ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
lee_merrill

lee_merrill

New member
themuzicman said:
OK, at 9am, you're told that you are required to purchase either car A or car B at 10am. At 9:30, I buy car A, and drive off, such that you cannot follow me.

At 10am, you are only able to purchase car B.

Describe how you are only able to purchase car B at 10am using modal logic.

Muz
Click to expand...
How about

(It-is-necessary ((B-taken -> A-buy or A-taken -> B-buy or (not A-taken and not B-taken) -> (A-buy or B-buy)) and (not (A-taken and B-taken))) and A-taken) -> It -is-necessary B-buy?

Necessity serves little function here, but to make the attempt at an example, I could have just done this without the modal logic operator "It-is-necessary", and just have propositional logic, and that would be an example.

My first attempt at modal logic, by the way...
 
themuzicman

themuzicman

Well-known member
lee_merrill said:
How about

(It-is-necessary ((B-taken -> A-buy or A-taken -> B-buy or (not A-taken and not B-taken) -> (A-buy or B-buy)) and (not (A-taken and B-taken))) and A-taken) -> It -is-necessary B-buy?

Necessity serves little function here, but to make the attempt at an example, I could have just done this without the modal logic operator "It-is-necessary", and just have propositional logic, and that would be an example.

My first attempt at modal logic, by the way...
Click to expand...

I didn't figure you really understood modal logic...

Modal logic says that something is necessary if and only if it must be true in all possible worlds. Thus, because it is possible that I bought car A rather than car b, or because I could have not purchased on at all, b is not necessary.

Your logic is incorrect.

Muz
 
lee_merrill

lee_merrill

New member
themuzicman said:
Thus, because it is possible that I bought car A rather than car b, or because I could have not purchased one at all, b is not necessary.
Click to expand...
But you missed a part of my condition:

(It-is-necessary ((B-taken -> A-buy or A-taken -> B-buy or (not A-taken and not B-taken) -> (A-buy or B-buy)) and (not (A-taken and B-taken))) and A-taken) -> It -is-necessary B-buy

The whole condition is then what must be taken as true as you require, in all possible worlds.

Blessings,
Lee
 
Yorzhik

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Lon,

See what I mean? Look at the below... it isn't a difficult question. It isn't something complex that we have to work out. It isn't a case where we just can't understand. It isn't God's logic confounding man's logic. It's just SV'ers not seeing the elephant. It's just SV'ers who hang on to their worldview instead of saying "Wow... do I really believe that? Maybe I need to count the cost of what I believe"

Philetus said:
Ever disappoint God by DOING His will, Lee?
Click to expand...
lee_merrill said:
Nope! But the point remains that God does not have all power if people have the ability to thwart his will...

Blessings,
Lee
Click to expand...
 
themuzicman

themuzicman

Well-known member
lee_merrill said:
But you missed a part of my condition:

(It-is-necessary ((B-taken -> A-buy or A-taken -> B-buy or (not A-taken and not B-taken) -> (A-buy or B-buy)) and (not (A-taken and B-taken))) and A-taken) -> It -is-necessary B-buy

The whole condition is then what must be taken as true as you require, in all possible worlds.

Blessings,
Lee
Click to expand...

Gee, maybe you should explain that to RobE....


So, let's take this idea back to my proof. The whole condition is God's definite knowledge of X's doing A at time Z. As long as this remains true, X can only do A at time Z, and cannot do ~A at time Z. Therefore, LFW and EDF are incompatible.

But, when you get folks like Rob who insist that this "isn't necessary", they don't take what you've noticed into account.

Good catch.

Muz
 
lee_merrill

lee_merrill

New member
Yorzhik said:
It's just SV'ers not seeing the elephant.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe you could help me and point out the elephant? I mean, if there are people who have power (albeit by God's decision) to thwart the will of God, then God does not now have all power.

the muzicman said:
X can only do A at time Z, and cannot do ~A at time Z. Therefore, LFW and EDF are incompatible.

But, when you get folks like Rob who insist that this "isn't necessary", they don't take what you've noticed into account.
Click to expand...
The problem however is "cannot" may be "will not" in this instance, just as looking back on a past free decision, we say "did not". Not "could not," so then both looking forward, and looking back, we may see a free decision.

Blessings,
Lee
 
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
Yorzhik said:
Lon,

See what I mean? Look at the below... it isn't a difficult question. It isn't something complex that we have to work out. It isn't a case where we just can't understand. It isn't God's logic confounding man's logic. It's just SV'ers not seeing the elephant. It's just SV'ers who hang on to their worldview instead of saying "Wow... do I really believe that? Maybe I need to count the cost of what I believe"
Click to expand...

Sorry, I wasn't following and would need to read for context. Can you explain the fine print (if not, I'll go back and re-read but I'm not sure where to start to capture the essence).

AMR had a brill address to a portion of the Foreknowledge/Foreordination part of this discussion
 
Yorzhik

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Lon said:
Sorry, I wasn't following and would need to read for context. Can you explain the fine print (if not, I'll go back and re-read but I'm not sure where to start to capture the essence).

AMR had a brill address to a portion of the Foreknowledge/Foreordination part of this discussion
Click to expand...
I'm only talking about the 2 quotes. No other post need be referenced.
 
Philetus

Philetus

New member
lee_merrill said:
Well, maybe you could help me and point out the elephant? I mean, if there are people who have power (albeit by God's decision) to thwart the will of God, then God does not now have all power.

Blessings,
Lee
Click to expand...
The elephant = delegated power or authority does not diminish the power or authority of the one who delegates WHEN the one who delegates retains the power and authority to over rule all delegated power and authority IF He chooses to do so.

So, you never disappointed God by DOING His will. Did you ever disappoint God by NOT doing His will, Lee? Or are you going to argue that you never disappointed God?

Where did you get the ‘power’ to do what was displeasing to God? (Where did that 'elephant' come from?)

You still haven's addressed the issue of how God NOT using His power in a coercive way is the same as not having (or losing) the power to do so. How is God delegating a measure of power (say-so over our own lives and existence) the same as becoming less omnipotent?

Has God ever been 'smaller' than when He became obedient unto death, even death on a cross? And yet, there has never been a more powerful act in all of creation's history than the cross! WHY? Because God exercising the power to lay down His life does not diminish His power to also take it up again. God is and remains ALL POWERFUL (has all authority) even when He delegates a measure of power (dominion over) His creation to His human beings and even when He submits the life of His Son into the hands of sinful men.

An elephant lifting a massive log by shear power and might at the direction of his trainer, does not diminish the power of the creator, the elephant, the trainer or the log. The log moved. But its power was not removed. If it was then the trainer would now be able to move it a second time without the help of the elephant. Ain't gonna happen. Maybe your struggle is with the term ALL powerful as if there is a limited amount of authority to go around. Would it help if we spoke of power OVER ALL or ALL AUTHORITY instead?

Philetus
 
themuzicman

themuzicman

Well-known member
lee_merrill said:
The problem however is "cannot" may be "will not" in this instance, just as looking back on a past free decision, we say "did not". Not "could not," so then both looking forward, and looking back, we may see a free decision.
Click to expand...

But we're not looking back at the decision itself. We're looking back to definite knowledge of it, and forward to what is possible when the decision is made. If definite knowledge already exists (past), then only one possibility remains (future) if that knowledge is infallible. Doing otherwise would violate the premise of definite foreknowledge.

Muz
 
lee_merrill

lee_merrill

New member
Philetus said:
The elephant = delegated power or authority does not diminish the power or authority of the one who delegates WHEN the one who delegates retains the power and authority to over rule all delegated power and authority IF He chooses to do so.
Click to expand...
Sure it does, if you give power away, you then have less power--if you give your hand drill away, you have less tools, even though you have the right to go get your hand drill whenever you please, but at the moment you have less tools.

Want to take another run at this one in light of the resurrection of Jesus?
Click to expand...
Yes, Jesus overcame death, and this was great victory, the question as to whether God giving power to others means he is or is not omnipotent is another matter.

Did you ever disappoint God by NOT doing His will, Lee? Or are you going to argue that you never disappointed God?
Click to expand...
I have done what is displeasing to God, yet this also may be part of God's purpose.

"Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time." (Dan. 11:35)

Not that I am so wise, but it makes the point, as would the verse "The law was given so that sin would increase" (Rom. 5:20).

You still haven's addressed the issue of how God NOT using His power in a coercive way is the same as not having (or losing) the power to do so.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean here, though, and why is this needing to be discussed? Maybe they are the same, maybe different, but I'm not sure why it matters here very much in this discussion.

Maybe your struggle is with the term ALL powerful as if there is a limited amount of authority to go around.
Click to expand...
Well, no, God gave power to others, to exercise apart from his control, says the Open View--I want to examine the implications of that.

Blessings,
Lee
 
lee_merrill

lee_merrill

New member
themuzicman said:
But we're not looking back at the decision itself. We're looking back to definite knowledge of it, and forward to what is possible when the decision is made.
Click to expand...
Nope, looking to both past and future with definite knowledge of a free decision is the view here.

If definite knowledge already exists (past), then only one possibility remains (future) if that knowledge is infallible.
Click to expand...
So definitely knowing a past decision means there was only one possibility?
 
Nang

Nang

TOL Subscriber
themuzicman said:
And this is where modal logic falls apart. It wants to look at both as being the same.



Depends on when the fact of the decision was known.

Muz
Click to expand...


What if it (decision, decree) was made before creation?

Would that not qualify as a necessity, then?
 
themuzicman

themuzicman

Well-known member
Nang said:
I am talking to you . . .what do you say?
Click to expand...

From God's perspective, He could have created the world the Calvinist envisions, but didn't, so this world isn't necessary, per se.

From the perspective within the world God created, if God definitely foreknows an action, then it necessarily must come about.

Muz
 
Nang

Nang

TOL Subscriber
themuzicman said:
From God's perspective, He could have created the world the Calvinist envisions, but didn't, so this world isn't necessary, per se.
Click to expand...

You are not answering the question, according to your own logic, you are just denying my theology.

From the perspective within the world God created, if God definitely foreknows an action, then it necessarily must come about.

Muz
Click to expand...

This should logically work in either case.

Lee . . .I am sorry I butted it to your conversation with Muz :eek: . . . but I just had to ask this question.

Please carry on your discussion, which is very interesting.

Nang
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top