On Predestination

[belorg]

belorg;12526927:

Then your notion of immutability is idiosyncratic:

• Westminster Shorter Catechism

It doesn’t mean one cannot cause

change. You are putting the Creator in the category of created objects - which is obviously absurd:

• wikipedia

Persons are only objects if one is a materialist who doesn’t believe in freewill and equates predestination with determinism. Your conclusions are worthless if you cannot choose what to think …

If you want to discuss those things, Tony, then start another thread. As to the subject of this one, I have said all that needed to be said and you have offered no relevant replies.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;12528382:

Your notion of immutability is idiosyncratic:

Quote:
’God is a spirit, whose being, wisdom power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth are infinite, eternal, and unchangeable

.”

• Westminster Shorter Catechism

It doesn’t mean one cannot cause change. You are putting the Creator in the category of created objects - which is obviously absurd. Persons are only objects if one is a materialist who doesn’t believe in freewill and equates predestination with determinism. Your conclusions are worthless if you cannot choose what to think…
If you want to discuss those things, Tony, then start another thread. As to the subject of this one, I have said all that needed to be said and you have offered no relevant replies.

You deserve a medal for your unrivalled skill at evasion!

 

[belorg]

You deserve a medal for your unrivalled skill at evasion!

Let’s leave it at this and not insult each other, Tony.

 

[tonyrey]

Let’s leave it at this and not insult each other, Tony.

It’s not an insult but a fact. You failed to answer my question about whether there a **change **of identity - which is obviously relevant to **immutability **- but you are of course entitled to withdraw from a discussion whenever you like without any justification for doing so.

 

[belorg]

It’s not an insult but a fact. You failed to answer my question about whether there a **change **of identity - which is obviously relevant to **immutability **- but you are of course entitled to withdraw from a discussion whenever you like without any justification for doing so.

What is relevant to immutability is any sort of change.

 

[tonyrey]

What is relevant to immutability is any sort of change.

There is an excellent article on immutability in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Here is the section relevant to Predestination:

** Immutability, Time, and Freedom

**Suppose that God is in time, but immutable. That means his knowledge can’t change over time, as discussed in a previous objection. So anything God knows now, he knew a thousand years ago. And here’s one thing that God knows now: what I freely chose to eat for breakfast yesterday. I know such a truth, so God can’t be ignorant of it. Given immutability, God can’t go from not knowing it to knowing it. So he has everlastingly known it. Similarly for all other truths. In general, God knows what we are going to do before we do it.

If God knows before I act that I am going to act in that way, then I can’t do anything but act in that way. And if, for every one of my actions, I can’t do otherwise, then I can’t be free. Put another way, God’s knowledge ten thousand years ago that I would do thus-and-such entails that now I do thus-and-such. And that’s true of all my actions. So God’s knowledge determines all of my actions.

The proponent of an eternal, immutable God doesn’t face this problem, since on that view God doesn’t, strictly speaking, know anything before anything else. Likewise, someone who denies immutability may get around this objection by affirming that God changes to learn new facts as time marches on. But the defender of a temporal, immutable God has neither of these options available. One response open to the defender of a temporal, immutable God is to embrace the view, presented above in section 3.a, that immutability doesn’t rule out extrinsic change, and gaining or losing knowledge is extrinsic change. The benefits and costs of this view were discussed above.

Another response would be to argue that there is an asymmetry between truths and the world which allows for prior logical determination not to render a posterior action unfree. Truths are true because reality is as it is, and not the other way around. So the truth of God’s knowledge that I do thus-and-such is because I do thus-and-such, and not the converse. In order to get unfree action, one must have one’s actions be done because of something else, such as force. Since the dependence of truth on reality requires the “because of” relations to run the other way,** actions entailed by the truth of earlier truths do not render such actions unfree. **( Trenton Merricks, 2009; see also Kevin Timpe, 2007).

A final response is to claim that God knows all the actions that I will do, and he knew them far before I do actually perform those actions, but, were I to freely do something else, he would have known differently than he does. This answer requires backwards counterfactual dependence of God’s knowledge on future actions. ** But it doesn’t, at least without much argument, require backwards causation.** This view is known as Ockham’s Way Out, and was popularized in an article by Alvin Plantinga (1986) entitled, aptly, “On Ockham’s Way Out.”

iep.utm.edu/div-immu/#SH3e

 

[belorg]

There is an excellent article on immutability in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Here is the section relevant to Predestination:

iep.utm.edu/div-immu/#SH3e

Your inablility (or unwillingness?) to understand my argument is really getting embarrassing for you, Tony.

 

[tonyrey]

Your inablility (or unwillingness?) to understand my argument is really getting embarrassing for you, Tony.

You are the one who should be embarrassed because you have evaded **every single statement **in the article on Omnipotence in *The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

*Can you refer to any article on Omnipotence you do not consider irrelevant?

 

[belorg]

You are the one who should be embarrassed because you have evaded **every single statement **in the article on Omnipotence in *The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

*Can you refer to any article on Omnipotence you do not consider irrelevant?

I have given you my argument. If there is some article somewhere that proves me wrong, then present it. Until then, please stop pretending that you have defeated my argument. You haven’t even touched it.

 

[tonyrey]

You are the one who should be embarrassed because you have evaded

**every single statement **in the article on Omnipotence in *The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
*Can you refer to any article on Omnipotence you do not consider irrelevant? I have given you my argument. If there is some article somewhere that proves me wrong, then present it. Until then, please stop pretending that you have defeated my argument. You haven’t even touched it.

It is significant that you cannot cite one article that proves you either right or wrong. Nor have you even attempted to substantiate your solitary negative dogma that “A timeless creator cannot interfere in the lives of his creatures, so “ignoring” and “neglecting” them is not His choice, it is a logical consequence of God’s alleged immutability”. Since you equate “causing change” with “being changed” as if it is self-evident without making the slightest effort to justify your opinion I shall leave you to your negativity. There is no argument to defeat…

 

[belorg]

It is significant that you cannot cite one article that proves you either right or wrong. Nor have you even attempted to substantiate your solitary negative dogma that “A timeless creator cannot interfere in the lives of his creatures, so “ignoring” and “neglecting” them is not His choice, it is a logical consequence of God’s alleged immutability”. Since you equate “causing change” with “being changed” as if it is self-evident without making the slightest effort to justify your opinion I shall leave you to your negativity. There is no argument to defeat…

At least, unlike you, I haven’t cited articles that have nothing at all to do with the subject at hand.

so unless you finally find something substantial to add, I am out of here.

 

[tonyrey]

It is significant that you cannot cite one article that proves you either right or wrong. Nor have you even attempted to substantiate your solitary negative

Yet another unsubstantiated negation! According to you the article on **Omnipotence **in *The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy *and the other quotations
“have nothing at all to do with the subject at hand”. Your belief that you are the sole authority on the subject makes you invulnerable at the cost of credibility…

 

[tonyrey]

At least, unlike you, I haven’t cited articles that have nothing at all to do with the subject at hand. so unless you finally find something substantial to add, I am out of here.

You claim it is a **logical **conclusion but the Law of Identity states that “each thing is the same with itself and different from another”. It does not state that a person is inert, static, sterile or powerless. Being active does not mean we change and are necessarily changeable. Our fundamental identity is constant and immutable; otherwise we would not be distinguishable from others.

’God is a spirit, whose being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth are infinite, eternal, and unchangeable.” - Westminster Shorter Catechism

The Creator would be mutable if He ceased to create.

 

[tonyrey]

You claim it is a **logical **conclusion but the Law of Identity states that “each thing is the same with itself and different from another”. It does not state that a person is inert, static, sterile or powerless. Being active does not mean we change and are necessarily changeable. Our fundamental identity is constant and immutable; otherwise we would not be distinguishable from others.

’God is a spirit, whose being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth are infinite, eternal, and unchangeable.” - Westminster Shorter Catechism
or.
The Creator would be mutable if He ceased to create.

On reflection the Creator is not compelled to continue creating unless it is essential for those He has created - which neatly takes us back to the topic of Predestination. His gift to us of free will implies that we can choose to procreate and compel Him to create another soul! So we are not predestined to act in any particular way. We are not compelled to act at all on any particular occasion, such is the power He has shared with us.

Yes, we are predestined, but only to be free. We too are immutable in that respect! This is not surprising when we remember we are made in the image and likeness of God. Otherwise we wouldn’t have the capacity for unselfish love. It is humbling to realise each one of us reflects the glory of our Creator no matter how insignificant we may seem in the vastness of time and space…

 

[ready]

The difficulty in this question resides in the fact of the existence of moral evil. If in His Omniscience, God decrees and moves the future Good acts of rational creatures, one wonders whether that involves also the possibility that God decrees and moves the future Evil acts of rational creatures.

It is my understanding that God does not decree MORAL evils–just other kinds of evils, such as natural disasters, etc…, for God does not will sin (moral evil). And it is my understanding that God MOVES ALL acts, morally evil acts and temporally evil acts. God bless you.