 |
| 
chestertonian
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 31
| Posted 11/30/2003 11:37 PM (GMT -6) |   | True, but whether they believe me is also determined by the strength of my case, as all human beings have logic as one of their determinants. So if I can make a good case (because I have been determined as a disputant) it should be true, and therefore should convince someone unless he or she has a vested interest in not accepting it.
Of course, if people do have free will, they can just arbitrarily pick whether they believe me or not, and I'm rather wasting my time. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/1/2003 4:14 AM (GMT -6) | | chestertonian: ...whether they believe me is also determined by the strength of my case...
Tom: The strenth of your case has little to do with whether they believe it or not, for the strenght or weakness of your case and their ability to reason and process your case are both equally unconditionally determined by God. Are you going to actually hold somebody accountable for not agreeing with what you were determined to believe is an air-tight case? On what grounds? 
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
chestertonian
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 31
| Posted 12/1/2003 4:24 AM (GMT -6) | | You seem to think that because quote:
[the strength or weakness of your case and their ability to reason and process your case are both equally unconditionally determined by God
, this means that we cannot determine truth. You say "The strength of your case has little to do with whether they believe it or not," but my point was exactly that, as we are all endowed with reason by our Creator, the default determinant of whether someone believes something is whether it has sound logical backing. If someone believes something that is false, then the reason is that they are either insufficiently informed, or have some vested interest in what they believe. Luckily people are designed to debate, and thus you and I will come to some conclusion.
Out of interest, do you believe, as I said earlier, quote:
if people do have free will, they can just arbitrarily pick whether they believe me or not, and I'm rather wasting my time?
Or is this another example of free will being something which no one really believes, unless their own is challenged? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/1/2003 5:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by chestertonian
You seem to think that because quote:
[the strength or weakness of your case and their ability to reason and process your case are both equally unconditionally determined by God
, this means that we cannot determine truth.
Actually, all I suggest it means is that we can only determine the truth we're determined by God to determine, and we can only not determine the truth we are determined by God not to determine.
So, yes, we "can" determine the truth. But only in the sense of our being able to do what we're determined unconditionaly by God to do.
Can you explain to me in what meaningful sense we "can" or are "able" to determine truth we are not determined by God to determine?
quote:
...but my point was exactly that, as we are all endowed with reason by our Creator, the default determinant of whether someone believes something is whether it has sound logical backing.
Not really. The default determinant you mention is only the "secondary cause" of a person's believing something. This determinant, however, is as unconditionally determined by God as everything else going on in the exchange of a debate. God has obviously determined many people to believe things without sound logical backing, and other to believe in spite of sound logical backing. The soundness of the argument is a secondary cause of belief. What "determines" whether they believe or not is the unconditional will of God. Given THAT beginning point, the strenght or weakness of logical arguments are incidentals. One may claim that the "bat" is what drives the ball out of the park. But nobody credits the bat or holds it responsible. it's the batter that determines the bats role in the game.
quote:
If someone believes something that is false, then the reason is that they are either insufficiently informed, or have some vested interest in what they believe.
The immediate or secondary reason may be misinformation or unwillingness to believe. But this a smoke screen if we believe the misinformation and unwillingness are as unconditionally determined by God as everything else.
quote:
Luckily people are designed to debate, and thus you and I will come to some conclusion.
I'm sure God had some reason for determining us to love debate as well as for determining the conclusions we reach.
quote:
Out of interest, do you believe, as I said earlier, [quote]if people do have free will, they can just arbitrarily pick whether they believe me or not, and I'm rather wasting my time?
No. I don't think libertarian choices are "arbitrary." For now, answer me a question. Do you think God's choice to create the world was determined? Was God as free to create as he was free to abstain from creating? Interestingly, most compatibilists argue God's choice to create was free in the libertarian sense. They want to argue God was free to do other than create. Would this make God's choice to create arbitrary?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
chestertonian
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 31
| Posted 12/1/2003 5:56 AM (GMT -6) | | In answer to your question, I do not regard the libertarian definition of free will to be coherent. I can say that I believe that God created the world due to his nature, if that's any use. I would like to make clear that I am not a compatibilist. I am a determinist. quote:
The soundness of the argument is a secondary cause of belief. What "determines" whether they believe or not is the unconditional will of God. Give THAT beginning point, the strenght or weakness of logical arguments are incidentals. One may claim that the "bat" is what drives the ball out of the park. But nobody credits the bat or holds it responsible. it's the batter that determines the bat's role in the game.
I don't think your analogy here is accurate. That would be like saying that the reason the earth orbits the sun, or the reason that anything else happens, is due to God's will. That's technically true but unhelpful. The ultimate cause of anything is God. That's what God is. But the efficient cause varies. In your analogy the batter would have to have determined the nature of the ball, since it is the way the ball moves in the sense of the rules governing its movement, rather than just the specific force at a given time. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/1/2003 7:03 AM (GMT -6) | | chestertonian: I do not regard the libertarian definition of free will to be coherent. I can say that I believe that God created the world due to his nature, if that's any use.
Tom: Do you think God's choosing not to create at all would have been as consistent with his nature as was his choosing to create?
chestertonian: I would like to make clear that I am not a compatibilist. I am a determinist.
Tom: Cool. But as I understand them, "compatibilism" and "determinism" do not differ in their affirming that creation is exhaustively determined.
OK. So let's have your airtight proof that self-determining free will is wrong.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
chestertonian
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 31
| Posted 12/1/2003 10:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Ross: Does your screen name have anythin to do with GK Chesterton?
Me: Yes it does. I'm very fond of him as a novelist and pop theologian. He has a strong emphasis on this world being just a sort of metaphor for a spiritual reality. I find the idea fascinating.
1) I'm very unclear as to what the difference is between an ultimate cause and an efficient cause, unless you mean by efficient cause what Tom has been referring to as a "secondary cause." Could you offer a little clarification?
When I say, 'efficient cause', I mean the thing that caused the event directly. So, if you put dough in the oven, the efficient cause of the bread is the heat, but the ultimate cause is your desire for bread.
2) Do you hold to the orthodox Christian belief that God is morally good?
Yes, I do. I believe that the nature of God is the same as Good, so that rather than either 'God does good because it is good,' or 'Good is good because God says so,' I believe that God is by his nature both the paragon and source of virtue.
3) Why do people not believe in God (I'm sure you've met lots of Atheists) if He gave them a rational mind and what comes before their mind is "ultimately" determined by Him.
Because God necessarily had to make each individual person what he or she is, or he or she would not have been that specific person. So some people have to consider themselves atheists, in order to work through their own trajectory of existence. If we all were the same it would be unnecessary for there to be more than one of us.
Tom: Do you think God's choosing not to create at all would have been as consistent with his nature as was his choosing to create?
No. No more than God choosing to sin would be possible. God's existence is identical with his essence. So everything he does is determined by his nature.
Tom: Cool. But as I understand them, "compatibilism" and "determinism" do not differ in their affirming that creation is exhaustively determined.
No, but compatibilism seems to claim that there can still be some sort of libertarian free will, which I don't believe.
Tom: OK. So let's have your airtight proof that self-determining free will is wrong.
You'll have it tommorrow. It has lots of different parts, so shall we deal with them one by one or in a mass? Shall I just start with a section and we can debate it?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
chestertonian
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 31
| Posted 12/1/2003 10:38 PM (GMT -6) | | | Hurrah. I got the format thing to work by just writing b in square brackets. It's like being a computer programmer but without the need for any actual technical skill. Excellent. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/1/2003 11:23 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom: Cool. But as I understand them, "compatibilism" and "determinism" do not differ in their affirming that creation is exhaustively determined.
chestertonian: No, but compatibilism seems to claim that there can still be some sort of libertarian free will, which I don't believe.
Actually, compatibilists deny libertarian free will (power to the contrary). They argue 'compatibilistic free will' which is simply the freedom to choose what God unconditionally determines you do. Straightforward theological determinists who are NOT compatibilists don't attempt to explain moral responsibility. THey just say God has a right to determine us to choose sinfully and then send us to hell for it if he wants to. He's God.
chestertonian: You'll have it tommorrow. It has lots of different parts, so shall we deal with them one by one or in a mass? Shall I just start with a section and we can debate it?
Tom: Why don't you outline it first. Just post the points without arguing them so we'll know where we're going, and then jump in a the beginning.
Now, am I right in understanding that all the points you're going to argue have NEVER been argued before? I thought you were gonna give us something we haven't seen yet. I sure hope so.
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
chestertonian
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 31
| Posted 12/1/2003 11:51 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Straightforward theological determinists who are NOT compatibilists don't attempt to explain moral responsibility. THey just say God has a right to determine us to choose sinfully and then send us to hell for it if he wants to. He's God.
Please read my answer to Ross's second question for a clarification of what I think about God's morality. I'm also tentatively hopeful about universal salvation.
I'm certainly going to post something that hasn't been previously seen here. I'm not claiming absolute novelty though. I need to find a couple of links on the internet so that when I say, 'blah blah this experiment shows this' people can look it up and say 'oh yes so it does' or 'no, wait a minute...'. But those experiments aren't vital. Will post an outline later then so you can sift the possible wheat from the chaff (or possibly just put it all in a big chaff bag, depending on whether my arguments are plain dumb).
Regards,
C. | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 12/2/2003 4:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Chestertonian,
I'm a Chesterton fan myself! "Orthodoxy" is one of the best books I've read, although I'm surprised that you enjoy his works because he has some pretty harsh things to say about determinists, theists or not.
Thank you for your responses to my questions. Now I don't want to get off the subject, but I've got to ask a couple of more questions. In reply to my question you said quote:
When I say, 'efficient cause', I mean the thing that caused the event directly. So, if you put dough in the oven, the efficient cause of the bread is the heat, but the ultimate cause is your desire for bread.
It seems to me that in your understanding of reality a person's desire for bread is NOT the ultimate cause, God is the ultimate cause. The reason that I stress this point is it brings up lots of problems when we come to moral decisions. Take a murder for example. The efficient cause of death is the knife that stabbed the man, but the murderer's desire is not the ULTIMATE cause, God is. There can be only one ultimate cause, right?
Also, you said quote:
Yes, I do. I believe that the nature of God is the same as Good, so that rather than either 'God does good because it is good,' or 'Good is good because God says so,' I believe that God is by his nature both the paragon and source of virtue.
andquote:
Because God necessarily had to make each individual person what he or she is, or he or she would not have been that specific person. So some people have to consider themselves atheists, in order to work through their own trajectory of existence. If we all were the same it would be unnecessary for there to be more than one of us.
So, if
1) God is by nature the source of virtue.
2) God HAD to make each individual person what he or she is because his actions are necessitated by his nature.
then
3) each person (and every event) is good as a product of God's nature.
This conclusion goes against the witness of scripture and conscience that there are some acts that are not good-- sin.
Finally, you said quote:
I'm also tentatively hopeful about universal salvation.
Why are you hopeful for universal salvation? Would this be a GOOD thing? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I think that there is some inconsistency in your statements. Hopefully you can clarify some of this for me.
Looking forward to your response,
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
chestertonian
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 31
| Posted 12/2/2003 4:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
In reply to my question you said quote:
When I say, 'efficient cause', I mean the thing that caused the event directly. So, if you put dough in the oven, the efficient cause of the bread is the heat, but the ultimate cause is your desire for bread.
It seems to me that in your understanding of reality a person's desire for bread is NOT the ultimate cause, God is the ultimate cause. The reason that I stress this point is it brings up lots of problems when we come to moral decisions. Take a murder for example. The efficient cause of death is the knife that stabbed the man, but the murderer's desire is not the ULTIMATE cause, God is. There can be only one ultimate cause, right?
Yes, but the relevant moral cause (as it were) is the murderer's murderousness. This will block him from knowing God and must be healed. In my view, things are right or wrong because they build a wall between man and God.
quote:
Also, you said quote:
Yes, I do. I believe that the nature of God is the same as Good, so that rather than either 'God does good because it is good,' or 'Good is good because God says so,' I believe that God is by his nature both the paragon and source of virtue.
andquote:
Because God necessarily had to make each individual person what he or she is, or he or she would not have been that specific person. So some people have to consider themselves atheists, in order to work through their own trajectory of existence. If we all were the same it would be unnecessary for there to be more than one of us.
So, if
1) God is by nature the source of virtue.
2) God HAD to make each individual person what he or she is because his actions are necessitated by his nature.
then
3) each person (and every event) is good as a product of God's nature.
This conclusion goes against the witness of scripture and conscience that there are some acts that are not good-- sin.
But God is always known to be the source of virtue. However, we are cut off from him in our minds and in our hearts, and so are all lost and afraid. Thus we sin, through fear and ignorance. However, each event is as it had to be, and a judgement on it has to rely on knowledge of all its effects, which clearly we cannot have.
quote:
Why are you hopeful for universal salvation? Would this be a GOOD thing? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I think that there is some inconsistency in your statements. Hopefully you can clarify some of this for me.
If, as I'm claiming, sin is our alienation from God, then I hope that eventually everyone can be reclaimed. But as I say, I'm hopeful rather than thinking it can be demonstrated. All Mind belongs with God.
If you like Chesterton, have you read the Napoleon of Notting Hill? I actually think it's very theological in many ways. And I'm reading The Soul Of A Bishop, which again is very good.
Look forward to hearing from you,
Regards,
C. | | Back to Top | | |
|
chestertonian
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 31
| Posted 12/3/2003 1:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi, I've posted a broad response (not my proper answer, mind) here (http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2838), so you can start on locating my laughably obvious logical errors.
Ross, I should have said that "Soul of a Bishop" is by Wells in his vaguely religious phase, just in case I seemed to be inventing GKC novels.
Would anyone be interested in a book discussion group starting with GKC and spreading out? It's just that all his stuff is available at www.gutenberg.org, so we could download and swap ideas. Just a thought.
Will post properly soon, when I don't have flu.
Regards,
C. | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 12/8/2003 10:49 AM (GMT -6) | | geebob
quote:
Of what I could follow, (or of what I missed but my fellow students pointed out to me), I was confirmed in something I have been saying all along. Open theists, if they want an open future are going to have to start treating each moment like it's own distinct possible world. Honestly, I don't understand how you could do otherwise if you are some sort of actualist and some sort of presentist. This seemed to be confirmed in Walter Shultz's paper and explicitely stated by Micheal REa in his plenary session.
Yes, geebob could you expand a little on this? An operational definition type of statement, if you would be so kind. | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 12/9/2003 2:24 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| 44 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:11 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|