@gbrooks9 You are the one who posted the chart in this thread originally. I assumed it was from the wikipedia article you linked.
I am delighted to see my favorite chart again! It is a rock solid differentiation.
I am a Theological Compatibilist because it is only through God’s divine agency that Human Free Will is even sensible to discuss. If there were no God, then authentic Free Will would be inpossible to discuss rationally. Ironically, Dennett, one of the Four Horsemen of Modern Atheism, convinced me if this position!
@Jeremy_Christian, which part of this chart bothers you?
Well, this feels like a trap. I’m guessing you know exactly what I’m going to say. But that’s good because apparently this conversation needs to be had. This gives me a good idea why free will has gone over like a lead balloon so far. We’ll fix that.
Okay, obviously, what bothers me is that the correct option is not represented. I have no square to stand. In fact, I find it troubling that it’s not there. Troubling.
So… @Jeremy_Christian…
Which (imaginary?) square do you think the medieval scholars could have possibly left out?
If you’ve been pitching your Free Will stuff for years… im surprised this is such a dilemma for you.
Im sure you are happy that we both agree on free will. Now we just gotta find out how your analysis differs from mine…
I think it’s pretty apparent the disconnect is about Theological Determinism. What disturbs me is that understanding the fourth square should be there is key to correctly reading and understanding the story being told.
So, first question to get things rolling… In the case of God testing Abraham, you think God knew (assuming your conclusion is based on His omnipotence) what Abraham would do? So, why do the test?
The reason i dont stand on that square is because i think its bunk.
So you really cant ask me to justify a square that is bunk.
YOU have to explain why YOUR square is valid, and should be wedged into that chart… and so maybe you should start by defining your (illusory?) square?
I am. First I need you to answer this question about Abraham.
@Jeremy
Part of the reason , but not alk rhr reasons, i reject the square is because i dont have an answer.
So give us the RIGHT answer.
Theological determinism isn’t possible because of free will. If free will is possible, then theological determinism isn’t.
It’s important to understand this. What we do through free will God really doesn’t know. Yes, God is omniscient. God sees all time all at once. This is true.
God doesn’t have to wait for us to do something to know what we’ll do. But we do have to do it. Our action/decision does have to exist somewhere on that timeline for it to be seen. Like Abraham. If Abraham had never been put in a situation where he had to choose between obeying God and sacrificing Isaac or not then there’d be no future for God to look to to see what he chose.
In Genesis 6 God really did regret something He did not anticipate.
Free will is oftentimes underappreciated for what it really is. This is why we must live life. There’s no knowing what we’ll do, how we’ll behave, what we’ll choose, if we don’t exist to make those choices and behaviors.
I’ve been watching, and occasionally engaging in free will debates for maybe 30 years. And they never end in a satisfactory way. They are never debates about facts. They seem to always be debates about meaning.
So don’t worry about whether this discussion is going well. It’s going about as well as can reasonably be expected.
I have the impression that Calvinists disagree with this.
Which is what’s so significant about what I’m attempting to point out. These are facts. Actual data that can be looked at to understand exactly what’s being described. Takes it out of the realm of philosophy and grounds it in known scientifically gained knowledge. The proper context.
That’s what I find concerning. If you disagree with this then you’re not properly understanding the story being told. It’s a central element.
God is a lawmaker, not a maintenance man. God wills, it becomes. It rains because God wills the water below and above, so the water cycle is.
We are the only of God’s creation that doesn’t work this way. This is what was significant about Adam. This is free will.
You know the sarcastic atheist image that shows a milky-way type galaxy with a little arrow pointing to a little spec on the far edge with the text that says, “God’s favorite planet”? Well, this is why this one little spec in this enormous universe is at the center of God’s attention. Because we, through Adam and Eve, are unlike anything else in God’s universe. We have free will.
1] Free Will is assumed by virtually all the Creationists that are the target audience for Geneal.Adam. So,
(a) you are wasting most everyone’s time, while
(b) trying to nullify the Free Will of the Genesis 1 Pre-Adamite humans [despite them bearing God’s Image],
(c) and thus stirring up unnecessary conflict in a metaphysical arena immune to testing.
@Guy_Coe, i’m a bit surprised that you did not notice Jeremy’s machinations to take the “humanity” (i.e. the Free Will) away from our precious Genesis 1 population of hominids! Maybe you could spend less time fixated on proving me wrong (in front of the little ones) …
2] you are wrong about Free Will not being possible if God’s Cosmos falls under Theological Determinism, and you are wrong for two reasons:
(i) It is natural lawfulness that prevents Free Will because any human/human mind that does not comply with a purely natural/lawful Cosmos has to be literally chaotic (aka “insane”) in order to demonstrate “freedom” from all applicable lawfulness, be it biological, neural or psycholigical lawfulness.
(ii) it is God that can arrange a Universe where a Free human mind can be free of the compulsion of lawfulness… while still being a coherent conscious thing - - just as a single photon can be “free” to be entangled with another photon a galaxy away, or can interfere “with itself” as it goes through two slits at once.
This is a real world demonstration of how something can avoid a purely rational pattern of behavior (probably by means of additional spatial dimensions), but without the extra quality of consciousness that the All Aware God personally bestows on humanity (probably by means of additional spiritual dimensions); and finally
(iii) because of God’s omniscience, and supernatural (aka non-lawful & miraculous) abilities he can bridge the operations (both natural and miraculous kinds) right up to human choices - - anticipating what each human’s free choice will be (without coercion) - - and accomplish his fore-ordained goals at the same time!
The Chess Master analogy is by any view, a pale analogy to God’s power to grant authentic freedom to humans, while at the same time, produce exactly the results he requires at the very same time.
The Chess Masters of the world class level of chess do not “control” the hundreds of player decisions they face when playing lesser-ranked players.
But they can see out further than their opponents, and will still arrive at the checkmate in their minds, ling before their opponents can realize their defeat was made inevitable a dozen moves before!
The theological matrices (aka, “the boxes”) fully embrace all possible conditions.
So when you say you need an EXTRA status box, it is only because you have not thought through all the moves yet.
@swamidass, i look forward to your thoughts.
The text all but directly says it. It’s not me. It’s Genesis. Adam is where free will comes from. This is what the story of Adam is explaining. Get a grip on this and then present a cohesive, coherent story to the creationist target audience.
Im not taking the bait. You want to make Genesis 1 humans into un-free automatons… you have no grounds for such a thing.
You may be fooling @Guy_Coe, but not me.
You, too, are now joining @Robert_Byers on my “Do Not Disturb” list. @greg has been there first, but when it was just him, i didnt know what to call the category!
1 Like
Nobody is being “fooled.” I disagree with his characterization of “free will” as being the same as “the knowledge of good and evil.”
Since all three of us adhere to Free Will… it seems the only thing he wants to prove is that Genesis 1 humans dont have free will.
But i fear he has no idea how he is going to do that in the face of people who dont think Genesis refers to Neanderthals.
One reason that you have misinterpreted the text is shown in this old piece I wrote back in the day. Whether you realise it or not, you have opted either for Open Theism or the Socinian heresy on the basis of this interpretation.
The more positive answer is that God is represented in the Bible (always) as acting within the real world. Abraham’s obedience only became obedience when he actually obeyed, whatever the inclination of his heart.
Abraham was changed by the experience, since his obedience was rewarded. And that changed the relationship he had with God from then on - in human terms, they shared a history of the events on Mount Moriah. To have used the language of “Of course, being eternal I knew what you’d do all along,” would also be analogical human talk, but would be understood by Abraham as obviating the test.
There is something of a parallel in Hebrews 5, where Jesus “learned obedience through what he suffered.” He was not disobedient before, and therefore didn’t need to be turned from one attitude to another. Yet, like Abraham, he wasn’t obedient in fact until the fact of his obedience.
And when God speaks from heaven in John and says “This is my Son, in whom I am well-pleased,” the words are not simply a reaction to Jesus’s actions, nor even a word to the Son (as 2nd person of the Trinity he knew all that the Father was thinking) but as a testimony suitable for humans to hear.
1 Like
I like the name “do not disturb” list. For me, @Robert_Byers has been there for years (at other forums), and @Greg has been there for a few weeks. I’m not adding @Jeremy_Christian – at least not yet.
2 Likes