Having It Both Ways
Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 9:52AM 
The conversation with Godlessons goes on.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that our decisions matter since they really aren’t our decisions. God intended for us to make them, so they are God’s decisions.
It depends on what you mean by “matter”. You seem to define decisions that matter as “decisions that can change the future.” I define decisions that matter as “decisions that bring about the future God has planned.” God intended for us to make them, so yes, they are God’s decisions. And based on God’s decisions, we decide. We look at the alternatives, weigh them, choose as seems best or most desirable to us, and our decisions bring God’s plan to fruition.
The idea that we are responsible for our decisions when we have no free will to do otherwise is ludicrous. You don’t punish a machine for functioning exactly as it was designed to function. That would make no sense.
Machines don’t have motives or desires. Machines don’t have wills. Machines don’t consider alternatives.
Let’s cut to the chase: You are willing to see God as a God without omniscience or omnipotence in order to preserve autonomous human choice—in order to have our choices determine the future. You are willing to make God smaller so that we can be bigger.
In your conception of God, human beings rule the future rather than God. Or you might say that human beings rule God rather than him ruling us.
I’m not willing to go there, because that’s not the way God reveals himself in scripture.
Reader Comments (15)
I'm truly benefiting from this conversation, Rebecca. Thanks for continuing with it.
To start out, I am not defining God, I am only using your definition as far as you have laid it out. This conversation, from my point of view, is to see if you are able to get to a definition of omniscience that doesn't make the idea of eternal punishment look insane.
It may appear that I am making a personal assertion about the nature of God, but what I am doing is using the definition that you are giving, and speaking as though that is the only definition. I am taking your definition and trying to get to the logical inconsistencies, I am not inserting my own concept.
I somewhat feel like I am repeating myself. I don't know if I'm not being clear or if you might be overlooking the underlying position I am taking.
The most important thing to understand is that any foreknowledge whatsoever means that people don't have a choice either to do what God wants or not to do what God wants. We are just forced to do what God intended through his design.
In your perspective, taking omniscience into account, we only have the ability to make decisions in our limited sphere of understanding. In other words, we merely perceive that the choices we make are our own, but since they were predetermined the reality is that our decisions are God's, and our perception is false.
Therefore, nothing we do can be considered right or wrong because we are doing exactly what we were designed to do. Much like when you turn the switch on a lamp and it lights up, that lamp didn't do right or wrong, it merely did what it was designed to do.
God designed us so that we would make the exact decisions we make, and we could not not make them because it would go against God's will in his design. We are nothing more than an extremely complex lamp. We would be what we are, a biochemical digital computer that is limited in what it does by the software programmed into it. All things we know of, given enough information, can be predicted. Chaos theory, or the butterfly effect in other words. Even when a computer is coded to be unpredictable, we can predict what that computer will do given enough information.
This is somewhat consistent with the Bible though, considering that God says that he creates both good and evil. (Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, Lamentations 3:38)
It is logically inconsistent with the idea of punishment though, and that is the contradiction I am ultimately wanting to get to.
I have made a new post on my blog addressing what you are saying as well as some other omniscience arguments. I also have some argument maps to help the discussion along better. Omniscience Continued -- please have a look.
This conversation, from my point of view, is to see if you are able to get to a definition of omniscience that doesn't make the idea of eternal punishment look insane.
I don't define God's omniscience; he does. And I accept it.
Whether eternal punishment in light of God's omniscience looks insane to you (or any other finite, fallen human being) is beside the point. I believe that God's predetermination and responsible human choice are compatible because they are both revealed in scripture.
The most important thing to understand is that any foreknowledge whatsoever means that people don't have a choice either to do what God wants or not to do what God wants.
You are assuming that a choice must autonomous or not predetermined in order to be a "real choice." You are presupposing a definition of choice that I don't accept.
In your perspective, taking omniscience into account, we only have the ability to make decisions in our limited sphere of understanding.
Well yes. How would we know what we don't know? And we are creatures. We operate in the creaturely sphere.
In other words, we merely perceive that the choices we make are our own, but since they were predetermined the reality is that our decisions are God's, and our perception is false.
The choices we make are both ours and the choices God chooses for us to make. If we perceive that we make autonomous choice or choices that can make the future different than the one God has planned, then yes, our perception is false.
But I don't know why we'd expect that common sense perceptions of finite fallen creatures to be always right.
God designed us so that we would make the exact decisions we make, and we could not not make them because it would go against God's will in his design. We are nothing more than an extremely complex lamp. We would be what we are, a biochemical digital computer that is limited in what it does by the software programmed into it. All things we know of, given enough information, can be predicted. Chaos theory, or the butterfly effect in other words. Even when a computer is coded to be unpredictable, we can predict what that computer will do given enough information.
Not lamps or computers, because we have minds and wills and emotions and desires. But we are creatures, not gods. We function in the way God created us, and the kind of choice we have is creaturely choice, the kind of choice he created us to have.
This is somewhat consistent with the Bible though, considering that God says that he creates both good and evil. (Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, Lamentations 3:38)
Somewhat consistent? It's completely consistent. That's been my point all along. :)
It is logically inconsistent with the idea of punishment though, and that is the contradiction I am ultimately wanting to get to.
God punishes people for their motives and attitudes, for the reasons from inside of their own selves that they decided to do what they did. See Isaiah 10 for a biblical example.
I'm a compatibalist, BTW. I see God's predetermination and responsible human choice as compatible rather than contradictory. And I'm not ignorant of the issues, so I don't see any need to explore this farther.
I guess there is no reason to explore it any further. When you decide to drop logic altogether, I can go no further either.
Oh well, I appreciate the discussion we have had so far.
By the way, nobody other than Christians accept circular reasoning using the Bible as evidence or argument. The bible is right because the bible says it's right is not logical. It is like me saying that I am right because I say I'm right.
When you decide to drop logic altogether, I can go no further either.
I didn't drop logic altogether. I just started with a few presuppositions and built my logical argument from them.
You started with presuppositions, too. You started, for instance, with assumptions about what it takes for a choice to be a "real " or "responsible" choice and built your logical argument from there. You also started with the presupposition that human beings can trust their perceptions about the kinds of freedom they have. You didn't prove your assumptions, you simply asserted them. How do you know that those assumptions are right? On the authority of your intuition? On the authority of your perception? On the authority of Webster's dictionary?
Everyone starts somewhere. I started with God who speaks. Where did you start?
If starting with an authority makes an argument circular, then all our arguments are circular. Even yours.
I have used logic and general human experience to build my argument. I also did not start out with the idea that humans can trust their presuppositions. I started out with the opposite since what you were saying was in opposition of the idea. I was showing that human perception of free will did not work with your model of omniscience, and it seems you agree.
Let's break it down:
God created everything to do exactly what it does, that way he knows the future of his creation. In the context of me assuming your statement to be true for argument, I believe we agree here.
Humans can't choose to do good or to do evil since God preordained it, we just do it because we were created to do it. I thought we agreed here as per the previous statement.
My last assertion was that it is not logical to punish a creation for doing exactly what it was designed to do (evil), and it is not logical to reward a creation since it has no choice but to do what it was designed to do(good).
Now, as to circular reasoning, using the authority of ones own authority makes it circular. The idea that is in contention is whether or not humans have choice when God predetermined what they are doing. This idea clearly comes from scripture, so when you say that the idea we are discussing(scripture) is supported by scripture, it is clearly circular.
Imagine I wrote a book and made the claim that balloons are all cubes and not semi-spheroid, and while people were examining the truthfulness of that statement someone were to make the claim that balloons are all cubes because Godlessons said it, we are arguing I'm right because I say I'm right. It is completely circular. On the other hand, if we were to find other books claiming the same thing by other authors, and they came about it without using my book to get their conclusion, we could cite those books as authority, but that would not put the idea to rest unless there is the ability to falsify statements.
Needless to say, we can get nowhere if you say scripture is right because scripture says so. It matters little if you claim scripture is right because God says so, because the words of God are gotten from scripture. If that is where it will ultimately end, there is no reason to discuss it further.
Now, if you want me to support my assertion, I can start quoting founding fathers, and many other philosophers in the last couple millennia. I think that it isn't necessary though because I am using logic, which is not a claim, it is a process by which people can assess the assertions without having to have facts.
I also did not start out with the idea that humans can trust their presuppositions.
I didn't say you did. I said you had presuppositions on which your arguments were based.
that human perception of free will did not work with your model of omniscience, and it seems you agree.
I agree that if God is omniscient, then the kind of freedom that many people think they have—the freedom to ultimately determine the future—can't be. I'm not sure this kind of freedom is a general human perception or just the perception of certain groups of people in certain times in history.
God created everything to do exactly what it does, that way he knows the future of his creation.
In a certain sense, this is true. God created everything to fulfill his purposes and he works within his creation so that that's what comes about.
Humans can't choose to do good or to do evil since God preordained it, we just do it because we were created to do it.
No, this is a misrepresentation of my position. Humans choose to do good or evil all the time. They choose to do good when the follow God's commands; they choose to do evil when they go against his commands. God either influences people to do good or permits them to do evil, and by doing that, everything in history unfolds according to the plan he made before he created.
My last assertion was that it is not logical to punish a creation for doing exactly what it was designed to do (evil),
God only directly influences the good acts. No evil act is directly influenced by God. Evil acts come about by way of his permission--by his decision not to stop them. People are judged because their evil actions are directly influenced by their own hearts and minds.
Now, as to circular reasoning, using the authority of ones own authority makes it circular.
Unless you are the ultimate authority, the one from whom everything else, including the laws of logic, comes. If that's the case, then there is no higher reason or other authority for you to appeal to. You are it, and what you say is what is.
This idea clearly comes from scripture, so when you say that the idea we are discussing(scripture) is supported by scripture, it is clearly circular..
Unless scripture is the communication of the Ultimate Authority. See above.
It matters little if you claim scripture is right because God says so, because the words of God are gotten from scripture.
That's not exactly the argument I'm making. My argument is this: Scripture is right because it is God speaking. Or: Scripture is right because it is the communication of the Ultimate Authority.
Now, if you want me to support my assertion, I can start quoting founding fathers, and many other philosophers in the last couple millennia. I think that it isn't necessary though because I am using logic, which is not a claim, it is a process by which people can assess the assertions without having to have facts.
Okay, start here: Why is logic a process by which we can assess assertions? On what basis can we trust logic to do that? Why are the laws of logic legitimate?
(I'm not saying that I don't think the laws of logic are legitimate. I want to know on what basis you hold them to be legitimate.)
So you are saying there is no omniscience, even in creation. If God knows all, he can't know this this and not this, he has to know this this and this. If he designed everything so that he would know exactly what it would do, and therefore knows the future of everything, everyone does exactly what he designed them to do, no more, no less.
This is a logical fallacy called begging the question. The proposition to be proved is presumed explicitly in the premise. Nobody has ever experienced such an authority except in the mind, and thoughts not based on empirical evidence can be and often are wrong. That's not to say that empirical evidence always gets us to the truth, but it is wrong much less often than our other senses are.
Now, you believe it is true, but for the purposes of logic, the premise must be able to be falsified. If you want to use the word of God as authority, you must first show that it is the word of God. Because the bible says so doesn't cut it. You are still stuck with circular reasoning.
The idea of omniscience can very easily be dissected logically without jumping to a circular reasoning argument. I'm not wanting to get into the position where we are arguing the existence of God. That never gets anywhere. I just want to examine the idea of omniscience. You have given me the only explanation of omniscience that doesn't fall in on itself and make God unable to make decisions, so it would be interesting to follow it to its conclusion. I believe I have gotten to the point where it fails, but since you had a functioning answer before, I am wondering if you can actually get over the problem of evil.
When the senses are wrong, we can know that only with logic. Logic is the highest performing faculty we have. Since it is our highest faculty, there is no higher one to disprove it. To use logic to prove or disprove logic itself would put me in the same position that you are in with the circular reasoning though, so it would be pointless to try.
If you want to use the word of God as authority, you must first show that it is the word of God. Because the bible says so doesn't cut it.
But I'm not trying to prove to you that scripture is God speaking. I'm explaining to you how my argument, which starts out with the presupposition that there is a Creator who speaks, is logically consistent given those presuppositions.
You came here asserting that God could not be omniscient, because of a supposed logical contradiction between God's omniscience and autonomous human will or eternal punishment, or something. I suspect that your intention was to show that because of that contradiction, the God I believe in couldn't exist. It isn't my job to prove God exists or that scripture is his communication. My job is to show you that there is no logical contradiction in the view of God that I have—a view that comes directly from scripture.
I am wondering if you can actually get over the problem of evil.
Evil exists because God permitted it according to his plan, a plan with an ultimate end to bring glory to himself as he expresses his character within creation. Evil is necessary for God to express his wrath, mercy, grace, etc, and expressing those aspects of himself is one of the ways he plans to bring himself glory.
When the senses are wrong, we can know that only with logic. Logic is the highest performing faculty we have. Since it is our highest faculty, there is no higher one to disprove it
Let me see if I have this right: We can only know what we discover for ourselves, and logic is our highest performing faculty. Therefore, logic the best judge of truth. You might say logic is our highest authority?
To use logic to prove or disprove logic itself would put me in the same position that you are in with the circular reasoning though, so it would be pointless to try.
That the laws of logic are legitimate is one of your presuppositions, right? You just accept it without making any argument for it? Logic: the buck stops here?
My basis for believing in the legitimacy of the laws of logic is this: The Creator is rational. The buck, you might say, stops with him.
If you want to be logically consistent, you can't place a presumption that something can act extra logical. I can allow the rest of your definitions because it gives foundation. I can't allow the special pleading saying that God is able to act illogically and paradoxically though. Going down this road means that in order to have logical discussion you will have to show empirical evidence of God's existence, and that isn't possible. Even then, it still wouldn't work because you are still essentially saying that God can do it because God says he can.
No, I don't just accept it. Logic has a track record of working. There is nothing that logically can't exist that have been found to exist. God does not have such a track record. Every test ever tried to prove there is a god with empirical evidence has failed. In other words, logic has a proven track record and belief in god(s) doesn't.
People believe in god(s), and they cite many things as evidence, but all arguments defy logic when they are fleshed out. In other words, there is no reason to mistrust logic just because someone makes unfounded claims that there is something higher.
I can't allow the special pleading saying that God is able to act illogically and paradoxically though.
Where did I say God is able to act illogically? I even used God's own rationality as the basis for the legitimacy of logic. God acts reasonably, not illogically.
There is nothing that logically can't exist that have been found to exist.
Well, of course not. Because the laws of logic are legitimate. They work. But I didn't ask you if they work or if they are legitimate. I asked you why they are legitimate. Why do they work?
Every test ever tried to prove there is a god with empirical evidence has failed.
Has empirical evidence proven everything that does exist?
By the way, you ignored what I wrote about the problem of evil.
You addressed the problem of evil normally spoken of, but that isn't exactly what I was talking about.
The problem of evil that I am talking about is not limited to the problem of evil normally spoken about. I am working the omniscience factor in as well. You originally said that God knows everything that is going to happen because he created everything to do what it does. That being the case, he not only allows evil, he creates it to do his will, and people can't go against his will. Therefore, the idea that evil people would be punished by him is not logical because nobody has a choice in what they do.
Somehow though, you are saying that we do have a choice. That goes against omniscience, which would go against God's will. This is where we have the logic problems.
Everything we know to exist has been proven to exist empirically. Given that, the idea that something exists that can't be shown to exist empirically is a rather extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.
An example of things that haven't been shown to exist empirically is aliens visiting earth. We have evidence of unexplained lights in the sky, anecdotal accounts of people that say they have been abducted by aliens, strange burn marks where people say alien craft have landed, etc. We don't have evidence of anything extraterrestrial though, and every time we find out what things that were claimed to be aliens actually was, it happens to be a perfectly normal terrestrial event. We also dismiss people's accounts of abduction because people can be delusional or they can lie.
Needless to say, saying a god can be omniscient is testable through logic. Saying that something exists that can work paradoxically can't, so any claim of such can be dismissed unless it can be tested.
Somehow though, you are saying that we do have a choice.
That's because I define choice differently than you do. As I've been saying all along, you have assumed a definition of choice that isn't mine. That's one of the presuppositions to your argument. It's something you've asserted, but haven't proven.
Everything we know to exist has been proven to exist empirically.
Really? So the laws of logic have been proven to exist empirically?
Has your definition of choice been proven empirically?
And I noticed that you either forgot or avoided my question about the reason that logic is legitimate. Why does logic work?
It may be good to have your definition of choice then. It seems that you must have autonomous free will to have a choice in my mind. I would not say that a car has a choice which direction to turn since it is dependent on the driver to turn the wheel. This would be the same scenario.
I have noticed that you may be a Calvinist from some of your posts. Calvinists are pretty well known for predeterminism. I know that Calvinists believe that we are the ones that make the choices we make, but that doesn't fit with the idea that God created us to do what we do. In such a belief, how does one factor in omniscience without saying that humans are nothing more than robots, acting exactly as they were programmed to act.
Nothing can exactly be proven to exist. You can't be proven to exist. Logic exists merely because we have defined logic anyway. It is one of those things that exists in our minds like math only exists in our minds. Similarly, we can demonstrate logic to other people. We can say that logic, when applied correctly, has been shown to be perfectly accurate, and has not been shown to be inaccurate, just like math. Given that, it doesn't need scrutiny until it doesn't work.
As for why logic works, it works because it explains things in a fashion that is essentially mathematical. Math is considered pure logic. Would you question math? The only reason you may question logic is because it goes against things you want to believe, not because you have seen that it doesn't work.
Anyway, unless you have evidence that logic doesn't work in any situation, this part of the discussion is not necessary.