Corporation Socialism

[Belinda]

Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[Immanuel Can]

Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

I have no idea what point you imagine you're making out of that. You'll have to be more clear.

[Belinda]

Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

I have no idea what point you imagine you're making out of that. You'll have to be more clear.

God's word is laws of nature / Cosmos

Laws of nature are always deterministic

Gods word is deterministic.

[Immanuel Can]

Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

I have no idea what point you imagine you're making out of that. You'll have to be more clear.

God's word is laws of nature / Cosmos

Not according to Genesis. The "logos" in Genesis is God's creative authority, by which the "laws of nature" as you call them, are set into place in the first place. You can't explain the existence of "natural laws" by saying "natural laws created the natural laws." That's circular.

Laws of nature are always deterministic

Actually, they're not. You've made the old mistake of mistaking a metaphor for a literality.

When we speak of nature as having "laws," we don't mean to imply something that, with the right contrary conditions, still cannot be broken. Rather, scientists are merely using that metaphor to describe their observation of what usually happens, when no unforseen factors are involved. When another force or agency interrupts the relation between one of these "natural laws" and an outcome, scientists do not suppose the "law" has actually been broken: merely temporarily counteracted by another force, as when an airplane that should ordinarily weigh too much to defeat the law of gravity is able do so by "planing" on air currents, or when boyancy prevents an object from sinking.

Natural laws are just regularities, not fiat laws. They aren't something that, once established, cannot be broken or contradicted. They're just regularities, given a fixed set of limited circumstances. The range of the ambition of any statement of such a law is tightly limited to specified preconditions -- far more tightly than the kind of universal relentlessness Determinism seeks to attribute to them.

So "law of gravity" doesn't mean that birds can never fly.

That's the main point.

Gods word is deterministic.

Niether God's word nor the laws of nature are deterministic, because both can be resisted. Planes, balloons and birds can counteract the law of gravity, and human beings can disobey the word of God.

Sorry: your logic doesn't work at all there.

[promethean75]

"Planes, balloons and birds can counteract the law of gravity"

This could be an obfuscation, deliberate, or just an accident of the language game being played in this thread.

By not falling to the earth, a balloon in no way affects or changes anything about the nature of the gravitational force acting upon it. It's not that the gravity is more or less when concerning the balloon but that the balloon, per its nature, acts differently than other objects subjected to the same force.

It's this 'counter-act' word that IC uses that is makes the statement obscure.

[Immanuel Can]

It's not that the gravity is more or less when concerning the balloon but that the balloon, per its nature, acts differently than other objects subjected to the same force.

That's precisely my point. "Natural laws" are not some kind of ironclad reality that cannot be contravened, and are never interrupted by the application of other "laws," natural, mathematical or otherwise.

So it's silly to try to argue from "There are natural laws" to "Therefore the world is Deterministic." There's no logical deduction from accepting the former to having to believe the latter.

[Belinda]

I have no idea what point you imagine you're making out of that. You'll have to be more clear.

God's word is laws of nature / Cosmos

Not according to Genesis. The "logos" in Genesis is God's creative authority, by which the "laws of nature" as you call them, are set into place in the first place. You can't explain the existence of "natural laws" by saying "natural laws created the natural laws." That's circular.

Laws of nature are always deterministic

Actually, they're not. You've made the old mistake of mistaking a metaphor for a literality.

When we speak of nature as having "laws," we don't mean to imply something that, with the right contrary conditions, still cannot be broken. Rather, scientists are merely using that metaphor to describe their observation of what usually happens, when no unforseen factors are involved. When another force or agency interrupts the relation between one of these "natural laws" and an outcome, scientists do not suppose the "law" has actually been broken: merely temporarily counteracted by another force, as when an airplane that should ordinarily weigh too much to defeat the law of gravity is able do so by "planing" on air currents, or when boyancy prevents an object from sinking.

Natural laws are just regularities, not fiat laws. They aren't something that, once established, cannot be broken or contradicted. They're just regularities, given a fixed set of limited circumstances. The range of the ambition of any statement of such a law is tightly limited to specified preconditions -- far more tightly than the kind of universal relentlessness Determinism seeks to attribute to them.

So "law of gravity" doesn't mean that birds can never fly.

That's the main point.

Gods word is deterministic.

Niether God's word nor the laws of nature are deterministic, because both can be resisted. Planes, balloons and birds can counteract the law of gravity, and human beings can disobey the word of God.

Sorry: your logic doesn't work at all there.

Human beings cannot possibly "disobey the word of God". However human beings are not good at harmonising with the word of God despite the help they have had in this respect from Socrates, Jesus of Nazareth, Isaiah, and Buddha .

[Immanuel Can]

Human beings cannot possibly "disobey the word of God".

The Bible says they not only "can," but regularly do. It's called "sin." But sin would be impossible, if Determinism were true. So you can see that the Bible does not support Determinism.

[Belinda]

Human beings cannot possibly "disobey the word of God".

The Bible says they not only "can," but regularly do. It's called "sin." But sin would be impossible, if Determinism were true. So you can see that the Bible does not support Determinism.

True, sin would be impossible if God's word were deterministic. And yes ,sin is indeed impossible as God is not punitive but infinitely merciful; sin is a human category. The Bible is a book of love not a book of sin, fear, and punishment

"Forgive them they know not what they do"

[Alexiev]

Human beings cannot possibly "disobey the word of God".

The Bible says they not only "can," but regularly do. It's called "sin." But sin would be impossible, if Determinism were true. So you can see that the Bible does not support Determinism.

Omniscience is imposible if detrrminism is not true.

[Immanuel Can]

Human beings cannot possibly "disobey the word of God".

The Bible says they not only "can," but regularly do. It's called "sin." But sin would be impossible, if Determinism were true. So you can see that the Bible does not support Determinism.

True, sin would be impossible if God's word were deterministic. And yes ,sin is indeed impossible as God is not punitive but infinitely merciful; sin is a human category. The Bible is a book of love not a book of sin, fear, and punishment

"Sin" is a word explicitly addressed in the Bible some 1,328 times, and addressed by its subcategories, like "murder" or "lying" innumerably more. There's no escaping that the concept is everywhere in Scripture, and in a very major way. Indeed it's a central concern. And while you're right to say that "punishment" (75 explicit+ other indirect mentions) and "Hell" (15 explict + others indirect) are mentioned considerably fewer times, there's no escaping that they are very firm concepts in Scripture as well, being less mentioned by no less clearly established...the difference probably being due to God's reluctance to see anybody experience them (2 Peter 3:9), rather than them being in any way shaky or questionable as realities.

"Forgive them they know not what they do"

Well, as you know, this was spoken from the cross, about those immediately present, who crucified Christ, of course. But it does not promise a blanket releasing of all sin since the dawn of time, or anything nearly so broad, because clearly, there are those who are not forgiven and do not escape judgment, and the Scriptures...including Christ's own words...are abundantly clear about that (See, for example, Luke 3:13: "No, but I tell you: unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish".)

Sin is possible. Sin is a reality. So are punishment and Hell. There's really no escaping that, in Scripture. The better question is what to do about them.

But Determinism? No, that's everywhere contradicted.

[Immanuel Can]

Human beings cannot possibly "disobey the word of God".

The Bible says they not only "can," but regularly do. It's called "sin." But sin would be impossible, if Determinism were true. So you can see that the Bible does not support Determinism.

Omniscience is imposible if detrrminism is not true.

That's a category error.

"Omniscience" is a claim about knowledge. "Determinism" is a claim about causality. They don't relate to each other.

I can "know" you won't accept this answer, and be 100% right, when next you reply; but my knowledge will not force or compel your reaction, even if I'm totally right in advance. You'll still be free to do what you do, to accept or reject the answer, regardless of what I do or don't know.

[Alexiev]

The Bible says they not only "can," but regularly do. It's called "sin." But sin would be impossible, if Determinism were true. So you can see that the Bible does not support Determinism.

Omniscience is imposible if detrrminism is not true.

That's a category error.

"Omniscience" is a claim about knowledge. "Determinism" is a claim about causality. They don't relate to each other.

I can "know" you won't accept this answer, and be 100% right, when next you reply; but my knowledge will not force or compel your reaction, even if I'm totally right in advance. You'll still be free to do what you do, to accept or reject the answer, regardless of what I do or don't know.

If that's how you want to define determinism, fine. However, omniscience is impossible if the future is not predetermined. (I agree that a predetermined future does not preclude free will.)

[Immanuel Can]

Omniscience is imposible if detrrminism is not true.

That's a category error.

"Omniscience" is a claim about knowledge. "Determinism" is a claim about causality. They don't relate to each other.

I can "know" you won't accept this answer, and be 100% right, when next you reply; but my knowledge will not force or compel your reaction, even if I'm totally right in advance. You'll still be free to do what you do, to accept or reject the answer, regardless of what I do or don't know.

If that's how you want to define determinism, fine.

I didn't "define" it. I just pointed out it is not defensible by recourse to foreknowledge. They're different issues.

However, omniscience is impossible if the future is not predetermined.

Category error again. What God "knows" and what God "forces to happen" are two different things. God, being omniscient, can know multiple possibilities at once, and also know which one people will freely choose -- none of that remotely suggest that God then has to MAKE them do what he foreknows. They'll do it of their own free will. He simply knows they will.

[promethean75]

"Category error again. What God "knows" and what God "forces to happen" are two different things."

^^^ I've explained what happens here to IC like five times, Alexiev.

The issue is that this situation creates a big logical problem that makes it impossible for man to have freewill and for god to be omniscient/omnipotent at the same time.

To say "god knows what will happen but forces nothing to happen" is to say that it's not possible for a man to do something that would result in the end state being different than the end state god knows will happen (before it does).

If it were possible for man to 'pull a fast one' on god and end up proving him wrong by going to the movies instead of the mall, then what kind of a god doesn't even know what his own universe will do?

On the other hand, since god is omniscient and can't ever be wrong about what he claims to know will happen, no man in fact had the freewill to take a course of action ending in a different result... something god didn't know would happen.

Follow whuddum sayin? IC can't, so i had to abandon him. Bless his heart.