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.
This is supposed to be a debate. To assert that God exists, therefore determinism is not an argument. It is assuming what is to be proven.2 Because logically First Cause, whether you want to call it God or whatever, and whether you want to say it is possessing of personhood and intent or is mere mechanical fact, or something in between, and whether you want to say it does so by "the seeds of the universe" by beginning things, then leaving it alone, or whether you want to say it interjects itself into its creation, or whether you want to say it inhabits and upholds every motion and force of its creation--indeed its very existence-- --it causes ALL \things,
Again, our exchange has not been about the nature of conversion.3 And as for the Gospel, it denies God as the one who does the whole work of grace.
May well be from non-Christian philosophies, that long precluded the birth of Christ. That doesn't make them false. Job knew God. Cause-and-effect was a logical rule from the beginning. I am not just talking about physics either, but only God exists without precluding cause. He is not an effect, or he is not God.Yes. Precisely because I believe the Bible to be true, I reject that cause and effect are absolutes. If we are made in God's image, we certainly are more than the sum of our genes. Determinism is a notion taken from non Christian sources.
Yes. (sigh), of course he is free. What is your point?But you admitted that God is free!
good night. I've had enough.This is supposed to be a debate. To assert that God exists, therefore determinism is not an argument. It is assuming what is to be proven.
Again, our exchange has not been about the nature of conversion.
good nightNot at all. Whenever I make an assertion about God that you don't like, you say, "You have no right to that conclusion because you don't understand God. He is beyond your understanding."
Meanwhile you deny my conclusion! Thus you insinuate the right to the OPPOSITE of my assertion!
But it's the same category! If I don't understand God with respect to that category, then neither do you!
How is that an exaggeration? It's a fact of this whole discussion - it's one of your favorite ways of dancing!
Good night(Sigh) That was never an answer. You're still dancing. All governments put people in prison and WE, as Christian members of those governments and societies, cast our vote and contribute our input. YOU have to cast votes for and against leaders with beliefs. Also we have to practice justice with our kids. And it's not only justice, it's the question of what defines honesty. Is it honest to call someone guilty for decisions beyond their control?
Basically every time I show you a scenario that contradicts your whole position, you pretend that the scenario isn't valid and doesn't apply to you. Even when it's just a hypothetical, you pretend that the essence of the hypothetical doesn't apply.
For example I asked you about surgery on Jesus. Your response was basically, 'Current doctors aren't skilled to do that kind of surgery.' Dodging the question. Then I asked, 'Ok so what if God the Father does the surgery' - and I still don't get a straight answer!
Whatever I say, you just dance and dodge.
So sad. All this intellectual dishonesty - and you're only hurting God.
Good night, and God bless you JALMark, why do you talk as though the notion of First Cause necessarily implies 100% determinism? Why can't reality be a mixture of cause-effect in some scenarios, and libertarian freedom in others, and a mixture of the two in still others?
When I talk about real freedom, you write it off as a self-contradictory concept. But when it's convenient for you in this debate, you ascribe real freedom to God.Yes. (sigh), of course he is free. What is your point?
It is self-contradictory when ascribed to our ability --again, depending on what you mean by real freedom. It is ludicrous, however, to claim that God is subject to the same principles to which he has subjected us. He is uncaused. We are not. He is not under anyone's authority, we are. He is free, we are cheapWhen I talk about real freedom, you write it off as a self-contradictory concept. But when it's convenient for you in this debate, you ascribe real freedom to God.
I disagree. But I suppose I can add to your point by saying what we do is the result of causes, including our genes. Responsible Choice, if that is all you mean by free will, or even Real Choice, does not deny causes. At the end of thinking about it, what can make choice "causeless"? To me, at least, that makes no sense.That's the logical conclusion of one denies free will.
How is it self-contradictory? You haven't pinpointed any contradiction. Freedom is in fact the only way to avoid self-contradiction. A man should not be punished for actions beyond his freedom to control. If I were able to monitor a day of your own life, I'd see your own actions confirming this principle time and again, because I'm confident you don't go around blaming a given individual for an incident obviously impossible for him to have caused. I'm confident you try to treat your family, friends, relatives, and coworkers according to this basic principle because it defines justice as universally understood by both Christians and most non-Christians as well.is self-contradictory when ascribed to our ability.
Here I must apologize. It's been over 20 years since I did any reading in philosophy and thus I had confused "First Cause" with "First Mover". Yes if God is "First Cause" (defined as the one who pushes the first domino in a series of dominoes), then everything is cause-effect.God as the First Cause of that chain of cause-and-effect...
Now that's a different claim. To say that God is uncaused doesn't prove He is "First Cause". Secondly, that premise can't be used to "prove" distinctions between man and God in this debate. Why not? I already told you I don't buy into traditional metaphysics. In MY metaphysics, both God and man are equally uncaused.He is uncaused. We are not.
Actually, that's the only position which is NOT ludicrous, for five specific reasons stated in post 275 for example. Traditional metaphysics is beset with problems. For example:It is ludicrous, however, to claim that God is subject to the same principles to which he has subjected us.
I just updated my post to add a point #10. That should get you thinking in the right direction.But wasn't man caused by God forming him from the dust of the ground?
See, this is exactly why I think determinism is a pagan concept. It takes away all of our worth. It makes us just the sum of our material parts and nothing more. According to scripture, we have an eternal soul. We live forever. We are worth so much to God that he died to save us from being separated from him. If God is just moving all the peices on the board and we are just along for the ride, we are just pawns, and none of this really matters. Over and over again, we are told that our choices matter and matter a lot. That if we remain in Christ, we will reign with him. Determinism reduces it all to a farce, a simulation, a game God is playing where everything is actually pre rigged and nothing is really at stake.It is self-contradictory when ascribed to our ability --again, depending on what you mean by real freedom. It is ludicrous, however, to claim that God is subject to the same principles to which he has subjected us. He is uncaused. We are not. He is not under anyone's authority, we are. He is free, we are cheapNight, again.
The fact that it isn't logical to some people should not bother us in the least. What is a miracle? It defies all natural laws. We are miracles, and we can change the universe because that's what God created us to be. By free will, I mean free choices made without coercion from any outside force. Every choice has lots of influences, but those influences don't choose for us.I disagree. But I suppose I can add to your point by saying what we do is the result of causes, including our genes. Responsible Choice, if that is all you mean by free will, or even Real Choice, does not deny causes. At the end of thinking about it, what can make choice "causeless"? To me, at least, that makes no sense.
Here you again argue that real freedom doesn't make sense. Yet you claim that God is free. When I object to that contradiction, you always respond that freedom is self-contradictory for men, but not for God. First of all, my metaphysics, for example, allows no qualitative distinctions between God and man. Secondly, you fail to name a SPECIFIC distinction that might warrant your claim. Thirdly, as renniks just noted, determinism reduces all biblical justice and jurisprudence to a lie and a farce.I can add to your point by saying what we do is the result of causes, including our genes. Responsible Choice, if that is all you mean by free will, or even Real Choice, does not deny causes. At the end of thinking about it, what can make choice "causeless"? To me, at least, that makes no sense.
Perhaps I have argued by assertion (I have not gone back to see what else I said besides what you quoted), which granted, is illogical. That does not invalidate my claim --only my argument. But you do the same thing, when you say, "Freedom is in fact the only way to avoid self-contradiction. A man should not be punished for actions beyond his freedom to control." You have nothing but human examples of behavior, human philosophy, by which to say such a thing. (Meanwhile God speaks differently <THIS, I have been trying to demonstrate, and you say I am categorically wrong --wrong in principle --you try to demonstrate that I am only specifically wrong because I am categorically wrong.)Mark, asserting your position doesn't make it true. You do understand that, right? This is supposed to be a debate. You say that freedom: is self-contradictory when ascribed to our ability.
How is it self-contradictory? You haven't pinpointed any contradiction. Freedom is in fact the only way to avoid self-contradiction. A man should not be punished for actions beyond his freedom to control. If I were able to monitor a day of your own life, I'd see your own actions confirming this principle time and again, because I'm confident you don't go around blaming a given individual for an incident obviously impossible for him to have caused. I'm confident you try to treat your family, friends, relatives, and coworkers according to this basic principle because it defines justice as universally understood by both Christians and most non-Christians as well.
Miracle is a word we use to describe what defies natural law. I like to point out that if God made all things, it is all miracle, or maybe all natural, since he made what we consider natural. That being said, for the sake of discussion, I would say that miracle is defiance of "usual". We hardly know what is natural anyway, judging on the past. Radio is a miracle, based on 1500's level of knowledge. What makes us so smart that we would know?The fact that it isn't logical to some people should not bother us in the least. What is a miracle? It defies all natural laws. We are miracles, and we can change the universe because that's what God created us to be. By free will, I mean free choices made without coercion from any outside force. Every choice has lots of influences, but those influences don't choose for us.
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?