Contradiction: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, Determinism vs Freewill

[tonychanyt]

If you think there is a contradiction, please present the two propositions that directly contradict. Please clearly state the two contradictory propositions and nothing else. Fill in the blanks:

Proposition P1 = ________.

Freewill proposition P2 = ________.

Let me explain my motivation. In this thread, I attempt a bottom-up approach to confront this controversial issue that has been around for centuries and millenniums. I want debaters to begin with a clear goal (proposition) in mind.

An argument begins with propositions. Without them, there is no formal argument. There is nothing to argue about. This is my only point in this thread.

I do not have any hope at all to resolve the controversy. My only hope is to get debaters to be more goal-oriented in their debates. Without this guiding structure (proposition), they tend to talk past each other without communicating any useful information in their bickering.

My position is this: I prefer to argue about terms that are actually found in the Bible. Since Determinism is not, I rather not argue about that

See also How to define freewill operationally?.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The logic is not complicated. Assuming omnipotence, omniscience is obvious. 'First cause' is synonymous with omnipotence, but references the fact that he is the only Creator.

1. Thus, all things, (including all fact and all reality), descends logically, either through secondary causes or directly, from God. "All things" includes the will of the creature and its decisions.

2. Another tack brings the fact that knowing all things that would result, yet creating anyway, implies intent that all things (to include the will of the creature and its decisions) would come to pass.

3. Reason shows that one ALWAYS chooses according to their own preferences, even if that preference is only emotional, or only intellectual, or only whatever one wants to say it is, or a combination; and even if that preference is only for that instant of decision. (And one's preferences are not neutral, so no point in going down that self-contradictory trail.) One's preferences are caused; to say that they are not caused is to kick the can further down the road.

4. The usual notion of "free will" invokes a vague concept of the self-contradicting "Little First Cause", or as they put it, "limited autonomy", by which they mean 'limited' totally independent action. Most people, it seems, become confused by the language they use: autonomy either is, or is not independent. They need to make up their minds. They want their cake and eat it too.
4a. If they claim some sort of first causation of their own, they, not realizing it, imply self-existence, which they deny. Thus, self-contradictory.
4b. If they claim "little first cause", they contradict their claim of God being the only creator. There can be only ONE first cause. If there is more than one, then neither is first cause.
4c. Some claim that some merely choose right while others choose wrong, implying some are intrinsically better than others, which they deny. Thus, self-contradictory.
4d. If they claim independent free will, but not that one is better than another, they invoke determination by chance, which is self-contradictory.


Conclusion: Assuming the omnipotence of the Creator, 'Free Will' of the creature is not independent of causation.

 

[tonychanyt]

The logic is not complicated. Assuming omnipotence, omniscience is obvious. 'First cause' is synonymous with omnipotence, but references the fact that he is the only Creator.

1. Thus, all things, (including all fact and all reality), descends logically, either through secondary causes or directly, from God. "All things" includes the will of the creature and its decisions.

2. Another tack brings the fact that knowing all things that would result, yet creating anyway, implies intent that all things (to include the will of the creature and its decisions) would come to pass.

3. Reason shows that one ALWAYS chooses according to their own preferences, even if that preference is only emotional, or only intellectual, or only whatever one wants to say it is, or a combination; and even if that preference is only for that instant of decision. (And one's preferences are not neutral, so no point in going down that self-contradictory trail.) One's preferences are caused; to say that they are not caused is to kick the can further down the road.

4. The usual notion of "free will" invokes a vague concept of the self-contradicting "Little First Cause", or as they put it, "limited autonomy", by which they mean 'limited' totally independent action. Most people, it seems, become confused by the language they use: autonomy either is, or is not independent. They need to make up their minds. They want their cake and eat it too.
4a. If they claim some sort of first causation of their own, they, not realizing it, imply self-existence, which they deny. Thus, self-contradictory.
4b. If they claim "little first cause", they contradict their claim of God being the only creator. There can be only ONE first cause. If there is more than one, then neither is first cause.
4c. Some claim that some merely choose right while others choose wrong, implying some are intrinsically better than others, which they deny. Thus, self-contradictory.
4d. If they claim independent free will, but not that one is better than another, they invoke determination by chance, which is self-contradictory.


Conclusion: Assuming the omnipotence of the Creator, 'Free Will' of the creature is not independent of causation.

Step 1: State the two contradictory propositions.

Can you do that?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Step 1: State the two contradictory propositions.

Can you do that?

They are not contradictory, unless by "freewill" is meant "uncaused choice".

But they do say that 1. freewill is independent of causation.

I say that 2. First Cause is the cause of all subsequent fact. (And no, I do not mean by that, that there is/are no chain/s of causation)

 

[tonychanyt]

They are not contradictory, unless by "freewill" is meant "uncaused choice".

But they do say that 1. freewill is independent of causation.

I say that 2. First Cause is the cause of all subsequent fact. (And no, I do not mean by that, that there is/are no chain/s of causation)

Define "uncaused choice"

 

[eleos1954]

If you think there is a contradiction, please present the two propositions that contradict.

God knows the decisions we will make .... he doesn't make the decisions for us. True Love requires freewill .... we know this ... God knows this. One can not be forced to love .... it's a choice.

If you love me .... you will (willingly) keep my commandments

not .... you must love me and keep my commandments

It's a choice. Love is the cause, He draws us to Him because He loves us ... but the choice is ours if we choose to reciprocate or not.

God IS love.

 

[tonychanyt]

God knows the decisions we will make .... he doesn't make the decisions for us. True Love requires freewill .... we know this ... God knows this. One can not be forced to love .... it's a choice.

If you love me .... you will (willingly) keep my commandments

not .... you must love me and keep my commandments

It's a choice. Love is the cause, He draws us to Him because He loves us ... but the choice is ours if we choose to reciprocate or not.

God IS love.

Step 1: State the two contradictory propositions.

Can you do that?

 

[Kale100]

I have a feeling 99+% of proposition pairs on this subject will elicit disagreement on whether or not they are contradictory due to differences in definitions. I suppose that may be the nature of the exercise though... What constraints does the Bible actually place on possible definitions of each Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Free Will?

 

[tonychanyt]

If you think there is a contradiction, please present the two propositions that contradict.

I have a feeling 99+% of proposition pairs on this subject will elicit disagreement on whether or not they are contradictory due to differences in definitions. I suppose that may be the nature of the exercise though... What constraints does the Bible actually place on possible definitions of each Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Free Will?

Go ahead. Display the two propositions that contradict.

 

[Kale100]

Proposition 1: Omniscience/Omnipotence
Proposition 2: Freewill
The question is what does one mean by omniscience, omnipotence, and free will.
If I define proposition 1 as 2x=4, and proposition 2 as x=2, then they do not contradict. However if one defines proposition 2 as x=3, then they do.

I know it is against custom to cross-pollinate threads, but from another of your topics...
Topic: Logical Equivalence of Faith and Works
Kale: if someone has faith in God's mercy, do you think that would equate to the work of them being merciful to others?
Tony: Excellent point. It works both ways. If a person is merciful to others, God will be merciful to him.

How would this principal be applied, substituting mercy for say omniscience or a facet thereof?
If you have faith that God knows with 100% certainty which choice you will make, and has known since creation (or before), what is the logical equivalent in works?
What if your faith is that God knows every choice you could possibly make, and every outcome thereof, and maybe even knows which choice you are most likely to make, but is not 100% certain. What is the logical equivalence of that in works?
Do the two works differ in any way?
I would suspect not, as in both cases the person would do their best to strive in the virtue of understanding people's choices (because man is obviously not omniscient). And if faith=works, and the works are the same, then the faiths are the same?

 

[tonychanyt]

Proposition 1: Omniscience/Omnipotence

A proposition is a statement.

 

[BobRyan]

If you think there is a contradiction, please present the two propositions that contradict.

Step 1: Please clearly state the two contradictory propositions and nothing else.

God is all knowing and all powerful.

God has sovereignly chosen to enable/sustain free will so that all may choose the Gospel or reject it.

Rom 8:4-11 says the lost "do submit to the Law of God neither indeed can they"
Rom 3:9-19 says that fallen humans all choose evil.

But in John 6 Jesus says God supernaturally draws humans to himself.
In John 12:32 Jesus said "I will draw ALL mankind unto Myself"

That supernatural drawing of God in the case of fallen humanity - enables - all the choice that depravity due to the fallen condition - disables. Such that "whosoever will may come".

 

[tonychanyt]

God is all knowing and all powerful.

God has sovereignly chosen to enable/sustain free will so that all may choose the Gospel or reject it.

Rom 8:4-11 says the lost "do submit to the Law of God neither indeed can they"
Rom 3:9-19 says that fallen humans all choose evil.

But in John 6 Jesus says God supernaturally draws humans to himself.
In John 12:32 Jesus said "I will draw ALL mankind unto Myself"

That supernatural drawing of God in the case of fallen humanity - enables - all the choice that depravity due to the fallen condition - disables. Such that "whosoever will may come".

Step 1: Please clearly state the two contradictory propositions and nothing else.

Fill in the blanks.

Proposition 1: ________.

Proposition 2: ________.

 

[BobRyan]

Step 1: Please clearly state the two contradictory propositions and nothing else.

Fill in the blanks.

Proposition 1: ________.

Proposition 2: ________.

I show the no contradictory scenario. Where both are true

 

[tonychanyt]

I show the no contradictory scenario. Where both are true

Thanks for the clarification.

Are you familiar with First-Order Logic?

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks for the clarification.

Are you familiar with First-Order Logic?

I am familiar with primitives and first principles, set theory, inheritance etc but not with the math domain of "First Order Logic".

I have also been "around the block" a few times with Calvinists on the subject of free will and foreknowledge which explains my post about the intersection of the two.

 

[tonychanyt]

I am familiar with primitives and first principles, set theory, inheritance etc but not with the math domain of "First Order Logic".

I have also been "around the block" a few times with Calvinists on the subject of free will and foreknowledge which explains my post about the intersection of the two.

According to FOL, to claim the two contradict, you have to prove it. To claim that they don't, you also have to prove it formally. My position is easier: I just don't claim. Instead, I raise the question

 

[Mark Quayle]

Define "uncaused choice"

Most people who believe in free will, (if they even know what they mean by that), think that their choices are the result of them and their will alone, and of no other cause. In fact, they will argue, if their choices are caused by causes external to themselves —that is, if they are caused to make the choices they do— then they are robots. Puppets.

Curiously, those I have approached with the question from a different tack, not mentioning freewill or determinism, will often happily admit that their choices are the result of MANY MANY causes, influences, compulsions, environment, genetics, etc etc etc. But as soon as you put GOD at the head of the chains of causation that result in that choice, they scream, "foul!"

They demand that their choices MUST be uncaused, or they are not real choices. I demand that God is the original cause of every particular thing, to include all choices people make, and that is the only way their choices are real.

 

[tonychanyt]

Most people who believe in free will, (if they even know what they mean by that), think that their choices are the result of them and their will alone, and of no other cause. In fact, they will argue, if their choices are caused by causes external to themselves —that is, if they are caused to make the choices they do— then they are robots. Puppets.

Curiously, those I have approached with the question from a different tack, not mentioning freewill or determinism, will often happily admit that their choices are the result of MANY MANY causes, influences, compulsions, environment, genetics, etc etc etc. But as soon as you put GOD at the head of the chains of causation that result in that choice, they scream, "foul!"

They demand that their choices MUST be uncaused, or they are not real choices. I demand that God is the original cause of every particular thing, to include all choices people make, and that is the only way their choices are real.

Thanks for the explanation

 

[Kale100]

Curiously, those I have approached with the question from a different tack, not mentioning freewill or determinism, will often happily admit that their choices are the result of MANY MANY causes, influences, compulsions, environment, genetics, etc etc etc. But as soon as you put GOD at the head of the chains of causation that result in that choice, they scream, "foul!"

I suspect the line of thinking you are encountering is that each of the etc. etc. etc. items may be considered to each and in totality contribute <100% to the choice, whereas God being Omni-etc. by that nature must contribute 100%.

Proposition 1: Omniscience/Omnipotence

A proposition is a statement.

Did you stop reading after the quoted portion?