Is every "Miracle" a violation of "Free Will?"

[Lion IRC]

...A policeman, if he knew that someone was about to rape and kill an 8 year old girl, would likely do everything in his power to prevent the rapist from exercising his free will.

Perhaps the policemen should arrest the rapist long before they ever decide to commit the crime.
Perhaps the policeman can use his Jedi mind control powers and steer the thoughts of the potential rapist - actually depriving their free will and turning them into an automaton puppet.
Perhaps the policemen has a magic quantum particle zapper gun and can can just go around zapping potential rapists out of existence. Then he can do the same with potential murderers. Then bank robbers. And then con-artists. And then pick pockets. And then people who cheat on their income tax returns. And then queue-jumpers. And then everyone who drops litter. And then people who use profanity. And then graffiti vandals. And then people who blaspheme against the Police Department.....

...I've never heard a rationalization for this problem that didn't involve trying to sneak the power down on at least one of the three Tri's of the Tri-Omni spaceman. I know that's not what we started with but that's the explanation of the difference between the spaceman and the policeman in this hypothetical discussion.

Do you accept that God as law maker and law enforcer;

1. Has stated His Commandments and...
2. Warned of the punishment if we deliberately and unrepentantly violate those laws and
3. He does have the ability to enforce His laws.

If so, you can't accuse God of "allowing" sin.

 

[Lion IRC]

According to Paul's theology, all is predetermined by God. God's Providence. The man literally has no free will. Why then do men do evil? Augustine, Luther and Calvin's answwer....

Are you talking about the guy in the bible named Paul/Saul of Tarsus?

See Romans 1:18
Paul clearly lays responsibility on the person who freely chooses to reject what is plainly known about God.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

According to Paul's theology, all is predetermined by God. God's Providence. The man literally has no free will. Why then do men do evil? Augustine, Luther and Calvin's answwer....

Are you talking about the guy in the bible named Paul/Saul of Tarsus?

See Romans 1:18
Paul clearly lays responsibility on the person who freely chooses to reject what is plainly known about God.

Read Romans 9, 11 et al. Paul contradicts himself here? How about that! God the Great Potter et al.

 

[Lion IRC]

Happy to debate the doctrine of predestination/election with you if you like. I love bible study.
Wanna start a new thread about Calvinism?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Perhaps the policemen should arrest the rapist long before they ever decide to commit the crime.
Perhaps the policeman can use his Jedi mind control powers and steer the thoughts of the potential rapist - actually depriving their free will and turning them into an automaton puppet.
Perhaps the policemen has a magic quantum particle zapper gun and can can just go around zapping potential rapists out of existence. Then he can do the same with potential murderers. Then bank robbers. And then con-artists. And then pick pockets. And then people who cheat on their income tax returns. And then queue-jumpers. And then everyone who drops litter. And then people who use profanity. And then graffiti vandals. And then people who blaspheme against the Police Department.....

...I've never heard a rationalization for this problem that didn't involve trying to sneak the power down on at least one of the three Tri's of the Tri-Omni spaceman. I know that's not what we started with but that's the explanation of the difference between the spaceman and the policeman in this hypothetical discussion.

Do you accept that God as law maker and law enforcer;

1. Has stated His Commandments and...
2. Warned of the punishment if we deliberately and unrepentantly violate those laws and
3. He does have the ability to enforce His laws.

If so, you can't accuse God of "allowing" sin.

Again, God's creation of man and his nature.

1. Man created with and evil moral nature.
2. Man created with an indifferent moral nature.
3. Man created with a good moral nature.

For 1. and 2., man will do evil, as he has a crippled moral nature. If God is good, he would choose 3., creating all men with a good moral nature. Only God has a choice, and his choice is responsible for moral, if lots of moral evil exists. Which it appears obviously to be the case.

Our free will is constrained by our created moral nature. We have to have a moral nature and thus have
a not totally free will.

 

[Lion IRC]

...you can't accuse God of "allowing" sin

Of course, in atheology, (atheism) sin IS allowed.

In fact it's not even admitted to exist - there's no such thing as sin.

In atheology the unrepentant rapist and their victim both end up in the same place - neither heaven nor hell - just oblivion.

So which 'theology' (theism or atheism) is ultimately indifferent to sin/evil and turns an eschatological blind eye to the pointless actions of some miniscule, cosmically insignificant, carbon-based primate life form on a tiny spec called Earth that temporarily exists as part of a solar system, galaxy, universe, multiverse.... Ho Hum. Yawn.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

...you can't accuse God of "allowing" sin

Of course, in atheology, (atheism) sin IS allowed.

In fact it's not even admitted to exist - there's no such thing as sin.

In atheology the unrepentant rapist and their victim both end up in the same place - neither heaven nor hell - just oblivion.

So which 'theology' (theism or atheism) is ultimately indifferent to sin/evil and turns an eschatological blind eye to the pointless actions of some miniscule, cosmically insignificant, carbon-based primate life form on a tiny spec called Earth that temporarily exists as part of a solar system, galaxy, universe, multiverse.... Ho Hum. Yawn.

Sin is a theological idea that is defined as not following God's laws. With no God, there is no concept of sin.

But there are for atheologists, concepts of moral evil. Rape, Robbery, murder, war, ethnic cleansing and more. We atheists are very conscious of the difference. The idea that without God, all is permissable is wrong.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Happy to debate the doctrine of predestination/election with you if you like. I love bible study.
Wanna start a new thread about Calvinism?

You already challenged me on something like this and I posted a bunch of quotations from Luther, and Calvin and got ignored.

Yes, God predetermines and causes all to happen as it does happen, including evil. How to reconcile it all? Logic and reason out the window, utterly abandoned. God is incomprehensible.

 

[DBT]

No.

And I think both you and Atheos are confusing free will (intent) with ability.

No. Will is the drive or impulse to act. In the sequence of cognitive events, to act (motor action) follows the will - the thought, the desire, the drive, impulse -to act. There is a whole unconscious sequence of cognitive events that both precede and shape and form the the thought, the impulse, the will to act. Hence we have 'will' but it cannot be defined as 'free' will, and of course actions are based on will and so freely performed on the basis of the thought, impulse or will to carry them out. Freedom of action is not an example of freedom of will. That distinction was made centuries ago.

If the policeman puts me in handcuffs he isn't violating my free will - I still want to escape.

The policeman is thwarting your will, you want to be elsewhere but because you are being restrained against your will (your ability to act), you cannot act according to your will....which is not 'free' regardless of your circumstances due to the reasons outlined above.

 

[Lion IRC]

No. Will is the drive or impulse to act.

Don't you mean, yes I agree with you, will is the drive or impulse.
Because that's what I said - intent.

....In the sequence of cognitive events, to act (motor action) follows the will - the thought, the desire, the drive, impulse -to act.

WOW. So in order to violate free will (volition) the policeman would have to do more than just handcuff you. He would have to control your thoughts. That's amazing. It's also exactly what I have been saying. Freedom of will and freedom of ability are two different things. The handcuffs are the analogy with a miracle. God could miraculously intervene and place divine handcuffs on us that would physically prevent us from sinning - but He (obviously) hasn't.
We still have the freedom to form criminal intent.

....There is a whole unconscious sequence of cognitive events that both precede and shape and form the the thought, the impulse, the will to act.

A whole sequence of mysterious events in the mind which shape and form our desire/will/volition/intent?
Sure. No argument from me on that. Mind over matter is spooky.

....Hence we have 'will' but it cannot be defined as 'free' will,

WHOA!!! Hold on there pal. It can be defined precisely as free. By definition "will" is voluntary.
Will that isn't free will would be an oxymoron.

....Freedom of action is not an example of freedom of will. That distinction was made centuries ago.

I know. That's what I keep saying. I'm not the one blurring the lines here.
A miracle doesn't constitute a violation of our free will.
It might impede our freedom of action. It might physically stop Pharoah from persuing the Israelites across the Red Sea but like handcuffs, the will to act is still there nonetheless. And if Pharaoh decides the chase is futile (God wins) that's an example of Pharaoh changing his mind - he no longer WANTS to do what he previously had wanted to do.

If the policeman puts me in handcuffs he isn't violating my free will - I still want to escape.

The policeman is thwarting your will, you want to be elsewhere but because you are being restrained against your will (your ability to act), you cannot act according to your will....

I'm not sure why you keep reiterating stuff with which I AGREE.
Are you posting @me???


Cheerful Charlie - Did you want to start a debate thread on the topic of predestination/election theology? Perhaps the thread title could be "If God created us evil how is it that we actually ARE able to do the good He expects"

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Cheerful Charlie - Did you want to start a debate thread on the topic of predestination/election theology? Perhaps the thread title could be "If God created us evil how is it that we actually ARE able to do the good He expects"

Not really. This sort of "debate" is a waste of time.

https://www.the-highway.com/calvin's_calvinism_index.html

How much do you really know about any of this? have you actually read Calvin's two treatises where he tries to explain this? How much do you really know about Arminianism and the doctrine of prevenient grace? have you actually read Augustine's works against Pelagius? Have you read Luther's "Bondage of the Will"? Are you familiar with the verses that show we have no free will? And the contradictory verses? Islam. Al Qadar? The concept that lack of free will causes problems when you think about, so kalam, discourse of religious subjects is forbidden in Islam? Reason, abandoned! Long lists of ever so distinguished Islamic teachers over centuries agreeing kalam is haram?

And in the end, all agree, God is incomprehensible.

If at this point in time, you haven't really gone through all this material in depth, and understood how the ideas of predestination and providence as clearly found in the Bible or Quran demonstrate that logically, it doesn't work, it means such a debate would be me dragging up all of this at length and watching you try to deal with it when obviously, you haven't read or understood just how bad all of this theoloical argle bargle has been since the Essenes stated the proposition, there is no free will and all has been predetermined by God, a position Paul adopted clearly, as did the writer of Acts.

Calvin accepted the idea we have no free will and all is predetermined and God's providence plans all. His "Institutes of the Christian Religion" state this as theological dogmas. Challenged on this by Arthur Pighius, he then tries to deal with the problems the whole concept raises and fails. Read the two treatises I posted URLs to and see how it boils down to essentially divine command theory an ammoral God and cries "God is incomprehensible!".

Dp I really want to deal with the whole Arminian dodges to avoid the issue, the sophistries and verse mining nonsense at length with somebody who most assuredly has not read the relevant documents on both sides? I really don't want to get involved with the usual wall of text stuff where I have to educate somebody on all of this.

Then we get involved with side issues, Molinism, Plantinga's Free will Defense, et al. Attempts to dodge the issues of predestination providence and problem of evil in such a world.

The Biblical verses that give rise to these dogmas of predestination and providence are clear. Which is the problem. The theologians of today still struggle with the issue. Still trying to find a way around the issue. How many fairies can dance on the head of a pin. Perhaps Paul's theology is crap, maybe?

 

[Lion IRC]

Thats a very long-winded backdown from a debate challenge.
Trying to save face?

You might be surprised what I have read.

 

[Lion IRC]

I tell you what though, YOU have surprised me.

Anyone (apart from a 5-pointer) who can assert that..."the biblical verses which give rise to the dogmas of predestination and providence are clear." demonstrates a massive ignorance of how controversial those biblical verses are. They are NOT clear cut.

I admit that Calvin and Luther believed xyz but my challenge to you isn't whether or not they believed it. I'm challenging that their theology is unworkable.

Can anyone who is part of the elect tell you for sure that they are part of the elect? No.
They will admit they don't know - only God does according to their own doctrine.

How can a person who is (supposedly) created evil do good?

 

[Atheos]

Perhaps the policemen should arrest the rapist long before they ever decide to commit the crime.
Perhaps the policeman can use his Jedi mind control powers and steer the thoughts of the potential rapist - actually depriving their free will and turning them into an automaton puppet.
Perhaps the policemen has a magic quantum particle zapper gun and can can just go around zapping potential rapists out of existence. Then he can do the same with potential murderers. Then bank robbers. And then con-artists. And then pick pockets. And then people who cheat on their income tax returns. And then queue-jumpers. And then everyone who drops litter. And then people who use profanity. And then graffiti vandals. And then people who blaspheme against the Police Department.....

Yes, now you seem to be getting the picture. This all assumes a tri-omni individual of course.

...I've never heard a rationalization for this problem that didn't involve trying to sneak the power down on at least one of the three Tri's of the Tri-Omni spaceman. I know that's not what we started with but that's the explanation of the difference between the spaceman and the policeman in this hypothetical discussion.

Do you accept that God as law maker and law enforcer;

1. Has stated His Commandments and...
2. Warned of the punishment if we deliberately and unrepentantly violate those laws and
3. He does have the ability to enforce His laws.

If so, you can't accuse God of "allowing" sin.

First of all, I never accused "God" of allowing sin. I merely stated what is still yet an unchallenged truth: No tri-omni being can exist in an environment where suffering exists. It is absolutely necessary to turn down the "omni" on at least one of the three tri-'s in order to get a being that is compatible with this universe. Until you've done that you haven't touched the challenge I set forth.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Thats a very long-winded backdown from a debate challenge.
Trying to save face?

You might be surprised what I have read.

Again, I posted a lot of quotes when challenged and you didn't bother to reply. Why then should I waste further time with you?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I tell you what though, YOU have surprised me.

Anyone (apart from a 5-pointer) who can assert that..."the biblical verses which give rise to the dogmas of predestination and providence are clear." demonstrates a massive ignorance of how controversial those biblical verses are. They are NOT clear cut.

I admit that Calvin and Luther believed xyz but my challenge to you isn't whether or not they believed it. I'm challenging that their theology is unworkable.

Can anyone who is part of the elect tell you for sure that they are part of the elect? No.
They will admit they don't know - only God does according to their own doctrine.

How can a person who is (supposedly) created evil do good?

The Bible is ransacked for verses telling us God is good, merciful, just, and compassionate.
It's not a matter of knowing you are of the elect. It is a matter of God deciding some are elect, and some not, and it has nothing to do with a person's works, bad or good.

The Bible is ransacked for verses telling us God is good, merciful, just, and compassionate. But a God that arbitrarily chooses the elect and non-elect is then, none of those things. So the crabbing and sophistry begins to save appearances.

Paul's theology is this:, God chooses who is damned and who is saved and works have nothing to do with it. Romans 9 is said to be revealed theology by many Christians. Others get around all this by abandoning the verses they don't like. If revelation then isn't that, why bother with anything Paul writes?

Heads I win, tails Christianity loses.

Romans 9
¹¹ (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

¹² It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
¹³ As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
¹⁴ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
¹⁵ For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
¹⁶ So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Does this make sense if we claim God is fair, merciful, just and compassionate?

If God arbitrarily decides who is saved and who is reprobate and damned, what does this mean when we babble about free will? In the face of this theology, free will is impossible.

So we have three choices.

1. Accept Paul's theology as is, even though it is monstrous.
2. Reject the Bible as silly and intellectually impossible.
3. Try to allegorize away or argue away Paul's clear and unmistakable dogmatic claims.

I choose door # 2, Monty!

 

[DBT]

Don't you mean, yes I agree with you, will is the drive or impulse.
Because that's what I said - intent.

....In the sequence of cognitive events, to act (motor action) follows the will - the thought, the desire, the drive, impulse -to act.

WOW. So in order to violate free will (volition) the policeman would have to do more than just handcuff you. He would have to control your thoughts. That's amazing. It's also exactly what I have been saying. Freedom of will and freedom of ability are two different things. The handcuffs are the analogy with a miracle. God could miraculously intervene and place divine handcuffs on us that would physically prevent us from sinning - but He (obviously) hasn't.
We still have the freedom to form criminal intent.

....There is a whole unconscious sequence of cognitive events that both precede and shape and form the the thought, the impulse, the will to act.

A whole sequence of mysterious events in the mind which shape and form our desire/will/volition/intent?
Sure. No argument from me on that. Mind over matter is spooky.

....Hence we have 'will' but it cannot be defined as 'free' will,

WHOA!!! Hold on there pal. It can be defined precisely as free. By definition "will" is voluntary.
Will that isn't free will would be an oxymoron.

....Freedom of action is not an example of freedom of will. That distinction was made centuries ago.

I know. That's what I keep saying. I'm not the one blurring the lines here.
A miracle doesn't constitute a violation of our free will.
It might impede our freedom of action. It might physically stop Pharoah from persuing the Israelites across the Red Sea but like handcuffs, the will to act is still there nonetheless. And if Pharaoh decides the chase is futile (God wins) that's an example of Pharaoh changing his mind - he no longer WANTS to do what he previously had wanted to do.

If the policeman puts me in handcuffs he isn't violating my free will - I still want to escape.

The policeman is thwarting your will, you want to be elsewhere but because you are being restrained against your will (your ability to act), you cannot act according to your will....

I'm not sure why you keep reiterating stuff with which I AGREE.
Are you posting @me???

You are not in full agreement. You agree in part, you agree with the aspect that suits your own needs and position.

But the aspect that you claim to agree with is inseparable from the full narrative of what I said, and its implications.

Ignoring the implications and misrepresenting what I say, you impose your own beliefs onto the example.

You say ''WOW. So in order to violate free will (volition) the policeman would have to do more than just handcuff you. He would have to control your thoughts'' when I said something entirely different.

Nor have you established or even offered an argument for the reality of 'free' will, so to say 'in order to violate your free will' has no frames of reference. You have given none. You just continue to assert 'free will' as an ideology without a clear definition...except, perhaps, that it's mentioned in the bible.

 

[Lion IRC]

I

Thats a very long-winded backdown from a debate challenge.
Trying to save face?

You might be surprised what I have read.

Again, I posted a lot of quotes when challenged and you didn't bother to reply. Why then should I waste further time with you?

Let's go back and see what argument you adjoined to that wall of cut-and-paste. I don't recall seeing any perspective.
In fact I didn't see ANYTHING written by you.

Lets go back to post #34 and start a derail thread where we can dissect Luther and Calvin line by line.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...we can dissect Luther and Calvin line by line.

Is it just me or is that a giant waste of life and time?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

...we can dissect Luther and Calvin line by line.

Is it just me or is that a giant waste of life and time?

Or the Quran if you are so inclined.
I think probable waste of time and life is about right. All one can do is read the Bible, look at what Paul's supposed revelations say and note where that leads us.

Or the Quran if you are so inclined.

And then note the many attempts to avoid the logical problems that ensue. The Arminians and Calvinists still hotly debate this futile set of dogmas without end.

Simply put, if anyone reads the relevant Bible verses, we have a God who is not good because that God lacks justice, compassion, mercy et al, arbitrarily saving some, damning others. Contradicting claims God is good, just, merciful etc. God becomes an ammoral monster.

Self contradictory Bible "revelation". If somebody can read this and avoid the obvious conclusion, debate is going to be a waste of time.

The only way out is to abandon logic and reason, and many theologians, Christian, Moslem and others do exactly that. I can't follow. Religion leads to intellectual nihilism, and that is the point of all of this.