Featured Good versus Evil

What's wrong with that? It's otherwise known as 'self-determination'...the cause of a choice is the chooser. There is nothing illogical about that. It's just mysterious to us as to how the will functions. It's not able to be defined or measured, and thus it remains mysterious, much like much of the unexplored and undiscovered mysterious of our universe. It doesn't mean it must be impossible for the will to be independent of divine determination, as you PRESUME based upon your lack of ability to imagine otherwise.

Their will...that is what a will is, Luke...its the basis of a free moral agents choice and its what separates him from instinctive reactionary animals. It's why we are held responsible for our choices and animals are not...in fact its why we are debating two DIFFERENT and unique points of view. If your perspective is correct then God is debating Himself in this exchange because He would be as much the author of your view as He would be the author of mine, which is non-sense. If you'd like to imagine your maker as the divine puppet master causing us each to defend our predetermined views on a forum, fine by me, but no thanks. My God is bigger than that.

Allow me to reword your question for you in order to reveal your fallacy: "What determines the decision of the decider, because it COULD NOT be just the decider himself."

That, my brother, is perfect example of a question begging fallacy, because the question itself presumes the very point up for debate. It presumes that the decider could not be the determiner of his choice, and that IS THE POINT UP FOR DEBATE. Understand?

 

I suppose if YOU, LUKE, made something, you would determine all these things, but you are presuming that about our infinite, omnipotent God on the basis that is what you would do? We are talking about what OUR GOD COULD DO, supposing He wanted to...and you've conclusively decided that He just couldn't create a person with the ability to make his own choices. That's an amazingly small view of God, IMO.

Now, no one is arguing that the will is void of influence and context. The will is not in a vacuum. Just as no one is arguing the will has complete freedom. We have limitations, influences, desires, instincts, context and endless other variables...all of which contribute to the mysterious aspect of the wills function.

And you can't on the one hand appeal to mystery regarding the uncaused cause that is God or his choices and on the other hand deny the ability of others to appeal to mystery regarding aspects of what such a infinite being might be capable of creating. That is shortsighted at best.

God did.

The question is whether God made him as a determined creature (robot like), or as a response enable creature (responsible). The bible indicate the latter by the very fact that God holds us responsible.

You can ask why about anything you want, but if I ask you, "Why do you beat your wife," how are you going to answer except to say that question is fallacious because it presumes something I believe to be untrue? The question itself presumes something I reject, and that is the very root of the question begging fallacy.

I don't believe anything outside the chooser determines his moral choices, so to ask me what determines the choosers choices is just a big ol game of question begging, and it would be tantamount to an atheist debating you with the question, "What caused God," on the 'logical' basis that all things must have a cause.

 

Because no one can define, measure or explain it. That is mysterious. And that it a fact, not just my opinion...unless of course you can produce the study that fully defines how the human will works?

Either you can presume the will is pre-determined to do what it does, even sinful stuff, by a Holy God which is a possible answer to the mystery (its a theory, in other words), or you can take the approach of just saying, "We don't know, but we know that God treats us as if we are response enabled, so I'll believe we are unless He tells us clearly otherwise."

Claiming mystery is not a presumption. Its acknowledging the facts of the matter. People can present theories all day, but the fact is we don't know. You have to remember that my side is ONLY attempting to argue for the possibility of an infinitely omnipotent God creating free creatures, I'm not having to prove that theory to be true...only a possible theory....just like determinism.

See, that is the difference with our approach. I'll happily admit that God is capable of created determined creatures, even though I don't believe He chose to, but YOU are taking the much more difficult to defend position that God COULDN'T, even if He wanted to, create a contra-casually free person. That's a hard line to hold without resorting to fallacious argumentation.

 

His existence is based on something else, but what precludes that his choice must be based on something else?

 

His 'free-self' or his 'determined-self?'

See what you are doing? You are presuming that the SELF couldn't have been created to be free, which is question begging. You have to PROVE that the SELF couldn't have been created free. I don't have that burden on me, because I've gladly admitted that the determined self is a possible theory to the answer of our mystery. You are the one claiming that a 'free-self' is beyond God's creative capacity and thus you LIMIT what God could do based on a mystery and a presumed theory. The burden lies squarely on you to prove your theory HAS to be the right answer to our mystery and that mine is impossible. Good luck with that.

And that something else has to be God, who Himself has a will based on His Self and you get to the exact same appeal to mystery to answer that same mysterious question of how the will works, but by putting it off onto God you have the dreaded Dahmer issue where God's will is indistinguishable from the will of His evil creatures. That is a violation of his holiness and clear biblical revelation...so why do it? Why put it off onto God? Why not appeal to mystery one step before you do instead of IMPOSING YOUR THEORY of determinism upon a mysterious issues that we couldn't possibly fully comprehend with our finite linear logic???

 

Indeed...especially if that attempt is a clear violation of God's revelation and impugning His holy nature. According to scripture, God doesn't even TEMPT men to evil, yet in your system he determines not only the temptation, but the desire, motive, will, nature, and ultimate choice to fall into that temptation. All for what? A theory to answer a mystery...which really doesn't even answer the mystery, but just pushes the mystery back one step while impugning the holiness of God.

So you think God is a flying spaghetti monster? I ask because I've told you countless times that man's free will, in our system, was CREATED BY GOD TO BE FREE.

You keep using the word 'will' in a weird way and I'm wondering what you definition of 'will' is anyway? You talk about human will as if it is nothing...like its a weight scale that must be acted upon to be able to move...or some kind of inanimate object that simply couldn't reason, deliberate or process anything until it was programmed by some external force to do so. Is that what you think a "will" is? I'd love to hear your definition of 'human will.'

I suspect you do with it much like you do with words like "choice" and "responsibility" and make them void of any real meaning.

I think your definition of the word "WILL" above could reveal the error of this question.

Whoa...I've never argued that the chooser doesn't have reasons or influences which affect his choices. I've only argued that those reasons and influences don't determine the choice, the chooser does that. The will chooses which desire/reason/influence upon which to act, because if the external influence determines the choice then IT is the chooser, not the person. If something external determines my action then that thing, whatever it is, is the determiner, not me.

 

Absolutely correct! :thumbsup:

And that right there is what separates Luke and I so drastically on this point. I readily admit that God COULD have chosen to be the big puppet-master in the sky who is just putting on a big production of His determined will. He is certainly able to 'play both sides of the chess board' to ensure victory, after all it His Chess Board! I just believe (1) that is not the God revealed in scripture, and (2) that is a very small view of God.

Luke, on the other hand, has the audacity to conclusively state that our Omniscient, INFINITE God is ONLY ABLE to create determined creatures....He is too weak to do otherwise...He is just not creative enough to create people who can make decisions that He Himself doesn't determine....poor God...He just can't do that. He is just too small, too weak to pull that off I guess???? Wow. I just can't believe someone can come to that conclusion!

 

EXACTLY!!!

The two accusations I hear most from the Calvinistic types against non-Calvinists are:

1. You lesson the Sovereignty of God

and

2. You have too high of a view of man

But just the opposite is true!!!

I contend that our view of God's sovereignty is greater in its scope than theirs and that our view of man's nature is LOWER, not higher, than theirs. This can be illustrated in two ways.

1. Sovereignty = power over creation

Which is more powerful? A man who ensures victory by playing both sides of the chessboard, or the man who ensures victory by his sheer power over his free and independent foe?​

2. The Nature of Man = the level of lost man's corruption

Which is worse? A man who is born with defect making him unable to control his behavior so he kills another, or a man who is born with all his capacities and freely chooses to maliciously murder another?

Which is worse? A man who hates and rejects a creator who hated him first and who made him for eternal torment so as to bring himself glory, or a man who hates and rejects a creator who loves him, provides salvation for him and genuinely appeals for his reconciliation?​