Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Non-sequitur. The mere existence of hindsight - the mere fact that we can retrospect - doesn't by itself rule out the possibility of libertarian freedom.As soon as you have made a decision your free will dissipates. Looking at it in the lens of the present the past was always set in stone.
But the analysis of the past presents to you the choice you have made. Your free will doesn’t exist in the past anymore so how can it have existed in the present. Does it disappear because of time?Non-sequitur. The mere existence of hindsight - the mere fact that we can retrospect - doesn't by itself rule out the possibility of libertarian freedom.
Huh?But the analysis of the past presents to you the choice you have made. Your free will doesn’t exist in the past anymore so how can it have existed in the present. Does it disappear because of time?
The past cannot be changed. If you look at your actions in the past is there any remaining free will in them or are they bound by what you choose. Free will doesn’t exist when you look at the past and thus it doesn’t exist in the present. Your choices are set in stone and were always going to happen.Huh?
Correct. But then you seem to make a series of non-sequitur statements - and self-contradictory to boot.The past cannot be changed.
"Remaining free will" concedes that there was real freedom at that time. Having conceded this freedom, any subsequent effort to REFUTE freedom is already a contradiction:If you look at your actions in the past is there any remaining free will in them....
Why are you making an effort to refute what you just conceded? This isn't making any sense....or are they bound by what you choose. Free will doesn’t exist when you look at the past and thus it doesn’t exist in the present. Your choices are set in stone and were always going to happen.
You’re just picking away at my structure rather than argument.Correct. But then you seem to make a series of non-sequitur statements - and self-contradictory to boot.
"Remaining free will" concedes that there was real freedom at that time. Having conceded this freedom, any subsequent effort to REFUTE freedom is already a contradiction:
Why are you making an effort to refute what you just conceded? This isn't making any sense.
Yes, after the fact, you can't undo the past. So?You’re just picking away at my structure rather than argument.
You are presented with the opportunities “a” and “b”. You choose “a”. Now you look back after you’ve chosen a. Is there free will now? Or were you bound to choose “a”. You say no I could have chosen “b”. But choosing “b” is an impossibility now that you have already chosen “a”. It is impossible that choosing “b” could have happened. Where’s the free will?
I’m not arguing that you can’t make choices. But free will doesn’t exist. If you choose something then you’ve bound your so called free will to that choice. It’s not free will anymore. If your free will makes you make a decision then it will make you do that decision every time under the exact same circumstances. This means it can be studied and defined. It also means that it isn’t free as it will act the exact same under the same circumstances. The opposite of determinism isn’t free will it’s randomness and spontaneous action. Are all actions random? Of course not.Yes, after the fact, you can't undo the past. So?
Look, libertarian freedom isn't the claim that we can go back and change the past. It's simply the claim that I can make real choices in the present.
hinkYou're saying we cannot understand God on these issues, right? That His personhood isn't analogical to ours. That's your claim, right? You just contradicted yourself. If we cannot understand Him, then you had no right assert, as you did a moment ago, that God is free. Here again is the basic logical incoherence in the Reformed system. If words and definitions diverge, and thus mean ONE thing to us, and something ELSE to God, then every relevant aspect of theology becomes incoherent - this is the annihilation of theology itself.
(1) Ethics becomes incomprehensible because we are told to behave like God and yet His behavior doesn't match OUR definitions of virtues.
(2) His praiseworthiness is undermined because His behavior doesn't match OUR definition of merit.
(3) Hope is undermined.
(4) There is nothing to praise. If my concept of God is invalid (if it is at best an anthropomorphism), then I can only worship a conceptual idol.
(5) Relationship is undermined. If He is not a person like I am a person, what does it even mean to have a relationship with Him? How do I know I'm relating correctly?
Yes, after the fact, you can't undo the past. So?
Look, libertarian freedom isn't the claim that we can go back and change the past. It's simply the claim that I can make real choices in the present.
You are jumping logical steps again. You go from God predesigning our behavior straight into talking about outcomes. Why bring up outcomes when you are talking about control of behavior? We make real decisions, with real results and consequences --real outcomes.C'mon guy. You're just dancing again. You made it clear enough that God, in your view, predesigns our behavior. We lack sufficient freedom to change the outcome.
Yes, if we are talking about a category that seems forbidden to us, then yes, it is tautological to claim that I should not do what God does. Putting people in prison is not, however, forbidden. It's simply a matter of trying to do it with true justice. Defined how? My definition? No. You keep saying that God's definitions outrank mine. So it follows that if God puts people in prison (hell) for behavior beyond their control, we should do the same.
1. Again, you make that same logical leap. If a person can make real decisions, (and I do say that they can), it by no means implies that God cannot predestine that choice. Again, apparently more for the sake of who might be reading this than for you, if we don't claim lack of freedom of choice, though cause-and-effect bring us inexorably to when we choose, what difference do it make to (theoretically, perhaps, if that is how you must consider it) add God's original design, as first cause, to the sequence?(1)Sigh. C'mon guy. You already implied that God predesigned Adam's fall. He lacked sufficient freedom to change the outcome.
(2) Unless you accept my theory of Adam (which I linked to a couple of times), you also end up with God somehow allowing that stain to copy over to his descendants.
(3) In the Reformed tradition, it's not just a copying of the stain - the guilt is copied too. They are actually pronounced guilty BEFORE they sin. It's total dishonesty to pronounce an innocent person "guilty" before he's even born. That makes God a liar. He is lying when He says "These people not yet born have sinned against me and are therefore guilty." Given that this God is dishonest, I have no hope.
Agreed. I can't fathom the logical problem people have with God controlling everything --even causing all things-- if they say that apart from God's predestination they have free will, though they admit cause-and-effect will bring them inexorably to their current condition,(well maybe the won't say "inexorably" since it already hints at the falseness of their version of "free will"), if you put God into their equation as First Cause, suddenly they have lost "free will"? Amazing.God also chose the limitations of mans will...one can not choose something if it is not available
Why is it logically incoherent? Do you even know what the sin nature is? My Dad speculated that it may even be genetically transmitted by the male of our species, (thus being born without sin), and though I have mentioned this many times through my years, nobody has shown me how that is impossible. We really don't know how it is done: only that it is done, as Scripture says in so many places that it is our nature, apart from God. You seem to ignore these.Who said otherwise? Certainly not I. Of course Adam freely chose to sin. But the Reformed tradition holds that Adam's sinful nature transmitted to his unborn progeny. This is a contradiction because "transmitted taint" is an oxymoron. It is logically incoherent to speak of copying a sinful nature from one man to another. Why so? Sin isn't something that HAPPENS to me. For example if I got infected with a disease that altered my passions causing erratic behavior, my new nature cannot be called a sinful nature. There's nothing sinful about it, because sin implies voluntary choice. That's why even the Reformed theologian Donald Bloesch admitted that the transmission of the taint is an insoluble problem.
So? Nobody is saying it is! Again, this isn't supposed to be a debate about whether we can change the past.I’m not arguing that you can’t make choices. But free will doesn’t exist. If you choose something then you’ve bound your so called free will to that choice. It’s not free will anymore.
So in answer to all those questions I asked you about whether Jesus had real libertarian freedom, your answer is, "It wasn't determinism, it was random acts". Thus Jesus didn't CHOOSE to resist temptation, His behavior was the manifestation of a random chaotic behavior beyond His deliberate control. And the same is true of all the Father's behavior.The opposite of determinism isn’t free will it’s randomness and spontaneous action.
He actually said, "It was random acts"? Interesting...... Wonder what he meant by that!So? Nobody is saying it is! Again, this isn't supposed to be a debate about whether we can change the past.
So in answer to all those questions I asked you about whether Jesus had real libertarian freedom, your answer is, "It wasn't determinism, it was random acts". Thus Jesus didn't CHOOSE to resist temptation, His behavior was the manifestation of a random chaotic behavior beyond His deliberate control. And the same is true of all the Father's behavior.
For the reason given in the post cited. You might want to address the actual arguments instead of wasting my time by ignoring them.Why is it logically incoherent?
Rambling is just wasting my time. If you have a point to make, then make it. Sin is not bad genes. If God created some Martians, and wasn't careful, thus allowing them to have bad genes causing savage behavior, that's not sin. Sin isn't something that HAPPENS to me. It is a deliberate free choice to do evil, and the sinful nature is the subsequent addiction to such evil tendencies. Any alternative definition of sin and the sinful nature is logically incoherent.My Dad speculated that it may even be genetically transmitted by the male of our species, (thus being born without sin), and though I have mentioned this many times through my years, nobody has shown me how that is impossible.
That's an oxymoronic hypothesis - an impossible hypothetical. Free will is the OPPOSITE of "being made to do something". Free will is the power to self-determine the outcome. Thus faced with the same set of circcumstances ten times, there's no guarantee of 10 identical outcomes.If your free will makes you make a decision then..
You actually believe this? I think we have polarized views then and doubt any agreement can be found between us regarding this topic.That's an oxymoronic hypothesis - an impossible hypothetical. Free will is the OPPOSITE of "being made to do something". Free will is the power to self-determine the outcome. Thus faced with the same set of circcumstances ten times, there's no guarantee of 10 identical outcomes.
Right we have different views. Since I believe in libertarian free will, God is warranted in punishing us. Your God, on the other hand, is perfectly evil since He punishes people for behavior impossible for them to alter or regulate.You actually believe this? I think we have polarized views then and doubt any agreement can be found between us regarding this topic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?