Good versus Evil

[saturneptune]

I agree.

When I do find someone entrenched in schemes to belittle believers and God, I generally refuse to sit, stand or walk in their way.


At times, one must answer so other are kept from harm.

At times, one does not need to answer because the harm is self evident.

The purpose is obvious. These type of people use the fact that we do not completely understand the nature of God, and never will, in this life, and use it to advance their unholy agenda.

They try and make the actions of the Lord to the same frame of mind that our mind works on a logical basis. God allows us to understand what He wants His creation to understand, no more or less.

People who manipulate the mysteries of the Lord and bring it down to a debate in logic, show they have no faith or respect for the Creator. It is a mockery of the worst type. It is probably a bad comparison, but it reminds me of Christ talking about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, that is, attributing the works of the Spirit to something evil.

 

[Skandelon]

Thanks for the link Quantum:...:applause:

I like this little bit here:

The Hardened Heart
Total Inability also seems to oppose the Bible teaching concerning hardness of heart. The Scriptures warn us that those who repeatedly trifle with sin may sear their consciences (1 Tim. 4:2), render themselves "past feeling" (Eph. 4:19) and enter into a hardening of the heart toward God and His truth. This is not a condition of birth, but seems to be a consequence of repeated sin.

Isaiah speaks of this condition: "Why, O Lord, do you make us wander from your ways and harden our hearts so we do not revere you?" (Isa. 63:17) The hardening of the heart which precludes reverence of God is here described as a condition that has come upon these people, probably as a judgment for rebellion. But Calvinists tell us that this condition - an invincible anti-God bent - is the birth-condition of all human beings.

In Romans 1, Paul writes of men who are "without excuse" because of the manifest presence of God in the creation. He says, "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Rom. 1:21). Here we see men who became futile in their thinking and were given over to a darkened state of the heart. The apostle is not speaking of a condition of birth, but a judgment that came upon them because of willful refusal to acknowledge the Creator.

The Calvinist is hard-pressed to show how this judgment condition of darkness differs from their notions of Total Inability - a state they deem universal. Their doctrine states that everyone is born hardened toward God, unable to believe or take the slightest step toward Him. But if this is true, why do the Scriptures seem to say this only about some people?

Again, Zechariah says of rebellious Zion, "They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the Lord Almighty has sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets" (Zech. 7:12). Here, people made themselves insensible to the truth of God, indicating that they were not in this condition from the womb.

There is no denying that all people are born with sinful tendencies and are apt to go astray. This can be established by Scripture and experience. But it is one thing to say that all men have such tendencies and quite another that they are unable to respond to God. General human sinfulness differs from Total Inability. To prove the first is not necessarily to prove the second.

I like this guy...sounds like a summary of what I've been arguing about the biblical doctrine of judicial hardening for years on this forum. :thumbsup:

 

[Luke2427]

No, I'm interested in you staying on point, not misrepresenting what someone else has said, and trying to logically prove your arguments.

Thus far, I've seen nothing that indicates that you can do any of these. And that's not an insult, either, that's just a statement of fact.

I didn't miss that at all. What you are missing is that God can create such beings. Nothing is beyond His power.

Okay then. God can sin. God can lie. God can make things exist and NOT exist at the same time and in the same sense. Nothing is beyond his power.

HAHAHAHA!

hilarious!

 

[Luke2427]

You are attempting to equate God's presumed inability to create morally free agents (contra-causally free rather than determined) with God's choice to not to break his own rules?

Its not about "rules". Its about ABILITY. God CANNOT- he does not have the ABILITY to exist and NOT exist at the same time and in the same sense.

He CANNOT lie. It is not that he CHOOSES not to- he CANNOT...... BECAUSE of what he is.

This is Theology Proper 101. I should not have to explain this to you.

 

[Skandelon]

Its not about "rules". Its about ABILITY. God CANNOT- he does not have the ABILITY to exist and NOT exist at the same time and in the same sense.

What does that have to do with God's ability to break his own rules as it relates to his ability to create people who have the freedom to break or not break his rules?

 

[Luke2427]

What does that have to do with God's ability to break his own rules as it relates to his ability to create people who have the freedom to break or not break his rules?

It doesn't have anything to do with it.

The point is that God is not weak because he can't do some things and me saying that he can't do somethings is not saying that he is weak.

But you already knew that.

God cannot make a being who exists and doesn't exist at the same time and in the same sense and at the same time.

That doesn't make him weak.

Also God cannot create a being who can conjure things from NOTHING. Created beings are contingent beings. They need things to do things.

We make choices based on inclinations that we have. Those inclinations are the results of a myriad of things like our physical make-up, our personal experiences, etc...

I choose a burger over a hot dog.

Why?

The most meaningless answer to that question is "I caused my own choice of the burger."

Based on what did I 'CAUSE' that choice (whatever that means)?

Based on nothing. Nothing influenced you to choose that. You created the choice ex nihilo.

So then there is NO REASON whatsoever for the choices I make.

I just think it is pretty clear that "I caused my own choice" is meaningless language.

 

[Skandelon]

The point is that God is not weak because he can't do some things and me saying that he can't do somethings is not saying that he is weak.

And MY POINT IS that, saying He can't (or better stated, "WON'T") break his own rules is not equal to saying he CAN'T create a contra-causally free creature. For one, sin has to do with God's holiness, what part of God's nature would preclude his ability to create contra-causally free creatures? Your lack of ability to define and understand how He would go about doing it? Because that is all you have to offer as of this moment.

God cannot make a being who exists and doesn't exist at the same time

Who is attempting to make that claim? We are only speaking of God's ability to create a contra-causally free creature, not his ability to create a being who exists and doesn't exist...where do you get this stuff?

That doesn't make him weak.

I agree...It makes everyone confused, because it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Also God cannot create a being who can conjure things from NOTHING.

Again, where do you get this? Since when is the ability to choose from available options equal to conjuring things from nothing? A free will is not 'nothing' is it something with an ability, just like God's will is something with an ability. The question is whether God is able to create other beings with the ability to WILL, or CHOOSE, in a manner similar to his ability. You think God is too weak to do this because you can't comprehend how he might go about doing it, I don't.

 

[Luke2427]

And MY POINT IS that, saying He can't (or better stated, "WON'T") break his own rules is not equal to saying he CAN'T create a contra-causally free creature. For one, sin has to do with God's holiness, what part of God's nature would preclude his ability to create contra-causally free creatures? Your lack of ability to define and understand how He would go about doing it? Because that is all you have to offer as of this moment.

Its not about "his rules" whatever that means. I suppose you mean his rules for us.

That's not what this is about. This is about his ability.

For example: God can create God. Its not that he has to obey some rule about it. Its that he CANNOT do it. He does not have the ability to do it. God cannot create beings with abilities that only God can have- abilities which DEFINE God, e. g. the ability to create things ex nihilo.

Who is attempting to make that claim? We are only speaking of God's ability to create a contra-causally free creature, not his ability to create a being who exists and doesn't exist...where do you get this stuff?

Because you keep regurgitating this stuff about me implying that God is weak because he cannot do some things.
I agree...It makes everyone confused, because it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Again, where do you get this? Since when is the ability to choose from available options equal to conjuring things from nothing?

Because they are contra-causal.

You can't ask, "Why did he choose what he chose?"

But the fact is that there are REASONS. Something CAUSED him to think about the choice. Something CAUSED him to desire what he desired.

He is a contingent being and everything about him is linked to something before him that brought him to pass.

Why does he not like onions? The right answer to that question is not "Because he CHOSE not to like them and he caused his own choice."

A free will is not 'nothing' is it something with an ability, just like God's will is something with an ability. The question is whether God is able to create other beings with the ability to WILL, or CHOOSE, in a manner similar to his ability.

And it is akin to asking the question, "Can God create a being with all power?"

No.

He cannot create a being with attributes that only God can have.

To cause something to happen from NOTHING (in other words to choose without some purpose guiding your choice- some reason you choose what you choose) is an exclusively divine attribute.

You choose what you choose because you are what you are. You are what you are because you were made what you are. You did not make yourself. Therefore your choices cannot be self-caused.

 

[Sapper Woody]

You choose what you choose because you are what you are. You are what you are because you were made what you are. You did not make yourself. Therefore your choices cannot be self-caused.

I understand what you are saying. However, could you clarify this for me: if we follow this line of thinking to its plausible conclusion, doesn't that take the responsibility away from the person? How then can we blame a murderer or rapist for his actions? Please clarify. I don't think this is what you are saying, but this is what I am getting.

 

[Skandelon]

Its not about "his rules" whatever that means. I suppose you mean his rules for us.

A sin is breaking a command of HIS...a rule of his. You are attempting to equate God's unwillingness to break his own rules with what you presume is His inability to create responsible creatures... (oh, and remember when I say responsible I actually mean responsible, not "held responsible for something you have no response ability for", like you do.)

Allow me to list all the things you've attempted to equate with God's ability to create a contra-causally free creature:

1. God sinning
2. God creating God
3. God creating a creature who can create something from nothing (ex nihilo)

But no one is arguing that God is attempting to create Himself, or even someone with ex nihilo powers. I am merely arguing that he creates a responsible creature. A person able to freely respond. A person able to make a choice. That is not equal to God. That is your presumption. You are PRESUMING, without any foundational argument or biblical support, that a creature being able to make free choices (being responsible) is equal to being God (creating ex nihilio)

Because you keep regurgitating this stuff about me implying that God is weak because he cannot do some things.

I'm not implying He is weak because you believe He won't sin, or because you believe can't create a creature just like Himself. I'm saying you believe God is weak because you can't comprehend how He might be able to create free/responsible creatures, so you presume He can't. You are limiting God to your imagination of what He is able to do.

 

[Skandelon]

I understand what you are saying. However, could you clarify this for me: if we follow this line of thinking to its plausible conclusion, doesn't that take the responsibility away from the person? How then can we blame a murderer or rapist for his actions? Please clarify. I don't think this is what you are saying, but this is what I am getting.

Yes. That is exactly what it does. In fact, press him to define the word 'responsibility' and you will quickly find that mankind, in his worldview, is not even close to being response-able. In fact, quite the opposite, they are unable to respond, yet still held responsible for their predetermined responses.

Additionally, ask him to define choice. And you will quickly discover that he too will remove all meaning from the word. IMO, choice doesn't exist in his world view, not even a divine choice exists...

 

[Luke2427]

A sin is breaking a command of HIS...a rule of his. You are attempting to equate God's unwillingness to break his own rules with what you presume is His inability to create responsible creatures... (oh, and remember when I say responsible I actually mean responsible, not "held responsible for something you have no response ability for", like you do.)

Allow me to list all the things you've attempted to equate with God's ability to create a contra-causally free creature:

1. God sinning
2. God creating God
3. God creating a creature who can create something from nothing (ex nihilo)

But no one is arguing that God is attempting to create Himself,

That's not the point.

This is about you saying that I am saying God is weak because he can't do some things ASIDE from those things he can't do because he has "chosen not to break his own rules".

There are things that God cannot do that have NOTHING to do with his "rules he has chosen not to break."

The point is that saying God is not able to do some things ASIDE from breaking his own "rules" is not saying that God is weak like you keep asserting that I am saying.

I am merely arguing that he creates a responsible creature.

No sir. You are CLAIMING that he can create a creature that can create choices from nothing.

I'm not implying He is weak because you believe He won't sin, or because you believe can't create a creature just like Himself. I'm saying you believe God is weak because you can't comprehend how He might be able to create free/responsible creatures,

There is no biblical reason to conclude that God cannot create God, either. There is no VERSE that says that.

You could just as easily argue that God CAN create God and when I contend that he cannot because it is a logical impossibility you could respond by saying, "Then you are saying God is weak because you can't comprehend how he might be able to create God."

The point is that we conclude that God cannot do many things BECAUSE he is God. He would actually HAVE to BE weak if he COULD do them. It is EXACTLY BECAUSE of his "infiniteness" that he CANNOT do many things.

Acknowledging that he cannot do them BECAUSE he is so strong is not saying he is weak.

 

[Skandelon]

No sir. You are CLAIMING that he can create a creature that can create choices from nothing.

Once again, you are incorrect. Can you provide the quote where I have said that? You can't, because I haven't said it.

I've said that God has created a creature that can make choices. A free will agent is not NOTHING. A WILL is not 'nothing.' Is God's will 'nothing'? It must be if what you believe is true. God has created us with a WILL that MAKES CHOICES. Unless you conclude a WILL is NOTHING, this argument is null and void.

There is no biblical reason to conclude that God cannot create God, either. There is no VERSE that says that.

But no one hear is suggesting God made God. We are suggesting that God made responsible creatures. (again, remember to read the word 'responsible' with its actual MEANING)

You could just as easily argue that God CAN create God and when I contend that he cannot because it is a logical impossibility you could respond by saying, "Then you are saying God is weak because you can't comprehend how he might be able to create God."

This is absurd Luke. Your line of reasoning is like this:

Me: My dad can bench press 500lbs.
You: I don't believe a man in his 60s could do that, its unheard of from where I come from. I can't imagine that is true.
Me: I believe he has and he can. Why don't you believe my dad is strong enough to lift this? Why do you think he is weaker than that?
You: He can't lift a billion pounds.
Me: I never said he could or would even attempt to lift a billion pounds, what does that have to do with it?
You: Because if your dad can't do one thing then naturally that means he can't do another.
Me: Huh?

Acknowledging that he cannot do them BECAUSE he is so strong is not saying he is weak.

No, you are saying you can't understand how an infinite God COULD create a free creature, so therefore it must not be possible. You cannot conclusively claim that God is incapable of such creative abilities without making a finite presumption. Face it Luke, you believe God is too weak to create responsible people.

 

[Luke2427]

Once again, you are incorrect. Can you provide the quote where I have said that? You can't, because I haven't said it.

I've said that God has created a creature that can make choices.

I don't suppose anybody in the history of the WORLD denies that.

That is like saying, "Stuff exists."

It is meaningless because it is so apparent and because nobody doubts it.

You are not ONLY saying that God makes people who can make choices.

You are saying that God makes people who make uncaused choices- or in other words there is no CAUSE for the choices they make- or yet again in other words there is no REASON why they choose what they choose.

That is what you are saying.

You are trying to stop people from asking the question "Why?"

"Why did you choose the hamburger over the hotdog?"

Because that is what I chose.

Do you see how meaningless that is?

Or, if you allow the query to go another step:

"Why did you choose the hamburger over the hotdog?"

Because I wanted the hamburger more than the hotdog.

"Why did you want the hamburger more than the hotdog?"

There are no reasons why I want what I want. That's determinism you jerk!!!

But no one hear is suggesting God made God. We are suggesting that God made responsible creatures. (again, remember to read the word 'responsible' with its actual MEANING)

No one is suggesting that you are suggesting that.

I am suggesting that saying that things LIKE THAT are things that God cannot do is not saying God is weak.

God cannot create contingent beings who do anything outside the bounds of contingency.

Things cause them to be (to exist).

Things cause them to live and move.

Things cause them to have the appetites they have.

Things cause them to have the desires they have.

They make choices based on these things.

So these things cause them to choose what they choose.

To say that they are the sole CAUSE of their own choices is as meaningless as speaking of "dry water" or "bright darkness."

This is absurd Luke. Your line of reasoning is like this:

Me: My dad can bench press 500lbs.
You: I don't believe a man in his 60s could do that, its unheard of from where I come from. I can't imagine that is true.
Me: I believe he has and he can. Why don't you believe my dad is strong enough to lift this? Why do you think he is weaker than that?
You: He can't lift a billion pounds.
Me: I never said he could or would even attempt to lift a billion pounds, what does that have to do with it?
You: Because if your dad can't do one thing then naturally that means he can't do another.
Me: Huh?

What I have said is NOTHING like this analogy.

Causes are contingent upon previous causes.

The only uncaused causer is God. This is an attribute that is as exclusive to the divine nature as his almightiness.

No, you are saying you can't understand how an infinite God COULD create a free creature,

It depends on what you mean by "free creatures."

HOW free?

Free enough to will themselves to be eternal?

No, God cannot make such creatures.

Free enough to will themselves to do things without causes?

No, only God can do things without being caused to do them. That is ESSENTIAL to his "Godness."

so therefore it must not be possible. You cannot conclusively claim that God is incapable of such creative abilities without making a finite presumption.

I can just as much conclusively claim that God cannot make beings who make choices without causes as I can conclusively claim that God cannot make beings who are almighty or exhaustively sovereign.

All three of these things are tied to the incommunicable attributes of God.

 

[Skandelon]

You are not ONLY saying that God makes people who can make choices.

You know I mean 'contra-causally free' choices. Choices made by the creature, not the creator.

You are saying that God makes people who make uncaused choices-

No, I'm saying that they, the choosers, are the cause of their choices, in the same manner that God is the cause of His choices...but you know that because I've told you that countless times. You think that isn't possible because you can't fathom it.

 

[Luke2427]

You know I mean 'contra-causally free' choices. Choices made by the creature, not the creator.

No, I'm saying that they, the choosers, are the cause of their choices,

Which is the same thing.

in the same manner that God is the cause of His choices...

Which proves it is the same very thing.

 

[Skandelon]

Which is the same thing.

So God's choices are caused by nothing? His choices are uncaused choices? They must be if self-determination is the same thing as "an uncaused choice." I think you mean that His choices are not caused by anyone except Him, which is what a self-determined choice IS.

Determiners make determinations and in your worldview the only determiner is God because you PRESUME that HE IS UNABLE to create others with the power to make determinations all on the basis that you can't comprehend how God might be able to created other determiners.

 

[Luke2427]

So God's choices are caused by nothing? His choices are uncaused choices?

I never said that. In fact my whole point is that only God CAN be the uncaused causer of anything.

They must be if self-determination is the same thing as "an uncaused choice." I think you mean that His choices are not caused by anyone except Him, which is what a self-determined choice IS.

Yes an attribute which is incommunicable. It is His independency, his self-sufficiency.

This is what he means when he says, "I am."

It is the most uniquely God attribute of them all by which he has revealed himself to us.

He is totally independent.

We are totally dependent. We depend on God for everything, for every ability, for every breath, etc...

Our choices, unlike God's, depend upon external factors, many of which existed before we were made- things that made us what we are.

We do not control these things. We do not control who our parents will be, who their parents will be, who their parents will be, etc...

Therefore all of our biological make-up which includes the size of our brains, the order of our tastebuds on our tongues, the kinds of pains and ailments we will inherit and a million other things all the way down to the molecular level (and beyond) are completely out of our control.

Where we would be born is out of our control.

What kind of environment we'd be raised in was completely out of our control.

The circumstances that caused us to hate certain foods and love others was out of our control.

The culture that largely shaped our tastes for music, sports, religion, politics, etc... was out of our control.

And yes, a kid raised among Democrats can become a Republican but the thing that convinced him that his raising was wrong was not something INTERNAL but something EXTERNAL that presented itself to him persuading him that the other is better. And even if it WAS INTERNAL- how did it get there? One thing is for sure, he did not MAKE it out of NOTHING.

You get the idea.

 

[Skandelon]

I never said that. In fact my whole point is that only God CAN be the uncaused causer of anything.

If He causes it then its not uncaused, right?

So, if he caused you to have the ability to make choices that you alone cause, then your choice (even if its free) is not uncaused.

 

[Luke2427]

If He causes it then its not uncaused, right?

That's like saying God can cause someone to cause himself. In fact, it IS saying that.

You are quite literally asserting that God can cause someone to cause himself to ______________. Whatever you put in the blank is meaningless nonsense because it still hinges upon the words "God can cause someone to cause himself..."

The question is "On what basis do such creatures make their decisions?"

What reason drives the decision?

Or is it unreasonable and baseless?

And where did the reasons come from? What made the basis for the decision?

Who is in control of the reasons?

Who is in control of the basis upon which the decision is made?

And WHY... WHY does the decider choose the one option over the other?