ARCHIVE:God is NOT an OV'er (He said so)

[Evangelion]

Jaltus -

1013 is basing his argument on the supposition that future free acts are unknowable and that it is incoherent for God to know them.

Thus, what geoff calls 'limited omniscience' is God knowling only the past and present, but not the future, exhaustively.

Thanks for the clarification. :up: 1013 had given me the impression that Geoff believed in "limited omniscience"!

Now I'm back on track. And I still agree with Geoff that God knows the future in toto.

 

[jobeth]

Evangelion:
I also agree that God knows the future exhaustively.

IMO, the reason God knows what the future will bring, before it comes to pass, is because He is the Sole Creator of All things, including the future.

Geoff disagrees with me.

But Geoff has not explained how God can know the future, if the future does not already exist.

Can you explain it?

 

[Evangelion]

Jobeth -

I also agree that God knows the future exhaustively.

IMO, the reason God knows what the future will bring, before it comes to pass, is because He is the Sole Creator of All things, including the future.

How can He be the Creator of the future, pray tell?

Geoff disagrees with me.

Onya Geoff! :up:

But Geoff has not explained how God can know the future, if the future does not already exist.

I think he did, but you didn't understand it.

Can you explain it?

Yes. God knows the future (despite the fact that it does not exist) because He is omniscient. He has the unique ability to see the future before it happens. The fact that He knows what will happen, does not affect the outcome. Only by direct intervention does God alter the outcome of future events.

 

[Jaltus]

I think God knows the future if it exists or not. The existence of it is meaningless and only helps us see HOW He can know the future.

 

[drdeutsch]

Jobeth,

Jaltus and I have already covered this. If you want, you could read the former posts... probably 12 pages back or so. First of all: I'm pretty sure that Greek and English grammar are different. I know English grammar pretty well: I have studied grammar and Linguistics. Yes, the "11:00" would modify game, but that is English syntax.
In Greek, the prepositional phrase "From the foundation of the world" should or would normally modify the closest phrase. In the case of Rev 13:8, that would be "lamb slain." However, that doesn't mean that it must, only that doing so would be normal Greek syntax.

Another example of this, as I pointed out already, was Romans 3:25, which reads "Which God set forth as a propitiation through faith by His blood." "By His blood" clearly modifies "propitiation" rather than "faith," which would be the closer noun. it is a propitation (1) through faith and (2) by His blood.

I'm glad you understand my reasoning of Rev 5:6. I'm not using that by itself. Rev 5:6, along with Rev 17:8 and the inverted syntax in Romans 3:25 lead me, and many other scholars, to believe that "from the foundation of the world" should modify "names not written in the book of life" in Rev 13:6. The translators of the NRSV and NASB both chose to write the verse this way. There are other Bible versions, also, which I already pointed out.

We've already been over this. Please, either agree or disagree.

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[1013]

from Jobeth
1013:
If God is not the Sole Creator of All things, and there actually exists some Uncreated things, then there are some things that exist (and are true) that God does not know.

There is an excellent essay by Peter Van Inwagen called, "A Place for Chance in a World sustained by God."

basically, he argues that God can create all things and sustain them individually but sustains them with causal powers whereby the cause of one entity could be A or -A. He's sustaining it and its causal power but because he sustains this "both and" causation, he does not cause it to turn out one way or another. otherwise it wouldn't be true that he gave the entity both the power to cause A or -A. It has some very interesting consequences such that miracles for example can be explained in terms of God changing the causal powers of entities from thier usual causal powers to different ones that will necessarily result in the miracle that He desires.

from evangelion
Now I'm back on track. And I still agree with Geoff that God knows the future in toto.

very well. I understand that you believe in exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF). What I'm questioning is on page 27 you said that you agreed with geoff and it came right after he said that I believed in limited omniscience. So would you agree with that assesment and if so, why? It matters not what whether you agree with EDF or not to this question of limited omniscience as applied to my view.

In fact though, I would argue that I not only believe in omniscience, but also Exhaustive Foreknowledge though not Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge, because God knows everything about the future. That means that if some part of the future is undetermined, unsettled and uncertain, He knows this event as it truly is, unsettled. He knows everything about it such as everything that could lead up to it, every option involved, every statistic and probability of such and such aspect of this event turning out a certain way, every possible outcome, etc. etc... Given all that this involves, we both may believe that God is omniscient, but I believe that God knows more than you or Jaltus or Geoff believes that he knows. If everything thing in the future is known as settled, there is nothing more to know, but if there are vast amounts of possibilities to know, knowledge to be had increases exponentially. So what geoff calls limited omniscience is ironically greater than the omniscience you folks claim.

Jaltus
I think God knows the future if it exists or not. The existence of it is meaningless and only helps us see HOW He can know the future.

What?

 

[drdeutsch]

Well spoken, 1013. I was going to reply much in the same way, but they were questioning you, so I backed down. Besides, you have a much better way with words than I.

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[jobeth]

Dr. D.
Before I agree or disagree, I want to be sure I understand the point you are asking me to agree or disagree with.

If, as you say, the normal Greek syntax should not apply in this case, and we are to understand that there are specific names which were not written from the foundation of the world in the Lamb's book of Life, then doesn't that imply that there are some who were already condemned (pre-condemned) prior to the foundation of the world?

We know that if any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone, and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. Rev 14:9-11

Aren't these the same who shall worship him, (the beast) whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev 13:8

And isn't it only those people who worship the beast whose names are not written from the foundation of the world?

 

[1013]

If, as you say, the normal Greek syntax should not apply in this case, and we are to understand that there are specific names which were not written from the foundation of the world in the Lamb's book of Life, then doesn't that imply that there are some who were already condemned (pre-condemned) prior to the foundation of the world?

have you not read Luke 11:50-51 yet though I've posted in time and again? "from the foundation" indicates something that has going since the foundation of the world and that also may be after sin entered the world and not before. It is not necessarily something that occured all at one point at the beginning before sin. let's not be willy nilly about scripture here jobeth (I just saw that post of yours you posted. )

 

[jobeth]

Evangelion:
God creates the future and the World to Come in the same way He created this world and the things that are Past.

According to His Divine Power hath He given unto us ALL things. 2 Peter 1:3

Both the things in this life and in the World to Come (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30)

Only God has Creative Powers. That's why His Power is called Divine.

Did you hear about the 24th Century scientist who told God "We did it. We can now create life."
God said, "Really? Show me."
So the scientist reached down and scooped up some dirt,
And God said "Hold on there. Get your own dirt."

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

 

[geoff]

1013,

You said earlier on that you AGREED WITH ME.. and I said that there is NO WAY that it 'may also' be from the time sin entered the world. That is unprovable, and illogical and definately not contextual.

 

[Jaltus]

1013,

There is an excellent essay by Peter Van Inwagen called, "A Place for Chance in a World sustained by God."

I found Craig's rebuttal in Time and Eternity to be satisfactory. Maybe if I find it later I'll post part of it.

Given all that this involves, we both may believe that God is omniscient, but I believe that God knows more than you or Jaltus or Geoff believes that he knows. If everything thing in the future is known as settled, there is nothing more to know, but if there are vast amounts of possibilities to know, knowledge to be had increases exponentially. So what geoff calls limited omniscience is ironically greater than the omniscience you folks claim.

I think you wrote it backwards. If our God knows stuff NOW about the future, and your God does not, wouldn't that mean that our God CURRENTLY knows more? Your God could LEARN more, but not know more NOW. Thus, limited omniscience is born.

The other problem is that your God currently is holding false beliefs, since mankind can defeat His plans. How can that be omniscience IF HE IS WRONG?

 

[jobeth]

1013:
I'm trying to get at the cause and effect of this whole thing.

Which is the cause and which is the effect?

If in Rev 13:8 the phrase "from the foundation of the world" modifies "names not written", then:
Either "names not written from the foundation of the world" causes them to "worship him (the beast)" OR they "worship him (the beast)" and that then causes their "names not written from the foundation of the world".

Didn't the Lord say that ALL who dwell on the earth shall wonder after the beast, whose names were not written from the foundation of the world? Rev 17:8

How can a thing that hasn't happened yet (the appearance of the beast) cause names to not be written from the foundation of the world?


When the beast appears, ALL those who dwell upon the earth shall worship the beast. (Rev 13:8)
All who worship the beast shall be tormented with fire and brimstone (Rev 14:9-10)
Therefore, when the beast appears, all who dwell upon the earth at that time shall be tormented.
So how is it that none shall overcome?

Those who dwell upon the earth and worship the beast are those whose names are not written in the book of life. (Rev 13:8)
Whosoever is not found written in the book of life is cast into the lake of fire. (Rev 20:14-15)
Therefore, all whose names were never written in the book of life, will worship the beast and be cast in the lake of fire.

 

[jobeth]

1013:
You said:"I believe that God knows more than you or Jaltus or Geoff believes that he knows."

I, too, believe that God knows every possible outcome and contingency. I also believe that God knows what will actually occur.
He knows both.
God knows both what could happen AND what will happen.

 

[jobeth]

Evangelion:
You said; "Only by direct intervention does God alter the outcome of future events."
I agree.

You also said, "God knows the future (despite the fact that it does not exist) because He is omniscient. He has the unique ability to see the future before it happens."

Yes, but HOW?

 

[1013]

I found Craig's rebuttal in Time and Eternity to be satisfactory. Maybe if I find it later I'll post part of it.

Why would he disagree? Isn't he an indeterminist? I'd be interested in seeing this rebuttle, but as always in real philosophy, it certainly wouldn't be the last word.

But I wouldn't stick to everything that Van Inwagen said there. I'd be happy to say that God does not sustain everything individually but the universe as a whole. But I posted this for the sake of folks like Jobeth who thinks that God has to have His fingure on every minute detail and Van Inwagen's picture here shows how that can be the case and and yet indeterminism could be integral.

I think you wrote it backwards. If our God knows stuff NOW about the future and your God does not, wouldn't that mean that our God CURRENTLY knows more?

I think that God knows stuff NOW about the future. He knows NOW everything that is true about the future and He knows that exhaustively. IF the future is completely settled, he knows that now. if the future is partly unsettled, he knows that now and he knows in what way it is unsettled and he knows all the possible outcomes for that unsettled event. This is knowledge and we have every reason to call it knowledge. It would be odd not to call this knowledge.

If one event is known as settled and what is settled can be represented by "A" then that is all that God needs to know about that event. But there may be an unsettled event and for God to know that event, he must know that it may possibly turn out as "A", "C", "D" or "A" and "B" but not B alone or C and D but in this Case A is not necessarily excluded. So which is more informationally dense? obviously the unsettled event.

The other problem is that your God currently is holding false beliefs, since mankind can defeat His plans. How can that be omniscience IF HE IS WRONG?

He wouldn't know the success of those plans as settled but partly contingent on man so his knowledge wouldn't be wrong if man overturned some of his plans.

and I don't know that any open viewer or any arminian for that matter (arminians believe that some of God's plan's can be defeated. Are you going calvinist on me Jaltus?) believes that God's broad plan for humanity can be defeated. If plan A doesn't work God can go to plan B or plan C and so on, and God can still acheive his broad scale goals for man.

from Jobeth
Either "names not written from the foundation of the world" causes them to "worship him (the beast)" OR they "worship him (the beast)" and that then causes their "names not written from the foundation of the world".

to a rough degree, I don't see what's wrong with the second option.

How can a thing that hasn't happened yet (the appearance of the beast) cause names to not be written from the foundation of the world?

the cause of names not being written in the book of life is the rejection of God's grace in people's lives. So when does this writting take place? ever since the foundation of the world. So yesterday someone recieved the Good News and her name was then written into the book of life, yesterday, Sunday, July the 7th. When did this happen in regards to the foundation of the world? some time after the foundation of the world. Since the foundation of the world. Specifically July the 7th, 2002 AD. If she hadn't done this yesterday or ever, her name would not have been written from the foundation of the world and if the beast appeared tomarrow, that person would worship the beast since their name wasn't written since the foundation.

Now the way I am treating this phrase "from the foundation of the world" is a perfectly normal way to treat the phrase. Because that is how Luke treats it.

luke 11:50-51
50Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

If your going to dogmatically insist that "from the foundation" means at a specific point before the beginning of the world or at the creation, then apply that to this passage from Luke. Doing so would be a little nutty as not only the lamb would be slain before the foundation (and the greek does not allow for "before" anyway), but also from abel to Zechariah! But that's not what Luke means using this phrase. The slaying of martyrs has been going on since the beginning and so it is with the writting of the names in the book of life. It has been going on since the beginning. It did not occur all at once. It happened in Abraham's day. It happened in David's day. It happened in Jesus' day. It is going on today. The names being written in the book of the lamb has been going on from the foundation of the world.

I, too, believe that God knows every possible outcome and contingency.

In your picture He wouldn't know them as actual possibilities. At most, He might know them as logical possibilities that have no chance of coming to pass. In my picture, he knows them as actual possibilites.

 

[geoff]

1013,

Explain how a future free action is 'untrue'.

Here is an example of something foreknown by God, which was not directly caused by God:

Jhn 13:21 When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.

Obviously this was included in Gods plan (and of course foreknowledge), however, we are told that Judas chose, and that the devil entered Him.
God FOREKNEW and included in His plan this part of History, and it was the result of a human free action.

 

[drdeutsch]

Can we thwart God's plan?

Can we thwart God's plan?

Jaltus,

I agree with 1013: We might be able to thwart God's will (thelema) but there is no way that we can thwart His counsel (boule). Bob Hill has written some excellent essays on God's two wills and how they pertain to our freewill and the Open View.

Again, excellent posts, 1013. Took the words right out of my fingers.

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[Jaltus]

drdeutsch,

thelema = boule They cover the same semantic domains. It is like saying that agape and phileo mean different types of love. In the classical period they did, but not in Koine Greek. In fact, thelema slowly phased out of Greek usage (IIRC) since the verb (theleo) was rarely used any more (mello took over for it).

1013,

You are backing a Molinist concept of God, which would make you Arminian, not OV. You may want to sort your catagories a little better.

 

[1013]

from Jaltus
You are backing a Molinist concept of God, which would make you Arminian, not OV. You may want to sort your catagories a little better.

you'll have to explain that further because I see a fundamental problem with ascribing molinism to my view. In molinism God knows all the possible reactions I could have to one stimulus or another. But as far as I know molinism, there is only one possibility of response for a situation thus if God knows the situation, he will know what actions I will take. For example, Plantinga says If he visits a certain friend, God knows that He will climb a certain mountain since that mountain is in the region and it is one he loves to climb. This is an instance of middle knowledge because it is a fact that exists in possibility and is not necessarily going to play out in actuality unless he actually visits this friend and has time to climb the mountain. but I have trouble seeing how this escapes determinism though there is a fact of the matter that arises from who we are even before we are born. It still seems that we are slaves to stimulus acting in one specific way according to our environment. perhaps my assesment of molinism here is a little off but I think this shows the jist of my problem with it.

now compare that to my description of the possibilities that I believe exist in the world.

But there may be an unsettled event and for God to know that event, he must know that it may possibly turn out as "A", "C", "D" or "A" and "B" but not "B" alone or "C" and "D" but in this Case "A" is not necessarily excluded.

This unsettled event may be the result of of one specific state of affairs. Maybe this represents what kind of breakfast you would have in the morning, assuming you are not like me and do not stick to a routine of breakfasts (but I don't always stick to my breakfast routine FYI). your choice is never set and it is possible that you may have eggs, waffles, or eggs with cheese but never cheese alone or biscuits and gravy but you may still have eggs even if you have sausage and biscuits. For many mornings this will be the sum total of the truth of the matter for what you will choose and no choice is excluded until you have made your choice. Now that is not molinism because molinism says that one of those choices will be certain depending upon the circumstances. But I'm saying that for many mornings, the circumstances cannot narrow down the choice until you actually make that choice and even if someone where to geuss which one of those breakfasts you would've had saying "I just know that jaltus is going to have this breakfast," He would've still have been wrong because though he got your breakfast choice right, he was wrong about the certainty of it thinking that he "just knew" which one you'd choose.

perhaps there is what is classically described as middle knowledge to be had here. Perhaps we can know that you will have biscuits and gravey if evangelion pops over for breakfast because Evangelion is an absolute biscuit and gravy man and he just loves the way your wife makes B and G and you're a couple that just loves to please so you will definitely indulge him, especialy since its not everyday that he pops in from australia. But for many mornings, this simply isn't the case and the sum total of the fact of the matter is eggs, waffles, or eggs with cheese but never cheese alone or biscuits and gravy but you may still have eggs even if you have biscuits and gravy.

If this represents the fact of the matter for many mornings and for every one of those mornings, God predicts that you will certainly have one of those choices before you make that choice, even if God's prediction matched up with reality, he still would've been wrong about the certainty that he claimed because it was not born out in reality. He was lucky to get the choice right and it had nothing to do with his false information of the certainty of the information. Once it can be known with certainty which choice will be chosen, it is no longer true that in actuality it is possible for you to choose eggs, waffles, or eggs with cheese but never cheese alone or biscuits and gravy but you may still have eggs even if you have sausage and biscuits.

If you want to call this molinism, that's fine with me, but this is not the molinism that other philosophers and theologians speak of. at most, Greg Boyd wants to call this molinism, more specifically "neo"molinism and I don't have much of a problem with that, but other Open Theists aren't too excited about that.

from geoff
Explain how a future free action is 'untrue'.

Here is an example

answers I have but conversation with you I will not do.