ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[themuzicman]

Was it important that Christ die at the time of the Passover?

I don't see why it was essential. It makes for some nice parallelism, but I don't see it as necessary.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

Then why don't you demonstrate how that works.

Because I need not explain the mechanisms of choices, in order to discuss them here.

That Jesus would die was necessary. How and when Jesus would die was His choice.

And whether he would die, his choice to lay down his life was a free one, and "no man takes it from me," and even in the garden Jesus prayed as if it were possible for this cup to pass from him.

Yet Jesus laying down his life was foretold, even by Jesus himself.

"We are going up to Jerusalem," he said, "and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise." (Mark 10:33-34)

 

[themuzicman]

Because I need not explain the mechanisms of choices, in order to discuss them here.

Don't explain. Demonstrate.

And whether he would die, his choice to lay down his life was a free one, and "no man takes it from me," and even in the garden Jesus prayed as if it were possible for this cup to pass from him.

Yet Jesus laying down his life was foretold, even by Jesus himself.

Very good sherlock. Jesus decided that He would come and die, and that made it necessary.

"We are going up to Jerusalem," he said, "and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise." (Mark 10:33-34)

And after this statement it was necessary for those things to happen. Notice that there isn't a specific time frame on this, other than sometime after they arrived in Jerusalem.

Muz

 

[Clete]

You guys are confusing the crap out of me! Who's arguing what here? Rob, you especially seem to be arguing from both sides of the fence.

Could the major players in this particular stand off (whomever they happen to be) please take one post each to restate as briefly and clearly as possible what exactly they are arguing and just what their supportive arguments are?

Sometimes it helps just to step back and reset things, you know?

 

[lee_merrill]

Don't explain. Demonstrate.

I'm not sure what you mean, though, do you want me to make a known free decision? But that requires divine foreknowledge, which is not just for the asking.

And after this statement it was necessary for those things to happen.

But Jesus didn't pray that way, so even in his prayer before the cross, he was praying if it was possible to have the cup pass from him, and also even then, he laid down his life freely.

And for Clete, this would be my main argument that a decision can be known, and yet be free, also I have mentioned the knowledge of choices in Revelation, that I believe Open Theists would call free, both decisions to not repent, to give glory to God, and then not do so:

Revelation 9:20 The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent ...

Revelation 11:13 ... and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.

Revelation 16:9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[RobE]

Given the assumption, it is. That's where you miss it. You want to say that the assumption could be otherwise, therefore things change. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Why not? Maybe if you read the link to Swartz's own argument......Swartz's Argument

The problem is that you're trying to assume the conclusion that your view is reality, and then appealing to reality as the basis for saying that it's true. That's circular.

This could be true since I don't understand what you're saying. It's true that I can find no better source than reality as a basis for my conclusions.

Isn't it just as wrong to speak from the perspective of the eternal and then speak from the perspective of the moment.

IT doesn't matter which way you do it, its wrong.--Muz

Ok. I'll try to remember this.

_________________________________

Do you still maintain that your premise #4 doesn't specify necessity?

If not, does necessity infer some form of coercion?

If you do, then how do you justify your statements about Paul's kids and cheese eating with your position?

 

[RobE]

You guys are confusing the crap out of me! Who's arguing what here? Rob, you especially seem to be arguing from both sides of the fence.

Clete,

1) If Paul has one daughter and two sons, then Paul has to have at least one son.
2) Paul has one daughter and two sons.

therefore, Paul has to have at least one son.

Is this conclusion true of false?

I say false, Muz says true, what say you?

We're discussing whether Muz's proof (from an earlier post)has an unecessary necessary condition within it. Muz has stated that there is no necessary condition within his proof. I'm trying to prove there is and that it is unnecessary causing a fallacy within the logic of the proof itself. My main supporting arguments are.....

Argument #1

Argument #2

Muz tried to explain that 'can only do' isn't inserting necessity into his proof with this argument:

God declared that He will NEVER AGAIN flood the entire earth to kill all of mankind in Genesis.

Is God now able to flood the entire earth, given that He has declared that He will never do it again?

Or is God limited by His covenant, such that He cannot?​

My response: No He's limited by His covenant, such that He will not. Obviously He still can or there would be no need for the covenant at all.

You chimed in noticing the error in logic immediately, but apparently Muz doesn't accept it.

Anyway, that's about it.

Rob

 

[Lon]

Sorry you guys, I'm not following the argument If 'A'='B' and 'B' = 'C' then 'A'= 'C'

I can come up with a scenario where it is true and another where it is incorrect.

2+2= 4 (A); 2+1+1= 4 (B); A=B.

2+1+1=4 (B); 1+1+1+1=4 (C). B=C

2+2=4 (A); 1+1+1+1=4 (C). A=C

Man (A); Human (B); A=B

Human (B); Female (C); B=C

Man (A); Female (C) ; A=C is false

 

[lee_merrill]

I can come up with a scenario where it is true and another where it is incorrect.

How-some-never! This last one is actually about subsets, so this is not strict equality. A=C is only for equality, and not all humans are men, for instance, so the sets are not equal here.

How about this one?

1) x = y
2) x^2 = xy (multiply both sides by x)
3) x^2 - y^2 = xy - y^2 (subtract y^2 from each side)
4) (x + y)(x - y) = y(x - y) (factor)
5) x + y = y (divide out (x - y))
6) 2y = y (substitute y for x from #1)
7) 2 = 1 (!)

Blessings,
Lee

 

[RobE]

... in your next post, assume that it is definitely foreknown that you will use the word "superfluous." You say that you have the ability to do otherwise, so maintain the truth of what is definitely foreknown, and do otherwise.

Muz's challenge to actually perform doing otherwise reminds me of an old argument that I've made about the definition of free will.

When is the last time anyone has done otherwise? Can you recall ever doing otherwise? Will we ever do otherwise?

In the past I have done what I did and in the future I will do what I will do. Doing otherwise is a fantasy. If not then, demonstrate what Muz is asking you to demonstrate.

LFW is defined as the ability to do or to do the impossible(otherwise). Why is doing otherwise even in the definition if it isn't real? Let's just get rid of it.

My definition of free will is the ability to act within your own nature without coercion.

Are there any objections?

 

[Philetus]

Muz's challenge to actually perform doing otherwise reminds me of an old argument that I've made about the definition of free will.

When is the last time anyone has done otherwise? Can you recall ever doing otherwise? Will we ever do otherwise?

In the past I have done what I did and in the future I will do what I will do. Doing otherwise is a fantasy. If not then, demonstrate what Muz is asking you to demonstrate.

LFW is defined as the ability to do or to do the impossible(otherwise). Why is doing otherwise even in the definition if it isn't real? Let's just get rid of it.

My definition of free will is the ability to act within your own nature without coercion.

Are there any objections?

No, none! No objection! Now, go do what you would never otherwise not do. Go now. Go far. Go quietly. Just go. Define it anyway you want to define it. Enjoy your definition. Enjoy your trip. No one expects you to do otherwise. No one even imagines you could do otherwise. You will do what you will do. No doubt about it. Now with all our blessings ... go do it.

Can you be coerced to do otherwise?

Imagine I have a weapon of ROBE destruction. (Just imagine.) Say I install this weapon in close proximity to your head (which is I confess my nature to do). Then I insist that you do something that is totally against your nature; something so repulsive to you that you would never consider doing it. But, MY finger is on the button. If you don't do it I'll push the button. (Remember it is my nature to want to.) Would you do it? Could you do it? And if you did, could I go against my nature and not push the button that I really, really, realllllly want to push? I understand that after the fact that neither of us could do otherwise. But before the fact … are there options? I know that you perceive my actions as coercion but don't you really have the me-given-freedom to die or do otherwise. As limited as it may seem ... it's your call. (BTW, I did otherwise yesterday.)

Can you be bribed to do something that is against your nature?
I'm sure we could get a good collection together.

 

[RobE]

(BTW, I did otherwise yesterday.)

What otherwise did you do yesterday?

Oh, you answered your own question....

I understand that after the fact that neither of us could do otherwise.

Now for tommorrow, what will you do other(wise) than what you will do. Demonstrate it for us just as Muz has requested.

Can you be bribed to do something that is against your nature?
I'm sure we could get a good collection together.

You might coerce me if the incentive was great enough, but then that would be doing what I wanted to do as well since I'm unable to be coerced without my consent.:chuckle:

 

[RobE]

I want to ammend my comment above to read....

You might coerce me if the incentive was great enough, but then that would be doing what I wanted to do as well since I'm unable to be coerced without my consent when I'm acting within my own nature.

This is significant since obviously situations like rape are truly 'coerced'. Whereas, getting bribed by money(my job), food(especially gravy or deep fried), or other things are well within my nature to want.

 

[themuzicman]

I'm not sure what you mean, though, do you want me to make a known free decision? But that requires divine foreknowledge, which is not just for the asking.

Let's just assume that God foreknows that you will use the word "superfluous" in your next post. Now, while maintaining the truth of God's foreknowledge, demonstrate your ability to do otherwise.

But Jesus didn't pray that way, so even in his prayer before the cross, he was praying if it was possible to have the cup pass from him, and also even then, he laid down his life freely.

Except that it wasn't possible, was it. Game. Set. Match.

And for Clete, this would be my main argument that a decision can be known, and yet be free, also I have mentioned the knowledge of choices in Revelation, that I believe Open Theists would call free, both decisions to not repent, to give glory to God, and then not do so:

Revelation 9:20 The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent ...

Revelation 11:13 ... and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.

Revelation 16:9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.

Blessings,
Lee

Free will doesn't mean that you have the ability to do anything. It just means that you may choose from the options available to you.

If they didn't have the ability to repent, then they wouldn't have repented.

As for Rev 11:13, we're dealing with group dynamics, not individual free decisions.

So, these aren't as simple as you claim.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Do you still maintain that your premise #4 doesn't specify necessity?

I maintain that I'm not engaging in modal logic. Schwartz's argument would seem to indicate that #4 is, in fact, necessary. You can deal with him however you want.

If not, does necessity infer some form of coercion?

There is no attempt in this proof to demonstrate why this is the case. Only that it is.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Muz's challenge to actually perform doing otherwise reminds me of an old argument that I've made about the definition of free will.

When is the last time anyone has done otherwise? Can you recall ever doing otherwise? Will we ever do otherwise?

The question is whether you can while maintaining the truth of God's knowledge.

In the past I have done what I did and in the future I will do what I will do.

This is fatalism. It denies free will.

Doing otherwise is a fantasy. If not then, demonstrate what Muz is asking you to demonstrate.

I'm asking you to demonstrate free will in the presence of EDF. You claim the ability, let's see it.

LFW is defined as the ability to do or to do the impossible(otherwise). Why is doing otherwise even in the definition if it isn't real? Let's just get rid of it.

Because I'm not a fatalist. You're using the assumptions of fatalism to try to impose on free will. Again, I'm not embracing your assumptions.

LFW is defined as the ability of agent X to do A or ~A at time Z. What X will do is unknown and unknowable before time Z.

My definition of free will is the ability to act within your own nature without coercion.

Are there any objections?

Yes. You don't define what you mean by "your own nature."

Muz

 

[RobE]

The question is whether you can while maintaining the truth of God's knowledge.

True. That was your question, but it occured to me that it is not demonstratable whether foreknowledge is true or not.

I'm asking you to demonstrate free will in the presence of EDF. You claim the ability, let's see it.

And I'm asking you do demonstrate 'doing otherwise' without EDF. What's the difference? You must accept your own definition of free will. So demonstrate 'doing otherwise' or admit that your definition is flawed because 'doing otherwise' is impossible to do. I guess you could say that the definition is true and then admit that you are indeed not free.

LFW is defined as the ability of agent X to do A or ~A at time Z. What X will do is unknown and unknowable before time Z.

Ok. Simply demonstrate your freedom by doing otherwise in your next post. Hit submit and allow us all to see you doing other than what you do. Ok. The problem with your test is not that 'God foresees me writing the term superfluous'. The problem is that 'demonstrating' doing otherwise is impossible whether foreknowledge exists or not. If it isn't impossible then demonstrate it yourself.:chuckle: assuming that foreknowledge is untrue. Do it. Make it happen without foreknowledge. Go ahead. Let 'er rip. Be my guest.

Yes. You don't define what you mean by "your own nature."

I mean doing what comes naturally to you, within the confines of nature, the essence of your being, inside the natural law, doing what you want to do, etc., etc., etc.,..... I'm really not sure how to state this. Perhaps some assistance.

 

[RobE]

I maintain that I'm not engaging in modal logic. Schwartz's argument would seem to indicate that #4 is, in fact, necessary. You can deal with him however you want.
Muz

Well, you might want to re-read Schwartz. Anyway, how would you say he supports your proof when you disagree on the example that he uses to discredit all such proofs? Specifically, Paul and his children. He also has the logical operands to support his proof.

 

[themuzicman]

True. That was your question, but it occured to me that it is not demonstratable whether foreknowledge is true or not.

Gee, that's my position: Foreknowledge isn't definite.

And I'm asking you do demonstrate 'doing otherwise' without EDF. What's the difference? You must accept your own definition of free will. So demonstrate 'doing otherwise' or admit that your definition is flawed because 'doing otherwise' is impossible to do. I guess you could say that the definition is true and then admit that you are indeed not free.

Ok. Simply demonstrate your freedom by doing otherwise in your next post. Hit submit and allow us all to see you doing other than what you do. Ok. The problem with your test is not that 'God foresees me writing the term superfluous'. The problem is that 'demonstrating' doing otherwise is impossible whether foreknowledge exists or not. If it isn't impossible then demonstrate it yourself.:chuckle: assuming that foreknowledge is untrue. Do it. Make it happen without foreknowledge. Go ahead. Let 'er rip. Be my guest.

Tell you what. Let's say that it is foreknown, but not definitely so, that I will post "superfluous" in my next post. I will demonstrate my ability to do otherwise.

I mean doing what comes naturally to you, within the confines of nature, the essence of your being, inside the natural law, doing what you want to do, etc., etc., etc.,..... I'm really not sure how to state this. Perhaps some assistance.

Well, that depends on whether you mean that we have the ability to choose from those options available to us, or whether our nature determines our choices.

Ultimately, free will us founded upon the ability to choose otherwise.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Here is my next post, demonstrating the ability to do otherwise.

Muz