Free will, and original sin --a discussion continued

[JAL]

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.

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.

 

[Ilikecats]

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.

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?

 

[JAL]

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?

Huh?

 

[Ilikecats]

Huh?

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.

 

[JAL]

The past cannot be changed.

Correct. But then you seem to make a series of non-sequitur statements - and self-contradictory to boot.

If you look at your actions in the past is there any remaining free will in them....

"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:

...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.

Why are you making an effort to refute what you just conceded? This isn't making any sense.

 

[Ilikecats]

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.

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?

 

[JAL]

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?

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.

 

[Ilikecats]

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.

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.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You'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?

hink
Did I say we have NO understanding --not even useful understanding? I don't think I said that. If you can find where I said that I hope you also read the context --perhaps it was hyperbole? More likely, it is, again, your interpretation or extrapolation of what I said. Or even exaggeration of what I said.

And no, his personhood is not defined by ours; if anything our personhood is like his, only not very much. Your logic doesn't follow --even for non-reformed --even for atheist-- It does not make sense to say "If we cannot understand him then God is not free".

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

But I have said those very words, or words to that same effect, but you say my theology doesn't allow for libertarian freedom. Reformed theology indeed DOES claim we make real choices. You are proffering, again, a caricature.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

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.

Again, God uses means to accomplish his ends. Our real choices are part of those means. Yes, he is that far above us.

 

[Mark Quayle]

(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.

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?
2. I apparently didn't pay much attention to your "theory of Adam". But your description is weaker than mine. I don't say God "somehow let that stain to copy over to his descendants". I say God "has bound [us] all over to disobedience" (Romans 11:32). I have yet to see how that logically produces that man has no choice.
3. You have some respect for time sequence that God need not have, but for what it's worth, I too believe in logical sequence (perhaps time-irrelevant) in that God's plan (decree, in the words of some) that we all be bound over to disobedience, was made at the beginning, with real results today. In fact, I believe, (though it is not expressed as such in Reformed Theology) that God invented both time and logical sequence (in our use- cause-and-effect).

Meanwhile, I wonder how you can continue to ignore such verses. If God binding us all over to disobedience, and to you that logically makes God unjust and a liar, how can you claim to believe Scripture? You, I expect, instead of answering the question, will rejoin with "How can YOU do the same thing, ignoring the verses proving free will?" We I don't ignore them --in fact, I DO claim real choice.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God also chose the limitations of mans will...one can not choose something if it is not available

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.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

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.

Your love of "free will" seems to have you locked in its grasp. It is illogical to say that one's ability to choose sin denies predestination. You say that sin isn't something that HAPPENS to you, yet you admit to the continuing rebellion of the lost. They never choose Christ, until they are given that ability. Their guilt does not deny their sin nature.

 

[JAL]

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? Nobody is saying it is! Again, this isn't supposed to be a debate about whether we can change the past.

The opposite of determinism isn’t free will it’s randomness and spontaneous action.

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.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

He actually said, "It was random acts"? Interesting...... Wonder what he meant by that!

 

[JAL]

Why is it logically incoherent?

For the reason given in the post cited. You might want to address the actual arguments instead of wasting my time by ignoring them.

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.

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.

In a word, let's use proper terminology. If you have in mind bad genes, then call it bad genes - don't call it a sinful nature and DON'T classify it as reprehensible.

 

[JAL]

If your free will makes you make a decision then..

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.

 

[Ilikecats]

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.

You actually believe this? I think we have polarized views then and doubt any agreement can be found between us regarding this topic.

 

[JAL]

You actually believe this? I think we have polarized views then and doubt any agreement can be found between us regarding this topic.

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.