Open Theism Discussion Board
  HomeLog InRegisterSearch the ForumHelp
   
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
 
Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
178 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
 
   Posted 5/9/2003 6:31 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Anyone care to comment on this? I'm interested in hearing responses.

1. All events are either caused or uncaused.
2. Caused events are predetermined in their outcomes.
3. Uncaused events are random and arbitrary in their outcomes.
4. Events that are predetermined are not acts of free will.
5. Events that occur at random are not acts of free will.
6. All events are predetermined and/or random in their outcomes. (1, 2, 3)
7. All events are not acts of free will. (4, 5, 6)
. Free will does not exist. (7)


"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell
Back to Top
 

Laika
Registered Member




Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
 
   Posted 5/9/2003 6:56 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:

Anyone care to comment on this? I'm interested in hearing responses.

2. Caused events are predetermined in their outcomes.



When you throw a basketball at the hoop, your intention is that it will go through but it doesn't always, does it?

How about:

1. It appears I have free will.
2. In light of no evidence to the contrary, I conclude I have free will.



Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?

Edited by - Laika on 05/09/2003 12:17:41 PM
Back to Top
 

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
 
   Posted 5/9/2003 7:27 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
When you shoot the basketball, you do not know the outcome beforehand, true. But if you could throw it at the precise right angles, etc., the laws of physics would dictate that it go in a certain direction.
A machine can accurately make it into the basket each time - the outcome is predicted when certain physical criteria are met.
Flying an airplane is another example of this.

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell
Back to Top
 

Laika
Registered Member




Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
 
   Posted 5/9/2003 7:45 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:

When you shoot the basketball, you do not know the outcome beforehand, true. But if you could throw it at the precise right angles, etc., the laws of physics would dictate that it go in a certain direction.
A machine can accurately make it into the basket each time - the outcome is predicted when certain physical criteria are met.
Flying an airplane is another example of this.



Oh I see your point. If all causes are by God, all events will turn out exactly as He intends. I agree. If the entirety of creation is comprehensively caused/determined by God, it will unravel exactly as He intends. There is no free will. The entire creation is mechanistic and deterministic. Yes, logically it all holds together then. Is that your experience of life? That's not you squeezing the toothpaste out of the tube but God causing that? We're just a happy puppets on strings?

I did choose a bad example. Let me retry:
My identical twin and I grew up together. So we have real similar nature and nuture. In life we have chosen similarly and differently. The similarity can be chalked up to similarity in DNA and environment. The dissimilarity can be chalked up to ?



Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?

Edited by - Laika on 05/09/2003 1:04:56 PM
Back to Top
 

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
 
   Posted 5/9/2003 8:01 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Are you even familiar with what determinism, soft determinism, and free will are?
Your statement, are you happy being a puppet on a string. That's not at all what determinism is about. Plus, my happiness has nothing to do with whether a proposition or theory is true or not.

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell
Back to Top
 

Laika
Registered Member




Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
 
   Posted 5/9/2003 8:07 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:

Are you even familiar with what determinism, soft determinism, and free will are?



"Soft determinism"? Nope.

quote:

Your statement, are you happy being a puppet on a string. That's not at all what determinism is about. Plus, my happiness has nothing to do with whether a proposition or theory is true or not.



Sorry, that was a 10,000 Manics song running through my mind.

I did choose a bad example. Let me retry:
My identical twin and I grew up together. So we have real similar nature and nuture. In life we have chosen similarly and differently. The similarity can be chalked up to similarity in DNA and environment. The dissimilarity can be chalked up to ?




Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?

Edited by - Laika on 05/09/2003 1:08:31 PM
Back to Top
 

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
 
   Posted 5/9/2003 8:08 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
The dissimilarity may be chalked up to experience. Just because siblings are twins don't mean they are subjected to the exact same experiences. Experience shapes their personality, outlook, etc.

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell
Back to Top
 

Laika
Registered Member




Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
 
   Posted 5/9/2003 8:10 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:

The dissimilarity may be chalked up to experience. Just because siblings are twins don't mean they are subjected to the exact same experiences. Experience shapes their personality, outlook, etc.



"Experience" being choices and consequences.

Is God the only agent of cause?



Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?
Back to Top
 

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
 
   Posted 5/9/2003 8:14 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
No. I argue that God is the first cause, but there are infinite numbers of causes. The thing which determines what the will chooses is not the will itself but rather motives which come from outside the will. Whatever the strongest motive is determines the will.
A simple example, why am I hungry? Is it because God is at this moment telling me I'm hungry? Of course not. It is b/c of a physical sensation arising from the cause of no energy in my body (sorry, I don't know much about the process, but you see what i mean.) But I can't choose myself whether I am hungry or not. I either am or am not.

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell
Back to Top
 

Laika
Registered Member




Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
 
   Posted 5/9/2003 8:19 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:

No. I argue that God is the first cause, but there are infinite numbers of causes.



One of which is me throwing a basketball at a hoop. I miss.
So point 2. Caused events are predetermined in their outcomes. is not true.

Yes, if God throws the ball, He'll make it everytime. But not me.


Hunger is biological and cannot be chosen. But aren't there choices that are purely arbitrary?


Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?

Edited by - Laika on 05/09/2003 1:32:46 PM
Back to Top
 

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
 
   Posted 5/9/2003 9:29 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I don't think even you would agree that there are purely arbitrary choices. Can you give me an example? Even something as simple as, today I decide, for no reason, that i want to eat a chocolate bar. The influence is that you like the taste of chocolate. Some people don't, some are allergic, and so on. The fact that you enjoy the taste influenced your decision to eat it.

All humans (and animals for that matter) have survival instinct. This is inborn. You do not choose to survive. From this survival instinct arises the pleasure/pain principle. Every decision is weighed according to this principle. The older and more knowledgeable we get, the more we are capable of analyzing complex matters. Of course, our intellects are prone to error. Our decisions are influenced by whether we are alert or tired, drunk or sober, ill or healthy, in addition to our cultural programming and genetic proclivities.

We all make decisions by using our will, although most decisions are so fast and automatic we hardly notice the "will." When we have a hard decision to make, or a serious one, we do notice will or effort. In both cases, your will, or decisionmaking power, is supplied by your survival instinct and the weighing is done according to the pleasure/pain principle. You do not decide what gives you pleasure or pain, your experience teaches you this.

This is not merely biological. The chain of causation is there - it just is, in everything we do, each choice we make. None of us chooses our parents, our genes, or the culture or religion we are born into - that is determined without us having any influence at all. There are some things that the human cannot affect at all, such as who our parents are, other things, the human can influence the change, such as religion. But what would it be that would cause you to choose christianity over Islam, for example? It is not an arbitrary choice. It may not be a choice at all if you just ARE a Christian or Muslim because that's what youre born into. But everything has a cause. Every choice has a cause.

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell
Back to Top
 

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
 
   Posted 5/9/2003 9:29 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I don't think even you would agree that there are purely arbitrary choices. Can you give me an example? Even something as simple as, today I decide, for no reason, that i want to eat a chocolate bar. The influence is that you like the taste of chocolate. Some people don't, some are allergic, and so on. The fact that you enjoy the taste influenced your decision to eat it.

All humans (and animals for that matter) have survival instinct. This is inborn. You do not choose to survive. From this survival instinct arises the pleasure/pain principle. Every decision is weighed according to this principle. The older and more knowledgeable we get, the more we are capable of analyzing complex matters. Of course, our intellects are prone to error. Our decisions are influenced by whether we are alert or tired, drunk or sober, ill or healthy, in addition to our cultural programming and genetic proclivities.

We all make decisions by using our will, although most decisions are so fast and automatic we hardly notice the "will." When we have a hard decision to make, or a serious one, we do notice will or effort. In both cases, your will, or decisionmaking power, is supplied by your survival instinct and the weighing is done according to the pleasure/pain principle. You do not decide what gives you pleasure or pain, your experience teaches you this.

This is not merely biological. The chain of causation is there - it just is, in everything we do, each choice we make. None of us chooses our parents, our genes, or the culture or religion we are born into - that is determined without us having any influence at all. There are some things that the human cannot affect at all, such as who our parents are, other things, the human can influence the change, such as religion. But what would it be that would cause you to choose christianity over Islam, for example? It is not an arbitrary choice. It may not be a choice at all if you just ARE a Christian or Muslim because that's what youre born into. But everything has a cause. Every choice has a cause.

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 5/9/2003 11:02 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
ReasonableDoubt

Anyone care to comment on this? I'm interested in hearing responses.

1. All events are either caused or uncaused.
2. Caused events are predetermined in their outcomes.
3. Uncaused events are random and arbitrary in their outcomes.
4. Events that are predetermined are not acts of free will.
5. Events that occur at random are not acts of free will.
6. All events are predetermined and/or random in their outcomes. (1, 2, 3)
7. All events are not acts of free will. (4, 5, 6)
8. Free will does not exist. (7)




R.D., THIS is by someone who was being very logical and analytical about the matter. (He was also the Kalif to the Sultan of Damascus.)

quote:
Concerning Free Will and Predestination

by St. John of Damascus (8th cent.)

From his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chs. 25-30

Chapter 25. Concerning what is in our own power, that is, concerning Free-will.

The first enquiry involved in the consideration of free-will, that is, of what is in our own power, is whether anything is in our power: for there are many who deny this. The second is, what are the things that are in our power, and over what things do we have authority? The third is, what is the reason for which God Who created us endued us with free-will? So then we shall take up the first question, and firstly we shall prove that of those things which even our opponents grant, some are within our power. And let us proceed thus.

Of all the things that happen, the cause is said to be either God, or necessity, or fate, or nature, or chance, or accident. But God’s function has to do with essence and providence: necessity deals with the movement of things that ever keep to the same course: fate with the necessary accomplishment of the things it brings to pass (for fate itself implies necessity): nature with birth, growth, destruction, plants and animals; chance with what is rare and unexpected. For chance is defined as the meeting and concurrence of two causes, originating in choice but bringing to pass something other than what is natural: for example, if a man finds a treasure while digging a ditch: for the man who hid the treasure did not do so that the other might find it, nor did the finder dig with the purpose of finding the treasure: but the former hid it that he might take it away when he wished, and the other’s aim was to dig the ditch: whereas something happened quite different from what both had in view. Accident again deals with casual occurrences that take place among lifeless or irrational things, apart from nature and art. This then is their doctrine. Under which, then, of these categories are we to bring what happens through the agency of man, if indeed man is not the cause and beginning of action? for it would not be right to ascribe to God actions that are sometimes base and unjust: nor may we ascribe these to necessity, for they are not such as ever continue the same: nor to fate, for fate implies not possibility only but necessity: nor to nature, for nature’s province is animals and plants: nor to chance, for the actions of men are not rare and unexpected: nor to accident, for that is used in reference to the casual occurrences that take place in the world of lifeless and irrational things. We are left then with this fact, that the man who acts and makes is himself the author of his own works, and is a creature endowed with free-will.

Further, if man is the author of no action, the faculty of deliberation is quite superfluous for to what purpose could deliberation be put if man is the master of none of his actions? for all deliberation is for the sake of action. But to prove that the fairest and most precious of man’s endowments is quite superfluous would be the height of absurdity. If then man deliberates, he deliberates with a view to action. For all deliberation is with a view to and on account of action.

Chapter 26. Concerning Events.

Of events, some are in our hands, others are not. Those then are in our hands which we are free to do or not to do at our will, that is all actions that are done voluntarily (for those actions are not called voluntary the doing of which is not in our hands), and in a word, all that are followed by blame or praise and depend on motive and law. Strictly all mental and deliberative acts are in our hands. Now deliberation is concerned with equal possibilities: and an ‘equal possibility’ is an action that is itself within our power and its opposite, and our mind makes choice of the alternatives, and this is the origin of action. The actions, therefore, that are in our hands are these equal possibilities: e.g. to be moved or not to be moved, to hasten or not to hasten, to long for unnecessaries or not to do so, to tell lies or not to tell lies, to give or not to give, to rejoice or not to rejoice as fits the occasion, and all such actions as imply virtue or vice in their performance, for we are free to do or not to do these at our pleasure. Amongst equal possibilities also are included the arts, for we have it in our power to cultivate these or not as we please.

Note, however, that while the choice of what is to be done is ever in our power, the action itself often is prevented by some dispensation of the divine Providence.

Chapter 27. Concerning the reason of our endowment with Free-will.

We hold, therefore, that free-will comes on the scene at the same moment as reason, and that change and alteration are congenital to all that is produced. For all that is produced is also subject to change. For those things must be subject to change whose production has its origin in change. And change consists in being brought into being out of nothing, and in transforming a substratum of matter into something different. Inanimate things, then, and things without reason undergo the aforementioned bodily changes, while the changes of things endowed with reason depend on choice. For reason consists of a speculative and a practical part. The speculative part is the contemplation of the nature of things, and the practical consists in deliberation and defines the true reason for what is to be done. The speculative side is called mind or wisdom, and the practical side is called reason or prudence. Every one, then, who deliberates does so in the belief that the choice of what is to be done lies in his hands, that he may choose what seems best as the result of his deliberation, and having chosen may act upon it. And if this is so, free-will must necessarily be very closely related to reason. For either man is an irrational being, or, if he is rational, he is master of his acts and endowed with free-will. Hence also creatures without reason do not enjoy free-will: for nature leads them rather than they nature, and so they do not oppose the natural appetite, but as soon as their appetite longs after anything they rush headlong after it. But man, being rational, leads nature rather than nature him, and so when he desires aught he has the power to curb his appetite or to indulge it as he pleases. Hence also creatures devoid of reason are the subjects neither of praise nor blame, while man is the subject of both praise and blame.

Note also that the angels, being rational, are endowed with free-will, and, inasmuch as they are created, are liable to change. This in fact is made plain by the devil who, although made good by the Creator, became of his own free-will the inventor of evil, and by the powers who revolted with him, that is the demons, and by the other troops of angels who abode in goodness.

Chapter 28. Concerning what is not in our hands.

Of things that are not in our hands some have their beginning or cause in those that are in our power, that is to say, the recompenses of our actions both in the present and in the age to come, but all the rest are dependent on the divine will. For the origin of all things is from God, but their destruction has been introduced by our wickedness for our punishment or benefit. For God did not create death, neither does He take delight in the destruction of living things. But death is the work rather of man, that is, its origin is in Adam’s transgression, in like manner as all other punishments. But all other things must be referred to God. For our birth is to be referred to His creative power; and our continuance to His conservative power; and our government and safety to His providential power; and the eternal enjoyment of good things by those who preserve the laws of nature in which we are formed is to be ascribed to His goodness. But since some deny the existence of Providence, let us further devote a few words to the discussion of Providence.

Chapter 29. Concerning Providence.

Providence, then, is the care that God takes over existing things. And again: Providence is the will of God through which all existing things receive their fitting issue. But if Providence is God’s will, according to true reasoning all things that come into being through Providence must necessarily be both most fair and most excellent, and such that they cannot be surpassed. For the same person must of necessity be creator of and provider for what exists: for it is not meet nor fitting that the creator of what exists and the provider should be separate persons. For in that case they would both assuredly be deficient, the one in creating, the other in providing. God therefore is both Creator and Provider, and His creative and preserving and providing power is simply His good-will. For whatsoever the Lord pleased that did He in heaven and in earth, and no one resisted His will. He willed that all things should be and they were. He wills the universe to be framed and it is framed, and all that He wills comes to pass.

That He provides, and that He provides excellently, one can most readily perceive thus. God alone is good and wise by nature. Since then He is good, He provides: for he who does not provide is not good. For even men and creatures without reason provide for their own offspring according to their nature, and he who does not provide is blamed. Again, since He is wise, He takes the best care over what exists.

When, therefore, we give heed to these things we ought to be filled with wonder at all the works of Providence, and praise them all, and accept them all without enquiry, even though they are in the eyes of many unjust, because the Providence of God is beyond our ken and comprehension, while our reasonings and actions and the future are revealed to His eyes alone. And by "all" I mean those that are not in our hands: for those that are in our power are outside the sphere of Providence and within that of our Free-will.

Now the works of Providence are partly according to the good-will(of God) and partly according to permission. Works of good-will include all those that are undeniably good, while works of permission are....... For Providence often permits the just man to encounter misfortune in order that he may reveal to others the virtue that lies concealed within him, as was the case with Job. At other times it allows something strange to be done in order that something great and marvelous might be accomplished through the seemingly-strange act, as when the salvation of men was brought about through the Cross. In another way it allows the pious man to suffer sore trials in order that he may not depart from a right conscience nor lapse into pride on account of the power and grace granted to him, as was the case with Paul.

One man is forsaken for a season with a view to another’s restoration, in order that others when they see his state may be taught a lesson, as in the case of Lazarus and the rich man. For it belongs to our nature to be east down when we see persons in distress. Another is deserted by Providence in order that another may be glorified, and not for his own sin or that of his parents, just as the man who was blind from his birth ministered to the glory of the Son of Man. Again another is permitted to suffer in order to stir up emulation in the breasts of others, so that others by magnifying the glory of the sufferer may resolutely welcome suffering in the hope of future glory and the desire for future blessings, as in the case of the martyrs. Another is allowed to fall at times into some act of baseness in order that another worse fault may be thus corrected, as for instance when God allows a man who takes pride in his virtue and righteousness to fall away into fornication in order that he may be brought through this fall into the perception of his own weakness and be humbled and approach and make confession to the Lord.

Moreover, it is to be observed that the choice of what is to be done is in our own hands: but the final issue depends, in the one case when our actions are good, on the cooperation of God, Who in His justice brings help according to His foreknowledge to such as choose the good with a right conscience, and, in the other case when our actions are to evil, on the desertion by God, Who again in His justice stands aloof in accordance with His foreknowledge.

Now there are two forms of desertion: for there is desertion in the matters of guidance and training, and there is complete and hopeless desertion. The former has in view the restoration and safety and glory of the sufferer, or the rousing of feelings of emulation and imitation in others, or the glory of God: but the latter is when man, after God has done all that was possible to save him, remains of his own set purpose blind and uncured, or rather incurable, and then he is handed over to utter destruction, as was Judas. May God be gracious to us, and deliver us from such desertion.

Observe further that the ways of God’s providence are many, and they cannot be explained in words nor conceived by the mind.

And remember that all the assaults of dark and evil fortune contribute to the salvation of those who receive them with thankfulness, and are assuredly ambassadors of help.

Also one must bear in mind that God’s original wish was that all should be saved and come to His Kingdom. For it was not for punishment that He formed us but to share in His goodness, inasmuch as He is a good God. But inasmuch as He is a just God, His will is that sinners should suffer punishment.

The first then is called God’s antecedent will and pleasure, and springs from Himself, while the second is called God’s consequent will and permission, and has its origin in us. And the latter is two-fold; one part dealing with matters of guidance and training, and having in view our salvation, and the other being hopeless and leading to our utter punishment, as we said above. And this is the case with actions that are not left in our hands.

But of actions that are in our hands the good ones depend on His antecedent goodwill and pleasure, while the wicked ones depend neither on His antecedent nor on His consequent will, but are a concession to free-will For that which is the result of compulsion has neither reason nor virtue in it. God makes provision for all creation and makes all creation the instrument of His help and training, yea often even the demons themselves, as for example in the cases of Job and the swine.

Chapter 30. Concerning Prescience and Predestination.

We ought to understand that while God knows all things beforehand, yet He does not predetermine all things. For He knows beforehand those things that are in our power, but He does not predetermine them. For it is not His will that there should be wickedness nor does He choose to compel virtue. So that predetermination is the work of the divine command based on fore-knowledge. But on the other hand God predetermines those things which are not within our power in accordance with His prescience. For already God in His prescience has prejudged all things in accordance with His goodness and justice.

Bear in mind, too, that virtue is a gift from God implanted in our nature, and that He Himself is the source and cause of all good, and without His co-operation and help we cannot will or do any good thing, But we have it in our power either to abide in virtue and follow God, Who calls us into ways of virtue, or to stray from paths of virtue, which is to dwell in wickedness, and to follow the devil who summons but cannot compel us. For wickedness is nothing else than the withdrawal of goodness, just as darkness is nothing else than the withdrawal of light While then we abide in the natural state we abide in virtue, but when we deviate from the natural state, that is from virtue, we come into an unnatural state and dwell in wickedness.

Repentance is the returning from the unnatural into the natural state, from the devil to God, through discipline and effort.

Man then the Creator made male, giving him to share in His own divine grace, and bringing him thus into communion with Himself: and thus it was that he gave in the manner of a prophet the names to living flyings, with authority as though they were given to be his slaves. For having been endowed with reason and mind, and free-will after the image of God, he was filly entrusted with dominion over earthly things by the common Creator and Master of all.

But since God in His prescience knew that man would transgress and become liable to destruction, He made from him a female to be a help to him like himself; a help, indeed, for the conservation of the race after the transgression from age to age by generation. For the earliest formation is called ‘making’ and not ‘generation.’ For ‘making ‘ is the original formation at God’s hands, while ‘generation’ is the succession from each Other made necessary by the sentence of death imposed on us ‘on account of the transgression.

This man He placed in Paradise, a home that was alike spiritual and sensible. For he lived in the body on the earth in the realm of sense, while he dwelt in the spirit among the angels, cultivating divine thoughts, and being supported by them: living in naked simplicity a life free from artificiality, and being led up through His creations to the one and only Creator, in Whose contemplation he found joy and gladness.

When therefore He had furnished his nature with free-will, He imposed a law on him, not to taste of the tree of knowledge. Concerning this tree, we have said as much as is necessary in the chapter about Paradise, at least as much as it was in our power to say. And with this command He gave the promise that, if he should preserve the dignity of the soul by giving the victory to reason, and acknowledging his Creator and observing His command, he should share eternal blessedness and live to all eternity, proving mightier than death: but if forsooth he should subject the soul to the body, and prefer the delights of the body, comparing himself in ignorance of his true dignity to the senseless beasts, and shaking off His Creator’s yoke, and neglecting His divine injunction, he will be liable to death and corruption, and will be compelled to labor throughout a miserable life. For it was no profit to man to obtain incorruption while still untried and unproved, lest he should fall into pride and under the judgment of the devil. For through his incorruption the devil, when he had fallen as the result of his own free choice, was firmly established in wickedness, so that there was no room for repentance and no hope of change: just as, moreover, the angels also, when they had made free choice of virtue became through grace immovably rooted in goodness.

It was necessary, therefore, that man should first be put to the test (for man untried and unproved would be worth nothing), and being made perfect by the trial through the observance of the command should thus receive incorruption as the prize of his virtue. For being intermediate between God and matter he was destined, if he kept the command, to be delivered from his natural relation to existing things and to be made one with God’s estate, and to be immovably established in goodness, but, if he transgressed and inclined the rather to what was material, and tore his mind from the Author of his being, I mean God, his fate was to be corruption, and he was to become subject to passion instead of passionless, and mortal instead of immortal, and dependent on connection and unsettled generation. And in his desire for life he would cling to pleasures as though they were necessary to maintain it, and would fearlessly abhor those who sought to deprive him of these, and transfer his desire from God to matter, and his anger from the real enemy of his salvation to his own brethren. The envy of the devil then was the reason of man’s fall. For that same demon, so full of envy and with such a hatred of good, would not suffer us to enjoy the pleasures of heaven, when he himself was kept below on account of his arrogance, and hence the false one tempts miserable man with the hope of Godhead, and leading him up to as great a height of arrogance as himself, he hurls him down into a pit of destruction just as deep.


Taken from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 9. St. John of Damascus is a very important Orthodox Church Father. His eighth century Exact Exposition is seen as a very accurate summation and synthesis of Orthodox doctrine. It thus is a very authoritative compendium of the teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church.

Back to Top
 

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member




Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
 
   Posted 5/9/2003 1:13 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:

Anyone care to comment on this? I'm interested in hearing responses.

1. All events are either caused or uncaused.
2. Caused events are predetermined in their outcomes.
3. Uncaused events are random and arbitrary in their outcomes.
4. Events that are predetermined are not acts of free will.
5. Events that occur at random are not acts of free will.
6. All events are predetermined and/or random in their outcomes. (1, 2, 3)
7. All events are not acts of free will. (4, 5, 6)
. Free will does not exist. (7)


The logic is good, but I don't see why we should accept premise 2. Premise 2 is only true with respect to lawlike deterministic causality, but not all causation is of this sort--or at least that is a highly controversial assumption. It does not hold for the stochastic (probabilistic) causation that we see in, say, quantum mechanics. When uranium undergoes radioactive decay there's a definite probability that any particular uranium atom will undergo decay in a given time. The process is neither deterministic nor random.

Now one might counter that what we really have here is something that is partly caused and partly uncaused. The caused part is deterministic, whereas the uncaused part is random. I think this is probably mistaken. From what I have read on quantum mechanics, unless something like instantaneous action at a distance happens (and there is no evidence it does), the processes are irreducibly stochastic.

Premise 4 is also questionable. Why can't free will be part of the determining causes of some events? For example, if I freely decide to lift my arm right now and do so, then my free choice is at least part of what caused my arm to rise in that my arm would not have risen had I not decided to raise it.

Now one might argue with this by saying "was your deciding to raise your arm caused or uncaused?" I would answer that it is caused--I am a sufficient agent cause of my own decisions. In agent causation, the causal chain stops with an agent, not an event. Thus premises 1-5 don't apply at that point because we are no longer dealing with events.

Anyway, that's how I'd respond to the argument. Good question, RD.

Alan
Back to Top
 

DLW
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
 
   Posted 5/9/2003 2:17 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
As a lawyer, you obviously know that proving causation is very, very difficult. So one may start out with a neat dichotomy between caused and not caused, but real life isn't so neat.

As an economist, I consider predetermination to be a non-refutable hypothesis. Consider Chaos theory. Any apparently random fluctuation may be the product of a highly complex deterministic system.

However, Rhoda is right, much of Science presumes what C.S. Peirce called Tychism, the reality of Chance, or non-predetermined effects.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 5/9/2003 2:27 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Interesting (!), Alan and DLW.
Back to Top
 

Seesaw
Registered Member


Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 70
 
   Posted 5/9/2003 8:49 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
ReasonableDoubt- not many comments at this time and not certain to the extent I agree or disagree but you have made some valid points causing my mind to ponder what you are saying! I have not looked at it this way before- that I CHOOSE to eat chocolate yet my choice is due to the fact that I have taste buds that enjoy the taste. How true! I choose to watch t.v. but this is only because God created me with two eyes, two ears, and a brain to process it all. Would I choose to watch t.v. if I had no eyes? I make the choice of career but is it really a choice considering that if I do not work, I do not eat? How much choice do I truly have? We boast much of our free will but if we ponder these points you are making, it does cause some reflective thinking on free will.



Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 5/9/2003 10:40 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Seesaw: I CHOOSE to eat chocolate yet my choice is due to the fact that I have taste buds that enjoy the taste. How true!

Tom: "Choosing to eat chocolate because we have taste buds" proves compatibilism?

Seesaw: I choose to watch t.v. but this is only because God created me with two eyes, two ears, and a brain to process it all.

Tom: Your choice to watch TV is not ONLY because God created you with two eyes, two ears, and a brain. He also created you with a free will. Hmmm?

Would you say this: "I choose to strangle my children, but this is ONLY because God created me with with two hands and a brain to process it all"?

Seesaw: Would I choose to watch t.v. if I had no eyes?

Tom: Perhaps. You could listen to your shows. Why not? Point is, you can have eyes and choose NOT to watch TV. Having eyes doesn't determine your choice.

Seesaw: I make the choice of career but is it really a choice considering that if I do not work, I do not eat?

Tom: I'm glad to see that you instinctively realized that if you cannot do other than choose a job, then choosing a job is not really a "choice" at all. Your question assumes power to the contrary.

Actually, some people choose not to work knowing that if they don't they don't eat. They're called hunger-strikers.

"Not eating if you don't work" is a very strong INFLUENCE (and ought to be) leading us to work for ourselves. But it doesn't itself DETERMINE the responsible choice to work for outselves.

Seesaw: How much choice do I truly have?

Tom: Choice to NOT eat chocolate although you have taste buds, and choice to not watch TV although you have eyes and a brain, and choice to not work and pay for your own food although you could like thousands of others get by on handouts or starve yourself to death for a cause you believe in strongly enough.

Seesaw: We boast much of our free will but if we ponder these points you are making, it does cause some reflective thinking on free will.

Tom: Our free will as persons is what makes us MOST like God (bear God's image). God prizes our freedom MORE than any of us do.

Tom

Back to Top
 

Laika
Registered Member




Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
 
   Posted 5/10/2003 7:26 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
ReasonableDoubt
quote:

I don't think even you would agree that there are purely arbitrary choices. Can you give me an example?



Isaiah 14
quote:

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.



What caused Lucifer's pride? Self-created or caused by God?




Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?
Back to Top
 

JET
Registered Member


Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
 
   Posted 5/10/2003 11:45 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Anyone care to comment on this? I'm interested in hearing responses.
1. All events are either caused or uncaused.
2. Caused events are predetermined in their outcomes.
3. Uncaused events are random and arbitrary in their outcomes.
4. Events that are predetermined are not acts of free will.
5. Events that occur at random are not acts of free will.
6. All events are predetermined and/or random in their outcomes. (1, 2, 3)
7. All events are not acts of free will. (4, 5, 6)
. Free will does not exist. (7)


According to this argument, the Creation event (however this event may be conceived) was either:

(a) uncaused, random and arbitrary and not an act of God’s free will (from 1,3,5)

or

(b) predetermined and not an act of God’s free will (from 1,2, 4)

Does either of these alternatives describe your view of Creation? If not, don’t you have to grant that God has free will? And if you grant that God has free will, then don’t you have to grant that the concept of free will is coherent and that free will does in fact exist?

And if God is omnipotent, couldn’t he create us (in his image) with a limited version of this ability to start a causal chain in a way that is not random and arbitrary?


Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 5/10/2003 11:51 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Oooo, JET, nicely done. Nice.

Tom

Back to Top
 

Cliffy
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 26
 
   Posted 5/10/2003 2:51 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Here's one thing I just realized reading all of this:

How can something be pre-determined and NOT have a free-will determining it? Think about it, what else can determine anything except a will that is free to at least some extent? Or at least something that is free enought to choose amidst perhaps countless possibilites?

How can anything be truly arbitary? Free-will doesn't imply arbitariness to me, it seems to uphold it's opposite.

I would think that they way GOD is determines to the most extent what
the way the world is... Just thiniking out loud here! Nice discussion folks!

Cliffy


Back to Top
 

Seesaw
Registered Member


Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 70
 
   Posted 5/10/2003 4:02 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Good point Laika.

On Lucifer & free will: Lucifer chose to act with pride; however, God chose to cast him out of heaven and God determined what his destiny would be. Satan has free will only to the extent that God allows... thank goodness! If Satan truly had free will apart from the control of God, he'd be ruling heaven and God would be cast out!

Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 5/10/2003 5:28 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:

If Satan truly had free will apart from the control of God, he'd be ruling heaven and God would be cast out!



Sorry but I just had to jump in on this. Seesaw, do you honestly believe that Satan would be able to overpower God? Not THAT my friend, portrays a very WEAK view of omniPOTENCE!




"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net
Back to Top
 

Seesaw
Registered Member


Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 70
 
   Posted 5/10/2003 5:39 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
John Earp, did you not see the word "IF"??

Satan is only "free" to the extent that God allows just as we are only free to the extent that God allows.

Back to Top
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
178 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:52 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads