Nothing to something

[lelinator]

@Gorgias, supposedly God created something from nothing, but what specifically did God create? It would seem that about the only thing that God created was potential.

For example, what if Adam and Eve had never had children? (Disregarding for the moment the nature of the Genesis story.) After all, Adam and Eve had free will, they could very easily have chosen not to have children. In which case all of human history would never have happened.

God could only know that Adam and Eve had children, because Adam and Eve made the choice to have children. So God is in essence just an observer and a facilitator of our choices.

Thus God may have created the potential for human history, but He couldn’t have been the cause of anything more than its initial conditions, because that would negate our free will. If we actually do have free will, then human history looks the way that it does because of our choices, not God’s. So what did God actually create beyond those initial conditions?

 

[Gorgias]

supposedly God created something from nothing, but what specifically did God create? It would seem that about the only thing that God created was potential.

Not sure how you’re seeing that. He created all the material and energy in the universe that ever is or ever will be!

It would seem that about the only thing that God created was potential.

Now, the ‘stuff’ of the universe itself had the potential to transform into other things, but that’s a different consideration. The ‘stuff’ had to exist before it had the potential to become ‘different stuff’!

So God is in essence just an observer and a facilitator of our choices.

Not an ‘observer’, as such, because He doesn’t ‘observe’. He has immediate (as in “not mediated”) knowledge of His creation. A ‘facilitator’? In what sense are you using that term?

Thus God may have created the potential for human history, but He couldn’t have been the cause of anything more than its initial conditions, because that would negate our free will.

He sustains the entire universe throughout its existence, so I wouldn’t make Him out to be the deists’ “transcendent but not immanent” god.

So what did God actually create beyond those initial conditions?

It’s in the fact that He sustains the universe in its existence.

Plus, we would point to Jesus’ appearance within time as an example of God’s activity among us, no? (And, notwithstanding Jesus’ presence, He still allowed us to decide whether to accept Him! He still permitted the activity of a free will!)

 

[goout]

@Gorgias, supposedly God created something from nothing, but what specifically did God create? It would seem that about the only thing that God created was potential.

For example, what if Adam and Eve had never had children? (Disregarding for the moment the nature of the Genesis story.) After all, Adam and Eve had free will, they could very easily have chosen not to have children. In which case all of human history would never have happened.

God could only know that Adam and Eve had children, because Adam and Eve made the choice to have children. So God is in essence just an observer and a facilitator of our choices.

Thus God may have created the potential for human history, but He couldn’t have been the cause of anything more than its initial conditions, because that would negate our free will. If we actually do have free will, then human history looks the way that it does because of our choices, not God’s. So what did God actually create beyond those initial conditions?

But Adam and Eve did have children. Are you attempting to use a hypothetical to negate the real?
We call what Adam and Eve did “pro-creation”. That’s different from creation from nothing, or direct creation, or whatever you’d like to call what God does. God delights in sharing, and he shares the gift of existence with human beings, and so we co-operate with God.

 

[goout]

Thus God may have created the potential for human history, but He couldn’t have been the cause of anything more than its initial conditions, because that would negate our free will. If we actually do have free will, then human history looks the way that it does because of our choices, not God’s. So what did God actually create beyond those initial conditions?

So action must be a dictatorship then, in your view.
You believe that if God is active, his action must be deterministic and dictatorial, and must violate free will. Right?
Can you prove this assumption of yours?

 

[goout]

You see these unproven assumptions all the time:
Knowledge necessarily violates free will.
Potency necessarily violates free will.
Says who?
Why? How?

The fact that human beings sometimes use knowledge and power to violate others, does not prove the sweeping assumption.

 

[Abrosz]

You believe that if God is active, his action must be deterministic and dictatorial, and must violate free will. Right?

Apart from the incorrect presentation, you have a good point.

First an allegory: “Would you create and use a car, which has unlimited free will (freedom of action), to go over the cliff, when it so desires?”

Then the real stuff: “Only a bad or uncaring designer would allow unlimited freedom of action, which could destroy his creation?” Certain amount of freedom is a good idea, because it makes the design process simpler (you don’t have to foresee everything and be prepared to deal with them). But unlimited freedom? That is crazy.

As a matter of fact, one of the first problems that turned me into an atheist was this question: “Why did God create Satan (or the adversary, or the devil), when he know that it will have a detrimental effect on his creation?” That is not just illogical but irrational. And I could not believe in an irrational deity.

 

[quaestio45]

“Would you create and use a car, which has unlimited free will (freedom of action), to go over the cliff, when it so desires?”

Of course not; such would only serve as an obstruction to my desired goal of transportation to a specific place, as it could easily decide to move down route A instead of route B. But perhaps we cannot analogize this with the God/creation state, for, if I am not mistaken, the creation of man to possess free will is not so that God may benefit from us in the same way we would benefit from using a car, but instead for the sake of the creatures in itself, I would suppose. In that regard, making any being with a full capacity to freely choose is not absurd if the end is their well being, and only the well being of a creature determined through their own consential actions is considered good.

“Only a bad or uncaring designer would allow unlimited freedom of action, which could destroy his creation?”

I suppose the answer to this question would only be a yes if you assume that an imposed route to well being is more good then a freely chosen route to well being; but forced dictatorship of action and behavior and thoughts do not seem to me a route that can be seen as any more good then its alternative. As such, we might need some convincing in order to come to the conclusion that ultimate freedom is a bad thing, or at least, not a high good.

“Why did God create Satan (or the adversary, or the devil), when he know that it will have a detrimental effect on his creation?”

This question, it seems to me, ultimately follows the same conclusion as if I were to ask the question “why did God create Hitler, or starvation, or any such evil things or mediators of evil”. We find ourselves inevitably with the valid question of “why evil (the free immoral acts of men) and tragedy (the seeming disasters of nature) at all”, to which can be said (even if perhaps not very satisfactory to us) that it is of necessity for the achievement of highest good; on the side of evil beings because it allows freedom (if we assume freedom to choose is good of course) and on the side of tragedy because it is “fitting for ultimate ends” (though, I wouldn’t be surprised if you found that answer distasteful. I certainly do too). As such, these questions and objections do not necessarily eliminate the possibility of the existence of the all good God.

 

[quaestio45]

supposedly God created something from nothing, but what specifically did God create? It would seem that about the only thing that God created was potential.

If I am not mistaken lelinator, potential is by its very definition “that which does not exist yet could”. As such, nothing (nonbeing) is itself in a state of infinite potentiality, as it can be something, yet is not. But I assume we both believe that something exists, yes? As such, unless you believe that there was always something, there must have been a creation of something. As such, God did not create what ultimately is non-creation, but instead only what is creation, which would be all that in a state of actuality in the now, the past, and the future (due to initial creation and then the sustaining of creation).

 

[STT]

But it does not exist now.

We don’t know since we live in now and don’t have access to the past. Moreover, in my argument it is not needed that time exist now. It is only needed that time existed in the past. There was a moment before any moment in the past if there was no beginning. That is a regress which cannot exist.

 

[STT]

There is no point in the past which is the infinite past point. Choose any point in the past. Say for example 1492. From that point to today there is only a finite amount of time, which in this case would be 528 years. It works for any point in the past from which you choose to begin. From every such point in the past to the present point there is only a finite amount of time. There is no such thing as an infinite past point.

We will never see infinite future. This is the same as saying that we can never reach now if we were in infinite pst. Something which doesn’t have beginning, such as time as you agree, existed in the infinite past.

 

[STT]

Umm… what’s the nature of that substance?

Its nature is that it is subject to constant change. It allows change to happen too.

Can you measure it?

We can even experience it. We can of course measure its passage.

After all, if it’s a substance, then it will have physical extension – or be able to be converted into something that has physical extension!

Time might exist in past.

No… time is not a ‘substance’, per se.

It is.

 

[STT]

Abandon the problematic assertion as illogical.

@quaestio45 agrees with me. Perhaps s/he can help it.

 

[Abrosz]

Of course not; such would only serve as an obstruction to my desired goal of transportation to a specific place, as it could easily decide to move down route A instead of route B.

Just as having the ability to reject God would serve as an obstruction to enjoying the beatific vision. No difference.

But I will ask: “Does God have a free will? Or can God be evil if he wanted to?” The usual answer is that God cannot do evil, because it is against his nature. So why do we need a “free will”? Before we would get created, we have no need (or ability) for free will. If and when we shall enjoy the beatific vision, there will be no free will either. So what is the point?

I suppose the answer to this question would only be a yes if you assume that an imposed route to well being is more good then a freely chosen route to well being

Who said that there is only ONE route?

As such, these questions and objections do not necessarily eliminate the possibility of the existence of the all good God.

Since I have never seen a coherent answer for this, I remain skeptical.

 

[AlNg]

That is a regress which cannot exist

I don t see why a regress cannot exist.

if we were in infinite pst.

There is no specific point in an actual infinite past which can be reached at infinity. Every point is reached at some finite time from the present. And for any point in time you give me, I can give you one further out.

 

[quaestio45]

Just as having the ability to reject God would serve as an obstruction to enjoying the bratific vision. No difference.

Well actually, no. The difference is that in the car analogy, the obstruction is in the creater and user of the car; in this point you make now, the obstruction is in the creation. That be so, my point still seems to stand, which is that the analogy fails on the basis that it brings God no benefit, but instead only benefits us. In that regard, making any being with a full capacity to freely choose is not absurd if the end is their well being, and only the well being of a creature determined through their own consential actions is considered good.

But I will ask: “Does God have a free will?

Some can rightfully argue that he does not (as do I).

The usual answer is that God cannot do evil, because it is against his nature. So why do we need a “free will”?

Perhaps it might be in part because of a difference between nature and operation; God is of the nature of good, we might agree, but there may be a difference in what the good might be and the way the good operates. For example, the good may itself not possess freedom of choice, but because something like forceful imposition of a given nature unto another is not good, it necessitates that a creature should hold freedom to choose instead, even if the ultimate results may be evil as well. Thus the good would operate “differently” then its own nature, and as such there would not be a one for one imitation of it.

Before we would get created, we have no need (or ability) for free will.

Of course.

If and when we shall enjoy the beatific vision, there will be no free will either.

Is that so? I did not know such a thing. What leads you to think as such?

Who said that there is only ONE route?

I’m confused by this reply, I must admit. One route to what? When did I imply one route?

Since I have never seen a coherent answer for this, I remain skeptical.

I would disagree on the incoherent answer as to the question of evil part, but I understand your skepticism.

 

[quaestio45]

Gorgias:

Abandon the problematic assertion as illogical.

@quaestio45 agrees with me. Perhaps s/he can help it.

Is this in reference to creation of time? If so, yes; I’m with STT on this one @Gorgias . If time is the dimension of change, then you cannot go from no time to time without time being presupposed. Therefore, time is eternal (though I would disagree that time is eternal through its own essence, however).

Also, I’m a he

 

[Abrosz]

Some can rightfully argue that he does not (as do I).

If that is the case than we could have free will without the ability to perform some evil acts.

Is that so? I did not know such a thing. What leads you to think as such?

Do you really believe that we shall be able to “reject” God, even if we are overwhelmed by the indescribable happiness emanating from the beatific vision?

You said:

I suppose the answer to this question would only be a yes if you assume that an imposed route to well being is more good then a freely chosen route to well being

I don’t think that there is only one route to “well being”.

 

[goout]

Just as having the ability to reject God would serve as an obstruction to enjoying the bratific vision.

I have to say, the mis-type brings about some humorous imaginings.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[quaestio45]

quaestio45:

Some can rightfully argue that he does not (as do I).

If that is the case than we could have free will without the ability to perform some evil acts.

I’m not sure how that follows from what I said, but nonetheless I do agree; you can have free will without having the ability to perform a number of actions (both evil and good). Such would be necessary consequence of being a limited being, that not all the things you wish or will may manifest themselves through your actions.

Do you really believe that we shall be able to “reject” God, even if we are overwhelmed by the indescribable happiness emanating from the beatific vision?

I’d say yes, for if Satan was in the presence of God his whole existence before his fall, I’m sure man might be susceptible to the same perhaps.

I don’t think that there is only one route to “well being”.

I don’t disagree. I would simply say as a caveat on my part that all the routes which produce “well being” must converge onto the same producer of “wellness in being”.

 

[Abrosz]

I’m not sure how that follows from what I said, but nonetheless I do agree; you can have free will without having the ability to perform a number of actions (both evil and good).

Hold it. Why do you misquote what I said. The ability to perform good actions does not need to be limited. To have free will it is sufficient to choose between chocolate and vanilla flavored ice cream.