The Logical Premise?

[AV1611VET]

LOL. Yeah. Sure.

It's really this simple:

Spoiler: THIS SIMPLE

God works in mysterious ways.

 

[Obliquinaut]

It's really this simple:

Spoiler: THIS SIMPLE

God works in mysterious ways.

That's sad.

 

[quatona]

Who do you suggest he appoints?

Sorry, I guess my point was misunderstandable: I´m a bit reluctant to accept someone as an authority just because they have declared themselves such. IOW, your approach to this appears to be a bit too circular, for my taste.

"Hello Mr Trump, I hear you are getting a bit tired of being President of the USA.
Perhaps you would like to try your hand as Lord of The Universe instead?"

Yeah, funny.
How about this: "Hello Mr. Trump, I hear you are getting a bit tired of being President of the USA. Don´t worry, just sit back, relax and do nothing - you have no say in anything anyway. I am the Lord of the Universe (including the USA) and the Ultimate Authority, after all. As such I am responsible for everything, so I can´t hold you culpable."

Whatever. You were trying to explain why God is "responsible" but not "culpable". I fail to see how the Highest Authority, by your reasoning, can be responsible any more than it is culpable. Responsible to whom? Nor how a human can be culpable when God is responsible.

 

[quatona]

It's really this simple:

Spoiler: THIS SIMPLE

God works in mysterious ways.

I am always a bit disappointed when a long and complicated explanation turns out to come down to "it´s a mystery". I mean, that´s the very opposite of an explanation, and you could say that upfront - because the rest is just redundant.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am always a bit disappointed when a long and complicated explanation turns out to come down to "it´s a mystery". I mean, that´s the very opposite of an explanation, and you could say that upfront - because the rest is just redundant.

You can't figure that out for yourself?

With all that science in your head, and you still have questions ... and you can't figure out ahead of time that it's because God works in mysterious (non-scientific) ways?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Free will, as much as anything else, is a way of giving expression to the fact that we are not subjectively aware of anything causing us to choose one way, rather than another.

Given the causal nature of physical laws, at a macroscopic level, a completely autonomous will is already a problematic idea, even before you get into theology.

I agree.

The thing is though, the theology isn't really ambigous concerning the claims about free will existing, within that context.

The contradiction in terms I am pointing to, is a contradiction that exists within the theology itself.

Theology doesn't call "free will" problematic. It doesn't say that it might not actually exist.
It says that it exists, period. In the same universe as pre-ordained events.

 

[quatona]

You can't figure that out for yourself?

I do can figure out that your explanations regarding the so-called supernatural will at some point come down to "it´s a mystery". That´s why I don´t pay much attention to those longwinded pretenses of explanations.

With all that science in your head, and you still have questions ... and you can't figure out ahead of time that it's because God works in mysterious (non-scientific) ways?

I think there´s a huge difference between "I don´t know how it works" and "I know how it works [drum roll]: it works in mysterious ways.".

 

[lesliedellow]

....... but I also realize that many believers are incapable of dealing with any conceptions of God outside of their carefully crafted variant. And I suppose that is fine.

More to the point, are they interested in debating a generic god concept; devoid of any real content.

I suppose it is fine as a way of passing the time, for those who have a taste for such things.

 

[lesliedellow]

I agree.

The thing is though, the theology isn't really ambigous concerning the claims about free will existing, within that context.

The contradiction in terms I am pointing to, is a contradiction that exists within the theology itself.

Theology doesn't call "free will" problematic. It doesn't say that it might not actually exist.
It says that it exists, period. In the same universe as pre-ordained events.

As I have said before, free will is a nebulous concept, and its definition is dependent upon which philosopher you ask. Therefore, whether or not it can exist in the same universe as a divinely preordained course of history would depend upon which philosopher you asked.

It is like debating whether a god can do X, without making the word "god" specific to a particular conception of God (which is what Obiquinaut seems to want to do). You cannot debate free will without agreeing upon a definition of the same.

 

[Kylie]

None that you recognize.

As I pointed out: whether God exists or not, you've seemed to convince yourself you have no free choice.

Stop trying to shift the goalposts and actually answer my question.

 

[lesliedellow]

Mistake.

 

[Kylie]

If the Newtonian picture of how the universe works on a macroscopic scale is anything likeaccurate, as it very obviously is, then there would appear to be only one option anyway.

But this fails to take into account quantum mechanics, which is definitely true.

 

[Kylie]

No. If the Christian God exists at all, he is creator of all things and Lord of all things.

Mighty big IF there...

You are assuming your conclusion, and that's a logical fallacy.

 

[lesliedellow]

But this fails to take into account quantum mechanics, which is definitely true.

I would regard it as debatable whether or not quantum effects are of any relevance in the macroscopic world. Even if they were, it would only make somebody's actions dependent upon random events, and you must decide whether that is any more acceptable to your conception of free will.

 

[lesliedellow]

Mighty big IF there...

You are assuming your conclusion, and that's a logical fallacy.

If you want to debate Christian theology, you had better have the existence of God as a working hypothesis, because Christian theology presupposes it.

There is no proof, or disproof, that God exists. Only pointers which some people would regard as suggestive, and others wouldn't.

 

[Kylie]

I would regard it as debatable whether or not quantum effects are of any relevance in the macroscopic world. Even if they were, it would only make somebody's actions dependent upon random events, and you must decide whether that is any more acceptable to your conception of free will.

Tell that to Marie Curie, who died of radiation poisoning.

 

[Kylie]

If you want to debate Christian theology, you had better have the existence of God as a working hypothesis, because Christian theology presupposes it.

There is no proof, or disproof, that God exists.

That makes no sense.

In order to debate the position that Christian theology is wrong, I have to start form the assumption that it is NOT wrong?

 

[lesliedellow]

That makes no sense.

In order to debate the position that Christian theology is wrong, I have to start form the assumption that it is NOT wrong?

The thing being debated was whether freewill is compatible with the Calvinist understanding of the Christian God.

You can debate the existence of that God until the cows come home. Philosophers and theologians have long given up on the idea that the question can be definitively settled, one way or the other.

 

[quatona]

That makes no sense.

In order to debate the position that Christian theology is wrong, I have to start form the assumption that it is NOT wrong?

Actually, I do think this would be a good start - the beginning of a reductio ad absurdum, which can be a pretty powerful means of refuting an idea.

 

[Kylie]

I would regard it as debatable whether or not quantum effects are of any relevance in the macroscopic world. Even if they were, it would only make somebody's actions dependent upon random events, and you must decide whether that is any more acceptable to your conception of free will.

If somebody's actions were dependent on random events, then doesn't that prove that events cannot be foreordained?