Good versus Evil

[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? What is the answer to WHY he chooses option A over option B?

He bases it on himself, you say?

Who and what MADE his self?

And why is his self what it is and not such as it would choose the other option rather than the option that his self chose?

 

[Skandelon]

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..."

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.

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

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.

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

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?

 

[Luke2427]

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.

Abandoning it to mystery does not solve your problem. It is not mysterious.

Only self-existing beings can make things of themselves that are not tied to something that made them.

If I make something from scratch and I determine where that something will exist and in what circumstances it will exist and to what it will be exposed- EVERYTHING about that something is dependent upon me for everything it does- including the choices it makes.

With that part of itself that I DID NOT make ALONE can it be independent.

The will depends on many things to exist. Like LIFE for example. Another example would be intelligence. And that intelligence depends upon a million things that the will did not CREATE for itself (place of birth, brain capacity, environment in which it was formed, etc, etc, etc...). Since the will did not make its own life in which it exists and did not make its own intelligence with on which it depends for the ability to ponder the options presented to it- then the will is NOT INDEPENDENT.

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."

So then if the decider decides based on himself- who MADE 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?

No, Skandelon. We ask why about things.

You don't get to say, "You can't ask WHY about that because I say that's question begging."

You choose a hamburger over a hot dog one day- WHY?

Whatever REASONS you give to answer that question by are the THINGS upon which the will DEPENDED to make the decision.

 

[Skandelon]

If I make something from scratch and I determine where that something will exist and in what circumstances it will exist and to what it will be exposed- EVERYTHING about that something is dependent upon me for everything it does- including the choices it makes.

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.

The will depends on many things to exist. Like LIFE for example. Another example would be intelligence. And that intelligence depends upon a million things that the will did not CREATE for itself (place of birth, brain capacity, environment in which it was formed, etc, etc, etc...). Since the will did not make its own life in which it exists and did not make its own intelligence with on which it depends for the ability to ponder the options presented to it- then the will is NOT INDEPENDENT.

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.

So then if the decider decides based on himself- who MADE himself?

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 don't get to say, "You can't ask WHY about that because I say that's question begging."

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.

 

[Luke2427]

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.

So where do you get this idea of this mysterious aspect of the wills function?

Why should we assume there IS such an aspect?

Why not conclude that the will exists simply within its "influence and context" driven by "limitations, influences, desires, instincts, context"?

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.

No it is not.

It is not at all shortsighted to declare that God is mysterious to us and far more so and for innumerable more reasons than we are to our own selves.

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.

But he is making these decisions based on himSELF. His own SELF is the CAUSE you keep saying for the decisions he makes. So the will is dependent upon this SELF. If this SELF did not make itSELF then the will is ultimately dependent on something outside of itself for what it chooses.

After all, it is choosing based on SELF which is based on something else.

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.

All created things have a cause- including the will. that would wrap that up pretty easily.

 

[Skandelon]

So where do you get this idea of this mysterious aspect of the wills function?

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."

Why should we assume there IS such an aspect?

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.

 

[Skandelon]

After all, it is choosing based on SELF which is based on something else.

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

 

[Luke2427]

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

His SELF is based on something else.
His will is based on his SELF.
His will then is ultimately based on something else.

 

[Luke2427]

Because no one can define, measure or explain it.

Or justify why anyone should even attempt to.

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?

You might as well posit that the human will is driven by a flying spaghetti monster.

Then, when I say that there is no reason to think such a thing...

you respond by saying, "It's a mystery! You can't prove a flying spaghetti monster does NOT drive the will!"

I say there is no reason to think that the will is driven by any mysterious aspect.

I purport that there is every reason to think that the choices are effects based on causes and I purport that there is no reason to assume otherwise.

You concede that there are a myriad of observable factors (you listed several earlier) that influence the will's choices.

The impetus then is on you to prove that there is some invisible or mysterious factor in among all those observable factors.

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.

But my theory is based upon what we observe (and the Bible which may be about time to employ).

We KNOW taste buds drive choices concerning what we are going to eat. We also know that there are thousands of other things that shape our will everyday- external things, things the will did not create and does not sustain- things that are not part of the will.

And we know that if there is NO reason why the will chooses what it chooses, then the choices of the will are unreasonable and thus meaningless. And God can no more (in your system or way of thinking) hold a man accountable for doing things for no reason than for doing them because he was predestined to do them.

 

[Skandelon]

His SELF is 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.

His will is based on his SELF.
His will then is ultimately based on something else.

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???

 

[Skandelon]

Or justify why anyone should even attempt to.

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.

You might as well posit that the human will is driven by a flying spaghetti monster.

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.

Then, when I say that there is no reason to think such a thing...

you respond by saying, "It's a mystery! You can't prove a flying spaghetti monster does NOT drive the will!"

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.

You concede that there are a myriad of observable factors (you listed several earlier) that influence the will's choices.

The impetus then is on you to prove that there is some invisible or mysterious factor in among all those observable factors.

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

And we know that if there is NO reason why the will chooses what it chooses, then the choices of the will are unreasonable and thus meaningless.

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.

 

[Inspector Javert]

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.

:thumbsup::thumbsup: We have a WINNER folks!

The argument usually stems from conflating definitions:

The Calvinist conflates the notion since desires obviously inform decisions that they "CAUSE" them...

That's not reasonable.

Similarly....we must admit that "desire" is invariably the most powerful influence upon decision making, but that that does not automatically make it a sufficient CAUSE.....That's un-proven and un-provable, and there are good reasons to believe that it's NOT the case that all decisions are mere rote calculations of competing desires.

You are indeed correct: The "determiner" in any case is the IMMEDIATE cause (and ULTIMATE one) of any "decision" made.

If, however, it is only a product of a sum-total calculus of competing desires...than God is the ULTIMATE "cause" of every decision made including the rape and cannibalism of children.

There are no two ways about that. Now, obviously it is well within God's purview to be the Ultimate cause of every decision (by rendering decisions merely a calculus of desire, and ALSO rendering men incapable of desiring anything but evil).....
And it's also within his purview to decide to hold men accountable or "guilty" for doing what he programmed them inescapably to do.

Yes, He's Sovereign, and can do that.

But, don't ask me to believe these propositions (and every premise will be Calvinist soft-determinism expressed correctly) I will underline the obvious conclusions which they refuse to admit:

1.) Disobeying God's commands is "sin".
2.) Men sin because it is their greatest desire
3.) Men's greatest desires are inherent in their nature, and they have no capacity to do OTHER THAN that which they desire most.
4.) God has Sovereignly decreed that man be as he is and be UNABLE to do other than what he most desires.

(Therefore: God is the ultimate cause of sin)

1.) Sin is "bad".
2.) God punishes man for sin
3.) Ultimate "good" is whatsoever brings God glory.
4.) Punishing wickedness and sin brings God glory
5.) When men sin, then...they are producing the sin which God will subsequently punish.
6.) Sinning, then, glorifies God
7.) Glorifying God is "good".

(Therefore: sin is "good" and "bad".)

 

[Skandelon]

:thumbsup::thumbsup: We have a WINNER folks!

The argument usually stems from conflating definitions:

The Calvinist conflates the notion since desires obviously inform decisions that they "CAUSE" them...

That's not reasonable.

Absolutely correct! :thumbsup:

There are no two ways about that. Now, obviously it is well within God's purview to be the Ultimate cause of every decision (by rendering decisions merely a calculus of desire, and ALSO rendering men incapable of desiring anything but evil).....
And it's also within his purview to decide to hold men accountable or "guilty" for doing what he programmed them inescapably to do.

Yes, He's Sovereign, and can do that.

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!

 

[Inspector Javert]

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.

:wavey: Yes...Calvinists have a hard time understanding that it isn't that we are trying to bend God to our preference (if we were, it were only because he had Sovereignly demanded we do anyway)...but, simply that God has revealed enough of HIMSELF and his nature IN SCRIPTURE to tell us that that is not "WHO" he is.

Sure...he "Could" be that way: In the sense that He's sheerly "powerful" enough.
But, that isn't WHO He revealed himself to be in the Scripture...
If He is that way...fine. Than I am only fulfilling his ultimate will by posting all of my heresies which either:

1.) He glorifies himself by atoning for on the cross
or
2.) He glorifies himself by punishing in eternal damnation.

BOTH Glorify him in eternity anyway.

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!

Yeah, I know....
And yet, it is "Arminians" like you and I who have no appreciation for how "Sovereign" he is. :BangHead:

 

[Skandelon]

And yet, it is "Arminians" like you and I who have no appreciation for how "Sovereign" he is. :BangHead:

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?​