Necessity of evil

[durangodawood]

I still don't understand what you mean. Maybe if you give me an example it will help. What do you mean by being inclined?

Hes onto the best no free will argument imo.

Its basically, you chose X because of reasons, which include internal mental state. If you rolled the clock back to the same decision point to see if you might choose differently, those reasons youre presented with would be exactly the same. Where the room for new or different reason to present themselves?

 

[zoidar]

I cannot Will a choice but God can provide the opportunity for a choice.

Coincidence...
I thought it was God reminding me that "ask and ye shall receive" as God does provide the choices.
I almost forgot that for a moment, that God can and does provide choices.
I never would have gone to town if not for that coincidental phone call.

Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” Matthew 17:20-21

There is no such thing as coincidence IMO. However, there is the battleground of good vs evil.

 

[zippy2006]

This was conceived long before we had machines that perform logical operations. In my time I never even got that chance to associate rationality necessarily with free will. Now to do so we have to invoke tremendous assumptions - like the one in bold above..

So I hold to free will not as a the conclusion of great arguments, but as a preference - aided by the lack of good arguments against it.

I don't think turing machines invalidate Aquinas' point whatsoever, but there were other views even at that time. Duns Scotus, for example, seated freedom primarily in the will rather than in the intellect.

 

[zippy2006]

Why does humans having true spontaneity break logic while God having it does not? I think youre implying about Gods situation: "well that just a mystery". Well.... if its a mystery there, then human proper free will can be a mystery here. Whos to say it has to be something we can fully comprehend?

This is an excellent rejoinder to popular Calvinism.

 

[QvQ]

There is no such thing as coincidence IMO. However, there is the battleground of good vs evil.

This is why I delete posts. The language I use is not the same as the traditional terminology.

Coincidence, If a person asks God for a specific thing that is not a choice readily available in the normal facts of that person's situation, then a person will start watching carefully to see if that thing turns up.
It does, as in the course of writing that "I Will a big mac right now" the phone call, the necessity of the prescription for a friend, the hamburger also turned up, coincidentally, as a choice or opportunity for the hamburger.
Now, that coincidence and what I call pattern recognition seem to be what traditional terminology would say is "Providence."

I saw a study a while back that said Dutch Calvinists are better and quicker than most people at pattern recognition. I tried to locate the study but I couldn't so...there it is.

Now good and evil, If a person asks God for something, that person has faith in God, yes? Would God give him a stone or allow the devil to trick him?

I was mocking you by saying to you couldn't "will" a big mac and fries right now. However, God reminded me that yes, you could if you asked God.
Always say a word about God. And don't mock the brothers.

 

[jayem]

There are logical philosophical arguments that support the Trinity, the Bible itself, which is the inspired word of God supports the Trinity, but anyone who wishes not to believe in the Trinity is perfectly free to do so. I know that the Trinity is a difficult concept to understand and is frequently misunderstood and explained by using examples that are actually incorrect and often heretical but it is not simply a matter of faith.

I've done some historical-critical Bible study in college. Whatever logic resides in the Trinity escapes me. There's that odd passage in Matthew, Mark, and Luke stating that all sins can be forgiven except "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit." Whatever that means, I'd assume that denying the Holy Spirit as part of the godhead would qualify as an unforgivable sin. The logical conclusion would be that all non-trinitarian Christians are not just mistaken, but sinful. And--no matter how otherwise devout--they're risking eternal salvation. Do you believe this?

 

[zoidar]

This is why I delete posts. The language I use if not the same as the traditional terminology.

Coincidence, If a person asks God for a specific thing that is not a choice readily available in the normal facts of that person's situations, then a person will start watching carefully to see if that thing turns up.
It does, as in the course of getting the prescription for a friend, the hamburger also turned up as a choice or opportunity for the hamburger.
Now, that coincidence and what I call patterns in random seem to be what traditional terminology would say is "Providence."

I saw a study a while back that said Dutch Calvinists are better and quicker than most people at spotting "patterns in random" I tried to locate the study but I couldn't so...there it is.

Now good and evil, If a person asks God for something, that person has faith in God, yes? Would God give him a stone or allow the devil to trick him?

I was mocking you by saying to you couldn't "will" a big mac and fries right now. However, God reminded me that yes, you could if you asked God.
Always say a word about God. And don't mock the brothers.

Most of what I believe about God is intutive or experience. It is not in words and then not in words of traditional Christianity
At first, I came here simply to see if my believes were shared by other Christians. I have had to translate my understanding into the terminology of the mainline Christians.

If we pray for something it has to be according to God's will. I think you agree. If I pray for an expensive car, I don't see God responding to such a prayer. I might end up with an expensive car, but it may be a way for the enemy to snare me in worldly pleasures.

 

[QvQ]

If we pray for something it has to be according to God's will. I think you agree. If I pray for an expensive car, I don't see God responding to such a prayer. I might end up with an expensive car, but it may be a way for the enemy to snare me in worldly pleasures.

That is a lesson to be learned.
Most certainly a person cannot pray for advantage over another, evil or harm or to tempt God.
I don't ask for much in prayer as I believe:
Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

. However, there is the battleground of good vs evil.

As for good and evil, yes, but because I have faith in God, it isn't exactly my fight
I abide by these verses, just to name a few

Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: ​

Matthew 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:

Psalms 23:4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me;​

 

[Mark Quayle]

I thought the law of causation prevented any true spontaneity according to you. You said "...all effects are caused. And I say that everything is an effect, except God". So while His existence is uncaused, his actions are an effect.

No. God has true spontaneity. His is the ONLY truly NEW.

But it's ok to call his actions an effect of his will. I just don't think that the way we think of that is quite accurate. But I don't know how better to say it without writing a dissertation.

Why does humans having true spontaneity break logic while God having it does not? I think youre implying about Gods situation: "well that just a mystery". Well.... if its a mystery there, then human proper free will can be a mystery here. Whos to say it has to be something we can fully comprehend?

No, I'm not talking about mystery. If humans have TRUE spontaneity, their 'spontaneous' acts are uncaused —which renders them little first causes, when there can be only one first cause: God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I still don't understand what you mean. Maybe if you give me an example it will help. What do you mean by being inclined?

If I have only a little money, and it was hard earned, and someone else needs money, I may be inclined to keep what is mine.

When my body is used to eating all I want, I might be inclined to eat, the next time I'm hungry.

Last night I didn't get much sleep. This morning I was inclined to remain reclined.

Genesis 6:5
"The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time."

 

[disciple Clint]

This is my reply to #146, I do not know why it did not print the o.p.
Not at all. Here is something to consider The Persons of the Trinity — Aquinas 101

 

[disciple Clint]

I've done some historical-critical Bible study in college. Whatever logic resides in the Trinity escapes me. There's that odd passage in Matthew, Mark, and Luke stating that all sins can be forgiven except "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit." Whatever that means, I'd assume that denying the Holy Spirit as part of the godhead would qualify as an unforgivable sin. The logical conclusion would be that all non-trinitarian Christians are not just mistaken, but sinful. And--no matter how otherwise devout--they're risking eternal salvation. Do you believe this?

see #151

 

[zoidar]

If I have only a little money, and it was hard earned, and someone else needs money, I may be inclined to keep what is mine.

When my body is used to eating all I want, I might be inclined to eat, the next time I'm hungry.

Last night I didn't get much sleep. This morning I was inclined to remain reclined.

Genesis 6:5
"The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time."

Obviously we don't always do what we are inclined to do. I may be inclined to keep my money, but I may still choose to give it to the poor. You say in a previous post, we do what we are most inclined to do. What do you mean by "most inclined"?

I'm most inclined to have coffee in the morning, but still I sometimes choose tea. Then you will say that the days I choose tea I'm most inclined to choose tea. Then again I don't understand what you mean by "most inclined".

 

[durangodawood]

No. God has true spontaneity. His is the ONLY truly NEW.

Maybe. But thats a statement of faith, and not something we can reason toward, imo.

But it's ok to call his actions an effect of his will. I just don't think that the way we think of that is quite accurate. But I don't know how better to say it without writing a dissertation.

No, I'm not talking about mystery. If humans have TRUE spontaneity, their 'spontaneous' acts are uncaused —which renders them little first causes, when there can be only one first cause: God.

If I were a believer I think Id have to conclude that God endowed us with some genuine creative capacity - but within a lot of guardrails that God himself isnt subject to.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
No. God has true spontaneity. His is the ONLY truly NEW.

Maybe. But thats a statement of faith, and not something we can reason toward, imo.

I'm not sure I can say it is without faith that I conceive of it. But it is altogether reasonable, if not entirely logical: God, if he is God, is first cause. Given first cause, then, all other things are caused by him.


Mark Quayle said:
But it's ok to call his actions an effect of his will. I just don't think that the way we think of that is quite accurate. But I don't know how better to say it without writing a dissertation.

No, I'm not talking about mystery. If humans have TRUE spontaneity, their 'spontaneous' acts are uncaused —which renders them little first causes, when there can be only one first cause: God.

If I were a believer I think Id have to conclude that God endowed us with some genuine creative capacity - but within a lot of guardrails that God himself isnt subject to.

I can understand that as an empirical view. But it is a very limited view, not only temporal, but entirely human. I believe it was Hume, I heard of last night on YouTube, who said that the fact we see natural causes, such as the chain of causes or events of cue-stick moving, striking the white pool ball striking the next, that ball rolling into the pocket, etc, is only empirical, and so taken for granted as causal. (He didn't, btw, as some claim, prove that causation was not valid, but that what WE see as the cause, is not necessarily the cause.)

Anyhow, the fact that we think WE came up with this or that, and even call it creation, doesn't mean it is. The Law of Causation states that all effects are caused, (first cause not being an effect). So IF the Law of Causation is valid, and IF there is a first cause, and IF all things except first cause are effects, (all three points of which, I think, are valid and logical), our 'creativity' is also caused, and that, in every particular.

There was once a cult or religion that posited the notion that in fact, what we consider natural causation, was 'the gods' watching to see what we thought, and producing that as an empirical effect. In one of my theological guesses, a 'conclusion' apparent from certain things I have learned of God's nature —to wit, his 'Immanence', and that he (or, rather, something about him) is the very essence of matter and energy/force— suggests that what we consider natural is also entirely 'supernatural'. (The notion is very satisfying to me, explaining, for example, his universal love, in spite of the fact of his particular attentions; also explaining, for example, the power of his will. It also explains a lot, concerning morality —for example, the horror of rebellion against him.)

Anyhow, fun thoughts.

 

[jayem]

I'm not sure I can say it is without faith that I conceive of it. But it is altogether reasonable, if not entirely logical: God, if he is God, is first cause. Given first cause, then, all other things are caused by him.

For the sake of discussion, there could be a 5th force of nature that creates matter/energy. And what we observe about the universe is simply the natural behavior thereof. But claiming that force is your particular god (or any of the 1000s of gods we've dreamed up) is a totally faith-based belief. If there is such a thing as a first cause, why must it be an immanent, personal entity with knowledge, concern, and involvement in its creation? As I see it, that view is purely a product of the human imagination.

 

[Mark Quayle]

For the sake of discussion, there could be a 5th force of nature that creates matter/energy. And what we observe about the universe are simply the natural consequences thereof. But claiming that force is your particular god (or any of the 1000s of gods we've dreamed up) is a totally faith-based belief. If there is such a thing as a first cause, why must it be an immanent, personal entity with knowledge, concern, and involvement in its creation? As I see it, that view is purely a product of the human imagination.

The omni, as we call it, includes that 5th force. That being so, 'my particular god' is not God at all, if he did not create the Omni. Nor is he first cause, if he is subject to the principle we call the omni.

 

[durangodawood]

I can understand that as an empirical view. But it is a very limited view, not only temporal, but entirely human.

I think its the only viewpoint we can have. And I'm very skeptical of strong claims about how things must work in, or related to, an eternal setting. I think we're literally not in a position to reason about those things. we love doing it tho.

Anyhow, the fact that we think WE came up with this or that, and even call it creation, doesn't mean it is. The Law of Causation states that all effects are caused, (first cause not being an effect).

Well of course. "Effects" are defined as the result of causes. But even if I grant the Law isnt simply the result of language, and it really means all events are caused, I wonder if there are exceptions to whats properly an "event".

My speculation is that the "activity" called human-imagination is not entirely described by the idea "event" in the normal sense. There's something else going on. If I was religious I might say its a divine spark, a connection to the eternal, which God gave us as a reflection of "His image". And imagination, this partly out-of-the-stream capacity, is where genuine human creation comes from, and the result can be a new cause in this world. In this view God is still the "first" cause, as He created us, and may have boundless agency. But hes not the only cause. We can initiate cause as well, in ways limited by our condition.

Anyhow, fun thoughts.

For sure. Good discussion.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
I can understand that as an empirical view. But it is a very limited view, not only temporal, but entirely human.

I think its the only viewpoint we can have. And I'm very skeptical of strong claims about how things must work in, or related to, an eternal setting. I think we're literally not in a position to reason about those things. we love doing it tho.

Yes. Even when we go beyond the usual, to try to see a, let's say, non-temporal viewpoint, as, for example my notion that God spoke the finished product into existence, I still must describe it in temporal terms, saying, "he spoke the completed product into being instantly"; likewise, "causation can be time irrelevant" is even there a mention of time. (—Both of those, by the way, have extensive Biblical evidence). So you have a point, yet those two statements do induce a certain distrust of the temporal mind to produce truly valid concepts.

While I agree with being skeptical of strong claims concerning the way of things eternal, we can still produce valid-ish speculation with Biblical evidence to back it up. These are things to be considered, not discarded for being speculation. But yes, the logic is drawn on human reasoning, human conceptions, and human language, even when based on Scriptural principles and Scriptural terminology.


Mark Quayle said:
Anyhow, the fact that we think WE came up with this or that, and even call it creation, doesn't mean it is. The Law of Causation states that all effects are caused, (first cause not being an effect).

Well of course. "Effects" are defined as the result of causes. But even if I grant the Law isnt simply the result of language, and it really means all events are caused, I wonder if there are exceptions to whats properly an "event".

My speculation is that the "activity" called human-imagination is not entirely described by the idea "event" in the normal sense. There's something else going on. If I was religious I might say its a divine spark, a connection to the eternal, which God gave us as a reflection of "His image". And imagination, this partly out-of-the-stream capacity, is where genuine human creation comes from, and the result can be a new cause in this world. In this view God is still the "first" cause, as He created us, and may have boundless agency. But hes not the only cause. We can initiate cause as well, in ways limited by our condition.

But it isn't just 'events', at least to my thinking, that are caused, but all fact, except first cause himself. Still, I admit, it is a jump to say that all things, (events and facts), are caused —that is, that causation is totally pervasive, but for first cause.


Mark Quayle said:
Anyhow, fun thoughts.

For sure. Good discussion.

Some of my most enjoyed discussions and debates on this kind of matter are with those who do not believe as I do about Jesus Christ, or even about the existence of God. I have had a great time talking with a Muslim man, because he believed in an ACTUALLY omnipotent God, unlike many 'believers' who have a superstitious (or so it seems to me) POV concerning him. Likewise, an atheist on this site, @Kylie , has been consistent with the notion that if we are going to talk about God, then that God has to be omnipotent. There's not much point in getting logical about a lesser being.

 

[Neutral Observer]

So what caused God?

Nothing. The law of causation (which the principle itself is caused by God) does not demand that all things are caused —but only that all effects are caused. And I say that everything is an effect, except God.

With all due respect to Aristotle et al the uncaused cause argument is extremely outdated, to the point of being irrelevant. This isn't 350 BCE. We can actually follow the causal chain backwards in time to the point where matter itself disappears, and all that existed were fluctuating quantum fields.

Now one could ask where the fields came from, but this is tantamount to asking where God came from, hence there's no reason to assume that the fields came from anywhere, they've just 'always' existed.

Problem solved, your God is a set of quantum fields. I hope that you're not too disappointed. That's not to say that the fields themselves can't be self-aware. It's just that being self-aware and being self-determining are two different things, and the latter seems to be an ability that neither those quantum fields, your God, or the uncaused cause can logically possess. They simply do what they do. To do otherwise would of course require a cause.