Can anyone provide an alternative to determinism or non-determinism?

S.O.J.I.A.

Dynamic UNO
Nov 6, 2016
4,280
2,641
Michigan
✟98,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Some more random thoughts:

- God predetermined all actions and events in time(Isaiah 46:9-10)

- Man makes decisions based on his own will and desires unforced or coerced by God(James 1:13-15)

- Eternal suffering in Hell is God's just vengeance on the wicked(romans 12:19; Hebrews 10:30-31)

- God's love is displayed in the fact that He sent His Son to die for those who hated Him and promised them eternal life(romans 5:6-11) ("Us" in this passage refers to those who are in Christ)

- It is God's will to show off all of his attributes. His love, mercy, and grace as well as his justice, power, wrath. we are not in position to question or judge God's decisions as we are His creation(romans 9:19-24)
 
Upvote 0

looking_for_answers_

Active Member
Dec 14, 2017
154
63
32
Boston
✟13,858.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There is a third option. The so-called random events of quantum mechanics are not random but, rather, guided by entities in the spiritual realm. (Hopefully by spiritual entities who serve God.) Thus, free will is considered by physical science as merely random events; in other words, they see it as deterministic. But these random events are actually free will actions of the soul or spirit working in the spiritual realm. Science ignores the spiritual realm, so they don't see this occurring.

Invoking the supernatural doesn't really change anything, though, because I can ask the same question about moral responsibility there, too. If a soul's action is determined by precending events (including the soul's "state", nature, etc), then why is it responsible? If a soul's actions are not determined by anything at all, then why is it responsible?

Also, if the supernatural was causing interference patterns in electron spin, why would it be a probablistic distribution?
 
Upvote 0

looking_for_answers_

Active Member
Dec 14, 2017
154
63
32
Boston
✟13,858.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Read this whole answer carefully if you are sincerely seeking resolution to your frustration. I am not saying that with condescension. I anticipated this question and answered it in my post you quoted when I said this:

"It could then be rightly asked 'well then could God have not provided a precise set of circumstances that would be those which are necessary to win the soul of every person?', and the answer would be no. For some people, there is no such set of circumstances that would be sufficient for them to freely receive the salvation of Christ by the Holy Spirit's testimony. This is affirmed doubly in the Scriptures. First, in Daniel 12:10 concerning the course through to the end times Jesus says: "Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand." Again, concerning God's providence Paul says in Romans 9:22: "What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?"

It may also seem confusing to think that God has among His human creation "objects of wrath" which He prepares for destruction, until you comprehend these points and Scriptures collectively. There are some souls which God would create that will freely reject Him under any and all circumstances, but are still necessary in the grand scheme of world history to play a role in drawing all those who will be freely saved into that salvation. God Himself illustrates this wonderfully in His statement to Pharaoh in Exodus 9:15-16: "For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

See Acts 17:26-27, Genesis 50:20, Jeremiah 25:8-14and Judges 14:4 for more Scriptural examples on the providence of God and how it works."



Acts 17:26-27, Hebrews 9:26, Galatians 4:4-5, among other Scriptures, make clear the our settings in time and location are established for the exclusive purpose of preparing us to receive the Gospel. Combining this with the content of my answer in original post, and my answer to point one, it is clear that God had the best world in mind in terms of bringing the largest number of souls freely to salvation.

It seems your complaint is more concerning the utility, so to speak, of the mass quantities of the unsaved and their allowance into existence despite God's foreknowledge of their inevitable condemnation, more so than a problem ith this point being ultimately true. Regardless, it is clear that more people will be unsaved than saved (Matthew 7:14), and I would find it a bizarre complaint that this point is true (which Scripturally, it is clear that it is) because it is the only resolution that make's man inevitably responsible for his own condemnation. Under all alternatives, God is not allowing those foreknown to be unsaved to exist, but is actually causing them to be unsaved.

So based on the content already provided in my answer, your complaint seems to be summarized in the idea that God is showing partiality by creating a soul He foreknew would be condemned if they existed for the purpose of playing a role in leading another soul to salvation.

There are two points to consider in answering this question:

1. To be partial is to show special favour towards someone or something. God is not being partial in the grace He extends towards any individual at any time in any place, but rather places us each in our contexts with the exclusive purpose of maximizing the number of souls that freely accept the salvation found through Christ alone (again, Acts 17:26-27). The circumstances vary because the individuals placed in them do, and thus their courses are plotted according to how they will affect other courses and respond to their own. That being said, those who accept salvation and those who reject it do so freely, and those who reject it would do so under any circumstances (Daniel 12:10, Revelations 9:20). Thus, God would be partial if He did not create the wicked who will be self-condemned rather than create them, as He would be favouring souls that would freely choose wickedness over souls that would freely choose righteousness, thereby precluding the one who would choose rightly from enjoying the eternal knowledge of God on account of a reprobate individual who would incessantly reject Him.

2. This question also neglects to consider that the inadvertent benefit of this self-condemned person’s life will likely extend beyond the salvation of one individual. The person who finds themselves lead to Christ by the direct or indirect causes of this person’s existence will, in many cases, have the broad opportunity to intentionally direct others to the salvation found in Him, resulting in potentially dozens, to hundreds, or even thousands more saved souls. To reemphasize the first point, partiality would be the cause for not creating the self-condemned person at so large an expense, which would be true even if it were only for the one, which is unlikely.

In summation, God being unwilling to create the self-condemned to spare the freely saved would be like a man who refuses to spare the lives of his family in defending them from an armed attacker, who has had many warnings not to enter his house and threaten them, because he does not want to choose between defending their lives and taking the assailant’s. The devil has come to steal, kill and destroy, but Christ has come to destroy the devil’s work (John 10:10, 1 John 3:8).



You are free to respond to God's initiative, and if you ever will, you are placed in a time and location that you will freely do so. Again, this indicates that all unsaved are not salvageable under any circumstances. God's power does not entail the logically impossible, such as creating a rock too heavy for Himself to lift, or being able to force someone to freely choose something they never would.

You keep on using the word "free", but the crux of my issue is that this makes no sense. By what definition can the will be "free"??? All of our decisions are caused by some combination of external influence, internal state, and/or randomness. Non of us cannot escape this and this holds true even for supernatural things like souls. If you had perfect knowledge of an agent, you could trace back the line of causality for each decision that agent made "freely" and you would ultimately see that eventually, the causes all end up outside of the agent itself.
 
Upvote 0

looking_for_answers_

Active Member
Dec 14, 2017
154
63
32
Boston
✟13,858.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And the answer to both questions is compatibilist free will: Free will - Wikipedia
Free will - Wikipedia

Compatibilism gives us "free" will by redefining "free". If someone does not accept Christ, sure, there were no evil scientists planting electrodes in their brain preventing them from making the decision to be Christian. But I don't really see how this is satisfying. It ultimately is arguing semantics about "free".
 
Upvote 0

looking_for_answers_

Active Member
Dec 14, 2017
154
63
32
Boston
✟13,858.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Well, lets see if we can construct a theology that is more satisfactory, using our own imaginations.

Lets say everyone is judged in the next life not on the basis of any past moral events, but rather on how safe they are to be around others. If they are safe to be around others, they are given freedom and powers. If they are not safe to be around others, they are given training. Training might have to be unpleasant for some, or rewarding to some, depending on what training they need. Perhaps most of us need some training in the next realm. Perhaps those in need of only a little training can be granted quite a bit of freedom and powers.

If that were the case, would your objections be removed?

Sure, but that isn't a Biblical belief, and my cognitive dissonance is coming from realizations about God as described in the Bible. What you're describing kind of sounds like some form of reincarnation-based universalism, which would indeed address the issue
 
Upvote 0

Tayla

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 30, 2017
1,694
801
USA
✟147,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If a soul's action is determined by precending events (including the soul's "state", nature, etc), then why is it responsible?
The soul makes free will choices, not determined by anything previous.
 
Upvote 0

Tayla

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 30, 2017
1,694
801
USA
✟147,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Also, if the supernatural was causing interference patterns in electron spin, why would it be a probablistic distribution?
Probably it's the location of the electron which affects the chemical interactions. Over the long run it is random. But each quantum mechanic event can be directed.
 
Upvote 0

looking_for_answers_

Active Member
Dec 14, 2017
154
63
32
Boston
✟13,858.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The soul makes free will choices, not determined by anything previous.

Not determined by any form of logic? Nor reasoning? Nor emotion? Literally not determined by anything?

That is literally the definition of random:
the definition of random

"proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern"
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Radagast
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I agree perhaps -- if you are simply subject on the one hand to biochemical forces and 2nd to cultural learning, and 3rd perhaps subject to random fluctuations, then you are not to be held responsible. I'd agree with that.

But I think you are a spirit, autonomous, and able to choose - no matter even in an extraordinary situation, like choosing to risk your life in an instant for a stranger -- in a transcendent way.

What if being a spirit, autonomous, and able to choose turns out to depend on lower, atomic particle level, biochemical forces?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

looking_for_answers_

Active Member
Dec 14, 2017
154
63
32
Boston
✟13,858.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Many factors and considerations go into a free will decision. But it is free will.

Then it's not free.

Let's imagine a decision like this, with whatever your definition of "free" is represented by the "?":
(prior factors + randomness + ?)

The part that is based on prior factors is not free. It is caused by those factors.
The part based on randomness is not free. It's random.
So what in the world is the defintion of the "?" if it's neither determined nor random?

A coherent definition of a decision is just this:
(prior factors + randomness)

The combination of two things that are not free is still... not free.
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Then it's not free.

Let's imagine a decision like this, with whatever your definition of "free" is represented by the "?":
(prior factors + randomness + ?)

The part that is based on prior factors is not free. It is caused by those factors.
The part based on randomness is not free. It's random.
So what in the world is the defintion of the "?" if it's neither determined nor random?

A coherent definition of a decision is just this:
(prior factors + randomness)

The combination of two things that are not free is still... not free.

Hmmm . . . if its random, how can it be from "will?" If its not random, how can it be free?

If I try to be, personally free, what am I trying for? Seems to me in seeking my own freedom I seek to eliminate external influences, allowing internal influences their maximum play. Including my randomizer. Whatever that is. Does the content of my character . . . reduce the freedom of my will? How does it do that?
 
Upvote 0

looking_for_answers_

Active Member
Dec 14, 2017
154
63
32
Boston
✟13,858.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hmmm . . . if its random, how can it be from "will?" If its not random, how can it be free?

If I try to be, personally free, what am I trying for? Seems to me in seeking my own freedom I seek to eliminate external influences, allowing internal influences their maximum play. Including my randomizer. Whatever that is. Does the content of my character . . . reduce the freedom of my will? How does it do that?

Let's imagine that we have indeed eliminated external and random factors. Now, your will is determined by your current inner state. So it's still not "free". Whatever your current state decides, that is the only decision that was actually possible.

I don't believe that there is any random factor. As far as I know we have no evidence that quantum uncertainy interferes with the brain. But I include that becuase it hypothetically could, and many people mistakenly point to indeterminancy as "freedom" so it's best to clarify
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Let's imagine that we have indeed eliminated external and random factors. Now, your will is determined by your current inner state. So it's still not "free". Whatever your current state decides, that is the only decision that was actually possible.

I don't believe that there is any random factor. As far as I know we have no evidence that quantum uncertainy interferes with the brain. But I include that becuase it hypothetically could, and many people mistakenly point to indeterminancy as "freedom" so it's best to clarify

What we have in the brain is chaotic uncertainty, at least. The swirling patterns interact in the manner of such chaotic unpredictable things as weather or mathematical strange attractors. Small influences have the potential for influencing such patterns, all the way down to the level of quantum indeterminacy. So its no great stretch to admit quantum indeterminacy in the brain.

Perhaps we have simply failed to clearly specify what we are talking about when we wonder whether or not we have free will. What could free will possibly even be?

There is the matter of our "self". What can the self - the soul - possibly even be? I lean toward the idea that the soul, the self, is an emergent phenomenon based on a computer with enough smarts - enough adequate programming and memory - to form a concept of itself wandering through the universe, including a concept of itself having a concept of itself.

Its actions could be called the result of free will when viewed at the macroscopic level, where we intuit its personality and character, and interact with it as a friend or an enemy. It could simultaneously be called the result of its programming, which is alas too complex for our merely human mind to follow in detail. I would speculate this is the case even if it happens to be a computer with no random elements allowed in its programming except for a standard random number generating algorithm . . . as long as it was complex enough to meet the criterion of having a concept of itself wandering through a universe, including a concept of itself having a concept of itself.
 
Upvote 0

looking_for_answers_

Active Member
Dec 14, 2017
154
63
32
Boston
✟13,858.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
What we have in the brain is chaotic uncertainty, at least. The swirling patterns interact in the manner of such chaotic unpredictable things as weather or mathematical strange attractors. Small influences have the potential for influencing such patterns, all the way down to the level of quantum indeterminacy. So its no great stretch to admit quantum indeterminacy in the brain.

Perhaps we have simply failed to clearly specify what we are talking about when we wonder whether or not we have free will. What could free will possibly even be?

There is the matter of our "self". What can the self - the soul - possibly even be? I lean toward the idea that the soul, the self, is an emergent phenomenon based on a computer with enough smarts - enough adequate programming and memory - to form a concept of itself wandering through the universe, including a concept of itself having a concept of itself.

Its actions could be called the result of free will when viewed at the macroscopic level, where we intuit its personality and character, and interact with it as a friend or an enemy. It could simultaneously be called the result of its programming, which is alas too complex for our merely human mind to follow in detail. I would speculate this is the case even if it happens to be a computer with no random elements allowed in its programming except for a standard random number generating algorithm . . . as long as it was complex enough to meet the criterion of having a concept of itself wandering through a universe, including a concept of itself having a concept of itself.

We're on the same page. The idea of God allowing such a conscious "computer" to suffer for eternity for following it's instructions is what's been fueling my crisis of faith over the last year, and my desperate post here to find more satisfying explanations than I've found anywhere else
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
We're on the same page. The idea of God allowing such a conscious "computer" to suffer for eternity for following it's instructions is what's been fueling my crisis of faith over the last year, and my desperate post here to find more satisfying explanations than I've found anywhere else

I think we can trust God to be as fair and just as we would, even more so . . .
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Compatibilism gives us "free" will by redefining "free".

There are a number of standard definitions of "free will." Compatibilism is consistent with some of them, but not with others.

But it is at least possible that compatibilist free will is the only free will that exists.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The soul makes free will choices, not determined by anything previous.

That seems incoherent to me. You seem to have "free" meaning "random."

When you say "free will," which of the half dozen or so kinds of free will are you talking about?
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Perhaps we have simply failed to clearly specify what we are talking about when we wonder whether or not we have free will. What could free will possibly even be?

Like I said, there are a number of standard definitions of "free will." They're all quite different, and you can be "free" on one definition, but not on another.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

looking_for_answers_

Active Member
Dec 14, 2017
154
63
32
Boston
✟13,858.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I think we can trust God to be as fair and just as we would, even more so . . .

But, given content of our previous discussion, I would by no means ever consider it fair to eternally torture someone. I'm not even sure it's really fair to punish them while they're alive, as opposed to just taking measures to ensure that they can no longer harm society.

In order to reconcile this with God being fair, just, and loving, I need to redefine what fair, just, and loving mean, and their new meanings in this scenario are pretty frightening if it's loving to create a conscious entity that was destined for eternal torment and was never truly capable of avoiding it
 
Upvote 0