Free Will ~yet again.

[Josheb]

Ah, I think I see where we differ. I believe God is actively causing the axe head to sink in water and I believe you would say that the axe head has the power to sink in water even in the event that God were to no longer exist.

Nope. Not at all. If God did not exist then nothing He designed, no creation would exist, and no sustaining or upholding thereof would exist.

This is consistent with my assumption above.
Sounds like Deism: A religious belief holding that God created the universe and established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws but does not intervene in human affairs save miracles.

I Never said that. What I did say is the dichotomy of either/or is incorrect. God has done both. He has designed a rationally comprehendible moral and natural Law (or set of laws) AND intervenes in human affairs in both ordinary and miraculous ways.

To me the continuous force of what we call gravity is constantly causal by God.

Then gravity does not exist, Newton was wrong, and we're just using Orwellian doublespeak when we speak of gravity.

If God were to disappear then all things including gravity would cease to exist. Job 34:14-15

Yep

Gee... I see @makesends is responding to our posts. He's a smarty. I content to use his post as my arguments would be similar.

Thanks for you insightful posts.

 

[fastfredy0]

Nope. Not at all. If God did not exist then nothing He designed, no creation would exist, and no sustaining or upholding thereof would exist.

Well, then are you saying that God does nothing in regards to the axe sinking save starting creation and God setting the rules that we call science that allows things to continue on it own ... and, if God does nothing after setting up creation and the rules by which it runs ... then creation runs on its own power.
I don't see why is God's continued existence needed in regards for the axe to sink save the bible says so which implies He is actively involved in the axe head sinking?
IMO of course

I Never said that.

Sorry ... didn't mean to put words in your mouth so to speak...Just trying to see where you're coming from by postulating theories.

What I did say is the dichotomy of either/or is incorrect. God has done both. He has designed a rationally comprehendible moral and natural Law (or set of laws) AND intervenes in human affairs in both ordinary and miraculous ways.

Well, we both agree that God "intervenes" at times.
I say that God hits the cue ball (creation) and then the balls usually react according to the rules He set up that we call science ... but unless God actively/continuously enforces the His rules of so-called science nothing will happen. God may also actively cause the ball(s) to not follow His rules of science which people call a miracle.
I think you are saying the same thing except God doesn't actively/continuously enforce His rules to keep things going; rather, they go on their own after God "racked up the balls" (Genesis 1:1). We agreed that if the balls don't go by God's rules we call science then He is ACTIVELY intervening which is a miracle.

Then gravity does not exist, Newton was wrong, and we're just using Orwellian doublespeak when we speak of gravity.

Gravity exists because God causes it to be so. God causes an object to fall at 9.8 meters a sec squared (if there is not friction) and Newton was right to observe God's causal effect which we label 'gravity'.
Aside: We have not clue what causes gravity.... we just note the masses of objects attract one another at a measurable amount.

.... where's @makesends ... we need 2 on 1 to have chance (giggle)

 

[Josheb]

Well, then are you saying that God does nothing in regards to the axe sinking save starting creation and God setting the rules that we call science that allows things to continue on it own ... and, if God does nothing after setting up creation and the rules by which it runs ... then creation runs on its own power.
I don't see why is God's continued existence needed in regards for the axe to sink save the bible says so which implies He is actively involved in the axe head sinking?
IMO of course

My answer to that question would only repeat what I have already posted. The poles of God alone or creation alone are both erroneous. God possess His own causality and does not in any way have need of anything from His creation for Him to cause anything anywhere at any time. Creation does not possess its own autonomous causality, but it does possess causality that is solely a function of God's design, which is sustained and upheld by God. God can rely on His design, and His design is so impeccable that it functions even with the existence of sin. Creation does not work the same with sin present, but that too is a function of God's pre-existing design.

Well, we both agree that God "intervenes" at times.

Yep. Constantly. Constantly does not mean everywhere all at once.

I say that God hits the cue ball (creation) and then the balls usually react according to the rules He set up that we call science...

Which is what I have said...

but unless God actively/continuously enforces the His rules of so-called science nothing will happen.

Leave science out of it. I mentioned "Hyperspace" solely as a means of understanding creation's complexity. I am not suggesting the Bible must be subjugated to the latest scientific understanding that will change in 100 years. When saying, "unless God actively/continuously/everywhere/always enforces His rules," nothing will matter precludes His not being the author of sin, the existence of volitional agency, the existence of secondary causes and the liberty or contingency thereof.

One of the God's rules is "A causes B" and A will always cause B in accordance with God's design, so God does not have to constantly cause A to cause B and eradicate A's inherent causality on B. God sustains and upholds that rule, and in doing so He demonstrates His majesty because any god can make A cause B if s/he/it constantly hangs around to make sure it happens and nothing else could ever possibly happen.

God may also actively cause the ball(s) to not follow His rules of science which people call a miracle.

Yep, but if He does not actively cause the balls to follow His rules, His otherwise already existing and sovereignly governing pre-existent rules, they will roll around exactly as the rules sovereignly dictate. He knows that and relies upon His design to work exactly as He designed it to work.

I think you are saying the same thing except God doesn't actively/continuously enforce His rules to keep things going; rather, they go on their own after God "racked up the balls" (Genesis 1:1). We agreed that if the balls don't go by God's rules we call science then He is ACTIVELY intervening which is a miracle.

Sorta, but not quite, and I'm not repeating myself again.

Gravity exists because God causes it to be so.

Yep. And until God causes gravity to cease it functions and obeys God exactly as God designed it to work. His power is demonstrated in the fact He does not have to stand around monitoring it as if it might fail (Rom. 14:23).

God causes an object to fall at 9.8 meters a sec squared (if there is not friction) and Newton was right to observe God's causal effect which we label 'gravity'.

Yes, but meticulous causality has God causing the effect of gravity every micron of the decent, NOT sustaining what He has already created to function as He declared it would do. Gravity is not the cause of anything; it's just a label given to an illusion we have about a secondary cause where the lack of outward force causes an object to fall toward the middle.

Aside: We have not clue what causes gravity.... we just note the masses of objects attract one another at a measurable amount.

God causes gravity

.... where's @makesends ... we need 2 on 1 to have chance (giggle)

LOL

My adamancy should not be mistaken for a misguided belief I MUST be correct and all others wrong . It's not a competition. It's three earnest and devoted siblings in Christ trying to figure out functional aspects of the relationship between God and God's creation . "Winning" would be all three (four, if @Rella joins us) of us garnering a consensus with God's word correctly rendered.

 

[makesends]

No, the capital letters do not apply if it's not God. I mean God would be the cause of creation. To put it in different wording, God, would be the first cause and His action, either forming water or speaking light into existence (Gen. 1:2-3), would then be the cause of other effects or events. However, God is not caused. Nothing caused God. He is, therefore, The Uncaused Cause, put in capital letters to indicate His deity. If I understood your previous post correctly, then God, The Uncaused Cause is, in your wording, The First Cause (again, placed in capitals because of His deity). God caused the formation of water, or the creation of light..... and the water and light then became causal events themselves. The water and light became secondary causes (nothing grows without water or light, for example). Whatever was first caused by The Uncaused Cause that is The First cause, it does not get capitalized. The word "light" does not get capitalized unless it's a figurative reference to God, in which case its deity would warrant a capital "L."

So, the first thing caused would not be God. The first thing caused would not be capitalized.

I hope that is clearer now.

By "first cause" (lower case), I only mean to address a theoretical first cause and to deal with the logical implications of that first cause's results, with no intentional implication one way or the other as to whether that is deity. But yes, when I capitalize, as in, "First Cause", I do intend Deity.

That would make Him the First Causes. If He causes all events or effects, then He is causing multiple events or effects. If He is the sole cause of all events or effects, then there are actually no secondary causes. The perception of a secondary cause would be an illusion on our part because it would be only God, and not any predicate event, that caused whatever happened.

I expect that is a result of your misunderstanding of what I meant by lower case "first cause".

If He is the only One cause of everything, then the WCF is wrong. There are no secondary causes.

Yep. I agree.

And I have similar difficulty with what I understand of your alternative. If God is the sole meticulous Cause of all events, effects, or other causes and those causes do not have an inherent ability to effect causation on their own then there are no secondary causes. God is the causes, of everything, the cause of all the infinite myriads of effects. There is only one cause-and-effects. When we speak of "cause-and-effect," we are speaking of "God-and-effect." The falling raindrop does not cause the leaf to bend when it hits the leaf, God does that. If God did not bend the leaf, then something else would happen and whatever that event is, whether it be stopping on impact, passing through the leaf, disintegrating into nothing, etc., that event would be caused by God alone and not by any order or design He'd previously created in His creation.

The WCF is wrong. There are no secondary causes, so there are no liberty or contingency to any non-existent secondary cause.

There are not secondary causes if God is the sole cause of everything.

He is not the sole cause, but the only the sole First Cause. See the next, below about meticulous cause.

Yep. I do not read the WCF to say any uncertainty exists for God, only for us. ut the more salient point, I think, is that creation is designed to have inherent causation and that is what God sustains or upholds, even though He can and often does "enter" creation and cause additional causes - causes that are additional to the first cause He caused as The First Cause (the creation of water or light).

I have a problem with that presentation. I tend to think, (through what I refer to as the Immanence of God, though I came to the understanding by a different route than by studying the Logically Necessary Attributes of God already philosophically developed), that God is, in some sense (and other than what PanTheists etc posit, but rather, but consistent with, "In him we move and breath and have our being") that God is, in some way, IN, or inhabits, or otherwise sustains the existence of all fact, not by 'means' as we might conceive of it, but by himself —perhaps even "by his very being" would not be too far a statement.

Nothing but God owns existence in and of (BY) itself, I'd say, though I will insist that "Nothing but God comprises God", and that all that God has made is NOT GOD —it is ELSE. But even that statement implies riddles, in the incarnation of Jesus Christ and the person of the Bride of Christ. (By the way, THERE in those riddles I think can be found the meaning of being IN HIM, but it must be dealt with a light touch, for fear of using human comprehension alone.)

So far I agree.

Which is self-contradictory and makes the premise of secondary causation in illusion or falsehood. If God is the sole cause of all causes and nothing caused has any inherent causation of its own then God is not just the First Uncaused Cause, He is the Only Uncaused Cause of all that exists. When Paul wrote "for by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him," Paul should have written, "by Him all things are being created........., all things are being created through Him and for Him."

This lack of inherent causation also poses problems for God resting on the sixth day after creation was supposedly finished being caused or created.

I like that last. I agree that it is a salient point; but though it "poses problems" I have not resolved, it doesn't prove (to me) that my view is false. But thanks for bringing that up. I'm not sure I ever considered that before, as an objection to my view.

Which is sorta correct but the "anyway" implies some kind of dismissiveness on His part. Let's not forget the WCF states God did not author sin. Sin happened without His authoring it. It was authored by something or someone else. It was originated by something or someone else . Scripture reports it was one man's disobedience, not God. Either that man had some degree of inherent causal agency or God is the sole cause and therefore the author, or originator, of sin and the WCF is again wrong. I suppose, if we put it into soteriological language, cause-and-effect is either monergistic or synergistic . The "sole working" is God causing all events and secondary causes not truly existing, and the "together working" is God and God's God-sustained and God-upheld design in which secondary causes exist by His creation. In the case of the former "intent" would be a bit of an unnecessary redundancy .

I don't see him "intending that there be sin", nor "to cause (decree) that there be sin", to be the same as "to author sin". I don't believe that sin is the result of original defect, but that it is the defect itself.

I tend to resolve the matter of monergism in both salvation (and in Immanence, for that matter, as relates to Sanctification and any other activity or virtue of the regenerated) by, as I said above, the question of being IN HIM. As I have said elsewhere, I tend to think that, "We do so because it IS so." I even have Arminianistic relatives that agree with that last statement.

Thanks for this conversation. I think it is relevant to the thread, though it seems to have its own steam.

 

[Josheb]

He is not the sole cause, but the only the sole First Cause. See the next, below about meticulous cause.

...but consistent with, "In him we move and breath and have our being") that God is, in some way, IN, or inhabits, or otherwise sustains the existence of all fact...

That verse is Christologically ecclesiological, not a statement on cosmological physics and/or the causality thereof.


Other than the above, I don't read anything requiring additional content on my part.

Thanks for this conversation.

The gratitude is mutual.

I think it is relevant to the thread, though it seems to have its own steam.

Yes, I hope @Rella has read it, if for no other reason than to dispel the notion I think God is controlling people in a manner that forces them to think, will, and act in specific ways to the point all volitional agency ceases to exist. That is not and never has been monergist soteriology. There is no such thing as a will that has no controls, restrictions, and/or limits on it, but that does not mean real volitional agency doesn't exist.

 

[fastfredy0]

When saying, "unless God actively/continuously/everywhere/always enforces His rules," nothing will matter precludes His not being the author of sin

Agreed

One of the God's rules is "A causes B" and A will always cause B in accordance with God's design, so God does not have to constantly cause A to cause B

But "A" doesn't always cause "B" (re: our axe head analogy). I say God constantly causes "A" and "B" to exist and to interact. I grant they usually interact in the same manner.
Again, I said the God sustains all things and all things disappear if God were to disappear which suggests they don't exist/interact on their own. (Job 34:14-15). Now if the verse said that if God disappears things would keep on running then that would support your thesis IMO. (but we've been there and done that)

His power is demonstrated in the fact He does not have to stand around monitoring it as if it might fail

God is omnipresent so He is always "standing around" (giggle). Not that His presence means He is actively doing something as I suggest He is ... like sustaining creation.

Gravity is not the cause of anything; it's just a label given to an illusion we have about a secondary cause where the lack of outward force causes an object to fall toward the middle.

Agreed.

It's three earnest and devoted siblings in Christ trying to figure out functional aspects of the relationship between God and God's creation

Well said.
I pray for forgiveness for the things I erroneously think about God; not that I know what they are.

... maybe if one doesn't think about God much he won't get as much wrong

 

[makesends]

Well, then are you saying that God does nothing in regards to the axe sinking save starting creation and God setting the rules that we call science that allows things to continue on it own ... and, if God does nothing after setting up creation and the rules by which it runs ... then creation runs on its own power.
I don't see why is God's continued existence needed in regards for the axe to sink save the bible says so which implies He is actively involved in the axe head sinking?
IMO of course


Sorry ... didn't mean to put words in your mouth so to speak...Just trying to see where you're coming from by postulating theories.


Well, we both agree that God "intervenes" at times.
I say that God hits the cue ball (creation) and then the balls usually react according to the rules He set up that we call science ... but unless God actively/continuously enforces the His rules of so-called science nothing will happen. God may also actively cause the ball(s) to not follow His rules of science which people call a miracle.
I think you are saying the same thing except God doesn't actively/continuously enforce His rules to keep things going; rather, they go on their own after God "racked up the balls" (Genesis 1:1). We agreed that if the balls don't go by God's rules we call science then He is ACTIVELY intervening which is a miracle.


Gravity exists because God causes it to be so. God causes an object to fall at 9.8 meters a sec squared (if there is not friction) and Newton was right to observe God's causal effect which we label 'gravity'.
Aside: We have not clue what causes gravity.... we just note the masses of objects attract one another at a measurable amount.

.... where's @makesends ... we need 2 on 1 to have chance (giggle)

This reminds me of a thread concerning "Last Thurday-ism". Whether God made everything x number of years ago, or whether God made it all last Thursday, x number of years old, we could tell no difference. And I don't think it makes any difference to God, except as his word is meant for us to understand.

@Josheb 's representation of the facts more closely resembles the words used in the more obviously relevant Scripture passages concerning the matter; mine (and maybe @fastfredy0 's) more closely resemble what I consider the necessary attributes of God, and the logic of causation and the implications of both —or so I see it. I'm not saying Josheb is wrong, but is describing what human language and temporal worldview would have us to understand. (I also believe that God does not berate us for needing to understand things in those terms, but I think that temporal understanding is subject to improvement. God speaks in many places in anthropomorphisms —I think, for the sake of our frame of mind with its temporal dependency and limitations.)

Whether or not God does his causation according to Josh's or my descriptions, I don't think we could tell the difference. It doesn't really matter, but I will say, that what God does is the truth, and is what it is, and not "somewhere in the middle" of any two viewpoints. To some degree, any of our opinions and descriptions falls short.

 

[makesends]

Question: are you guys confining the points of the discussion to the material universe as we observe it?

Not sure which points you are referring to. Certainly some points can be considered as confined to the material universe as we observe it. But overall, at least I intend some (maybe most) points apply to all fact, all reality. God as cause of all the rest of everything. Circling back to the OP, our conversation here pertains particularly to God's control of human will.

But what we observe hardly touches even what we must assume this material universe is consisted of. I think maybe you mean, the material universe from a temporal point of view? Not sure where you are going with this question.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Maybe. I'm guessing at this point you are saying, First Cause, but meaning, First Thing Caused. I don't know.

No, the capital letters do not apply if it's not God.

Oh, ok, so that is a rule I can try to remember to abide by in our conversations. I hope you don't think, "That is THE WAY of things", lol. So I should have said, "...first cause, but meaning, first thing caused.

I mean God would be the cause of creation. To put it in different wording, God, would be the first cause and His action

Whoa there, big fella! What happened to the Caps, in "First Cause" if it is God? Just picking, lol. I follow your thinking here, so far...

, either forming water or speaking light into existence (Gen. 1:2-3), would then be the cause of other effects or events. However, God is not caused. Nothing caused God. He is, therefore, The Uncaused Cause, put in capital letters to indicate His deity. If I understood your previous post correctly, then God, The Uncaused Cause is, in your wording, The First Cause (again, placed in capitals because of His deity). God caused the formation of water, or the creation of light..... and the water and light then became causal events themselves. The water and light became secondary causes (nothing grows without water or light, for example). Whatever was first caused by The Uncaused Cause that is The First cause, it does not get capitalized. The word "light" does not get capitalized unless it's a figurative reference to God, in which case its deity would warrant a capital "L."

Good so far.

So, the first thing caused would not be God. The first thing caused would not be capitalized.

I hope that is clearer now.

yep

That would make Him the First Causes.

Hold it. What? He is not multiple beings. He is the First Cause, with multiple effects, themselves all (as far as I know) also causes. The "Cause" in First Cause is not a verb.

If He causes all events or effects, then He is causing multiple events or effects. If He is the sole cause of all events or effects, then there are actually no secondary causes. The perception of a secondary cause would be an illusion on our part because it would be only God, and not any predicate event, that caused whatever happened.

I agree with the tautology. But to say he is immediately involved with every event, every motion, every particle and every principle by which anything exists and even every thing's very existence, is not the same as to say that he is the only cause of all events or effects. (Nor did you say it was, but I wonder what you are saying). Nevertheless, I agree that if it were so, all facts in our bailiwick, from senses to thought to duty, from choices to effects, would be illusion.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
To my view, and according to the philosophical Attributes of God, I have no recourse but to say there is no difference.....

....and if that which He made does not possess inherent causality and He alone is the sole cause of everything then the WCF is wrong; there are no secondary causes, and therefore again, no liberty or contingency thereof, and God is the author of sin.

Sounds like semantics. How does anything or anyone but God possess anything "inherently"? If by that, you mean that subsequent causality is endemic to all effects (as far as I have seen), then yes, I agree. But God caused that truth to be what it is, also. Therefore..... *snorts*

makesends said:
He is intimately in it all and everywhere at once.

Causally?

Yes, sustaining (maintaining?) its very existence and nature. And, again, to my mind there is no difference (to his position) between that and creating the thing. It is WE who must differentiate it.

makesends said:
Maybe more to the point, he, by creating timelessly, inhabits all fact intimately.

LOL False-cause fallacy. timeless creating does not necessarily dictate intimacy, causal or otherwise.

I believe it must. Timelessness is OUR construction, still related to time, though denying its effects.

When GOD creates, I have to believe he IS intimately involved with his creation. It is not him, and not divine, but it is OF him, or FROM him, in some way —therefore, he is attentive to every detail, at the very least. But there are other ways I won't get into here to come to the same conclusion, from the attribute of Immanence, or the logical reasons to conclude that there is such a thing as Immanence, if God is omniscient and omnipotent. His ways are not our ways.

makesends said:
He need not pay more attention to this tha[n] to that.

Then He is not intimate in it all and everywhere at once.

Huh? To me, quite the opposite follows. How would his attention to this being no more than to that, imply that "He is not intimate in it all and everywhere at once"?

makesends said:
He is not limited in his ability to handle it all at once.

Unless that is intended simply to "cover a base," that is non sequitur (no one has suggested any divine inability.

It follows, or further supports, that He need not pay more attention to this than to that.

makesends said:
The reason he know the future is because he planned it —decreed it— and is accomplishing every detail of it, to include causation via means, and cause-and-effect, and via what we think of as design and intervention.

Which is what I posted.

I was agreeing, but highlighting what is our thinking, and not necessarily his.

Again, if God is the sole causal agent and no inherent causation exists due to His design, then there is no "causation via means." no cause-and-effect of anything other than Him, no secondary causation, no liberty or contingency thereof, God is the Author of sin, and the WCF is wrong.

He is not the sole causal agent.

makesends said:
(concerning Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace")

I encourage you to do so. The book is about field theory, of which both relativism and quantum mechanics are a part. If creation has 10+ dimensions, time is relative, matter and energy are simply variations on a common theme, time and space are simply two aspects of a singularity, and an object can in fact be in two places at once (at least on the sub-atomic level) then the Guy who made it all that way can certainly do all of that and more!

Just because he's a cheerleader does not mean he's wrong .

Exuberance is not a bad thing. Just makes me suspicious. I dislike salesmen.

 

[Josheb]

... maybe if one doesn't think about God much he won't get as much wrong

(but what fun would that be?)

.

Hold it. What? He is not multiple beings. He is the First Cause, with multiple effects, themselves all (as far as I know) also causes. The "Cause" in First Cause is not a verb.

Okay, then that would make Him the First Causer of All Causes, and it would be impossible to speak of secondary causes.

I agree with the tautology. But to say he is immediately involved with every event, every motion, every particle and every principle by which anything exists and even every thing's very existence, is not the same as to say that he is the only cause of all events or effects.

I agree, but denying the liberty or contingency of secondary causes makes Him the only cause of all causes.

(Nor did you say it was, but I wonder what you are saying).

Because that is the logical necessity of denying the liberty or contingency of secondary causes. They are not actually secondary causes if God is intimately involved and directing every event, every motion, every ______ by which anything and everything exists.

That's why.

Nevertheless, I agree that if it were so, all facts in our bailiwick, from senses to thought to duty, from choices to effects, would be illusion.

But it is not an illusion. Words have meaning, both in scripture and sound doctrine, and the authors of the WCF got the doctrine correct (mostly - I have difficulties with other articles therein), and therefore....

Sounds like semantics.

It's not.

How does anything or anyone but God possess anything "inherently"?

By God's design.

God made man inherently good, sinless, and corruptible. Sin mad man inherently not-good, sinful, and corrupted.

Yes, sustaining (maintaining?) its very existence and nature. And, again, to my mind there is no difference (to his position) between that and creating the thing. It is WE who must differentiate it.

Yes, but what you're actually asserting is infinite re-creating, not a creation that was finished in six days and is then maintained and to which additions are subsequently made. Without saying it, the meticulous causality has a never-resting god, a god who didn't actually design anything or, if He did create design into His creation, He cannot rely on it and must constantly be creating every seemingly new and different cause because no secondary causes actually exist.

makesends said:
Maybe more to the point, he, by creating timelessly, inhabits all fact intimately.

I believe it must. Timelessness is OUR construction, still related to time, though denying its effects.

Huh. So.... we're talking past each other using one identical word with two different, irreconcilable meanings? I've never defined "eternity" as "timelessness." Eternity is extra-time, or extra-temporal, not absent-time. If time did not exist in eternity then this entire digression is meaningless and neither scripture not we could speak about time from God's point of view. Think of it this way: God's wisdom is extra-rational, not irrational.

When GOD creates, I have to believe he IS intimately involved with his creation.

No, you do not. You choose to believe that and that choice is made in a very specific way. I believe God is intimately involved, but I believe that in a different way than you, a different kind of "intimacy." Every comment about intimacy is not a point in dispute. It is the kind of intimacy (a causal intimacy) that is in dispute.

It is not him, and not divine, but it is OF him, or FROM him, in some way...

Big difference between "of" and "from." If all causes are from Him then no secondary causes exist. He is always and everywhere the Uncaused First Cause of all causes and there is no chain of cause and-effect in which the effect then becomes another cause in a long string of causes and effects. It would all be God-and-effect, God-and-effect, God-and-effect, God-and-effect, ad nauseam until His last causation is to end and all God-and-effect.

— therefore, he is attentive to every detail, at the very least.

Again, Attention in and of itself is not causation. God causing all events removes all secondary causes and their liberty or contingency.

He is not the sole causal agent.

Then He is not intimately involved in all ways.

 

[fastfredy0]

Re: God giving us hard time for what we get wrong in regards to our knowledge of Him

(but what fun would that be?)

Not fun to be chastised (re: Job) .... on the other hand it says to 'study to show yourself approved' so you're going to be in deep do-do one way or another. (weak smile)

makes Him the only cause of all causes.

Aside: That is my stance. To me secondary causes are just effects where we can't see God causation by uses our senses.
Determinism is a consistent application of divine sovereignty over everything. It is a denial of any form of dualism (good and evil are separate entities) or deism (the universe is self-sustained). Determinism affirms that God controls everything about everything that is anything, including every aspect of every detail of every human decision and action in such a way that man has no freedom in any meaningful or relevant sense. This position holds that there is no such thing as a "passive" or a "permissive" decree (compatibilism) with God, that it is unbiblical and impossible for a divine decree to be "passive" or "permissive."
Johnathan Edwards argued that since the principle of causality demands that all actions are caused, then it is irrational to claim that things arise without a cause. For Edwards a self-caused action is impossible, since a cause is prior to an effect, and one cannot be prior to himself. Therefore, all actions are ultimately caused by a First Cause (God). "Free choice" is doing what one desires, but God gives the desires or affections that control action. Hence, all human actions ultimately are determined by God. V.Cheung

you're [makesends] actually asserting is infinite re-creating

I'm good with that. If God rests (disappears completely) then all things go away Job 34:14-15

the meticulous causality has a never-resting god, a god who didn't actually design anything or, if He did create design into His creation, He cannot rely on it and must constantly be creating every seemingly new and different cause because no secondary causes actually exist.

I'm good with that.

 

[Josheb]

Re: God giving us hard time for what we get wrong in regards to our knowledge of Him

Not fun to be chastised (re: Job) .... on the other hand it says to 'study to show yourself approved' so you're going to be in deep do-do one way or another. (weak smile)

It shows God loves us . The Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son (Heb.12:6) . Let us speculate more so that chastening might abound. and demonstrate God's love for His children !

I'm good with that.

No problem is observed believing God cannot rely on the works of His own hands?

 

[makesends]

(but what fun would that be?)

.

makesends said:
Hold it. What? He is not multiple beings. He is the First Cause, with multiple effects, themselves all (as far as I know) also causes. The "Cause" in First Cause is not a verb.

Okay, then that would make Him the First Causer of All Causes, and it would be impossible to speak of secondary causes.

How so? If he directly causes all subsequent causes, they are secondary. But no need to even go there, if you wrote what you meant, because it is self-contradictory to say he caused all causes, because in that statement he is one of All Causes that he caused; it is self-contradictory to say he caused himself.

makesends said:
I agree with the tautology. But to say he is immediately involved with every event, every motion, every particle and every principle by which anything exists and even every thing's very existence, is not the same as to say that he is the only cause of all events or effects.

I agree, but denying the liberty or contingency of secondary causes makes Him the only cause of all causes.

Because that is the logical necessity of denying the liberty or contingency of secondary causes. They are not actually secondary causes if God is intimately involved and directing every event, every motion, every ______ by which anything and everything exists.

That's why.

Maybe I've lost the track of this argument. Are you saying that something in my statement denies the liberty or contingency of secondary causes? In my opinion, of course, "the liberty or contingency of secondary causes" does not mean anything is uncaused, except the Uncaused Causer himself. And I thoroughly disagree with that last: "They are not actually secondary causes if God is intimately involved and directing every event, every motion, every ______ by which anything and everything exists." That is true only if it means that they do not have any control over their decisions, and that is not denied them.

Further, the WCF's statement is not limited to this aspect alone, but the whole force of it is to contrast that structure (of denying them the liberty or contingency) with the fact that his ordaining ESTABLISHES them. THIS is (I think, haha) my whole contention, in the end. No matter what else we may cry "foul" or "fair" about: If God is the Creator of all fact (besides himself), then all fact (besides himself) is ESTABLISHED by his causing. THAT necessarily includes every detail. Dissect all we may dissect, attribute to this or that whatever we may; in the end, every detail is caused, and therefore controlled at least in some causal way, by God.

Admittedly, my thinking is fuzzy as to God's nature, but instinctively I have to think of all that is not him, as having come FROM him and OF him in some way. You have heard, I expect, my notion that, would the scientists be able to find it, the tiniest component of matter/energy is in some way OF God, perhaps a very physical thing called His Love. It may sound like poetic sophistry, but I think it is only poorly said/comprehended, and that there is something to the notion. But, admittedly, it is only speculation, and hardly even worth calling that, for its vagueness/lack of development.

Anyhow, I'm rambling.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
How does anything or anyone but God possess anything "inherently"?

By God's design.

God made man inherently good, sinless, and corruptible. Sin mad man inherently not-good, sinful, and corrupted.

That God had a design I don't dispute, but the whole notion of 'design', in your apparent use of it, sounds deistic to my thinking, implying self-perpetuation (for as long as the design allows), and not God's hands-on perpetuation. I can't hold to that, by the very nature of God and his infinity. But maybe someday I can figure a way to explain (or better, to understand) how I see his difference from our structures of thinking in anthropomorphizing him.

Yes, but what you're actually asserting is infinite re-creating, not a creation that was finished in six days and is then maintained and to which additions are subsequently made. Without saying it, the meticulous causality has a never-resting god, a god who didn't actually design anything or, if He did create design into His creation, He cannot rely on it and must constantly be creating every seemingly new and different cause because no secondary causes actually exist.

I see the incongruity, but so far, though I can't prove it is only so, it seems to me that the nature of God demands such things as "to speak it is to complete it", and "God's words are the very thing itself, and not a description of the thing." This puts God so beyond our structures that I don't see the fact of his resting from the six days of creation —i.e. stopping because it is completed— as necessarily not an anthropomorphism, or at least, wording according to our understanding. But like I have said before, I don't have that entirely reconciled.


makesends said:
Maybe more to the point, he, by creating timelessly, inhabits all fact intimately.
makesends said:
I believe it must. Timelessness is OUR construction, still related to time, though denying its effects.

Huh. So.... we're talking past each other using one identical word with two different, irreconcilable meanings? I've never defined "eternity" as "timelessness." Eternity is extra-time, or extra-temporal, not absent-time. If time did not exist in eternity then this entire digression is meaningless and neither scripture not we could speak about time from God's point of view. Think of it this way: God's wisdom is extra-rational, not irrational.

No, you do not. You choose to believe that and that choice is made in a very specific way. I believe God is intimately involved, but I believe that in a different way than you, a different kind of "intimacy." Every comment about intimacy is not a point in dispute. It is the kind of intimacy (a causal intimacy) that is in dispute.

Big difference between "of" and "from." If all causes are from Him then no secondary causes exist. He is always and everywhere the Uncaused First Cause of all causes and there is no chain of cause and-effect in which the effect then becomes another cause in a long string of causes and effects. It would all be God-and-effect, God-and-effect, God-and-effect, God-and-effect, ad nauseam until His last causation is to end and all God-and-effect.

Again, Attention in and of itself is not causation. God causing all events removes all secondary causes and their liberty or contingency.
Then He is not intimately involved in all ways.

AAaaargh these human words!

 

[Josheb]

Maybe I've lost the track of this argument.

I suspect that is the case.

Are you saying that something in my statement denies the liberty or contingency of secondary causes?

Yes.

In my opinion, of course, "the liberty or contingency of secondary causes" does not mean anything is uncaused, except the Uncaused Causer himself.

Which is contradictory to the normal meaning of the words in their ordinary usage and logically contradicts any possibility of A causing B, and the B causing C, and then C causing D, etcetera, etcetera, because there is not B, C, D, or any other event that can be causal. They are all A. A (God) causes B, A causes C, A causes D, etcetera, etcetera.

 

[makesends]

I suspect that is the case.

Yes.

Which is contradictory to the normal meaning of the words in their ordinary usage and logically contradicts any possibility of A causing B, and the B causing C, and then C causing D, etcetera, etcetera, because there is not B, C, D, or any other event that can be causal. They are all A. A (God) causes B, A causes C, A causes D, etcetera, etcetera.

With your thinking, it is this or that, not this and that. I disagree rather vehemently. That (B causing C, and C causing D, is because A (God) not only caused B, and through it caused C and D, but God sustains the whole principle and particular existence or fact of all reality, in general and in all its particulars. "THEY ARE BECAUSE HE IS" —not only "They are because he made them."

Existence depends on God's existence, not only in long chain cause and effect bringing about a design, but in every regard, existence continues because God exists, and existence IS, because God exists. Reality got, and continues to get, what it is because God exists.

Yeah, I know, the way some will take that borders on Pantheism and runs even closer to Panentheism, but I believe neither. Nevertheless, I believe that in Him we live and move and have our being.

 

[Josheb]

That God had a design I don't dispute, but the whole notion of 'design', in your apparent use of it, sounds deistic to my thinking, implying self-perpetuation (for as long as the design allows), and not God's hands-on perpetuation. I can't hold to that, by the very nature of God and his infinity. But maybe someday I can figure a way to explain (or better, to understand) how I see his difference from our structures of thinking in anthropomorphizing him.

All of which has been addressed in prior posts.

I see the incongruity...

Then let go of the schema that creates it. Drop the whole paradigm. Drop it because it is incongruous, and you can see it.

Maybe I've lost the track of this argument.....
Admittedly, my thinking is fuzzy as to God's nature......

Not so much that you've failed to see your own incongruity . Trust your observation. There's something amiss and it needs fixing.

...but so far, though I can't prove it is only so, it seems to me that the nature of God demands such things as "to speak it is to complete it", and "God's words are the very thing itself, and not a description of the thing." This puts God so beyond our structures that I don't see the fact of his resting from the six days of creation —i.e. stopping because it is completed— as necessarily not an anthropomorphism, or at least, wording according to our understanding. But like I have said before, I don't have that entirely reconciled.

Appeals to reification and what's beyond our comprehension are not only fallacious, but they also fly into the face of the fact God's word is a revelation from God that is supposed to be understood.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

The eternal things of God that have not been revealed cannot be known, much less understood. That which has been revealed is mean to be understood and although the canon of scripture is closed God has been faithful illuminating His revelation ever since He had Moses first put it to pen and scroll.

AAaaargh these human words!

Consider doing what I attempted with @Rella. Sit down with yourself, a pencil (with a big eraser ), write down the germane words and then define each one of them. Then try to use them as defined. When internal conflicts arise then check to see if the problem might be one of definition.

The word "free" mean autonomous, or absent any and all control restriction or limit.

Using that definition, the definition that is the normal meaning of the word in ordinary usage, no will is free.​

The word "eternal" means without beginning or end.

Using that definition, the definition that is the normal meaning of the word in ordinary usage, time is not precluded.​

Yes, it'll take some time, but we wouldn't have spent so many pages of posts on the subject if it was not worth your effort to you. Trust that, too.

Psalm 119:18
Open my eyes, that I may behold wonderful things from Your torah.

James 1:5
But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.

Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, they will be like wool.

Has the God that asks us to reason with Him baited us into a trap where the regenerate and indwelt reason with the incomprehensible God and never understand?

Proverbs 2:1-7
My son, if you will receive my words And treasure my commandments within you, make your ear attentive to wisdom, incline your heart to understanding; for if you cry for discernment, lift your voice for understanding; if you seek her as silver and search for her as for hidden treasures; then you will discern the fear of the LORD and discover the knowledge of God. For the LORD gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding. He stores up sound wisdom for the upright....

Standing in line, "Please, Sir, I want some more."

Unlike Polkinghorne (Christian), imagine how Kaku (deist), Penrose (agnostic), Rovelli, Krauss (both atheist), or any other physicist will feel when they realize, God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong....

...and you got it , and they didn't .

I do not believe this is a problem of language. Might be but try defining your terms and work from there. It'll work for @Rella. It works for me. It'll work for you, too .

 

[Josheb]

With your thinking, it is this or that, not this and that. I disagree rather vehemently. That (B causing C, and C causing D, is because A (God) not only caused B, and through it caused C and D, but God sustains the whole principle and particular existence or fact of all reality, in general and in all its particulars. "THEY ARE BECAUSE HE IS" — not only "They are because he made them."

Then there are no secondary causes, the WCF is wrong to assert such a premise, and we have only to blame ourselves for believing in such foolishness. No, wait; that's not correct. We have only God to blame because God caused our belief in the God-caused WCF error. We can trace both causes back to sin and God causing sin (since He is the Uncaused First Cause of every cause). Sin is not the cause of our error; God is!

"THEY ARE BECAUSE HE IS" —not only "They are because he made them."

Yep, God made the causality in which secondary causes exist, and at no point in what He ordained from eternity did violence to the liberty or contingency of a single secondary cause ever occur by His hand. He made it all.

Are you saying that something in my statement denies the liberty or contingency of secondary causes?

Yes.

In my opinion, of course, "the liberty or contingency of secondary causes" does not mean anything is uncaused, except the Uncaused Causer himself.

Which necessarily means there are no secondary causes. I suspect the word, "secondary" is used to say, God caused the first cause, then He cause the second cause, then He caused the third cause and on and on ad infinitum.... God (meticulously) causing all causes. That is not what the word "secondary" means. God would be the first, or primary cause, and from that cause other causes - secondary causes that are not the primary cause - ensue...... as God ordained and designed them to occur.

What the WCF does not say is God meticulously ordained every cause individually all by Himself from eternity without predicate conditions in time and space having any causality.

 

[makesends]

Then let go of the schema that creates it. Drop the whole paradigm. Drop it because it is incongruous, and you can see it.
Not so much that you've failed to see your own incongruity . Trust your observation. There's something amiss and it needs fixing.

Not that easy for me. I don't change my mind until I see no other recourse. The fact that my notions are not complete, and the fact that I see several, or even many, unresolved incongruities, doesn't mean that I am wrong. So far, to see it your way brings up many more incongruities, specifically along the lines of God's ways not being like ours. I see a lot more about what you think that needs fixing (in my opinion) than in mine.

But for what it is worth, I know I am partly wrong, just because I am a presumptuous human, trusting my logic and my definitions. "...the babble we think we mean."

Appeals to reification and what's beyond our comprehension are not only fallacious, but they also fly into the face of the fact God's word is a revelation from God that is supposed to be understood.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

The eternal things of God that have not been revealed cannot be known, much less understood. That which has been revealed is mean to be understood and although the canon of scripture is closed God has been faithful illuminating His revelation ever since He had Moses first put it to pen and scroll.
Consider doing what I attempted with @Rella. Sit down with yourself, a pencil (with a big eraser ), write down the germane words and then define each one of them. Then try to use them as defined. When internal conflicts arise then check to see if the problem might be one of definition.

Definition is a human problem, and I simply don't trust the human mind's constructions. Not even mine, but I use them until something else makes more sense to me. (And that sense is not always developed logic.)

The word "free" mean autonomous, or absent any and all control restriction or limit.
Using that definition, the definition that is the normal meaning of the word in ordinary usage, no will is free.
The word "eternal" means without beginning or end.
Using that definition, the definition that is the normal meaning of the word in ordinary usage, time is not precluded.
Yes, it'll take some time, but we wouldn't have spent so many pages of posts on the subject if it was not worth your effort to you. Trust that, too.

Agreed all.

Psalm 119:18
Open my eyes, that I may behold wonderful things from Your torah.

James 1:5
But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.

Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, they will be like wool.

Has the God that asks us to reason with Him baited us into a trap where the regenerate and indwelt reason with the incomprehensible God and never understand?

Never understand what? We understand beyond reason, actually, and revel in reasoning about him. We understand a lot, but not in comparison with what he is. His ways are still not our ways, and I want to know him.

Proverbs 2:1-7
My son, if you will receive my words And treasure my commandments within you, make your ear attentive to wisdom, incline your heart to understanding; for if you cry for discernment, lift your voice for understanding; if you seek her as silver and search for her as for hidden treasures; then you will discern the fear of the LORD and discover the knowledge of God. For the LORD gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding. He stores up sound wisdom for the upright....

Standing in line, "Please, Sir, I want some more."

Unlike Polkinghorne (Christian), imagine how Kaku (deist), Penrose (agnostic), Rovelli, Krauss (both atheist), or any other physicist will feel when they realize, God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong....

...and you got it , and they didn't .

Still got a long way to go.

I do not believe this is a problem of language. Might be but try defining your terms and work from there. It'll work for @Rella. It works for me. It'll work for you, too .

I don't think human language is good enough to describe the facts, except in the mouth of God.