Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is everything part of God's plan?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by RBerman View Post
    Then the answer is, "People are not puppets, so no."
    So your answer is then: God does not cause everything.

    It's the same in my system, except without the constraint of describing God's will as LFW.
    But it is, how I defined LFW: that the causal chain began in the agent (in this case, God) rather than the causal chain beginning externally to the agent.

    The regress is not infinite; ultimately God is at the back of everything, as the Creator. Even if LFW were true, God is still ultimately responsible for making the person who used LFW. Also, it is not obvious to me that "final cause was not random" is sufficient to say that the overall event was not random, nor that "LFW is not random" is supported by anything except your need for it to be true.
    A final cause is not, itself, random or not. The presence or lack of final cause is what makes something random or not.
    If you mean something different than that when you say "random", then please define the term as you mean it.

    We are going in circles now; I already answered that question by saying that it mattered whether you're saying that Braniac has altered Bob's nature, so that he has a nature that wants different things than he used to want.
    I'm not sure I understand what distinction you are making. Whatever effect Braniac is effecting on Bob, we could suppose it is temporary or permanent. Does that make a difference to you? For the sake of argument we could suppose that Braniac is manipulating Bob by (temporarily) altering Bob's nature. What would your answer be then?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Joel View Post
      So your answer is then: God does not cause everything.
      Non sequitur. Once again, we are going in circles.

      [quote]But it is, how I defined LFW: that the causal chain began in the agent (in this case, God) rather than the causal chain beginning externally to the agent.
      Irrespective of how the causal chain begins, the issue of mechanical causation would come into play if one thinks there is an actual chain of events in which one causes another. If you disbelieve in mechanical causation (or at least do not account for it in your system), then there are no chains; every event is directly caused by God.

      A final cause is not, itself, random or not. The presence or lack of final cause is what makes something random or not. If you mean something different than that when you say "random", then please define the term as you mean it.
      It seems to me that one random factor in a chain of events is all that's necessary for the result of the whole chain to be random. I may have very strict rules for what happens if my coin flips odd or even. But if the coin flip were random, the outcome of my complicated rule would still be random, due to the presence of a random event upstream.

      I'm not sure I understand what distinction you are making. Whatever effect Braniac is effecting on Bob, we could suppose it is temporary or permanent. Does that make a difference to you? For the sake of argument we could suppose that Braniac is manipulating Bob by (temporarily) altering Bob's nature. What would your answer be then?
      Bob would be accountable for acting according to the nature he had at the moment of action.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by RBerman View Post
        Originally posted by Joel
        But it is, how I defined LFW: that the causal chain began in the agent (in this case, God) rather than the causal chain beginning externally to the agent.
        Irrespective of how the causal chain begins, the issue of mechanical causation would come into play if one thinks there is an actual chain of events in which one causes another. If you disbelieve in mechanical causation (or at least do not account for it in your system), then there are no chains; every event is directly caused by God.
        Fair enough. I intended chain to include even a "chains" of only 1 link (e.g., referring to God causing an effect, and that's it). If that's not a "chain" because a chain must have 2 or more links, then replace with whatever word you think suitable to refer to a causal sequence of length 1 or greater.

        It seems to me that one random factor in a chain of events is all that's necessary for the result of the whole chain to be random. I may have very strict rules for what happens if my coin flips odd or even. But if the coin flip were random, the outcome of my complicated rule would still be random, due to the presence of a random event upstream.
        I'm not sure what is a "random factor" or what it would mean for the coin flip to be "random". Are you still thinking of a "random factor" as being a certain kind of efficient cause? Because I don't know what that would be.

        And I'm not sure why that would bother you. You think that men act deterministically based on mechanical causal chains that originate externally to the agent. Whatever is the nature of the external origins of those chains, you still think that men act purposefully, right?

        Bob would be accountable for acting according to the nature he had at the moment of action.
        Okay now we are getting somewhere.
        So a mad scientist could invent a device that remotely manipulates your brain, and thereby control you like a puppet (at least that is how it would appear to the mad scientist who is determining your motions, even though you would not be aware of what's going on, because it's your nature being manipulated, and you desire to do all those actions), and you would be accountable for all those actions.

        Is the mad scientist culpable for your actions too?

        You also said that you see no relevant difference between this and manipulating someone by drugging them. So if someone slips you a roofie (or whatever) to manipulate you and get you to do what they want, then you are morally culpable for your actions?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Joel View Post
          Also, I always saw Ecclesiastes as saying things that are logical conclusions of nihilistic/Godless premises (absent of faith, hope, and love), which are not necessarily true. After all, if God is the cause of everything and everything is vanity, then God causes and does nothing but vanity? He acts in vain?
          No, not at all. Paul said, "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope." Just because God subjected us to "vanity" does not mean that he did something vain. He simply called his actions vanity or evil in human perspective. In the true perspective of the reality where God is the only being with life, He can never act evil; for there is no other life He would destroy.


          Woah, so you are concluding that no man has ever committed a sin.
          That is the conclusion of the revelation of God's mysteries. Else, given the flawed understanding of false teachers that man has free will, just because of imperfection, there will be zero possibility that man can stop sinning.


          It seems that would be much less plausible to reconcile with Scripture than that man has LFW.
          On the contrary, it is impossible for LFW to exist because of God's omniscience. It has been hundred of years that men are deluding themselves that they have free will. Actually since the time of Adam.


          The whole world is a stage by which we learn of the true power of God that he created ALL things. Do you really believe that God does not know the consequences when he put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden? How did God know that Christ would be the savior if he does not know the whole history of men, present and of things to come?


          And just because God asked us to serve him does not mean that we can really serve him. Rather, as Paul said, that God does not need anything! (Acts 17:24-26). The fact is regardless what comes in our heart, God is responsible of our steps! (Prov 16:9) Jeremiah says, "....I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps."(Jer 10:23) Paul boldly said, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;..."(Acts 17:28) And further, Paul openly implied that God is responsible for the vessels unto destruction(Rom 9:20-21).




          Those who believe in LFW don't disagree with that. They say that God created man, and created man's faculty of making LFW choices (and thus created the various possibilities that might ensue from the man's choices. And that everything including those contingent choices and their consequences are sustained in existence by God.

          They can disagree all they want, but because they cannot have a coherent concept of how LFW works, their objection is worth ignoring.


          "Everything" tends to need to be qualified when we get technical. For example, God did not create Himself, thus the "everything" in your phrase "creator of everything", doesn't include literally everything, because it doesn't include God. Traditional Christian theology holds that there are necessary truths, and necessary being.

          I do understand your point.


          So in answering my atheist friend you would take the side that we don't have free will, and everything is a giant puppet show put on by God.

          Don't put God's work as simple as what you are picturing.


          The knowledge and the experience that we gain is to prepare us to live in the kingdom that God had promised us. If you have an idea of the scenario of the kingdom of God, then you will come to know how useful our gained experiences and knowledge are.


          One thing, through this experience and of the knowledge we gain, we come to know the mystery of sin, and understand and know how to deal with it.

          If you would propose freewill in the kingdom to come, we will have the same scenario of kingdom that we have now. It is impossible to attain perfection without letting God do all the work.
          ...WISDOM giveth life to them that have it. (Ecclesiastes 7:12)
          ...the ISLES shall wait for his law (Isaiah 42:4)
          https://philippinesinprophecies.wordpress.com/

          Comment

          widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
          Working...
          X