Contradiction: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, Determinism vs Freewill

[Fervent]

Sure, but that is not the purpose of an axiom. If you think it is, then give me one such axiom for this purpose here. Or just cite an accepted axiom from another domain of discourse.

The purpose of axioms is to have clearly defined parameters, and the necessary axioms depends on what is under consideration. If we don't have defined and agreed upon conditions for responsibility, then there is no possibility of determining whether the propositions contradict. Just as in mathematics if the behavior of parallel lines is not defined proofs become impossible, without defined parameters there's no point to attempting a logical discussion on the topics you mention.

 

[childeye 2]

And without a distinct notion of when someone is blameworthy for their actions evaluating the statements involved is impossible. So an axiom that defines the conditions for blameworthiness is necessary if we are to develop a logical argument. Its not about dictating the direction, but having a clearly defined and agreed upon condition for what makes someone responsible for an action.

For what it's worth, I think the term "culpable" is a more accurate description than responsible, and I would think the criteria for culpability would be knowing something is wrong and doing it anyway. For example, a puppy can be responsible for chewing a slipper but that doesn't mean it knew better.

 

[tonychanyt]

The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.

Definition: Determinism is the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.

Theorem: The creature is not to blame for sin

Prove the theorem by First-Order Logic.

 

[tonychanyt]

The purpose of axioms is to have clearly defined parameters, and the necessary axioms depends on what is under consideration. If we don't have defined and agreed upon conditions for responsibility, then there is no possibility of determining whether the propositions contradict. Just as in mathematics if the behavior of parallel lines is not defined proofs become impossible, without defined parameters there's no point to attempting a logical discussion on the topics you mention.

Sure, but that is not the purpose of an axiom. If you think it is, then just cite an accepted axiom. If you are right, then it should be easy for you to find one such existing axiom.

 

[childeye 2]

Definition: Determinism is the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.

Theorem: The creature is not to blame for sin

Prove the theorem by First-Order Logic.

I don't know how to apply FOL. I was expecting you to show me.

 

[tonychanyt]

I don't know how to apply FOL. I was expecting you to do it.

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 My take on Trinity.

 

[childeye 2]

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 My take on Trinity.

I haven't looked at the link yet, but I hear you about terms not found in scripture. Nonetheless, the scriptures testify that the flesh is pre-disposed to seek comfort and avoid discomfort. And the moral/immoral aspects of the soul are described in terms of Light/darkness depending upon one's imagery of God and/or reverence of God. We can read that there are spiritual powers of darkness in high places, and we can see Jesus say we can't serve two masters. For what it's worth, it seems to me that all of this implies what is meant by determinism.