ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Clete]

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.

Rob,

Why do you pretend like I'm stupid? I finally engage the discussion again and the first thing you do is act as though I have no short term memory whatsoever. If you wonder why I can't hardly stand to have a conversation with you - well, that's why!

Patman's argument (and certainly mine as well) has nothing to do with suggesting that something couldn't be true because we don't see how God would be able to do it, which is precisely the argument you are suggesting we are using by comparing what we are saying to things like going to the moon and breaking the sound barrier.

And saying that something is logically possible is not at all the same thing as admitting that it is actually possible, which you seem to also be suggesting. Is it logically possible for God to time travel? Well given just that simply question you cannot even answer it with a "yes" or "no" because the terms are not sufficiently defined. One person (you for example) might say "yes" because he believes time to be a thing which can be entered and exited from, whereas someone else (me for example) would answer "no" because time is simply the passage of events and thus "time travel" contains an internal contradiction in that it is itself and event and when the time travel trip is over is it a past event, even if one where to have travel into the past. See how it makes no sense? It's contradictory and therefore LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Please read again the last line that I quoted in my previous post...

"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."​

This is the part that you seem incapable of keeping track of for more than one post at a time. The idea of exhaustive foreknowledge does not exist in a vacuum. This discussion about exhaustive foreknowledge is happening within the confines of a Christian worldview and as such there is a whole plethora of Christian concepts with which it must coexist without contradiction in order to be true. Issues like love, free will, and moral responsibility cannot survive the logical implications of exhaustive foreknowledge and since Christianity cannot survive the falsification of either love or moral responsibility and the falsification of Christianity would render the whole discussion moot then exhaustive foreknowledge must be rejected as false because of the logical impossibility of the contrary. Thus, to state it simply, in a Christian worldview, exhaustive foreknowledge is logically impossible.

Now that's the argument (or a version of it) which you are responding too with that "just because we think something is logically impossible doesn't mean that God can't do it" comment which you made above and which you have made a dozen times by comparing foreknowledge to walking on water or creating the universe, which, in turn, gives me darn good reason to think that you don't know what the term "logical impossibility" means. In fact, there are really only three possibilities.

1. You don't know what "logically impossiblity" means.
2. You don't understand the argument.
3. You are being intellectually dishonest and presenting an argument which you know to be fallacious.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[patman]

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.

Rob, I hope you can see why this isn't enough to draw the conclusion. Remember, the Tower did exist. Theory is just that. Theory, not fact. God has theories about the future, that doesn't make it a real thing to be beheld.

We do not disagree that foreknowledge is logically possible. We disagree on that complete foreknowledge is real.

4. God never said he knows the entire future.

Nor did He say that 2+2=4.

Glad you get that. We can really make conclusions even though they are not in the bible. I am not a hypocrite after all..


But when we do, they must agree with scripture. So, again, what is your evidence?

 

[patman]

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....

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

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:

....

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

Rob

Rob, it is a pain to have to repeat yourself when you have already explained why. I thought you would remember why we say God is able to know the future because of HOW he would do it.

Do I really need to remind you?

It is the only way to make absolute future knowledge logically possible. I hope Clete's post will help you see that. And because life isn't made according to these conditions, neither is future knowledge possible.

 

[patman]

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....

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

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:

....

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

Rob

Rob, it is a pain to have to repeat yourself when you have already explained why. I thought you would remember why we say God is able to know the future because of HOW he would do it.

Do I really need to remind you?

It is the only way to make absolute future knowledge logically possible. I hope Clete's post will help you see that.

 

[RobE]

Rob,

Why do you pretend like I'm stupid? I finally engage the discussion again and the first thing you do is act as though I have no short term memory whatsoever. If you wonder why I can't hardly stand to have a conversation with you - well, that's why!

Patman's argument (and certainly mine as well) has nothing to do with suggesting that something couldn't be true because we don't see how God would be able to do it, which is precisely the argument you are suggesting we are using by comparing what we are saying to things like going to the moon and breaking the sound barrier.

Patman's argument is that I need to find a scripture that say's 'God knows the entire future' or that I'm perverting the scripture. This isn't a valid argument based upon his own statements. Will you take the time to tell Patman why this is true or must you continue to ignore the shallow arguments, that those who agree with the position you have adopted, which are continually thrust upon me? I've defended Godrulz, GIT, Apolojetic Jedi, Patman, and your positions to the idiot Calvinists which seem to show up in packs on TOL. Jim Hilston hasn't been very gentle with me either. How much fall out must a compatiblist endure in a war between libertarians and Calvinists?

Thus, to state it simply, in a Christian worldview, exhaustive foreknowledge is logically impossible.

This position is what is in debate.

1. You don't know what "logically impossiblity" means.
2. You don't understand the argument.
3. You are being intellectually dishonest and presenting an argument which you know to be fallacious.​

1. I do understand.
3. I present what I see as the same argument that is being presented to me; creating, hopefully, a reduction to absurdity argument which Patman(and others) seem to be unable to comprehend. It's stupid when I say it, but makes complete sense when they say it. Your help here would be appreciated.

Issues like love, free will, and moral responsibility cannot survive the logical implications of exhaustive foreknowledge and since Christianity cannot survive the falsification of either love or moral responsibility and the falsification of Christianity would render the whole discussion moot then exhaustive foreknowledge must be rejected as false because of the logical impossibility of the contrary.

2. I don't accept or understand your application of the argument.

Your free will argument is invalid because of the semantics. Your love argument is based upon your free will argument. And, so far, only an agnostic has been able to show a flaw in my moral responsibility argument.

Premise 1: Unless there are extenuating circumstances, persons are (to be) held morally responsible for their actions.

Premise 2: Being unable reasonably to have foreseen the consequences of their actions is one such extenuating circumstance. (Recall that young children who cannot reasonably foresee the consequences of their actions are not to be held morally responsible for the consequences.)

Premise 3: In order to be able to anticipate or foresee the likely (or even the remotely likely) consequences of one's actions, the world must not be random.

Conclusion: Moral responsibility requires that there be causal determinism.​

Rob

 

[RobE]

Rob, I hope you can see why this isn't enough to draw the conclusion. Remember, the Tower did exist. Theory is just that. Theory, not fact. God has theories about the future, that doesn't make it a real thing to be beheld.

We do not disagree that foreknowledge is logically possible. We disagree on that complete foreknowledge is real.

Well here's the rub. Since foreknowledge is possible then it is real(as in real knowledge) when you're speaking of an omnicapable being. All knowledge is theory whether it's past, present, or future knowledge. Knowing of the tower is the same as knowing your future actions. The knowledge isn't your actions, it doesn't create your actions, and it doesn't influence your actions. The Wright brothers knew how to build an airplane before an airplane was in existence. Their knowledge was real and when their knowledge was applied an airplaine became a reality. God's knowledge was real and when He initiated creation what He knew became a reality.

Glad you get that. We can really make conclusions even though they are not in the bible. I am not a hypocrite after all..

But when we do, they must agree with scripture. So, again, what is your evidence?

Again, my evidence is that God has shown that He knew the future actions of free will agents. Your insistence that I provide a scripture that 2+2=4 is irrelevant to the discussion.

Always remember that in this post you admit and substantiate that foreknowledge is possible. I'm willing to concede that God might not want to know something, just as I always have.

Rob

 

[Bacon]

Omnicapable being

Omnicapable being

Well here's the rub. Since foreknowledge is possible then it is real(as in real knowledge) when you're speaking of an omnicapable being....God's knowledge was real and when He initiated creation what He knew became a reality....

The god of scripture is not "omnicapable." The god did not know that the dirtlings would be so disappointing. That is why their behavior caused him to regret that he formed them.

You will always wind up with false conclusions about the god of scripture if you been with the assumption of the "omnicapable being" of the philosophers.

If you want to understand the scriptures, begin where they do - with the god learning about the behavior of men being so at odds with his own expectations that he is filled with regret.

If you insist that the true god is an omnicapable being then face the facts the scriptures are out of sync with your philosophy of "God."

Bill Ross

 

[godrulz]

The god of scripture is not "omnicapable." The god did not know that the dirtlings would be so disappointing. That is why their behavior caused him to regret that he formed them.

You will always wind up with false conclusions about the god of scripture if you been with the assumption of the "omnicapable being" of the philosophers.

If you want to understand the scriptures, begin where they do - with the god learning about the behavior of men being so at odds with his own expectations that he is filled with regret.

If you insist that the true god is an omnicapable being then face the facts the scriptures are out of sync with your philosophy of "God."

Bill Ross

I believe that God is omnicompetent, not omnicausal. I agree that philosophy has tainted classic understanding of God and His ways. I agree that God does not know the future exhaustively.


What is the world coming to? I am agreeing with Bacon on Finney and other things today :think:

 

[Clete]

Premise 1: Unless there are extenuating circumstances, persons are (to be) held morally responsible for their actions.

Premise 2: Being unable reasonably to have foreseen the consequences of their actions is one such extenuating circumstance. (Recall that young children who cannot reasonably foresee the consequences of their actions are not to be held morally responsible for the consequences.)

Premise 3: In order to be able to anticipate or foresee the likely (or even the remotely likely) consequences of one's actions, the world must not be random.

Conclusion: Moral responsibility requires that there be causal determinism.​

Rob

Your argument is flawed in several ways but primarily in that it presents a false dichotomy. Totally random and causally determined are not the only two choices. Things can be predicted without being determined for certain. Ask any physicist.

Further, I am not respondisble for an action unless I could have done otherwise. Determinism of any sort is therefore incompatible with moral responsibility by definition.

Further still, your predication of moral responsibility on being able to predict the outcome of your actions is not Biblical. If you break into a house that you believe to be empty in order to commit a crime and because of your criminal action someone gets killed in a manner which you could not have anticipated, guess what? Biblically, you should get executed for murder.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[RobE]

Your argument is flawed in several ways but primarily in that it presents a false dichotomy. Totally random and causally determined are not the only two choices. Things can be predicted without being determined for certain. Ask any physicist.

On what basis would they be predicted?

Further still, your predication of moral responsibility on being able to predict the outcome of your actions is not Biblical. If you break into a house that you believe to be empty in order to commit a crime and because of your criminal action someone gets killed in a manner which you could not have anticipated, guess what? Biblically, you should get executed for murder.

Not predicting the outcome, just having an outcome in mind(intent).

Rob

 

[Bob Hill]

Does God know everything that’s going to happen in the future? This was the teaching of many scholars at many times down through the ages of Christianity.

But, let’s look at these ideas from a biblical perspective rather than just accepting what some of the early scholars wrote. If God knows everything that is going to happen, there would not be any true freedom for mankind. If we’re really free in our actions, God cannot foreknow the future.

I’m happy to say that in recent years, before I was even born, some evangelical scholars rejected the idea that God knew the future of everything. I believe, from reading much of the material that espouses absolute foreknowledge, that this idea was based more on Greek philosophy than Scripture.

What I see in Scripture, more than ever in the Old Testament, is a God who changed with the actions and problems of people, and even expressed surprise at what people did.

Open theism has been around for a long time. When we look in the Bible, does God ever change His mind? The Bible shows us that God does, not only because He changed His mind, but the Scriptures also show that God doesn’t know everything that is going to happen in the future.

Here’s why we open theists believe God doesn’t know everything that will happen in the future. It’s based exactly on scripture (Gen 6:5-7; Ex 32:9-14; Jer 18:7-10; 26:1-19). When I say He doesn’t know the future I mean He doesn’t know the future as though it’s already happened and cannot be changed.

I believe there are many things that are unknowable because they are only possibilities. God may know some future events as possibilities since God says perhaps many times in Ex 13:17; Jer 26:3 and Eze 12:3. Since unforeseen possibilities may happen, God modifies His plans as people change their actions. Therefore, I believe that God doesn’t even know much that will happen in the future. However, God does know everything that is knowable. Because God gave man real freedom, many possibilities exist. He could know the future exhaustively if He chose to, but then the Scriptures would have to be changed.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[sentientsynth]

notice the irenic tone and the absence of antagonism, please.

notice the irenic tone and the absence of antagonism, please.

Bob,

I notice that many of the references you give in your post are to the Old Testament. In fact, most all Open Theist proof texts are Old Testament.

Any reason why you think this is?

 

[ApologeticJedi]

In fact, most all Open Theist proof texts are Old Testament.
Any reason why you think this is?

Personally I think there is just flatly less material in the New Testament on God. The NT focuses more on Christ, and examples of his Openness are often ignored as "well that was Jesus". (For example, when the Bible says Jesus was amazed at their unbelief.) Really there is less material altogether in the New Testament, and what material is there takes place in a small amount of time as compared to the Old Testament. Major concepts are taught within the short span of books leaving very little space for anything relating to the makeup of God. In fact, God only speaks a handful of times from heaven in the NT, when compared to the scores of times in the OT.

That is not to say that the NT is void of Open Theistic teachings, in fact, many Open Theist proof texts are in the New Testament.

• It is the NT that we discover largely that there is time in heaven.
• It is the NT that we read that Jesus is still "waiting" for his enemies to be made his footstool (and that God "waited" on Noah to build the ark - proving that God was longsuffering).
• It is the NT that we see God not fullfill the prophecies Jesus gave (his return "in their generation", and that some "would not die" untill they saw the second coming) due to the utter rejection by the Jews of God's plan.
• It is the NT that we see God at his most mutable, becoming flesh, bearing sin, having the Father forsake the Son, and then the reuniting of the two.

 

[patman]

A Plee to all in this forum

A Plee to all in this forum

This is the only admitted evidence by a Settled viewer for absolute future foreknowledge:

Again, my evidence is that God has shown that He knew the future actions of free will agents.

I am having a hard time explaining to him why this is not conclusive evidence for absolute foreknowledge.

I wish we could do a poll. "Why is this not conclusive evidence?" Unbiased. "Reasons it is not evidence."

I am not getting through, anyone else want to translate this for Rob?

"A knows B about the future is not evidence of absolute foreknowledge."

"A knows B,C,D,K and G about the future is not evidence of absolute foreknowledge."

I just don't know how else to put it, can someone help?

 

[patman]

Always remember that in this post you admit and substantiate that foreknowledge is possible. I'm willing to concede that God might not want to know something, just as I always have.

Then you concede absolute foreknowledge.

God not knowing one event has wide spread implications. Events lead to events that give hints to their outcomes. Not knowing one outcome means not knowing the events around it, both past, present and future.

If you believe God can not know something, how can you say he knows the entire future? Rob, it boggles my mind.

 

[patman]

Patman's argument is that I need to find a scripture that say's 'God knows the entire future' or that I'm perverting the scripture. This isn't a valid argument based upon his own statements. Will you take the time to tell Patman why this is true or must you continue to ignore the shallow arguments, that those who agree with the position you have adopted, which are continually thrust upon me?

Rob, you know how i hate to be misquoted. I have repeatedly asked for scriptural evidence. It is different form a specific verse, I want you to compile some sort of proof that is logical and based on scripture!

Stop seeking the hounds after me for something I didn't even say (Clete, you are not a hound, Figure of speech, of course). Over and over and over again, I ask you for one thing, is it just going over your head? I try so hard to use the complex english language to the best I can to ask you for the one thing I need to believe the S.V.. And apparently you didn't even get the question the first 20 times.

EVIDENCE. Be it one all conclusive verse OR a lot of verses that lead you to the only logical possible conclusion is what I need. I don't want your calling me a hypocrite, I don't want "me too answers," I don't want you to analyze my analogies, I don't want self-procaimed-victory-chants.

I want God's word to teach me without stretching it's truth beyond what they say. Can you provide it or not?

 

[Bob Hill]

sentientsynth,

Actually most of my posts are from the Pauline epistles since that is where we find truth for us today in the Dispensation of Grace.

Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Answers from the Bible are the only way we can get the truth.

Bob Hill

 

[Clete]

On what basis would they be predicted?

Patterns of behavior for one. Even inanimate objects DO NOT always act in a causally determined way. Every heard of quantum mechanics? Every heard of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? Even in the strictly physical realm God has created things such that they CANNOT be predicted with absolute precision no matter how much you know about the system. Behavior can definitely be predicted but only to certain degree of probability.

That means that the systems in this universe are neither random nor causally determined Rob. It makes no difference how the systems actually work or why they do what they do. The entire point here is that the proposed dichotomy upon which your entire argument rests, would rightly be rejected even by people who have no stake in this debate whatsoever. It is, in fact, a false dichotomy.

Not predicting the outcome, just having an outcome in mind(intent).

Rob

It makes no difference whether your intent was for some one to die or not. If you commit a crime (whether you know it is a crime or not) and someone die as a result whether that was your intent or not, you are a murderer and God says you should be executed for it.
Now, is God unjust or are you wrong Rob; which is it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[sentientsynth]

Thanks for the responses, AJ and Bob. Especially yours, AJ.