Concerning Determinism: Is it actually possible that more than what happens can happen?

[makesends]

MY INTENT with this thread is not to argue whether "Determinism" implies 'double-determinism', nor whether it is implied that God's primary use for the reprobate is to condemn them. Please don't go there unless it is necessarily part of and argument to the point that @Josheb and I are working on here.

From Post #597 of the thread, Covenant of Works. https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/covenant-of-works.1320/page-30#post-53719 in which Josheb answers me.

Because of the length, I have cut this OP into two posts.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
makesends said:
I don't think you can show that humans can disregard unknown influences.

Then I encourage you to do more research. I will, however, concede one possibility: that of antithesis. If unknown forces are bearing on a person that would otherwise incline him/her to choose and act toward one given response and s/he choose the exact opposite, then s/he would be choosing/acting in antithesis.

This is always a potentiality in scripture. God tells Cain not to do what he is about to do. We know he is compelled to murder, and God's exhortation is intended to highlight that very problem (his bondage to sin) but God's words would be meaningless were it not possible for Cain to also act in complete opposition to everything externally and everything internally bearing on him to commit murder.

But the potentiality is always one. Not more than one. That WE consider it more than one, when it is not, is irrelevant to choice.

Determinism of detail doesn't render God's words meaningless. I find myself tempted to answer you as I would an Arminian: "How can Cain, unregenerated, 'act in complete opposition to everything externally and everything internally bearing on him to commit murder'?" I know you don't think like an Arminian, yet this is at the core of the very thing I find repugnant in the logic of an Arminian. Are you suggesting that God knew absolutely everything, yet ignored the knowledge of some of what will not happen, and cause it to be as though it will, when he created? That doesn't sound coherent, to me. I'm guessing I'm not quite understanding what you are saying.

It is at the heart of Calvinism, specifically, that the unregenerate are UNABLE to choose right, and that, by their internal inclinations. How, then, is it possible for them to be able to choose otherwise?

I do not think you can prove humans must regard unknown influences.

Of course. In fact, they cannot 'regard' unknown influences. I was trying to say something along the lines that since they don't recognize unknown influence, it is certainly not by their direct intent, but by contingency, that they act according to it, or that they 'disregard' it.

makesends said:
To say that more accurately, humans may disregard this or that in order to choose what they please, but they cannot shed all influences.

So, they can disregard maybe 10% or on a good day maybe 77% and on a really, really, good day maybe 98.6% but never 100%.

Are you saying that they can disregard all influences? Are you saying that they can act in complete autonomy?

makesends said:
The fact that humans can "disregard any and all known ... influences and asserted themselves volitionally and behaviorally in a causal manner - a way that itself creates new causal relationships" is no indicator of independence from causation. If humanity is controlled "deterministically" at all, then it is so at every minute level.

Incorrect. Creation is filled with unrealized potential and it is so by God's design. Any god can make things work only one way. That's not much of a god. I can make action figures do only and exactly what I make them to do. That does not make me a god. much less a God. This has always been one of the problems with strict determinism; in its effort to assert God's omnipotence and sovereignty it makes Him ordinary and not particularly mighty.

I rather vehemently, if not violently, disagree. God, from whom cause-and-effect descends and upon whom it depends, not to mention that it is also so with logic and the system we call 'reality', does not suspend any of them in order to bring about what WE can only conjecture, but what he knows intimately. Our language reflects our thinking, and our thinking is stunted, supposing that all options are actually possible, since we do not know which is possible.

I never said it did. What it does say is that causes other than God AND their contingencies exist. Look up the definition of "contingency." Then re-read WCF 3.1 to better understand what the authors were really saying.

You may be right about the authors of the WCF. I wouldn't know. I do know that their words need not entail the possibility of more than one outcome. And you will have a long way to go to convince me that more than what happens was ever possible to happen.

I didn't say there are not other causes besides God. Yes, their contingencies exist (are real) --of course they exist! But, as I describe here below in italics, "contingency" does not imply 2 or more possibilities, but only that an effect is dependent ("contingent") on its cause. If no cause, no effect.


makesends said:
A note on the word, "contingency", there. It does not imply that it could have gone this way or that way, but simply that if x didn't happen, y wouldn't (or would, as the case may be) happen; or alternately, if x does happen, y will not (or will, as the case may be) happen. The fact we don't know, and consider each 'option' equally possible is no indicator that all 'options' are actually possible.

Nope

Try to bear in mind that a human dictionary does not establish fact, but OUR meaning --our use of thought. It is WE who think that this may, or that may, happen, because we don't know. But God does. And only the one thing will happen, excluding the possibility that the other could have. And whatsoever happens, does so by God's decree. Yes, I am using the word over which the dictionary attempts authority. I do so because the notion brought up by the usual human conception that humans use the word to describe, is faulty at that one point. So if 'contingency' is the right word, then I have to describe it as I did.

Again, logic demands that ALL things (to include every meticulous detail) are intentionally caused by first cause, and that nothing else has ever been made by first cause, except what he made. "Possibility" that did not work out, was not possible. It only appeared so to creatures.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
We can argue the matter by a difference in meaning of "determines" but, logically, there is nothing that first cause does not cause.

Correct.

A first causing all other causes is not strict or meticulous determinism. Strict determinism is that God causes all causes meticulously. First causality and meticulous causality are not identical and should not be conflated.

If it can be shown logically that he intended every detail by creating, knowing every detail that would happen, then, I think, yes, meticulous determinism is demonstrated. I'm not saying that they are one and the same thing, since they both bear on different aspects of his creating, but the one does necessarily, (to my mind), imply the other.

makesends said:
Further, God knowing every cause and every effect before Creation means that he INTENDED every cause and every effect, and that, down to the minutest detail.

Knowledge is not cause. Intent is not cause. There is, of course, no divien cause absent divine knowledge and intent but the three are not synonymous.

No, but concerning God's creating, they each imply the others.

makesends said:
A note on the word, "contingency", there. It does not imply that it could have gone this way or that way, but simply that if x didn't happen, y wouldn't (or would, as the case may be) happen; or alternately, if x does happen, y will not (or will, as the case may be) happen. The fact we don't know, and consider each 'option' equally possible is no indicator that all 'options' are actually possible.
makesends said:
I call this determinism, but not fatalism.

You are wrong.

Words have meaning and they should be called what they are called regardless of others' responses.

Fatalism implies rule by cold fate. Determinism in creation is by an active, live, willed first cause.

makesends said:
Cause-and-effect is pervasive -- completely, as far as anyone can demonstrate. All effects are caused, and everything is an effect, except for God. The fact that most, if not all, effects, are also causes, does not change the fact that everything except God is an effect.

Yep. And nothing I posted should be construed to say otherwise. God certainly knew all the causes His cause would cause, and He caused His caused to establish all those causes...., knowing humans themselves are causal because that is how He made them.

Yes, they are indeed causal, but not uncaused. Yet, willed.

 

[ReverendRV]

God has Good Meaning in All which comes to Pass. Us? Not so much...

Since God has Meaning in All which comes to Pass, Hard Determinism is True. Since Man has his Own Meaning in All which comes to Pass in his Life, Soft Determinism is also true...

Much like Jesus is %100 God, and %100 Man; both Hard and Soft Determinism are True. The "Meaning" behind an Act, Determines the Act's Meaning. When there are two or more Agents involved in an Act, both Determine the Act...

 

[Mr GLee]

God has Good Meaning in All which comes to Pass. Us? Not so much...

Since God has Meaning in All which comes to Pass, Hard Determinism is True. Since Man has his Own Meaning in All which comes to Pass in his Life, Soft Determinism is also true...

Much like Jesus is %100 God, and %100 Man; both Hard and Soft Determinism are True. The "Meaning" behind an Act, Determines the Act. When there are two or more Agents involved in an Act, both Determine the Act...

God man as you implied it not part of the subject matter. That's another subject.

I would offer Job 23 .It informs us that God is of one mind and always does whatever his own soul desires. (The law of faith) . . .Let there be and it was God good.

It is God alone that can soften our new born again hearts.

He feeds us our daily bread, the kind of food the disciple knew not of.Food both to will and do.(Philipian 2:12) The spiritual or gospel understanding hid in parables, which without Christ spoke not

He works in us performing what he has appointed to us

Job 23:12=14 Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food. But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him

It is how the word faith as power is used that determines the outcome .

We have no faith as power, none zero that could please him, powerless dead in tressapasses and sin (No power) Carrying out in these earthen bodies of death the appointment daily sufferings the pangs of hell .

Yoked with him our burden is made lighter with a living future hope beyond the grave

Mankind has no faith as power by which he could believe God or please God .he is the storeroom of faith/ power the golden measure.

Deuteronomy 32:19-21King James Version And when the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters. And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith. They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.

With a foolish nation .The fool has said there is no God in their heart .(faithless )

Provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.Creating an evil. In that way using unbelievers to do his will just as easily as those he makes peace with.

God is not served by the dying hands of mankind in anyway shape or form.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

 

[makesends]

God has Good Meaning in All which comes to Pass. Us? Not so much...

Since God has Meaning in All which comes to Pass, Hard Determinism is True. Since Man has his Own Meaning in All which comes to Pass in his Life, Soft Determinism is also true...

Much like Jesus is %100 God, and %100 Man; both Hard and Soft Determinism are True. The "Meaning" behind an Act, Determines the Act. When there are two or more Agents involved in an Act, both Determine the Act...

I'd say, 'intent', rather than, 'meaning'. But I'm curious, (and not to be funny, but I am compelled to play with words), do you intend something else by "meaning" there?

O.T.: 'Meaning', in the mindset of some, is often in the front of some people's thinking concerning events --almost as if events or facts are to be interpreted as statements that God is making, concerning creation in general, sentient beings, humans, and concerning himself. It is a curious habit they have, and not altogether wrong, though easily done wrong.

 

[Mr GLee]

I'd say, 'intent', rather than, 'meaning'. But I'm curious, (and not to be funny, but I am compelled to play with words), do you intend something else by "meaning" there?

O.T.: 'Meaning', in the mindset of some, is often in the front of some people's thinking concerning events --almost as if events or facts are to be interpreted as statements that God is making, concerning creation in general, sentient beings, humans, and concerning himself. It is a curious habit they have, and not altogether wrong, though easily done wrong.

I would offer.

Yes, intend as the meaning God intended. . . it judges our intent. as one's own private interpretations as a personal commentaries.

There can be differences (denominations) among us as long as they do not do despite to the fullness of grace the price we were bought with .
God makes men different .as in "what do we have that we did not receive freely from our living God? and if we have received it (faith) freely from the hand or faith of God. . . . why would we boast as if we did not receive . ?

Not according to time dispensations. God works his labor of love, called a work of His faith he works in us in any generation, any nation

Experiences are not the validators of spiritual (unseen ) truth, That truth is hid in parables, which without Christ spoke not .

In that way its makes me wonder when the last day under the sun comes. . . will God find his powerful faith working in man or its every man to himself. Whatever he experiences according to the imaginations of the heart. Like the idea of "out of the body" so called experiences. . I had a dream or heard a voice , etc

Luke 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith (Power of God) on the earth?

I would hope so.

 

[makesends]

I would offer.

Yes, intend as the meaning God intended. . . it judges our intent. as one's own private interpretations as a personal commentaries.

There can be differences (denominations) among us as long as they do not do despite to the fullness of grace the price we were bought with .
God makes men different .as in "what do we have that we did not receive freely from our living God? and if we have received it (faith) freely from the hand or faith of God. . . . why would we boast as if we did not receive . ?

Not according to time dispensations. God works his labor of love, called a work of His faith he works in us in any generation, any nation

Experiences are not the validators of spiritual (unseen ) truth, That truth is hid in parables, which without Christ spoke not .

In that way its makes me wonder when the last day under the sun comes. . . will God find his powerful faith working in man or its every man to himself. Whatever he experiences according to the imaginations of the heart. Like the idea of "out of the body" so called experiences. . I had a dream or heard a voice , etc

Luke 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith (Power of God) on the earth?

I would hope so.

Can you explain how that relates to the OP? I'm having a bit of trouble understanding why you say that.

 

[Mr GLee]

Can you explain how that relates to the OP? I'm having a bit of trouble understanding why you say that.

Thanks I can try. It had to do with the meaning of the mind set as first and foremost applied to the idea of "contingency"hard determinism or soft ?

.In that way creating a limbo like the idea on mortal sin and venial leaving a person to wonder. Some call .Double Imputation,.it would seem the same as double predestination. The elect elected from the foundation of the world.

 

[ReverendRV]

I'd say, 'intent', rather than, 'meaning'. But I'm curious, (and not to be funny, but I am compelled to play with words), do you intend something else by "meaning" there?

O.T.: 'Meaning', in the mindset of some, is often in the front of some people's thinking concerning events --almost as if events or facts are to be interpreted as statements that God is making, concerning creation in general, sentient beings, humans, and concerning himself. It is a curious habit they have, and not altogether wrong, though easily done wrong.

I use the word 'Meaning', because the word 'Meant' is used in the Bible in Genesis 50:20...

 

[makesends]

I use the word 'Meaning', because the word 'Meant' is used in the Bible in Genesis 50:20...

As I recall, some versions use the word, "intended".

 

[makesends]

Thanks I can try. It had to do with the meaning of the mind set as first and foremost applied to the idea of "contingency"hard determinism or soft ?

.In that way creating a limbo like the idea on mortal sin and venial leaving a person to wonder. Some call .Double Imputation,.it would seem the same as double predestination. The elect elected from the foundation of the world.

Thanks, but I'm still lost trying to make sense of what you said. Was it a tangent, or does it bear on the OP? I don't mean this as criticism. I'm just not following what you said.

I agree with the matter of mindset in the reasoning of people concerning determinism; the self-determinist assumes in all his reasoning that he is master of his own mind/heart/decisions, and to whatever level he has power, his fate.

 

[ReverendRV]

As I recall, some versions use the word, "intended".

Both words are great, but there's something special about God Meaning to sell Joseph into Slavery. Talk about Semantics God Meant it to happen; and it did...

 

[Josheb]

MY INTENT with this thread is not to argue whether "Determinism" implies 'double-determinism', nor whether it is implied that God's primary use for the reprobate is to condemn them. Please don't go there unless it is necessarily part of and argument to the point that @Josheb and I are working on here.

From Post #597 of the thread, Covenant of Works. https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/covenant-of-works.1320/page-30#post-53719 in which Josheb answers me.

Remind me and inform those who don't know: Would you describe yourself as an adherent to Open Theism? Molinism?

FYI, because of some recent threads in which these viewpoints have appeared I pulled out my "Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views" and refreshed my knowledge of the various positions and their arguments. You might consider picking up a copy and give it a read. So far, I've read about a half-dozen from the series and they're very informative.

 

[Josheb]

makesends said:
I don't think you can show that humans can disregard unknown influences.

But the potentiality is always one. Not more than one. That WE consider it more than one, when it is not, is irrelevant to choice.

You might need to clarify that because it is incorrect as written. Just because God is the sole first cause does not mean His first cause is the only cause, influence, or determinism.

Determinism of detail doesn't render God's words meaningless.

Is that a red herring? has someone here asserted determinism renders God's words meaningless? I certainly have not.

I find myself tempted to answer you as I would an Arminian: "How can Cain, unregenerated, 'act in complete opposition to everything externally and everything internally bearing on him to commit murder'?"

I believe I have already answered that question. Not sure why it's being used as an example if it's already been rendered immaterial.

I know you don't think like an Arminian...

I can and often do think like an Arminian. or a Pelagian, a Wesleyan, a Determinist, an Open Theist, a Dispensationalist, etc. The ability to do so is one of the benefits of reading diversely outside one's own paradigm, not just diversely within it. Remember: most of us Cals used to be Arms and Arm apologists, so we are quite familiar with how the synergists reasonings.

Are you suggesting that God knew absolutely everything, yet ignored the knowledge of some of what will not happen, and cause it to be as though it will, when he created?

No.

However, as someone who believes God exists outside of time (external to that which he created) I have a different view of causality (and therefore His knowledge of cause-and-effect) than many.

That doesn't sound coherent, to me. I'm guessing I'm not quite understanding what you are saying.

Probably not but our discussions often serve the purpose of sorting out things that haven't been reasoned to their logically necessary outcomes.

It is at the heart of Calvinism, specifically, that the unregenerate are UNABLE to choose right, and that, by their internal inclinations. How, then, is it possible for them to be able to choose otherwise?

Ooooo.... Calvinism does not teach the unregenerate are unable to do any and all right. The inability it solely soteriological. Or that which is morally right or good is not wholly morally right or good because it was performed by sinful flesh and that taints even the good that is possible. That's a better understanding of Calvinist theology.

 

[Josheb]

makesends said:
I don't think you can show that humans can disregard unknown influences.

I do not think you can prove humans must regard unknown influences.

Of course. In fact, they cannot 'regard' unknown influences. I was trying to say something along the lines that since they don't recognize unknown influence, it is certainly not by their direct intent, but by contingency, that they act according to it, or that they 'disregard' it.

....or do not act according to it at all, or act in complete opposite or in antithesis of what would otherwise be the normal or ordinary "line" determinism. You keep leaving out those options.

Do humans have volitional agency or not?

 

[Josheb]

Are you saying that they can disregard all influences? Are you saying that they can act in complete autonomy?

The two questions together create a conflict in logic. An influence is not an influence if it can be disregarded in its entirety. God cannot be disregarded. Sin in the unregenerate's life cannot be disregarded. Any antithetical choice or act is still the opposite of the thesis, without which nothing else is possible. However, most influences are temporal, not divine. Someone yelling at me, or calling me names (for examples) CAN have an influence on me and it can drive me toward a reaction with determinism, or a more mitigated response with influence (especially if learning and experience has influenced me to have a pool of responses from which I can select. We might also say more than one determined reaction is possible given learning or lack thereof. I might yell back because I know no better alternative. I might remain silent for the exact same reason. More importantly, despite the intent of the influence (such is the motive of the yeller or name-caller), I need to not respond in any manner having anything to do with their motive, intent, purpose, or objectives. Now things like time and circumstance don't typically come minds of their own so influences of provocation are irrelevant, but the illustration shows the agency of the one being yelled at. A victim of name calling has as many choices as his knowledge and experience iform..... plus one. And I think it is the "plus one" you're leaving out.


More specifically, though. My use of percentages was intended to show the problem in your own position. You've argued some, but not all influences can be shed. Well, does that not beg the question, "How much 'some'?" 10% some? 40% some? 70% some? 99.9999999% some? How much determinism are you willing to surrender with the premise, "humans may disregard this or that in order to choose what they please, but they cannot shed all influences"?

Humans may disregard 10% of this or that....
Humans may disregard 70% of this or that...
Humans may disregard 99.99% of this or that...

Those are huge differences in how much can be disregarded. Adam had to regard only one influence . Humans can disregard some influences. Okay. If that is true then they are not always determined. Not all influences are deterministic. There exist not-deterministic influences.


Yes?

 

[Arial]

It is at the heart of Calvinism, specifically, that the unregenerate are UNABLE to choose right, and that, by their internal inclinations. How, then, is it possible for them to be able to choose otherwise?

I am surprised you would make this statement and identify as Reformed. Perhaps it is just a hasty error in wordage? Calvinism teaches no such thing, and it is certainly not the heart of Calvinism. Calvinism teaches that unregenerate humanity cannot choose Christ, and that because of his internal inclinations to sin. And not just inclinations but actual bondage. He doesn't want to and cannot even see or understand the gospel. It is foolishness to him. It does not teach that he can never choose anything that is right.

 

[Josheb]

I rather vehemently, if not violently, disagree. God, from whom cause-and-effect descends and upon whom it depends, not to mention that it is also so with logic and the system we call 'reality', does not suspend any of them in order to bring about what WE can only conjecture, but what he knows intimately. Our language reflects our thinking, and our thinking is stunted, supposing that all options are actually possible, since we do not know which is possible.

That is incorrect.

And, based on what I have read and assuming I have understood the argument(s) correctly one of the flaws appears to be God's first cause if singular. Another might be the assumption God's first cause encompassed no other sources of causality. I don't see much, if anything, that evidences those possibilities have been considered.

You may be right about the authors of the WCF. I wouldn't know. I do know that their words need not entail the possibility of more than one outcome.

Then I will respectfully suggest you are unqualified to criticize that which you do not adequately know and understand and will likely end up arguing straw men.

And you will have a long way to go to convince me that more than what happens was ever possible to happen.

What do you mean by "long way"? If you're not open to any position but that which you already hold then why are you here posting as if a discussion is actually happening?

I didn't say there are not other causes besides God.

I understand. You've gone on record stating humans can be causal. Good. Now think it through.

Yes, their contingencies exist (are real) --of course they exist! But, as I describe here below in italics, "contingency" does not imply 2 or more possibilities, but only that an effect is dependent ("contingent") on its cause. If no cause, no effect.

No, that is incorrect. Make "contingency" plural and take out the word "only" and you'll have better footing.

makesends said:
A note on the word, "contingency", there. It does not imply that it could have gone this way or that way, but simply that if x didn't happen, y wouldn't (or would, as the case may be) happen; or alternately, if x does happen, y will not (or will, as the case may be) happen. The fact we don't know, and consider each 'option' equally possible is no indicator that all 'options' are actually possible.

Try to bear in mind that a human dictionary does not establish fact, but OUR meaning -- our use of thought.

ROTFLMBO!

Do you see the irony of that bold-faced highlighted statement? With a single sentence you've undermined your entire argument and proven my point!

 

[Josheb]

makesends said:
We can argue the matter by a difference in meaning of "determines" but, logically, there is nothing that first cause does not cause.

If it can be shown logically that he intended every detail by creating, knowing every detail that would happen, then, I think, yes, meticulous determinism is demonstrated.

First, intent is not cause. Do not conflate the two.

Second, please do so. Please show God intended every detail and deterministically acted to make that detail occur.

 

[Josheb]

makesends said:
We can argue the matter by a difference in meaning of "determines" but, logically, there is nothing that first cause does not cause.

If God added other first causes would they all necessarily be caused by the first cause? Could He not cause three separate simultaneously-occurring first causes? Having cause one or more first causes could God then, at some point "later" in the passage of time within the creation add another completely uncaused cause?