Does choice imply more than one actual possibility?

[makesends]

I am arranging this under numbers for clarity of reference in argument. Ignore or use the numbers to your heart's content. (Pun intended).

1) Watching RC Sproul's talk, "Have You Lost Your Mind?", it occurred to me that maybe some of those who so vehemently oppose my notion that whatever happens does so by God's decree and by God's causation do so because they take me to be referring to material determinism alone, and that they take me to suppose that the thoughts and intentions of the heart (the mind) are only materially derived by long-chain causation or shorter-chain intervention by God. I can't say for sure if that's what's going on, but I utterly reject the notion that I have seen espoused by @Josheb (and a few others who have implied the same) that the will is, but for the matter of salvation, capable of free action of its own independent spontaneity. In my expression of what they say, they, like the Arminian and the Pelagian, assert the self-contradictory notion that God has ordained that our choices can be in some way uncaused. So I'm wondering how they can say that.

Josh. Correct me, please, if I have misrepresented what you believe.

2) Any others, please chime in. I want to know how the command necessarily implies the possibility of obedience. I want to know how anything can happen that does not happen. I want to know how our temporal view defines fact—so that our expression by ignorance (we say, "maybe") is an expression of truth rather than simply a mention that we don't know what will be.

3) Let me mention one tangent that I consider irrelevant to this thread's arguments. Please do not get into trying to prove free will by arguments about moral responsibility and God's fairness. That is not the point of this thread—pro, nor con. I'm looking for how it is even possible for what we choose to be actually spontaneous, in the face of God's causation. And PLEASE don't argue, assuming that because we say things the way we do, that things are so—eg, don't argue that something is "possible" just because we don't know what will happen.

4) Let me mention one relevant tangent: It seems that the question of meticulous causation can be viewed from several directions. Is God, in creating first effect(s), only beginning chains of causation to develop on their own? Does God, in intervening, "control" moral agents in opposition to their will? Does Divine Immanence imply anything here?

5) And one more: Is the [at least one] supposed exception, Regeneration, really an exception? Or maybe it is the other way around —that Regeneration is the standard, and Salvation the norm, from which all of our assumed facts are exceptions and deviations? Is Creation intended and designed THERE, with all else being either other than that, or part of that? —Feel free to ignore this question if you don't understand what I am getting at here. It is a difficult notion for me to express. But it is related to this —that God is the Real, compared to this temporal existence the Bible refers to as a vapor.

 

[QVQ]

Providence defines choice
A person can choose only what is available to choose
What I can choose is determined by providence (lately termed circumstances)
Adam could choose God before the fall and could not choose God after the fall
The choice was available to Adam according to the circumstances
That was an act of God

If all circumstances have cause then the choice is caused by the circumstances
God's will

 

[makesends]

Providence defines choice
A person can choose only what is available to choose
What I can choose is determined by providence (lately termed circumstances)

So, determinism? You are saying that God provides options from which to choose? Or are you saying that God provides that you would choose that option you chose?

Or are you saying that we should consider whatever we choose as God's providence, instead of considering it limitation of choice?

Adam could choose God before the fall and could not choose God after the fall
The choice was available to Adam according to the circumstances
That was an act of God

Agreed.

If all circumstances have cause then the choice is caused by the circumstances
God's will

Agreed.

 

[QVQ]

So, determinism? You are saying that God provides options from which to choose? Or are you saying that God provides that you would choose that option you chose?

Or are you saying that we should consider whatever we choose as God's providence, instead of considering it limitation of choice?

If choices are causes and cause subsequent circumstances then all things work together for the Glory of God.
All choices lead to the same end
Can't have two choices that produce different results causing different circumstance
Vanilla and chocolate ice cream may be choice but both cause the same result (circumstances)
We are on a path, the same as Mars
A planet may vary or wobble or deviate from the path but the path remains fixed
A person chooses and that choice will produce the next set of choices within the totality of circumstance
All of the choices are sign posts along the path
If a person deviates, choosing B instead of A that causes circumstances wherein the resulting circumstances will be effectively A
Choice may be ours but the path is the will of God

As to the limitations of choice, if a person is a fallen man then all choices will yeild the same result

 

[fastfredy0]

Job 34:14 "If He should determine to do so, If He should gather to Himself His spirit and His breath, 15 All flesh would perish together, And man would return to dust.
Acts 17:28a For in Him we live and move and exist [that is, in Him we actually have our being],

All things continue to exist in the way they do because of Him. God is the First Cause of all things. When it comes to people making choices, they do so according to their will/desires and God created their wills.

The Law of Cause and Effect supports this claim though some could argue for secondary causes.

Premise 1: God knows all things eternally
Premise 2: From nothing, nothing comes
Premise 3: At one time (technically before time existed) there was nothing but God (no source of information save Himself)
Conclusion: God determines ALL things

 

[makesends]

If choices are causes and cause subsequent circumstances then all things work together for the Glory of God.

Is that a typo —"If choices are causes and cause subsequent circumstances..."— in which you meant to say, "If choices are caused..."?

All choices lead to the same end
Can't have two choices that produce different results causing different circumstance

Obviously

Vanilla and chocolate ice cream may be choice but both cause the same result (circumstances)
We are on a path, the same as Mars
A planet may vary or wobble or deviate from the path but the path remains fixed
A person chooses and that choice will produce the next set of choices within the totality of circumstance
All of the choices are sign posts along the path
If a person deviates, choosing E instead of A that causes circumstances wherein choice A is the resulting circumstance
All choice along the path are the will of God

Yes, all are according to the will of God, i.e. "decree", but are you saying that God works random choices out for his purposes, or that he also directs the choices? Would you say that choices are caused, beyond God merely providing possibilities/options?

As to the limitations of choice, if a person is a fallen man then all choices will yeild the same result

Agreed. But is that not also the truth, in the end, for the regenerated? —That is, whether he chooses according to the flesh or according to the Spirit, do not all choices belong to God, and lead to God's ends?

At this point, I'm just fishing, trying to figure out what you are saying, or what your opinions/beliefs are on the subject.

 

[makesends]

Job 34:14 "If He should determine to do so, If He should gather to Himself His spirit and His breath, 15 All flesh would perish together, And man would return to dust.

So, Divine Immanence. Can we then infer that God has everything to do with our choosing —our ability to choose and what we choose— beyond him merely providing the options from which to choose?

Acts 17:28a For in Him we live and move and exist [that is, in Him we actually have our being],

All things continue to exist in the way they do because of Him. God is the First Cause of all things. When it comes to people making choices, they do so according to their will/desires and God created their wills.

Agreed. So does that imply meticulous causation?

The Law of Cause and Effect supports this claim though some could argue for secondary causes.

Not sure what you are saying here. The Law of Causation does not SAY that all things except First Cause are effects. I say that, and I think good reason says that. What it does say is that all effects are caused. Cause-and-Effect is, as I think logical, completely pervasive, God being first cause and not an effect. This is Sovereignty. "Secondary causes" are effects that in turn cause further effects. Do you take that statement to contradict Divine Immanence?

Premise 1: God knows all things eternally
Premise 2: From nothing, nothing comes
Premise 3: At one time (technically before time existed) there was nothing but God (no source of information save Himself)
Conclusion: God determines ALL things

Agreed completely.

 

[QVQ]

Is that a typo —"If choices are causes and cause subsequent circumstances..."— in which you meant to say, "If choices are caused..."?

Choices are Causes...Just ask Adam but the choices are within the entirety of circumstances

Yes, all are according to the will of God, i.e. "decree", but are you saying that God works random choices out for his purposes, or that he also directs the choices? Are choices caused, beyond God providing possibilities?

There is a choice between path A and path B but all the paths are parellel.
If a person comes to a fork in the road and choose path A over B both are in the same forest and end in the same town
If Mars deviates from its orbit (wobbles) it is not a random choice or directed. It is simply a choice of path that is on the same path.

God did not decree that Mars could randomly choose to wander off to another galaxy. Chaos would result
If there were choices beyond God providing possibilities (creation) then choices would be outside the will of God

Agreed. But is that not also the truth, in the end, for the regenerated? —That is, whether he chooses according to the flesh or according to the Spirit, do not all choices belong to God, and lead to God's ends?

Yes, Adam's choice was according to the will of God and leads to God's ends
However the responsibility for choice belongs to the chooser
We are the stewards. And we are responsible for the condition of the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

At this point, I'm just fishing, trying to figure out what you are saying, or what your opinions/beliefs are on the subject.

It is difficult to express. I see time as stop frames
I am here now. I am going to make choices, such as go to the kitchen because I am compelled to make choices. As time moves, I must move
Most of the choices I make are reaction to environment based on changing conditions but all of them are within the boundaries of circumstances

 

[Josheb]

I am arranging this under numbers for clarity of reference in argument. Ignore or use the numbers to your heart's content. (Pun intended).

1) Watching RC Sproul's talk, "Have You Lost Your Mind?", it occurred to me that maybe some of those who so vehemently oppose my notion that whatever happens does so by God's decree and by God's causation do so because they take me to be referring to material determinism alone, and that they take me to suppose that the thoughts and intentions of the heart (the mind) are only materially derived by long-chain causation or shorter-chain intervention by God. I can't say for sure if that's what's going on, but I utterly reject the notion that I have seen espoused by @Josheb (and a few others who have implied the same) that the will is, but for the matter of salvation, capable of free action of its own independent spontaneity. In my expression of what they say, they, like the Arminian and the Pelagian, assert the self-contradictory notion that God has ordained that our choices can be in some way uncaused. So I'm wondering how they can say that.

If the problem is articulation, then that is understandable but that still needs to be addressed effectively. If the problem is one of articulation, then learn to express your views better.

Josh. Correct me, please, if I have misrepresented what you believe.

I did. Multiple times. It had absolutely zero positive effect.

2) Any others, please chime in. I want to know how the command necessarily implies the possibility of obedience. I want to know how anything can happen that does not happen. I want to know how our temporal view defines fact—so that our expression by ignorance (we say, "maybe") is an expression of truth rather than simply a mention that we don't know what will be.

3) Let me mention one tangent that I consider irrelevant to this thread's arguments. Please do not get into trying to prove free will by arguments about moral responsibility and God's fairness. That is not the point of this thread—pro, nor con. I'm looking for how it is even possible for what we choose to be actually spontaneous, in the face of God's causation. And PLEASE don't argue, assuming that because we say things the way we do, that things are so—eg, don't argue that something is "possible" just because we don't know what will happen.

4) Let me mention one relevant tangent: It seems that the question of meticulous causation can be viewed from several directions. Is God, in creating first effect(s), only beginning chains of causation to develop on their own? Does God, in intervening, "control" moral agents in opposition to their will? Does Divine Immanence imply anything here?

5) And one more: Is the [at least one] supposed exception, Regeneration, really an exception? Or maybe it is the other way around —that Regeneration is the standard, and Salvation the norm, from which all of our assumed facts are exceptions and deviations? Is Creation intended and designed THERE, with all else being either other than that, or part of that? —Feel free to ignore this question if you don't understand what I am getting at here. It is a difficult notion for me to express. But it is related to this —that God is the Real, compared to this temporal existence the Bible refers to as a vapor.

Most of which is off topic. Post reported accordingly.

 

[makesends]

Most of which is off topic. Post reported accordingly.

Check to see what thread you are on.

 

[makesends]

Choices are Causes...Just ask Adam but the choices are within the entirety of circumstances

I agree choices are causes. I was just checking to see if that is what you had intended to say. (In fact, as far as I know, all effects are in turn also causes of further effects.)

There is a choice between path A and path B but all the paths are parellel.
If a person comes to a fork in the road and choose path A over B both are in the same forest and end in the same town
If Mars deviates from its orbit (wobbles) it is not a random choice or directed. It is simply a choice of path that is on the same path.

God did not decree that Mars could randomly choose to wander off to another galaxy. Chaos would result
If there were choices beyond God providing possibilities (creation) then choices would be outside the will of God

What does cause Mars to wobble? Does God know ahead which path a person chooses?

Yes, Adam's choice was according to the will of God and leads to God's ends
However the responsibility for choice belongs to the chooser
We are the stewards. And we are responsible for the condition of the circumstances in which we find ourselves

Agreed, if you mean by the last sentence that we are responsible for our choices.

It is difficult to express. I see time as stop frames
I am here now. I am going to make choices, such as go to the kitchen because I am compelled to make choices. As time moves, I must move
Most of the choices I make are reaction to environment based on changing conditions but all of them are within the boundaries of circumstances

Yes, but how does that relate to determinism/ decree/ causation? Do you assess one's choices as being altogether spontaneous upon presentation of the options, given the chooser's inclinations and so forth, or do you see it as God causing the choice to be what God intended it to be?

To say that either choice might have ended up according to God's purposes seems to me to invoke chance as causative, no? But maybe I'm getting your thesis wrong.

 

[makesends]

I did. Multiple times. It had absolutely zero positive effect.

That was on a different thread. I'm asking you here to show how in this OP I've misrepresented or I've gotten you wrong (whether "again" or not.)

 

[fastfredy0]

So, Divine Immanence. Can we then infer that God has everything to do with our choosing —our ability to choose and what we choose— beyond him merely providing the options from which to choose?

God created all things. Our "will" is a thing ... IMO He controls all things

Agreed. So does that imply meticulous causation?

R.C. Sproul states “If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, totally free of God’s sovereignty, then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled.” (Yeah, I know, fallacy of author giggle )

Not sure what you are saying here. The Law of Causation does not SAY that all things except First Cause are effects. I say that, and I think good reason says that. What it does say is that all effects are caused. Cause-and-Effect is, as I think logical, completely pervasive, God being first cause and not an effect. This is Sovereignty. "Secondary causes" are effects that in turn cause further effects. Do you take that statement to contradict Divine Immanence?

No

 

[fastfredy0]

Yes, Adam's choice was according to the will of God and leads to God's ends
However the responsibility for choice belongs to the chooser
We are the stewards. And we are responsible for the condition of the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

I see time as stop frames

Me too, frames that God continuously creates as time seems to go along. But He could change the order of the frames, but that would confuse us dummies.

Theological concept of creation?
God created the world from nothing (ex nihilo), meaning that God is the only antecedent condition of the world's existence, such that every creature exists at every moment and in every respect only because God wills that it should exist.

 

[QVQ]

Agreed, if you mean by the last sentence that we are responsible for our choices.

We are responsible for the circumstances that result from choices
Ok, I was thinking about this regenerate choice subject and I remembered a dear friend from high school
She needed a place to stay so I let her move in. She moved in with her heroin addicted boy friend, over dosed at my kitchen table and had wild parties when I was at work
Now I made a choice to let her in. I was powerless to control the circumstances of that choice. I had to save up deposit on apt so I could move.
I made the choice, innocent, not knowing her habits or her new friends. Until another choice presented itself, (the deposit) I had to live in those circumstances created by my choice to allowed her move in
I wasn't responsible for the choice but I was responsible for the circumstances created by that choice, namely I had to pay the rent when she lost her job, I had to calm the neighbors after the wild parties and I had to move

I wasn't responsible (to blame) for my choice but I was responsible (stewardship) for the circumstances that resulted from that choice.

Difficult concept...I use personal anecdotes because the truth of faith does have a corresponding objective reality

Yes, but how does that relate to determinism/ decree/ causation? Do you assess one's choices as being altogether spontaneous upon presentation of the options, given the chooser's inclinations and so forth, or do you see it as God causing the choice to be what God intended it to be?

To say that either choice might have ended up according to God's purposes seems to me to invoke chance as causative, no? But maybe I'm getting your thesis wrong.

I am saying there aren't two choices.
There is one choice. If I take highway 60 to dallas and you take highway 10 we both travel through approximately the same geographic area and we both end up in Dallas. Yet we both spontaneously chose our route upon presentation of the options.
Vanilla and Chocolate ice cream are choices but both are chemically identical and produce the same result
Where is the choice?
Choices are six of one and half dozen of the other
Ever noticed how few choices there are? Two is the number we talk about and in reality, although the choices seem limitless, there are very few.
If I am going to the kitchen, how many choices do I have about how I get there?

 

[John Bauer]

I think the knock-out blow in your original post is the observation that appeals to spontaneous self-determination collapse into autonomy. The notion that the will—except in matters of salvation—is capable of originating choices by an independent spontaneity amounts to a partial Pelagianism. It posits a domain of human action that is metaphysically insulated from divine causation, thereby compromising God’s aseity, providence, and sovereignty.

 

[Josheb]

Check to see what thread you are on.

My bad. I stand corrected and will endeavor not to repeat that mistake

But I do stand by the first two replies in Post 9. If the problem is one of articulation, then the thread provides the opportunity to improve, and I did observe and explain the misrepresentations.... none of which were correctly.

That was on a different thread. I'm asking you here to show how in this OP I've misrepresented I've gotten you wrong (whether "again" or not.)

You understand that the lack of responsiveness there does not bode well for expectations here, yes? Absent an expression of regret and intent to now do things differently Einsteins definition of insanity applies.

I'll weigh in on this op when I have time but the misses wants cuddle time and she's mice and round, and soft, and warm .

 

[makesends]

We are responsible for the circumstances that result from choices
Ok, I was thinking about this regenerate choice subject and I remembered a dear friend from high school
She needed a place to stay so I let her move in. She moved in with her heroin addicted boy friend, over dosed at my kitchen table and had wild parties when I was at work
Now I made a choice to let her in. I was powerless to control the circumstances of that choice. I had to save up deposit on apt so I could move.
I made the choice, innocent, not knowing her habits or her new friends. Until another choice presented itself, (the deposit) I had to live in those circumstances created by my choice to allowed her move in
I wasn't responsible for the choice but I was responsible for the circumstances created by that choice, namely I had to pay the rent when she lost her job, I had to calm the neighbors after the wild parties and I had to move

I wasn't responsible (to blame) for my choice but I was responsible (stewardship) for the circumstances that resulted from that choice.

Difficult concept...I use personal anecdotes because the truth of faith does have a corresponding objective reality



I am saying there aren't two choices.
There is one choice. If I take highway 60 to dallas and you take highway 10 we both travel through approximately the same geographic area and we both end up in Dallas. Yet we both spontaneously chose our route upon presentation of the options.
Vanilla and Chocolate ice cream are choices but both are chemically identical and produce the same result
Where is the choice?
Choices are six of one and half dozen of the other
Ever noticed how few choices there are? Two is the number we talk about and in reality, although the choices seem limitless, there are very few.
If I am going to the kitchen, how many choices do I have about how I get there?

Not sure I'm getting your point. While I agree that from a human POV it seems you could have chosen Vanilla when you chose Chocolate, is it really so? Do you have any idea the number of results (besides the few obvious ones common to both apparent routes) that segue the choice? Are the many other consequences of which choice you made not relevant to this question, or are you saying that regardless of those many consequences, in the end it is all good? I agree it is all good in the end, but is that by routes God meticulously decreed?

Let me press the point. Are you saying that you could have chosen Hwy 10 instead? Or does it only seem so to you? How did it so happen that you chose 60 and I chose 10? Is God not overseeing the causes that steered our decisions? Or do you absolutely mean we "spontaneously" chose our route?

I don't mean to frustrate you in expressing your point, which I take to be simply another POV to use in considering choice, that allows the mechanics of choice to be either God-determinative or self-determinative, so long as God is credited in the end, and can be counted on meanwhile, to accomplish what he set out to do.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
That was on a different thread. I'm asking you here to show how in this OP I've misrepresented I've gotten you wrong (whether "again" or not.)

You understand that the lack of responsiveness there does not bode well for expectations here, yes? Absent an expression of regret and intent to now do things differently Einsteins definition of insanity applies

Perhaps my lack of reading comprehension, my fuzzy-mindedness and my biases have stunted my understanding of what I read, but the only things I remember from the other thread you had demanded me to respond to positively, stemmed from your absolute security in your right perception of the issue and superior expression of position, and the 'therefore' wrong and otherwise reprehensible nature of mine. I don't take well to that, when well-presented arguments against my position still ride on what seem to me humanly derived assumptions of what-is, and on complete satisfaction with the human ability to assess reality, and on statements that to me still smell of logical self-contradiction. (Eg, God is absolutely sovereign in all things, yet not meticulous?) But I will admit to the possibility that I have described myself better than I have described you.

This is why I am asking you here to re-iterate your position and/or in what ways my expression of it in this OP deviates from it. Simply that. If you can't dignify my request —i.e. if it is not worth your time to get into it, seeing our past record— then ok. But I do value your input.

 

[QVQ]

Not sure I'm getting your point. While I agree that from a human POV it seems you could have chosen Vanilla when you chose Chocolate, is it really so? Do you have any idea the number of results (besides the few obvious ones common to both apparent routes) that segue the choice?

Let me press the point. Are you saying that you could have chosen Hwy 10 instead? Or does it only seem so to you? How did it so happen that you chose 60 and I chose 10? Is God not overseeing the causes that steered our decisions? Or do you absolutely mean we "spontaneously" chose our route?

I don't mean to frustrate you in expressing your point, which I take to be simply another POV to use in considering choice, that allows the mechanics of choice to be either God-determinative or self-determinative, so long as God is credited in the end, and can be counted on meanwhile, to accomplish what he set out to do.

The route you chose was created for you. You did not create the route or spontaneously decide to take that route. While it is "theoretically" possible for you to spontaneously decide to Dan'l Boone it cross country the fact remains, the route is established by Providence no matter which route you choose
The choice is always one. If I want to go to the kitchen it is theoretically possible to climb out the window, walk around the house and go in the back door but that is theoretical which is what most of what we call choice really is. Simply alternative theoretical possibilities. Most actual choices are responses to the pressure of internal and external circumstance, also known as providence and that is the will of God.

So being constrained by circumstances and leaving out theoretical choice, most of our choices are as self determined as a feather in a wind storm and God is the director. God created the circumstances and provides the path for the feather to float along.



I appreciate the opportunity to clarify half formed thoughts into coherent sentences. Not frustrating, at all