Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
"A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom)."
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Could God create someone like Himself?
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
- Status
"A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom)."
The definition is too narrow, because it implies there is no "cause/effect" and understanding of the consequences in any "choice."
It also is presenting a false view of alternative possibilities in which a hierarchy of need(s) is not integrated.
It further removes the "choice" from the realm of the ability factor. That is, does a person have the actual ability to express a choice out of the pure - the pure character, the pure motive, the pure innocence, ... an ability that no human from the fall has achieved.
Not only from the pure, but the actual ability of the physical - physical strength, physical size, physical agility,...
Also, consider the intellectual ability - intelligence level, comprehension level, skill level, ...
One cannot be devoid of their own self - there can be no such expressions - it is impossible.
Freedom and free are not synonymous. One may have freedom, but not free. For instance, an employee may have freedom to revise or create something new, but not free to claim ownership over that creation.
"Contra-casual free will" generally holds that a person can make a decision in a vacuum void of any interferences, hierarchy of needs, preferences, biases, ...
No such condition exists in the humankind that are alive.
Therefore, contra-casual free(dom, will) is an impossibility.
There is NO will expressed in a vacuum, and no free ___ that is void of consequences.
Skandelon believes the will is based on self.
But he has not yet acknowledged that the "self" is fully dependent on forces outside of it (or him).
Which means that the will, if based on the self which is based on outside forces, is itself ultimately based on outside forces.
Imagine will as the first floor of a building. Choices are the second floor. Self is the foundation. Forces outside of the building hold up the self which holds up the first and second floors.
To say that the first and second floors (will and choices) are not dependent upon the earth (outside forces) that holds up the foundation (self) is ludicrous.
But this is what Skandelon's "contra-causal" free will declares.
Amen brother ....nailed it:thumbsup:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
As opposed to the evil, murderous, raping, molesting, lustful, hating will being based on our Holy Righteous God? Gladly.
And I'm fine with whatever mystery comes with that claim, because your system doesn't avoid mystery any more so than mine. You just trade one mystery for another all the while impugning the holiness of God. And for what? To appease your finite logic? Go hang out with Sam Harris a have a conversation about where your so-called logic will lead you.
Do you think God is able to stop/prevent all sufffering and evil right now Skan?
he will do that when Jesus returns, so all things are under still his control. correct?
Or do you see Him unable to stop satan and evil acts?
OR
Is most of what you see as evil and bad due to us being in a sinful state, in a sinful system, results of our "free will?"
Therefore God and or the Son of God could choose to sin or maybe it should be asked; Could Spirit the God being Holy, sin?
Then one could ask; Could a child born of a created woman yet begotten by Spirit the God be disobedient unto his Father and that therefore would be sin?
Another question.
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. Heb 8:10,11
Are those spoken of in those two verses just like their ancestors, those who were flesh and blood, with whom the old covenant had been made or they different in that they have been born again as flesh and bone spiritual beings?
Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
I see it as in Romans 8:19-25
Presently in this present world it is those who have been given the firstfruits of the Spirit and all the rest.
And those who have the firstfruits of the Spirit will be the first to be made holy.
is any created being fully independent though from its Creator?
Two noted mistakes here: (1) attempting to widen the definition of “free choice/volition” to be a freedom apart from judgment and the consequences of one’s own choice. (2) implying there must be an irresistible cause denies and narrows rather than widens the definition concerning “creaturely volition” and neglects the agent’s responsibility for his own choices while placing the responsibility for his choice on this irresistible cause.
This assumes a false view of the necessity of unlimited alternatives (as in divine abilities) and attempts to integrate human freedoms to a level beyond human’s needs before accepting a definition of free choice on the human level.
You have presented a great example of the common and expected desire foreknown of God of the free human nature to want to be as God after being endowed through divine design with the attributes of sense, reason and intellect in the image and likeness of God. Man, in his nature of being gifted with miraculous “human freedoms” would desire to have judgment over good and evil, even his own self and to be as God:
(Gen 3:22) And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
…but there is but One God, One King, One Judge of the earth under the heavens, One that is perfectly Good who is the Righteous Judge of all things.
There cannot be two gods, two judges lest they disagree and there is Only One who is Perfect to judge good. Man of his own free will acquired the added attribute of judgment between good and evil and must now within this self-acquired new nature, which he alone is responsible for gaining, must turn from these desires and bow to His Creator as Lord and King. Man’s free will was not recreated, it has the same ability to choose and he must equally repent and put forth his hand freely as per his divinely designed nature and also take of the tree of life.
(Eze 33:19) But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.
(Eze 33:20) Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways.
Again assumes human freedom of choice must reach a “pure” (perfect and holy, as in divine) ability to achieve divine attributes, such as creational abilities and then fallaciously claims that no human can do so and assigns the false premise that a definition of freedom should be so wide that it must include these divine characteristics of perfect innocence (or the divine characteristic to be as a God and above judgment from a higher power). This desire to accept no less than divine abilities and freedoms before being thankful for the gift of life one was given is purely free ongoing rebellion. Man wanting to be as God or lowering Him to their level before accepting life as it is, same thing…
(Rom 1:21) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
(Rom 1:22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
(Rom 1:23) And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Yes, as previously said man would desire all power in heaven and earth and to be as God before accepting the freedoms given by divine design as totally free. Nothing is new about these rebellious objections to the way man was made and would complain about being less than free if not a god and judge of all things for himself. The Devil too who implants these ideas of equality or nothing and has done so from the beginning.
I hear you saying it is impossible to be God and would agree you are correct.
But, I would NOT define human freedom of choice as necessary to be equal with God before I would be thankful and accept my nature of freedom in human terms.
Again, I hear you saying human freedom is not enough to be truly free. You continue to compare human freedom to that of the Creator and will accept no less for your definition. This demonstrates resentment of how one is made, a desire for more, the same sin as Adam and Eve who believed lies of the Devil that such a level of equal freedom should exist which makes one reluctance to bow at the knee of his own God given free will, but God in His pure love is longsuffering to reason with His creatures who yet complain.
(Rom 9:19) Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
(Rom 9:20) Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
(Rom 9:21) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
(Rom 9:22) What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
No “contra casual free will” holds to the realm of human freedoms within the world that God created for him to live in, you continue to assume divine needs of freedom and nothing less as your definition.
True, no “divine” conditions of freedom exist for humankind. Only in pride because of the way one was made would one insist on having such freedoms before freely accepting their gift of life, although this feeling to want more is natural from the time of creation one must repent of these desires and freely choose God as His Lord, Judge and King. He can only do so in the same freedom he was made and will only do so through love of these truths that God made all humankind in love when He gave them these human attributes.
Only your definition of the extent of human freedom, that it must necessarily compare to God’s abilities of freedom is impossible. Your entire argument is based defining free in the divine sense only, it avoids human attributes and freedoms.
God’s will came from Himself through aseity and such is beyond our full comprehension, but there is no greater power than Him and His will is perfectly free within His self-derived nature and is only limited to the Truth of His Nature such as He is perfectly Good. True, there is no human ability to create his own world to rule over and be king of. We are not so free as to be our own judge between good and evil or to be void of the consequences from our Creator who is the Only True King, our God. We do not live in our own vacuum as our own God and Creator, this is true, but none of this redefines human freedom according to the false premise that human volition is unacceptable as being truly free unless it is first redefined as having the characteristics of divine freedom. Your whole argument is dependent upon that assessment.
:type:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Ben, you made a good point. I am regularly being accused of believing that men make uncaused choices, but that isn't true. I believe the ultimate cause of a choice is the chooser.
But, the determinist insist there must be a 'reason' or a 'cause' for why that chooser made that particular choice, and there is, we just don't believe those external reasons/causes are irresistible. The final cause of a choice is the chooser and he bases that choice on various desires, reasons, influences, etc, but those outside factors aren't irresistible determiners because there is only ONE determiner, and that is the person responsible for making the determination.
But, the determinist insist there must be a 'reason' or a 'cause' for why that chooser made that particular choice, and there is, we just don't believe those external reasons/causes are irresistible. The final cause of a choice is the chooser and he bases that choice on various desires, reasons, influences, etc, but those outside factors aren't irresistible determiners because there is only ONE determiner, and that is the person responsible for making the determination.
Skandelon believes the will is based on self.
But he has not yet acknowledged that the "self" is fully dependent on forces outside of it (or him).
Which means that the will, if based on the self which is based on outside forces, is itself ultimately based on outside forces.
Imagine "will" as the first floor of a building. Choices are the second floor. Self is the foundation. Forces outside of the building hold up the self which holds up the first and second floors.
To say that the first and second floors (will and choices) are not dependent upon the earth (outside forces) that holds up the foundation (self) is ludicrous.
But this is what Skandelon's "contra-causal" free will declares.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Question begging. You are presuming the very point up for debate, which is whether or not our Omnipotent God might have created us to be independent choosers rather than dependent choosers. No one is attempting to argue that we created ourselves to be independent, which is what you appear to be suggesting. We are arguing the POSSIBILITY that God created us with the ability to make choices that God hasn't determined. You believe God is not capable of doing so based upon your inability to comprehend how He might accomplish such a mysterious feat. I believe He is able and I accept the mystery of free will rather than the alternative of suggesting God determined the acts of men like Hitler, Osama, Dahmer, or even myself.
CB
If God the Father, creates us, conforms us, in/to the image of his firstborn Son from the dead, and he is then the firstborn of many brethren and we actually become, (And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; John 17:22,23); What choices do you believe we will make?
I hear you, the typical Calvinists’ argument amounts to a strawman of our definition of human volition by assuming we believe this freedom is so free as to be able to create our own world. We never claim to be free from God’s influences or providential care but only free in the way we respond, able to make our own conscious choice, and I would argue that we are/were designed from creation to be able to freely respond and nothing (these attributes of sense, reason, intellect etc.) has been taken away here since creation. God didn’t take free will away from Adam and Eve, He put in front of them another choice, a second chance, a tree of life to which in love He provided the Way for all His creatures should they choose to repent and now freely put forth his hand and eat of that tree.
(Gen 3:22) And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
On the contrary to the idea that we were “recreated” to lose our attributes of reason, something was added to our nature – knowledge of good and evil, and therein our troubles began. “We were responsible” then and “we are responsible” now to repent of those desires to be as God which began with Adam and Eve. God is the Ultimate Judge of good and evil, He is the King over all and will rightly judge our free choice to bow our knees in love of the truth that He is God upon which His Mercy comes through grace or I dare to say adversely if the creature sticks to the pride of life and in complaint makes an excuse while claiming that he had no choice by which he demonstrates he is unthankful for the lesser status of being and is unrepentant with lack of humility. God does not force this love on His creatures, He never did.
Also, contrary to what we are often accused of, I do not dispute that God is Sovereign in the world, I am thankful for my miraculous divinely designed nature and I freely bow to His Kingship as my loving King. Yes, “God is Sovereign” but I distinguish between divine Sovereign control being deterministic and that of His maintaining Providential Sovereign control over the world we live in. God is Providentially Sovereign, long-sufferingly so, in which He influences “us” (divinely designed creatures with human attributes and freedoms) and judges our response to the truths we are given. In the opposition’s insistence of holding to a definition of Deterministic Sovereignty they neglect: (1) Without human volition there simply is no truth in judgment and any theology of an Only Good God crashes without maintaining this truth. (2) That our view simply provides a deeper and more precise meaning to the definition of human volition and divine sovereignty which allows for the complex natures and attributes of man and God to be maintained in truth.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
:applause: <--- You can't tell but he is standing
Then EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD IS QUESTION BEGGING... because every conclusion any human being has ever reached about anything is based on contingency.
If I say fire requires fuel it is question begging according to you.
You don't understand what question begging is.
If we follow your line of reasoning then we can know NOTHING about ANYTHING.
There is no spontaneous generation. Everything depends on something BUT GOD.
That, above all else, is what distinguishes him AS GOD.
Do you not understand that? Do you remember theology proper? Do you not understand incommunicable attributes? Do you not understand that God's independency is the ESSENCE of his very name- Jehovah???
You would name the will of man- or WORSE man's SELF- JEHOVAH!!!!
God's INdependency is his GODNESS. It is the thing that distinguishes him from all created things.
When you give that kind of quality to the will or, heaven forbid, to your own SELF- you make yourself God.
God did not make you God. God CANNOT make you God. God CANNOT make something to be the thing that distinguishes him MOST from things that are made- his independency.
This is a fact no matter how much you wish it were not true- no matter how bad you don't want to be a puppet. No matter how insulting you find the notion that you are a robot (in your mind these are the implications- which are really fine by me).
You are a pawn in the hand of God that he moves withersoever he wills.
If that is a problem for you, well....
All of this is answered above.
Last edited by a moderator:
saturneptune
New Member
No He wouldn't for God (existing in Trinity) is an uncreated being. If God created another being "like" Him it wouldn't be "like" His since it would be created.
That's all folks.
It is the same pattern of questions one encounters on visitation sometimes. Two classics are:
Can God commit suicide?
Can God create a rock too big for Him to lift?
These types of questions are contrary to His nature and are not worthy of one second of pondering.
HMP!? Who knew?
I thought one had to be in a crouching position to do what you are doing here!:laugh:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
If the debate was over whether or not fire required fuel, then you are right, that would be begging the question. If your opponent was claiming that fire didn't need fuel and he was providing argumentation on which to base this claim and you simply replied with "fire requires fuel," then he would rightly accuse you of begging the question. You might be accurate in your statement, but in a debate you are required to ARGUE FOR the point up for debate, not presume it to be true so as to make other contingent points.
Which may sound all pretty and nice put that way in your little theological bubble, but the next time a molester is MOVED like a pawn by God to victimize a loved one of yours we will see how well your bubble holds up...
I originally typed, 'God forbid' in that last sentence, but in your case it would be God doing the moving so He wouldn't be the one to appeal to for such things...
- Status