Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
Predestination or Free Will?; Another church topic
Topic Started: Jun 13 2006, 01:39 PM (783 Views)
ilm
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp

Maybe you can fill me in -- as I have read, John Calvin was into predestination versus free will?

Which churches came out of Calvinism? I have a book that states some of them, but I wanted to confirm with you.

I'm just wanting to know some church history.

Thanks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
A true reading of Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" shows that he held to a theology that included both predestination and free will - the terms, in their true meaning, are not mutually exclusive.

For starters, here are some things that predestination is NOT:

1. Fatalism. "It makes no difference what I do if I'm not predestined by God for salvation."

2. Determinism. "I have no real choices to make in life and no freedom because my life has been predestined."

3. An excuse to live it up. "Since I don't know if I am among the elect, I might as well just do what I want and enjoy myself in life."

4. An excuse to coast along. "I'm a member of the church, so I must be 'elect'. I can coast along in life doing as I please, since my salvation is assured."

5. An excuse not to spread the gospel. "If God has already determined who will be saved, there is no need to preach the Gospel."
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
It's soooooo easy to say what something is not, isn't it? (not a dig, just an observation).
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Oh no, I have no trouble is talking about what it IS, I just didn't want a conversation to take off in a direction of what it isn't, but too many people think it is. ^_^
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Dewey
Jun 13 2006, 05:57 PM
A true reading of Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" shows that he held to a theology that included both predestination and free will - the terms, in their true meaning, are not mutually exclusive.

For starters, here are some things that predestination is NOT:

1. Fatalism. "It makes no difference what I do if I'm not predestined by God for salvation."

2. Determinism. "I have no real choices to make in life and no freedom because my life has been predestined."

3. An excuse to live it up. "Since I don't know if I am among the elect, I might as well just do what I want and enjoy myself in life."

4. An excuse to coast along. "I'm a member of the church, so I must be 'elect'. I can coast along in life doing as I please, since my salvation is assured."

5. An excuse not to spread the gospel. "If God has already determined who will be saved, there is no need to preach the Gospel."

All of them ARE logical consequences of predestination.

Predestination and free will ARE mutually exclusive.
Omniscience and free will ARE mutually exclusive.
Omnipotence and free will ARE mutually exclusive.

To claim otherwise is logical only if one of the following is true:
1. You've twisted the definition of "predestination"
2. You've twisted the definition of "free will"
3. You've twisted the definition of "omniscience"
4. You've twisted the definition of "omnipotence"
5. You've twisted "logic" itself

Can religious ideas and theology operate outside the confines of logic? Yes, that's why it is possible to argue that predestination and free will are NOT mutually exclusive. The argument is possible not because it's logical, but because theology is not confined by logic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Actually Ax, while I agree that theological issues can certainly operate outside the bounds of human logic, that's not at all the case here. I'm not skewing the definition of predestination, I respectfully suggest that if you think that those are all logical outcomes of predestination, that you're not working with an accurate definition of it as it applies to Christian theology.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Your turn, Dewey -- I'll just sit here and eat my popcorn. :popcorn:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
It really isn't that difficult. Predestination is something that "is," not something that God "does" per se. We are all created with free will. However, God, being both all-knowing (omniscient) and eternal (beyond finite limits of time), knows what choices a person will make, before they're even born - before the beginning of time at all, for that matter. The choices made - free will - remain the person's. God has foreknowledge of the person's choice. Therefore, it is "predestined" that the person will make certain choices. But this predestination is not detached from our own inputs and actions, and it is not the case that God merely makes us all robots, or players on a stage, merely living out some self-written, self-gratifying theater for God.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
big al
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
And now an amateur steps up to the plate:

I believe in free will, or what's the point. If it's not free will, I can't tell the difference. If I am not possessed of free will, then the grand puppet master is making me act as if I have it.

I believe that God, in His omnipotence, also has the power to surrender some portion of that power, and that He elected to do so when He created man in his own image.

I believe that God is omniscient and, as Dewey inplied, able to see everything past, present, and future. Thus, a prayer offered for the dead still has the potential for efficacy because God can, in his mercy, intervene at whatever (earthly) time he chooses regardless of when we offer the prayer.

i believe that in the fullness of our time, some (perhaps many, maybe even all) will move toward the perfection which God would have us realize to the end that we will be reunited with God in a final state of perfection. I do not know when this will occur and, in terms of eternity, I am not particularly concerned.

Big Al
Location: Western PA

"jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen."
-bachophile
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
Jun 13 2006, 07:07 PM
It really isn't that difficult. Predestination is something that "is," not something that God "does" per se. We are all created with free will. However, God, being both all-knowing (omniscient) and eternal (beyond finite limits of time), knows what choices a person will make, before they're even born - before the beginning of time at all, for that matter. The choices made - free will - remain the person's. God has foreknowledge of the person's choice. Therefore, it is "predestined" that the person will make certain choices. But this predestination is not detached from our own inputs and actions, and it is not the case that God merely makes us all robots, or players on a stage, merely living out some self-written, self-gratifying theater for God.

"predestination" and "foreknowledge" are timebound constraints and have no bearing on what happens in eternity (the everpresent now) in which God is.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
That is also correct, yet they are required concepts to consider as humans try to understand God within their own constraints.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

while I agree that theological issues can certainly operate outside the bounds of human logic,


There is no human logic, there is just logic. Consistency, if you decided to use some rules then do not break the rules you have decided to use.

To suggest something "operates" "outside" of logic is, i would suggest, to fail to understand what logic is.

I'm also with Ax on predestination nullifying the theological concept of freewill. God for instance has no excuse for evil if we are predestined. When he specified reality at the moment of creation he specified all that would ever happen.

Quote:
 

It really isn't that difficult. Predestination is something that "is," not something that God "does" per se. We are all created with free will. However, God, being both all-knowing (omniscient) and eternal (beyond finite limits of time), knows what choices a person will make, before they're even born - before the beginning of time at all, for that matter. The choices made - free will - remain the person's. God has foreknowledge of the person's choice. Therefore, it is "predestined" that the person will make certain choices. But this predestination is not detached from our own inputs and actions, and it is not the case that God merely makes us all robots, or players on a stage, merely living out some self-written, self-gratifying theater for God.


"Predestination is something that "is" not something God "does""

If predinstantion "is" then from the beginning everything was set, and who chose the beginning? God. So everything was God's choice, he could have chosen different starting conditions and we would have a different outcome. The fact that he doesn't have to step down from the sky and make you chose the red apple, doesn't make any difference, your choice is predestined, determined, always going to be. That is not 'choice' (atleast not in the usual sense of the word) that is an illusion of choice.

"We are all created with free will. However, God, being both all-knowing (omniscient) and eternal (beyond finite limits of time), knows what choices a person will make, before they're even born - before the beginning of time at all, for that matter."

If God knows the future then the future must be there in some sense to be known - reality must be set, (if the future was not set, then omniscient or not God could not know it, equally you cannot put God outside of time because there is not "time" to be outside of) if reality is set then it cannot be changed, then any apparent ability "we" have to influence end results is mere illusion. We are just cogs in a machine.

"The choices made - free will - remain the person's."

If "free will" is merely 'freedom' from 'external' influence then a computer has it too, computers can make decisions without interference. Of course their decisions are determined: the outcome of the computational decision is already there right at the beginning, it's determined, if you knew all there was to know about the computer and what input it was considering and you were infinitely smart you would know everything that the computer would do.

Quote:
 

But this predestination is not detached from our own inputs and actions, and it is not the case that God merely makes us all robots, or players on a stage, merely living out some self-written, self-gratifying theater for God.


The robot's predinstation is not detached from their own inputs and actions either.

Conscious experience does not alter the picture, suppose our computer is aware suppose as it is coming to a decision it is experiencing some aspect of the computation process occuring, as inequalites are being computed, as the genetic algorithm or neural network is approaching some kind of solution it has some qualitive grasp of the underlying numerics, it experiences the act of consideration. Whilst numbers are being crunched it's experiencing "the left path looks dark, and scary (my self protection subroutine is exerting a drive to avoid this route)) on the other hand it would be quicker to get to back to the lab if i travel via this route (my avoid pissing off Professor Moonbat by being late routine is exerting a drive to take this route).

So then given predestination what buisness do you have for telling my robot he does not have freewill and telling me that i do, infact _what do you mean_ when you say it?

If we are predestined then we are players on a stage, we are reading the lines, no one is coming up to us and changing the script as we go along but the script is there and we do nothing but read it, it was handed to us at the beginning of the play. We really are living out self-written self-gratifiying theatre for God.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Jun 14 2006, 05:01 AM
Quote:
 

while I agree that theological issues can certainly operate outside the bounds of human logic,


There is no human logic, there is just logic. Consistency, if you decided to use some rules then do not break the rules you have decided to use.

To suggest something "operates" "outside" of logic is, i would suggest, to fail to understand what logic is.

I'm also with Ax on predestination nullifying the theological concept of freewill. God for instance has no excuse for evil if we are predestined. When he specified reality at the moment of creation he specified all that would ever happen.

Quote:
 

It really isn't that difficult. Predestination is something that "is," not something that God "does" per se. We are all created with free will. However, God, being both all-knowing (omniscient) and eternal (beyond finite limits of time), knows what choices a person will make, before they're even born - before the beginning of time at all, for that matter. The choices made - free will - remain the person's. God has foreknowledge of the person's choice. Therefore, it is "predestined" that the person will make certain choices. But this predestination is not detached from our own inputs and actions, and it is not the case that God merely makes us all robots, or players on a stage, merely living out some self-written, self-gratifying theater for God.


"Predestination is something that "is" not something God "does""

If predinstantion "is" then from the beginning everything was set, and who chose the beginning? God. So everything was God's choice, he could have chosen different starting conditions and we would have a different outcome. The fact that he doesn't have to step down from the sky and make you chose the red apple, doesn't make any difference, your choice is predestined, determined, always going to be. That is not 'choice' (atleast not in the usual sense of the word) that is an illusion of choice.

"We are all created with free will. However, God, being both all-knowing (omniscient) and eternal (beyond finite limits of time), knows what choices a person will make, before they're even born - before the beginning of time at all, for that matter."

If God knows the future then the future must be there in some sense to be known - reality must be set, (if the future was not set, then omniscient or not God could not know it, equally you cannot put God outside of time because there is not "time" to be outside of) if reality is set then it cannot be changed, then any apparent ability "we" have to influence end results is mere illusion. We are just cogs in a machine.

"The choices made - free will - remain the person's."

If "free will" is merely 'freedom' from 'external' influence then a computer has it too, computers can make decisions without interference. Of course their decisions are determined: the outcome of the computational decision is already there right at the beginning, it's determined, if you knew all there was to know about the computer and what input it was considering and you were infinitely smart you would know everything that the computer would do.

Quote:
 

But this predestination is not detached from our own inputs and actions, and it is not the case that God merely makes us all robots, or players on a stage, merely living out some self-written, self-gratifying theater for God.


The robot's predinstation is not detached from their own inputs and actions either.

Conscious experience does not alter the picture, suppose our computer is aware suppose as it is coming to a decision it is experiencing some aspect of the computation process occuring, as inequalites are being computed, as the genetic algorithm or neural network is approaching some kind of solution it has some qualitive grasp of the underlying numerics, it experiences the act of consideration. Whilst numbers are being crunched it's experiencing "the left path looks dark, and scary (my self protection subroutine is exerting a drive to avoid this route)) on the other hand it would be quicker to get to back to the lab if i travel via this route (my avoid pissing off Professor Moonbat by being late routine is exerting a drive to take this route).

So then given predestination what buisness do you have for telling my robot he does not have freewill and telling me that i do, infact _what do you mean_ when you say it?

If we are predestined then we are players on a stage, we are reading the lines, no one is coming up to us and changing the script as we go along but the script is there and we do nothing but read it, it was handed to us at the beginning of the play. We really are living out self-written self-gratifiying theatre for God.

"There is no human logic, there is just logic."

I might agree with you, but I don't think I do. For example, if there are heavenly, non-human beings created by God, would the logic guiding their existence be the same as the logic that guides the lives of humans? I'm pretty certain the answer to that question would be "no." In any case, whether you want to discuss "logic" or "human logic," it's not really relevant to the actual point that God, at least as defined in orthodox Christian theology, transcends logic.

"To suggest something "operates" "outside" of logic is, i would suggest, to fail to understand what logic is."

No, your comment only indicates that you and I have different views of what logic is; not whether your concept or mine is correct. More essentially, it only indicates that you and I disagree on the origin of logic.

If I understand you correctly, you believe that logic is a concept that merely exists, and, as a concept, is timeless and all-encompassing - that, in the absence of human life, that logic - or more precisely, the exact same logic - would still exist in the abstract. I disagree.

I believe that logic is something that is created - a mode of reasoning and comprehension that has value to us only in that our brains - another created thing - generally recognize logic to be a preferable ordering system; and in fact, it is largely the ordering system utilized in much of the cosmos - yet another creation.

I believe that logic is a created tool used by the Creator not only to order much of creation, but also is a gift given to creatures in order to perceive certain truths about themselves, their place within the overall scope of creation, and the Creator's self.

I do not believe that logic is a concept that simply exists. It is not competitor with the Creator for eternality or ultimate truth. Like the rest of creation, logic is subordinate to the Creator who is responsible for its creation. By definition, the Creator is greater than, and not subject to, the constraints of logic - or time, or space, for that matter.

"I'm also with Ax on predestination nullifying the theological concept of freewill."

That's certainly your prerogative, but if you do, you would be sharing his misunderstanding of the definition of these terms as they apply to Christian theology. Your reasoning about predestination, as you understand the term, may be valid, but it doesn't have anything to do with the classical Christian definition of the terms. It's a common misunderstanding, and that's why I started with the post of what predestination is not.

"When he specified reality at the moment of creation he specified all that would ever happen."

This is the definitive misinterpretation of the term. Seriously, I invite you to truly research what the early reformers of the church meant by the term. One of the silliest things that I could imagine would be to waste a bunch of time and effort debating a subject that isn't defined properly from the outset, forming arguments for or against something without first defining what it is.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
Jun 14 2006, 03:19 AM
That is also correct, yet they are required concepts to consider as humans try to understand God within their own constraints.

That is the main problem with theology, Dewey. God is on the other side of words.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Jun 14 2006, 10:06 AM
Dewey
Jun 14 2006, 03:19 AM
That is also correct, yet they are required concepts to consider as humans try to understand God within their own constraints.

That is the main problem with theology, Dewey. God is on the other side of words.

Yes, and by the time God isn't, it will be a moot point. ^_^

Words scrawled on Bonhoeffer's prison door by a former occupant: "In a hundred years, this will all be over." He got some real, and undoubtedly some morbid, consolation in those words. I look at most theological discussion in the same way.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Why such a simple concept is made to appear complicated is beyond me.

Specifically, just because you're presdestined to do something doesn't mean you didn't choose to do something out of free will. Why? Because even though you really have no choice in the matter it is your choice to do what you did. In other words, you really couldn't have done otherwise even if you wanted to. But you would never actually want to do otherwise because then it wouldn't be a free will decision and so you wouldn't have been predestined to do what you did.

Furthermore, the converse is also true.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Exactly. Why does everyone have to make it so complicated?

^_^
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Dwain, if this is nothing more than an extension of the doctrine of God's omniscience, then why even use the term predestination and why did Calvin make such a big deal out of it?

And why did he emphasize that there are some who are "elected" to be saved and some that are not (I understand "elected" to mean "chosen")? This term clearly implies a decision by God, not simply his allowing things to unfold.

I am certainly not an expert on the Calvinistic theology of predestination, but I can't believe that it is so central to Calvinistic teachings but not other Christian teachings when all it means is "God already knows what decisions you will make and thus knows if you will be in heaven or hell."

And I can't believe that if this is all he is saying, he would have used such terms as "pre" destined and God "electing" who will be saved and who will not.

Why is so much written on it by Calvinists if there really is nothing in their minds that is all that special here?
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Rick Zimmer
Jun 14 2006, 09:52 PM
Dwain, if this is nothing more than an extension of the doctrine of God's omniscience, then why even use the term predestination and why did Calvin make such a big deal out of it?

Who's Dwain?

:leaving:
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DivaDeb
HOLY CARP!!!
Rick, you're not asking me, but Calvin used the terms "predestined" and "elect" because they appear in Scripture. The NT word for "predestined" is proorizo. "Elect" (as an adjective) is eklektos.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
DivaDeb
Jun 14 2006, 07:09 PM
Rick, you're not asking me, but Calvin used the terms "predestined" and "elect" because they appear in Scripture.  The NT word for "predestined" is proorizo.  "Elect" (as an adjective) is eklektos.

I can accept that, Deb. But why make such a big deal out of it if all it means is "God already knows what you're going to do."

With all the writing and preaching Calvin did on this and all the treatises that Calvinist theologians have written on this, there has to be more implied here, more being taught here, than just "God already knows."
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DivaDeb
HOLY CARP!!!
I will leave it to Dewey to answer that Rick. I have studied this stuff extensively, but I'm not a Calvinist, so I wouldn't present his case the way Dewey will.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Specifically, just because you're presdestined to do something doesn't mean you didn't choose to do something out of free will. Why? Because even though you really have no choice in the matter it is your choice to do what you did. In other words, you really couldn't have done otherwise even if you wanted to. But you would never actually want to do otherwise because then it wouldn't be a free will decision and so you wouldn't have been predestined to do what you did.

Furthermore, the converse is also true.


I don't think so Frank. The theological concept of free will appears incoherent to begin with but predestination just makes matters worse.

If you have no choice in the matter then you have no choice in the matter. Questions of want become irrelevent - as you point out they themselves are predestined.

I can see a version of freewill where the wants are not irrelevent but that makes my conscious computer free too, it afterall is determined has no 'real' choice but by the same determination for any given output would never 'want' to do otherwise. Yet this is not theological free will.

From the moment of creation from God's master reference frame all the wants and subsequent choices are determined (in this context there is no difference between determined and predestined - either the information is there or it is not). We could have been living in a different universe a universe where want 1 and action X were did not occur rather want 2 and action Y occured, given predestination and the usual mythical monotheistic creator the moment before creation he could see every logically possible universe and he chose one. He chose the scenario with want 1 over want 2. We certainly didn't, we didn't create the universe, we didn't specify the history of reality, the informational content of all existence. If predestination is true then he did - he could see it all before he made it.

If this is still free will then ok, i can accept that definition, it makes my conscious computer free (and indeed i think i'm just like him), but it screws the theists because it places the problem of human evil right back at God's feet.

I think i found a possible theological escape route that staves off the extra problems of predestination. Which is simply to deny it but keep omniscience. In other words God is omniscient but doesn't know the future with certainty, this sounds crazyat first but really isn't - until the future is made there is no future, the information is not there. In the same way God can't know the colour of the ball i'm holding if i'm not holding a ball. It means placing God inside time instead of outside, it means there is no complete history of the universe to look at, no complete time to be outside of. This approach means you temporally avoid violating the illusion of free will and the only alteration required to omniscience is to clarify that saying one "knows everything" really means they "know everything knowable". God can see the various future possibilities, and perhaps attach probabilities- a God who experiences the wavefunction. He just can't see the future that is definitively going to be, because it is not determined untill the point of it's creation - the present, which allows "us" a hypothetical role.

Thus you avoid violating the spirit of omniscience, and without extra trouble for free will. Ultimately freewill is still incoherent it's still appears to be random, and what's so free about dice in the head? But it avoids the extra difficulties certain future knowledge present.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

I might agree with you, but I don't think I do. For example, if there are heavenly, non-human beings created by God, would the logic guiding their existence be the same as the logic that guides the lives of humans? I'm pretty certain the answer to that question would be "no." In any case, whether you want to discuss "logic" or "human logic," it's not really relevant to the actual point that God, at least as defined in orthodox Christian theology, transcends logic.


In terms of deductive logic and assuming no error then yes. God cannot make a square circle, why, because it 'violates logic'.

It's tempting then to say aha but God is greater then logic, God can do anything, God can make a square circle, screw your logic.

But this is an error, it's a trick of language. The reason that a "square circle" violates logic is not because logic prevents some object from being created (logic does not prevent reality doing anything) it's because logic i.e. consistency shows the phrase "square circle" is contradictory nonsense, it doesn't mean anything, if i asked God to make one, he can turn round and say, "what do you mean?" I could turn round and say "you must know your God!" and then he could say "Well yes i know you're a freaking idiot".

Ultimately asking God to make a square circle is no different to asking him to make a "akljhfajkfn", it's just a string of letters, it means nothing.

Quote:
 

No, your comment only indicates that you and I have different views of what logic is; not whether your concept or mine is correct. More essentially, it only indicates that you and I disagree on the origin of logic.

If I understand you correctly, you believe that logic is a concept that merely exists, and, as a concept, is timeless and all-encompassing - that, in the absence of human life, that logic - or more precisely, the exact same logic - would still exist in the abstract. I disagree.


I don't like your description, deductive logic is not a thing, in a way it's not really a concept either, well in a way it is but it's not localised merely to brains, it's tied into the nature of information itself.

Suppose there was a supersmart organism, it's concieveable they might not be able to grasp what we mean when we say "logic", because there is no alternative, logic is the necessarily so, the inevitable.

If you want to use some kind of language, then have to use rules, if you violate the rules you are trying to use your desciption means nothing, it's becomes nothing more than a collection of abstract symbols. Logic is just not doing that, not deciding to set A=B and then saying A!=B (you have to be a bit carefull because modern physics does funky stuff but ultimately it does not violate it's own axioms).

So really it is trivial, if you want to represent information in any kind of way, if I want to communicate if I want to think, then an inevitable property of any meaningfull representation/communication is logic. In the sense i'm using it is merely consistency.

Quote:
 

I believe that logic is something that is created - a mode of reasoning and comprehension that has value to us only in that our brains - another created thing - generally recognize logic to be a preferable ordering system; and in fact, it is largely the ordering system utilized in much of the cosmos - yet another creation.


The problem is that the alternative to logic in the deductive sense is incoherence and meaninglessness. Both inductive and deductive logic explore the necessarily so, but there is great variation in terms of inductive reasoning, it differs person to person and certainly aliens or Gods or angels or whatever could think in a completely different way, but the underlying nature of the information, the thing that that is being revealed by logic would remain the same.

Quote:
 

I do not believe that logic is a concept that simply exists. It is not competitor with the Creator for eternality or ultimate truth. Like the rest of creation, logic is subordinate to the Creator who is responsible for its creation. By definition, the Creator is greater than, and not subject to, the constraints of logic - or time, or space, for that matter.


But you see there is the error again, logic does not constrain anything, i do not tell reality what to do at all, i sit back and say reality is outthere, i want to describe it, when i say "describe" i mean capture some coherent aspect of the thing involved (that's a hideous description but it's getting late, and i'm going to get done for missed calculations), if i'm going to that then trivially i cannot violate the basis of my own description because if i do, then i fail, the description means nothing. Logic doesn't operate on reality at all, it merely the process of using language.

Quote:
 

That's certainly your prerogative, but if you do, you would be sharing his misunderstanding of the definition of these terms as they apply to Christian theology. Your reasoning about predestination, as you understand the term, may be valid, but it doesn't have anything to do with the classical Christian definition of the terms. It's a common misunderstanding, and that's why I started with the post of what predestination is not.


The problem is that i think the classical definition of predestination says something nontrivial about the nature of the future, about choice.

I know that theologians try to make a dinstiction between determined and predestined, but is another illusion. In my post to frank i briefly touch on why i think predinstantion and determined are the same thing. Note that the universe need not be deterministic in the usual sense of the word for it to be determined. The existence of a reference frame, or observer who can see all of time, and who is also _in principle_ capable of interacting with me makes my future determined.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Moonbat
Jun 15 2006, 04:55 AM
Quote:
 

Specifically, just because you're presdestined to do something doesn't mean you didn't choose to do something out of free will. Why? Because even though you really have no choice in the matter it is your choice to do what you did. In other words, you really couldn't have done otherwise even if you wanted to. But you would never actually want to do otherwise because then it wouldn't be a free will decision and so you wouldn't have been predestined to do what you did.

Furthermore, the converse is also true.


I don't think so Frank. The theological concept of free will appears incoherent to begin with but predestination just makes matters worse.

If you have no choice in the matter then you have no choice in the matter. Questions of want become irrelevent - as you point out they themselves are predestined.

I can see a version of freewill where the wants are not irrelevent but that makes my conscious computer free too, it afterall is determined has no 'real' choice but by the same determination for any given output would never 'want' to do otherwise. Yet this is not theological free will.

From the moment of creation from God's master reference frame all the wants and subsequent choices are determined (in this context there is no difference between determined and predestined - either the information is there or it is not). We could have been living in a different universe a universe where want 1 and action X were did not occur rather want 2 and action Y occured, given predestination and the usual mythical monotheistic creator the moment before creation he could see every logically possible universe and he chose one. He chose the scenario with want 1 over want 2. We certainly didn't, we didn't create the universe, we didn't specify the history of reality, the informational content of all existence. If predestination is true then he did - he could see it all before he made it.

If this is still free will then ok, i can accept that definition, it makes my conscious computer free (and indeed i think i'm just like him), but it screws the theists because it places the problem of human evil right back at God's feet.

I think i found a possible theological escape route that staves off the extra problems of predestination. Which is simply to deny it but keep omniscience. In other words God is omniscient but doesn't know the future with certainty, this sounds crazyat first but really isn't - until the future is made there is no future, the information is not there. In the same way God can't know the colour of the ball i'm holding if i'm not holding a ball. It means placing God inside time instead of outside, it means there is no complete history of the universe to look at, no complete time to be outside of. This approach means you temporally avoid violating the illusion of free will and the only alteration required to omniscience is to clarify that saying one "knows everything" really means they "know everything knowable". God can see the various future possibilities, and perhaps attach probabilities- a God who experiences the wavefunction. He just can't see the future that is definitively going to be, because it is not determined untill the point of it's creation - the present, which allows "us" a hypothetical role.

Thus you avoid violating the spirit of omniscience, and without extra trouble for free will. Ultimately freewill is still incoherent it's still appears to be random, and what's so free about dice in the head? But it avoids the extra difficulties certain future knowledge present.

Moonbat, i feel absolutely embarrassed you took my post seriously. It was meant to be gibberish.

I hope I don't insult anyone when I say I wouldn't waste my time discussing such a topic seriously.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1