Does choice imply more than one actual possibility?

[makesends]

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.

I honestly can't see how it could be otherwise. When I try to follow an argument for spontaneity of the creature—even (or maybe specially) "partial spontaneity"—in which it is argued both that spontaneity there is an absolute fact, yet encumbered with dampened enthusiasm , my mind boggles. Is it, or is it not, spontaneous? Is the word only a figure of speech? Is autonomy autonomy or not?

So also, the question of causation. If all other things result from God creating, how did he not cause every meticulous event, intentionally, yet, somehow they meticulously come to be? Is causation by God not also inclusive of his immanently upholding the very existence of every fact? Are we deists after all?

I frankly don't see a range of 'possible' truth, somewhere between God's Immanence and Deism. That, according to our worldview and terminology God intervenes in ways we do not call "natural"—I agree he does. But does HE see it that way? What really is the difference between God's Immanence and his Love —and his thoughts and acts —his speaking and reality —his existence and Transcendence —his purity and force of will?

But I know I carry on sometimes. It is I who see my late wife as the vehement one who couldn't see that there are other valid points-of-view besides her own, and I recognize that may well represent me.

I just wish someone could lay out logically a convincing argument that doesn't depend on such axiomatic presuppositions as we have all seen free-willers use and that doesn't rely on the integrity and comprehensiveness of human assessments of reality.

 

[John Bauer]

I honestly can't see how it could be otherwise. When I try to follow an argument for spontaneity of the creature—even (or maybe specially) "partial spontaneity"—in which it is argued both that spontaneity there is an absolute fact, yet encumbered with dampened enthusiasm , my mind boggles. Is it, or is it not, spontaneous? Is the word only a figure of speech? Is autonomy autonomy or not?

There is a reason for this: To affirm an exhaustive divine decree while insisting that some human choices are uncaused is internally incoherent. It either denies God’s sovereignty or reduces human freedom to randomness.

 

[makesends]

There is a reason for this: To affirm an exhaustive divine decree while insisting that some human choices are uncaused is internally incoherent. It either denies God’s sovereignty or reduces human freedom to randomness.

I debated entering this topic under the Doctrine of God (Proper). To me it is core, affirming Aseity, Simplicity, and so on holistically, simply. As concerns his creation, it affirms God's Sovereignty and Purity, and his force of will.

 

[Josheb]

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.).................

I understand. Not interested. I'll speak to this op when I can but the short answer is, yes, choice does necessarily imply the existence of more than one possibility. As I stated previously, the definition of "choice" is the selection of one or more possibility, or option. That is what the word means. The word is sometimes used incorrectly, as is the case with the word "possibility." Ambiguity must be avoided.

 

[Hobie]

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.

What choice did Nivevah have....

 

[makesends]

What choice did Nivevah have....

I'm guessing that's a rhetorical question, but: The choice to live or to die.

 

[makesends]

I understand. Not interested. I'll speak to this op when I can but the short answer is, yes, choice does necessarily imply the existence of more than one possibility. As I stated previously, the definition of "choice" is the selection of one or more possibility, or option. That is what the word means. The word is sometimes used incorrectly, as is the case with the word "possibility." Ambiguity must be avoided.

Option is not the same as possibility.

 

[Josheb]

Option is not the same as possibility.

I agree. So the two should not be conflated. This op asks, "Does choice imply more than one possibility?" The word "possibility" means "a thing that may or may not happen, a thing that may or may not be the case." If this op intends to use the word "possibility" in any way different than its normal definition, then the onus is on you to provide that definition so that everyone is using the same term in the same way and NOT creating the problem of ambiguity. Using that definition, the question then becomes,

Does choice imply a thing that may or may not happen?

...and that is not the proper use of the word "choice." We are, therefore, back to something I observed in my op-reply:

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.

That would be one of the reasons the forum exists. We are all hear to help one another refine our beliefs, to help one another word them accurately and effectively. Take this opportunity to do just that because the words "choice" and "possibility" are not being used correctly in the question asked.

A choice by definition, exists only when two or more selections also exist, and that means the question asked is actually asking,

Does the existence of two or more selections imply a thing that may or may not happen?

OR... if we were to focus on the act of making a choice, choosing from the options available from among the selections....

Does the act of making a selection imply a thing may or may not occur?

The answer to that question is, "No," but neither the question nor the answer gets to the question of cosmology, or the nature of creation as it pertains to the degree of interaction between the Creator and His creation. As I have tried multiple times to inform and persuade you, the position of strict determinism diminishes God. It literally creates a bad Theology (that is Theology with a capital "T<" as in the "nature of God"). ANY god can make action figures and then make those action figures say and do only what he/she/it wants them to say and do. There's no actual "godness" in that scenario. You and I - everyone participating in this thread can do that! Such a "god" is not actually a God, and he/she/it is definitely NOT the God of the Bible.

It is a MUCH bigger God that can create an entire creation that is dynamic, interactive, and full of unrealized (dialectic) potential.

 

[Josheb]

Option is not the same as possibility.

I agree. So the two should not be conflated. This op asks, "Does choice imply more than one possibility?" The word "possibility" means "a thing that may or may not happen, a thing that may or may not be the case." If this op intends to use the word "possibility" in any way different than its normal definition, then the onus is on you to provide that definition so that everyone is using the same term in the same way and NOT creating the problem of ambiguity. Using that definition, the question then becomes,

Does choice imply a thing that may or may not happen?

...and that is not the proper use of the word "choice." We are, therefore, back to something I observed in my op-reply:

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.

That would be one of the reasons the forum exists. We are all hear to help one another refine our beliefs, to help one another word them accurately and effectively. Take this opportunity to do just that because the words "choice" and "possibility" are not being used correctly in the question asked.

A choice by definition, exists only when two or more selections also exist, and that means the question asked is actually asking,

Does the existence of two or more selections imply a thing that may or may not happen?

OR... if we were to focus on the act of making a choice, choosing from the options available from among the selections....

Does the act of making a selection imply a thing may or may not occur?

The answer to that question is, "No," but neither the question nor the answer gets to the question of cosmology, or the nature of creation as it pertains to the degree of interaction between the Creator and His creation. As I have tried multiple times to inform and persuade you, the position of strict determinism diminishes God. It literally creates a bad Theology (that is Theology with a capital "T<" as in the "nature of God"). ANY god can make action figures and then make those action figures say and do only what he/she/it wants them to say and do. There's no actual "godness" in that scenario. You and I - everyone participating in this thread can do that! Such a "god" is not actually a God, and he/she/it is definitely NOT the God of the Bible.

It is a MUCH bigger God that can create an entire creation that is dynamic, interactive, and full of unrealized (dialectic) potential and still remain sovereign and almighty over all of it.

So choose (irony intended) which God you want to exist; the little, teeny-weeny god who is no different than the ordinary human, or the infinite God who is infinitely different than everything He created.



I'll walk you through an example in my next post but before doing so I am asking you to consider the presuppositional nature of your linear, strict determinism, limiting view of God, and the static view of creation.

 

[His clay]

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.

I'm posting a quick reply because I want to follow this thread. I have not read everything yet, and this is one of those threads that is right up my alley. I would like to read first before responding.

 

[Josheb]

I don't have much time but I'll post what I can and come back to it later to finish if necessary.

Option is not the same as possibility.

Let's take a look at the first choice stated to occur in scripture.

Genesis 2:15-17
15Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

The moment God uttered those words he 1) established an option and 2) gave Adam a selection 3) from which Adam could choose, and 4) each selection, or choice, or act of choosing/selecting would lead to two entirely different outcomes.

At this point most people conflate and confuse God's foreknowledge with determinism. God knowing what will happen is not causal. AND as I have also argued many times God cannot be making Himself, nor His plan and purpose for creation solely dependent on sin. That makes the Righteous One dependent on unrighteousness, the Law Maker dependent on lawlessness, the Sinless One dependent on sin. This compromises divine aseity and simplicity. It's a bad Theology. God's foreknowledge of what will happen is not causal.

If God has not laid out a pair of options then the normal meaning of the words in the verses does not apply and God is saying glerflabin orgozooper keenakakqyqrkik (jibberish). Anyone can make up the meaning of those words and this entire conversation is inane. If, on the other hand, those words mean what they normally mean in their ordinary usage, then God has established a pair of options, AND He had provided the opportunity for Adam to make a choice from those two options.

1. Do you want to eat from all the trees but one and live?
2. Do you want to eat from all the trees, including the one forbidden, and die?

The choice doesn't actually occur unless and until Adam makes his selection. And since there is always the option of not choosing every choice is always a selection from at least two options! To choose or not choose. Not-choosing is a choice. At this point some readers may fall prey to the notion all choices are deliberate so a non-choice never actually exists but that is not true. It might be true of a sinless man but sinful people act in ways they are completely unaware of, completely without thinking and completely without engaging any volitional faculties quite often. I mention this little digression simply to say there were actually three options, but for the purposes of this op the two just listed will suffice.

God has made creation dynamic, not fixed. If Adam choose 1 then X will happen and if Adam chooses 2 then Y will happen and God has not controlled what Adam will do. No matter what Adam chooses, however, it will comport perfectly with God's purpose. God's purpose will not, cannot, ever be thwarted no matter what Adam dies or chooses. God is everywhere and always sovereign - even over a dynamic and interactive creation.


If, on the other hand, we say "God determined Adam would disobey Him," then we have to go back to the Gen. 2:15-17 text and say those words do not mean what they actually state when the normal meaning of those words in ordinary usage is applied. Most of those words something entirely different than their ordinary meaning. What God actually meant is that there are a big bunch of trees from which you can eat but I am going to make you eat from a very bad tree and prohibit you from eating from this one very good tree until I see fit to make you eat from that tree. That is strict determinism honestly stated. If that is what God means and God did not state that then..... God has lied by omission and that is, again, a bad Theology (a bad doctrine of God's nature).

Other doctrinal matter intersect all of this, such as the nature of Christ (Christology) and the nature of salvation (soteriology), as well as the nature of sin (hamartiology) but, for now, it is enough to realize making God and creation deterministic leads to a bad doctrine of God and the problems cannot be avoided with caveats like "ordained" instead of "determined." That's just sophistry. Words have to be defined, defined accurately, and those definitions applied consistently.

• A real pair of options was established.
• The established options were provided.
• A choice or two or more options was made available.
• The choice was eventually made.
• Actions consistent with the choice made ensued.
• The prescribed consequences (or effects) of the choice made happened.
• The prescribed consequences of the alternative choice would have ensued had the other option been chosen.

Neither choice, nor neither set of consequences, would have in any way had any adverse effect on God's already-existing, omnisciently foreknown plan and purpose for creation. The only difference would have been Adam died sinlessly dead instead of sinfully dead. God made creation in six days. That creation contained several unrealized, several then-yet-to-be-realized options. Adam's obedience/disobedience was one of them. If Adam eats the life-fruit then A, B, and C happen. If he eats the forbidden kiwi then D. E, and F ensue. The kiwi potential was realized. God knew it would, but that event did not change one thing for God. It simply changed human existence, not divine existence.

God's ontology is not compromised in any way if and/or when any of those possibilities occurs. Neither is His plan. That one choice and one act did occur does not limit the prior conditions. That would be a post hoc argument a fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Because X happened only X could have happened is a logical fallacy.


Q: Does choice imply more than on actual possibility?
A: You'll have to define your terms if you mean anything other than the normal meaning of those words.

Q: Does choice imply a thing that may or may not happen?
A: Since the word "choice" means at least to or more options or selections exist, and the word "possibility " means a thing may or may not happen, the answer to that question is "Yes."

Q: Does the existence of two or more selections imply a thing that may or may not happen?
A: Yes.

Q: Does the act of making a selection imply a thing may or may not occur?
A: No.

I'll address the rest of the op in a separate post when I have time. Gotta go.

 

[QVQ]

Neither choice, nor neither set of consequences, would have in any way had any adverse effect on God's already-existing, omnisciently foreknown plan and purpose for creation. The only difference would have been Adam died sinlessly dead instead of sinfully dead. God made creation in six days. That creation contained several unrealized, several then-yet-to-be-realized options. Adam's obedience/disobedience was one of them. If Adam eats the life-fruit then A, B, and C happen. If he eats the forbidden kiwi then D. E, and F ensue. The kiwi potential was realized. God knew it would, but that event did not change one thing for God. It simply changed human existence, not divine existence.

Here is the problem. There is a potential for Mars to wander off to the next galaxy. If Mars so decided, God could adjust his plan accordingly
But when all the planets, all the atoms start wandering around fulfilling all alternate potentialities, then god is chaos

The question seems to be, God chose Adam to choose. Adam could not thereafter choose. Did Christ restore the choice of Adam to all men?
That is the theological argument as I understand it

Between the god of robots and the god of chaos, there is the True God who both leads us on the path yet allows for all the options that color creation.

Interesting discussion

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Option is not the same as possibility.

I agree. So the two should not be conflated. This op asks, "Does choice imply more than one possibility?" The word "possibility" means "a thing that may or may not happen, a thing that may or may not be the case."

And so, my point. Once the choice is established, we can see that both (or the many) options we considered possible, were in fact NOT all possible. WE (humans) only thought them to be. God does not think the way we do. HIS is the only reality.

If this op intends to use the word "possibility" in any way different than its normal definition, then the onus is on you to provide that definition so that everyone is using the same term in the same way and NOT creating the problem of ambiguity. Using that definition, the question then becomes,

Does choice imply a thing that may or may not happen?

...and that is not the proper use of the word "choice."

Can you show that "choice" implies a thing that may or may not happen? —or do we only suppose it to imply that?

Looking at different definitions, a reasonable definition per AI reads, "Choice is the act of selecting or deciding between two or more possibilities. It can also refer to the range of options available from which one can choose." As can be seen, the second sentence can go two ways; no doubt the use AI intends depends on the first sentence. The first sentence is correct in that it describes how WE humans think. But it does not describe fact. (This is far from the only word in the dictionary that correctly shows how we think, but does not establish fact. Take for a more obvious example, the word "chance". It only means what we suppose —we being ignorant (and sometimes lazy) enough to not find the reasons/causes for what exists or for what is true. It is a shortcut for, "I don't know". In fact, to say that something happens by chance is self-contradictory). There is no such thing as [true] chance.

We are, therefore, back to something I observed in my op-reply:

​

​

​

That would be one of the reasons the forum exists. We are all hear to help one another refine our beliefs, to help one another word them accurately and effectively. Take this opportunity to do just that because the words "choice" and "possibility" are not being used correctly in the question asked.

A choice by definition, exists only when two or more selections also exist, and that means the question asked is actually asking,

Does the existence of two or more selections imply a thing that may or may not happen?

Options, in that context, are selections that WE suppose to be actually possible to choose. Again, I'm not saying the dictionary is wrong. I'm saying that it is defining how we think, and/or how we speak—how we use a word. A dictionary does not provide a full treatise on the subject of choice nor options nor possibility. It only tells us what we commonly intend by a word.

Thus, the OP. If God, who alone knows all reality, says we have choice, then we do. If he says so, but also says that he ordained all fact, and is (obviously) omniscient of all fact (yes, I'm being redundant), then he (at the very least) knows what we will choose and so the other options (or 'selections') from which we choose are not actually possible to choose. Do we need to also define 'possible', here, or does this suffice? I don't like the word, 'selection', that you provided, since, by some definitions, it would imply that none were actually selections, but the one selected. They were only "possible" selections —again, harking back to OUR way of thinking. And around we go.

OR... if we were to focus on the act of making a choice, choosing from the options available from among the selections....

Does the act of making a selection imply a thing may or may not occur?

The answer to that question is, "No," but neither the question nor the answer gets to the question of cosmology, or the nature of creation as it pertains to the degree of interaction between the Creator and His creation. As I have tried multiple times to inform and persuade you, the position of strict determinism diminishes God. It literally creates a bad Theology (that is Theology with a capital "T<" as in the "nature of God"). ANY god can make action figures and then make those action figures say and do only what he/she/it wants them to say and do. There's no actual "godness" in that scenario. You and I - everyone participating in this thread can do that! Such a "god" is not actually a God, and he/she/it is definitely NOT the God of the Bible.

It is a MUCH bigger God that can create an entire creation that is dynamic, interactive, and full of unrealized (dialectic) potential.

And around again. GOD is the only first cause. Logically, all other fact descends causally from his causation. Describe it how you wish —robotic or dynamic— it is all CAUSED by God, and so, logically (as proven us by his attribute of omniscience), by his meticulous and comprehensive intent. I say, that is not robotic. It is dynamic, but not uncaused. God 'inhabits' a level that much beyond our reality.

 

[makesends]

Here is the problem. There is a potential for Mars to wander off to the next galaxy. If Mars so decided, God could adjust his plan accordingly
But when all the planets, all the atoms start wandering around fulfilling all alternate potentialities, then god is chaos

The question seems to be, God chose Adam to choose. Adam could not thereafter choose. Did Christ restore the choice of Adam to all men?
That is the theological argument as I understand it

Between the god of robots and the god of chaos, there is the True God who both leads us on the path yet allows for all the options that color creation.

Interesting discussion

Do you agree, though we say there is a potential for Mars to deviate from its otherwise projected path, that if it does so, it could not have been otherwise? And, for any given time period we supposed there to be that potential, if it does not deviate, we can see that it could not have?

What does God see? Does God see potential and/or possibility that is not caused by himself? If Mars deviates, did not God cause it, whether directly or through means? —and if it does not deviate, that its continuing path is maintained by God?

Why do we think in these terms? Because we are afraid of where our minds will go with notions concerning sin, if we suppose God to have caused sin? I agree we cannot let ourselves suppose God to sin. Frankly, it is ludicrous, self-contradictory, not to mention monstrous. I agree that we are necessarily the guilty ones in the dynamics of sin and moral responsibility—it is impossible that God 'actually' be that one, (YET HE DID BECOME THAT).* But that is another topic.




*Off topic note: Here may be a good subject for a thread under Hamartiology

 

[QVQ]

What does God see? Does God see potential and/or possibility that is not caused by himself? If Mars deviates, did not God cause it, whether directly or through means? —and if it does not deviate, that its continuing path is maintained by God?

Mars does deviate within the boundaries of natural law. It is not an uncaused deviation. And it can not be otherwise because the deviations are due to observable circumstances, such as gravitional adjustments and shifting of internal mass. Therefore the deviations of Mars are bound by circumstances and subject to natural law (the will of God)

If you are driving down the road, you may deviate from the road to buy food or gas. Those "choices, options, possibilities" are bound by circumstances and subject to natural law, the ( the will of God.)

 

[makesends]

Mars does deviate within the boundaries of natural law. It is not an uncaused deviation. And it can not be otherwise because the deviations are due to observable circumstances, such as gravitional adjustments and shifting of internal mass. Therefore the deviations of Mars are bound by circumstances and subject to natural law (the will of God)

Not to dispute you, here, but if the circumstances under which Mars does deviate are NOT all observable, does that change the fact that the deviations can not be otherwise?

If you are driving down the road, you may deviate from the road to buy food or gas. Those "choices, options, possibilities" are bound by circumstances and subject to natural law, the ( the will of God.)

Yes, it cannot be otherwise. The call of nature, and the machine all dictate that you will stop. There ultimately isn't any other choice possible and where you stop is subject to the same contraints. To stop for gas requires a gas station. That is the only possible choice.

Agreed. However, does that indicate that there was actually no choice made?

 

[QVQ]

Not to dispute you, here, but if the circumstances under which Mars does deviate are NOT all observable, does that change the fact that the deviations can not be otherwise?

The underlying assumption of science is that all deviations are caused, even if the cause is theoretical. Scientifically, if Mars deviates, it was caused and in stop frame time, at that moment Mars could not do otherwise.

,Agreed. However, does that indicate that there was actually no choice made?

Where is the choice?
In the totality of circumstance (providence) it is natural law (will of God) that you stop. Whether it is at the gas station Point A or out of petrol 10 miles down the road Point B the results are the same. You stop

Perhaps that indicates that you have options but ultimately you have no choice.

 

[makesends]

The underlying assumption of science is that all deviations are caused, even if the cause is theoretical. Scientifically, if Mars deviates, it was caused and in stop frame time, at that moment Mars could not do otherwise.

Where is the choice?
In the totality of circumstance (providence) it is natural law (will of God) that you stop. Whether it is at the gas station Point A or out of petrol 10 miles down the road Point B the results are the same. You stop

Assuming that Mars has no will in the matter, but only does what it does by mechanistic determinism, is there not a difference between its deviations, and choice?

Perhaps that indicates that you have options but ultimately you have no choice.

Then, ultimately, I'd have to say that "you have no choice" is only a figure of speech. After all, does not the Bible amply demonstrate that we do and must choose?

 

[makesends]

I don't have much time but I'll post what I can and come back to it later to finish if necessary.

Let's take a look at the first choice stated to occur in scripture.

Genesis 2:15-17
15Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

The moment God uttered those words he 1) established an option and 2) gave Adam a selection 3) from which Adam could choose, and 4) each selection, or choice, or act of choosing/selecting would lead to two entirely different outcomes.

Agreed. So far no mention of chance, only an [implied] admission from you that the outcome had not been established from Adam's POV, temporally.

At this point most people conflate and confuse God's foreknowledge with determinism. God knowing what will happen is not causal. AND as I have also argued many times God cannot be making Himself, nor His plan and purpose for creation solely dependent on sin. That makes the Righteous One dependent on unrighteousness, the Law Maker dependent on lawlessness, the Sinless One dependent on sin. This compromises divine aseity and simplicity. It's a bad Theology.

So you make God an onlooker, and thus logically not the first cause of all effects?

God's foreknowledge of what will happen is not causal.

Several concordances and scholars would disagree with you. Foreknowledge by God implies intimate purpose. And Theological Philosophy agrees, as is implied by several of his attributes, to include simplicity and aseity. The difference between God knowing and God causing may be mainly in OUR limited perception. (And don't stretch that statement into the field of sin. That would result in false equivalence. God causes that there be sin. He intends that Joseph's brothers sell Joseph into slavery. (And that cannot be proven to be an exception—there is no end of things to be shown as caused by God, both by causation theory and by Bible statements.))

If God has not laid out a pair of options then the normal meaning of the words in the verses does not apply and God is saying glerflabin orgozooper keenakakqyqrkik (jibberish). Anyone can make up the meaning of those words and this entire conversation is inane. If, on the other hand, those words mean what they normally mean in their ordinary usage, then God has established a pair of options, AND He had provided the opportunity for Adam to make a choice from those two options.

You are repeating yourself, once again trusting in your assumption that God only means "ordinary usage" when he uses words WE ordinarily take under temporal notions.

1. Do you want to eat from all the trees but one and live?
2. Do you want to eat from all the trees, including the one forbidden, and die?

The choice doesn't actually occur unless and until Adam makes his selection. And since there is always the option of not choosing every choice is always a selection from at least two options! To choose or not choose.

Of course, but you so far are asserting, only, that "choice" and "choosing" reflects autonomy from God's causation. Can you demonstrate that it is so from God's POV

Not-choosing is a choice. At this point some readers may fall prey to the notion all choices are deliberate so a non-choice never actually exists but that is not true. It might be true of a sinless man but sinful people act in ways they are completely unaware of, completely without thinking and completely without engaging any volitional faculties quite often. I mention this little digression simply to say there were actually three options, but for the purposes of this op the two just listed will suffice.

No problem and agreed.

God has made creation dynamic, not fixed. If Adam choose 1 then X will happen and if Adam chooses 2 then Y will happen and God has not controlled what Adam will do. No matter what Adam chooses, however, it will comport perfectly with God's purpose. God's purpose will not, cannot, ever be thwarted no matter what Adam dies or chooses. God is everywhere and always sovereign - even over a dynamic and interactive creation.

Dynamic according to OUR notions? If reality is established by God, how not the facts/events within reality? Does reality carry on its own ontology separate from its Creator? Particularly our temporal notion of 'Dynamic', while to us screams, "I did this!", does it really mean anything? Our limited knowledge makes it look our will is spontaneous, but we cannot prove it, and good reason via causation denies it.

If, on the other hand, we say "God determined Adam would disobey Him," then we have to go back to the Gen. 2:15-17 text and say those words do not mean what they actually state when the normal meaning of those words in ordinary usage is applied.

So, were that true, one should contemplate what GOD means by them.

Most of those words something entirely different than their ordinary meaning. What God actually meant is that there are a big bunch of trees from which you can eat but I am going to make you eat from a very bad tree and prohibit you from eating from this one very good tree until I see fit to make you eat from that tree. That is strict determinism honestly stated.

Wrong again. That is only how some see 'strict determinism' —at least, if I am a strict determinist. I do not say that Adam had no choice. That is a strawman-argument-style reasoning concerning the logic of first cause being the intending force behind all fact. I'm pretty sure we don't even agreed as to what "all fact" means, here.

If that is what God means and God did not state that then..... God has lied by omission and that is, again, a bad Theology (a bad doctrine of God's nature).

We even have a thread about God hiding himself. Why would an omission of GOD's POV plainly shown mean he is lying? No, sir. that is false. We don't even have the ability to comprehend what he would say there, was he to show himself more completely.

Other doctrinal matter intersect all of this, such as the nature of Christ (Christology) and the nature of salvation (soteriology), as well as the nature of sin (hamartiology) but, for now, it is enough to realize making God and creation deterministic leads to a bad doctrine of God and the problems cannot be avoided with caveats like "ordained" instead of "determined." That's just sophistry. Words have to be defined, defined accurately, and those definitions applied consistently.

Can you show anything that God ordained but did not determine? Can you demonstrate how it is/was not determined?

• A real pair of options was established.
• The established options were provided.
• A choice or two or more options was made available.
• The choice was eventually made.
• Actions consistent with the choice made ensued.
• The prescribed consequences (or effects) of the choice made happened.
• The prescribed consequences of the alternative choice would have ensued had the other option been chosen.

Agreed, all. However, "the other option" was not chosen, and thus God's intentions concerning creation continue on track toward their completed result —Heaven by way of Redemption. Do you have any way to show that God's intention was actually NOT what Adam did?

Neither choice, nor neither set of consequences, would have in any way had any adverse effect on God's already-existing, omnisciently foreknown plan and purpose for creation.

Of course. Adam's choice was intrinsic to God's plan and purpose for Creation. I see no reason to think God had to bring out plan B

The only difference would have been Adam died sinlessly dead instead of sinfully dead. God made creation in six days. That creation contained several unrealized, several then-yet-to-be-realized options. Adam's obedience/disobedience was one of them. If Adam eats the life-fruit then A, B, and C happen. If he eats the forbidden kiwi then D. E, and F ensue. The kiwi potential was realized. God knew it would, but that event did not change one thing for God. It simply changed human existence, not divine existence.

Agreed that it was not realized until it happened. That proves nothing toward your thesis.

God's ontology is not compromised in any way if and/or when any of those possibilities occurs. Neither is His plan. That one choice and one act did occur does not limit the prior conditions. That would be a post hoc argument a fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Because X happened only X could have happened is a logical fallacy.

Again, the word, 'possibilities', as though that wasn't predicated on our ignorant use of the word to satisfy our under-developed notions. The fact that what we don't know will be chosen does not mean that it is actually possible for either decision to be made. I never happens for both, only what is chosen is ever chosen. The thought that it could have gone the other way is a bogus consideration—it did not go the other way.

Q: Does choice imply more than on actual possibility?
A: You'll have to define your terms if you mean anything other than the normal meaning of those words.

What does God see?

Q: Does choice imply a thing that may or may not happen?
A: Since the word "choice" means at least to or more options or selections exist, and the word "possibility " means a thing may or may not happen, the answer to that question is "Yes."

Restating your thesis drawn on what you call 'ordinary usage', and not on what God sees.

Q: Does the existence of two or more selections imply a thing that may or may not happen?
A: Yes.

It only implies that WE don't know which. From our POV, and using our terminology complete with its implications, WE say it may, or may not happen, because WE don't know what God sees.

Q: Does the act of making a selection imply a thing may or may not occur?
A: No.

I agree. It means only that whatever we select, what God intended is precisely, meticulously come to pass up to this point. We cannot change God's decree. We (and our choices) can only be part of its accomplishment.

I'll address the rest of the op in a separate post when I have time. Gotta go.

 

[QVQ]

Then, ultimately, I'd have to say that "you have no choice" is only a figure of speech. After all, does not the Bible amply demonstrate that we do and must choose?

Adam could choose before the Fall but he could not choose after the Fall
Adam could choose from a veritable menu of sinful options but he could not change his state

Adam could only choose because God gave him the power to choose and the choice to make.

If on the road trip you are out of gasoline, you have options of where you can stop but ultimately you have no choice. You will stop.
You can change the circumstances (providence) or the state of your being (out of gas) by exercising available options.
Exercising available options is not choice if the fundamental state requires the same. If an action is forced, it is not choice.