First cause

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]So the theists are left with either a necessary, but cruel god, with a pre-determined universe, or with a completely unnecessary and ineffectual god whom we need take no further note of. Not an enviable choice.
Or, theists are left with exactly what the Bible describes: a God of creation; a God of love; a God that knows the end from before the begi ...[text shortened]... ou, does not lessen your grief. Perhaps revelation is in order. Thankfully, it is available.[/b]

So what do you have to say about Christian predestination? Particularly verses like Romans 9:14 to 9:18. Or Romans 8:28 to 8:30, where the term 'predestination' is explicitly used? Even devout Christians seem have an intuitive grasp of the incompatibility between god's supposed omniscience and human free will.

Originally posted by rwingett
So what do you have to say about Christian predestination? Particularly verses like Romans 9:14 to 9:18. Or Romans 8:28 to 8:30, where the term 'predestination' is explicitly used? Even devout Christians seem have an intuitive grasp of the incompatibility between god's supposed omniscience and human free will.

Paul wasn't saying that God chooses to send some people to hell and save others. In context, Paul is addressing the concerns of people like yourself who would accuse God of injustice simply because some people rebel against Him to their eternal detriment. Indeed, it can be argued that since some do suffer eternal condemnation, and God is responsible for creating them, that God in fact created such people for condemnation. Paul says in response, essentially: even if this were the case, what right would you have to question God? "What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?" Paul's intent is to underscore the absurdity of rejecting God on the basis that He may have created certain people for destruction. But Christ, the perfect revelation of God, always frames His Gospel as a choice: between faith or no faith. Further, if you'll notice at the end of Romans 9, the distinction between those who were accepted and those who are rejected by God is one of pursuing righteousness by faith versus pursuing righteousness by works, i.e. some are righteous in their own eyes, while others receive righteousness through faith like a gift. At bottom there is always a choice in the matter.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
Paul wasn't saying that God chooses to send some people to hell and save others. In context, Paul is addressing the concerns of people like yourself who would accuse God of injustice simply because some people rebel against Him to their eternal detriment. Indeed, it can be argued that since some do suffer eternal condemnation, and God is responsible f righteousness through faith like a gift. At bottom there is always a choice in the matter.

I think that is a good answer. I also think that Romans 9 shows that even Paul the Apostle could ask a question "What if ...?". He did not leave us with the impression that there was nothing left for us to wonder about.

Paul's question is open ended. There were things which even he did not fully know.

There are the things which only God knows and are His. Then there is the realm of what we humans know from His revelation. And we can cooperate with God in those things.

Originally posted by rwingett
So what do you have to say about Christian predestination? Particularly verses like Romans 9:14 to 9:18. Or Romans 8:28 to 8:30, where the term 'predestination' is explicitly used? Even devout Christians seem have an intuitive grasp of the incompatibility between god's supposed omniscience and human free will.

The context in which this word "predestinate" occurs is broadly misinterpreted to mean that God caused believers to "become" conformed to the image of His son.

Look deeper. What is meant is that God knew who would believe, so what He did was to give us something to be "conformed" to.

The verse is not saying God forced us to be something, but gave us something to be once we believed.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
Your reply does not really adress the argument rwingett's post. Everything in this imperfect world must stem from the creator if there is one.
I always thought this an interesting idea for another reason. Often an argument for God's cruelty is made something along the lines of 'god condems unbelievers to hell.' The responce is invariably that it is si ...[text shortened]... him not to create us at all. I would sooner never have existed then suffer eternal torture.

Everything in this imperfect world must stem from the creator if there is one.
First off, assuming there is one (Creator) is the default position, not one that is learned--- even though revelation is required for anything beyond the Creator's existence, i.e., characteristics and etc.

Unfortunately, your logic is limited to your understanding. To the same degree that your understanding is restricted, your logic will keep you from seeing clearly the issue at hand. It's impossible to make chocolate chip cookies if you lack chocolate chips.

The world and the universe in which the world exists was created perfect... as was man and the angels before him. As noted in the last part of my response, God did the seemingly impossible when He created another being with free will. Through the agency of those free will creatures, imperfection entered Paradise--- not through the Creator, who neither creates nor sponsors anything less than perfection.

So far-reaching was His plan that even the imperfection of the other free will creature was taken into account and planned for, long before anything or anyone was ever created.

Originally posted by rwingett
So what do you have to say about Christian predestination? Particularly verses like Romans 9:14 to 9:18. Or Romans 8:28 to 8:30, where the term 'predestination' is explicitly used? Even devout Christians seem have an intuitive grasp of the incompatibility between god's supposed omniscience and human free will.

Joseph is addressing the concept, but my knee-jerk response is that you are failing to compare apples with apples, with respect to biblical definition and meanings.

Originally posted by rwingett
Causality is an area where theists are keen to posit the necessity of their god as being the first cause. If every effect needs a cause, you are, it seems, left in an endless causal chain. God is supposedly the only way out of that infinite regress, as he would be the original cause.

So the theists tell us that if we accept that every effect has a cause ...[text shortened]... unnecessary and ineffectual god whom we need take no further note of. Not an enviable choice.

I agree that if God is the first cause then every causal chain must eminate from God. I also agree that this makes God ultimately responsible for all suffering in the end. God (in christ) does infact accept responsibility for suffering and enters into suffering itself in person. This is one of the reasons why Christianity is for me distinct from all other religions because in it God gets his hands dirty and does not evade the issue of suffering and redeems the world in the suffering christ. Mohammed for example does not.

The way forward on the free will thing is to appreciate that God (being the first cause) is free of determinism and causality itself. So the question is what happens if God enters the world of causality ? Something totally free and independent of determinism is mixed in with determinism.

The problem with your model is that it fails to appreciate
a) that God has taken responsibility for the suffering of the universe. and
b) that your model is based on the concept that the first cause starts everything going and then sits back and does nothing. A first cause would be free of causality and presumably free of time as well would be free to corrupt the chain of causality with his own nature and open up possibilities (like free will) that a purely causal chain could not offer.

Originally posted by rwingett
So what do you have to say about Christian predestination? Particularly verses like Romans 9:14 to 9:18. Or Romans 8:28 to 8:30, where the term 'predestination' is explicitly used? Even devout Christians seem have an intuitive grasp of the incompatibility between god's supposed omniscience and human free will.

With reference to many past events you are roughly omniscient. You know pretty much exactly what is going to happen to JFK for example. How do you know this ? Because of your unique position in time.

So , now ask yourself "Does me knowing that JFK dies like this prove that who assinated him has/had no free will?"

Now , if you really think about it you will find that simply knowing the JFK was assasinated by person X does not tell you one jot about whether person X has free will or not. It proves nothing. Your omniscience with reference to JFK has no bearing to free will either way.

Now imagine that you are a being who sees all events (what we call time -past present and future) in this way as if they have already happened.

It takes some thought but you'll get there. Giod already knows what your response has been because he's watched type it already , but right now in your place in the time line you are still free to type whatever you like. God does not have to pre-determine you to do something in order to know what you will do because to him it's already happened.

It's a strange idea . For God you are already dead a trillion years and when you get to heaven ( with some prayer lol) it will be as if you have always been there forever.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Oh no. Not another person who thinks he understands entropy (but doesn't). So where did all those batteries, machines, buildings, living things etc come from may I ask? And do you honestly know enough about entropy to correctly apply it to the universe as a whole? I thought not.

What are you saying here? This just sounds incoherent to me compared with what Borges said. I'm not just saying this as a partisan point ---you're babbling man.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
[b]There's still room for an infinite causal chain without a first cause.

I doubt there is room for an "infinite causal chain without a first cause." Have you ever heard of entropy?

The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing. Entropy increases as available energy de ...[text shortened]... t in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.[/b]

Why do you think the 2nd Law of Thermo applies before the Big Bang? Stephen Hawking says there's no reason to think that.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Why do you think the 2nd Law of Thermo applies before the Big Bang? Stephen Hawking says there's no reason to think that.

I thought we theists were always told there is no "before" the big bang?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I thought we theists were always told there is no "before" the big bang?

If you have been told this, then you were misinformed. There's simply no way to know anything about "before" so it's ignored in physics.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

Originally posted by knightmeister
I thought we theists were always told there is no "before" the big bang?

Nothing meaningful can be said about what happened before the Big Bang because the laws of physics break down at this point.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
If you have been told this, then you were misinformed. There's simply no way to know anything about "before" so it's ignored in physics.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, bec ...[text shortened]... one could measure what happened at them.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

So there might have well been a "before" but we just can't say.

Originally posted by knightmeister
So there might have well been a "before" but we just can't say.

Why don't you reread the first sentence in ATY's post?