ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[godrulz]

There is no need to buy the OV wholesale, because it does not suggest, in any way, that nothing has been determined ahead of time by God! The OV suggests that many things are not settled, because people have been granted the ability to make real choices.

There are two motifs in Scripture: some of the future is closed/settled/known (God is able to bring what He purposes to pass by His ability, not foreknowledge...Is. 46; 48); some of the future is open/unsettled/possible (future free will contingencies).

The closed view must make the latter figurative, without warrant. The OV has a stronger hermeneutic (takes all relevant passages at face value).

 

[godrulz]

A quick note to all 'Open' Theists:

I urge you to consider all the things which man has considered to be 'logically impossible' throughout the ages. For example, going faster than sound or light, creating something from nothing, bringing life from the inert, flying, going to the moon, etc, etc., etc........

Once the 'logically impossible' occurs one time then we know that it is no longer logically impossible. My point is that Man's logical possibilities require understanding as to the mechanism of occurence or proof that it occured.

Rob

There is a big difference between what SEEMS impossible to cave man vs modern man and what is logically self-contradictory. For God and man in all generations, it is impossible to create square circles or to change the past. Some things are literally impossible because they are absurd, not just discovered. Flying is not logically impossible, but making a human pregnant and not pregnant at the same moment is.

 

[patman]

How did God create the Earth? Is this logically possible? Can't you see that what is logically possible to you is the same as logically understandable to you? He surpasses our understanding and therefore our logic.

Rob,

If you are unable to recognize the following as truth,even without the Bible holding your hand to do it, no offense intended at all, but I see no reason to continue to discuss this subject with you. We will eternally hit a brick wall and never see eye to eye.

1. 2 + 2 = 4.

2. 2 + 2 = 4 is not in the Bible.

3. God created 2+2 to = 4 because that is how he wills it.

4. God never said he knows the entire future.

5. Saying that God displays the ability to predict 1000 future events is not grounds to say he knows all future events.

(It would be like saying Jesus walked on water once, therefore he is always walking on water)

6. God admits the ability to do anything.

7. God admits that he cannot sin, we conclude by choice.

8. God must, by choice, also obtain from doing other things. It is possible God doesn't want future knowledge for reasons we can't explain.

9. God could know all of the future if he wanted to.

10. God displays he doesn't know the outcome of all events, possibly by choice.

I could go on... but this is the thought process I go through.

1. We have no verse to say about God that he knows all 100% of the future. This isn't a logical conclusion, it is fact.

2. We have the ability to put Gods word together and draw conclusions about God based on what he tells us about himself.

3. We shouldn't stretch our conclusions to mean what we want them to mean(not saying you do).

So we are looking for evidence for one way or the other.

Evidence that God knows the future:
1. He makes accurate predictions about events far into the future.
2. He claims the ability to do anything.
3. God claims to know everything.

Reasons I do not believe this is sufficient to draw the conclusion that God knows all of the future is:
1. Making a few accurate predictions is not enough to say he knows all of the future, Even I can predict the future sometimes.
2. He claims to be able to do anything, it doesn't mean he does everything.
3. The future is not a "thing," it is not a place. If it doesn't exist physically or spiritually, how can it be known.

Evidence he doesn't know the entire future:
1. Predicting the future can come with wisdom, understanding of situations, causing things to happen, or letting something happen. God predicting the future does not imply supernatural powers in doing so.
2. God has made claim that certain events would happen that didn't. Something he would not do if he already knew the outcome.
3. God displays the ability to change.
4. God tests men to see what they will do, he doesn't already know.

Rob, I keep submitting my timeline as proof to 2.

 

[godrulz]

Have some rep, Patman.

In addition, the reason God does not know the future as actual vs possible is that He chose to create non-deterministic universe for the sake of love, freedom, and relationship.

If could have known the future exhaustively if He chose a different type of creation. This self-limitation of His knowledge is inherent to the type of creation He chose, not that He can just chose to not know something knowable. Omniscience means that He knows all that is logically possible to know. Knowing the future as possible vs certain is still consistent with omniscience (knowing reality as it is).

 

[Clete]

A quick note to all 'Open' Theists:

I urge you to consider all the things which man has considered to be 'logically impossible' throughout the ages. For example, going faster than sound or light, creating something from nothing, bringing life from the inert, flying, going to the moon, etc, etc., etc........

ROB!!!!

Why on Earth is it so hard for you to get it through your thick skull that none of this is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!! :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read a book about logic and reason! I'm begging you! PLEASE!

YOU ARE KILLING ME!!!!!

All of it may be (or may have been at one time) physically impossible for a human being to accomplish. Much of it might be totally impossible for any natural being, whether human or not, to accomplish but...

THAT IS NOT WHAT IT MEANS FOR SOMETHING TO BE LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

If something is logically impossible it means that it is a logical absurdity, as in a contradiction. Moving an immovable object would be logically impossible. Creating a perfect three dimensional sphere with sharp corners would be logically impossible. Existing outside of time would be logically impossible. But a super natural being doing things that violate the laws of nature would not be logically impossible. In fact, it would be logically impossible for a super natural being to be constrained by the laws of nature.

Do you see the distinction Rob? Something that is difficult or impossible or thought to be so for humans, does not constitute a logical impossibility. In fact, one good way of determining whether something is logically possible or not is to ask yourself whether or not a movie could be made where someone did whatever action is in question. If the answer is yes, then it is not a logical impossibility. Can you make a movie and have one of the characters drink all the water out of the ocean? Yes! You certainly could. Would such a feat be physically possible? NO! Of course not, but it is logically possible.

Please tell me that you understand the distinction! Logical possibilities may or may not be physically possible but logical impossibilities CANNOT happen. It is this latter point that makes the whole concept of the logically possible useful. It can be used to falsify a truth claim but not to verify one. In other words, if you can determine that some truth claim is, in fact, logically impossible then you will have falsified the truth claim because the contradictory cannot be true.

Get it?

Once the 'logically impossible' occurs one time then we know that it is no longer logically impossible. My point is that Man's logical possibilities require understanding as to the mechanism of occurence or proof that it occured.

The logically impossible has never happened and will never happen and can never happen. That's why it’s called LOGICALLY impossible. If you had used the term "physically impossible" then you might have a point because God is not limited to the physical but that has exactly nothing to do with what is or is not LOGICALLY impossible.

Different Senses of Possibility and Necessity

Ontological Possibility:

Something is possible in the ontological sense if it is a genuine possibility, i.e., describes a way the world actually could have been. The following are some examples of the sort of thing we often mean when we say that something is possible in the ontological sense.

a. Something is pragmatically possible if it is not overly inconvenient. In this sense, it may be possible for me to go to the store this afternoon, but it is not possible for me to go to Mars this afternoon.

b. Something is technologically possible if it can be done given current levels of human technology. In this sense, it is possible to go to Mars, but not possible to fly a spaceship through the sun.

c. Something is nomologically possible if it does not violate a law of nature. In this sense, it is possible to fly a spaceship through the sun, but it is not possible to fly faster than the speed of light.

Notice that as we move down the list, the set of possibilities gets bigger and bigger. Is there a biggest set? Yes:

d. Something is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE if it does not involve a self-contradiction. It is logically impossible if it does involve a self-contradiction, and logically necessary if its denial involves a self-contradiction. In this sense, it is possible to fly faster than the speed of light, but not possible for there to be a six-sided triangle. It is the notion of logical possibility which may be used to characterize deductive validity. An argument is deductively valid if it is logically impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false. All kinds of unexpected things are logically possible. For example, it is logically possible that all bachelors turn purple at midnight, it is possible that toads jump faster than the speed of light (given a suitably loose definition of "toad"), etc. An important thing to keep in mind here is that whether a self-contradiction is present will depend on how the relevant concepts are defined. Source (emphasis added)​

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[sentientsynth]

Clete, you're link has one too many "http"'s.

 

[godrulz]

Rob: Listen to Clete before he beats you up. Even secular thinkers know the difference between impossible for a man or dog vs self-contradictory things. Without God's logic, we cannot know or make sense of anything.

 

[Clete]

Clete, you're link has one too many "http"'s.

Fixed it.

 

[zapp]

No one will be saved by great understanding or western serial bi-furcation logic.


Children are the target. The Bible is accessible by the simplest of minds. If you have to call in "troops" from outside of scripture, and argue circuitous obscurities to support your "correct theology", odds are it won't fly.

If God is truly Infinite, then we have no clue as to what His "final word" is, by definition. He is infinite, and neither we nor our sources are. To me the OV says "take Scripture at its word and act accordingly".... it doesn't really argue about the shape or borders of God or a God/Machine, it takes what scripture says about God's CHARACTER traits, and his past ACTIONS, and lives accordingly [at least, in theory......]
I can't discern the outline of "infinite"..... I'm just a kid here for a few days in this world then gone in a puff of dust. But I can, and MUST discern His heart. Thankfully that is abundantly sketched for me in both OT and NT
z

 

[patman]

I love reading the posts on logical thinking and learning form other people.

It is great that God has blessed us with such a wonderful mind to understand things bigger than ourselves.

However, as life goes, not all of us are equally mature and advanced in brain power as others. Some of us can figure out and understand these things, but for those who cannot, there is one very simple proof for Open theism. God's word.

We don't have to think about it, we don't have to comprehend everything, we just have to listen to it, and trust it.

The very last thing in the Bible is a warning...

Revelation 22
18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

And that is just for the one book in the bible.

God obviously wants us to respect his word by not adding our own theories to it.

So the decision is simple. Where does the word tell of the extent of his future knowledge? Nowhere. It simply tells us when God knew the future and when he didn't. Therefore should we add on to God's description of self by adding on powers he doesn't even claim?

He had thousands of words where he simply could say "I know all the future," yet it didn't happen. It is very simple.... :doh:

 

[godrulz]

He also did not say: "I am a Trinity and Jesus is God Almighty". It would have made our work with JWs easier :think:

 

[Chikaka]

I think Jesus made it perfectly clear that he let himself be crucified so he could rise after 3 days from death. Jesus spent a majority of his time doing un-natural works no other normal human being could, to prove who he was, and one of those things was rising from the dead. I guess healing unhealable sicknesses, raising other-then-Jesus people from death, and controlling the weather isn't enough for some people.

Maybe he's a Magician. Isn't that what the Muslims say? I would like to see a magician control the weather in this modern era of technology and know-all-ness.

 

[patman]

He also did not say: "I am a Trinity and Jesus is God Almighty". It would have made our work with JWs easier :think:

(Good thing salvation doesn't depend on technical understanding of God's make and ability.)

Whenever we make any claim about God, it has to start with scriptural evidence.

Taking it all into account, S.V. is clearly not in scripture. Though we call it Open Theism, or we call God a Trinity, what matters is the sums of the meaning of those words are scripturally sound.

 

[Bob Hill]

Zapp,

I think you are doing well so far. What do you believe on the Open View now?

Bob Hill

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Rob,

If you are unable to recognize the following as truth,even without the Bible holding your hand to do it, no offense intended at all, but I see no reason to continue to discuss this subject with you. We will eternally hit a brick wall and never see eye to eye.

1. 2 + 2 = 4.

2. 2 + 2 = 4 is not in the Bible.

3. God created 2+2 to = 4 because that is how he wills it.

4. God never said he knows the entire future.

5. Saying that God displays the ability to predict 1000 future events is not grounds to say he knows all future events.

(It would be like saying Jesus walked on water once, therefore he is always walking on water)

6. God admits the ability to do anything.

7. God admits that he cannot sin, we conclude by choice.

8. God must, by choice, also obtain from doing other things. It is possible God doesn't want future knowledge for reasons we can't explain.

9. God could know all of the future if he wanted to.

10. God displays he doesn't know the outcome of all events, possibly by choice.

I could go on... but this is the thought process I go through.

1. We have no verse to say about God that he knows all 100% of the future. This isn't a logical conclusion, it is fact.

2. We have the ability to put Gods word together and draw conclusions about God based on what he tells us about himself.

3. We shouldn't stretch our conclusions to mean what we want them to mean(not saying you do).

So we are looking for evidence for one way or the other.

Evidence that God knows the future:
1. He makes accurate predictions about events far into the future.
2. He claims the ability to do anything.
3. God claims to know everything.

Reasons I do not believe this is sufficient to draw the conclusion that God knows all of the future is:
1. Making a few accurate predictions is not enough to say he knows all of the future, Even I can predict the future sometimes.
2. He claims to be able to do anything, it doesn't mean he does everything.
3. The future is not a "thing," it is not a place. If it doesn't exist physically or spiritually, how can it be known.

Evidence he doesn't know the entire future:
1. Predicting the future can come with wisdom, understanding of situations, causing things to happen, or letting something happen. God predicting the future does not imply supernatural powers in doing so.
2. God has made claim that certain events would happen that didn't. Something he would not do if he already knew the outcome.
3. God displays the ability to change.
4. God tests men to see what they will do, he doesn't already know.

Rob, I keep submitting my timeline as proof to 2.

POTD :first:

 

[godrulz]

(Good thing salvation doesn't depend on technical understanding of God's make and ability.)

Whenever we make any claim about God, it has to start with scriptural evidence.

Taking it all into account, S.V. is clearly not in scripture. Though we call it Open Theism, or we call God a Trinity, what matters is the sums of the meaning of those words are scripturally sound.

Correct. Some issues are not explicit in Scripture since it is not a systematic theology, philosophy, medical, or science text book. Open Theism is defensible on biblical grounds, but godly philosophy may also be beneficial in defending concepts (e.g. modal logic helps us understand contingencies and why exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will choices is an absurdity vs proof text from the Bible).

 

[patman]

Correct. Some issues are not explicit in Scripture since it is not a systematic theology, philosophy, medical, or science text book. Open Theism is defensible on biblical grounds, but godly philosophy may also be beneficial in defending concepts (e.g. modal logic helps us understand contingencies and why exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will choices is an absurdity vs proof text from the Bible).

No question about that. It is just that some need things brought way down I don't know how to make O.T. any simpler to believe (other than writing a book of its scriptural proofs. That's why we have Bob Hill. He has it nailed).

 

[patman]

I think Jesus made it perfectly clear that he let himself be crucified so he could rise after 3 days from death. Jesus spent a majority of his time doing un-natural works no other normal human being could, to prove who he was, and one of those things was rising from the dead. I guess healing unhealable sicknesses, raising other-then-Jesus people from death, and controlling the weather isn't enough for some people.

Maybe he's a Magician. Isn't that what the Muslims say? I would like to see a magician control the weather in this modern era of technology and know-all-ness.

I think that was godrulz's point

 

[RobE]

ROB!!!!

Why on Earth is it so hard for you to get it through your thick skull that none of this is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!! :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

I never said they were logically impossible. In fact, my point is the opposite. The expressions 'thought to be impossible' and 'are impossible' are different expressions and the focus of my post.

Patman continues to argue the impossibility of foreknowledge based upon a limiting factor; specifically 'failed' prophecy. He then turns around and makes statements such as this:

Patman's Post

8. God must, by choice, also obtain from doing other things. It is possible God doesn't want future knowledge for reasons we can't explain.

9. God could know all of the future if he wanted to.

10. God displays he doesn't know the outcome of all events, possibly by choice.​

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read a book about logic and reason! I'm begging you! PLEASE!

YOU ARE KILLING ME!!!!!

It almost sounds like a reduction to absurdity. :angel:

All of it may be (or may have been at one time) physically impossible for a human being to accomplish. Much of it might be totally impossible for any natural being, whether human or not, to accomplish but...

THAT IS NOT WHAT IT MEANS FOR SOMETHING TO BE LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

I agree and am sorry if I must resort to these types of arguments when faced with overcoming mental brick walls.

If something is logically impossible it means that it is a logical absurdity, as in a contradiction. Moving an immovable object would be logically impossible. Creating a perfect three dimensional sphere with sharp corners would be logically impossible. Existing outside of time would be logically impossible. But a super natural being doing things that violate the laws of nature would not be logically impossible. In fact, it would be logically impossible for a super natural being to be constrained by the laws of nature.

Natural laws such as linear time, behavior, and the like which govern us completely.

Do you see the distinction Rob? Something that is difficult or impossible or thought to be so for humans, does not constitute a logical impossibility. In fact, one good way of determining whether something is logically possible or not is to ask yourself whether or not a movie could be made where someone did whatever action is in question. If the answer is yes, then it is not a logical impossibility. Can you make a movie and have one of the characters drink all the water out of the ocean? Yes! You certainly could. Would such a feat be physically possible? NO! Of course not, but it is logically possible.

Or travel through time, know the future, read minds, etc....

Please tell me that you understand the distinction! Logical possibilities may or may not be physically possible but logical impossibilities CANNOT happen. It is this latter point that makes the whole concept of the logically possible useful. It can be used to falsify a truth claim but not to verify one. In other words, if you can determine that some truth claim is, in fact, logically impossible then you will have falsified the truth claim because the contradictory cannot be true.

It's often hard to remember this when emotion is involved.

Get it?

Yes, I do. Maybe you might help correct your friends here who seem to struggle with it more than you do.

Rob

 

[RobE]

Rob,

If you are unable to recognize the following as truth,even without the Bible holding your hand to do it, no offense intended at all, but I see no reason to continue to discuss this subject with you. We will eternally hit a brick wall and never see eye to eye.

1. 2 + 2 = 4.

2. 2 + 2 = 4 is not in the Bible.

Just as exhaustive foreknowledge isn't.

3. God created 2+2 to = 4 because that is how he wills it.

4. God never said he knows the entire future.

Nor did He say that 2+2=4.

5. Saying that God displays the ability to predict 1000 future events is not grounds to say he knows all future events.

Yet it is enough to say that it isn't a logical absurdity.

(It would be like saying Jesus walked on water once, therefore he is always walking on water)

Not at all.

6. God admits the ability to do anything.

Anything which isn't logically absurd. You already believe foreknowledge isn't.

7. God admits that he cannot sin, we conclude by choice.

8. God must, by choice, also obtain from doing other things. It is possible God doesn't want future knowledge for reasons we can't explain.

I agree with this completely.

9. God could know all of the future if he wanted to.

Agreed.

10. God displays he doesn't know the outcome of all events, possibly by choice.

I'm not sure this is true.

I could go on... but this is the thought process I go through.

1. We have no verse to say about God that he knows all 100% of the future. This isn't a logical conclusion, it is fact.

Just as it's a fact that 2+2=4 isn't in the bible.

2. We have the ability to put Gods word together and draw conclusions about God based on what he tells us about himself.

Such as: 6. God admits the ability to do anything

3. We shouldn't stretch our conclusions to mean what we want them to mean(not saying you do).

Of course, I do; as is common with us all.

Evidence that God knows the future:
1. He makes accurate predictions about events far into the future.
2. He claims the ability to do anything.
3. God claims to know everything.

Reasons I do not believe this is sufficient to draw the conclusion that God knows all of the future is:
1. Making a few accurate predictions is not enough to say he knows all of the future, Even I can predict the future sometimes.
2. He claims to be able to do anything, it doesn't mean he does everything.
3. The future is not a "thing," it is not a place. If it doesn't exist physically or spiritually, how can it be known.​

Responses:
1. It does say that foreknowledge is logically possible.
2. Is completely true and unarguable.
3. It can be known mentally. Knowledge exists in this realm. Knowing is a mental process. Knowledge of the Tower of Babel doesn't require that the Tower of Babel exists. Knowledge of airflight must precede airflight actually occuring. Theory always precedes practice.

Evidence he doesn't know the entire future:
1. Predicting the future can come with wisdom, understanding of situations, causing things to happen, or letting something happen. God predicting the future does not imply supernatural powers in doing so.
2. God has made claim that certain events would happen that didn't. Something he would not do if he already knew the outcome.
3. God displays the ability to change.
4. God tests men to see what they will do, he doesn't already know.​

Responses:
1. God predicting the entire future of mankind would require supernatural intelligence.

2. Unless God was using figures of speech, teaching, or making a threat. Also God 'claiming' an event would happen would require Him to foreknow of or foresee the event. Averting what was foreknown or foreseen doesn't mean He was lying; but it does preclude that He foreknew it.(Keep in mind that I personally have no problem with God changing the future through His actions)

3. Ok, if you mean change His mind. If you mean mutate or evolve then absolutely not!

4. Prove it! Based upon scripture God knows the hearts and minds of men. At judgement is God going to test us or will He be able to 'weigh' our hearts without testing?

Your Friend,
Rob