Free Will versus Everything For A Reason

[Politesse]

TheChristian narrative, at least one of them

1. God creates humans endowed with free will
2. Got sets rules
3. Humans who obey are rewarded eternally
4. Humans who disobey are punished eternally


Free will is essential for Christians, otherwise they are obedient automations
Not unlike Greek mythology and I believe Hindu as well.

Free will versus predestination (election) is very famously a point of vigorous internal argument between Christians of varying branches.

It's almost what you'd expect if they worshipped different Gods.

You think worshiping the same God results in intellectual uniformity? I'm not sure history agrees with you on that point!

 

[DBT]

TheChristian narrative, at least one of them

1. God creates humans endowed with free will
2. Got sets rules
3. Humans who obey are rewarded eternally
4. Humans who disobey are punished eternally


Free will is essential for Christians, otherwise they are obedient automations
Not unlike Greek mythology and I believe Hindu as well.

Free will versus predestination (election) is very famously a point of vigorous internal argument between Christians of varying branches.

There is no need for debate, free will and predestination are incompatible. If predestination or determinism, then no free will (the ability to do otherwise in the same circumstances). Compatibalism is a flawed argument.

 

[Treedbear]

It's almost what you'd expect if they worshipped different Gods.

You think worshiping the same God results in intellectual uniformity? I'm not sure history agrees with you on that point!

If all they have in common is the belief in a Christ Jesus they might as well believe in different Gods. History has shown there's no way to reconcile those two opposing concepts. Protestants and Catholic theologians merely tolerate each other.

 

[Politesse]

TheChristian narrative, at least one of them

1. God creates humans endowed with free will
2. Got sets rules
3. Humans who obey are rewarded eternally
4. Humans who disobey are punished eternally


Free will is essential for Christians, otherwise they are obedient automations
Not unlike Greek mythology and I believe Hindu as well.

Free will versus predestination (election) is very famously a point of vigorous internal argument between Christians of varying branches.

There is no need for debate, free will and predestination are incompatible. If predestination or determinism, then no free will (the ability to do otherwise in the same circumstances). Compatibalism is a flawed argument.

There are many Christians who believe in free will, and many Christians who only accept predestination.

 

[DBT]

There is no need for debate, free will and predestination are incompatible. If predestination or determinism, then no free will (the ability to do otherwise in the same circumstances). Compatibalism is a flawed argument.

There are many Christians who believe in free will, and many Christians who only accept predestination.

No doubt. As long as they don't question or argue amongst themselves on matters of free will or predestination.

 

[Learner]

..........
There are many recorded free-will v predestination debates between theists on youtube - if anyone is interested.

 

[DBT]

..........
There are many recorded free-will v predestination debates between theists on youtube - if anyone is interested.

There are many arguments. That compatibalism is a failed argument does not appear to stop compatibalists from trying.

 

[Politesse]

There is no need for debate, free will and predestination are incompatible. If predestination or determinism, then no free will (the ability to do otherwise in the same circumstances). Compatibalism is a flawed argument.

There are many Christians who believe in free will, and many Christians who only accept predestination.

No doubt. As long as they don't question or argue amongst themselves on matters of free will or predestination.

You seem to be having a very hard time understanding an incredibly simple idea, here.

Yes, they do argue. Did argue. It's been a major point of contention for centuries. Compatibilism has nothing to do with it.

 

[steve_bank]

Christians create endless streams of interpretations, little of it based in actual scripture. The bible is short on specifics so Christians interpolate meaning and god's will.


Interpretaion is the basis of the wide diversity in Christianity outside of the Vatican.

Free will i one of those unanswerable perennial questions.

How many angels can fit on the head of a pin? Lets have some vigorous debate.

 

[Treedbear]

There is no need for debate, free will and predestination are incompatible. If predestination or determinism, then no free will (the ability to do otherwise in the same circumstances). Compatibalism is a flawed argument.

There are many Christians who believe in free will, and many Christians who only accept predestination.

No doubt. As long as they don't question or argue amongst themselves on matters of free will or predestination.

I guess that's the genius of having a God of three persons. The community can totally disagree among themselves about one of them and yet claim to believe in the same God.

 

[Politesse]

Christians create endless streams of interpretations, little of it based in actual scripture. The bible is short on specifics so Christians interpolate meaning and god's will.


Interpretaion is the basis of the wide diversity in Christianity outside of the Vatican.

Free will i one of those unanswerable perennial questions.

Not just in Christian contexts. I've had many run-ins with atheists on this topic over the years. It seems to be an issue that European culture struggles with in general.

Personally, I do not find the though of so-called "determinism" disturbing. I prefer to think that science will one day be able to reasonably describe the processes of human thought without recourse to vaguely and inconsistently defined abstract concepts, as the alternative case would be baffling and kind of upsetting. If decision-making is all down to mystical twaddle in the end, then the social sciences as a whole can never truly be a valid field of study. Science requires the assumption of phenomenological uniformitarianism to function.

 

[steve_bank]

Child abuse and rape and other things I find disturbing.

The idea of predestination, determinism, or whatever does not disturb me.

In our liberal democracy think and debate what you please, just leave me out of it. Atheist, theist, or whatever.

A true story.

I was getting a ride with a Muslim from Sri Lanka between two company facilities in the 80s. As we were going down the highway he said he did not have insurance, he trusted in god. That is faith for you.

In the extreme Christians have refused medical services for their kids saying it was in god's hands. More rationalizing via faith.

 

[DBT]

No doubt. As long as they don't question or argue amongst themselves on matters of free will or predestination.

You seem to be having a very hard time understanding an incredibly simple idea, here.

Yes, they do argue. Did argue. It's been a major point of contention for centuries. Compatibilism has nothing to do with it.

You are wrong. In case you are not aware, some argue that it does. They argue that free will is compatible with determinism and that we have God given free will in a determined or predestined world.

 

[Politesse]

No doubt. As long as they don't question or argue amongst themselves on matters of free will or predestination.

You seem to be having a very hard time understanding an incredibly simple idea, here.

Yes, they do argue. Did argue. It's been a major point of contention for centuries. Compatibilism has nothing to do with it.

In case you are not aware, some argue that it does. They argue that free will is compatible with determinism and that we have God given free will in a determined world.

Yes, I know that. It has, however, nothing whatsoever to do with my post that you complained about. I wasn't, and wouldn't be, advocating for "compatibilism". It's lovely when people get along and all, but there isn't really a halfway point between two concepts if one of the concepts is nonsensical. My only point, in that post, was to disagree on factual grounds with Steve's seeming claim that all Christians believed in free will, a claim that John Calvin would rather strenuously object to. To clarify, Calvin was also not a compatibilist.

 

[steve_bank]

Arguing is the nature of the beast. Aquinas was a Vatican hit man who went around debating.

I have seen Christians on TV in heated arguments over who is the 'real Christian'.

 

[DBT]

In case you are not aware, some argue that it does. They argue that free will is compatible with determinism and that we have God given free will in a determined world.

Yes, I know that. It has, however, nothing whatsoever to do with my post that you complained about. I wasn't, and wouldn't be, advocating for "compatibilism". It's lovely when people get along and all, but there isn't really a halfway point between two concepts if one of the concepts is nonsensical. My only point, in that post, was to disagree on factual grounds with Steve's seeming claim that all Christians believed in free will, a claim that John Calvin would rather strenuously object to. To clarify, Calvin was also not a compatibilist.

I wasn't denying your point. I was adding to it by pointing out that there are some who want it both ways, free will and predestination.

 

[James Madison]

Theological fatalism.

God is claimed to have created everything. and to be essentially omniscient, having full knowledge of the future. If God decides to create a Universe, God must choose an initial state of creation. From that, God will know how that future will actualize and know all the future contingent facts of that Universe.

So no sentient being in that created Universe has free will. All their moral acts are predestined. If Jane is a good person and get eternal bliss in heaven, God decided to create the Universe where that happens. If John is created an evil person who does many evil acts, and suffers torments in hell forever, God chose that fate for John.

So God gets all credit for all moral evils in any world God creates. Theologians have been trying yo dodge this theological problem for centuries. The ancient Greeks wrestled with the problem of fatalism, predating Christianity.

My particular version here is a bit stronger than usually presented. God must choose an initial state of creation to actualize any created world. God knows that free will does not exist in this Universe God creates. If God decides to create a Universe with horrendous moral evils, God knows he and only he is responsible.


Isaiah 41:22-3
22 Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the
former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end
of them; or declare us things for to come.
23 Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods:
yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.

Isaiah 42:9
"Behold, the former things have come to pass, Now I declare new
things; Before they spring forth I proclaim them to you."

See:
Isaiah 41:22-3, Isaiah 42:9, Isaiah 44:6-7, Isaiah 46:10,
Jeremiah 1:5, Daniel 2:28, Exodus 3:19, Deuteronomy 31:21,
1 Samuel 23:10-13, Psalm 139:4-5 & 16, John 16:13, Acts 2:23,
Acts 3:18, Acts 4:27-28, Ephesians 1:11, Romans 8:29, Romans 11:2


This is found in Christianity with it's claims that all is predestined, God's providence, immanence, election hardening of hearts (God does not value free will), and related issues.

Foreknowledge of future events is not incompatible with free will, where free will is understood as a person is the cause for some decision, action, behavior, and the person is not being caused to do something by causes other than himself/herself.

God's foreknowledge is not incompatible with free will. His foreknowledge is not necessarily a cause for one's actions, behaviors, decision.

 

[abaddon]

Foreknowledge of future events is not incompatible with free will, where free will is understood as a person is the cause for some decision, action, behavior, and the person is not being caused to do something by causes other than himself/herself.

God's foreknowledge is not incompatible with free will. His foreknowledge is not necessarily a cause for one's actions, behaviors, decision.

Yes, I agree with this. If there was such thing as psychism, and I were psychic, and I foresaw an event, it doesn't cause the event. It does not put me into the cause-effect chain of those events.

God as first cause means he's in the cause-effect chain and bears responsibility. But not foreknowledge. Distant knowing of how things will end up does not force them to end up that way.

 

[Treedbear]

Foreknowledge of future events is not incompatible with free will, where free will is understood as a person is the cause for some decision, action, behavior, and the person is not being caused to do something by causes other than himself/herself.

God's foreknowledge is not incompatible with free will. His foreknowledge is not necessarily a cause for one's actions, behaviors, decision.

Yes, I agree with this. If there was such thing as psychism, and I were psychic, and I foresaw an event, it doesn't cause the event. It does not put me into the cause-effect chain of those events.

God as first cause means he's in the cause-effect chain and bears responsibility. But not foreknowledge. Distant knowing of how things will end up does not force them to end up that way.

Yeah, except that God is supposed to be both omniscient and omnipotent. But (as I said earlier) it's the same basic argument that's been made against human free will. If God can foresee the future then that future can't be changed without contradicting the premise of God's omniscience, therefore human will would not be free in the religious sense. I'm just saying that to be logically consistent the same restriction must apply to God himself. If God had the power to change the future then what he foresaw would have been mistaken. God would either have to be completely impotent concerning any matter that would change the future or else have an imperfect knowledge of the future. I see no way around that. It's the classic paradox faced by the time traveler. Omniscience, omnipotence, and free will are mutually incompatible. Being omniscient means seeing the future as it will be. Not the possible future. Any being with a brain can do that.

 

[abaddon]

Yeah, except that God is supposed to be both omniscient and omnipotent....

That combo matters.

But the foreknowledge is just knowledge, not a causal force. An event "z" will happen, and that event is the end result of all the circumstances and choices that precede it. Knowing what "z" is doesn't constrain what the choices are though, because "z" doesn't exist until after the choices are made.

If God has the power to change the future*, then his foreknowledge will necessarily reflect all such changes. To think it constrains him requires that his foreknowledge is knowledge of an event that has, in effect, already happened. The conundrum you present assumes "z" has already somehow happened for being fore-known and thereby becomes something that can or cannot be "changed".

* as people put it, as if "the future" is a thing already