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

[jobeth]

1013:
Give me one example of something man can do without God's knowledge and consent.
Can a man enter a crowded convenience store and kill 10 people without God's knowledge and consent?

Geoff:
I agree. God can't know what will happen without knowing how.

Dr. D:
Neither the 2nd coming of Christ, nor any other future event, is dependent on human actions. Human activity is simply one of the means God uses to accomplish His work.

 

[drdeutsch]

Jobeth,

Neither the 2nd coming of Christ, nor any other future event, is dependent on human actions. Human activity is simply one of the means God uses to accomplish His work

That is a completely different point than what Geoff is arguing. I would agree with you: the second coming of Christ is not dependent upon human actions. Other future events not predestined by God are because we have freewill and what we choose to do will open up new possibilities. I stand by 1013's explanation of God's omniscience.


God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[jobeth]

Dr. D.
What do you mean by free will? And who told you you have it?

 

[1013]

1013:
Give me one example of something man can do without God's knowledge and consent.

any action that has been undetermined at the point we consider God's knowledge. Of course, again, it is not without God's knowledge but God knows all of the possibilities of that undetermined event. He knows all the details of those possibilities and he knows the likelyhood of each possibility.

Can a man enter a crowded convenience store and kill 10 people without God's knowledge and consent?

maybe. at one point, God may not know that this will happen because it was not true that it was certain that it would happen. but at a certain point, that man had it set in his heart and there were no circumstances that would bar this event and then God would know that it would happen. This might be the case in the morning of the crime or it might be the case a week from the crime, or maybe his sanity is such that upon seeing a child in the store might make him go through a quick process of deliberation where he changes his mind. God knowing this man's heart would've known this would be a possibility and he would've known that given this man's sanity, he still might not gun down these people.

I agree. God can't know what will happen without knowing how.

consider the principle that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Now a man and his two children are stranded on a planet with these strange cat creatures. Being an interplanetary biologist, he knows that these cat like creatures have deadly poisonous skin. but it is the only thing edible on the planet and if he doesn't kill one of these cats, skin them and feed it to his children and himself, they will die.

So we know that the cat will be skinned. But there is more than one way to skin a cat. We don't have to know how the cat will be skinned and that doesn't change the fact that it will be skinned. The man could start at the head or the belly or the back, etc...

 

[geoff]

That is a completely different point than what Geoff is arguing. I would agree with you: the second coming of Christ is not dependent upon human actions. Other future events not predestined by God are because we have freewill and what we choose to do will open up new possibilities. I stand by 1013's explanation of God's omniscience.

This understanding is cancelled out by my explanation. If ANY events are known by God, ALL surrounding events are known, and therefore there is NOTHING that can not be known, or is fact is not known, but God.

Because SOME of these events include HUMAN FREE ACTIONS, then God MUST know human free actions, or He can not know any of the things he knows with certainty.

BTW, DO NOT confuse anything I say with what jobeth says or understands.

 

[jobeth]

1013:
Is that a yes or a no?

Geoff:
Do human free actions make any genuine contribution to the store of God's knowledge?
If yes, then God is not ALL-knowing.
If no, then I do agree with you, like I already said.

I like you Geoff, like I've always said, but it seems a little un-generous of you to refuse to acknowledge that we can agree on some points, even though we disagree on others. Must you always reject everything I say? Don't you care about my feelings?

 

[geoff]

JoBeth,

I only care that they dont lump my understanding of God in with yours, just because we are not OV'ers. Which I understand is inevitable, however it doesnt hurt to remind them that you and I are not the same person, and although we are determinists, I am a compatibilist and you are an extremist.

 

[1013]

1013:
Is that a yes or a no?

your example didn't give me enough information so I gave you the circumstances for a yes and the circumstances for a no.

I'll say that God did not know that this man would do this at the creation or when the man was born and probably not even during this man's childhood.

 

[drdeutsch]

God's Boule and Thelema

God's Boule and Thelema

Jaltus,
After studying the instances of Boule and thelema in the Bible, I'm still quite convinced that there is a clear, semantic difference between the two words.
The will (thelema) of God consists of those things that God wants/desires and the things that would please Him. After reading all the instances of this word, it is quite clear that not all of God's will (thelema) comes true or is done. This reminds me of the Lord's Prayer: "Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven," which linguistically presupposes that His will isn't being done [here on earth].

God's counsel(s) (boule) are those things that God decides to do. He will make all of those come true. In fact, He's already made many of His counsels come true.

As for Luke 7:30, the Pharisees rejected God's counsel for themselves. It seems that this is one counsel of God specifically for the Pharisees. They may have rejected it, but that doesn't mean that God never did it anyway. What was this particular counsel (boule) anyway?

Finally, Acts 13:22 and 13:36. In 13:22, "everything I want him to do" is, word for word, "the desires of me." David would do God's desires (thelema). In Acts 13:36, we see that David also served God's purpose ( boule). What was this purpose? The promise of the Kingdom, no doubt! I do believe that we must differentiate between the will in 13:22 and the purpose in 13:36. David fulfilled God's purpose, but God also desires for David. David was by no means perfect, but he did do, in general, everything that God desired: everything that was pleasing to God.

Geoff,

If God can know ANY event in the future as settled, He must know the surrounding events to that event completely, or He can NOT know the settled event as true. He then must also know the intimate details of those events, ad infinitum.

Why do you wait until now to bring this argument to light? Where did you read this?

Jobeth,
I do believe you know exactly what I mean by Freewill. You've been on this thread long enough. Don't play word games. If you don't understand it by now then there is no point discussing it with you.

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[drdeutsch]

double post

double post

Sorry,

My cablemodem was a bit slow, and I got impatient.

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[1013]

Why do you wait until now to bring this argument to light? Where did you read this?

If you will look at one of my recent posts above Drd [3rd on 31], you'll notice that the principle of the skinned cat pretty much nulifies geoff's reasoning. Of course he's heard it before but he never defended his argument against it rationally, which is one of the many reasons I don't discuss things with him.

 

[geoff]

DRD

Why do you wait until now to bring this argument to light? Where did you read this?

I am a genius, therefore erratic, eccentric and absent minded.

nah.

I have brought it up before. Its logical. How can it be logical that God knows something for certain, but doesnt know the events around it? How can He be certain of it? He cant, unless He knows.

 

[geoff]

1013,

You havent rationally or in fact approached my argument at all... as you say,, you refuse to dialogue with me.. so you have flat out lied right there.

 

[1013]

we spoke of this in my first corinthians 10:13 thread.

 

[drdeutsch]

Geoff,

Yes, the "more than one way to skin a cat" principle does nullify your argument. I had to read it two or three times, but it does work.

If you are going to say that God must know all the events surrounding an event that He has predestined, then you are undermining God's omnipotency. If, however, God has predestined something and will make it happen, one way or another, despite what we, as moral freewill agents, do, then His omnipotency and sovereingty reign supreme.

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[drdeutsch]

Geoff,

How can it be logical that God knows something for certain, but doesnt know the events around it? How can He be certain of it?

Umm... He's God? He's omnipotent?

He cant, unless He knows.

God can't? That's not the omnipotent God of the Bible, Geoff.

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[Jaltus]

Omnipotent has nothing to do with knowledge. you are mixing catagories, drd.

 

[geoff]

I agree with jaltus. Omnipotence has nothing to do with it.

DRD,
Why dont you demonstrate HOW the skinning a cat principle defeats my argument. Neither you or the other guy have ever done it.

1013,

That was a long time ago, and I NEVER made this argument on that thread.

 

[1013]

Omnipotent has nothing to do with knowledge. you are mixing catagories, drd.

even calvinists make this connection. As a matter of fact, it is the classical calvinist explanation of foreknowledge. look at sections 1 and 2 of chapter 3 of the Westminster confession. It's not so much omnipotence as it is the plan that God has the omnipotence to carry out. If God wants to do something in the future no matter what, he has the power to bring it about and he will bring it about thus he knows that it will happen.

That was a long time ago, and I NEVER made this argument on that thread.

so what and you brought up a sufficiently similar argument.

Why dont you demonstrate HOW the skinning a cat principle defeats my argument. Neither you or the other guy have ever done it.

such rational and well thought out assesments as this are amongst the reasons conversation with you are fruitless. why don't you do the work yourself you lazy bum and show why this argument doesn't work because its pretty self evident to me and drd as to why it effectively shows your contention that to know part you must know the how and/or the surrounding circumstances completely.

 

[geoff]

1013,

Unless you demonstrate it, I will continue to assume I am right and you have no rational argument against it. You made a claim and you refuse to defend it, which is pretty poor considering the kudos you give yourself.