Does choice imply more than one actual possibility?

[Josheb]

makesends said:
Option is not the same as possibility.

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.

That is incorrect and argumentum ad nauseam.

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

I did.

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."

Which is what I posted using different words. It is NOT, however, what the op asserts. The dictionary, AI, and my posts all agree: The kind of strict, linear determinism asserted by the op is wrong.

And rather than argue about, defend the error and assert ad nauseam what should happen is repenting and recanting.

As can be seen, the second sentence can go two ways; no doubt the use AI intends depends on the first sentence.

Two ways is one more than the op argues argued. And, for the record, AI does not have "intent."

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.

Now the goal posts are being moved. The op does not ask if choice establishes fact. The op asks if choice implies more than one actual possibility. Do I now have to explain the differences between "imply," and "establish," or the differences between "possibility" and "fact"? This conversation is quickly moving away from mere problems of articulation and increasingly about basic definitions and fundamental reason. Stick to defending the premise choice does not imply more than one possibility.

Take for a more obvious example, the word "chance".

No. Let's not do that. Let's not depart from the op anymore. Let's not do so at all. No red herrings.

Options, in that context...

Would be a red herring, something that has absolutely no bearing on choice implying more than one actual possibility, something posted solely for the purpose of digression and diversion.

Thus, the OP. If God, who alone knows all reality, says we have choice, then we do.

Yep.

And He either offers or asserts real actual choices, or He doesn't. Was Adam provided with a choice in the example provided or not? If the answer is yes, then the op and the posted defense is faulty. If the answer is no then you, not me, must explain how and why the words of scripture do not mean what they state.

If he says so, but also says that he ordained all fact.....

Nope. Conflating choices and facts is irrational.

And around we go.

No. Around you go, and go without ever recognizing of acknowledging the mistakes made, go around arguing ad nauseam, go around not addressing the specific of my posts (I specifically addressed the matter of both ordaining and foreknowledge).

And around again.

It's called ad nauseam.

GOD is the only first cause.

That is not a point in dispute. The question is WHAT did He cause? Did He cause a fixed, static creation of action figures in which actual choices do not exist, and He meticulously determined every event, or did He cause a dynamic and interactive creation with interactive aspects filled with yet unrealized potential?

Logically, all other fact descends causally from his causation.

This specified inquiry of this op is not about fact. It is about choice and possibility. Sto moving the goal posts. That the op conflated its inquiry with a completely different question about fact is part of the problem to be solved. It is not logical.

Describe it how you wish —robotic or dynamic— it is all CAUSED by God...

You have yet to prove that and repetition does not mean anything. The facts are, ironically, that there are several logical errors in the reasoning employed to defend this op. They begin with incorrect definitions and move from there to fallacies of ad nauseam, straw man, self-contradictions, conflation, ambiguity, post hoc, moving goal posts, and ad nauseam. I am supposed to focus on one fallacy at a time, according to the tou but that does not change the fact the defensive of the op is rife with logical errors. "Describe it how you wish," or "Call it what you like," is not a rational argument for anything. If real choices containing two or more options, each leading to different outcomes actually exist and exist by God's doing.... then this op is incorrect. That is a fact establshed by God .

The description is not "as I wish." The description is what it is regardless of what I wish. You assert a strict determinism and aren't able to assert the position rationally OR defend against its many actual flaws.

A choice, by definition, necessarily entails to or more options and those options may (or may not) lead to different outcomes. Each outcome is possible. Each option is a possibility if the choice is real.

And you just conceded "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." Choice implies more than one actual possibility. Accept it and rework your understanding of divine causation until the many existing logical errors no longer exist.

 

[QVQ]

Was Adam provided with a choice in the example provided or not?

Adam had a choice at the time of the fall
After the fall, Adam did not have a choice
Adam could select from a menu of optional sins but he could not choose to change his state

If the fundamental state of being requires selecting between options, there isn't any choice because the action would be forced (required)
If the options do not change the fundamental state then the options are selections within the state, selections not choices.
Choosing red or green vehicle. Vehicle is fundamental. Green or red are optional selections that do not change the fundamental state, vehicle

God gave Adam choice and the power to choose (free will) only once in that time and place
Adam did not have choice or the power to choose thereafter

 

[Josheb]

Adam had a choice at the time of the fall

Are you sure? Are you sure?

The op says otherwise. The "choice" was not actually a choice because God deterministically caused both the situation, the thinking, the options, the selection of the options...... ALL of it was meticulously caused by God. Some head way has been accomplished because @makesends has appealed to AI's definition of choices inherently being a matter of two or more possibilities where that was previously denied in its entirety but the nature and reality of a choice existing is still very much debated by the op.

After the fall, Adam did not have a choice

Which is why I chose (irony intended) the pre-disobedient example.

Adam could select from a menu of optional sins but he could not choose to change his state

irrelevant. The op asks whether or not choice implies more than one actual possibility and says the answer is no. Adam''s ability to change a post-disobedient state is outside of the specified topic.

If the fundamental state of being requires selecting between options, there isn't any choice because the action would be forced (required)
If the options do not change the fundamental state then the options are selections within the state, selections not choices.
Choosing red or green vehicle. Vehicle is fundamental. Green or red are optional selections that do not change the fundamental state, vehicle

Selections and choices are not mutually exclusive conditions. Ditch the false dichotomy.

God gave Adam choice and the power to choose (free will) only once in that time and place

Not according to the op. Since God deterministically causes all subsequent causes without any options, alternatives, or possibilities God did not really give Adam a choice. It was only the appearance of a choice.

Adam did not have choice or the power to choose thereafter

Again, that is irrelevant. The example provided is specifically, intentionally, and solely about the pre-disobedient state.


Are you sure there is a real, actual, factual choice in Genesis 2:15-17? If the answer is yes, then take that position up with the op and explain your reasoning while I support your effort to do so (because I agree with you).

 

[QVQ]

@makesends @Josheb correct me if I am wrong

Selections and choices are not mutually exclusive conditions. Ditch the false dichotomy.

I can't agree with either position, determinism or dynamic because the arguments presented are encroaching on free will.
Adam had free will at one time in one place
Adam did not have free will thereafter, his will being bound by sin. That means he was in a state wherein he could select sin and the appearance of good but he could not choose good.
So there must be a dichotomy between choice and selection to avoid the confusion of Adam having free will (choice) in his fallen state

If the argument is that God determines what breakfast cereal Adam chose (he didn't, God did) or the dynamic Adam could choose his breakfast cereal (he did, God didn't) then the arguments are skating very close to "well, if we can choose our breakfast cereal, we can choose or not choose God."
I say we can select available options within our state (providence). The option of Faith is not available for our selection within our state.
It takes an act of God to change our state, same as Adam

This agrees with the OP that Adam and the fruit are all an Act of God

That is why I noted that Adam had states of being, one before the fall and one after. Adam had free will choice with two possible outcomes at one time in one place. Adam did not thereafter and we do not have free will except as noted in the WCF
We can select between options that exist within our fundamental state but we cannot by selecting options (doing good works) change our state

We do not have free will to choose God except by the grace of God.

 

[makesends]

Are you sure? Are you sure?

The op says otherwise. The "choice" was not actually a choice because God deterministically caused both the situation, the thinking, the options, the selection of the options...... ALL of it was meticulously caused by God. Some head way has been accomplished because @makesends has appealed to AI's definition of choices inherently being a matter of two or more possibilities where that was previously denied in its entirety but the nature and reality of a choice existing is still very much debated by the op.

No. Makesends used AI's definitions as relevant only to the human POV —not God's. Need I repeat that the dictionary gives an accurate rendering of OUR way of thinking, but makes no statement as to the validity of our way of thinking? Need I present again the example of what the dictionary says about "chance", to which you cry "red herring", when I pointed it out as an obvious example of things the dictionary does this with? I can't help but wonder if you had to try to discredit that example since it was so obvious you could not answer it.

Which is why I chose (irony intended) the pre-disobedient example.

irrelevant. The op asks whether or not choice implies more than one actual possibility and says the answer is no. Adam''s ability to change a post-disobedient state is outside of the specified topic.

Why must anyone limit their examples to your example? You want to limit discussion to the use/meaning of a word as represented by the dictionary. Have at it, but I will not do so in a context where that definition is used to describe God or to define God's meaning of a word. We well know that God does not think how we do. We well know that he is not limited to our concepts.

How is your example no red herring, if it is a red herring for me to bring up the dictionary's definition of "chance" as an example of how the dictionary is only accurate to describe OUR use of a word, and not as positing the validity of that definition?

Selections and choices are not mutually exclusive conditions. Ditch the false dichotomy.

Not according to the op. Since God deterministically causes all subsequent causes without any options, alternatives, or possibilities God did not really give Adam a choice. It was only the appearance of a choice.

Your axiom is mistaken, and a strawman argument. God presents options—making no statement about what is actually possible—only demanding that the choice be made. It will consistently be made according to God's decree. It is never otherwise.

Again, that is irrelevant. The example provided is specifically, intentionally, and solely about the pre-disobedient state.

The OP is not about your example.

Are you sure there is a real, actual, factual choice in Genesis 2:15-17? If the answer is yes, then take that position up with the op and explain your reasoning while I support your effort to do so (because I agree with you).

The OP also is sure there is a real, actual, factual choice in Genesis 2:15-17, as established by God. You can do nothing apart from God. In him we live and move and have our being. How then, can you pretend that your choices have validity on their own, to include actual multiple possibles?

I appeal to history as epistemic witness. You can call that reasoning any latin name you like, as though that appeal to authority destroys my hindsight assessment of "possibility". God only decrees all things, whatsoever comes to pass. He decrees nothing else.

You have cried out against my consideration of intangibles as fact. If they are what they are, they are fact. They may not be material, but principles, if they are indeed true, are fact.

No doubt I have forgotten some others of these things you have thrown at me, but I wanted to answer them here in short, rather than to extend your already overly-long diatribes against me and my pseudo-arguments.

 

[makesends]

@makesends @Josheb correct me if I am wrong

I can't agree with either position, determinism or dynamic because the arguments presented are encroaching on free will.
Adam had free will at one time in one place
Adam did not have free will thereafter, his will being bound by sin. That means he was in a state wherein he could select sin and the appearance of good but he could not choose good.
So there must be a dichotomy between choice and selection to avoid the confusion of Adam having free will (choice) in his fallen state

If the argument is that God determines what breakfast cereal Adam chose (he didn't, God did) or the dynamic Adam could choose his breakfast cereal (he did, God didn't) then the arguments are skating very close to "well, if we can choose our breakfast cereal, we can choose or not choose God."
I say we can select available options within our state (providence). The option of Faith is not available for our selection within our state.
It takes an act of God to change our state, same as Adam

But determinism (as I define it and agree with it) does not say that if God determines what breakfast cereal Adam eats implies that Adam didn't choose. My notion of determinism says that God determines absolutely everything, and uses means —in this context, our choices— to accomplish it. That neither diminishes any true dynamic, nor God's size. Both choice and decree are in full sway. But our choice is always as decreed.

This agrees with the OP that Adam and the fruit are all an Act of God

That is why I noted that Adam had states of being, one before the fall and one after. Adam had free will choice with two possible outcomes at one time in one place. Adam did not thereafter and we do not have free will except as noted in the WCF
We can select between options that exist within our fundamental state but we cannot by selecting options (doing good works) change our state

We do not have free will to choose God except by the grace of God.

The Bible's, "If...the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." is not referring to libertarian (uncaused) free will. The veracity of your construction there depends on your meaning of "freewill". There truly is a huge difference between the will of the regenerate and that of the unbeliever. But that isn't what the OP is about. @Josheb is correct about that. But innocent will is still causally informed. Even it does according to the inclinations of the heart and mind and abilities—all of them caused effects.

 

[Hobie]

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

That is the choice we are faced with today, repent and be saved, or continue in sin and die in perdition....

 

[makesends]

That is the choice we are faced with today, repent and be saved, or continue in sin and die in perdition....

Why do you bring this up? How do you see it as relevant to the subject of the OP?

 

[QVQ]

ut determinism (as I define it and agree with it) does not say that if God determines what breakfast cereal Adam eats implies that Adam didn't choose. My notion of determinism says that God determines absolutely everything, and uses means —in this context, our choices— to accomplish it. That neither diminishes any true dynamic, nor God's size. Both choice and decree are in full sway. But our choice is always as decreed.

I think I understand what you mean. I can visualize it but it is very difficult to describe. it isn't little cause and effect like a row of dominos.
It is hard to express in words how that works. It is complex. It is the power of God and how it moves everything into the pattern that God intends. Even our choice would be decreed within that as our choices are caused causes and effects within creation. I will consider it for a while and perhaps explain my understanding more better

The Bible's, "If...the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." is not referring to libertarian (uncaused) free will. The veracity of your construction there depends on your meaning of "freewill". There truly is a huge difference between the will of the regenerate and that of the unbeliever. But that isn't what the OP is about. @Josheb is correct about that. But innocent will is still causally informed. Even it does according to the inclinations of the heart and mind and abilities—all of them caused effects.

Agree but what I am saying is that there is "little world" where "choices" are mundane and ordinary, constrained by accident and design, limited by time energy finances and all the trivialities of daily life. What to have for dinner is not choice. It is a selection among options. What is in the refrigerator. I select options available within the circumstances (providence) There isn't any free will or even any reliable will involved.

Free Will, Adam had it and lost it. By the Grace of God we affirm God. That is the will of God. I don't believe that a person who has faith and knows God can deny that so we don't have the free will to deny the Truth once we are given the Truth. I believe, once saved always saved so we cannot be lost.

God is not a option to be selected or deselected at will. Potatoes or rice for dinner can be selected but only if I have potatoes or rice so my will (selection) is dependent upon circumstances. There is dichotomy (difference) between choice which requires will and selecting options within the bounds of present circumstances

 

[John Bauer]

I see time as stop frames

Me too, frames that God continuously creates as time seems to go along.

Just wait until you guys hear Richard Feynman on the nature of time.

You are completely wrong about time. You probably think you know what it is because you look at a watch or you feel yourself getting older. But that isn't time. That's just a sensation, a biological trick.

Most people walk around with this poetic idea in their heads that time is a river. You imagine it flows, sweeping you along from the past through the present and into the future. You think it moved. But here is the problem with that beautiful image. If time is a river, how fast does the river flow? One second per second? That is meaningless. That's like saying a table is one table long. It tells you absolutely nothing about the nature of reality.

The truth is much stranger, much more mechanical and, honestly, a lot less romantic than a flowing stream. Time doesn't flow. Time doesn't push you anywhere. And if you think you have a good grip on how time works just because you can count seconds in your head, you are in for a very rude awakening.

“If time is a dimension,” he said, “then the past, the present, and the future all exist simultaneously. Think of a movie reel. You watch the movie frame by frame, so it feels like a story unfolding. But if you hold the reel in your hand, the end of the movie exists at the same time as the beginning.”

Watch the rest of the video here (00:23:11).

 

[Josheb]

But determinism (as I define it and agree with it) does not say that if God determines what breakfast cereal Adam eats implies that Adam didn't choose.

It does but you are not consistent with your one-cause-only viewpoint. The following is an example....

My notion of determinism says that God determines absolutely everything, and uses means —in this context, our choices— to accomplish it.

If God determines absolutely everything then the choice was determined. That means it's not an actual choice. It is a determinism. Here's another example....

That neither diminishes any true dynamic, nor God's size. Both choice and decree are in full sway. But our choice is always as decreed.

You have argued against the premise of a dynamic creation and argued for a single line of causation since first asserting this viewpoint.

The Bible's, "If...the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." is not referring to libertarian (uncaused) free will.

Perhaps the base is being covered but, otherwise, that's not a viewpoint I have espoused relevant to that verse and not reflective of anything I have posted.

The veracity of your construction there depends on your meaning of "freewill".

Not it does not. I do not believe free will exists and freewill if nothing more than "voluntary." Nothing is voluntary if absolutely everything is determined by God.

There truly is a huge difference between the will of the regenerate and that of the unbeliever.

I think it best if the already existing matters of cosmology are resolved before changing topic to that of soteriology alone. There can be no given soteriology without a given cosmology.

But that isn't what the OP is about. @Josheb is correct about that. But innocent will is still causally informed. Even it does according to the inclinations of the heart and mind and abilities—all of them caused effects.

....and therefore labeled inaccurately in God's word.

 

[fastfredy0]

“If time is a dimension,” he said, “then the past, the present, and the future all exist simultaneously. Think of a movie reel. You watch the movie frame by frame, so it feels like a story unfolding. But if you hold the reel in your hand, the end of the movie exists at the same time as the beginning.”

Watch the rest of the video here (00:23:11).

I listened to a 1/3 of it. Too much talk about what time is not.
Time, IMO, is the movement of matter through space. If all matter stops moving, then time stops. I grant, as mentioned in the video, that time changes between two entities as one entity approaches the speed of light. I think I heard long ago that the clock of guys that went to the moon and back was a second behind a clock on earth.
Seems to me that one explanation of God being outside of time is that He existed when there was no matter/space which is needed to have time.
I still like the idea that God is continually re-creating the universe is a sequence that us dummies can follow to some degree.

Anyways, it's not like I know what I am talking about. Ignorance is blessed. giggle

 

[JesusFan]

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?

Agreed.

Agreed.

God determines final outcomes, but He direct causes some things, and uses choices of Others also, for example, The Cross of Christ must have happened has was predetermined and destined from eternity past, but He used the sinful desires and actions of enemies of Jesus to get Jesus upon that Cross

 

[Josheb]

@makesends @Josheb correct me if I am wrong

I can't agree with either position, determinism or dynamic because the arguments presented are encroaching on free will.

I do not believe free will exists, although I do believe Adam was "freer" in multiple ways prior to Genesis 3:6 (which is why I selected the Genesis 2 text). My disdain for the premise of "free" or autonomous, unfettered will is why I use the phrase "volitional agency. Human volition has agency, a God-made and God-given ability to make selections but that gift is significantly limited in multiple ways. There is absolutely nothing "encroaching" on free will in my posts and if those posts were mistakenly read to imply an autonomous, unfettered, "free" will exists then I direct everyone to go back and re-read then proactively understanding there's not a single word in any of them intended to assert, imply, insinuate or encroach on free will.

Adam had free will at one time in one place.

No, he did not. Free will has never existed in humans (aside from JC).

Adam did not have free will thereafter...

That is correct, but he did not have free will prior to his act of disobedience, either. He went from a state of limited volitional agency to enslaved volitional bondage. That is a hugely different paradigm than free will versus no free will.

If the argument is that God determines what breakfast cereal Adam chose (he didn't, God did) or the dynamic Adam could choose his breakfast cereal (he did, God didn't) then the arguments are skating very close to "well, if we can choose our breakfast cereal, we can choose or not choose God." I say we can select available options within our state (providence). The option of Faith is not available for our selection within our state. It takes an act of God to change our state, same as Adam

This thread is not specifically about salvation. Salvation was employed in this op solely as a vehicle for exploring the title of the op and the "supposed exception" to some unspecified "rule." This thread is more basic, more fundamental, more presuppositional. This op is asking questions about the fundamental nature of creation and inconsistently asserting a determinism that says, "God determines absolutely everything". That's not my interpretation of the op. That condition is explicitly stated in Post #46 for all the readers to objectively verify.

• God determines what breakfast cereal is.
• God determines the existence of how many breakfast cereals exist.
• God determines what cereal is chosen.
• God determined the existence of ability Adam had to choose.
• God determined the selection from the available options.
• God determined the state within which the determined options exists.

That is what "absolutely everything" means.

And I did NOT take up the exact opposite position of free will (or anything encroaching on it).

This agrees with the OP that Adam and the fruit are all an Act of God.

Again, the existence of Adam and the existence of the fruit are not the subject of this thread. The nature of their existence relevant to choice, possibility, and determinism is the subject.

That is why I noted that Adam had states of being.....

Only one of which is relevant to my op-reply. The Genesis 2:15-17 Adam is a good and sinless Adam. He is not a disobedient, sinfully dead and enslaved Adam. He is not a volitionally free Adam. He is an Adam with an ability to choose from within God-designed metrics, and Adam with greater volitional agency than the sinfully dead and enslaved Adam of Genesis 3:7.

We do not have free will to choose God except by the grace of God.

Irrelevant.

Does choice imply more than one actual possibility exists?

• 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?
• 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?

Q: Does choice imply more than one actual possibility exists?
A: Yes. The word "choice" literally means a selection can be made from two or more possibilities!

Q: Is God, in creating first effect(s), only beginning chains of causation to develop on their own?
A: The question is a "trick" question because any secondary cause owns nothing. Nor does it exist apart from what was asserted by God when He created creation. No one here denies the causal relationship existing between Genesis 1 and what happens today. The question is a red herring. The question should be whether or not the first cause led to a fixed, static, singularly linear creation in which volitional agency does not exist and any perception to the contrary is delusional.... OR.... did the first cause lead to a complex, dynamic, and interactive creation filled with then yet unlimited possibilities and real (but limited) volitional agency (real choices with real multiple options, real possibilities, and real abilities to select from those possibilities and realize the possibilities relevant to each).

Q: Does God, in intervening, "control" moral agents in opposition to their will?
A: IF God determines absolutely everything then yes, God does, in intervening, control moral agents in opposition to their will. That is what "absolutely everything" means. If, in fact, God determines absolutely everything then the word "will" (the ability to express one's express desire, choice, willingness, consent, - or the opposite, such as refusal) does not hold the meaning it normally has in ordinary usage. Volitional agency does not exist if God determines absolutely everything. No will exists; not free will, not libertarian will, not sinless will, not sinful will, not zeberdanflergerly will.

Q: Does Divine Immanence imply anything here?
A: Since tow of the questions asked are red herrings Divine Immanence is not applicable. The doctrine of immanence was not intended to apply to nonsense or fallacy.

Q: Is the [at least one] supposed exception, Regeneration, really an exception?
A: Exception to what? Since this op is a carryover from the thread asking about 1 Corinthians 2:14, we can infer that verse is relevant to this inquiry but that should be specified. If the 2 Cor. 2:14 text is read as written then the answer to the question about an "exception" is decidedly YES! because regeneration is by definition, a "things of the Spirit of God."

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.​

Q: 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?
A: Monergists believe regeneration is a determinism. I, as a monergist, hold to a position asserting the sinner's volition is irrelevant so any and all inquiries about divine determinism relevant to a sinner's volitional agency in regeneration are misguided. The determinism of regeneration has nothing to do with the sinner's will. The question may be valid when asked of a synergist, but it is a red herring among monergists.

Q: Is Creation intended and designed THERE, with all else being either other than that, or part of that?
A: Again, since most of the assertions and inquiries of the op are red herrings, the "that" of this last question are equally misguided. Furthermore, creation does not have an "intent." Martial objects have no thought or volition.

The op is a mishmash of multiple irrational and inarticulate thoughts, each of which should be sorted out and corrected so the question asked in the title can be appraised and then answered correctly. Salvation does not define cosmology. Cosmology defines soteriology. Get the nature of God, His plan, and His design of creation correct and the question asked is easily answered.

 

[Josheb]

No. Makesends used AI's definitions as relevant only to the human POV —not God's. Need I repeat that the dictionary gives an accurate rendering of OUR way of thinking, but makes no statement as to the validity of our way of thinking?

Accurate but not valid?

Follow that through to its logically necessary conclusions. God, in His divinely perfect word used a word that literally means multiple possibilities inherently exist where any choice exists.... but that definition of the word God used is not valid!

That is sophistry.

If the definition is accurate and God used the word with an accurate definition then His use of the word having a correct definition is, by definition (pun intended), valid. It cannot be otherwise. The alternative would be that God asserted a word invalidly. His description of an occasion when two or more options existed and there existed the liberty to select one (or more) of those options, each with its own set of consequences is valid.

 

[Josheb]

Need I present again the example of what the dictionary says about "chance", to which you cry "red herring", when I pointed it out as an obvious example of things the dictionary does this with?

No. It was a red herring and the red herring need not be asserted again ad nauseam. That would make the red herring doubly fallacious. Try proving the correct definition is invalid without appealing to a red herring. That would be the rational response.

I can't help but wonder if you had to try to discredit that example since it was so obvious you could not answer it.

All the wonderings possible will never prove the op correct..... or valid . Stick to the what can be logically reasoned and exegetically provne.

Why must anyone limit their examples to your example?

Another red herring. I did not limit the discussion to my examples. I limited the discussion to basic principles of logic or reason and an exegetically sound presentation of scripture. I simply stated I would not attend to matters I did not broach in response to this op until what I have said is addressed.

Please do not misrepresent my posts again.

Please do not ask me later how my posts were misrepresented because I just explained how that occurred.

Please first address the points I brought to bear on this op before moving on to newer or other matters. Do the same thing with what others bring to bear on the op.. Don't ignore their specifics, obfuscate, change the conversation to other concerns and then blame the other poster for asking that their concerns be addressed first. Don't wrongly insinuate anyone is applying unfair or irrational demands on this discussion. The op is yours to assert. It is yours to defend and yours to prove. Defend it from the concerns other broach.

You want to limit discussion to the use/meaning of a word as represented by the dictionary.

No. I want to make sure this op uses language correctly AND we all work this discussion from a foundation of basis agreement regarding what words actually mean because accurately defining the terms of any discussion and building from consensus is a necessity. Progress was made by establishing the correct definition of "choice," and "possibility." Progress was gained by establishing and then addressing the distinction between correct definition and the validity of the correctly defined word.

That did nt limit the discussion..... it facilitated it.

Have at it, but I will not do so in a context where that definition is used to describe God or to define God's meaning of a word. We well know that God does not think how we do. We well know that he is not limited to our concepts.

We also know God created language and if what you say is correct, then God also determined the meaning or definition of those words. You are once again, contradicting yourself.




I have posted my position, and I do not see any of it being engaged reasonably, rationally, or exegetically. What I do read is more and more fallacious reasoning with every post quoting my posts. It is irrational to say content asserted in God's word is correct but not valid and that has absolutely nothing to do with my purported attempts to limit anything. It is irrational in and of itself. It is one out of many examples where the case for your unique view of determinism is inconsistent and in need of repair.

You do realize you could prove my position wrong and still not prove yours correct, yes?

That means every attempt to shift the onus onto me is irrational. What you should be doing is defending this op, not posting insinuations and allegations about others. What you should be doing is defending the op against the many concerns each poster brings to bear on the op , proving the correctness and validity of the op on its own merits. I will not be entertaining another exchange of fallacious content. If and when I read something that actually addresses the (correct and valid ) points I've broached, I'll reconsider engaging this op.

 

[makesends]

Just wait until you guys hear Richard Feynman on the nature of time.

You are completely wrong about time. You probably think you know what it is because you look at a watch or you feel yourself getting older. But that isn't time. That's just a sensation, a biological trick.

Most people walk around with this poetic idea in their heads that time is a river. You imagine it flows, sweeping you along from the past through the present and into the future. You think it moved. But here is the problem with that beautiful image. If time is a river, how fast does the river flow? One second per second? That is meaningless. That's like saying a table is one table long. It tells you absolutely nothing about the nature of reality.

The truth is much stranger, much more mechanical and, honestly, a lot less romantic than a flowing stream. Time doesn't flow. Time doesn't push you anywhere. And if you think you have a good grip on how time works just because you can count seconds in your head, you are in for a very rude awakening.

“If time is a dimension,” he said, “then the past, the present, and the future all exist simultaneously. Think of a movie reel. You watch the movie frame by frame, so it feels like a story unfolding. But if you hold the reel in your hand, the end of the movie exists at the same time as the beginning.”

Watch the rest of the video here (00:23:11).

Reality is what it is, regardless of our POV. If a thing is x long, y wide, z high it is so because God decreed it. It remains so until something happens to change it. That is distance. It is reality in this temporal frame.

Feynman says, "IF time is a dimension" —not, "since..." I'm wondering what the context there is...—I'll watch the video as 'time' permits. Does he believe that the past, present and future all exist simultaneously? Sounds like reality may not be related to time, though we must (in this frame) operate subject to time to discuss reality. As always —What does God see?

(Not quite off topic: In my many discussions with AI, it is curious that AI, unless I point out the discrepancy, always identifies with humanity in its reasoning —I assume because it must assume that it too has only limited scope, or maybe that its scope is derived from human statements.)

The following two realms of thought may seem unrelated, and I don't know how to show why I think them related:
1) Distance, according to AI, = Rate times Time. Not, Distance is "represented as rate x time", but "equals"... My question is, of course, rather nebulous, being uninformed, but, does this mean that distance is not its own dimension, and disappears if time disappears? I understand it is a stupid question, but I need some clarity here. 2) I see time as effecting and affecting results in THIS temporal universe, though what we do also has universal (eternal) effects. Fact is, after all, fact. Jesus died during this temporal existence. But God describes the lamb appearing as slain from the foundation of the world, and other things, such as election, the same way. Whether this temporal existence is but a vapor or not, I did stub my toe this morning and say things I'm not proud of.

 

[makesends]

We also know God created language and if what you say is correct, then God also determined the meaning or definition of those words. You are once again, contradicting yourself

So, God only ever means by what he says, what WE mean by what he says? Do you know what the Arm of the Lord is? Do you know what Love is, as God does? Does God's love only mean what YOU take it to mean?

If God determined what the dictionary says, it does not mean that God gave the dictionary plenary verbal inspiration, nor, particularly, a complete definition of what God means by those words. We find out more as we study. God determined every false, and every limited, statement ever made. They did not happen by accident.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
But that isn't what the OP is about. @Josheb is correct about that. But innocent will is still causally informed. Even it does according to the inclinations of the heart and mind and abilities—all of them caused effects.

....and therefore labeled inaccurately in God's word.

Explain this. What are you referring to, here? What is labeled inaccurately, and in what way is it inaccurate?

 

[makesends]

God determines final outcomes, but He direct causes some things, and uses choices of Others also, for example, The Cross of Christ must have happened has was predetermined and destined from eternity past, but He used the sinful desires and actions of enemies of Jesus to get Jesus upon that Cross

Yes, of course, but those sinful desires and actions of God's enemies were not uncaused. There is no rogue atom, nor self-made cause.