ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
It is God's will to either save all men, or it is God's will to save an elect people chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.
There is no middle theological ground.
Indeed
1 Timothy 2:3-4 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.
Slogan/motto:
"Love separates for the sake of union." - Rumi
Reputation:
April 26th, 2011, 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Reign
But of course, that radical separation of eternity and time only defers the issue that Calvinists have to deal with. In terms of election, I fail to see how a man's eternal destiny can be predestinated without also his survival into adulthood (or at least until the age of thinking and self-determinism, or if you want to be really pernickety until his baptism), also being predestinated. And then he has to be born in the first place, which means that his parents must also be predestinated to exist and so it goes on. If you predestine this one thing, you have really got to predestine the whole course of world history. There isn't really much inbetween.
Do you believe that your "self-determinism" is NOT compatible with "determinism?" If so, why?
There are only two options here: "determinism" or "indeterminism." Free will (libertarian) implies that your "freedom" reduces to chance.
"The concepts which now prove to be fundamental to our understanding of nature...seem to my mind to be structures of pure thought...the unvierse begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine." - Sir James Jeans
Slogan/motto:
"Love separates for the sake of union." - Rumi
Reputation:
April 26th, 2011, 07:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy2006
Why don't you prove that the dichotomy holds? Commonsense and scripture clearly say it is false, and your arguments have only ever amounted to the circular "determinism, therefore determinism." Free will is in itself a concept that is neither deterministic nor random.
Me: Why do you make the choices you make?
You: Because I choose to "make the choices I make."
Me: Yeah, but why do you choose to "choose to make the choices you make."
You: Because I choose to "choose to choose to make the choices I make."
Me: Can you say "infinite regress?"
"The concepts which now prove to be fundamental to our understanding of nature...seem to my mind to be structures of pure thought...the unvierse begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine." - Sir James Jeans
Slogan/motto:
Luke 9:23 Then He said to them all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me."
Reputation:
April 26th, 2011, 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian
Me: Why do you make the choices you make?
Partially because of predetermined inclinations and partially because of a free will.
Damian: Define free will in deterministic terms
zip:
"If a sheerly linguistic version of the gospel could be concocted, it would merely so be no longer the gospel. In the Lutheran Reformation’s understanding, which we believe in this matter to be correct, the sacraments make the inalienable externality of the gospel message and therefore are necessary to the authenticity of that message." (Christian Dogmatics [1984], II:302-303 as cited in Pontifications)
Slogan/motto:
"Love separates for the sake of union." - Rumi
Reputation:
April 26th, 2011, 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy2006
Partially because of predetermined inclinations and partially because of a free will.
Damian: Define free will in deterministic terms
zip:
I'm asking about the the INDETERMINISTIC part, not the deterministic part.
I am fairly certain that no real response will be forthcoming.
"The concepts which now prove to be fundamental to our understanding of nature...seem to my mind to be structures of pure thought...the unvierse begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine." - Sir James Jeans
Slogan/motto:
Luke 9:23 Then He said to them all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me."
Reputation:
April 26th, 2011, 08:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian
I'm asking about the the INDETERMINISTIC part, not the deterministic part.
I am fairly certain that no real response will be forthcoming.
What kind of response do you desire? You clearly desire a fully explanatory model of free will, which is nothing other than a deterministic explanation of free will. Free will implies a mystery. When you think free will must be completely explained you are simply begging the question, for a complete explanation is nothing other than a purely deterministic explanation.
This has been explained to you many times now.
"If a sheerly linguistic version of the gospel could be concocted, it would merely so be no longer the gospel. In the Lutheran Reformation’s understanding, which we believe in this matter to be correct, the sacraments make the inalienable externality of the gospel message and therefore are necessary to the authenticity of that message." (Christian Dogmatics [1984], II:302-303 as cited in Pontifications)
Slogan/motto:
"Love separates for the sake of union." - Rumi
Reputation:
April 26th, 2011, 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy2006
What kind of response do you desire? You clearly desire a fully explanatory model of free will, which is nothing other than a deterministic explanation of free will. Free will implies a mystery. When you think free will must be completely explained you are simply begging the question, for a complete explanation is nothing other than a purely deterministic explanation.
Translation: "Deep down I have come to realize that "free will" really does imply that an element of chance is at play but I do not have the intellectual honesty to publicly admit it. Therefore, I will say that it is a mystery."
"The concepts which now prove to be fundamental to our understanding of nature...seem to my mind to be structures of pure thought...the unvierse begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine." - Sir James Jeans
Slogan/motto:
"Love separates for the sake of union." - Rumi
Reputation:
April 26th, 2011, 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by csuguy
Continuing in a False Dichotomy is intellectual dishonesty - not pointing it out.
Intellectual dishonesty leads to the following "irrational rationalization"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by csuguy
And, as I have told you before, our decisions are not random (unless we decide to act randomly) - but they are unpredictable since the past does not dictate the future.
"Causeless causes" are spontaneous or random events. That you choose not to acknowledge this does not change the fact; it simply reveals that you are given to intellectual dishonesty.
"The concepts which now prove to be fundamental to our understanding of nature...seem to my mind to be structures of pure thought...the unvierse begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine." - Sir James Jeans
Resident Course Student and Panentheist
Last edited by Damian; April 26th, 2011 at 10:57 PM.
"Causeless causes" are spontaneous or random events. That you choose not to acknowledge this does not change the fact; it simply reveals that you are given to intellectual dishonesty.
I never argued for causeless causes in this debate (although ultimately there must be an uncaused cause, but that is another debate). We ourselves are the cause, we exist and are the cause of our decisions in the present. This is the freewill/OpenTheist position. It is intellectually dishonest to keep up with the false dichotomy when you have been shown alternative views.
If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.
Slogan/motto:
"Love separates for the sake of union." - Rumi
Reputation:
April 26th, 2011, 10:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by csuguy
I never argued for causeless causes in this debate (although ultimately there must be an uncaused cause, but that is another debate).
That free will implies a "causeless cause" is not debatable. And you just acknowledged the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by csuguy
We ourselves are the cause, we exist and are the cause of our decisions in the present. This is the freewill/OpenTheist position. It is intellectually dishonest to keep up with the false dichotomy when you have been shown alternative views.
What alternative view? "Causeless causes" are spontaneous or random events. Either you lack the intellectual capacity to grasp this or you lack the intellectual honesty to acknowledge it.
"The concepts which now prove to be fundamental to our understanding of nature...seem to my mind to be structures of pure thought...the unvierse begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine." - Sir James Jeans
That free will implies a "causeless cause" is not debatable. And you just acknowledged the point.
It is a debatable point and I have shown you that you are wrong. Freewill is not about probabilities and rolling the dice to decide your decisions. Freewill is about you making your own decisions - you are the cause of the decision, not chance.
And I did not acknowledge the point you think. When I acknowledge an uncaused cause, I was acknowledging that God is uncaused. His decisions are not uncaused - but rather he posses freewill as we do, but he himself is uncaused and eternal. As I said - it's another debate.
Quote:
What alternative view? "Causeless causes" are spontaneous or random events. Either you lack the intellectual capacity to grasp this or you lack the intellectual honesty to acknowledge it.
Freewill is not an uncaused cause - for we cause the decision to be made.
If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.
Do you believe that your "self-determinism" is NOT compatible with "determinism?" If so, why?
There are only two options here: "determinism" or "indeterminism." Free will (libertarian) implies that your "freedom" reduces to chance.
Self-determinism is technically a form of determinism. However, I tend to use words how people understand them, not by their technical breakdown. Therefore, self-determinism and determinism are not compatible because determinism is understood as meaning externally determined.
And for the record, for Nang and others, I consider Calvinism and fatalism to be similar, notwithstanding that Calvinists often deny that. In order to validate their denial, they need to show that free will is possible in a world where everything is determined externally (whether by God or by fate). Although they assert that it exists and that we are responsible for our actions, in my mind they have never put forward an argument that satisfactorily defends this view. The idea that God has two types of will is both illogical and unrealistic and smacks of the paradoxical nature that the time-eternity worldview is so full of - a mere clutching at straws to justify the indefensible.
Total Misanthropy. Uncertain salvation. Luck of the draw. Irresistible damnation. Persecution of the saints.
I never argued for causeless causes in this debate (although ultimately there must be an uncaused cause, but that is another debate). We ourselves are the cause, we exist and are the cause of our decisions in the present. This is the freewill/OpenTheist position. It is intellectually dishonest to keep up with the false dichotomy when you have been shown alternative views.
I agree. If God can be viewed as an uncaused causer, I don't see why we can't be.
And of course, I do stress 'can be viewed as'. I do think that the uncaused causer argument is a case of special pleading. A more consistent assertion is that Reality as a whole is self-determining. And as I have said before, free will is a sort of illusion and I don't like trying to justify its existence because it is fraught with psychological difficulties. It is easier just to assert that we are self-determining beings.
Total Misanthropy. Uncertain salvation. Luck of the draw. Irresistible damnation. Persecution of the saints.
"Causeless causes" are spontaneous or random events. That you choose not to acknowledge this does not change the fact; it simply reveals that you are given to intellectual dishonesty.
To imply that a random event is the cause of something is to beg the question. Likewise to assume that a random event has no cause also begs the question. What you need to prove is that an event can be without a cause. It has nothing to do with randomness. You could for example think of a tree moving randomly in the wind. The movement is caused by the wind but it is still random movement. If you define random as uncaused then you are again begging the question. As Zippy has pointed out, you are just defining your own logic here.
Total Misanthropy. Uncertain salvation. Luck of the draw. Irresistible damnation. Persecution of the saints.
Why don't you prove that the dichotomy holds? Commonsense and scripture clearly say it is false, and your arguments have only ever amounted to the circular "determinism, therefore determinism." Free will is in itself a concept that is neither deterministic nor random.
Linear Mode
