ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[lee_merrill]

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 this proves nothing unless we really know God knows this.

Except that it wasn't possible, was it.

My point is that Jesus' decision was a known, free decision, yes, Jesus would lay down his life, and Jesus' prayer indicates that he thought it was possible for the cup to pass from him, but this is not the main point here--Jesus' decision was a known, free decision.

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

Are you saying people sometimes cannot choose to repent? Why then is this stated as if they did wrong, when they didn't repent, if they were unable to?

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

But individuals will or will not do these things, at least for the most part, and how can this be known?

 

[themuzicman]

But this proves nothing unless we really know God knows this.

Let's assume it's what God knows.

My point is that Jesus' decision was a known, free decision, yes, Jesus would lay down his life, and Jesus' prayer indicates that he thought it was possible for the cup to pass from him, but this is not the main point here--Jesus' decision was a known, free decision.

It was a decision He made long ago. It was not possible to undo it.

Are you saying people sometimes cannot choose to repent? Why then is this stated as if they did wrong, when they didn't repent, if they were unable to?

Where does it say "wrong"?

But individuals will or will not do these things, at least for the most part, and how can this be known?

Because in a large group of individuals, statistics take over, and a certain number, without knowing exactly which, will choose in a particular direction in a given setting. Humans are also influenced by choices others make, so some, when seeing others choose a particular direction, will follow.

Given this and God's drawing, the action of the group at large are predictable, even if the choices of each individual are not.

Muz

 

[RobE]

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

Muz

I'm sorry but you failed the test. You haven't yet demonstrated your ability to do otherwise than what you did or will do. Maybe you want another opportunity to do otherwise. You could say that I did otherwise, but you didn't and have not demonstrated your ability to do differently than you did or will do. I know you get the point, so let's let go of the superfluous argument, ok?

 

[themuzicman]

I'm sorry but you failed the test. You haven't yet demonstrated your ability to do otherwise than what you did or will do.

That wasn't the test. The original test was to see if you could do other than what was definitely known.

My test was to see if I could do other than was was known, but not definitely, which I declared, and executed.

Maybe you want another opportunity to do otherwise. You could say that I did otherwise, but you didn't and have not demonstrated your ability to do differently than you did or will do.

I don't embrace fatalism, so that's not a test for me to demonstrate.

I know you get the point, so let's let go of the superfluous argument, ok?

The point is that you want me to demonstrate fatalism to you. I'm not a fatalist, so it's pointless. A straw man, even.

Muz

 

[RobE]

That wasn't the test. The original test was to see if you could do other than what was definitely known.

That's true, but my test was to see if you could demonstrate doing otherwise with without foreknowledge.

My test was to see if I could do other than was was known, but not definitely, which I declared, and executed.

But not my test. Do otherwise in your next post and prove it.

I don't embrace fatalism, so that's not a test for me to demonstrate.

My claim is that you are asking us to demonstrate doing otherwise which is impossible whether foreknowledge exists or not. That people never do other than what they are going to do in any situation whether God foreknows it or not. So demonstrate doing otherwise. It's what you asked of us and said it's impossible because of foreknowledge. Without foreknowledge is it possible to demonstrate doing otherwise?

You might look to your last post, but I've examined it and you did what you did and you didn't do otherwise; so I'm still waiting for your demonstration.

The point is that you want me to demonstrate fatalism to you. I'm not a fatalist, so it's pointless. A straw man, even.

Muz

No. I want you to realize that you are asking for a demonstration of a fantasy --- specifically the delusional 'doing otherwise'. No one has ever done it, no one ever will.

 

[themuzicman]

That's true, but my test was to see if you could demonstrate doing otherwise with without foreknowledge.

Doing other than what?

But not my test. Do otherwise in your next post and prove it.

Your test isn't valid, because there's nothing to test against. What I will do isn't defined, so any proposition about what I will do cannot be true.

My claim is that you are asking us to demonstrate doing otherwise which is impossible whether foreknowledge exists or not.

That's crazy. I'm giving you what is foreknown.

That people never do other than what they are going to do in any situation whether God foreknows it or not. So demonstrate doing otherwise. It's what you asked of us and said it's impossible because of foreknowledge. Without foreknowledge is it possible to demonstrate doing otherwise?

You give me something to do, and I'll not do it without violating the assumptions of the test. That's the point.

My test is verifiable, because the assumption of EDF and the demonstration of doing otherwise are obvious. It's measurable.

You might look to your last post, but I've examined it and you did what you did and you didn't do otherwise; so I'm still waiting for your demonstration.

Prove it. Show me the measurement standard before I do the test.

No. I want you to realize that you are asking for a demonstration of a fantasy --- specifically the delusional 'doing otherwise'. No one has ever done it, no one ever will.

Exactly. Which clearly and undeniably demonstrates that in the presence of EDF, free will is impossible. QED. That was the point all along

Muz

 

[RobE]

Exactly. Which clearly and undeniably demonstrates that in the presence of EDF, free will is impossible. QED. That was the point all along

Muz

And without its presence unless you are able to demonstrate doing otherwise. Unless, of course, you wish to change your definition.

 

[themuzicman]

And without its presence unless you are able to demonstrate doing otherwise. Unless, of course, you wish to change your definition.

I see the problem.

"You will do what you will do" is a meaningless tautology without any truth value. Why? because it assume that what I will do is already true, and it is not. What I will do is undefined, because I have not yet done it, thus to say that I will do something that is undefined isn't valid.

Now, if we take "will" to mean what I intend to do, then it's another story.

If we put my intentionality into this statement, I've already taken and passed the test. When I made my first post, I expressed an intention to use "superfluous" in my next post. Thus, "What I will do" = use "superfluous."

However, between typing that statement and actually making the post "What I will do" changed, because I am free to choose otherwise. Thus, "What I will do" became ~ use "superfluous." And thus I did otherwise.


This exposes the equivocation in your argument, because you go back and forth between "will" meaning future, and "will" meaning what I intend. When we nail this down, either it's totally meaningless, or demonstrates that what I intend can change, unlike exhaustive and definite foreknowledge.

 

[RobE]

I see the problem.

"You will do what you will do" is a meaningless tautology without any truth value. Why? because it assume that what I will do is already true, and it is not. What I will do is undefined, because I have not yet done it, thus to say that I will do something that is undefined isn't valid.

Well, I think I asked you through demonstration to do other than what you will do. That would prove that you were able to do so. If not, than doing otherwise is an illusion. If doing otherwise is an illusion then your definition of free will is invalid or you are not truly free.

Remember, you asked us through demonstration to do other than what we would do assuming that God knew we would use the word "superfluous".

I'm simply asking you through demonstration to do other than what you will do with no assumptions whatsoever.

I'm being more than fair with no pigeon-holing whatsoever.

Now, if we take "will" to mean what I intend to do, then it's another story.

Why would I do that?:chuckle:

 

[Lon]

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

That would often be my main thought in theological considerations. Father=God Son = God therefore Father=Son. "I and the Father are one" but it is not modalism we are talking about. The Father is not the Son but taking that to polytheistic patterns is heresy. Why specifically is this philosophical argument applied? What is it being used to consider?

Thanks Lee

In Hm,

Lon

 

[Clete]

Clete,



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

The whole argument makes no sense. The opening premise contains an absurdity. "If Paul has two sons, then he has at a least one son" That premise makes no sense. If Paul has two sons, he doesn't have at least one, he has at least two! The opening premise is faulty and thus any conclusion based upon it is faulty including one that merely repeats it as the conclusion in question does.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

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

If x=y then (x-y) = 0

Step four therefore yields 0=0

Step five is therefore false because dividing out (x-y) would not yield 'x + y = y' because anything divided by zero is undefined and if step five is false so are steps 6 and 7 therefore 2 is not equal to 1.

That is unless x and y themselves = 0 then the entire thing is sort of silly and still 2 does not equal 1.

No matter how you slice it, this thing is just a mathematical joke of sorts and is entirely useless in any serious conversation about reality.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Agape4Robin]

But this proves nothing unless we really know God knows this.

Why do you doubt that He could?:think:

Are you saying people sometimes cannot choose to repent? Why then is this stated as if they did wrong, when they didn't repent, if they were unable to?

If you have a Bible and you believe it, you have no other option but to accept what it teaches. What I am talking about here is the doctrine of election. As if it were you who "chose" God.
The Word of God presents God as the controller and disposer of all creatures (Dan. 4:35; Is. 45:7; Lam. 3:38), the Most High (Psalm 47:2; 83:18), the ruler of heaven and earth (Gen. 14:19; Is. 37:16), the One against whom none can stand (2 Chron. 20:6; Job 41:10; Is. 43:13). He is the Almighty who works all things after the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11; cf. Is. 14:27; Rev. 19:6), and the heavenly Potter who shapes men according to His own good pleasure (Rom. 9:18–22). In short, He is the decider and determiner of every man’s destiny, and the controller of every detail in each individual’s life (Prov. 16:9; 19:21; 21:1; cf. Ex. 3:21–22; 14:8; Ezra 1:1; Dan. 1:9; Jas. 4:15)—which is really just another way of saying, “He is God.” :dunce: :duh:

But individuals will or will not do these things, at least for the most part, and how can this be known?

:doh: "He is God."

 

[Clete]

Oh wow! One post with a whole litany of Calvinist proof texts!

I can hardly resist the temptation!

I wonder if God has predestined me to post a response addressing each proof text directly in which I demonstrate that none of them teach what A4R's post suggests they teach.

We'll see!

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. No! In spite of what it says in her signature line, A4R is not my wife!

 

[Agape4Robin]

Oh wow! One post with a whole litany of Calvinist proof texts!

I can hardly resist the temptation!

I wonder if God has predestined me to post a response addressing each proof text directly in which I demonstrate that none of them teach what A4R's post suggests they teach.

We'll see!

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. No! In spite of what it says in her signature line, A4R is not my wife!

Well, you were bound to get one thing right, Clete. I am NOT your wife.:chuckle:

You may wish to attack the "Calvinist proof texts" but fact is they are biblical.lain:

 

[Clete]

Well, you were bound to get one thing right, Clete. I am NOT your wife.:chuckle:

You may wish to attack the "Calvinist proof texts" but fact is they are biblical.lain:

The texts themselves are obviously biblical as they are in the Bible but it is your interpretation of them that is not Biblical. David Koresh quoted the Bible all the time too, that doesn't mean his teachings were Biblical.

If I have time I will address them later tonight but it may have to wait till tomorrow.

 

[lee_merrill]

Step five is therefore false ... because anything divided by zero is undefined and if step five is false so are steps 6 and 7 therefore 2 is not equal to 1.

Quite so. Glad to hear it, too!

That is unless x and y themselves = 0 ...

Well, it's the same problem if x and y are 0, there's a divide by zero in there, and if you divide by zero, you can prove anything. Or nothing, depending on how you look at it?

No matter how you slice it, this thing is just a mathematical joke of sorts ...

Well yes, a bit of a diversion, only the question arose as to showing A = C if A = B and B = C, so sort of a cautionary tale here about the need to be careful in math, and also perhaps, in arguments in general--what seems correct may well be off the track.

Blessings,
Lee <- Cubs win! speaking of diversions...

 

[RobE]

The whole argument makes no sense. The opening premise contains an absurdity. "If Paul has two sons, then he has at a least one son" That premise makes no sense. If Paul has two sons, he doesn't have at least one, he has at least two! The opening premise is faulty and thus any conclusion based upon it is faulty including one that merely repeats it as the conclusion in question does.

Resting in Him,
Clete

In a sense this is right. The arguments are invalid because of the way they are written. The words seem to make sense, but the argument is an absurdity for one reason or another. Where I think Muz is failing to comprehend the invalidity of his own 'test' is that there is a logical relationship between God's foreknowledge and what you will do. That relationship exists in the form of what you will do actually causes God's foreknowledge and not the other way around. He knows this, but doesn't see that this relationship creating an absurdity within his question. Or he does realize this and finds it useful to his own argument some way. Probably the latter in the form of "it's not my claim, it's yours".

This is not our claim in any way. Our claim is that you are able to do or do otherwise, despite what you will do in the future(which will inevitably cause God's foreknowledge of the act).

I already know the questions:

1) How can you be free if the act is pre-determined by something?
2) How can God foreknow your actions if you aren't disabled in your ability to do otherwise?

My answers remain:

1) The definition(s) of free/determined are ambiguous in some way or the ability to do otherwise should be removed altogether from the definition itself....

and

2) God foreknows what you will do despite what your are able to do(through calculation or divination).

 

[Agape4Robin]

The texts themselves are obviously biblical as they are in the Bible but it is your interpretation of them that is not Biblical. David Koresh quoted the Bible all the time too, that doesn't mean his teachings were Biblical.

If I have time I will address them later tonight but it may have to wait till tomorrow.

Interpretation? Ok, here we go..................

 

[Clete]

In a sense this is right. The arguments are invalid because of the way they are written. The words seem to make sense, but the argument is an absurdity for one reason or another. Where I think Muz is failing to comprehend the invalidity of his own 'test' is that there is a logical relationship between God's foreknowledge and what you will do. That relationship exists in the form of what you will do actually causes God's foreknowledge and not the other way around. He knows this, but doesn't see that this relationship creating an absurdity within his question. Or he does realize this and finds it useful to his own argument some way. Probably the latter in the form of "it's not my claim, it's yours".

This is not our claim in any way. Our claim is that you are able to do or do otherwise, despite what you will do in the future(which will inevitably cause God's foreknowledge of the act).

I already know the questions:

1) How can you be free if the act is pre-determined by something?
2) How can God foreknow your actions if you aren't disabled in your ability to do otherwise?

My answers remain:

1) The definition(s) of free/determined are ambiguous in some way or the ability to do otherwise should be removed altogether from the definition itself....

and

2) God foreknows what you will do despite what your are able to do(through calculation or divination).

Your position is absurd for several reasons, the most prominent being that a cause cannot come after its own effect. Our actions cannot be the cause of God's knowledge or else it cannot be rightly called FOREknowledge. By definition, foreknowledge must come BEFORE the object of knowledge, not as a result of it.

Resting in Him,
Clete