A problem with open theism (HOF thread)

[logos_x]

i'd recommend reading a book on open theism so you can get a better understanding for it. i read "the openness of God" and would recommend it to anyone looking to understand open theism better (even if they don't agree with it).

amazon.com has it here

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...104-6747540-5948765?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

My recommendation for open theism would be The Grace of God and the Will of Man

A further recommendation for what I believe is the best treatment of Open Theism's implications would be A Wideness in God's Mercy

The first book is edited by, and the second book written by, Clark H. Pinnock. He is Professor of Systematic Theology at McMaster Divinity College, and a member of the Faculty of Theology at McMaster University.

 

[Delmar]

Yea I do believe in exaustive foreknowledge whether in a closed pre-existing future or not. This is due mostly to my current understanding of time (whcih is another thread) and God's relation to time (again anouther thread). But for arguements sake if Open View is correct. God would have a dynamic will and would accurately be able to predict future events (with his infinate mind and knowledge of everything on earth in each moment for all of history). The only hinderence I can think of to God's exaustive forepredictions are truely random occurances. I think God knows me well enough to "know" which choices I will make with my free will (my free will isnt random and without cause)...but he wouldn't be able to predict random events that would affect everything else. But are there any events that are truely random? Or are they just "random" because we cannot accurately measure the enviroment in which they happen? If we can't can God?

It seems to me that a lot of random events are caused by man. Flipping a coin for, example, to make a decition. Does God know ahead of time how much force I am going to choose to use or in what dirrection I am going to choose to spin the coin?

 

[docrob57]

If it is caused, it is not free.

A choice can be so coerced it is almost caused. If someone puts a gun to my head and says cough up your $, I could say no and die, but I will likely be persuaded to give the money. The will is the seat of volition. I do not see how the will can have something back of it that is causative. God could narrow circumstances in a way that would limit our choices, but it is normative that we can chose between alternatives freely.

I would reserve causative issues for machines, not men. Determinism and Skinner's behaviourism/conditioning is not worthy of free moral agency given as a gift from God.

"
"Free" events can certainly have causes. And I am not proposing anything like Skinner. Let's approach this from a different perspective. Look at a vote for President. Your own vote (or non-vote if you abstained). This is clearly a free choice. Did anything lead you to that choice?

 

[docrob57]

i'd recommend reading a book on open theism so you can get a better understanding for it. i read "the openness of God" and would recommend it to anyone looking to understand open theism better (even if they don't agree with it).

amazon.com has it here

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...104-6747540-5948765?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Thanks for the recommendation and I will do that when I am able.

 

[godrulz]

It seems to me that a lot of random events are caused by man. Flipping a coin for, example, to make a decition. Does God know ahead of time how much force I am going to choose to use or in what dirrection I am going to choose to spin the coin?

There is nothing that necessitates you flip the coin to begin with. At the last second, you could swallow it or place it vertically in jello. This free act is unknowable from eternity past. It is not a deficiency in omniscience to not know a nothing.

 

[docrob57]

It seems to me that a lot of random events are caused by man. Flipping a coin for, example, to make a decition. Does God know ahead of time how much force I am going to choose to use or in what dirrection I am going to choose to spin the coin?

No, random events are predictable only within some given probability level. Would God know which types of decision are likely to be subject to coin flip? Do you think lots of decisions are made this way?

 

[Delmar]

No, random events are predictable only within some given probability level. Would God know which types of decision are likely to be subject to coin flip? Do you think lots of decisions are made this way?

some

 

[docrob57]

some

Well at least you are consistent, because, logically, this is the only way that the open view makes any sense.

 

[Delmar]

Well at least you are consistent, because, logically, this is the only way that the open view makes any sense.

you don't make any random choices?

 

[docrob57]

you don't make any random choices?

Legitimate question, I don't think so, at least not that I am aware of. Give me some examples of some random choices that you might make.

 

[godrulz]

Define 'random choices'.

 

[docrob57]

Define 'random choices'.

Choices that have no cause

 

[godrulz]

Choices that have no cause

The will is the 'cause' of choices. This is a faculty of personal beings in the image of God. Choices might not have 'causes' by definition. Determinism negates libertarian free will (the only kind of truly free will).

Clarify or give an example of choices with no causes. Causative or coerced things are not free choices. A machine or nature works on cause-effect. A moral being makes self-determining choices. Are you confusing these categories? Man is not a machine.

 

[docrob57]

The will is the 'cause' of choices. This is a faculty of personal beings in the image of God. Choices might not have 'causes' by definition. Determinism negates libertarian free will (the only kind of truly free will).

Clarify or give an example of choices with no causes. Causative or coerced things are not free choices. A machine or nature works on cause-effect. A moral being makes self-determining choices. Are you confusing these categories? Man is not a machine.

With all due respect, to say that the "will" is a cause doesn't really say anything in terms of this discussion. The question then is, what causes the "will" to act as it does. Free choices can, and I would argue must, be caused by something.

 

[godrulz]

With all due respect, to say that the "will" is a cause doesn't really say anything in terms of this discussion. The question then is, what causes the "will" to act as it does. Free choices can, and I would argue must, be caused by something.

The mind directs the will. God makes intelligent choices. We make intelligent or unintelligent choices. Breathing is automatic, but has some volitional control. We think, and then we act. God thinks, and He acts. Will, intellect, and emotions work together to make choices.

Free will is self-evident. Do not complicate a simple issue with deterministic undertones.

 

[Clete]

It seems the issue here is, in a word, causality. The whole natural world is determined by causalities unless acted upon by something supernatural. Every time you roll a pair of dice the result is determined by the position of the dice as they leave your hand, the speed and torque placed on the dice when they were thrown, wind resistance, gravity, friction between the dice and whatever surface they are being thrown onto, etc, etc. All of which are fixed quantities once the dice actually leave your hand. And so the result is determined the moment that you are no longer in contact with the dice (assuming no one else touches them before they come to rest).
Likewise, chemical processes of all sorts are determined by the chemicals present and the conditions (temperature, pressure, etc) under which the process is running. With one set of chemicals and one set of conditions there is only one possible outcome. If the chemicals and conditions are duplicated, so will the results be. This is because of causality. All natural processes are absolutely determined by causality unless acted upon by something supernatural. There is no such thing as a completely random (i.e. totally without cause) natural phenomenon.
Now, this would seem to be a problem for Open Theism but the reason it is not is not because people are random, that's not it at all! People are not random but they are also not totally natural, they are spiritual and possess a soul. That which is spiritual is not natural but rather supernatural. We are made in the image of God and thus to think that we are completely natural creatures is to go against the clear teaching of Scripture.
The point being is that resorting to randomness to get around the causality problem is not necessary. Causality is strictly natural and does not apply (strictly) to the supernatural and as humans being are only one third natural creatures, causality causes no problem for the Open Theist in any respect. Our will can be free because we are spiritual creatures with a supernatural soul.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[docrob57]

The mind directs the will. God makes intelligent choices. We make intelligent or unintelligent choices. Breathing is automatic, but has some volitional control. We think, and then we act. God thinks, and He acts. Will, intellect, and emotions work together to make choices.

Free will is self-evident. Do not complicate a simple issue with deterministic undertones.

Perhaps the issue is not as simple as you would like it to be. What causes the mind to direct the will the way that it does?

 

[docrob57]

It seems the issue here is, in a word, causality. The whole natural world is determined by causalities unless acted upon by something supernatural. Every time you roll a pair of dice the result is determined by the position of the dice as they leave your hand, the speed and torque placed on the dice when they were thrown, wind resistance, gravity, friction between the dice and whatever surface they are being thrown onto, etc, etc. All of which are fixed quantities once the dice actually leave your hand. And so the result is determined the moment that you are no longer in contact with the dice (assuming no one else touches them before they come to rest).
Likewise, chemical processes of all sorts are determined by the chemicals present and the conditions (temperature, pressure, etc) under which the process is running. With one set of chemicals and one set of conditions there is only one possible outcome. If the chemicals and conditions are duplicated, so will the results be. This is because of causality. All natural processes are absolutely determined by causality unless acted upon by something supernatural. There is no such thing as a completely random (i.e. totally without cause) natural phenomenon.
Now, this would seem to be a problem for Open Theism but the reason it is not is not because people are random, that's not it at all! People are not random but they are also not totally natural, they are spiritual and possess a soul. That which is spiritual is not natural but rather supernatural. We are made in the image of God and thus to think that we are completely natural creatures is to go against the clear teaching of Scripture.
The point being is that resorting to randomness to get around the causality problem is not necessary. Causality is strictly natural and does not apply (strictly) to the supernatural and as humans being are only one third natural creatures, causality causes no problem for the Open Theist in any respect. Our will can be free because we are spiritual creatures with a supernatural soul.

Resting in Him,
Clete

So let's put this a different way. When God acts, does he have a reason for it?

 

[godrulz]

Perhaps the issue is not as simple as you would like it to be. What causes the mind to direct the will the way that it does?

Cause? Are you into Darwin or B.F. Skinner's behaviorism? God designed us to relate to Him and our world. We think and act. The exact mechanism may be explained by physiology/neurology or by theology. It is self-evident that we can think and direct our bodies to act in specific ways. Emotions are not volitional and are generated based on our feelings and actions.

What do you think 'causes' the mind to direct the will? It seems they are so intertwined that we do not have to wring our hands dissecting the issue. We are created in the image of God and are glorious creatures. We think and act without having to have a 'cause' to explain this. There is a biological level, but Clete rightly affirms the image of God (imago dei).

I am not sure what you are getting at. What is your point?

 

[Clete]

So let's put this a different way. When God acts, does he have a reason for it?

A better question is, "When God acts, could He have done otherwise?"

That answer to both questions is, yes.


Resting in Him,
Clete