Necessity of evil

[jayem]

God's plan ESTABLISHES choice, including theirs. But if that isn't free will, then there is no free will of creatures.

That's what's illogical. The Bible says God knows everything. He knew you before you were born, and counted every hair on your head. Many verses point out that God is the absolute universal sovereign, and everything that happens must be in accord with his plan. Jesus says you pray THY will be done--not MY will. And then you say that Adam and Eve could make a free will choice. But did God not already know what that choice would be? If so, that would contradict everything the Bible says about God's sovereignty and omniscience.

 

[Mark Quayle]

But this is true regardless of whether there's a God or not, so why propose the existence of something for which there is no need? Why not simply refer to it as the First Cause and leave it at that?

Because of the difference between "First Cause with Intent", and "First Cause as mere Mechanical Fact". Mechanical fact cannot be self-existent.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
God's plan ESTABLISHES choice, including theirs. But if that isn't free will, then there is no free will of creatures.

That's what's illogical. The Bible says God knows everything. He knew you before you were born, and counted every hair on your head. Many verses point out that God is the absolute universal sovereign, and everything that happens must be in accord with his plan. Jesus says you pray THY will be done--not MY will. And then you say that Adam and Eve could make a free will choice. But did God not already know what that choice would be? If so, that would contradict everything the Bible says about God's sovereignty and omniscience.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word, "established", there. I mean it in the old sense, that the veracity, the worth, of the choosing, is by causation: It is in each case, an effect of cause, and that, either immediately or by means of the causation by other effects. I do not mean, there, that God established a way for us to choose with the same spontaneity with which God himself acts. To me, that is self-contradictory. There can be only one first cause.

My use of "free will" there is not the usual, "uncaused" choice. Nothing we do, including our choices, is actually spontaneous, arising without cause.

I agree with your statement —what I said is indeed illogical if "Free Will" means God did not cause it. In fact, I use your argument all the time, with believers. They generally have no problem with the naturalistic structure of causation —after all, it is only logical. But then, when the "naturalist" places God as first cause, all the sudden the objections come. "He can't cause me to love him!" "He can't change my will!" Haha! as John MacArthur said, facetiously, "He can't do that! We're Americans!"

"...not my will, but yours, be done." is not only what we pray, but the very ability to pray it, and, in fact, the veracity of the prayer, are all caused by God. I say that not only are their choices established, but even their ability to choose is established by God. The ability to actually choose, if that is all that is meant by "free will", is thus, "established" by God.

 

[Neutral Observer]

Because of the difference between "First Cause with Intent", and "First Cause as mere Mechanical Fact".

I would argue quite the opposite, that anything with intent can't possibly be the First Cause, because intent implies a set of motives which serve to guide the formation of that intent. In other words intentions have underlying causes, thus they can't be an attribute of the First Cause. On the other hand, to argue that God's intentions are simply a fundamental part of God's nature, and therefore have no preceding causes is to say that God's intentions are in fact 'Mechanical', they couldn't possibly be any other way.

So either there's an underlying cause for God's intentions being the way they are, or God's intentions are purely mechanical. Which is it?

Mechanical fact cannot be self-existent.

Pray tell, what metaphysical argument leads you to this conclusion?

 

[eleos1954]

You speak as though we are on an even operating level with God; as though we are in and of ourselves SOMEBODY to be reckoned with; as though we are the same persons one day as we are a year later, unchanged; as though we are complete beings, not vessels for his purposes, to be completed when we see him as he is, when "the sons of God are revealed".

But such is the mind of self-determinism.

no .... it is God who sanctifies us .... and does so throughout our earthly life .... we will see changes .... and we will stumble here and there ....
but it is His work in the believer and He will finish His work. We do indeed belong to Him (we are His creation) .... however He does not force himself upon us .... He will come into our hearts if we ask Him to and help us to repent (turn away from sin).

Philippians 1:6 Amplified Bible (AMP)
I am convinced and confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will [continue to] perfect and complete it until the day of Christ Jesus [the time of His return].

His work (praise the Lord) ..... not ours.

Relying on the Lord to help change us is not determinism. He is looking for willingness .... is one willing to invite Him into their heart then He will work on our hearts/mind and help us to change our thinking ... as our thinking is changed our actions (works) will correspond.

 

[Diamond72]

Life is full of surprises.

so why propose the existence of something for which there is no need?

There is a need for God. He is life, health and healing and we want more than what man can offer us.

 

[Mark Quayle]

no .... it is God who sanctifies us .... and does so throughout our earthly life .... we will see changes .... and we will stumble here and there ....
but it is His work in the believer and He will finish His work. We do indeed belong to Him (we are His creation) .... however He does not force himself upon us .... He will come into our hearts if we ask Him to and help us to repent (turn away from sin).

Philippians 1:6 Amplified Bible (AMP)
I am convinced and confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will [continue to] perfect and complete it until the day of Christ Jesus [the time of His return].

His work (praise the Lord) ..... not ours.

Relying on the Lord to help change us is not determinism. He is looking for willingness .... is one willing to invite Him into their heart then He will work on our hearts/mind and help us to change our thinking ... as our thinking is changed our actions (works) will correspond.

Self-determinism is demanding that God ask for your permission, and claiming that it is YOUR choice that makes the difference between spiritual death and life everlasting, and insisting that spiritual growth is by the believers choices, with God's added helpfulness.

But, concerning the willingness that he is looking for —HOW does one become willing? And when you have answered that question, ask how THAT answer, and so on. In the end, it all runs down to First Cause. God has determined it, one way or another, if it happens at all. God doesn't help change anyone. He changes them, and uses their choosing to do it. (If anyone is helping, it is the believer, and not the other way around). But I insist, even what the believer chooses, is caused.

The Creature doesn't operate on the level of the Creator.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
Because of the difference between "First Cause with Intent", and "First Cause as mere Mechanical Fact".

I would argue quite the opposite, that anything with intent can't possibly be the First Cause, because intent implies a set of motives which serve to guide the formation of that intent. In other words intentions have underlying causes, thus they can't be an attribute of the First Cause. On the other hand, to argue that God's intentions are simply a fundamental part of God's nature, and therefore have no preceding causes is to say that God's intentions are in fact 'Mechanical', they couldn't possibly be any other way.

So either there's an underlying cause for God's intentions being the way they are, or God's intentions are purely mechanical. Which is it?

So, you, a Christian, believe God is not First Cause? I can only hope you are playing devil's advocate.

'Intent' only "implies a set of motives" for the anthropomorphizing human. God is not us, not made of parts, not needing to consider before doing. OUR intentions have underlying causes. God doesn't have underlying causes.

Your second formation is wrong too. God is not a machine, he does not answer to form. You arrange a mechanism in your mind to pretend value to your narrative —that does not apply to God. Again, he is not us.

Even the term, "First Cause with Intent", is humanly derived, to show the difference between mechanical fact, such as the natural universe, vs a personage.


Mark Quayle said:
Mechanical fact cannot be self-existent.

Pray tell, what metaphysical argument leads you to this conclusion?

Because it not only answers to form, but it operates by governing principle from outside itself.

 

[Robban]

There is a need for God. He is life, health and healing and we want more than what man can offer us.

My comment was that surprise can come in different forms.


When Pharaos army chased the Israelites across the sea of reeds on dry land,

Surprise, surprise, the sea closed in on them.

There are many examples to choose from.

 

[Diamond72]

My comment was that surprise can come in different forms.

Often it is a surprise the way God answers our prayers.

 

[Robban]

Often it is a surprise the way God answers our prayers.

Yep, coz He is awesome.

 

[Diamond72]

But did God not already know what that choice would be?

He could have known, but that is not an expression of love. A husband can put a tracking device on his wife to see if she is cheating on him. But if he has faith and believes in her then he trusts her not to cheat on him. God is still going to accomplish His purpose, plan, and objective. If we did not have free will, then we would be slaves.

 

[ruthiesea]

Deuteronomy 30:15-20 says that G-d gives us a choice between good and evil. That means that we have the free will to choose. The decision is ours and the responsibility is ours alone.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Deuteronomy 30:15-20 says that G-d gives us a choice between good and evil. That means that we have the free will to choose. The decision is ours and the responsibility is ours alone.

Does the ability to choose MEAN necessarily imply 'free will'? Does free will imply absolute spontaneity, or are our decisions also the result of causes?

 

[durangodawood]

.....That gives nobody an excuse to do what they shouldn't. They have a conscience, and they do choose, just as God determined that they would from the beginning......

Thats about as "free" as a character in a novel.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Thats about as "free" as a character in a novel.

And your problem with that is.....?

 

[durangodawood]

And your problem with that is.....?

That person has nor had no options to choose any course besides whats written by someone else. Calling that "free" is turning language inside out.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That person has nor had no options to choose any course besides whats written by someone else. Calling that "free" is turning language inside out.

Point-of-view thing, then. No actual difference. Yeah, I hear ya! Sucks, not being in charge of your own life!

 

[durangodawood]

Point-of-view thing, then. No actual difference. Yeah, I hear ya! Sucks, not being in charge of your own life!

It would suck actually. If we're just following someone elses script then we're not even real persons. We're just that author's characters in a grand fiction.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It would suck actually. If we're just following someone elses script then we're not even real persons. We're just that author's characters in a grand fiction.

This is not just "someone else's script". This is God's doing, what HE created. The idea that GOD wrote it doesn't make it a fiction.

It is not that we are that much below him that we are not real actors, but that he is that much above us that we can't see him work.