ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[RobE]

God is also fully able to

work with His allies

and totally justified in the

manipulation

of His enemies in order to accomplish some specific goal that He might have. The Exodus is a good example of both.

A great example! Who was God's ally? Moses, perhaps in your example. Did Moses darken the sun, send the plagues, turn the water into blood? What exactly did God's 'allies' do in the story? Moses describes himself as God's servant --- one willing to do God's will, almost. 'Can I take Aaron?' What does God need allies for? Were they necessary for him to create the heavens and earth?

As far as the suspension of free will(manipulation), isn't this against the tenets of your new faith? Wouldn't this be an 'evil act' which open theism would denounce? Did God manipulate Judas into becoming a betrayer? How does God foreknow who His enemies will be(i.e. Saul of Tarsus)? Maybe Pharoah could have been converted if the open view is correct. Without foreknowledge how does God know who His enemies really are?

But even Pharaoh could have repented and curtailed the destruction of both himself and his nation but he chose to do otherwise and suffered the consequences of defying the living God.

Exodus 3:21 "And I will make the Egyptians favorably disposed toward this people, so that when you leave you will not go empty-handed. 22 Every woman is to ask her neighbor and any woman living in her house for articles of silver and gold and for clothing, which you will put on your sons and daughters. And so you will plunder the Egyptians."​

Exodus 6:1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh: Because of my mighty hand he will let them go; because of my mighty hand he will drive them out of his country."​

Exodus 7:1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. 2 You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country. 3 But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, 4 he will not listen to you.​

Exodus 10:1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them 2 that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD."​

I say it again, the sort of foreknowledge you and Rob believe in, generally referred to as Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge is not only unbiblical it is irrational and as such there is no such "problem for [my] theology" as you put it.

Is there anything irrational within the scriptures? Read and believe. We don't ask you to believe us, 2000 years of Christianity, or anything else; but your desire to believe otherwise is clouding your vision of the facts.

Our actions do contribute to God's plan(as Christianity has always maintained), no one argues this. The vine and the branches, the wheat and the tares, etc.....; but 'allies', He doesn't need them. The vine is still the vine without the branches.

Manipulation would bring responsiblity of action with it - if the definitions of the open view are correct.

 

[themuzicman]

I remember you changing the test and answering your re-written test, but I don't remember you answering my question.

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

Everyone always does otherwise.

Here's why:

"What I will do" (with "will" referring to the future tense, and not my will) is undefined. It has no assigned value. However, when I get to the point in time in question, my decision defines "what I do", and thus what happens in that moment becomes defined.

So, yes, "What I will do" when I get to a given timeframe is always other than the value of "what I will do" as it is defined now.

So, I've passed your test and answered your question.

OTOH, you've failed the test.

So, I assume you'll become OVT, now?

Muz

 

[Agape4Robin]

CLETE says:
In fact it seems every so called problem you guys seem to think exists for the Open View only does so in your own minds. It's rather ridiculous really. One would think that if every single problem evaporates once it is presented in the presence of an actually Open Theist that someone would start to get the message that perhaps the Open View makes a bit more sense than they had thought.

IMHO he seems to really be justifying OV theology here. How much sense it makes and biblical "problems" will evaporate if only others would just subscribe to OV theology. The fact that OVers believe God cannot do something is a red flag for me that says this is not grounded theology rooted in sound biblical doctrine. The doctrine of election alone shows the "foreknowledge" of God. It's not complicated once you let go of the illusion of "free will". While we are free to make choices, we are not sovereign. It is the providence of God. He is sovereign over all.

 

[themuzicman]

IMHO he seems to really be justifying OV theology here. How much sense it makes and biblical "problems" will evaporate if only others would just subscribe to OV theology. The fact that OVers believe God cannot do something is a red flag for me that says this is not grounded theology rooted in sound biblical doctrine. The doctrine of election alone shows the "foreknowledge" of God. It's not complicated once you let go of the illusion of "free will". While we are free to make choices, we are not sovereign. It is the providence of God. He is sovereign over all.

Every theologian says that God "cannot" do something. God cannot create a rock so big that He cannot lift it. He can't make a square circle.

The question isn't whether we can articulate something that is impossible to do or know, but whether God cannot do something that it logically possible.

Muz

 

[Agape4Robin]

Every theologian says that God "cannot" do something. God cannot create a rock so big that He cannot lift it. He can't make a square circle.

What theologian would call this "logic"? :think: It's absurd and intellectually dishonest to even pose such a question.

The question isn't whether we can articulate something that is impossible to do or know, but whether God cannot do something that it logically possible.

Muz

The Creator doesn't know His creation?:squint:

He is not the Mattel Corporation who was unaware of lead based paint on their products.

God knows His creation. Don't make the mistake of placing finite attributes on an infinite God.

 

[RobE]

Everyone always does otherwise.

Here's why:

"What I will do" (with "will" referring to the future tense, and not my will) is undefined. It has no assigned value. However, when I get to the point in time in question, my decision defines "what I do", and thus what happens in that moment becomes defined.

So, yes, "What I will do" when I get to a given timeframe is always other than the value of "what I will do" as it is defined now.

So, I've passed your test and answered your question.

What you're saying does make sense in theory, but you have yet to demonstrate 'doing otherwise'. Also, I understand that what you are doing now might be different than what you are doing later. I'll give you this.

See, I can theorize as to how I'm able to do otherwise than what I will do(In your test it would be the same as what God foreknows I will do), but I can't demonstrate it as required by your test.

The test was to demonstrate 'doing otherwise' not explain how you are doing otherwise; but to DEMONSTRATE the ability by doing other than what you will do.

OTOH, you've failed the test.

Yes, I've already admitted that I am unable to demonstrate 'doing otherwise' and have now asked you, through your theology, to demonstrate 'doing otherwise' so that I might see the error of my position.

So, I assume you'll become OVT, now?

I'll tell you what. If you are able to demonstrate doing other then what you will do, I will indeed become an open theist. I promise.

On the other hand, if you are not able to demonstrate doing otherwise(but can only theorize how you might do otherwise) then I will ask you to either -

1) Admit that your test is impossible based upon its parameters.....

or

2) Remove from the definition of free will the terms 'ability to do otherwise'(based upon its impossibility)

or

3) Accept the view which Christianity has regarding the foreknowledge of our Lord.

or

My favorite: 4) All the above.

 

[Clete]

IMHO he seems to really be justifying OV theology here. How much sense it makes and biblical "problems" will evaporate if only others would just subscribe to OV theology. The fact that OVers believe God cannot do something is a red flag for me that says this is not grounded theology rooted in sound biblical doctrine. The doctrine of election alone shows the "foreknowledge" of God. It's not complicated once you let go of the illusion of "free will". While we are free to make choices, we are not sovereign. It is the providence of God. He is sovereign over all.

God cannot do the logically absurd.

He cannot make perfectly round spheres with flat spots and sharp corners, for example.

He cannot do such things because they are self contradictory. To do them would be to not do them - it's absurd.

A similar absurdity is the idea that God can justly punish (or reward) people for their actions if, in fact, they could not have done otherwise.

And so you see, it isn't quite as simple as "letting go...of free will". For the person who thinks that God is immutable and in meticulous control of everything that happens you only drop one problem for another one. If, on the other hand, you drop the idea that God is a control freak, which the Bible doesn't teach in the first place, then you really do lose of lot of problems that are otherwise unsolvable apart from appealing to antinomy.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[RobE]

IMHO he seems to really be justifying OV theology here. How much sense it makes and biblical "problems" will evaporate if only others would just subscribe to OV theology. The fact that OVers believe God cannot do something is a red flag for me that says this is not grounded theology rooted in sound biblical doctrine. The doctrine of election alone shows the "foreknowledge" of God. It's not complicated once you let go of the illusion of "free will". While we are free to make choices, we are not sovereign. It is the providence of God. He is sovereign over all.

The o.v. does take less brain power. If I read something and it seems to contradict something else then I can just think, "God didn't know. That person or devil was to tricky for Him. Let's see what God does next, He'll turn it around. It's like watching the Broncos play the Browns(2 minutes left and Elway's got the ball on the 2). It's a war out there and hopefully, God can pull it off!"

God is like my grandma within open theism. She hopes for the best, plans for the worst, but is always there to hold my hand either way.

Traditional Christianity sees God as a loving Father, King, leader, etc....

Did the majority of open theists have fathers or might this be the problem?

 

[themuzicman]

What you're saying does make sense in theory, but you have yet to demonstrate 'doing otherwise'. Also, I understand that what you are doing now might be different than what you are doing later. I'll give you this.

I already did. Before "What I will do" was undefined. But when I did it, it was defined. It was "otherwise."

See, I can theorize as to how I'm able to do otherwise than what I will do(In your test it would be the same as what God foreknows I will do), but I can't demonstrate it as required by your test.

Except that you can't theorize in a logical manner, as it has been demonstrated that EDF and LFW are logically incompatible.

The test was to demonstrate 'doing otherwise' not explain how you are doing otherwise; but to DEMONSTRATE the ability by doing other than what you will do.

And I did.

And you did not.

Furthermore, you failed to provide any criterion to measure whether the test was successful or not. I provided that criterion for both tests.

Yes, I've already admitted that I am unable to demonstrate 'doing otherwise' and have now asked you, through your theology, to demonstrate 'doing otherwise' so that I might see the error of my position.

Done.

I'll tell you what. If you are able to demonstrate doing other then what you will do, I will indeed become an open theist. I promise.

I already did. Welcome to the family.

On the other hand, if you are not able to demonstrate doing otherwise(but can only theorize how you might do otherwise) then I will ask you to either -

1) Admit that your test is impossible based upon its parameters.....

or

2) Remove from the definition of free will the terms 'ability to do otherwise'(based upon its impossibility)

or

3) Accept the view which Christianity has regarding the foreknowledge of our Lord.

or

My favorite: 4) All the above.

Since I've already demonstrated it, these aren't necessary.

Muz

 

[RobE]

I already did. Welcome to the family.

I know that you make that claim, but it seems to me that you did what you did and 'didn't do otherwise'. Therefore your demonstration of 'doing otherwise' wasn't completely successful. Want another chance?

 

[RobE]

Furthermore, you failed to provide any criterion to measure whether the test was successful or not. I provided that criterion for both tests.

I did provide the criterion. And you still failed to do other than what you did. Do you wish to try to demonstrate doing other than what you will do again?

Why not accept that the our tests are flawed and move on.

 

[themuzicman]

I did provide the criterion. And you still failed to do other than what you did. Do you wish to try to demonstrate doing other than what you will do again?

Why not accept that the our tests are flawed and move on.

Most specifically because the test of EDF and LFW isn't flawed.

You claim that in the presence of Exhaustive, Definite Foreknowledge, that Libertarian Free Will is possible.

EDF requires that an action be definitely known before it occurs.
LFW requires that an agent X be able to do A or ~A at given time Z.

Thus, X doing A at Z is definitely foreknown. It is certain. This truth cannot change.
However, in order to demonstrate that LFW is true, A need to be able to do ~A.

Now, the logical contradiction is painfully obvious. However, you claim that it is possible.

Thus, I gave you an opportunity to demonstrate your ability to do otherwise. And you could not.


OTOH, your test consisted of me demonstrating to do something other that "what I will do." However, you left "what I will do" undefined. And, in fact, that's exactly "what I will do" is. Undefined.

Thus, because anything that I do will be defined, I will have done something other than "what I will do" said I would.


So, you're not getting out of this so easily. I provided you with an answer, and you cannot do what you claim to be able to do.

At this point, there isn't much more to say.

Muz

 

[RobE]

Thus, I gave you an opportunity to demonstrate your ability to do otherwise. And you could not.

That's correct I could not demonstrate doing other than what I would do.

OTOH, your test consisted of me demonstrating to do something other that "what I will do." However, you left "what I will do" undefined. And, in fact, that's exactly "what I will do" is. Undefined.

Thus, because anything that I do will be defined, I will have done something other than "what I will do" said I would.

The question isn't to do something other than what you said you would, or even theorize as to how you did something 'other' because suddenly your action was defined; but to demonstrate doing other than what you will do!

You see, your test states that God foreknows what I will do - and asks me to demonstrate doing other than what I will do(just as my test requires).

It's not the foreknowledge that makes the test impossible - it's the demonstration which does.

So, you're not getting out of this so easily. I provided you with an answer, and you cannot do what you claim to be able to do.

Yes, but your answer fails to demonstrate doing otherwise. It claims doing otherwise, it suggests doing otherwise, but ultimately I have proof that you didn't do otherwise; because I'm able to know that you did what you did and not otherwise.

Don't try to wriggle out of your own requirements.:chuckle:

 

[themuzicman]

Yes, but your answer fails to demonstrate doing otherwise. It claims doing otherwise, it suggests doing otherwise, but ultimately I have proof that you didn't do otherwise; because I'm able to know that you did what you did and not otherwise.

What will I do in my test post?

Muz

 

[RobE]

Thus, X doing A at Z is definitely foreknown. It is certain. This truth cannot change.
However, in order to demonstrate that LFW is true, A need to be able to do ~A.

But not necessary(according to your previous posts), right?

 

[themuzicman]

But not necessary(according to your previous posts), right?

I'm not using modal logic. According to Schwarts (the link YOU posted), it is.

Muz

 

[RobE]

Yes, but your answer fails to demonstrate doing otherwise. It claims doing otherwise, it suggests doing otherwise, but ultimately I have proof that you didn't do otherwise; because I'm able to know that you did what you did and not otherwise.

What will I do in my test post?

Muz

We don't know because we've thrown foreknowledge out the window. I am, however, sure it will be what you do and not other than what you do.

Your test is no different except that foreknowledge = "will use the word superfluous" within your test. So what? Neither of us, nor anyone, is able to fulfill the test(s) requirement of a demonstration of doing otherwise.

No one ever does other than what they do, so NO demonstration is possible under any condition. If untrue, prove it through your own demonstration.

I'm not talking about fate, I'm talking about being able to demonstrate both of our claims.

I claim that you are able to do otherwise whether God foreknows of my action or not.

You claim you are only able to do otherwise if God doesn't foreknow.

Neither one of us is able to demonstrate 'doing otherwise' as fact.

Problem? Not from my perspective, but you seem to 'feel' otherwise.lain:

 

[themuzicman]

Yes, but your answer fails to demonstrate doing otherwise. It claims doing otherwise, it suggests doing otherwise, but ultimately I have proof that you didn't do otherwise; because I'm able to know that you did what you did and not otherwise.

I'm getting there.

We don't know because we've thrown foreknowledge out the window.

So, as of right now, "what I will do" is undefined?

(Just a reminder that LFW says that I may do A or ~A, and not both, so you're not pursuing a true definition of LFW.)

Muz

 

[RobE]

I'm not using modal logic. According to Schwarts (the link YOU posted), it is.

Muz

I think the main point was that the necessity was inferred on the contingent instead of the whole statement which created a logical fallacy.

For instance,

3) It is necessary God if EDF is true that God knows X will do A at time T.

3a) Transfer of necessity......

4a) Thus, it is necessary X can do A at time T.

3b) Incorrect transfer of necessity.....

4b) X can only do A at time T. The 'only' puts the necessity on the contingent and makes premise #5 valid. Without the error then #5 is invalid and the conclusion is false.

5a,b ) Thus it is necessary X can't do other than A at time T. - False(4a) True(4b)

 

[themuzicman]

I think the main point was that the necessity was inferred on the contingent instead of the whole statement which created a logical fallacy.

For instance,

3) It is necessary God if EDF is true that God knows X will do A at time T.

3a) Transfer of necessity......

4a) Thus, it is necessary X can do A at time T.

3b) Incorrect transfer of necessity.....

4b) X can only do A at time T. The 'only' puts the necessity on the contingent and makes premise #5 valid. Without the error then #5 is invalid and the conclusion is false.

5a,b ) Thus it is necessary X can't do other than A at time T. - False(4a) True(4b)

I'm not using modal logic, so this is al a nice exersize in nothing.



So, as of right now, "what I will do" is undefined?

Muz