On Logic

[Epiphoskei]

Strictly speaking, a proposition is only irreconcilable with its negation. A is irreconcilable with !A. This is Aristotle's law of non-contradiction: A is not not A. A is never irreconcilable with B simply on the face of it. To conclude !B from A, we need a minor premise stating If A, then !B. Consider:

I was in New York at 8:00 last night.
I was in Atlanta at 8:00 last night.
These positions are not contradictory until one adds the minor premise:
I cannot be in two places at once.

Or,
I went to my one year anniversary with my wife last night.
I am going for my two year anniversary with my wife tomorrow.
These positions are not contradictory until one adds the minor premise:
I am not in polygamous marriages.

Consider, then, if I held the following two positions and the objection was made that these positions are in contradiction and needed reconciliation:
The earth is (roughly) a sphere.
The earth is a planet.
The necessary implicit minor premise, "planets cannot be spheres" or "spheres cannot be planets" is not something I hold to, therefore I have no obligation to reconcile my positions, as they do not contradict unless we assume propositions not in evidence. By all means, those holding these premises are free to argue them, but they may not presume them.

The compatiblists here hold two premises:
God predetermines absolutely everything
Man's will is free and he alone is responsible for what he does.
Neither of these two propositions is phrased as the negation of the other, meaning we cannot be told we have a conflict here which needs explaining unless we first presume the minor premise: If God predetermines absolutely everything, man is not free and he is not responsible for what He does.

I don't hold that premise, and I consider it entirely sufficient on our part to respond to this objection thus:

Your minor premise will never be found in any verse of scripture, being far too technical considering how little scripture says on the subject of the will to begin with.
Your minor premise, within secular philosophy, is intellectually lacking.
Your minor premise, when applied to scripture, is used to pit scriptures against scriptures to nullify plain readings of verses merely to defend free will, a doctrine which those plain readings never imperiled to begin with.
Your minor premise is never clearly articulated and confessed when you use it, which speaks to your inability to defend it.
Without your minor premise, there is no contradiction and I have no need to explain anything.

 

[Reformationist]

Great post. I feel smarter having just read it.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Bump.

 

[janxharris]

Bump.

Can a man do other than that which God predetermined he would do?

 

[Clare73]

Great post. I feel smarter having just read it.

Amen!

 

[travelah]

Strictly speaking, a proposition is only irreconcilable with its negation. A is irreconcilable with !A. This is Aristotle's law of non-contradiction: A is not not A. A is never irreconcilable with B simply on the face of it. To conclude !B from A, we need a minor premise stating If A, then !B. Consider:

I was in New York at 8:00 last night.
I was in Atlanta at 8:00 last night.
These positions are not contradictory until one adds the minor premise:
I cannot be in two places at once.

Or,
I went to my one year anniversary with my wife last night.
I am going for my two year anniversary with my wife tomorrow.
These positions are not contradictory until one adds the minor premise:
I am not in polygamous marriages.

Consider, then, if I held the following two positions and the objection was made that these positions are in contradiction and needed reconciliation:
The earth is (roughly) a sphere.
The earth is a planet.
The necessary implicit minor premise, "planets cannot be spheres" or "spheres cannot be planets" is not something I hold to, therefore I have no obligation to reconcile my positions, as they do not contradict unless we assume propositions not in evidence. By all means, those holding these premises are free to argue them, but they may not presume them.

The compatiblists here hold two premises:
God predetermines absolutely everything
Man's will is free and he alone is responsible for what he does.
Neither of these two propositions is phrased as the negation of the other, meaning we cannot be told we have a conflict here which needs explaining unless we first presume the minor premise: If God predetermines absolutely everything, man is not free and he is not responsible for what He does.

I don't hold that premise, and I consider it entirely sufficient on our part to respond to this objection thus:

Your minor premise will never be found in any verse of scripture, being far too technical considering how little scripture says on the subject of the will to begin with.
Your minor premise, within secular philosophy, is intellectually lacking.
Your minor premise, when applied to scripture, is used to pit scriptures against scriptures to nullify plain readings of verses merely to defend free will, a doctrine which those plain readings never imperiled to begin with.
Your minor premise is never clearly articulated and confessed when you use it, which speaks to your inability to defend it.
Without your minor premise, there is no contradiction and I have no need to explain anything.

LOL Illogical. You could certainly believe you could be in two places at the same time. It would not at all be logical but then neither is the belief that God determines all things yet man is responsible for what God determined. It ultimately makes God the sinner, in fact the only sinner in the equation if man is only irresistibly fulfilling what God has determined for him to do!

 

[Epiphoskei]

LOL Illogical. You could certainly believe you could be in two places at the same time. It would not at all be logical but then neither is the belief that God determines all things yet man is responsible for what God determined. It ultimately makes God the sinner, in fact the only sinner in the equation if man is only irresistibly fulfilling what God has determined for him to do!

Let A be the proposition "God determines everything"
Let B be the proposition "Man is responsible for what he does and God is not."

You write,
" It would not at all be logical but then neither is the belief that God determines all things yet man is responsible for what God determined. It ultimately makes God the sinner"
You realize that what you just said boils down to the following:
It is illogical to believe A does not imply B, because A implies !B.

You have, by making this argument, proved better than I ever could my essential thesis: synergists are viscerally bonded to libertarian philosophy. You cannot exposit it from scripture, you cannot defend it academically, but no one is allowed to not presume it as his basic intellectual starting point.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Can a man do other than that which God predetermined he would do?

Using Edward's definition of "can," a man can, but he won't. I lack no power to go punch my roommate in the face, therefore I can. I don't want to, therefore I won't, which is what God predetermined.

 

[janxharris]

Let A be the proposition "God determines everything"
Let B be the proposition "Man is responsible for what he does and God is not."

You write,
" It would not at all be logical but then neither is the belief that God determines all things yet man is responsible for what God determined. It ultimately makes God the sinner"
You realize that what you just said boils down to the following:
It is illogical to believe A does not imply B, because A implies !B.

You have, by making this argument, proved better than I ever could my essential thesis: synergists are viscerally bonded to libertarian philosophy. You cannot exposit it from scripture, you cannot defend it academically, but no one is allowed to not presume it as his basic intellectual starting point.

Sorry, but the contradiction proves that God did not determine everything.
It remains for Calvinists to prove that B does not imply !A.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Sorry, but the contradiction proves that God did not determine everything.

For libertarians. Which we aren't.

It remains for Calvinists to prove that B does not imply !A.

I will repeat from the OP,

I consider it entirely sufficient on our part to respond to this objection thus:

Your minor premise will never be found in any verse of scripture, being far too technical considering how little scripture says on the subject of the will to begin with.
Your minor premise, within secular philosophy, is intellectually lacking.
Your minor premise, when applied to scripture, is used to pit scriptures against scriptures to nullify plain readings of verses merely to defend free will, a doctrine which those plain readings never imperiled to begin with.
Your minor premise is never clearly articulated and confessed when you use it, which speaks to your inability to defend it.
Without your minor premise, there is no contradiction and I have no need to explain anything.

If you want to start arguing your philosophy as a piece of contestable philosophy and not as a foundational axiom necessarily presumed, I will be happy to begin interacting with you. But it is required that the mere presumption of this philosophy end.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Strictly speaking, a proposition is only irreconcilable with its negation. A is irreconcilable with !A. This is Aristotle's law of non-contradiction: A is not not A. A is never irreconcilable with B simply on the face of it. To conclude !B from A, we need a minor premise stating If A, then !B. Consider:

I was in New York at 8:00 last night.
I was in Atlanta at 8:00 last night.
These positions are not contradictory until one adds the minor premise:
I cannot be in two places at once.

Or,
I went to my one year anniversary with my wife last night.
I am going for my two year anniversary with my wife tomorrow.
These positions are not contradictory until one adds the minor premise:
I am not in polygamous marriages.

Consider, then, if I held the following two positions and the objection was made that these positions are in contradiction and needed reconciliation:
The earth is (roughly) a sphere.
The earth is a planet.
The necessary implicit minor premise, "planets cannot be spheres" or "spheres cannot be planets" is not something I hold to, therefore I have no obligation to reconcile my positions, as they do not contradict unless we assume propositions not in evidence. By all means, those holding these premises are free to argue them, but they may not presume them.

The compatiblists here hold two premises:
God predetermines absolutely everything
Man's will is free and he alone is responsible for what he does.
Neither of these two propositions is phrased as the negation of the other, meaning we cannot be told we have a conflict here which needs explaining unless we first presume the minor premise: If God predetermines absolutely everything, man is not free and he is not responsible for what He does.

I don't hold that premise, and I consider it entirely sufficient on our part to respond to this objection thus:

Your minor premise will never be found in any verse of scripture, being far too technical considering how little scripture says on the subject of the will to begin with.
Your minor premise, within secular philosophy, is intellectually lacking.
Your minor premise, when applied to scripture, is used to pit scriptures against scriptures to nullify plain readings of verses merely to defend free will, a doctrine which those plain readings never imperiled to begin with.
Your minor premise is never clearly articulated and confessed when you use it, which speaks to your inability to defend it.
Without your minor premise, there is no contradiction and I have no need to explain anything.

I agree, however for people who might be reading, explanations can be helpful. The regulars here have read our explanations over and over, and there is no need to explain ad infintum, but I enjoy the process of providing them when I can.

One minor quibble with the above, I can agree with "Man's will is free and he alone is responsible for what he does." but I do prefer it qualified, as you responded to janx "For libertarians. Which we aren't.", making the distinction between libertarian free will and compatibilist free will. Our concept of "free will" differs from the mainstream concept of it, such that we also affirm total inability. From there we would go into more technical details, but there's no need here.

 

[travelah]

Calling yourself a "Juxtalapsarian Compatibalistic Sovereign Deterministic Theistic Revisionist" or any other term you would ever dream up will never distance yourself from the illogical notions of your aberrant theology (from the perspective of most of the body of Christ). Just saying you don't believe like we do does not validate your quirky and illogical determinism. You are proposing an alternative universe of illogic in place of sound logic.

 

[Epiphoskei]

As the OP said, it is not illogical to hold two premises that are not formally contradictions without adding a further premise implying contradiction. Saying that I don't accept your premise absolutely validates my claim to intellectually coherent compatiblism when your disputed premise is nothing but undefended and unexpositable a priori fancy.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Calling yourself a "Juxtalapsarian Compatibalistic Sovereign Deterministic Theistic Revisionist" or any other term you would ever dream up will never distance yourself from the illogical notions of your aberrant theology (from the perspective of most of the body of Christ). Just saying you don't believe like we do does not validate your quirky and illogical determinism. You are proposing an alternative universe of illogic in place of sound logic.

Too funny, especially considering that day in and day out, the illogic of non-Calvinism is exposed and brought to surface here in this forum.

Maybe one day in glory the divine Logos will sort this out, til then, we have the limitations of being human to deal with. Maybe the perspective is different from eternity than it is here on earth, yes, I believe so.

 

[janxharris]

Too funny, especially considering that day in and day out, the illogic of non-Calvinism is exposed and brought to surface here in this forum.

Maybe one day in glory the divine Logos will sort this out, til then, we have the limitations of being human to deal with. Maybe the perspective is different from eternity than it is here on earth, yes, I believe so.

The clearest case of illogical theology is the soft determinism of Calvinism. God foreordains everything without exception and man is free to do just that and nothing else. There are problems with both sides, but this is huge. Having God as the one who predetermined all sins, who is behind the iniquity of Godless men, is shocking and ruinous.

Such teaching is grist for the mill for the enemies of Christianity.

 

[Epiphoskei]

You say illogical, but can't point out the formal error. If you want to say "wrong" or "I don't agree" then do so, but if you want to say "illogical" or "contradictory," you're going to need to demonstrate the contradiction. The point of the OP, which has not been addressed, is that any two points which do not formally contradict each other (A and !A) do not contradict each other at all without the help of an additional premise, and these premises are being assumed by your party without argument.

I see no reason why it would be shocking or ruinous for God to be the one who predetermined everything, and you have not given an argument to the contrary.

 

[janxharris]

You say illogical, but can't point out the formal error. If you want to say "wrong" or "I don't agree" then do so, but if you want to say "illogical" or "contradictory," you're going to need to demonstrate the contradiction. The point of the OP, which has not been addressed, is that any two points which do not formally contradict each other (A and !A) do not contradict each other at all without the help of an additional premise, and these premises are being assumed by your party without argument.

I see no reason why it would be shocking or ruinous for God to be the one who predetermined everything, and you have not given an argument to the contrary.

Your OP is answered by asking the question:
Can a man do other than that which God foreordained he would do?
Your answer will be 'no'.
The contradiction is staring you in the face but you refuse to acknowledge the truth.

Jeremiah 19:5
They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.

 

[janxharris]

You say illogical, but can't point out the formal error. If you want to say "wrong" or "I don't agree" then do so, but if you want to say "illogical" or "contradictory," you're going to need to demonstrate the contradiction. The point of the OP, which has not been addressed, is that any two points which do not formally contradict each other (A and !A) do not contradict each other at all without the help of an additional premise, and these premises are being assumed by your party without argument.

I see no reason why it would be shocking or ruinous for God to be the one who predetermined everything, and you have not given an argument to the contrary.

Jeremiah 19:5
They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.

God did not foreordain this.

I ask you, Did God foreordain that these men burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal? Yes or no?

 

[Epiphoskei]

Your OP is answered by asking the question:
Can a man do other than that which God foreordained he would do?
Your answer will be 'no'.
The contradiction is staring you in the face but you refuse to acknowledge the truth.

Following Edwards, my answer is actually yes, because "can" "able" "possible" and all synonymous words speak of the possession of sufficient power to do something, not of the actual doing of the thing, and it is the latter, not the former, which is predetermined.

But beyond which, if my answer were no, that's still not a contradiction without the assumption of another premise you keep skipping over the justification for.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Jeremiah 19:5
They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.

God did not foreordain this.

I ask you, Did God foreordain that these men burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal? Yes or no?

Yes. In the same way that God is the ultimate cause of everything else. And you're torturing that passage if you think "something I did not command or mention" can be made to mean God didn't causally determine it.