Cause and Effect?

[John Mullally]

When Calvin stated "the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined", (reference my quotes from Calvin in post 37), Calvin is stating that God governs our every action which if true, establishes God as our puppet master.

The way you interpret Calvin, etc, gives me some understanding of how you interpret scripture —just saying...

When you disagree with another's arguments (especially this kind because it is simple and brief), it is helpful to point out its flaw(s) - which you did not do here. Flaws could be faulty logic, disputes on scripture's meaning, unagreed upon assumptions, etc. Pointing out flaws provides a counter-argument, that is easier to respond to vague insults (but maybe that was your goal - which makes your lecturing on logic even more curious) .

God did not puppet Satan or any of us to do evil.

And so, per your declaration, it happened by accident? Yes, I know that's not what you said, but it is the logical conclusion.

Evil originates from decisions made by God's creation starting with Satan. God tempts no one to do evil per James 1:13.

Nobody is saying that Satan was not the first, nor that God tempts anyone. Nobody even implied it. You read into what is said.

I threw those points in to back up my assertion that God's creation, not God or an accident, originates evil (or sin). They were added because they are supportive to my assertion and because I believe almost all believers (and coincidently you) would agree with them. By the way, you frequently go off on a tangent (as you do here) by misconstruing my supportive points as something I disagree with other posters about - when that is often not the case. I strive to present supportive points that a neutral party and the opponent (not always possible) agree on.

But, to repeat, your notion that anything can happen but for God's causing it, is logical nonsense, if God is Creator—First Cause.

Just because God could arrange his creation's nature and control external circumstances (first cause?) to control everything that ever happens doesn't mean God does so (which is your argument).

It is interesting how Calvin says God governs all behavior per the quotes from him in Post 37 and 38 and yet in the post 38 quote you provided, Calvin also says that God is not the author of sin. Calvin contradicts himself. Whoever governs another to sin, is the author of that sin.

 

[Mark Quayle]

When you disagree with another's arguments (especially this kind because it is simple and brief), it is helpful to point out its flaw(s) - which you did not do here. Flaws could be faulty logic, disputes on scripture's meaning, unagreed upon assumptions, etc. Pointing out flaws provides a counter-argument, that is easier to respond to vague insults (but maybe that was your goal - which makes your lecturing on logic even more curious) .

We've been through all that ad nauseum. Your 'arguments' have repeatedly been shown void. Are we to continue to go back and point out what's wrong with them?

But you do the same as you accuse me of, for example, with the following concerning puppetry, as if asserting that God causing all things, whatsoever comes to pass, is puppetry; it is, instead, simple logic.
John Mullally said:
God did not puppet Satan or any of us to do evil.
Here's a simple, if lazy, logical proof —not that you haven't heard it multiple times by now: If (and since) God created, knowing all things that would happen as a result of his creation, he intentionally caused it to come to pass. But there are many other reasons, knowing God's attributes, to say that he caused all things. And you will deviate from arguing against them, perhaps, (to your credit), by claiming Scripture says otherwise (but it doesn't). Every one of your 'proofs' from Scripture has been shown wrong. And logic shows you wrong. And logic concerning Scripture shows you wrong.

I threw those points in to back up my assertion that God's creation, not God or an accident, originates evil (or sin). They were added because they are supportive to my assertion and because I believe almost all believers (and coincidently you) would agree with them. By the way, you frequently go off on a tangent (as you do here) by misconstruing my supportive points as something I disagree with other posters about - when that is often not the case. I strive to present supportive points that a neutral party and the opponent (not always possible) agree on.

Very good. So if God's creation originated evil (and yes, you are right, I don't argue otherwise), how does that mean that God did not cause it to be originated? I have said all along, that God did not author evil, nor did he tempt anyone, but it is logically undeniable that God caused it to come to pass, and what is more, that God intended that it come to pass, and what is more, that God intended it to come to pass in every particular. It is the notion of libertarian freewill, that something (a decision, perhaps), somehow, happens apart from God's causation. But to the contrary, NOTHING can happen but by God's causing it to come to pass. In fact, the reason it even CAN happen is because God 'established' it. (See the WCF, concerning God's Decree).

Just because God could arrange his creation's nature and control external circumstances (first cause?) to control everything that ever happens doesn't mean God does so (which is your argument).

The question is not whether he can. The fact is that he does, as Scripture shows, as has been shown you. And NOTHING you have shown in Scripture proves otherwise, nor can logic show how anything is possible apart from God's causation, (given, of course, that God is First Cause.)

I assume you admit that God is first cause, subject to nothing that does not proceed from him. There is no prior arrangement of laws and principles (such as logic and the framework of reality) to which he must comply. He is not a fellow resident with us, within some external "reality". He is not encumbered in the least. Being the only 'Uncaused Causer', then everything came from his causing it to come to pass. Simple.

It is interesting how Calvin says God governs all behavior per the quotes from him in Post 37 and 38 and yet in the post 38 quote you provided, Calvin also says that God is not the author of sin. Calvin contradicts himself. Whoever governs another to sin, is the author of that sin.

That is your mistaken contention, (that, "Whoever governs another to sin—" ([though I doubt Calvin said it that way] my parenthesis), "—is the author of that sin"). You can't show that, logically. In fact, you can't show that ANYTHING (but causation by God) can happen apart from it being caused by prior causes and effects, to include the decisions of 'free' agents. God does not sin in causing that there be sin, nor in causing every particular of whatsoever sin comes to pass.

You cannot show that God did not intend for Satan to rebel. You cannot show that God did not intend for Adam and Even to disobey.
You cannot show that God did not intend the redemption of the Elect, via the death of Christ. There is no other way for the creature to gain the status we will have in Heaven. And if those were intended, then so was the sin that brought that about, and that, in every particular. God is not building a general Heaven, as though he will be happy to accept whatever should somehow turn out. And if you think the design of Heaven is decided by blind, silly, ignorant, self-esteeming humans, then you are ignorant of the depth of God's wisdom, love and grace (as are we all, come to think of it).

Libertarian freewill of the creature and God's grace toward that creature are mutually exclusive notions.

 

[John Mullally]

We've been through all that ad nauseum. Your 'arguments' have repeatedly been shown void. Are we to continue to go back and point out what's wrong with them?

But you do the same as you accuse me of, for example, with the following concerning puppetry, as if asserting that God causing all things, whatsoever comes to pass, is puppetry; it is, instead, simple logic.
John Mullally said:
God did not puppet Satan or any of us to do evil.
Here's a simple, if lazy, logical proof —not that you haven't heard it multiple times by now: If (and since) God created, knowing all things that would happen as a result of his creation, he intentionally caused it to come to pass. But there are many other reasons, knowing God's attributes, to say that he caused all things. And you will deviate from arguing against them, perhaps, (to your credit), by claiming Scripture says otherwise (but it doesn't). Every one of your 'proofs' from Scripture has been shown wrong. And logic shows you wrong. And logic concerning Scripture shows you wrong.

That is just fatalistic conjecture, references no scripture (on a Christian debate forum) and demonstrates no logic. I have never conceded that you have proved any of my scriptural arguments wrong.

It sounds like if you were God, that is what you would do. But that conjecture contradicts God's word. 1 Timothy 2:4 says that God desires for all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, so He would not create anyone for the expressed purpose of predestining them to hell as your argument supports and as Calvin straight-out teaches.

“…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)​

​

People who reject Jesus send themselves to hell (Mark 16:15-16) - that is not what God desires or predestines them to do.

Very good. So if God's creation originated evil (and yes, you are right, I don't argue otherwise), how does that mean that God did not cause it to be originated? I have said all along, that God did not author evil, nor did he tempt anyone, but it is logically undeniable that God caused it to come to pass, and what is more, that God intended that it come to pass, and what is more, that God intended it to come to pass in every particular. It is the notion of libertarian freewill, that something (a decision, perhaps), somehow, happens apart from God's causation. But to the contrary, NOTHING can happen but by God's causing it to come to pass. In fact, the reason it even CAN happen is because God 'established' it. (See the WCF, concerning God's Decree).

The question is not whether he can. The fact is that he does, as Scripture shows, as has been shown you. And NOTHING you have shown in Scripture proves otherwise, nor can logic show how anything is possible apart from God's causation, (given, of course, that God is First Cause.)

You agree with the James 1:13 that says that God does not tempt anyone to do evil (or sin); but then you accuse God of causing people to do evil (which is worse). That is the way people outside Calvinism see what you are saying.

In Calvinism, if God really wants something, then proof of what He wants is found in what He gets. If God really wants a certain thing, then He gets a certain thing. However, as a non-Calvinist, I believe that Jesus sincerely desires everyone to come to know Him (1 TImothy 2:4), but just because I don’t believe that He forces His love on to everyone, doesn’t mean that I question His sincerity. I believe that God wants everyone to be saved freely. Nevertheless, Calvinists assume their own premise, as a fact, in order to reach a Calvinistic conclusion. In order to avoid Circular Logic, Calvinists should first attempt to prove that God always gets what He wants, rather than just assuming it. Non-Calvinists argue from Ezekiel 18:23 and Matthew 6:10 that God Himself testifies that His will is not presently being done on earth, as it is in Heaven, though one day it will.

I assume you admit that God is first cause, subject to nothing that does not proceed from him. There is no prior arrangement of laws and principles (such as logic and the framework of reality) to which he must comply. He is not a fellow resident with us, within some external "reality". He is not encumbered in the least. Being the only 'Uncaused Causer', then everything came from his causing it to come to pass. Simple.

That is your mistaken contention, (that, "Whoever governs another to sin—" ([though I doubt Calvin said it that way] my parenthesis), "—is the author of that sin"). You can't show that, logically. In fact, you can't show that ANYTHING (but causation by God) can happen apart from it being caused by prior causes and effects, to include the decisions of 'free' agents. God does not sin in causing that there be sin, nor in causing every particular of whatsoever sin comes to pass.

We are to believe that God puts the blame on the ones He forces to sin. Let's start with where is the scripture that God forces people to sin.

You cannot show that God did not intend for Satan to rebel. You cannot show that God did not intend for Adam and Even to disobey

You cannot show that God did not intend the redemption of the Elect, via the death of Christ. There is no other way for the creature to gain the status we will have in Heaven. And if those were intended, then so was the sin that brought that about, and that, in every particular.

1 John 4:8 (and 1 John 4:16) says that God is love, and 1 Corinthians 13 tells us that love believes and hopes all things. Given those truths, it would not be in God's nature to create beings, like Satan and Adam and Eve, for the expressed purpose of their rebelling and sinning.

We don't disagree about Christ's redemption or that those who believe on him will be saved (John 3:14). God excels at turning evil into good (Genesis 50:20 and John 1:29).

God is not building a general Heaven, as though he will be happy to accept whatever should somehow turn out. And if you think the design of Heaven is decided by blind, silly, ignorant, self-esteeming humans, then you are ignorant of the depth of God's wisdom, love and grace (as are we all, come to think of it).

Libertarian freewill of the creature and God's grace toward that creature are mutually exclusive notions.

Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so. - A.W. Tozer

 

[Stephen3141]

Initial PROBLEM...

Just using the words "cause" and "effect" does not define what you mean by the terms.
What do you mean by these terms???

To underscore the problem, The Oxford Handbook of Causation (see Introduction)
asserts that the hard sciences CANNOT AGREE on what causation is.

The different hard sciences are solving different and narrow types of problems,
and they are not really interested in solving problems outside of their own
narrow interests.

The Oxford Handbook Of Causation (Oxford Handbooks) -

Find The Oxford Handbook Of Causation (Oxford Handbooks) - - - The Oxford Handbook Of Causation (Oxford Handbooks) - - Used books

www.biblio.com

The problem, for Christians, is shown in the example of the creation of the universe.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
This is a THAT kind of statement, not a HOW kind of statement.

You could argue, that God, being spirit, is not physical. (I'm not sure that I quite agree with this.)
As a result, you could argue that God cannot affect anything that is physical. (I'm not sure that I agree with this.)

Note that science CANNOT agree on what human consciousness is.
It follows, that science cannot describe what a human decision is.

There are different supposed solutions: (resulting in different theologies...)

1 God made a physical universe, and the physical things in it were
created to act in predictable ways (without more of God's inputs).
2 God does present a physical universe to us, but is constantly
involved in making that physical universe behave in the way he
wants it to behave.

These different options also bring up a basic question...
"What is a thinking, created being?"

This leads to the different possible definitions...
(1) God made thinking created beings, to react in ways that he planned
Maybe God allows them "free will" to decide
(2) God made created thinking beings, but their "free will" is only to
carry out decisions that God has already determined, and is making
them decide.

You can get radically different conclusions about "cause and effect", depending on how
you think God creates. And, how you think "reality" behaves.

I don't think that your basic question about cause and effect can be answered.
---------- ----------

There are philosophical corollaries to these 2 options.
(1) God made "laws of nature", and these determine how things behave.
(2) The "laws of nature" only describe how things actually do work.
But the "laws" don't determine anything. They are just an abstract
model/explanation, in our minds.

The same 2 things can be said about a theology.
Arrogant people often think that their favorite theology DETERMINES how everything works.
It is more sound, to say that a theology tries to DESCRIBE how everything works.


I prefer not to try to define HOW God caused anything to happen.
I prefer to stick with the biblical statements that describe THAT God does certain things.

 

[Stephen3141]

I'm still waiting for an initial definition of "cause" and "effect".

I don't see how the discussion can go on, without talking about these basic concepts.

 

[honey badger]

I'm still waiting for an initial definition of "cause" and "effect".

I don't see how the discussion can go on, without talking about these basic concepts.

when the law was spoken the opposite to it was also ...

 

[public hermit]

I'm still waiting for an initial definition of "cause" and "effect".

I don't see how the discussion can go on, without talking about these basic concepts.

You should read Hume. Cause and effect are simply constant relations that we observe, pace Hume. You might not agree, but if you try to get behind it, it is befuddling. According to Richard Feynman, nobody understands causation.

Causation | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

 

[Stephen3141]

Instead of saying, "Read Hume", could you put into words the
definitions of "cause" and "effect" that you are using?

Discussions need to be about precise definitions, laid out for all to see.

By the way, the article pointed to, lists all sorts of different philosophical
opinions on what cause and effect are. It's a gram bag of different
options.

As far as the hard sciences go, they cannot agree on what causation is.
See The Oxford Handbook of Causation, Introduction.

So, this question is much more complicated, than it seems.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I'm not very interested in the topic as I simply accept God "Is" and all our cause and effects flow, ultimately, from His being.

But I may well split some hairs while I'm at it.

Christ said (NIV) Luke 12:7 "Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered...."

In my case that's not very difficult these days. God could count them on the fingers and thumbs of both His hands, provided He's got opposable thumbs.

But now and again I think of odd stuff that God would have had to imagine before he even began to make anything, one of which was hair (along with it's compatriots of fur, scales and feathers).

Bear in mind that in the spiritual world such items would not exist, so He had to think about creating hair right down to its roots before He even began to make anything.

To split hairs, I've provided a link with some interesting facts about hair, which God had to dream up and design before He created anything -

50 Amazing Hair Facts

Hair is the second fastest growing tissue in the human body! Learn more awesome hair facts and hair information from all ends of the hair world.

www.simplyorganicbeauty.com

Some extracts -

The amount of weight an entire head of hair can support is equivalent to 2 elephants, or 2 TONS! ...

All of the hair follicles you’ll ever have were formed when you were a fetus (at 5 months).

Hair cross-sections can be used to determine race and ethnicity:

• Asian Hair: round-shaped
• European Hair: oval-shaped
• African-American: flat-shaped

A single, healthy strand of hair can withstand about 6.5 pounds.

A strand of hair is stronger than a copper wire of equivalent diameter.

We get goosebumps when we are cold or scared because each muscle for each hair strand contracts, causing the hair to rise.

Chemotherapy causes the hair to fall out because it is intended to eliminate cells that replicate quickly. Since hair follicle cells grow and divide quickly, they are adversely affected.

God had to get His planning department working out the fine details a long time ago.

But He had to imagine it all first, working out how it was all going to fit together. He didn't have a precedent to go by.

He's the Cause with a capital C. We're one of the effects with a small e.