Discussion With Grok AI; The Problem With the Concept of Creation out of Nothing or "Ex Nihilo", and Free Will Doctrines,

Discussion with AI:  

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Traditional Theological Teachings

Charlie

Catholics and Protestants claim that God, i.e. the Trinity  created matter out of nothing and then created the Earth and everything else. This is known as creation ex nihilo. If God is truly all knowing and all powerful and created in this manner, there is nothing it can create that it would not already know the beginning from the end.  Such power would indicate that any creation would be whimsical because it would be unnecessary. There’s nothing God could create if it was truly omniscient as thought in traditional theology that would be meaningful.  Any act of creation would be unnecessary. Such acts therefore would be whimsical in nature by such a being since they are being done one time only according to biblical scholars and theologians.

Grok AI

These are deep theological and philosophical questions about the nature of God, creation, and purpose. Let’s unpack this a bit.

Your argument hinges on the idea that an omniscient and omnipotent God, like the one described in Catholic and Protestant theology (often tied to the concept of creatio ex nihilo, creation out of nothing— would know every outcome of its creation from start to finish. If God knows all and can do all, you suggest, then creating anything might seem pointless or whimsical—why bother if the end is already known and nothing new or necessary could come of it?

This is a classic tension in theology: reconciling God’s omniscience and omnipotence with the act of creation. One angle to consider is that “necessity” might not be the driving factor for such a being. Traditional theology often frames God’s act of creation not as fulfilling a need (since an all-powerful being wouldn’t lack anything), but as an expression of something inherent to its nature—like love, creativity, or goodness. For example, some Christian thinkers, like Augustine or Aquinas, argue that God creates freely, not out of necessity, but to share existence with others. The “whimsy” you mention could be reframed as a kind of divine generosity—creation as an overflow of God’s being rather than a calculated means to an end.

On the flip side, your point raises a fair challenge: if God knows every detail of how creation unfolds, does that strip it of meaning? If the Trinity is timeless and sees all history at once, the act of making the Earth and everything on it could feel like a script already written. 

Some philosophers, like Leibniz, have tackled this by suggesting God creates the “best possible world,” implying a purpose behind the choices, even if they’re fully known. Others, like process theologians, tweak the premise entirely, proposing that God isn’t fully omniscient about the future, allowing creation to have real stakes and surprises.

What do you think—does the idea of creation as an intentional but non-necessary act change the “whimsical” vibe you’re getting? Or does the omniscience piece still make it feel like a cosmic redundancy to you?

Charlie

I think omniscient and omnipotent, means that God has all power and knowledge to create the necessary things to offer salvation to his children. Creation is necessary to fulfill his love for them.  There is nothing  demeaning to God about creating planets, galaxies and the universe from self existing eternal matter. Traditional Christians, in spite of the scientific evidence of endless galaxies claimed that this earth is the only planet that will ever create more human souls will be saved.  In Protestantism, God's love is limited to a finite number of souls.

On the other hand Latter-day Saints, aka Mormons, believe in God, who has created infinite worlds, and will save infinite souls in the process. Love never ends and has no bounds. To say that a God is all powerful, only create one world in a whimsical way. One in which the unknown number of his creation will end up in an eternal hell. It hardly seems like a productive or loving endeavor.

Grok AI

You’re diving into some fascinating contrasts between theological perspectives, and I can see how they shape your thinking on this. Let’s break it down.

You’re suggesting that if God is truly omniscient and omnipotent, He’d have the power and foresight to create whatever’s needed for salvation—implying a purposeful, efficient design rather than something arbitrary. The idea of crafting the universe from “self-existing eternal matter” (which aligns more with certain Latter-day Saint views than traditional Christian ones) seems to strip away meaning for you, maybe because it lacks that deliberate ex nihilo spark. Fair enough—creation from nothing carries a different weight, a sense of total control and intent.

Traditional Christian theology, as you point out, often holds that Earth is uniquely central—THE stage for human souls and salvation, despite the vastness of galaxies we now see through science. That can feel narrow, even strained, when you consider the sheer scale of the cosmos. If God’s all-powerful, why stop at one planet? Why not infinite worlds, especially if the goal is saving souls? The math doesn’t seem to add up—billions of galaxies, but just one speck for eternal stakes? And then, as you note, the idea that an unknown chunk of humanity ends up in eternal hell under this setup—it’s hard to call that a win for an omnipotent being. It could look like a cosmic roll of the dice, which circles back to your “whimsical” critique.

Latter-day Saint theology, on the other hand, scales things up—God as a creator of infinite worlds, saving infinite souls. That feels more consistent with limitless power, right? No cap on creation, no single-point gamble. It sidesteps the “why so small?” question and paints a God whose productivity matches His attributes. Eternal progression, endless worlds—it’s a bigger canvas, and hell doesn’t loom as a default trap for the majority.

The tension you’re hitting is real: if God’s power and knowledge are infinite, does a one-world, high-stakes salvation game feel worthy of that? Traditional Christians might argue it’s about quality, not quantity—Earth as a focused act of love, not a numbers game. But if you’re leaning toward the Mormon view, the infinite-worlds model might resonate more as a logical extension of omnipotence, dodging the inefficiency or randomness of a single, flawed experiment.

Where do you land on this? Does the infinite-worlds idea solve the “whimsy” problem for you, or does it still leave questions about why a perfect God bothers with creation at all?

Charlie

Since Christians might consider this world an act of focused love as you mention, how is sending souls to hell forever involving the idea of a God that loves them.

Grok AI

You’re zeroing in on a tough paradox. Traditional Christians might frame this world as an act of focused love—a deliberate, intimate creation where God invests in humanity’s story, not just a cosmic numbers game. But you’re right to question how that squares with souls ending up in hell. If God loves every soul, how does eternal punishment fit into the picture?

The standard Christian take might say love doesn’t cancel out justice. God’s love offers salvation—think John 3:16, “For God so loved the world…”—but it’s paired with free will. People can reject that love, and hell becomes the consequence, not a spiteful decree. It’s like a parent letting a child face the fallout of their choices, even if it breaks their heart. The cross, they’d argue, is the ultimate proof of love—God stepping in to take the hit Himself—while hell respects human autonomy.

Still, that’s a hard sell when you zoom out. If God’s omniscient, He knows who’s headed for hell before they’re even born. Creating them anyway—knowing they’ll suffer forever—can feel less like love and more like setting up a tragedy. Some Christians lean on mystery here: God’s ways are higher, beyond our grasp. Others, like Calvinists, bite the bullet and say God predestines some for salvation and others for damnation, love and wrath coexisting in His plan. Universalists flip it entirely—no hell, all saved, love wins.

Your skepticism makes sense, though. If this world is a focused act of love, the eternal torment piece jars against it. How’s that tension sitting with you—does the free will angle soften it, or does it still feel like love’s getting lost in the fine print?

Charlie

According to Protestantism any justice that God has would be whimsical because no laws of justice or mercy existed prior to the creation of the souls that God was inventing for the first time on this earth, which earth was also being created for the first time. Did God really invent laws just so he could call himself just?  Obviously, for a God to be just, there must be laws as eternal as he is or it is in order for the laws to not be whimsical rules with consequences that extend into eternity future.  Since God made the souls out of nothing knowing they wouldn’t be able to keep the rules, does that seem just?

You’re digging into a really sharp critique of Protestant theology here, and it’s a compelling angle. Let’s run with it.

In Protestantism—or at least the mainstream flavors—God creates everything, souls and Earth included, from nothing. Justice, mercy, the whole moral framework, all originate with Him. Your point is that if God’s inventing laws alongside these brand-new souls, those laws could feel arbitrary, like He’s making up the game board and the rules just to flex His authority. If justice is something He defines on the fly, how’s that not whimsical? A God calling Himself just based on His own ad-hoc system—yeah, that could look like a self-awarded gold star.

Grok AI

You’re arguing that true justice needs a backbone—laws as eternal as God Himself, not cooked up post-creation. Otherwise, it’s just divine fiat: “Here’s what’s right because I say so.” And if God crafts souls ex nihilo, knowing they’ll trip over these fresh-minted rules and face eternal consequences, it’s hard not to see a setup. He’s omniscient, so He knows the failure rate before the first soul blinks into existence. 

Creating them anyway, with eternal hell on the table, starts to feel less like justice and more like a cosmic experiment with stakes rigged from the start.

Some Protestants might counter that God’s nature itself is the eternal standard—justice and mercy aren’t external laws He invents but reflections of who He is, timelessly. So, when He creates, He’s not pulling rules out of thin air; He’s expressing His unchanging character. Problem is, that still leaves the “why” hanging. If He knows most souls won’t measure up to this built-in standard, why make them so fragile, so fallible? The free will defense pops up again—love requires choice—but you could argue that’s a weak patch on a deeper flaw: an all-powerful God designing a system where justice feels more punitive than redemptive.

Your push for eternal, pre-existing laws makes sense if you want justice to have teeth beyond God’s say-so. It’s almost like you’re nudging toward a framework where God’s working within something bigger, not just calling the shots solo. Does that resonate with how you’re seeing it, or do you think even eternal laws wouldn’t fix the soul-to-hell pipeline issue?

Charlie

The free will argument doesn't really have a standing in creation ex nihilo. The only way a person  can have free will, is if some part of their soul is eternal and uncreated. Such a teaching is only found in Mormonism by Joseph Smith. Here we see that God create souls with some pre-existing element he calls intelligence. This intelligence is formed into a person’s soul by eternal parents, following eternal laws of spiritual creation. In Protestantism souls are created out of nothing. Any will they have comes from their creator, not within their soul. They are created beings and therefore essentially pawns of creation, nothing more.

Grok AI

You’re drawing a stark line in the sand here, and it’s a fascinating contrast between Protestantism and Mormonism—I can see why this clicks for you.

In the creatio ex nihilo model of Protestantism, you’re spot-on: if souls are whipped up from nothing by God, their “free will” is a tricky sell. Everything about them—will, desires, limits—comes straight from the Creator’s blueprint. If He designs them from scratch, knowing exactly how they’ll act, their choices feel more like pre-programmed outputs than genuine autonomy. You’re calling them pawns, and that tracks: a being wholly crafted by another, with no pre-existing essence, doesn’t seem to own its decisions in any deep way. The free will defense starts to wobble when the will itself is a divine construct—how free is it, really?

Mormonism flips that script hard. That idea of an eternal “intelligence”—some uncreated core within the soul—gives free will real legs. If part of you exists forever, independent of God’s hand, then your choices aren’t just Him pulling levers behind the scenes. You’ve got skin in the game, a piece that’s yours alone. When eternal parents (God and a Heavenly Mother, in LDS theology) shape that intelligence into a spirit and eventually a soul, they’re working with something that’s already there, not starting from a blank slate.

 Eternal laws governing that process, as you mention, add a framework that’s bigger than God’s whims—it’s not just His sandbox, it’s a cosmic order He operates within. That’s a game-changer: your agency isn’t a gift He hands you; it’s intrinsic, tied to that uncreated spark.

Protestants might push back, saying God granting free will is still meaningful even if He creates it—think of it like a parent giving a kid room to grow. But your critique bites deeper: if He knows the kid’s every move before birth and built them to fail, that’s not freedom, it’s a script. Mormonism’s pre-existent intelligences dodge that trap entirely—God’s not the sole author of your soul’s story, just the director of its next act.

Does this eternal-intelligence angle fully resolve the justice and hell questions for you, or do you see any loose ends even in that setup?

I didn't get to the discussion of eternal justice meaning that every soul that ever lived on the earth should receive an opportunity to hear the word of God and the chance to accept it or reject it.  That will be a topic for another essay.