Excellent. Thank you. Now what do you think "own one's own" means? Tell us how that works. In reality, even YOU don't believe that man makes choices "own his own" without God. So you can't think it means that. So what DO you think it means.

I have no problem with the definition so long as we understand that nothing truly does anything own it's own apart from God.

These perfectly define contra-causal freedom...no need to change it in any way. That is why I don't use those other terms that often but continue to refer to the original language being used. It means what it says. Men are RESPONSE - ABLE.

You keep doing this "able" thing with the word. Your definition does not imply that etymology.

Choosing: To select from a number of possible alternatives; decide on and pick out.

Again, no need to change a thing. It is what it is. There are no real 'alternatives' in an preset world view like yours. Choice is non-existent in your world view...just own that.

I have no problem with that definition. And just because people pick what everybody knew they were going to pick (like a hamburger over a hot dog) does not mean that it was not a real choice.

My son will always choose to play video games over doing homework. If I give him the option, I know what he is going to pick. It is settled. 10 times out of 10 he will pick video games. The fact that it is settled what one is going to pick between two options does not mean that their picking does not equate to real choice.

There is nothing in the definition you provide to say otherwise.

 

[Skandelon]

Why would I need to do that when have repeatedly stated that I believe that we are responsible to God for the decisions we make?

We don't make decisions or choices in your system, Luke..only God does...and actually He doesn't even make choices according to you because it doesn't logically fit your deterministic worldview. Just because you call someone responsible doesn't make them responsible. You might believe God holds men to account for what HE has determined for them to do, but you can't rightly call that 'responsibility.'

You want men to be as free as only God

How many times are you going to do this? How many times are you going to stawman my argument to make me say things like you believe "we are as free as God" or "as independent as God" or "just like God" or "we are take on his I AMness..." It is just absurd. When you give one of your kids a choice to make do you sign over your estate to them and have them take over making all the decisions in the house? You must, because apparently when ever anyone in authority grants any level of independence, freedom or choice you interpret that to mean "the MAXIMUM amount allowable."

I say, "God grants men true responsibility" (meaning able to respond), and Luke hears, "God makes Himself."

 

[Skandelon]

I don't have a problem with the word responsible. I have a problem with you equating man's choices (or the self that makes them) with the Uncaused Causer

How is a someone created by God to be a free moral agent, an uncaused causer? God created Him with that ability so he isn't uncaused...his choices are uncaused by God, the choices are caused by the chooser of those choices.

; I have a problem with you implying that God's incommunicable attribute of independency is communicable.

And I have a problem with you assuming God can't create other beings with some level of independency. Notice I did not say 'with the same level of independency as God, because we all know that is what you read. That is a strawman.

Excellent. Thank you. Now what do you think "own one's own" means?

Without anyone other than the agent himself determining the outcome. The chooser determines his choice, period. How many times do we need to say that and that is exactly what the DICTIONARY states. You don't agree with the basic meaning of the word because it doesn't fit your system, so you have to alter it. I'm not letting you because words have meanings and you can't just change them to fit your fancy.

Tell us how that works. In reality, even YOU don't believe that man makes choices "own his own" without God. So you can't think it means that. So what DO you think it means.

I don't think a man can exist on his own, but I certainly do think Hilter can decide to slaughter Jews without God predetermining him to do that.

I have no problem with the definition so long as we understand that nothing truly does anything own it's own apart from God.

You are confusing EXISTING with CHOOSING. We don't EXIST or have LIFE apart from God, but our position is that we CAN do has he has created us with the ability to do...RESPOND.

You keep doing this "able" thing with the word. Your definition does not imply that etymology.

WHAT!?!

Are you honestly attempting to argue that the etymology of the word Responsible has nothing to do with ability of response???? SERIOUSLY! And what about the definitions I supplied do not support that?

My son will always choose to play video games over doing homework. If I give him the option, I know what he is going to pick. It is settled. 10 times out of 10 he will pick video games. The fact that it is settled what one is going to pick between two options does not mean that their picking does not equate to real choice.

Well, supposing in your analogy that the reason he would always choose video games was because years ago his older brother did something VERY bad and you decided from that point forward you would drug all you children to make them always disobey you. Then when they disobeyed you, you pleaded with them to obey, you sounded like you were genuinely desirous of them obeying, and even patient with them longing for them to obey. And finally when they never did obey, you threw them in fire pit to burn for eternity...then your analogy would actually fit the system your attempting to defend.