Defining causes and determinism: Does God cause sin?
Here is Hasker's definition of determinism:
Determinism: For every event which happens, there are previous events and circumstances which are its sufficient conditions or causes, so that, given those previous events and circumstances, it is impossible that the event should not occur.
Is there something wrong with this definition? After all, Bill Hasker is one of those nasty open theists, who clearly can't be trusted. But the upshot of this definition would be that the decrees of God cause people to do what they do. You cannot have a deterministic world in which God decrees X and not-X occurs. Saying "God's decree doesn't cause people to sin" is just plain ludicrous.
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2008/05/defining-causes-and-determinism-does.html
Once upon a time, the Emperor of Siam established a trial by ordeal for the hand of his daughter. Behind one door was the princess. Behind another door was a tiger. Unbeknownst to the suitor, the door concealing the tiger was locked.
The suitor happened to choose the door concealing the princess. And the prince and princess lived happily ever after.
Under the circumstances, it was impossible for the suitor to choose the tiger. Hence, saying the Emperor didn’t cause the suitor to choose the princess is just plain ludicrous.
It is ludicrous. As are all of Frankfurt's smokescreens.
ReplyDeleteAny way you slice it the king guaranteed the outcome. Whether the prince and princess were ignorant of the fact or not is just irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteVictor,
ReplyDeleteYou’re acting like an intellectual clown. Adjectives (“Ludicrous!” “Smokescreens!” “Irrelevant!”) are a sorry substitute for arguments. If you’re incapable of constructing a rational case for your position, then why don’t you make it official and join the circus?
I'm just looking at definitions. Is there something wrong with the definition here? The king provided a sufficient cause. The result was overdetermined in this case, however. Was the sin of Adam overdetermined, or the sin of Satan??
ReplyDeleteIf you provide the sufficient conditions for something, you provide a determining cause.
I find a certain irony in your comments on my tone in this discussion. You have said that I endorsed open theism when I said all I said was that it wasn't absurd and wasn't a reductio, you said that I was worshipping wood-nymphs or whatever since I was rejecting Calvinism and at least taking open theism seriously. I find that you consistently indulge in overheated tone that I would never use.
The bottom line is this. Supplying a sufficient cause for something is to guarantee its occurrence.
In your system, if there is a decree, there is a sin. If there is no decree there is no sin. It's theological determinism pure and simple. If Calvinism is true the God causes sins. Go ahead and believe it if you want to, well, to avoid begging the question, if God predestines you to do so, or because you think that Bible teaches it. Just don't tell me that God is not the cause of sin. On a counterfactual analysis of causation, God's decrees cause sins. It's that simple.
Of course, how you get around James 1:13 may be difficult if you admit these conclusions, which seem to me to be clearly right.
ReplyDelete"The bottom line is this. Supplying a sufficient cause for something is to guarantee its occurrence.
ReplyDeleteIn your system, if there is a decree, there is a sin. If there is no decree there is no sin. It's theological determinism pure and simple."
**********
Since God infallibly fore*knew* that particular sins would happen, to go ahread with the creation anyway *guraranteed* their occurance - or else God din't know it would happen.
In your system, if there is creation, there is sin. If there is no creation, there is no sin.
Your God causes sin, Victor.
I don't know how you'll get around James 1 now.
C'mon, Paul, that's just silly. Do you mean to tell us that you can't see the difference?
ReplyDeleteI just took his exact words.
ReplyDeleteHe can clarify.
See, part of our debate has been about applying terms that we do to the created realm, to the realm of the Creator.
Part of our debate has been over Reppert's constant use of self-excepting fallacies.
Part of our debate has been my pleading fro him to get precise and interact with Calvinust theologians.
Vict said, if there is no decree, there is no sin.
So, if there is no creation, there is no sin.
I mirrored his commment.
See, every time Victor tries to implicate my God, I do so his.
Part of my argument, which has wnet entirely unanswered, is that Victor can't answer problem of evil questions.
So, I'll be as "silly" as Victor is.
I'll treat his position with the respect mine is given.
If you want to take over for Victor, be my guest. If not, don't complain about my argumentative strategy.
Here's a new post.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/but-bill-hasker-said-so.html
VICTOR REPPERT SAID:
ReplyDelete“I find a certain irony in your comments on my tone in this discussion.”
I don’t object to your tone. I object to your intellectual frivolity. Your evasive behavior—as well as the shoddy arguments you keep dashing off.
“You have said that I endorsed open theism when I said all I said was that it wasn't absurd and wasn't a reductio.”
That’s not “all” you said. You said you were “pretty sympathetic” to open theism. That’s a far stronger claim than merely saying it isn’t absurd.
“You said that I was worshipping wood-nymphs or whatever since I was rejecting Calvinism and at least taking open theism seriously.”
I say that because you leapfrog from one position to another. Sometimes you play the Arminian. Other times the open theist. Still other times the universalist. Any escape hatch will do.
“I find that you consistently indulge in overheated tone that I would never use.”
And when you say that if Calvinism is true, God is an “Omnipotent Fiend,” that’s your idea of polite understatement?