Volition / ability

[webdog]

From a now closed thread, we were trying to get a definition out of Luke (haven't we heard that one before)

Benjamin posed this:
Originally Posted by Benjamin
Well, if you’re a man interested in logic and defining free will; can you explain how determinism and free will are not mutually exclusive in the matter of volition?

According to “Determinism” for God to be sovereign He must have predestined everything, true?

1) Necessarily God has fore determined everything that will happen
2) God has determined X
3) Therefore it is necessary that X will happen

So, exactly how does the Calvinist define ability/volition and maintain a logical definition of his determinist' view?

Please pick up where that thread left off...

 

[Skandelon]

From a now closed thread, we were trying to get a definition out of Luke (haven't we heard that one before)

I hope you have better luck than I did. We still don't know what he means by the word "decree." :BangHead:

So, exactly how does the Calvinist define ability/volition and maintain a logical definition of his determinist' view?

Please pick up where that thread left off...
[/I]

It is my understanding that compatiblists (Calvinists) attempt to maintain that men are free in the since that they are "doing what they desire." It is the indeterminists contention that this is an insufficient explaination to maintain true freedom considering that compatibilists believe that even the desires and thoughts of men are likewise decreed (predestined) by God.

This is a critical point, because it undercuts the plausibility of the compatibilist's argument that desire can be considered the basis for human freedom. When the compatibilist defines freedom in terms of desire (i.e., doing what one wants to do), this formulation initially appears plausible only because it tends to (subtly) evoke a sense of independence or ownership on the part of the human agent for his choices. That is, even though the compatibilist insists that God decisively conditions an agent's environment so as to guarantee the outcome of the agent's choices, we can nonetheless envision God's action in doing so as being compatible with human freedom so long as the human agent in question has the opportunity to interact with his conditioned environment as an independent agent, possessing his own desires and thus owning his choices in relation to that environment. But once we recognize (as we must within the larger deterministic framework encompassing compatibilism) that those very desires of the agent are equally part of the environment that God causally determines, then the line between environment and agent becomes blurred if not completely lost. The human agent no longer can be seen as owning his own choices, for the desires determining those choices are in no significant sense independent of God's decree. For this reason, human desire within the compatibilist framework forms an insufficient basis on which to establish the integrity of human freedom (and from this the legitimacy of human culpability for sin).

In short, there is not distinction between what Calvinists call free agency and animal instinct, both are causally determined by the creator as both creatures act according to their preprogrammed desires/instincts.

 

[Benjamin]

Webdog, I gave it a shot...I was bored...OK? :tonofbricks:
This is how I see it:

So, I begin by stating to Luke that “if you’re interested in logic and defining free will” and then start laying out a definition of “Determinism” in order to identify an issue which would give reason why Luke’s definition of “Free will/ability/volition” must not conflict with his view of determinism in order to be *logical. To begin the argument I “attempt” to establish the definition of “Determinism” before going on to discuss his definition of “free will”.

Concerning Luke’s First Opposing “Argument”: Luke states that my premise which raises an issue of defining “Determinism” as a building block does not negate free will; but he doesn’t make any direct claim against the argument by directly identifying any elements from within the building blocks of the argument as a false claim. Instead immediately he resorts to *”Question-begging” arguments which includes a couple other fallacies within.

Luke begins his “argument” with the premise [That syllogism does not negate free will.] then offers reasoning that it is not true by using a *”Groupthink fallacy” saying [All Christians believe…] then a *”Weaseler fallacy” saying, […God has determined some things tohappen…] finally, he attempts to present another Groupthink fallacy – [No one has a problem…].

It appears that Luke does not understand how to present an argument within *basic philosophical logical principles.

*A few basic philosophical logical principles:

{*Logic – The branch of philosophy concerned with whether the reasons presented for a claim, if those reasons were true, would justify accepting the claim.}

{*Fallacy – An argument in which the reasons advanced for a claim fail to warrant acceptance of that claim.}

{*Groupthink fallacy – A fallacy that occurs when someone lets identification with a group cloud reasoning and deliberation when arriving at a position on an issue.}

{*Weaseler – An expression used to protect a claim from criticism by weakening it}

Critical Thinking by Moore / Parker.

Originally Posted by Luke:
That syllogism does not negate free will.

All Christians believe that God has determined some things to happen and many of those have to do with men.

No one has a problem with the idea that those things will not "violate" man's free will.

Benjamin’s Response:

Prove it...logically...I've shown a truth concerning the necessary determinist view and asked how that is not mutually exclusive with free will, you have given me nothing of value to support your argument.

Your begging the question there Luke, sorry, but your answer shows proves nothing and uses a fallacy instead.

Luke is about to confirm that he “appreciates logic”, says he “see’s” my point, yet, does not confirm or deny any of my questions which begin by asking him to acknowledge or not a simple and clear definition of “Determinism” and declares he will “demonstrate” that my “syllogism does not even deal with, much less negate free will.” He then begins with the below: (1)- [This is false, My (Ben's) premise begins and ends claiming ability/volition must logically be upheld along side of “his” definition of “Determinism”, IOW’s determinism must be logically shown how it is not mutually exclusive to “his” definition of “free will” to be a valid argument and for his definition of “free will” (which he says needs to be established) to be accepted.

Before I can accept a Determinist’ view of free will that is compatible with “determinism” I must first have a firm definition of his view on “determinism” that is logical and that he is willing to hold on to throughout the discussion.

Luke:
First off, I appreciate the use of logic. It is a breath of fresh air for me here on BB.

And I see your point but please allow me to demonstrate that your syllogism does not even deal with, much less negate free will.

(1) It does not even mention it.

You are begging the question when you contend that determinism being that which will cause some things to infallibly come to pass means that free will cannot be involved. That is not at all demonstrated in your syllogism. You just presuppose that since determinism means that what is determined MUST come to pass then free will cannot be involved.

WHY NOT?

Above, Luke maintains his “*weaseler” (some things) and basically states that I presuppose that determinism means what is determined MUST come to pass? Luke is using this to disprove my claim that free will cannot be negated by creaturely volition being pre-determined by another Being (God). So, it looks as if Luke is basically telling me I cannot assume determinism means something is determined therefore cannot claim this would logically negate volition.

But sometimes I can be patient...So, again I restate my definition from back to the beginning of my premise and ask him to confirm or deny the given definition of determinism:

Originally Posted by Benjamin:

I'm not begging any question, I've stated a definition of determism and asked if it is not mutually exclusive with volition. So, first do you agree with this or not?:

(A) According to “Determinism” for God to be sovereign He must have predestined everything, true?

If you do then does this not clarify the determinist' view?:

(B)
1) Necessarily God has fore determined everything that will happen
2) God has determined X
3) Therefore it is necessary that X will happen

All you have to do is either tell me why it doesn't represent your view or explain in a logical mannner how this view is not mutually exclusive with creaturely volition?

Does (A) and (B) not go together? If not, why not?

Next, Luke clearly acknowledges that my definition of “Determinism” is “sound”

Originally Posted by Luke:

I think your syllogism is sound.

The problem is that it does not at all address volition.

But before I can even get into my “YES! Arm/fist pump” and finish preparing my next post Luke comes up with another *weaseler:

Originally Posted by Luke:

A better syllogism would work like this:

Nothing comes to pass which God has not determined.
Things do come to pass.

Therefore the things that do come to pass have been determined by God.

Continued:

 

[Benjamin]

Bens Response before seeing Luke’s *weaseler: (bolding added)
Ahh, but I'm asking "you" to define volition while maintaining your view (which I have defined and you have now agreed this is a "sound" representation of the determinist view)?

Now, I have addressed volition in that I have argued that it is mutually exclusive with determinism (your view).

You can't have it both ways (own free will and determinism) unless you can prove they are not mutually exclusive to begin with.

Edit: I probably shouldn't complicate this because I want you to stick to the premise, but I will go a step further and state if determism is true then you will have to hold to this truth...and not weasel away from it to claim "free will".

Luke’s Reply:
I haven't seen you argue that volition is incompatible with determinism.

So above, instead of Luke agreeing that he will stick to a definition so a *”logical” argument can proceed he introduces a *”Smoke screen” fallacy while asking me to prove a negative!

{*Smoke Screen Fallacy – An irrelevant topic or consideration introduced into a discussion at hand to divert attention from the original issue.}

Luke continues trying to rationalize that “determinism doesn’t mean God determined what MUST come to pass” while still refusing to address the premise on how God’s Divinely Determined (X) is not equal to the necessity that (X) will happen? ...and again Luke attempts to revert to his smoke screen tactic:

Originally Posted by Luke:
All I have seen you argue is that determinism mean that whatever God determines must necessarily come to pass and that God determines all things.

You have not proven how this correct view is incompatible with human volition.

Ben’s Reply: (bolding added)

BZZZZT...another fallacy, I can't prove a negative. But, I ask you to prove the two (determinism and free will) are compatible, a positive. If you can't "hold" to a definition of determinism to begin with then logically you have no valid argument to stand on. That's why I started with the basics in the argument to first get you to agree on a definition of "your" view of determinism....because then I'm going to want you to "define" a view of "free will" that "is" compatible with your view.

You are the one who said we need to start with a definition of free will, all I'm asking for is for you to give one that is compatible with determinism (as defined).

I don't really expect a logical answer...cause there isn't one.

I got to go to

Peace

Before “some” moderator, or should I say “some administrator” decided that the “10” page rule needs to enacted upon that tread Luke continues in his smoke screening attempt while asking me to prove a negative as if he has discovered some valid reasoning to reject the premise of the beginning argument in the whole and presumes that I might want to engage in his “new” premise of me proving a negative!

Originally Posted by Luke:
There is nothing about my definition of free will that is INCOMPATIBLE with determinism.

Free will is the ability to do what you want to do.

Prove that that is incompatible with determinism.

Webdog, the boredom was temporary, I can't even believe I am here doing this now... I don’t have time for this! :laugh: But ya'll have at it.

 

[Iconoclast]

Webdog,

Lets keep it simple. man has self will....he can make choices

His self will is not "free" however, because man has a nature.
This nature is fallen and brings man into bondage to a corrupt sin nature.

[WD,I know you struggle with Romans 5, but even if we just sin in our own experience we are still fallen and bound]

In this sense....God has a Holy nature,and cannot sin.His nature does not allow for the possibility of sin. Can you agree with this statement?

In heaven we will no longer be able to or desire to sin,because our nature will be perfected in true holiness,ie, fully conformed to the image of the Son.
Can we agree here?

The discussion of the will is more about the nature,not the will which is more a philosophical idea and not a biblical one.

 

[J.D.]

Webdog,

Lets keep it simple. man has self will....he can make choices

His self will is not "free" however, because man has a nature.
This nature is fallen and brings man into bondage to a corrupt sin nature.

[WD,I know you struggle with Romans 5, but even if we just sin in our own experience we are still fallen and bound]

In this sense....God has a Holy nature,and cannot sin.His nature does not allow for the possibility of sin. Can you agree with this statement?

In heaven we will no longer be able to or desire to sin,because our nature will be perfected in true holiness,ie, fully conformed to the image of the Son.
Can we agree here?

The discussion of the will is more about the nature,not the will which is more a philosophical idea and not a biblical one.

Right, just as "determinism" is a philosophical idea, not a biblical one.

(I have been known in the past to describe myself as a "theistic determinist" in lieu of "Calvinist", but I've since learned that using that label is problematic.)

 

[Iconoclast]

Right, just as "determinism" is a philosophical idea, not a biblical one.

(I have been known in the past to describe myself as a "theistic determinist" in lieu of "Calvinist", but I've since learned that using that label is problematic.)

Jd i agree labels are problematic,but I think of them as a necessary evil,
they say alot in a little space.

Do you agree with my earlier post,do you see where it can be improved upon?

 

[J.D.]

Jd i agree labels are problematic,but I think of them as a necessary evil,
they say alot in a little space.

Do you agree with my earlier post,do you see where it can be improved upon?

I haven't seen any of your posts that I could improve upon. :applause:

However, which post are your refering to? I'll take a look at it and see if I can fix it up for you. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Benjamin]

Webdog,

Lets keep it simple. man has self will....he can make choices

His self will is not "free" however, because man has a nature.
This nature is fallen and brings man into bondage to a corrupt sin nature.

[WD,I know you struggle with Romans 5, but even if we just sin in our own experience we are still fallen and bound]

In this sense....God has a Holy nature,and cannot sin.His nature does not allow for the possibility of sin. Can you agree with this statement?

In heaven we will no longer be able to or desire to sin,because our nature will be perfected in true holiness,ie, fully conformed to the image of the Son.
Can we agree here?


The discussion of the will is more about the nature,not the will which is more a philosophical idea and not a biblical one.

Simple??? This discussion was already begun with a ligitimate and logical premise. Simple does not happen by someone entering a discussion and completely disregarding the premise of an argument established in the OP. Yet, you deliberately inject your own new premise (using a smoke screen fallacy, which is never a method to get to the truth in any claim) and you make the claim that man has a self will and can make choices, but in the next breath you declare these choices are not free.

For one to truly have a will and to make a choice that choice must be made freely or it is not his will but another’s that has made that choice. The ability to choose is defined as volition and this sustains the meaning that a creature has the ability to consciously choose. One can not do both, have this ability and not have this ability in any logical sense. If creaturely response is determined by causal means to have an irresistible effect on the creature then creaturely volition/the ability to make a choice logically becomes void. If that ability of God’s creatures to freely choose becomes void within your “theology” (try to separate that word from ‘philosophical principles’) you got BIG problems concerning assigning “responsibility” of the evil things of this world.

Now, I would ask you if would like to address the OP's premise and show how you define determinism and then show how one has the ability to choose?

 

[Ron Wood]

show how you define determinism and then show how one has the ability to choose

A definition of determinism: God ordaining everything according to His wise purpose.

How one has the ability to choose: Man doing exactly as he desires to do according to the wise purpose of God. God controls all the influences and circumstances that determine the choice of men. He determined whom would be your parents, the place you would be born the friends you had and have and what experiences would shape you into the person you are. He did so in absolute sovereignty in order to use you and your choices for the exact purpose He determined for you from before the foundation of the world. You do exactly as you desire and what He has determined.

 

[Luke2427]

So, I begin by stating to Luke that “if you’re interested in logic and defining free will” and then start laying out a definition of “Determinism” in order to identify an issue which would give reason why Luke’s definition of “Free will/ability/volition” must not conflict with his view of determinism in order to be *logical. To begin the argument I “attempt” to establish the definition of “Determinism” before going on to discuss his definition of “free will”.

No sir, you attempted a syllogism ( a pretty rough one at that but I appreciated the effort) which rightly proved some things but those things had NOTHING at all to do with volition.

Concerning Luke’s First Opposing “Argument”: Luke states that my premise which raises an issue of defining “Determinism” as a building block does not negate free will; but he doesn’t make any direct claim against the argument by directly identifying any elements from within the building blocks of the argument as a false claim. Instead immediately he resorts to

I don't have to prove that it doesn't negate free will. It doesn't even include free will at all. It did not even MENTION free will or volition. Your argument had nothing at all to do with volition until after you amde it you demanded that it did.

That would be like me saying, "Pigs have four legs so I must conclude from that that pigs can fly."

Your argument that proved that pigs have four legs or in actuality proved that determinism means that everything that comes to pass has been determined by God and MUST therefore come to pass HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PIGS FLYING or volition not being possible.

*”Question-begging” arguments which includes a couple other fallacies within.

Nope.

Luke begins his “argument” with the premise [That syllogism does not negate free will.] then offers reasoning that it is not true by using a *”Groupthink fallacy” saying [All Christians believe…] then a *”Weaseler fallacy” saying, […God has determined some things tohappen…] finally, he attempts to present another Groupthink fallacy – [No one has a problem…].

Nope. But I am proud that you are at least learning these logical fallacy terms even if you do not yet know how to apply them properly. Learning the terms is a start.

It appears that Luke does not understand how to present an argument within *basic philosophical logical principles.

Deflection as any educated person who reads our arguments will be able to point out to you.

But to the uneducated person you might be achieving your goal here of trying to sound intelligent. But like I say, that is where it starts, so I am proud of you.

*A few basic philosophical logical principles:

{*Logic – The branch of philosophy concerned with whether the reasons presented for a claim, if those reasons were true, would justify accepting the claim.}

{*Fallacy – An argument in which the reasons advanced for a claim fail to warrant acceptance of that claim.}

{*Groupthink fallacy – A fallacy that occurs when someone lets identification with a group cloud reasoning and deliberation when arriving at a position on an issue.}

{*Weaseler – An expression used to protect a claim from criticism by weakening it}

Critical Thinking by Moore / Parker.

Excellent copying and pasting. I agree with this information. Good work. Now keep at it and you will learn how to apply it in an actual debate.

Luke is about to confirm that he “appreciates logic”, says he “see’s” my point, yet, does not confirm or deny any of my questions which begin by asking him to acknowledge or not a simple and clear definition of “Determinism”

Your definition of "determinism" had nothing to do with free will.

Present a definition of determinism in which anything at ALL about free will is even MENTIONED and maybe we can go from there.

and declares he will “demonstrate” that my “syllogism does not even deal with, much less negate free will.” He then begins with the below: (1)- [This is false, My (Ben's) premise begins and ends claiming ability/volition must logically be upheld along side of “his” definition of “Determinism”, IOW’s determinism must be logically shown how it is not mutually exclusive to “his” definition of “free will” to be a valid argument and for his definition of “free will” (which he says needs to be established) to be accepted.

Present a definition of determinism in which anything at ALL about free will is even MENTIONED and maybe we can go from there.

Before I can accept a Determinist’ view of free will that is compatible with “determinism” I must first have a firm definition of his view on “determinism” that is logical and that he is willing to hold on to throughout the discussion.

I confirmed that your rather rough syllogism of determinism was sound.

I confirm that determinism means that God has predetermined everything that is ever to come to pass; that nothing can come to pass unless it has been predetermined by God.

You claim that that is inconsistent with the existence of free will. Prove it.

Above, Luke maintains his “*weaseler” (some things) and basically states that I presuppose that determinism means what is determined MUST come to pass?

Nope. You are confused. Never said that.

Luke is using this to disprove my claim that free will cannot be negated by creaturely volition being pre-determined by another Being (God). So, it looks as if Luke is basically telling me I cannot assume determinism means something is determined therefore cannot claim this would logically negate volition.

Nope, again. You presuppose that something being determined negates the possibility of free will. I say that is silly and that you have not even SCRATCHED at an argument to prove it, heretofore.

 

[Winman]

The argument is framed wrong. The question should be whether we have free motive, not will. Luke will always argue that we are free to follow our greatest motive. So therefore the question becomes whether we own our own motives.

I might be trying to decide whether I will wear a blue shirt or a red shirt today. I decide on the blue shirt because it is more comfortable. Luke would say I was free to follow my greatest motive.

But if God determined that I wear a red shirt that day, then I could not have the same greatest motive.

So, the question is whether we own our own motives, not will.

 

[Benjamin]

The argument is framed wrong. The question should be whether we have free motive, not will. Luke will always argue that we are free to follow our greatest motive. So therefore the question becomes whether we own our own motives.

I might be trying to decide whether I will wear a blue shirt or a red shirt today. I decide on the blue shirt because it is more comfortable. Luke would say I was free to follow my greatest motive.

But if God determined that I wear a red shirt that day, then I could not have the same greatest motive.

So, the question is whether we own our own motives, not will.

I am aware of Luke’s MO to form semantic ambiguous fallacy arguments in order to create never ending circular arguments and rabbit trails and that he believes this is some type of legitimate debating skill to be proud of. I framed the argument in order to be able to draw it back to its roots if he attempts such nonsense with me.

 

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Luke:
All Christians believe that God has determined some things to happen and many of those have to do with men.

You are begging the question when you contend that determinism being that which will cause some things to infallibly come to pass means that free will cannot be involved.

You just presuppose that since determinism means that what is determined MUST come to pass then free will cannot be involved.

Originally Posted by Benjamin:

Above, Luke maintains his “*weaseler” (some things) and basically states that I presuppose that determinism means what is determined MUST come to pass?

Originally Posted by Luke:

Nope. You are confused. Never said that.

Clearly you have attempted to inject the weaseler phrase, “some things” into the definition that specifically states “everything” = (X):

1) Necessarily God has fore determined everything that will happen
2) God has determined X
3) Therefore it is necessary that X will happen

Originally Posted by Benjamin:

Above, Luke maintains his “*weaseler” (some things) and basically states that I presuppose that determinism means what is determined MUST come to pass?

Originally Posted by Luke:

Nope. You are confused. Never said that.

Word for word, yet you attempt to deny saying it. ?


Clearly you have injected more than one weaseler including: “MUST come to pass” into the definition that I presented which purposely states “everything” being fore determined”, which I used for *”Good Deductive Argument” purposes and you do your thing in conjunction with that “I presuppose that determinism means what is determined”. I suspect this is a ploy is to weaken the claim of “everything” being (X), if so, be aware you will be called out on any attempt at using your fallacy.

BTW, the only thing I am confused about is why you would add in these obvious *Semantic Ambiguous Fallacies designed to provide an inclusion of a loophole for volition and think you could slip them by me; I also find it either disingenuous or because you are not reading carefully enough that now you would try to deny even saying them.

Originally Posted by Luke:

I confirm that determinism means that God has predetermined everything that is ever to come to pass; that nothing can come to pass unless it has been predetermined by God.

I’ll tell you what; if you are so bent on trying to hold on to some wiggle room to maintain man’s free will maybe should just change your position now because the true Calvinist position is 100% dependent on 100% Determinism to hold water. At this point all I can figure is if that fact troubles you so much you can’t even begin this argument by accepting the opening syllogism and premise, which clearly removes your opportunities to engage in semantic ambiguity and holds "everything to (X) in the form of Determinism", then maybe deep down inside it is only your pride that keeps you from making the switch that will set you free.

Otherwise, why don’t we step back a bit and you tell me exactly what you disagree with in the following that keeps you from accepting the terms:

According to “Determinism” for God to be sovereign He must have predestined everything:

1) Necessarily God has fore determined everything that will happen
2) God has determined X
3) Therefore it is necessary that X will happen

 

[Luke2427]

Clearly you have attempted to inject the weaseler phrase, “some things” into the definition that specifically states “everything” = (X):

Never said "some things" Ben.

I believe God predetermined ALL THINGS.

1) Necessarily God has fore determined everything that will happen
2) God has determined X
3) Therefore it is necessary that X will happen

Absolutely.


Ben, you are not listening.

I agree with your idea of determinism. I agree that EVERYTHING has been predetermined by God.

I am still waiting for you to demonstrate how that negates free will.

 

[Amy.G]

Never said "some things" Ben.

I believe God predetermined ALL THINGS.





Absolutely.


Ben, you are not listening.

I agree with your idea of determinism. I agree that EVERYTHING has been predetermined by God.

I am still waiting for you to demonstrate how that negates free will.

Has God predetermined free will?

 

[Winman]

Never said "some things" Ben.

I believe God predetermined ALL THINGS.

Absolutely.

Ben, you are not listening.

I agree with your idea of determinism. I agree that EVERYTHING has been predetermined by God.

I am still waiting for you to demonstrate how that negates free will.

But Luke, you did say "some things". Don't you think this is easily searched?

From post #93 of the closed thread you wrote:

That syllogism does not negate free will.

All Christians believe that God has determined some things (emphasis mine) to happen and many of those have to do with men.

No one has a problem with the idea that those things will not "violate" man's free will.

Luke it is clear you did say "some things", why don't you just admit it? Or, if it was error on your part when you said "some things", then just admit you made an error.

 

[Iconoclast]

Simple??? This discussion was already begun with a ligitimate and logical premise. Simple does not happen by someone entering a discussion and completely disregarding the premise of an argument established in the OP. Yet, you deliberately inject your own new premise (using a smoke screen fallacy, which is never a method to get to the truth in any claim) and you make the claim that man has a self will and can make choices, but in the next breath you declare these choices are not free.

For one to truly have a will and to make a choice that choice must be made freely or it is not his will but another’s that has made that choice. The ability to choose is defined as volition and this sustains the meaning that a creature has the ability to consciously choose. One can not do both, have this ability and not have this ability in any logical sense. If creaturely response is determined by causal means to have an irresistible effect on the creature then creaturely volition/the ability to make a choice logically becomes void. If that ability of God’s creatures to freely choose becomes void within your “theology” (try to separate that word from ‘philosophical principles’) you got BIG problems concerning assigning “responsibility” of the evil things of this world.

Now, I would ask you if would like to address the OP's premise and show how you define determinism and then show how one has the ability to choose?

Hey Benjamin,
I will allow you to drone on and on about your "premise,and smoke screen fallacies,etc". You claim to be interested in finding Truth,yet you offer no scripture at all which is where truth is to be found.
Instead you seem full of yourself,your definitions of volition, your philosophy,
The scripture says man has self will, this is not my injecting something as you say. This kind of statement;

For one to truly have a will and to make a choice that choice must be made freely or it is not his will but another’s that has made that choice.

has no basis in scripture.Can you provide a verse for this.
Until you want to address the scriptural revelation of mans condition before God, I for one have no interest in your abstact "premise" which is only valid in your eyes and subjective.

 

[Benjamin]

Hey Benjamin,
I will allow you to drone on and on about your "premise,and smoke screen fallacies,etc". You claim to be interested in finding Truth,yet you offer no scripture at all which is where truth is to be found.
Instead you seem full of yourself,your definitions of volition, your philosophy,
The scripture says man has self will, this is not my injecting something as you say. This kind of statement;
has no basis in scripture.Can you provide a verse for this.
Until you want to address the scriptural revelation of mans condition before God, I for one have no interest in your abstact "premise" which is only valid in your eyes and subjective.

You demonstrate quite an ignorant outlook toward the value of philosophy considering of the fact that Calvinism is a system built off philosophizing about systematic principles. Along with this it seems you are so full of pride regarding your supposed championed abilities to argue through proof texting food fights that you have no problem disregarding common debate etiquette and believe yourself entitled to derail a tread while injecting what you feel is a superior methods of debate. Unfortunately, your unstructured style of debate tactics typically accomplishes nothing more than meaningless circular arguments and the truth is rarely brought forth through your subjective proof texting because of your disregards and lacking even a basic sense of direction. But, I’m honored that you will grant us the privilege of “allowing” the debate to continue apart from your personal interests.

 

[Benjamin]

Luke, are you then agreeing with and are willing to hold to the premise and syllogism in the following that defines "determinism":

According to “Determinism” for God to be sovereign He must have predestined everything:

1) Necessarily God has fore determined everything that will happen
2) God has determined X
3) Therefore it is necessary that X will happen