Freethought & Rationalism Archive

7thangel · 06-02-2003, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ChrisW
predestination is the term used, but it's basically the same as saying humans do not have free will. basically everything you do is predestined by god, so you don't really have a choice. i think that fits well with your theory.

(i may be wrong, i'm not a calvanist )

But as I have told you, I have not met a Calvinist who deny man's free will. Predestination basically deny man's free will. But for Calvinist to present God's predestination co-existing with man's free will is like seeing a circus. It is only good for the children.

Wyz_sub10 · 06-02-2003, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 7thangel
But as I have told you, I have not met a Calvinist who deny man's free will. Predestination basically deny man's free will. But for Calvinist to present God's predestination co-existing with man's free will is like seeing a circus. It is only good for the children.

My understanding from Calvinists is that the expression of free will is an indicator of one's destination.

That is to say, you will act according to your predestined fate. This may contradict free will, and it may be a contradiction many Calvinists are uncomfortable with, so there is "patchwork theology" at play.

But I do not know a Calvinist (perhaps you do) that does not believe in god having chosen one's ultimate path.

7thangel · 06-02-2003, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
My understanding from Calvinists is that the expression of free will is an indicator of one's destination.

That is to say, you will act according to your predestined fate. This may contradict free will, and it may be a contradiction many Calvinists are uncomfortable with, so there is "patchwork theology" at play.

Confused, I guess, not uncomfortable. It is just a decietful way of excusing themselves. First and foremost, predestination speaks of the future, which are certainly not within any human's reach. So thus free will, it speaks of predetermining the future through the choices we make. But we should understand that in making the right choices "we are trying to ascertain ALL the facts that will affect our decisions," which is actually impossible for us to achieve ascertaining all such facts. And thus the choices we make are actually mere "forecasts." And for that reason, it is a curse for any man to swear by himself, I mean, because man has no dictate of the future. Except, of course, if it be of God's leading.

And in gathering or trying to ascertain the facts to make decisions, we do "not actually" make choices but are only trying to forecast the right choices. Even on that matter, we are actually are bound by the laws of nature; no free will. Very distinct to God's power of making decision when he began creating all things. In which God, out of nothing, directed how things should be and will be. That is the true power of free will, and of predetermination, which belong only to God.

Quote:

But I do not know a Calvinist (perhaps you do) that does not believe in god having chosen one's ultimate path.

What I understand is that they all do believe that it is God who chooses everyone's ultimate path. But their way of describing predestination becomes fuzzy when they couple it in teaching the existence of man's free will, and to add their belief of the existence of the literal hell, appalling. It is really a turn off. And if they say they are uncomfortable with it, is an expression of hopeless idiocy. (Wyz, just edit it if I am too offensive, or behaving inappropriately.)

And with regards to men portrayed as if it really has a choice, it is tied to the PoE, the existence of evil is necessary for man to have wisdom. .......Too sleepy, I hope I could respond more about it.

Spenser · 06-17-2003, 04:44 PM

Quote:

And with regards to men portrayed as if it really has a choice, it is tied to the PoE, the existence of wisdom. .......

Is necessary? Why, cause you say so? I think it would be better stated that 'evil is necessary for man to have free will', but that of course goes against omnibenevolence and only supports PoE.

I don't remember much evil going on in the public school system in order to teach the kids anything. Unless of course all the unsatisfactories I got in High School were evil...

Majody · 06-19-2003, 11:19 PM

Ok, I'm getting confused. Unless I have misread, I have failed to see an argument against the quote made by Dan Barker. How can a god know everything if we truly have free will? This question alone raises my doubts alot more than most other things combined.

hingers · 06-21-2003, 10:01 PM

This argument is linked with a concept of time. For example, it talks about 'future' and 'prediction' and the like. Time however, is a construct and constraint of this universe. If God created this universe, then it is entirely plausible he exists outside of it, and indeed, outside of its constraints, space, time, etc. Thus, if God can exist in a place without time, then there is no decision making in that repsect. Decisions have already been made as there is an inexistence of time. It is my belief that the reason Biblical predictions and the like are so accurate, and the reason God knows what is going to happen in this dimension is because he can view it from a plane without time.

Quote:

The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.

A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.

Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people deny that humans have free will; but all Christians claim that God himself, "in three persons," is a free personal agent, so the argument holds.

Others will object that God, being all-powerful, can change his mind. But if he does, then he did not know the future in the first place. If he truly knows the future, then the future is fixed and not even God can change it. If he changes his mind anyway, then his knowledge was limited. You can't have it both ways: no being can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time.

A more subtle objection is that God "knows" what he is going to do because he always acts in accordance with his nature, which does not diminish his free agency. God might claim, for example, that he will not tell a lie tomorrow--because he always tells the truth. God could choose outside of his nature, but he never does.

But what does "nature of God" mean? To have a nature is to have limits. The "nature" that restricts humans is our physical environment and our genetics; but the "nature" of a supernatural being must be something else. It is inappropriate to say that the "nature" of a being without limits bears the same relationship to the topic of free will that human nature does.

Free will requires having more than one option, a desire to choose, freedom to choose (lack of obstacles), power to accomplish the choice (strength and aptitude), and the potential to avoid the option. "Strength and aptitude" puts a limit on what any person is "free" to do. No human has the free will to run a one-minute mile, without mechanical aid. We are free to try, but we will fail. All of our choices, and our desires as well, are limited by our nature; yet we can still claim free will (those of us who do) because we don't know our future choices.

If God always acts in accordance with his nature (whatever that means), then he still must have more than one viable option that does not contradict his nature if he is to claim free will. Otherwise, he is a slave to his nature, like a robot, and not a free personal agent.

What would the word "option" mean to a being who created all options?

Some say that "free will" with God does not mean what it means with humans. But how are we to understand this? What conditions of free will would a Christian scrap in order to craft a "free agency" for God? Multiple options? Desire? Freedom? Power? Potential to avoid?

Perhaps desire could be jettisoned. Desire implies a lack, and a perfect being should lack nothing. But it would be a very strange "person" with no needs or desires. Desire is what prompts a choice in the first place. It also contributes to assessing whether the decision was reasonable. Without desire, choices are willy-nilly, and not true decisions at all. Besides, the biblical god expressed many desires.

No objection saves the Christian God: he does not exist. Perhaps a more modest deity can be imagined: one that is not both personal and all-knowing, both all-knowing and all-powerful, both perfect and free. But until a god is defined coherently, and then proven to exist with evidence and sound reasoning, it is sensible not to think that such a being exists.

Gamer4Fire · 06-22-2003, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Eric H
My way of thinking is that God either exists totally, or there is no God at all, if God exists totally, it seems we can only try and define what he is, the clues seem confusing.

Why limit yourself to such a narrow paradigm? How come god is the only thing that is either black or white in your point of view? God cannot be a shade of gray? God cannot be limited by some infinite factor? If god is in a different plane of existance, like hingers says, then his limitations of inifinity would be vastly different than our own finite ones. Without a point of reference (I do not even pretend to understand infinity) I cannot give an example of an infinite limiting factor.

Spenser · 06-23-2003, 01:14 PM

Quote:

This argument is linked with a concept of time. For example, it talks about 'future' and 'prediction' and the like. Time however, is a construct and constraint of this universe. If God created this universe, then it is entirely plausible he exists outside of it, and indeed, outside of its constraints, space, time, etc. Thus, if God can exist in a place without time, then there is no decision making in that repsect. Decisions have already been made as there is an inexistence of time. It is my belief that the reason Biblical predictions and the like are so accurate, and the reason God knows what is going to happen in this dimension is because he can view it from a plane without time.

This argument is weak. Trying to place God 'out of harms way' is nothing more than an intellectual cop-out. Even if you can imagine something as nonsensical as an intelligent mind existing outside of time (seemingly one thought following the next is a temporal process), that doesn't dismiss God from this argument. If he can interact with the universe then he does it in time (our time so to speak), so if he knows the future in our universe, then he is powerless to change it therefore lacking free will, else if he changes it he never really knew the future here to begin with. In order for God to interact with our universe, he HAS to deal with time.

Biblically Accurate Predictions, now that's a laugh...

phillip millar · 07-21-2003, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 7thangel
I haven't heard a calvinist believing on the non-existence of man's free will; the reason I do not consider myself a calvinist.

It is a fundamental tenent of Calvinism that man is totally depraved. Presumably this includes the will.

There was a time when I would have been considered a Calvininst (though personally I despise sectarian labels) and moved among Calvinists. So far as I can remember not one of them believed in freewill, that is (as I understand it) the innate ability to choose that which is good in the eyes of God.

It would appear that Dan Barkers assertion to the effect that Christians teach that humankind has freewill is unnecessarily pejorative.

I think a lot depends on one's understanding of freewill. Could it not be argued that if man can exersise his will independently of God then God is not sovereign and man is.

Is freewill not the ability to think and act independently of all conceivable external influences not merely the ability to choose between red and blue?

Best Regards

Phillip

Spenser · 07-22-2003, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phillip millar
I think a lot depends on one's understanding of freewill. Could it not be argued that if man can exersise his will independently of God then God is not sovereign and man is.

Is freewill not the ability to think and act independently of all conceivable external influences not merely the ability to choose between red and blue?

Best Regards

Phillip

If God exists and everything is predetermined, then there is no such thing as free will anyhow. You just never knew you had no choice... :banghead:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-19-2003, 11:19 PM	#25
Majody Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Tx Posts: 26	Ok, I'm getting confused. Unless I have misread, I have failed to see an argument against the quote made by Dan Barker. How can a god know everything if we truly have free will? This question alone raises my doubts alot more than most other things combined.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.