Kent Hovind thinks broccoli was designed by God!

[Tutorman]

I'm surprised Kent Hovind made the same error Ray Comfort made. Kent even quotes the Wikipedia article on broccoli, only to ignore that the article states broccoli was bred by farmers.
As if his dissertation opening with "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind" didn't reveal his qualifications before...

Everything is made by God. God created the brain man has and God imparted the knowledge so Mr. Hovind is absolutely correct

 

[Uber Genius]

If you know the bible teaches predestination, then God produced broccoli through the hands of those taking credit for it.

And by the same logic God produced sin and evil and suffering.

We want to be careful of how we engage causal chains as they can produce some unintended consequences that are incoherent with the data of the scriptures.

God > Man > Broccoli
God > Man > genocide
God > World > tsunami > 100s of thousands killed
God > Satan > Evil

I also don't see how predestination has to do with causality.

I can know something without causing it. I can see a car hit another car and know that the second car will hit the third car 5 feet in front of it due to the energy applied by the first car. But know one in their right mind would defend the claim that my knowledge caused the third car to be hit.

So predestination in scripture in not fatalism.

 

[Dave L]

And by the same logic God produced sin and evil and suffering.

We want to be careful of how we engage causal chains as they can produce some unintended consequences that are incoherent with the data of the scriptures.

God > Man > Broccoli
God > Man > genocide
God > World > tsunami > 100s of thousands killed
God > Satan > Evil

I also don't see how predestination has to do with causality.

I can know something without causing it. I can see a car hit another car and know that the second car will hit the third car 5 feet in front of it due to the energy applied by the first car. But know one in their right mind would defend the claim that my knowledge caused the third car to be hit.

So predestination in scripture in not fatalism.

If one atom escapes God's immediate control, God is not omnipotent.

 

[EvangAlived]

Your church is less than 200 years old.

God, even Jesus, Himself is a Seventh-day Adventist, Adam is a Seventh-day Adventist, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Peter, James, John, Paul, etc were all Seventh-day Adventists. The name is from Alpha to Omega. It covers from the beginning unto the end.

If you would study Revelation 10-14, along with Daniel you will see God's people came out from the 'wilderness' period, and were seen again in the open.

However, I am not here to argue that which is truth in regards to us, who are the remnant, as prophesied in scripture, though if asked I will tell you what I know by the grace of God that you also may know for certain.

I am here to speak about the subject of the OP raised, in regards bro. Kent Hovind. I am still awaiting for specifics to be had.

 

[Uber Genius]

If one atom escapes God's immediate control, God is not omnipotent.

So it seems that we have a claim without any argument or premises in support of same.

So since your statement above is not justified, I will label it a "belief."

Now one could ask is there any way in which we might further explore that belief in terms of whether it is true or not.

I suggest we look at the fact that both Molinists, and Arminians argue that God is completely sovereign, as your claim above suggests, and both of their accounts of the world allow for libertarian free will as well as features such as quantum indeterminacy in a coherent fashion.

So it is just not the case that one needs to give up on sovereignty if they are to affirm other rather obvious intuitions about the external world.

Suppose, as the Molinists do, that God has the ability to think about hypothetical worlds, not just what is, or what will be, but what "would" be the case if He created a particular world.

Now suppose God knows all future hypothetical truth statements. "If Dave L would come across a certain post by Uber, he would respond with x." Now if God knows this subjunctive conditional truth statement and he decides that the world where Dave L responds with x to Uber is a world that leads to His ultimate ends then when he creates that world those features are predestined to occur. They just don't occur as a result of God's direct action as your post suggests but rather as free actions of rational agents.

God still gets what he wants due his knowledge of the outcome of the interaction between free agents.

Sovereignty without strings (no marionnettes needed on this view).

Your challenge is to justify Calvinism over the alternative methods based on the data of scripture.

Your post erroneously assumes there is only one way God can achieve his sovereignty, and that belief has been shown to be false.

However, it will take further discussion to tease out which of the above inferences best explain the data of scripture. It could be the case that Calvinism is the best explanation. But we can't just assume it. My goal was to knock down the belief that it is the only inference.

I have not included Open Theism as it does not suggest God is sovereign. On open theism (Heresy Alert) God is a good guesser, and a good calculator, but not in control of the outcome due to his fallible knowledge of future events. This is a ham-handed attempt by early church fathers, as well as Clark Pinnock and Greg Boyd to argue that God's knowledge limits are the best account of why certain counter-intuitive feature of the world exist such as evil and suffering.

 

[Dave L]

So it seems that we have a claim without any argument or premises in support of same.

So since your statement above is not justified, I will label it a "belief."

Now one could ask is there any way in which we might further explore that belief in terms of whether it is true or not.

I suggest we look at the fact that both Molinists, and Arminians argue that God is completely sovereign, as your claim above suggests, and both of their accounts of the world allow for libertarian free will as well as features such as quantum indeterminacy in a coherent fashion.

So it is just not the case that one needs to give up on sovereignty if they are to affirm other rather obvious intuitions about the external world.

Suppose, as the Molinists do, that God has the ability to think about hypothetical worlds, not just what is, or what will be, but what "would" be the case if He created a particular world.

Now suppose God knows all future hypothetical truth statements. "If Dave L would come across a certain post by Uber, he would respond with x." Now if God knows this subjunctive conditional truth statement and he decides that the world where Dave L responds with x to Uber is a world that leads to His ultimate ends then when he creates that world those features are predestined to occur. They just don't occur as a result of God's direct action as your post suggests but rather as free actions of rational agents.

God still gets what he wants due his knowledge of the outcome of the interaction between free agents.

Sovereignty without strings (no marionnettes needed on this view).

Your challenge is to justify Calvinism over the alternative methods based on the data of scripture.

Your post erroneously assumes there is only one way God can achieve his sovereignty, and that belief has been shown to be false.

God is the cause, everything else is the effect.

 

[Uber Genius]

God is the cause, everything else is the effect.

Yes we agree! No controversy here. But not enough distinction. Both in the area of sovereignty and in the area of biological diversity, the question is how?

Theistic Evolution,
Young Earth Creationism,
Intelligent Design,

all would say "God is the cause."

And Arminians, Molinists, and Calvinists would all say that no leaf falls from a tree, without God's knowledge and approval.

God is the causes of worlds (on Molinism for instance), where He knows every sub-atomic particle's behavior and the consequences of same. Once he choose to instantiate a world everything will happen as he knew it would. He, by the act of creating that particular world, causes it to be so, or predestines it.

So everyone agree's God is the cause.

It is the "how" question that provides the controversy.

 

[Dave L]

Yes we agree! No controversy here. But not enough distinction. Both in the area of sovereignty and in the area of biological diversity, the question is how?

Theistic Evolution,
Young Earth Creationism,
Intelligent Design,

all would say "God is the cause."

And Arminians, Molinists, and Calvinists would all say that no leaf falls from a tree, without God's knowledge and approval.

God is the causes of worlds (on Molinism for instance), where He knows every sub-atomic particle's behavior and the consequences of same. Once he choose to instantiate a world everything will happen as he knew it would. He, by the act of creating that particular world, causes it to be so, or predestines it.

If God is the cause, everything else is the effect through precise secondary cause and effect relationships. Including the thoughts the broccoli guys had in providing it.

 

[Uber Genius]

through precise secondary cause and effect relationships

Again, one would need to provide a reason in support of this direct causal inference.

Again, one would need to provide a reason in support of this direct causal inference.

Again, one would need to provide a reason in support of this direct causal inference.

See how easy it is to just keep repeating a claim.

Let's not rinse and repeat!

Give the gentle readers a reason to believe God is responsible for all causal chains.

Give the gentle reader an explanation of why we are called to study God's scriptures, to reform our character, to obey, to make good as opposed to bad choices? All of which require a world where God is NOT directly causally responsible for the outcomes.

You would falsify texts found in almost every page of the Bible.

Opps.

 

[Dave L]

Again, one would need to provide a reason in support of this direct causal inference.

Again, one would need to provide a reason in support of this direct causal inference.

Again, one would need to provide a reason in support of this direct causal inference.

See how easy it is to just keep repeating a claim.

Let's not rinse and repeat!

Give the gentle readers a reason to believe God is responsible for all causal chains.

Give the gentle reader an explanation of why we are called to study God's scriptures, to reform our character, to obey, to make good as opposed to bad choices? All of which require a world where God is NOT directly causally responsible for the outcomes.

You would falsify texts found in almost every page of the Bible.

Opps.

Can you think of an example where cause and effect relationships do not exist? Even your reply is a reaction to a secondary cause.

 

[Uber Genius]

Can you think of an example where cause and effect relationships do not exist? Even your reply is a reaction to a secondary cause.

I have already answered clearly. See https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-designed-by-god.8079441/page-2#post-73138667

So it not the fact of cause and effect relationships existing that distinguishes any positions whether biologically or theologically. The differentiation is HOW the cause and effects work.

Your example is proving my point. While you might suggest that "God caused you to write your posts," my claim is that "I'm the author of my posts."

Now that is a distinction that gets at a difference.

I am rational due to a number of cause and effect relationships of which I am the cause and the effect is greater understanding of God's world and his nature and his plan. As I study God's revelation and consider the data of scripture I am able to learn and renew my mind. I am the efficient cause. I study, I comprehend, I acquire new beliefs and jettison false beliefs. I renew my mind.

I am responsible for being obedient because I have causal capability as an efficient cause. Now I'm am not suggesting that this is in isolation from God.

He commanded me to study.
He made me into a rational being.
He allowed me to live and develop my rational faculties in order to comprehend the scriptures
He, through the person of the HS encourages me to be diligent in replacing old false beliefs with new beliefs maturing into the likeness of Christ.

But I'm free to reject many of those causal relationships and thwart what God intends. Just as Peter was free to encourage Christ NOT to be crucified. To which Jesus replied, "Get thee behind me Satan."

Now if Peter's had no freedom to choose other than what God intended, why did he get rebuked as if were attempting to cause something completely antithetical to God's plan? Theological determinism seems incoherent when held up against these scenarios.

Secondly, there are cause and effect relationships where I am the effect. My body is an effect. My soul is an effect. My condition before God as an adopted son is an effect of God's grace and Christ's reconciliatory work on the cross. I'm also a cause. Yes. Without accepting the gift of salvation and confessing Jesus as Lord, I would not be saved. So some aspects of who I am are causally related to God and me in some combination. Maybe most aspects are this way.

On your initial claim, you have no causal relations, even your rational pronouncements would be effects of God's causal actions.

 

[Dave L]

I have already answered clearly. See https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-designed-by-god.8079441/page-2#post-73138667

So it not the fact of cause and effect relationships existing that distinguishes any positions whether biologically or theologically. The differentiation is HOW the cause and effects work.

Your example is proving my point. While you might suggest that "God caused you to write your posts," my claim is that "I'm the author of my posts."

Now that is a distinction that gets at a difference.

I am rational due to a number of cause and effect relationships of which I am the cause and the effect is greater understanding of God's world and his nature and his plan. As I study God's revelation and consider the data of scripture I am able to learn and renew my mind. I am the efficient cause. I study, I comprehend, I acquire new beliefs and jettison false beliefs. I renew my mind.

I am responsible for being obedient because I have causal capability as an efficient cause. Now I'm am not suggesting that this is in isolation from God.

He commanded me to study.
He made me into a rational being.
He allowed me to live and develop my rational faculties in order to comprehend the scriptures
He, through the person of the HS encourages me to be diligent in replacing old false beliefs with new beliefs maturing into the likeness of Christ.

But I'm free to reject many of those causal relationships and thwart what God intends. Just as Peter was free to encourage Christ NOT to be crucified. To which Jesus replied, "Get thee behind me Satan."

Now if Peter's had no freedom to choose other than what God intended, why did he get rebuked as if were attempting to cause something completely antithetical to God's plan? Theological determinism seems incoherent when held up against these scenarios.

Secondly, there are cause and effect relationships where I am the effect. My body is an effect. My soul is an effect. My condition before God as an adopted son is an effect of God's grace and Christ's reconciliatory work on the cross. I'm also a cause. Yes. Without accepting the gift of salvation and confessing Jesus as Lord, I would not be saved. So some aspects of who I am are causally related to God and me in some combination. Maybe most aspects are this way.

On your initial claim, you have no causal relations, even your rational pronouncements would be effects of God's causal actions.

God is the cause, those carrying out the decree are the authors. No problems here.

 

[Uber Genius]

God is the cause, those carrying out the decree are the authors. No problems here.

Opps.

Authors?

We have many posts talking about cause and effects. Now you are introducing at this late data an apparent equivocation?

Authors.

Please describe if these so-called authors have the ability to make free, rational decisions or are they fated to carry out God's plans mechanistically?

Example: God commands us to Love him with all of our heart, soul and mind.

Do we have any causal contribution to fulfilling those commands or do some robotically love God because God controls them (Causes them) to?

Do others Not love God, because God causes them not to love him?

 

[Dave L]

Opps.

Authors?

We have many posts talking about cause and effects. Now you are introducing at this late data an apparent equivocation?

Authors.

Please describe if these so-called authors have the ability to make free, rational decisions or are they fated to carry out God's plans mechanistically?

Example: God commands us to Love him with all of our heart, soul and mind.

Do we have any causal contribution to fulfilling those commands or do some robotically love God because God controls them (Causes them) to?

Do others Not love God, because God causes them not to love him?

They are fated to carry out God's plans mechanistically. Your will is not free to act apart from reason. It only reacts. So you are enslaved to the reasons you base your choices on. And reasons are the result of secondary causes reverberating from other secondary causes going back to the original creation.

 

[Uber Genius]

They are fated to carry out God's plans mechanistically. Your will is not free to act apart from reason. It only reacts. So you are enslaved to the reasons you base your choices on. And reasons are the result of secondary causes reverberating from other secondary causes going back to the original creation.

Got it. Well since you are fated to answer my comments, not with rational arguments, or based on things that are true features of the external world we live in but rather mechanistically by the words God strings together in your mind or controls in your typing fingers, I will take your statements to NOT BE REPRESENTING TRUTH or Knowledge as the method necessarily eliminates the either of those from being demonstrated. Any more than a monkey typing randomly on a computer could produce a meaningfully true statement. At best it would be an accidental feature.

Also, on your view, why have people (by that I mean marionnettes that look like people)? It is one play and mindless puppets provide God with entertainment, nothing more.

You are giving the atheists out here a retort to the theistic claim that on atheism there is no objective meaning to the world.

On your view of sovereignty all humans have no objective meaning in their lives, since they are locked into being an automaton for eternity. Or do they all of a sudden receive freewill in heaven?

BTW how does a robot love God?

What does it say about God's character that he would tell people throughout every page of the scripture to make good freewill decisions that they will be held accountable for due to those decisions making a real difference, and then find out no one has the ability to do even one of those free acts?

How does this not make the revelation of scripture to be false?
Why would we need scripture at all. We are caused to do and say everything. We can't learn. We can't not obey so why the request to obey.

So your answer is God called Jesus to rebuke Peter for attempting to thwart God's plan. God made Peter say what he said, and Jesus rebuke, and there was no lesson in it for us because we are not free to learn any lessons. And Jesus being God knew this was a sham and that Peter was just a puppet with God putting words in his mouth.

This is as coherent as a round triangle or a married bachelor.

Please defend this fatalism with reasons. Oh yeah, sorry. I forgot. I am not talking to Dave L, I'm talking to the puppeteer (God) behind Dave L.

And I'm not actually talking either God is talking through my typing. He is contradicting through me what he is saying through you. How entertaining. We better get God into therapy before this mania spreads.

I'm not speaking in this manner to mock your view believe it or not. I am trying to wrestle some examination of the claims out of you. I'm well aware that you are following the teaching ascribed to Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas. That Calvin held these beliefs. And Luther. But they were not careful thinkers in this regard. They tried to solve theological problems without carefully thinking out the ramifications of their beliefs.

Please perform the thought experiment of examining whether you would marry a robot. The reason why everyone (except the mentally ill) say "No," in response is that expressing love requires the freedom not to love. Similarly, of course God could have created a world of robots, but why would he want to.

The scriptures paint a much more exciting story of a portion of mankind choosing freely to love God as a function of his beauty, intellect, kindness, mercy, power, etc. Further that God handed over management of his creation to his adopted daughters and sons to share in the rulership of his kingdom. Not out necessity but as a Father lets his son start to share in duties of maintaining the house on the weekend. This freedom reflects a loving father who, "Wants everyone of his children to come to a knowledge of him, not wanting any to perish."

All throughout scripture we see God lament that he doesn't get what he wants.

People will perish. People will freely reject God. Jesus laments how he and his Father longed to gather Jerusalem like a chicken gathers her chicks, but they wouldn't allow God to do it.

 

[Dave L]

Got it. Well since you are fated to answer my comments, not with rational arguments, or based on things that are true features of the external world we live in but rather mechanistically by the words God strings together in your mind or controls in your typing fingers, I will take your statements to NOT BE REPRESENTING TRUTH or Knowledge as the method necessarily eliminates the either of those from being demonstrated. Any more than a monkey typing randomly on a computer could produce a meaningfully true statement. At best it would be an accidental feature.

Also, on your view, why have people (by that I mean marionnettes that look like people)? It is one play and mindless puppets provide God with entertainment, nothing more.

You are giving the atheists out here a retort to the theistic claim that on atheism there is no objective meaning to the world.

On your view of sovereignty all humans have no objective meaning in their lives, since they are locked into being an automaton for eternity. Or do they all of a sudden receive freewill in heaven?

BTW how does a robot love God?

What does it say about God's character that he would tell people throughout every page of the scripture to make good freewill decisions that they will be held accountable for due to those decisions making a real difference, and then find out no one has the ability to do even one of those free acts?

How does this not make the revelation of scripture to be false?
Why would we need scripture at all. We are caused to do and say everything. We can't learn. We can't not obey so why the request to obey.

So your answer is God called Jesus to rebuke Peter for attempting to thwart God's plan. God made Peter say what he said, and Jesus rebuke, and there was no lesson in it for us because we are not free to learn any lessons. And Jesus being God knew this was a sham and that Peter was just a puppet with God putting words in his mouth.

This is as coherent as a round triangle or a married bachelor.

Please defend this fatalism with reasons. Oh yeah, sorry. I forgot. I am not talking to Dave L, I'm talking to the puppeteer (God) behind Dave L.

And I'm not actually talking either God is talking through my typing. He is contradicting through me what he is saying through you. How entertaining. We better get God into therapy before this mania spreads.

Smart guys know free will is pure malarkey. “Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect, as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.” [Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, Page 422.]

 

[Uber Genius]

Smart guys know free will is pure malarkey. “Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect, as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.” [Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, Page 422.]

LOL. Einstein was not a philosopher. He also said God doesn't play dice with the universe. So what? He was referring to the deterministic nature of the material world not the question of whether rational agents have free will or not. This is an equivocation since the concepts are not the same. That is a fallacy.

This is also an argument to authority and since the authority has no understanding let alone expertise of fatalism you have committed yet another informal logical fallacy in your post about "Smart Guys."

Will the irony and incoherence every cease?

 

[Dave L]

LOL. Einstein was not a philosopher. He also said God doesn't play dice with the universe. So what?

This is an argument to authority and since the authority has no understanding let alone expertise of fatalism you have committed an informal logical fallacy in your post about "Smart Guys."

Will the irony and incoherence every cease?

Eisenstein knew how the universe works. Philosophers only speculate.

 

[Uber Genius]

Eisenstein knew how the universe works. Philosophers only speculate.

Non-sequitur. You represented him as an expert in the philosophical knowledge area known as fatalism. He is not.

We are not talking about how the universe works and philosophers don't speculate on cosmology anymore than theoretical physicists speculate about fatalism. It seems clear that you are not going to engage my arguments for free will in any sincere manner.

I don't plan on attempting to educate you in avoiding logical fallacies any further.

Best wishes.

P.S. "Ignored"

 

[Go Braves]

Is there any reason why anybody reasonable should give a dang what Kent Hovind thinks of anything? Besides just having some lulz maybe.