Repenting After Death

[bdp]

the heat/cold analogy is simply an analogy used for conceptual purposes, you can not make a logical deduction form heat/cold to good/evil.

 

Then it's a worthless analogy.

 

And I don't think YOU can make a logical deduction, period.

[♦ ficino ♦]

This is true. It does not guarantee anyone will choose to love God. This is where Molinism comes into play. God possesses foreknowledge of all possible worlds (not just the world we ended up with). This foreknowledge is called middle knowledge. This knowledge is the knowledge of what every created being would have freely chosen to do given any set of circumstances (these are called counter factuals). Given this unfathomable amount of knowledge He is able to choose an optimal world to actualize. I believe he has chosen the world in which an optional number of free willed agents freely choose to love Him.

 

Think of it as God having a choice in which world He will choose to create. One of those worlds may have been a world in which no one loved Him freely. He choose not to actualize that one. He choose the optimal.

 

Foreknowledge of P really does not imply that P cannot be otherwise. Suppose someone wrote a deterministic piece of software, and they told someone else every possible outcome the software would produce. It is not the knowledge of the outcomes that is driving the results. It is the code itself that is driving the outcomes. The knowledge of what the outcome will be is distinct from the mechanism that drives the outcomes.

 

God's eternal and indestrcutable nature fall from the fact that He is by the defintion the fisrt cause. Really, the only thing indestrucable is an axiomatic first cause.

 

Your last paragraph already implies absolute predestination. If God is the first cause of every effect, then he is the first cause of Joe Schmoe's unbelief. If he is not the first cause of every effect (doesn't matter how involved the chain of secondary causes), then you're introducing some other principle of ultimate causality into the universe. That move will undermine the axiomatic first cause - it won't do the work it is supposed to do in the explanatory system in which it is a premise.

 

I see that Centauri has anticipated most of what I would have said to these other points about predestination, so I will stop only to observe that no calvinistic type claims that logical entailment is the same as efficient causality. The mechanism is irrelevant in the deductive system to which I referred earlier, i.e. if x knows that P will occur, it cannot be the case that P will not occur.

 

You are simply asserting that our choices are deterministic. You are assuming that which you are trying to demonstrate.

 

God is the first cause of the conditions for choice. He does not cause the choice. He knew omnisciently how you would choose given the circumstances He caused you to be in, but this is not the same as causing you to make that choice. You still could have chosen differently given the circumstances, it is just that God would have known before hand. As I said earlier the claim of entrapment is a legal excuse not a real one.

 

God is the efficient cause of our physical bodies and all matter around us. We are the efficient cause of our personal choices within the setting we find ourself. I realize now you are equivocating a bit within your deduction. The true implication is If G omnisciently knows how P will choose, then P will choose that way. It is not true that If G omnisciently knows how P will choose, then P had no choice.

 

I just saw this one after writing other responses. Your first paragraph does not hold up. You said earlier that God chooses to create one of many possible universes, with their attendant circumstances and eventualities and choices by creatures, so as to produce the outcome he wants. By your scenario, one and only one choice is possible, given the circumstances that trace back to creation. It doesn't matter what the mechanism is.

 

I did not propose the deduction as you reword it. I said (not going back to check the earlier post so I'm trying to remember here) If x knows that P will occur, it cannot be the case that P will not occur.

 

BTW "omnisciently knows" is redundant, no? If I know that P, ex hypothesi P is the case by the definition of "know."

[Ouroboros]

You are making two mistakes: 1) if the universe were all at the same temperature you would have measurable heat with no cold,

You're the one making a mistake. "Measure" is a magnitude of difference, i.e. relationship. Anything that is less heat is equal to colder. You can't measure an absolute. If temperature was absolute and only one temperature of heat, then there wouldn't be anything measurable. You can't measure X without having something that is not-X to measure against.

 

2) the heat/cold analogy is simply an analogy used for conceptual purposes, you can not make a logical deduction form heat/cold to good/evil.

I think you're the one who brought up the heat/cold analogy. Either you own it or you don't. Or perhaps you want to fall into special pleading and only argue that your analogy only applies whenever you plead for it? Sure. Go ahead. It's typical for Christians.

[Ouroboros]

I know. Don't the closet Arminians drive you crazy?

Christian "logic" drives me crazy.

[centauri]

You're simply repeating yourself.

If you think the standard Christian claims are going to be accepted here without scrutiny, you're under a severe misconception about the nature of this forum.

Your default positions are not automatically true simply because you want them to be.

That is why you repeat yourself? Your default positions are not automatically true because you say them over and over.

You want to preach, and that's why you repeat yourself over and over again.

[centauri]

This is a golden opportunity for you to prove the amazing truth of Paul's revelations.

Prove? Opportunity for what? Maybe you are under a misconception.

 

If there were a text that said exactly what you wanted would you believe?

I'd like to see a text from the Old Testament that confirms Paul's revisionist doctrine.

I don't want to be tricked by a false religion.

[Thumbelina]

God is good, so good was not created, agreed. Yes, good can exist without evil. Evil is volition against God's will. Before creation God did not go against His will so there was no evil.

 

[emphasis mine]

 

 

http://creation.com/slipshod-logic-in-creation-for-kids

 

No actual evil in the finished creation

 

 

 

When God created moral beings, there was no actual evil. In fact, evil is not a ‘thing’ in itself, even though it is real. Rather, evil is the privation of some good that something ought to have, as Augustine pointed out … . Murder is a removal of a good human life. Adultery is a privation of a good marriage. Good is fundamental and can exist in itself; evil cannot exist in itself. It is always a parasite on good. For example, a wound cannot exist without a body, and the very idea of a wound presupposes the concept of a healthy body. Blindness in a human is a physical evil, because humans are supposed to see (but oysters are not, so blindness is not an evil for oysters). Also, evil actions are done to achieve things like wealth, power and sexual gratification, which the evildoer finds ‘good’ (meaning ‘pleasing’). Evil things are not done as ends in themselves, but good things are. Now, since evil is not a thing, God did not create evil although He does create calamity as He has a right to do, and this is the correct understanding of Isaiah 45:7

 

 

 

AMOS 3:6 shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?-This is the explanation of the preceding similes: God is the Author of all the calamities which come upon you, and which are foretold by His prophets. The evil of sin is from ourselves; the evil of trouble is from God, whoever be the instruments.

[agnosticator]

In other words, good can't exist without evil.

 

Obviously, right! And God can't be good or evil without being made of matter like other sentient beings. Good/evil can't be separated from living beings that experience emotions, feelings, well-being, harm, etc. It's assumed God is an eternal Mind that can't be harmed or destroyed, so morality is irrelevant and meaningless for said God. Saying God is good is like saying the wind is good. Without us sentient beings to experience life, good and evil cannot exist!

[mymistake]

God is good, so good was not created, agreed. Yes, good can exist without evil. Evil is volition against God's will. Before creation God did not go against His will so there was no evil.

 

 

http://creation.com/slipshod-logic-in-creation-for-kids

 

No actual evil in the finished creation

 

 

What complete nonsense! Of course God was created. The Greeks created Zeus. The Egyptians created Set. The Norse created Oden. The Hebrews created YHWH. Paul created Jesus Christ. Rome created the Christian Trinity.

 

As for the Christian myth about original sin and sin in creation either God is responsible for sin or else God isn't all-powerful.

 

 

When God created moral beings, there was no actual evil. In fact . . .

 

 

You don't have facts. You assert your beliefs. This failure on your part suggests that you don't understand the difference between your beliefs and facts.

 

 

Christianity is mental masturbation.

[Ouroboros]

God is good, so good was not created, agreed. Yes, good can exist without evil. Evil is volition against God's will. Before creation God did not go against His will so there was no evil.

 

 

http://creation.com/slipshod-logic-in-creation-for-kids

Mental masturbation for morons.

 

When God created moral beings, there was no actual evil. In fact, evil is not a ‘thing’ in itself, even though it is real.

Then "good" is not a "thing" in itself either. Evil as opposite to good means that good and evil are the opposites.

 

I never said "evil" was a "thing", so I'm not sure why that makes the argument that "good" can exist as a non-thing without "evil" being also a non-thing!?

[Thumbelina]

In other words, good can't exist without evil.

 

Obviously, right! And God can't be good or evil without being made of matter like other sentient beings. Good/evil can't be separated from living beings that experience emotions, feelings, well-being, harm, etc. It's assumed God is an eternal Mind that can't be harmed or destroyed, so morality is irrelevant and meaningless for said God. Saying God is good is like saying the wind is good. Without us sentient beings to experience life, good and evil cannot exist!

 

I did not get to sass you in awhile and vice versa. How goes it?

 

Obviously, right!

 

Obviously, wrong. I once heard this ex atheist Pastor talk about the smells when he went to India. He said he felt good to be back in the US where he was not afraid to take a shower and have the water go in his mouth. He said that eventually one gets used to the smell. We are sooo accustomed to evil that we cannot fathom life without it.

[agnosticator]

In fact, evil is not a ‘thing’ in itself, even though it is real.

 

Now, since evil is not a thing, God did not create evil although He does create calamity as He has a right to do,

 

Calamity is not a thing either! Both are only real within the universe to those who are affected by them. Calamity is evil (natural), so your God created evil too.

[Thumbelina]

In fact, evil is not a ‘thing’ in itself, even though it is real.

 

Now, since evil is not a thing, God did not create evil although He does create calamity as He has a right to do,

 

Calamity is not a thing either! Both are only real within the universe to those who are affected by them. Calamity is evil (natural), so your God created evil too.

 

Go back and reread the post instead of not listenin', just debunkin'!

[agnosticator]

I did not get to sass you in awhile and vice versa. How goes it?

 

I'm fine, lil' Thumby. I hope you're having fun with us apostates.

 

 

Obviously, wrong. I once heard this ex atheist Pastor talk about the smells when he went to India. He said he felt good to be back in the US where he was not afraid to take a shower and have the water go in his mouth. He said that eventually one gets used to the smell. We are sooo accustomed to evil that we cannot fathom life without it.

 

God is the one without good or evil. Morality only exists for those in the universe. That was the point. Life without morality would be like life as a rock.

[Ouroboros]

Obviously, wrong. I once heard this ex atheist Pastor talk about the smells when he went to India. He said he felt good to be back in the US where he was not afraid to take a shower and have the water go in his mouth. He said that eventually one gets used to the smell. We are sooo accustomed to evil that we cannot fathom life without it.

If everything would smell exactly the same, how could something smell different?

[OrdinaryClay]

It needs to be shown that foreknowledge of future decisions that are freely willed at the moment of the decision is possible.

What does omniscience not know?

[agnosticator]

Go back and reread the post instead of not listenin', just debunkin'!

 

I've read Adventist propaganda before, thanks.

[Thumbelina]

I did not get to sass you in awhile and vice versa. How goes it?

 

I'm fine, lil' Thumby. I hope you're having fun with us apostates.

 

 

Glad to know you're good. Yeah I like you guys but not your mischief.

 

 

Obviously, wrong. I once heard this ex atheist Pastor talk about the smells when he went to India. He said he felt good to be back in the US where he was not afraid to take a shower and have the water go in his mouth. He said that eventually one gets used to the smell. We are sooo accustomed to evil that we cannot fathom life without it.

 

God is the one without good or evil. Morality only exists for those in the universe. That was the point. Life without morality would be like life as a rock.

 

 

Us Christians go with the bible and the bible says that there is none good but God, meaning that God is inherently good, He's Holy, Holy, Holy. Evil as in sin is anything that deviates from God's wishes.

[Thumbelina]

Obviously, wrong. I once heard this ex atheist Pastor talk about the smells when he went to India. He said he felt good to be back in the US where he was not afraid to take a shower and have the water go in his mouth. He said that eventually one gets used to the smell. We are sooo accustomed to evil that we cannot fathom life without it.

If everything would smell exactly the same, how could something smell different?

 

Can you do without funky smells? ( i.e. if we were in a world without pain or death)

[Ouroboros]

It needs to be shown that foreknowledge of future decisions that are freely willed at the moment of the decision is possible.

What does omniscience not know?

What it doesn't know.

[Ouroboros]

Obviously, wrong. I once heard this ex atheist Pastor talk about the smells when he went to India. He said he felt good to be back in the US where he was not afraid to take a shower and have the water go in his mouth. He said that eventually one gets used to the smell. We are sooo accustomed to evil that we cannot fathom life without it.

If everything would smell exactly the same, how could something smell different?

 

Can you do without funky smells?

Yes, but you can't do without no-smell.

 

There can be limitations to smell, but there has to be smell and no-smell for smell to have a smell. Our nerves and our brain works in the fashion of relationships between things. This or that makes this or that to be this or that. If you have only this but no that, then this won't be anything. Have you ever done the experiment with dipping one hand in cold water and the other in hot water and then put them both in luke warm?

 

The thing is, if we reduced all what we would consider "funky" smells, then whatever smells that are left will be soon divided in the "new-funky" and the "non-funky," because the least smelly will become our new funkiest smell. It's all relative.

[OrdinaryClay]

I just saw this one after writing other responses. Your first paragraph does not hold up. You said earlier that God chooses to create one of many possible universes, with their attendant circumstances and eventualities and choices by creatures, so as to produce the outcome he wants. By your scenario, one and only one choice is possible, given the circumstances that trace back to creation. It doesn't matter what the mechanism is.

 

I did not propose the deduction as you reword it. I said (not going back to check the earlier post so I'm trying to remember here) If x knows that P will occur, it cannot be the case that P will not occur.

 

BTW "omnisciently knows" is redundant, no? If I know that P, ex hypothesi P is the case by the definition of "know."

 

I'm not assuming determinism with regard to human choices. So my scenario allows multiple choices even in an actualized universe. The creature could choose differently, but God would know and would have chosen a different actualized universe.

 

If you assume determinism, you are making a scientific claim about the universe and scientific claims require scientific evidence.

 

Regarding you last question, How would you turn omniscient into a verb?

[Thumbelina]

Obviously, wrong. I once heard this ex atheist Pastor talk about the smells when he went to India. He said he felt good to be back in the US where he was not afraid to take a shower and have the water go in his mouth. He said that eventually one gets used to the smell. We are sooo accustomed to evil that we cannot fathom life without it.

If everything would smell exactly the same, how could something smell different?

 

Can you do without funky smells?

Yes, but you can't do without no-smell.

 

There can be limitations to smell, but there has to be smell and no-smell for smell to have a smell. Our nerves and our brain works in the fashion of relationships between things. This or that makes this or that to be this or that. If you have only this but no that, then this won't be anything. Have you ever done the experiment with dipping one hand in cold water and the other in hot water and then put them both in luke warm?

 

The thing is, if we reduced all what we would consider "funky" smells, then whatever smells that are left will be soon divided in the "new-funky" and the "non-funky," because the least smelly will become our new funkiest smell. It's all relative.

 

Eh, quit being difficult, eventually everything will smell wonderful AND there will be variety of smells!

[OrdinaryClay]

You are making two mistakes: 1) if the universe were all at the same temperature you would have measurable heat with no cold,

You're the one making a mistake. "Measure" is a magnitude of difference, i.e. relationship. Anything that is less heat is equal to colder. You can't measure an absolute. If temperature was absolute and only one temperature of heat, then there wouldn't be anything measurable. You can't measure X without having something that is not-X to measure against.

Heat is energy so heat can exist unmeasured and at the exact same level throughout the universe. Measurement is a notion we use for our mental conception.

[Ouroboros]

Eh, quit being difficult, eventually everything will smell wonderful AND there will be variety of smells!

Nope. Right now, the smells you've had in your life are just a tiny fraction of all the smells that exist. The foulest smell you ever have experienced is most likely not the worst that exist. And on top of that, some people find smells pleasant that you might find to be foul. The experience of smell is very varied. It's not complicated. It's reality.