Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God's judgement and Determinism
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 63 of 106 (442889)
12-22-2007 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by The Agnostic
12-20-2007 6:42 AM


no will vs willing not....
The Agnostic writes:
I'm interested to hear what (especially religious) people have to answer to this. Do they suggest that God doesn't judge people on their behaviours? Do they think that determinism is wrong, and why so?
It's not so much that determinism is wrong. Rather, there is more to it than just determinism. Biblically speaking, a person is born a "slave to sin". That is to say, they have no free will in the area of morality ("free will" being a will that can have its desires satisfied by expressing itself unto action (via mind/body) in this, that or the other direction).
Such a person, when faced with a "choice", will always tend towards evil - due to the fact that their nature is enslaved (or addicted) to sin. In other words, people are born with all the free will of a heroin junkie. That the reason for this 'determinism' is essentially spiritual rather than genetic/environmental is a side issue - what is important at this point is that the person has no free will.
Next up we have conscience. Conscience can be considered as the influence of God upon sin-addicted man. Not an overwhelming influence it must be said - calls of conscience can be suppressed. But an influence nonetheless. That a man doesn't believe in God (or believe his conscience is from God) is neither here nor there. Conscience calls irrespective of what man thinks.
Looking at things simplistically then. A sin-addicted man comes up against a moral choice. And Conscience calls - telling a man what man ought to do. Man's Addiction to Sin also calls - enticing man to sin. Man is not faced with a free willed choice here: man is being pulled in one direction by Gods will. And is being pulled in ther other direction by mans addiction. One of two things can happen.
- the man doesn't sin. If he does not it is because the power of truth (revealed through conscience) held the man from sinning. Man was convinced by the truths action upon him.
- the man does sin. In order to sin, man must first suppress Gods truth. He must shut off the light which tells him the truth and in the self-enabled darkness his addiction can be fed.
Note: all that is required in order that man not sin is that his sin-addicted will not be expressed. If not expressed then the man remains exposed to and convinced of Gods truth and sin cannot occur. On the other hand we can see that an expression of mans will is required for sin to occur. In order for sin to occur man must will to suppress Gods truth revealed. By burying what he knows he ought to do, man wills himself handed over to the power of his addiction to sin. And his addiction will pull him into sin as sure as night follows day. Mans will has effected his sin - meaning that he can be justly punished for it (in the case where he remains unsaved).
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The Agnostic, posted 12-20-2007 6:42 AM The Agnostic has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 91 of 106 (443346)
12-24-2007 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by The Agnostic
12-24-2007 12:34 PM


*bump msg 63*
Adding this:
The Agnostic writes:
The argument I'd like to make: A fair and just God cannot judge humans based on their behaviour, because all human behaviour is determined by causality, which is outside of our control. I'll elaborate on the question why this is so.
I'd agree with you. So long as the premise you pose above (and elaborate upon further) is true. There is no way to demonstrate the premise true however.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by The Agnostic, posted 12-24-2007 12:34 PM The Agnostic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Arachide, posted 12-24-2007 7:25 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 101 of 106 (444013)
12-27-2007 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Arachide
12-24-2007 7:25 PM


iano writes:
I'd agree with you. So long as the premise you pose above (and elaborate upon further) is true. There is no way to demonstrate the premise true however.
Arachide writes:
Phew, that's what i've been trying to explain Ringo. Aside the issue IF we live in a deterministic system that would make sense indeed.
How deterministic is deterministic? Is what you say in reply to this determined. Word for word? Or your not replying at all?
quote:
Can you explain why you think there is no way to demonstrate (genetic) determinism (abe:true)?
In the sense of absolving you of responsibility for your choices before God? Simple really, no one can hold their breath that long.
Those who are philosophically bent on furrowing that path will, per definition, end up mumbling something about ever more gaps being closed. True is not arrival at "we're closing more and more gaps every day".
Gaps-yet-to-be-closed is a case of agonisingly close...but no cigar. Which would align nicely with the concept of The (biblical)God Delusion.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Arachide, posted 12-24-2007 7:25 PM Arachide has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 104 of 106 (444656)
12-30-2007 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by The Agnostic
12-30-2007 7:36 AM


The Agnostic writes:
Free will, in my opinion, is when your actions are not a result of any physical cause and effect chains, but of your own decisions.
That's not your opinion. That was determined. There is no "you" as such.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by The Agnostic, posted 12-30-2007 7:36 AM The Agnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by The Agnostic, posted 12-30-2007 12:36 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 106 of 106 (444733)
12-30-2007 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by The Agnostic
12-30-2007 12:36 PM


There was nothing mock intended. I was just drawing the conclusions you insist must be drawn with your set up. And your doing the exact same thing in your reply.
Circular.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by The Agnostic, posted 12-30-2007 12:36 PM The Agnostic has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024