Here's a response to that question by apologist Matt Slick:
https://carm.org/about-God-freewill-heaven
I'll sum up the comments here:
Wrong, just because something was caused (in this case the big bang) does not mean that it correlates to a god. In fact, we don't know what caused it. This is based on the Kalam Cosmological Argument which simply attempts to smuggle a god into the first premise by saying everything that begins to exist has a cause. It's an ad hoc design attempting to smooth over previously poorly worded arguments, or in other words, provide a loophole for the theist.
Let's look at more of MS comments on this:
I understand what he is attempting to say here but it's beside the point. According to the bible god does violate his own nature in countless stories by changing his mind. He is often shown to change his mind after some convincing arguments from biblical characters. Does this constitute a change in nature? (I'm assuming our *nature* is referred to as a noun which would mean the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential character.) A theist would say no but I would argue that it would. If I am ready to kill someone and a friend convinces me not to based on some form of reasoning, in essence, my nature has become slightly more empathetic or compassionate, if only for that moment. It may have been that he convinced me the outcome would actually hurt me more (jail time) or it could be something else altogether. Nevertheless a changing of the mind to do something designates a change in how we think / react which is directly correlated to our characteristics or nature.
There is absolutely no evidence that god put his creation in heaven to begin with. We know what the ancients thought *heaven* was and where it was. We know that the story in Isaiah 14 tells about how Lucifer fell, etc. We also know that This is purely speculative. However, if we grant this point based on the story of it is more probable that this passage is an allusion to a Canaanite or Phoenician myth about how Helel, son of the god Shahar, sought the throne of the chief god and was cast down into the abyss because of this. Evidence for this theory comes from an Ugaritic poem about two divine children, Shachar (dawn) and Shalim (dusk), who were born as the result of the intercourse of the god El with mortal women. That would make El, Elyon, and Shahar members of the Canaanite pantheon and the “mount of meeting” is the abode of the gods, which corresponds to Mount Olympus in Greek mythology. Unfortunately, this is just speculation as archaeologists have not uncovered any Canaanite sources that describe Helel ben Shahar or a revolt against Elyon.
Many Apocalyptic writers interpreted this passage as referring to Lucifer, and wrote about the fall of the angels. 1 Enoch refers to the falling angels as stars (the watches) and may be the beginning of the overlap between the story of the watchers and Isaiah. The point is many religions had their own version of this story of "the fall", Egypt, Babylon, etc. so just because there is a story of a 'fall' does not mean that it is true.
To address the last point: So, why couldn't god make man in a way that it would be certain that he would have freedom but not rebel? Impossibility Slick proposes? I thought all things were possible with god? The fact that they have the knowledge of the alleged effects of sin in no way bears that they would not decide to do evil in heaven. People on earth decide to perform actions we label as evil every day with full knowledge of the potential consequences of those actions. They still choose to do them. Invoking a glorified mind or body that the heavenly residents will have does not work either. Lucifer was a created being, and he still chose to think himself higher than god (as the story goes) If one argues (as Matt does) that he did not know the effects his decision would have then how can he be held accountable? It's the same with Adam & Eve. If they did not have the knowledge of good and evil then how can they be held accountable for a good / evil action? What kind of god would dole out consequences to someone who didn't know what his/her actions would bring? It all kind of seems circular to me.
god honors human dignity by giving man what he wants without man knowing the consequences just so he can show love and mercy? What kind of fucked up reasoning is that? If I chose to send my child down into a dungeon in my basement because he did something wrong....and he did not know it was wrong because he had no knowledge of this concept....just so I could say, I love you and want to show you mercy so I'm going to let you come back upstairs; there is not a single person in his/her right mind that would think this wasn't insanely crazy. I could have easily shown him love by just LOVING him. I don't need to exercise a warrant of suffering just to show my love. And I can sure think of a better system that I could put in place to where mercy would not need to be shown. Showing the nature of mercy does not justify suffering in the slightest of means. And if it does, I would want nothing to do with that epistemology.
So the dilemma still stands and cannot cohesively be negated regardless of the mental gymnastics and hoops theists try to jump through.
https://carm.org/about-God-freewill-heaven
I'll sum up the comments here:
Quote:We can understand certain things about God from nature. All that we see was created in time. It is dependent upon something else for its existence. But there cannot be an endless regression of causes for existence, so there must be a self-existing Being upon which all existence depends. This is God, of course.
Wrong, just because something was caused (in this case the big bang) does not mean that it correlates to a god. In fact, we don't know what caused it. This is based on the Kalam Cosmological Argument which simply attempts to smuggle a god into the first premise by saying everything that begins to exist has a cause. It's an ad hoc design attempting to smooth over previously poorly worded arguments, or in other words, provide a loophole for the theist.
Let's look at more of MS comments on this:
Quote:Now, since God is fully actualized (He is the same from all eternity), it is impossible that He could violate His own nature (sin). But man is not like God in this sense; man can change. For God, freedom is having the power to do that which pleases Him, and it is impossible for Him to do otherwise because of His nature. Not so with created things. Humans can actually choose evil without it being contrary to reason. So, we can't have free will while being guaranteed not to sin, "modeled after the characteristics of the Trinity," as you say.
What if God put His creation in heaven to begin with? He did, and the angels fell (Rev. 12:9,Luke 10:18). They fell because they became obsessed with their own beauty and power rather than the ultimate power that they were made to know. Likewise, Adam wanted to "be like God" and decide his own fate ().
So, why couldn't God make man in a way that it would be certain that he would have freedom but not rebel? Such a state of affairs may indeed have been impossible. Again, it would not be possible for man's freedom to be the same as God's, as I described earlier. Man has the potential for pride, to look to himself rather than God for fulfillment. As long as that is true, he has the possibility of sinning.
What about in heaven? Isn't it true that in heaven people have freedom but do not sin? Yes, but people in heaven have knowledge of sin that Adam did not have before he fell. In heaven, the redeemed will be able to fully know the contrast between God's goodness and the horrendous effects of evil. With glorified minds and bodies, they cannot possibly choose evil. Could God have given man that knowledge beforehand? God did give Adam the warning (), but mental knowledge is different from experiential knowledge. Having experienced the full effects of sin and the presence of God, one will not decide to turn back to sin.
I understand what he is attempting to say here but it's beside the point. According to the bible god does violate his own nature in countless stories by changing his mind. He is often shown to change his mind after some convincing arguments from biblical characters. Does this constitute a change in nature? (I'm assuming our *nature* is referred to as a noun which would mean the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential character.) A theist would say no but I would argue that it would. If I am ready to kill someone and a friend convinces me not to based on some form of reasoning, in essence, my nature has become slightly more empathetic or compassionate, if only for that moment. It may have been that he convinced me the outcome would actually hurt me more (jail time) or it could be something else altogether. Nevertheless a changing of the mind to do something designates a change in how we think / react which is directly correlated to our characteristics or nature.
There is absolutely no evidence that god put his creation in heaven to begin with. We know what the ancients thought *heaven* was and where it was. We know that the story in Isaiah 14 tells about how Lucifer fell, etc. We also know that This is purely speculative. However, if we grant this point based on the story of it is more probable that this passage is an allusion to a Canaanite or Phoenician myth about how Helel, son of the god Shahar, sought the throne of the chief god and was cast down into the abyss because of this. Evidence for this theory comes from an Ugaritic poem about two divine children, Shachar (dawn) and Shalim (dusk), who were born as the result of the intercourse of the god El with mortal women. That would make El, Elyon, and Shahar members of the Canaanite pantheon and the “mount of meeting” is the abode of the gods, which corresponds to Mount Olympus in Greek mythology. Unfortunately, this is just speculation as archaeologists have not uncovered any Canaanite sources that describe Helel ben Shahar or a revolt against Elyon.
Many Apocalyptic writers interpreted this passage as referring to Lucifer, and wrote about the fall of the angels. 1 Enoch refers to the falling angels as stars (the watches) and may be the beginning of the overlap between the story of the watchers and Isaiah. The point is many religions had their own version of this story of "the fall", Egypt, Babylon, etc. so just because there is a story of a 'fall' does not mean that it is true.
To address the last point: So, why couldn't god make man in a way that it would be certain that he would have freedom but not rebel? Impossibility Slick proposes? I thought all things were possible with god? The fact that they have the knowledge of the alleged effects of sin in no way bears that they would not decide to do evil in heaven. People on earth decide to perform actions we label as evil every day with full knowledge of the potential consequences of those actions. They still choose to do them. Invoking a glorified mind or body that the heavenly residents will have does not work either. Lucifer was a created being, and he still chose to think himself higher than god (as the story goes) If one argues (as Matt does) that he did not know the effects his decision would have then how can he be held accountable? It's the same with Adam & Eve. If they did not have the knowledge of good and evil then how can they be held accountable for a good / evil action? What kind of god would dole out consequences to someone who didn't know what his/her actions would bring? It all kind of seems circular to me.
Quote:In His wisdom, God sees it best to give man what he wants without fully knowing the consequences beforehand. Perhaps this way honors human dignity and gives Him the opportunity to express His great mercy and love. We can more fully understand God's love and His conquering power in light of a history marred by sin. We do not know fully why God does as He does, but we know He is good (how we know that must be accounted for elsewhere). This is obviously not the best possible world, but, as my mentor Norman Geisler has often said, it may be "the best possible way to the best possible world."
As for your final objection, that a rule exists which God does not decree: the laws governing existence are not from outside of God, nor are they merely decreed arbitrarily as you suggest. They derive from God's very nature. Order and logic are derived from God's Being. A state of affairs in which man has freedom and yet cannot sin is contrary to reason, as I have argued here. And reason is from God, not from outside of Him. So, there is no obligation on God from the outside. He is and in His sovereignty, He has allowed evil, which He will ultimately use for His glory and for our good.
god honors human dignity by giving man what he wants without man knowing the consequences just so he can show love and mercy? What kind of fucked up reasoning is that? If I chose to send my child down into a dungeon in my basement because he did something wrong....and he did not know it was wrong because he had no knowledge of this concept....just so I could say, I love you and want to show you mercy so I'm going to let you come back upstairs; there is not a single person in his/her right mind that would think this wasn't insanely crazy. I could have easily shown him love by just LOVING him. I don't need to exercise a warrant of suffering just to show my love. And I can sure think of a better system that I could put in place to where mercy would not need to be shown. Showing the nature of mercy does not justify suffering in the slightest of means. And if it does, I would want nothing to do with that epistemology.
So the dilemma still stands and cannot cohesively be negated regardless of the mental gymnastics and hoops theists try to jump through.
**Crickets** -- God
![[Image: BvV5yLxCEAIps0E.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvV5yLxCEAIps0E.jpg)
She says to me, "Do they think you're a real person on that forum?" I say, "Yeah, I think so!"
Jury is still out on that one.
