Defining terms shortens debate: Free Will

[renniks]

I thought I was done, but here I go again. Why are you asking, "How could we be in any way sovereign if God has set in stone are every action for all eternity?"? That is my question! We are not in any way sovereign.

You brought it up.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You brought it up.

We continue talking past each other. Oh well.

 

[renniks]

Can you show me what basic questions I have no answers for? It isn't that obvious.

You don't know what I'm asking --no, I don't believe in chance, which is why I asked, does your supposed independence from God's causation not invoke chance, or superiority of some over others? WHY do some of their own ability (according to your supposition), choose God and others don't?

This is such an odd question. If you truly believe in free will it's not a question that even occurs to you. The ability to choose is all through scripture. Why would choosing right make you superior?
Now my questions:

1. Does God have power of contrary choice?

2. Is God capable of creating creatures endowed with an even remotely similar capability?

If so, what is the problem with libertarian Free Will?

As far as chance, I'm not sure that is the right word. I think you are basically saying: "Chance must necessitate choices if they’re not necessitated!”

Which is kind of silly, because it just shifts the determinism to chance instead of God.

Free will is neither causation machine nor untethered tempest. It’s a category unto itself... why would we assume it must fit into either of these molds?

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is such an odd question. If you truly believe in free will it's not a question that even occurs to you. The ability to choose is all through scripture. Why would choosing right make you superior?
Now my questions:

1. Does God have power of contrary choice?

2. Is God capable of creating creatures endowed with an even remotely similar capability?

If so, what is the problem with libertarian Free Will?

As far as chance, I'm not sure that is the right word. I think you are basically saying: "Chance must necessitate choices if they’re not necessitated!”

Which is kind of silly, because it just shifts the determinism to chance instead of God.

Free will is neither causation machine nor untethered tempest. It’s a category unto itself... why would we assume it must fit into either of these molds?

Choosing right is either morally or intellectually superior, if Free Will is the ability to act independent of causes.

1. "Does God have power of contrary choice?" What does that even mean? Do you mean, can God decide in opposition to what some human decides? That's a silly question, or a silly way to put it. The human will always choose as God planned for him to choose. I don't know why you ask it, unless you wish to trap me or something. You may as well ask if God can make a rock too big for him to pick up.

2. "Is God capable of creating creatures endowed with an even remotely similar capability?" Of course, unless the capability is logically self-contradictory, or contradictory against other things God is doing in that creature.

"If so, what is the problem with libertarian Free Will?", you ask. Well, your questions and your conclusion are based on a false worldview. And if by Libertarian Free Will, you mean ability to choose independent of causes, and independent of God's control in particular, you have posited something self-contradictory. THAT is the problem with Libertarian Free Will, if I understand what you mean by that nice sounding term. You have also, with libertarian free will, proposed a few billion self-sufficient First Causes.

 

[Hawkins]

I don't see how what you said defeats Reformed Theology in the least. Of course our decisions are the result of these many things and more. And of course, if "freewill" is a thing, your description applies. Reformed Theology agrees.

For what it is worth, Reformed Theology does not pretend to be a systematic comprehensive assessment of, or structure for all things. It only exists to help place God into a proper perspective for the mind of man. It is more an answer to Arminianism and the vagrancies of the human theological conversation, an attempt to return to what Scripture says about God, than it is a separate consideration of the nature of God and his creation.

undirected spontaneous decisions

Confusion comes from your claim that the old reformers referred freewill as undirected. It sounds as if such a decision is without influence.

My reply is to try to clarify that a decision can be influenced (or directed?) but still it's one's own decision by freewill in the end, and he's responsible for the consequences so caused. In a nutshell, freewill is the ability to pick a choice as one's own decision even under influence.

 

[renniks]

Choosing right is either morally or intellectually superior, if Free Will is the ability to act independent of causes

No, it isn't... what is so hard to understand about free choice?
When scripture says "choose you this day whom you will serve" that's exactly what it means! What it doesn't mean is that God picked some of you to serve him and some of you to be damned forever for no reason that you are capable of understanding.
Choosing God's way doesn't make a person intellectually Superior, it means he decided to humble himself, which scripture also says we have the ability to do, instead of holding on to his vanity. It's not pulling ourselves up, it's letting go of ourselves.

 

[renniks]

You have also, with libertarian free will, proposed a few billion self-sufficient First Causes.

And that's a problem, why? Does God not have the ability to work with free agents? Is he somehow so hindered by his own power that he has to be subservient to it, and not allow the slightest hint of freedom in his creatures, because they may thrawt his plans?

 

[renniks]

. "Does God have power of contrary choice?" What does that even mean? Do you mean, can God decide in opposition to what some human decides? That's a silly question, or a silly way to put it. The human will always choose as God planned for him to choose

Then God is a liar, because he says it never crossed his mind that his people would sacrifice their children to idols. He did not plan thier blasphemy.

 

[bling]

There you demonstrate your preconception, your false notion of our ability. All effects, so far as I know, cause further effects, (sooner or later, if you wish to think of it that way). I don't mean to say that all effects are also causes, because I can't prove it to be so, but I think it is so, but perhaps there is something at the end that is only effect --I don't know. But we do know that all effects are caused. First cause is not an effect. This is why I say there are no little first causes running about the surface of the earth.

Our places in the chain of causality demonstrate exactly that God can cause, and we also cause, just as the wind that blows against a grain of sand also causes. Who, after all, do you think we are???

Mark,

You dropped my earlier questions and responses, so I might need to start over.

You ask: “Who, after all, do you think we are???” Which is an excellent question, but one we might disagree over.

This goes back to: “Why did God make us?” “What is our objective?” and “Who is God?”

If you think about it created beings could not really “do” anything for the Creator, which the Creator could not do better Himself.

We praise, honor and give glory to Omnibenevolent Creator, so if that is not God, we are worshipping God. The greatest “Glory”, Deity demonstrates for us, is with the sacrificial Love Christ and God show with Christ being tortured, humiliated and murdered, because of us and for us. This shows God is the greatest giver (Lover) there could be, and besides the cross, God showers those who accept His gives as charity with unbelievable wonderful gifts.

God has the power to make beings, some of whom can become like He is, in that they have this unbelievable huge unconditional, unselfish Love. These beings can be “one” with God, like Christ is with God.

Unfortunately, it will take a huge sacrifice on God’s part to provide a system for humans to become like He is, with Godly type Love.

1. God will be forced to kick humans He Loves, out of where He wants them to be, in a Garden, because it is an impossible place for them to obtain Godly type Love.

2. God has to allow humans to sin.

3. God has to allow satan to roam the earth.

4. God will have to allow Christ to go to the cross.

5. God will have to allow or cause many tragedies.

6. God will cause people to experience physical death.

7. God will have to allow humans to have a very limited amount of autonomous free will to be the original first cause for their own acceptance or rejection of God’s Love.

Why would it be any harder for God to allow humans to have very limited autonomous free will, since He had to sacrifice in all these other ways to allow just some to obtain this Godly type Love?

 

[Jok]

In a way the entire Bible is one long message of “Please repent!” That makes no sense with determinism. Instead the Bible would constantly be saying “Please cross your fingers that you were one of the chosen!”

 

[Mark Quayle]

Confusion comes from your claim that the old reformers referred freewill as undirected. It sounds as if such a decision is without influence.

Where did I say the old Reformers referred to freewill as undirected??

 

[Mark Quayle]

In a way the entire Bible is one long message of “Please repent!” That makes no sense with determinism. Instead the Bible would constantly be saying “Please cross your fingers that you were one of the chosen!”

Your notion of determinism isn't the same as mine. God has determined, and he uses means (including our decisions, for eg our decisions to repent,) to accomplish what he has determined. You seem to think determinism only means whatever is determined is going to happen so there's no use deciding anything. God uses us, man! (This is a good thing, btw).

Also, I find your last sentence, 'Instead the Bible would constantly be saying “Please cross your fingers that you were one of the chosen!”' rather repugnant. When God changes one's heart, it isn't his own eternal well-being that is foremost in his mind. My satisfaction isn't in my own salvation, but in God's glory. The fact God is doing all this for his own sake more than satisfies my doubts that he really is going to do what he said, and that he can do whatever he wants without having to answer anyone about it, but also it gives me no end of joy at watching him do it! He is amazing! The fact he also has included the Bride of Christ in on his plans is just icing on the cake.

God's satisfaction is my security. If I have fooled myself all this time, and I am not one of those he chose, I still feel like I will praise him for what and who and how he is, at the end. (No, I know that that those who in the end are condemned will not thank him, so I wouldn't either if I'm only fooled, but adoration is what I feel like concerning God.) I am satisfied with God's self-interest. That is enough. And if I am one of his, thank God for that!

 

[Mark Quayle]

undirected spontaneous decisions

Confusion comes from your claim that the old reformers referred freewill as undirected. It sounds as if such a decision is without influence.

My reply is to try to clarify that a decision can be influenced (or directed?) but still it's one's own decision by freewill in the end, and he's responsible for the consequences so caused. In a nutshell, freewill is the ability to pick a choice as one's own decision even under influence.

(I repeat what I answered in another post: I did not claim that. I think you are confused. However, I do like your description/definition of freewill. It allows that it is controlled by God, which indeed it is, as are all things. The fact we decide is not deniable, but the notion that if God controls all things our decisions are not real, is bad logic. "Apart from me, you can do nothing." still applies.

 

[Mark Quayle]

And that's a problem, why? Does God not have the ability to work with free agents? Is he somehow so hindered by his own power that he has to be subservient to it, and not allow the slightest hint of freedom in his creatures, because they may thrawt his plans?

What is "the slightest hint of freedom"? A miss is a good as a mile, so a little true spontaneity is no different from a lot. It either is truly spontaneous, or it is not.

They will not thwart his plans, btw. Nobody can. He WILL accomplish what he set out to do. What are "free agents"? No, it is illogical, even self-contradictory, that God would create little first causes. It's not a question of what he can or can't do. You have posited a logical non-entity. You may as well say that God can make a rock too big for him to pick up.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Then God is a liar, because he says it never crossed his mind that his people would sacrifice their children to idols. He did not plan thier blasphemy.

It does not say it never crossed his mind (that they might do such a thing, or that they might disobey or blaspheme him that way). It says. "something I never commanded or mentioned, nor did it even enter My mind." I have read no dissimilar versions --even the ones saying "nor did it cross my mind" imply that it never crossed (or entered) his mind to command/mention such a thing. At the most, I can see it meaning it never entered his mind that they SHOULD do such a thing. I does not say he was unaware that they would, nor does it say that he made no such plan for that to happen. .

Beyond that, your take on it logically implies not only that God doesn't know all things from the outset (omniscience), but that he can't even foresee such a thing. Do you really think God was surprised? Again, logically, if he knew from the beginning that it was going to happen, and he created and set on its course the universe and all things, then yeah, it was his plan, or he has no plan.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark,

You dropped my earlier questions and responses, so I might need to start over.

You ask: “Who, after all, do you think we are???” Which is an excellent question, but one we might disagree over.

This goes back to: “Why did God make us?” “What is our objective?” and “Who is God?”

If you think about it created beings could not really “do” anything for the Creator, which the Creator could not do better Himself.

We praise, honor and give glory to Omnibenevolent Creator, so if that is not God, we are worshipping God. The greatest “Glory”, Deity demonstrates for us, is with the sacrificial Love Christ and God show with Christ being tortured, humiliated and murdered, because of us and for us. This shows God is the greatest giver (Lover) there could be, and besides the cross, God showers those who accept His gives as charity with unbelievable wonderful gifts.

God has the power to make beings, some of whom can become like He is, in that they have this unbelievable huge unconditional, unselfish Love. These beings can be “one” with God, like Christ is with God.

Unfortunately, it will take a huge sacrifice on God’s part to provide a system for humans to become like He is, with Godly type Love.

1. God will be forced to kick humans He Loves, out of where He wants them to be, in a Garden, because it is an impossible place for them to obtain Godly type Love.

2. God has to allow humans to sin.

3. God has to allow satan to roam the earth.

4. God will have to allow Christ to go to the cross.

5. God will have to allow or cause many tragedies.

6. God will cause people to experience physical death.

7. God will have to allow humans to have a very limited amount of autonomous free will to be the original first cause for their own acceptance or rejection of God’s Love.

Why would it be any harder for God to allow humans to have very limited autonomous free will, since He had to sacrifice in all these other ways to allow just some to obtain this Godly type Love?

While I don't much care for the way you put some things, or your lack of other relevant facts to your narrative, I could have mostly agreed, and wholeheartedly, with the basics of what you said, right up to #7.

No, my brother. God will NOT have to allow humans to have a very limited amount of autonomous free will. As I demonstrated in another post tonight, it is logically self-contradictory for First Cause to cause the existence of (create) other first causes. You want to say "limited", yet that doesn't fit First Cause, nor autonomous. Either they are independent of other things, including God himself, or they are not. They are not, a little bit independent. That is sloughing the word "independent". So with autonomous.

Again, I do not deny choice. Autonomy --that I deny, concerning anything but God. If, however, you mean by autonomy only the same thing as some mean by their use of sovereign or independence, such as in declaring a self-government not under that of another state or person, that is fine, but we are none of us "out from under God" nor even out from under the law of causality.

By the way, I don't follow this sentence: "We praise, honor and give glory to Omnibenevolent Creator, so if that is not God, we are worshipping God." I assume you left something out, or added something you didn't mean to.

 

[Jok]

God has determined, and he uses means (including our decisions, for eg our decisions to repent,) to accomplish what he has determined.

You seem to think determinism only means whatever is determined is going to happen so there's no use deciding anything.

Determined means that something is determined and set in stone. Allowing people to decide something for themselves means to allow people to decide something for themselves. Yes of course God can have free choice of decision making underneath an umbrella of a bigger predetermined event that is set in stone. God could have made it inescapably DETERMINED via His spiritual intervention that the North would win the Civil War, yet WITHIN that course of a predetermined event many people FREELY DECIDE their fate within that unfolding historical chapter. That makes total sense, freedom of B underneath an umbrella of predetermined A.

But what you continue to propose in this thread is this notion of God allowing freedom of people’s fate underneath an umbrella of predetermination of people’s fate. Unlike the Civil War example that is the SAME EXACT THING and it is logically incoherent! You keep conflating “Free decision of B underneath a determined A” with “Free decision of B underneath determined B.” It’s a blatant contradiction, it’s like saying that B is also non-B. Wrong, it is rather that B is underneath A. ‘A’ is where your determinism lies, but not in B.

Also, I find your last sentence, 'Instead the Bible would constantly be saying “Please cross your fingers that you were one of the chosen!”' rather repugnant.

Why would anyone not cross their fingers to be chosen if eternal fate is a matter of being chosen!? I don’t know what to say if definitions are repugnant to you. Determinism IS being chosen. To be chosen is to NOT decide anything but to get chosen, of course one would have their fingers crossed that they were chosen because for a person to choose to be pre-chosen makes absolutely no sense it’s a contradiction.

One of the most telltale signs that your position lies on a bed of mental gymnastics is if you actually find YOUR OWN TERMS to be repugnant! “Chosen” is literally the cornerstone term of determinism! To use determinism’s own term and to have the proposition called repugnant is extremely telling.

When was the last time that you heard of a believer of free will refer to the proposition of people “freely choosing“ as being repugnant? When was the last time you heard a nihilist refer to the proposition of “life having no meaning“ as being repugnant? When was the last time you heard of an atheist refer to the proposition of “there is no god” as being repugnant? If you can’t own your very own terms with pride something is wrong. You are doing some serious mental gymnastics if you are replying to a proposition that uses your own bread & butter term as being repugnant!

 

[renniks]

It does not say it never crossed his mind (that they might do such a thing, or that they might disobey or blaspheme him that way). It says. "something I never commanded or mentioned, nor did it even enter My mind." I have read no dissimilar versions --even the ones saying "nor did it cross my mind" imply that it never crossed (or entered) his mind to command/mention such a thing. At the most, I can see it meaning it never entered his mind that they SHOULD do such a thing. I does not say he was unaware that they would, nor does it say that he made no such plan for that to happen. .

Beyond that, your take on it logically implies not only that God doesn't know all things from the outset (omniscience), but that he can't even foresee such a thing. Do you really think God was surprised? Again, logically, if he knew from the beginning that it was going to happen, and he created and set on its course the universe and all things, then yeah, it was his plan, or he has no plan.

If it never entered his mind, in your deterministic universe, it could never happen. Because that's the whole basis of theistic determinism. Everything is predestined to happen by God. It's not just that he knows it will, we all agree he knows what will occur, but in Calvinism, he planned and rendered it certain to happen. If I planned the entire future it would be a lie for me to say something about that future never entered my mind.

 

[renniks]

No, it is illogical, even self-contradictory, that God would create little first causes.

Why is it illogical to allow free will? If there are no little first causes, there is no justification to place any blame on anyone for anything they do, because it would actually just be God doing it through them.

 

[bling]

While I don't much care for the way you put some things, or your lack of other relevant facts to your narrative, I could have mostly agreed, and wholeheartedly, with the basics of what you said, right up to #7.

No, my brother. God will NOT have to allow humans to have a very limited amount of autonomous free will. As I demonstrated in another post tonight, it is logically self-contradictory for First Cause to cause the existence of (create) other first causes. You want to say "limited", yet that doesn't fit First Cause, nor autonomous. Either they are independent of other things, including God himself, or they are not. They are not, a little bit independent. That is sloughing the word "independent". So with autonomous.
Again, I do not deny choice. Autonomy --that I deny, concerning anything but God. If, however, you mean by autonomy only the same thing as some mean by their use of sovereign or independence, such as in declaring a self-government not under that of another state or person, that is fine, but we are none of us "out from under God" nor even out from under the law of causality.

I am glad we agree on most things.

If you believe (and you do believe) there can be a first cause to action since, since you believe: God is the first cause to the universe. The question extends to:

1. Does God have the power to provide very limited first cause ability to humans in the form of allowing them the make an autonomous free will choice?

2. If God does not have this power, why does He not have this power?

3. If this power is needed for humans to become like God in that they can obtain Godly type Love, is God’s Love great enough to provide it to humans?

4. Godly type Love is not a knee jerk reaction, instinctive to humans, a robotic type “love”, nor can this Love be forced on human. This Love has to be the result of an autonomous free will choice with likely alternatives.

An autonomous free will choice allows for the individual to choose another alternative then the choice he/she made in the mind of the chooser without changing anything around (the environment) or within (the biological make-up of) the chooser. This makes the choice to humbly accept God’s Love in the form of forgiveness or to refuse God’s charity, his/her free will choice. The chooser is not really “out from under God”, but the choice is. This also does not go against “the Law of Causality” any more or differently then with God starting the universe, both are outside of the realm of science.

By the way, I don't follow this sentence: "We praise, honor and give glory to Omnibenevolent Creator, so if that is not God, we are worshipping God." I assume you left something out, or added something you didn't mean to.

Some people believe God in not omnibenevolent and only “Loves” some people (the elect), so those people who worship a limited benevolent God are not worshipping the Christian God, if the Christian God is omnibenevolent.