And the individual gets all of his thoughts from God, not 99.99% but all 100% or else God would have no idea what he would think next. So that's just one of God's creations that people are mocking. (Sorry Steve, this is just my observation of Determinism, and I canot get un-stuck from it. I don't know the logic-path away from what appears as the inevitable conclusion.)
It appears to me (and my theologically untrained mind), that God predestined that man, not just a paltry 99.99%, but all 100%, and called it "good" to go, and scripted it accordingly. Every time someone comes up with something "bad", this is the first question that comes to mind. God thought it up, and said, "I'm doing it. Predestined. Lights, camera, action, God's creates the gay guy, and gives him all 100% of his thoughts, from cradle to grave."
"And the individual gets all of his thoughts from God, not 99.99% but all 100% or else God would have no idea what he would think next. So that's just one of God's creations that people are mocking."
Just like a stand-up comedian may create humorous characters for the audience to laugh at.
"Every time someone comes up with something 'bad', this is the first question that comes to mind. God thought it up, and said, "I'm doing it. Predestined."
I've explained that to you, Richard. You're illustrating the lack of Arminian intelligence by your chronic failure to draw rudimentary distinctions. And, yes, that Arminian failing was also predestined–to demonstrate the folly of Arminian theology. Thanks for playing the straight man in God's comedy.
Coords, please make rigorous the idea "gets all his thoughts from God." What kind of model or picture do you have in mind here? I can't agree or disagree because I don't even know what it means.
In any rate, while I wouldn't be seen in such a getup, I also wouldn't be seen wearing the common clothing and accessories of our nation's forefathers: powdered wigs, silk stockings, frilly scarves and tall, very fabulous hats.
By the way, pink used to be considered a boy's color.
So who dictates what's "manly" in any given culture, anyhow?
Steve: Ok, if I understand correctly, the "distinction" is the multi-faceted good/bad perspective, that you've previously discussed. In other words, if I understand correctly, God thought-up and decreed the gay guy (i.e. all 100% of this thoughts, cradle to grave) to be a sort of "comedic relief" for us to laugh at (and other potential purposes). I get the joke now.
Paul: there's prior discussion on it. I'll ask you the question. If God did *not* predetermine Steve's next thought, could God infallibly know what Steve would think next?
(It's the idea that God is the only independent mind in the cosmos, and that all creation is the subject upon whom the One independent mind carries out His own thoughts. It's the idea that God wouldn't have any idea what Steve would think next, apart from predeterming it, which necessarily includes all thoughts, cradle to grave, so that even if God merely predetermined only 99.99% of Steve's thoughts, the .01% would forfeit omniscience. So there's no such thing as independent thought, among creation. Your thoughts, my thoughts, Steve thoughts, including all thoughts and intentions of the heart, must by necessity be 100% predetermined, or else omniscience is forfeit. So, in practice, the gay guy never thought one thought that God didn't already unilaterally give him to think. He's basically a lump of clay, a blank slate, upon which God paints His divine portrait, and executes His thoughts through the human subject, as a sense of "divine comedic relief" so that we can all laugh at him, because God has a sense of humor. However, I infer that it also, necessarily makes people into puppets, and that the "sentient being" defense doesn't work, and that moral accountability is forfeit, as a necessary consequence. If, however, God had predetermined *only* 99.99% of his thoughts and intentions of his heart, then there would be that .01% upon which we could hold him morally accountable, but we don't have that, unless someone wishes to assert a "paradox." Do you Paul, wish to assert a paradox?
Richard, I have found that most libertarian free will theists have a particular picture in mind when they speak of God "determining" our thoughts or "giving" us our thoughts, or etc. Many philosophical problems arise due to faulty "pictures" we construct. For example, you claim we're "blank slates" upon which God "paints." I assume you think that's not literal, so what do you mean? You claim they're "God's thoughts," and you have some reason or picture or model going on in your mind. How did you construct your model and why do you think the model you've presented is the appropriate one to explain the relationship between God's decree of all that comes to pass and our thoughts, actions, etc?
I would like to help you, but I want to understand your picture, and why you think it's appropriate, and why you think it adequately captures the divine relationship between God and the world on Calvinism. How did you come by your knowledge of the specific model of *how* God determines whatsoever comes to pass? You seem to at best have some sort of hyper-occassionalism in mind, one that no one else has put forth. But why think this idisyncratic *model* is the right one that captures the details of divine determinism?
The origin of the "blank slate" statement is from the C's presentation of divine omniscience, as opposed to the way that Arminians (non-Open Theist A's, that is) have argued in support of divine omniscience in various polemics. So I'm told by C's that God determined everything (in whatever way that C's understand it), and God necessarily knows what He determined. Ok, makes sense. Fair enough. So the question then is: "Paul, do you believe that God possesses the capacity to know what Steve will think and desire tomorrow, if God had *not* decreed what Steve will think and desire tomorrow? Restated: Hypothetically speaking, Does God possess the capacity to know what Steve will think next, if God did not determine (in whatever way that C's understand that God determines, decrees, scripts or what have you) what Steve will think tomorrow? Does does determine 99.99% of what Steve will think tomorrow, or all 100%? If it was just a mere 99.99%, would God be able to claim "divine omniscience" over the .01%? I think that this is a fair question.
Due to character count limitations, let me just reference Matthew 11:21-24 instead of quoting it. How do you reconcile *how* Jesus claims to know what He says that He knows? Notice that this statement will be deemed admissible evidence on Judgment Day, which otherwise if not infallible, must be tossed out as "speculation." So when discussing this with an Atheist (who visited the forum in question), the Atheist says to me: "Jesus can't know that. You just trust his judgment." The Atheist was using the law of non-contradiction, and Matthew 11:21-24 seemed to be a monkey wrench in his effort to deconvert me.
I’m trying to take the Arminian or Libertarian out of the equation, and just say, “however the C, rather than the A, believes that God determines what He determines,” can God posses infallible knowledge of what Steve will think & desire tomorrow, if He did not otherwise determine what Steve will think & desire tomorrow? The follow-up question is that *if* the C understanding of divine omniscience guarantees that 100% (rather than 99.99%) of Steve’s thoughts & desires are already known in advance and predetermined (in whatever way that it is predetermined), eliminate any sense of contingent-knowledge, that is, contingent upon the lump of clay? The purpose is to show that by the C understanding of omniscience, as opposed to the A understanding (valid or invalid), there can be but one independent mind in the cosmos, such that, there exists NO independent, random or rogue thoughts, outside of what God determines for the subjects of determinism to think, and therefore, since God determines 100% of what Steve will think & desire tomorrow, there is no longer any basis to establish moral responsibility for what Steve will think & desire tomorrow, since he is not the source and origin of his thoughts & desires, but rather, is the *recipient* of God’s thoughts & desires for him, in whatever way that God wishes to display His purposes in the creature known as “Steve.” Does that provide a better context of where I’m going with this?
Now you could respond by saying, "No, Richard, because God's infallible omniscience is *contingent* rather than non-contingent on the creature at hand, since God is so big and so powerful and so sovereign that He actually is able to know things that are still yet future, and simultaneously *not* determined by Him, in confirmation of Matthew 11:21-24," but there is no way that you can remain a Calvinist and provide that answer. I have to imagine that there are Hyper Calvinists which are following this line of reasoning and concluding, "This is exactly why I believe in Hard Determinism, that is, the furthest range of the determinism spectrum, as demanded by consistency of logic." A's have long argued that the truly consistent Calvinist is "forced" by logic into this conclusion.
Coords, not so fast. Please quote Calvinists and then derive or show the entailment of the "blank slate" view that it seems you're resting your argument on. Moreover, don't show that one Calvin*ist's* view entails such and such, but show that Calvinism *per se* must entail said view. I could of course watse my time with you and answer you according to my picture while you interpret everything according to your picture, but then we'd get nowhere.
To your question: If omniscience is not incompatible with libertarian freedom, then God has the ability to know what a libertarian free creature will think next. I don't think the two are compatible, thus God could not know what a libertarian free agent will think in the future unless God determines it.
But then how do you explain Matthew 11:21-24, in which Jesus claims knowledge that an Atheist said, and I quote: "He didn’t. He’s just confident that he is right, and you trust his judgement, that’s all. How exactly does god know what a person’s choice will ultimately end up being, BEFORE they make that choice? This idea of yours that God can look into the future sounds pretty hocus pocus to me. God wouldn’t hardly be able to see the future, if the choices that it will contain are not settled yet somehow.”
Notice that Tyre and Sidon are in the "wide path of destruction" line, and are simply defending themselves at the Great White Throne Judgment, as a means of *mitigating the damage,* so to speak. Now if Jesus' knowledge of what they "would have" done, had they seen what they unrepentant Jewish cities had seen and experienced, was not 100% infallible and perfectly accurate, then His knowledge of their contingent actions would have to be TOSSED OUT of the Great White Throne Judgment Court, on the basis of being inadmissible evidence, and as nothing more than "divine speculation," when yet instead, the fair Judge of all of the cosmos allows it anyway, because it is more than just divine speculation, but rather, 100% accurate, and yet purely contingent knowledge, even knowledge of things that never came to pass in the actualized in the real world, but would have, had they been in a similar situation. Don't you see how powerful that is, Paul? Now if we say, "Well, that would only be true because God would have determined their contingent actions," that would defeat the whole point of Tyre and Sidon raising the issue in the first place! It would totally gut the moral and righteous indignation of those cities. Do you see where I'm going with this?
2. Now, in this post, Steve Hays posted a photo satirizing Muslim terrorists. What's the first comment out of Coords' mouth? Here you go: "And the individual gets all of his thoughts from God, not 99.99% but all 100% or else God would have no idea what he would think next. So that's just one of God's creations that people are mocking. (Sorry Steve, this is just my observation of Determinism, and I canot get un-stuck from it. I don't know the logic-path away from what appears as the inevitable conclusion.)"
3. So it's obvious Coords has a fixation with bashing Calvinism. In fact Coords confesses he "canot [sic] get un-stuck from it." But the question is why? Why the preoccupation? Why derail a thread to bash Calvinism? Why not at least bash Calvinism in a thread related to Calvinism?
God hardens whom he pleases. I pray He would pleased to have to mercy on me, and all others. God will have mercy on whom He pleases. I pray he would here my prayer. There's nothing more powerful on the earth, nor in the universe, than a prayer to a sovereign God, nothing.
Richard why can you not see this truth, it's a deep truth, and yet clearly written to us in the Bible.
Have a great Lord's Day in His sovereign love and care, for He cares for His own very much. What a joyful thought full of rest for one's soul!
I believe God infallibly knows "what they would have done" for he infallibly knows all the possible states he could determine. Determinism, as I state in my paper you claim you read but didn't, is *conditional necessity." Thus it's not "absolutely necessary," and therefore what happens is *contingent*.
I think I'll bow out now, you're clearly far too confident relative to your knowledge base and comfort with the relevant arguments, terms, literature, and in your ability to wax philosophical. I've found discussions with people like that go nowhere.
LOL Well I hope that you fixed your typo on p.11 of the article that I didn't read.
Paul wrote: "I believe God infallibly knows 'what they would have done' for he infallibly knows all the possible states he could determine."
But I had preemptively addressed that point, knowing that it was both (a) the determinist's only way out, and (b) non sequitur.
I wrote: "Now if we say, 'Well, that would only be true because God would have determined their contingent actions,' that would defeat the whole point of Tyre and Sidon raising the issue in the first place! It would totally gut the moral and righteous indignation of those cities."
To that, you offered no response to my preemptive strike. Perhaps it is because you didn't read my post? Maybe you are the one who is so "confident" that he doesn't need to "waste" his time reading a short post. So why "engage the other side" if you wish to only hear your own opinions espoused, and never be challenged?
"Notice that Tyre and Sidon are in the "wide path of destruction" line, and are simply defending themselves at the Great White Throne Judgment, as a means of *mitigating the damage,* so to speak. Now if Jesus' knowledge of what they "would have" done, had they seen what they unrepentant Jewish cities had seen and experienced, was not 100% infallible and perfectly accurate, then His knowledge of their contingent actions would have to be TOSSED OUT of the Great White Throne Judgment Court, on the basis of being inadmissible evidence, and as nothing more than 'divine speculation,' when yet instead, the fair Judge of all of the cosmos allows it anyway, because it is more than just divine speculation, but rather, 100% accurate, and yet purely contingent knowledge, even knowledge of things that never came to pass in the actualized in the real world, but would have, had they been in a similar situation."
God's counterfactual knowledge is perfectly consonant with Calvinism. For instance:
Establishing your context first: “The future is known to God because it has been determined by the decree of His free will. … In the eternal decree, all that comes to pass has been foreordained. There is no place for chance or indeterminacy in the system of reality. … God determined, by the free decree of His sovereign will, which of the possible worlds should be actualized. ... God freely chose to bring about this world rather than any of the other infinite possibilities.”
1) How do you, Steve, believe that God determines “infinite possibilities”?
2) By the force of reason, on what basis could Tyre and Sidon rise up on Judgment Day and say, “We’re better than you, Chorazin and Bethsaida!, because if we were under similar circumstances, unlike you, GOD would have determined us to repent. So there. We’re better. Wait. If God, ok, so then. (Ok, if we would have repented only because that was determined....) Oh well, Yeah, we’re better than you guys! See God, we deserve less punishment than them.”
Paraphrased:
“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, [I would have determined that they] would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, [I would have determined that] it would have remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.”
"1) How do you, Steve, believe that God determines 'infinite possibilities'?"
Another example of your persistent reading incomprehension. Young didn't say God determines infinite possibilities. Rather, Young said God determines which possibilities to actualize.
Since your # 2) is not an argument, there's nothing to respond to.
"LOL Well I hope that you fixed your typo on p.11 of the article that I didn't read."
I see: I found a typo on p.11, therefore I read 79 pages. Your reasoning is as sound here as it is elsewhere.
You didn't head off the objection, you dismissed the claim with a barely understandable sentence. Saying "that would defeat the whole purpose" is *hardly* an argument or a defeater. Give me a break and thanks for confirming why it's a waste of time to interact with you. But you run around with your plastic sword and in your underoos playing "bad guy" all you want, I'm not interested.
"By the force of reason, on what basis could Tyre and Sidon rise up on Judgment Day and say, “We’re better than you, Chorazin and Bethsaida!, because if we were under similar circumstances, unlike you, GOD would have determined us to repent. So there. We’re better."
LOL, if *Tyre and Sidon* were in similar circumstances they'd repent and not repent, given IDENTICAL past histories and reasons up until the action. On libertarian, there's an infinite amount of "similar circumstances," and so how can they say what they said? Since there is an infinite amount of similar circumstances, then do they repent in *all* of them? This looks like determinism. Or, is it at least *one* similar circumstance? Well, Chorazin and Bethsaida repent in at least some of them too.
Context please!!!
ReplyDeleteSee, I KNEW you guys were a Poe! I just found my new favorite satire blog since ChristWire.
ReplyDeletesad to say, I think his legs are better than mine!
ReplyDeleteSick. But, not surprising. Nothing in our world in our day can any more cause us to lifet our eyebrows.
ReplyDeleteHave a great Lord's Day in Spirit and truth!
And the individual gets all of his thoughts from God, not 99.99% but all 100% or else God would have no idea what he would think next. So that's just one of God's creations that people are mocking. (Sorry Steve, this is just my observation of Determinism, and I canot get un-stuck from it. I don't know the logic-path away from what appears as the inevitable conclusion.)
ReplyDeleteHow did this picture become about Calvinism? :-/ Granted, those heels are popular among Calvinists, but that is a different topic. ;-)
ReplyDeleteIt appears to me (and my theologically untrained mind), that God predestined that man, not just a paltry 99.99%, but all 100%, and called it "good" to go, and scripted it accordingly. Every time someone comes up with something "bad", this is the first question that comes to mind. God thought it up, and said, "I'm doing it. Predestined. Lights, camera, action, God's creates the gay guy, and gives him all 100% of his thoughts, from cradle to grave."
ReplyDeleteLOL What do you mean, "How did this picture become about Calvinism?" In a fully determined cosmos, name one thing that is "not about Calvinism"?
ReplyDeleteRICHARD COORDS SAID:
ReplyDelete"And the individual gets all of his thoughts from God, not 99.99% but all 100% or else God would have no idea what he would think next. So that's just one of God's creations that people are mocking."
Just like a stand-up comedian may create humorous characters for the audience to laugh at.
Fair enough. "Dear God. That was funny what You did."
ReplyDeleteRichard Coords said...
ReplyDelete"Every time someone comes up with something 'bad', this is the first question that comes to mind. God thought it up, and said, "I'm doing it. Predestined."
I've explained that to you, Richard. You're illustrating the lack of Arminian intelligence by your chronic failure to draw rudimentary distinctions. And, yes, that Arminian failing was also predestined–to demonstrate the folly of Arminian theology. Thanks for playing the straight man in God's comedy.
I'm definitely confused, because I don't even know what the "distinction" references. Here's how I've illustration my confusion:
ReplyDeletehttp://examiningcalvinism.blogspot.com/2011/03/determinism-compatibilism-free-agency.html
As I've explained to you, it's not just a question of calling something "bad," for something can be bad in one respect, but good in another.
ReplyDeleteCoords, please make rigorous the idea "gets all his thoughts from God." What kind of model or picture do you have in mind here? I can't agree or disagree because I don't even know what it means.
ReplyDeleteThat's actually a bearded lady.
ReplyDeleteIn any rate, while I wouldn't be seen in such a getup, I also wouldn't be seen wearing the common clothing and accessories of our nation's forefathers: powdered wigs, silk stockings, frilly scarves and tall, very fabulous hats.
By the way, pink used to be considered a boy's color.
So who dictates what's "manly" in any given culture, anyhow?
Steve: Ok, if I understand correctly, the "distinction" is the multi-faceted good/bad perspective, that you've previously discussed. In other words, if I understand correctly, God thought-up and decreed the gay guy (i.e. all 100% of this thoughts, cradle to grave) to be a sort of "comedic relief" for us to laugh at (and other potential purposes). I get the joke now.
ReplyDeletePaul: there's prior discussion on it. I'll ask you the question. If God did *not* predetermine Steve's next thought, could God infallibly know what Steve would think next?
ReplyDelete(It's the idea that God is the only independent mind in the cosmos, and that all creation is the subject upon whom the One independent mind carries out His own thoughts. It's the idea that God wouldn't have any idea what Steve would think next, apart from predeterming it, which necessarily includes all thoughts, cradle to grave, so that even if God merely predetermined only 99.99% of Steve's thoughts, the .01% would forfeit omniscience. So there's no such thing as independent thought, among creation. Your thoughts, my thoughts, Steve thoughts, including all thoughts and intentions of the heart, must by necessity be 100% predetermined, or else omniscience is forfeit. So, in practice, the gay guy never thought one thought that God didn't already unilaterally give him to think. He's basically a lump of clay, a blank slate, upon which God paints His divine portrait, and executes His thoughts through the human subject, as a sense of "divine comedic relief" so that we can all laugh at him, because God has a sense of humor. However, I infer that it also, necessarily makes people into puppets, and that the "sentient being" defense doesn't work, and that moral accountability is forfeit, as a necessary consequence. If, however, God had predetermined *only* 99.99% of his thoughts and intentions of his heart, then there would be that .01% upon which we could hold him morally accountable, but we don't have that, unless someone wishes to assert a "paradox." Do you Paul, wish to assert a paradox?
Richard, I have found that most libertarian free will theists have a particular picture in mind when they speak of God "determining" our thoughts or "giving" us our thoughts, or etc. Many philosophical problems arise due to faulty "pictures" we construct. For example, you claim we're "blank slates" upon which God "paints." I assume you think that's not literal, so what do you mean? You claim they're "God's thoughts," and you have some reason or picture or model going on in your mind. How did you construct your model and why do you think the model you've presented is the appropriate one to explain the relationship between God's decree of all that comes to pass and our thoughts, actions, etc?
ReplyDeleteI would like to help you, but I want to understand your picture, and why you think it's appropriate, and why you think it adequately captures the divine relationship between God and the world on Calvinism. How did you come by your knowledge of the specific model of *how* God determines whatsoever comes to pass? You seem to at best have some sort of hyper-occassionalism in mind, one that no one else has put forth. But why think this idisyncratic *model* is the right one that captures the details of divine determinism?
Hello Paul,
ReplyDeleteThe origin of the "blank slate" statement is from the C's presentation of divine omniscience, as opposed to the way that Arminians (non-Open Theist A's, that is) have argued in support of divine omniscience in various polemics. So I'm told by C's that God determined everything (in whatever way that C's understand it), and God necessarily knows what He determined. Ok, makes sense. Fair enough. So the question then is: "Paul, do you believe that God possesses the capacity to know what Steve will think and desire tomorrow, if God had *not* decreed what Steve will think and desire tomorrow? Restated: Hypothetically speaking, Does God possess the capacity to know what Steve will think next, if God did not determine (in whatever way that C's understand that God determines, decrees, scripts or what have you) what Steve will think tomorrow? Does does determine 99.99% of what Steve will think tomorrow, or all 100%? If it was just a mere 99.99%, would God be able to claim "divine omniscience" over the .01%? I think that this is a fair question.
Due to character count limitations, let me just reference Matthew 11:21-24 instead of quoting it. How do you reconcile *how* Jesus claims to know what He says that He knows? Notice that this statement will be deemed admissible evidence on Judgment Day, which otherwise if not infallible, must be tossed out as "speculation." So when discussing this with an Atheist (who visited the forum in question), the Atheist says to me: "Jesus can't know that. You just trust his judgment." The Atheist was using the law of non-contradiction, and Matthew 11:21-24 seemed to be a monkey wrench in his effort to deconvert me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRestated to fix the typos:
ReplyDeleteI’m trying to take the Arminian or Libertarian out of the equation, and just say, “however the C, rather than the A, believes that God determines what He determines,” can God posses infallible knowledge of what Steve will think & desire tomorrow, if He did not otherwise determine what Steve will think & desire tomorrow? The follow-up question is that *if* the C understanding of divine omniscience guarantees that 100% (rather than 99.99%) of Steve’s thoughts & desires are already known in advance and predetermined (in whatever way that it is predetermined), eliminate any sense of contingent-knowledge, that is, contingent upon the lump of clay? The purpose is to show that by the C understanding of omniscience, as opposed to the A understanding (valid or invalid), there can be but one independent mind in the cosmos, such that, there exists NO independent, random or rogue thoughts, outside of what God determines for the subjects of determinism to think, and therefore, since God determines 100% of what Steve will think & desire tomorrow, there is no longer any basis to establish moral responsibility for what Steve will think & desire tomorrow, since he is not the source and origin of his thoughts & desires, but rather, is the *recipient* of God’s thoughts & desires for him, in whatever way that God wishes to display His purposes in the creature known as “Steve.” Does that provide a better context of where I’m going with this?
Now you could respond by saying, "No, Richard, because God's infallible omniscience is *contingent* rather than non-contingent on the creature at hand, since God is so big and so powerful and so sovereign that He actually is able to know things that are still yet future, and simultaneously *not* determined by Him, in confirmation of Matthew 11:21-24," but there is no way that you can remain a Calvinist and provide that answer. I have to imagine that there are Hyper Calvinists which are following this line of reasoning and concluding, "This is exactly why I believe in Hard Determinism, that is, the furthest range of the determinism spectrum, as demanded by consistency of logic." A's have long argued that the truly consistent Calvinist is "forced" by logic into this conclusion.
ReplyDeleteThe best part about this goofy post is that it actually managed to foster a discussion about Calvinism. God truly has a sense of humor.
ReplyDeleteCoords, not so fast. Please quote Calvinists and then derive or show the entailment of the "blank slate" view that it seems you're resting your argument on. Moreover, don't show that one Calvin*ist's* view entails such and such, but show that Calvinism *per se* must entail said view. I could of course watse my time with you and answer you according to my picture while you interpret everything according to your picture, but then we'd get nowhere.
ReplyDeleteTo your question: If omniscience is not incompatible with libertarian freedom, then God has the ability to know what a libertarian free creature will think next. I don't think the two are compatible, thus God could not know what a libertarian free agent will think in the future unless God determines it.
But then how do you explain Matthew 11:21-24, in which Jesus claims knowledge that an Atheist said, and I quote: "He didn’t. He’s just confident that he is right, and you trust his judgement, that’s all. How exactly does god know what a person’s choice will ultimately end up being, BEFORE they make that choice? This idea of yours that God can look into the future sounds pretty hocus pocus to me. God wouldn’t hardly be able to see the future, if the choices that it will contain are not settled yet somehow.”
ReplyDeleteNotice that Tyre and Sidon are in the "wide path of destruction" line, and are simply defending themselves at the Great White Throne Judgment, as a means of *mitigating the damage,* so to speak. Now if Jesus' knowledge of what they "would have" done, had they seen what they unrepentant Jewish cities had seen and experienced, was not 100% infallible and perfectly accurate, then His knowledge of their contingent actions would have to be TOSSED OUT of the Great White Throne Judgment Court, on the basis of being inadmissible evidence, and as nothing more than "divine speculation," when yet instead, the fair Judge of all of the cosmos allows it anyway, because it is more than just divine speculation, but rather, 100% accurate, and yet purely contingent knowledge, even knowledge of things that never came to pass in the actualized in the real world, but would have, had they been in a similar situation. Don't you see how powerful that is, Paul? Now if we say, "Well, that would only be true because God would have determined their contingent actions," that would defeat the whole point of Tyre and Sidon raising the issue in the first place! It would totally gut the moral and righteous indignation of those cities. Do you see where I'm going with this?
Well, this is at least the second time Richard Coords has derailed a post for his favorite hobby-horse i.e. bashing Calvinism.
ReplyDelete1. Coords first derailed a post here.
2. Now, in this post, Steve Hays posted a photo satirizing Muslim terrorists. What's the first comment out of Coords' mouth? Here you go: "And the individual gets all of his thoughts from God, not 99.99% but all 100% or else God would have no idea what he would think next. So that's just one of God's creations that people are mocking. (Sorry Steve, this is just my observation of Determinism, and I canot get un-stuck from it. I don't know the logic-path away from what appears as the inevitable conclusion.)"
3. So it's obvious Coords has a fixation with bashing Calvinism. In fact Coords confesses he "canot [sic] get un-stuck from it." But the question is why? Why the preoccupation? Why derail a thread to bash Calvinism? Why not at least bash Calvinism in a thread related to Calvinism?
God hardens whom he pleases. I pray He would pleased to have to mercy on me, and all others. God will have mercy on whom He pleases. I pray he would here my prayer.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing more powerful on the earth, nor in the universe, than a prayer to a sovereign God, nothing.
Richard why can you not see this truth, it's a deep truth, and yet clearly written to us in the Bible.
Have a great Lord's Day in His sovereign love and care, for He cares for His own very much. What a joyful thought full of rest for one's soul!
I believe God infallibly knows "what they would have done" for he infallibly knows all the possible states he could determine. Determinism, as I state in my paper you claim you read but didn't, is *conditional necessity." Thus it's not "absolutely necessary," and therefore what happens is *contingent*.
ReplyDeleteI think I'll bow out now, you're clearly far too confident relative to your knowledge base and comfort with the relevant arguments, terms, literature, and in your ability to wax philosophical. I've found discussions with people like that go nowhere.
"I've found discussions with people like that go nowhere."
ReplyDeleteThat depends.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHello Paul,
ReplyDeleteLOL Well I hope that you fixed your typo on p.11 of the article that I didn't read.
Paul wrote: "I believe God infallibly knows 'what they would have done' for he infallibly knows all the possible states he could determine."
But I had preemptively addressed that point, knowing that it was both (a) the determinist's only way out, and (b) non sequitur.
I wrote: "Now if we say, 'Well, that would only be true because God would have determined their contingent actions,' that would defeat the whole point of Tyre and Sidon raising the issue in the first place! It would totally gut the moral and righteous indignation of those cities."
To that, you offered no response to my preemptive strike. Perhaps it is because you didn't read my post? Maybe you are the one who is so "confident" that he doesn't need to "waste" his time reading a short post. So why "engage the other side" if you wish to only hear your own opinions espoused, and never be challenged?
RICHARD COORDS SAID:
ReplyDelete"Notice that Tyre and Sidon are in the "wide path of destruction" line, and are simply defending themselves at the Great White Throne Judgment, as a means of *mitigating the damage,* so to speak. Now if Jesus' knowledge of what they "would have" done, had they seen what they unrepentant Jewish cities had seen and experienced, was not 100% infallible and perfectly accurate, then His knowledge of their contingent actions would have to be TOSSED OUT of the Great White Throne Judgment Court, on the basis of being inadmissible evidence, and as nothing more than 'divine speculation,' when yet instead, the fair Judge of all of the cosmos allows it anyway, because it is more than just divine speculation, but rather, 100% accurate, and yet purely contingent knowledge, even knowledge of things that never came to pass in the actualized in the real world, but would have, had they been in a similar situation."
God's counterfactual knowledge is perfectly consonant with Calvinism. For instance:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-predestination-is-all-freewill.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHello Steve,
ReplyDeleteEstablishing your context first: “The future is known to God because it has been determined by the decree of His free will. … In the eternal decree, all that comes to pass has been foreordained. There is no place for chance or indeterminacy in the system of reality. … God determined, by the free decree of His sovereign will, which of the possible worlds should be actualized. ... God freely chose to bring about this world rather than any of the other infinite possibilities.”
1) How do you, Steve, believe that God determines “infinite possibilities”?
2) By the force of reason, on what basis could Tyre and Sidon rise up on Judgment Day and say, “We’re better than you, Chorazin and Bethsaida!, because if we were under similar circumstances, unlike you, GOD would have determined us to repent. So there. We’re better. Wait. If God, ok, so then. (Ok, if we would have repented only because that was determined....) Oh well, Yeah, we’re better than you guys! See God, we deserve less punishment than them.”
Paraphrased:
“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, [I would have determined that they] would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, [I would have determined that] it would have remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.”
RICHARD COORDS SAID:
ReplyDelete"1) How do you, Steve, believe that God determines 'infinite possibilities'?"
Another example of your persistent reading incomprehension. Young didn't say God determines infinite possibilities. Rather, Young said God determines which possibilities to actualize.
Since your # 2) is not an argument, there's nothing to respond to.
1) But you said that the "infinite possibilities" only exist BECAUSE they are determined. No?
ReplyDelete2) My point is that the C paraphrase ruins the basis for the moral outrage of Tyre and Sidon. If you don't want to address it, that's your choice.
Richard,
ReplyDelete"LOL Well I hope that you fixed your typo on p.11 of the article that I didn't read."
I see: I found a typo on p.11, therefore I read 79 pages. Your reasoning is as sound here as it is elsewhere.
You didn't head off the objection, you dismissed the claim with a barely understandable sentence. Saying "that would defeat the whole purpose" is *hardly* an argument or a defeater. Give me a break and thanks for confirming why it's a waste of time to interact with you. But you run around with your plastic sword and in your underoos playing "bad guy" all you want, I'm not interested.
"By the force of reason, on what basis could Tyre and Sidon rise up on Judgment Day and say, “We’re better than you, Chorazin and Bethsaida!, because if we were under similar circumstances, unlike you, GOD would have determined us to repent. So there. We’re better."
ReplyDeleteLOL, if *Tyre and Sidon* were in similar circumstances they'd repent and not repent, given IDENTICAL past histories and reasons up until the action. On libertarian, there's an infinite amount of "similar circumstances," and so how can they say what they said? Since there is an infinite amount of similar circumstances, then do they repent in *all* of them? This looks like determinism. Or, is it at least *one* similar circumstance? Well, Chorazin and Bethsaida repent in at least some of them too.
"But you said that the "infinite possibilities" only exist BECAUSE they are determined. No?"
ReplyDeleteNo, it's because they're consistent with what God can do. They're states of affairs God could bring about.
RICHARD COORDS SAID:
ReplyDelete"1) But you said that the 'infinite possibilities' only exist BECAUSE they are determined. No?"
Wrong. Infinite possibilities exist because God is omnipotent.
No one can come to Christ unless God the Father draws them. All that God gives to His Son will come to Him.
ReplyDeleteThis truth is such an encouragement and good news. But there were those who hated it, and murmured and grumbled.
I think this sort of fits.