ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[themuzicman]

Muz, same. Debate, we are in the business of bringing glory and honor to Christ, so our disagreement is important. Perhaps we'll never agree, but the material we are debating is essential for understanding the difference.

Well, this is where we have a switcheroo, because ROB is the one denying the historical definition of exhaustive, definite Foreknowledge. There shouldn't be any semantic issues with this definition, as OVT does not attempt to change EDF, it simply says that EDF isn't compatible with Scripture.

Rob wants to make EDF into prediction or something like that, which it is not.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

Rob: God is not EVOLVING, except in Mormonism.

God is perfect and unchanging in His character and attributes. Being able to see a new sunset or think a new thought or have a new feeling is not evolving. It is an expression of being dynamic, alive, and personal (vs static, dead, and impersonal).

Lk. 2:52 Was Jesus evolving from ape to man to God because He learned new things?

 

[Yorzhik]

RoBE writes:

"God is acquiring knowledge of future actions through being completely informed of current conditions including the hearts and minds of all free agents; and, complete knowledge of natural causes as well. If you wish to call it 'guessing' and then claim God is "wrong" sometimes, then sometimes God does not make the 'best guess' according to those ideas."

I think he is using the tactic of reductio ad absurdum and you are missing the point.

God does not accrete new knowledge to make newly informed 'guesses'.

No, this wouldn't be a reductio ad absurdum argument. If you read RobE's posts, he is saying that "best guess" means "the prediction that is correct".

 

[Yorzhik]

Lon, do you agree with this? "It's nice that you wish to continue talking about 'best guesses' when my only point in the first response was that the guess which is accurate is indeed THE best guess."

 

[Yorzhik]

lee_merrill, do you agree with this? "It's nice that you wish to continue talking about 'best guesses' when my only point in the first response was that the guess which is accurate is indeed THE best guess."

 

[RobE]

Rob, when I tell my wife that I am going to go to Big-O Tires at 8:30AM tomorrow to get the brakes fixed on the van, is that:

- Foreknowledge
- A Guess
- Speculation

Which is it?

Well in your case it would be your belief that it is knowledge.

It will be proved to be knowledge if you go to Big-O.
It will be proved to be a speculation or guess if you don't.

 

[RobE]

No, this wouldn't be a reductio ad absurdum argument. If you read RobE's posts, he is saying that "best guess" means "the prediction that is correct".

A guess is a guess, perfect or not. Yes, my argument was simply that according to AJ, any idiot(including Rob) might be more right than God(if guessing). If you wish to claim this is not an argument(reductio ad robdum) then very well. AJ defended this position and never made the connection. Saying that God guesses is absurd, because it's obvious that God does far more than guess.

 

[Lon]

Lon, do you agree with this? "It's nice that you wish to continue talking about 'best guesses' when my only point in the first response was that the guess which is accurate is indeed THE best guess."

I agree with AMR totally, but RobE isn't a Calvinist (Perhaps one day )

Rob's argument is against guessing and for EDF (our disagreement may be on the way or 'mechanism' for God's foreknowledge).

 

[Yorzhik]

I agree with AMR totally, but RobE isn't a Calvinist (Perhaps one day )

Rob's argument is against guessing and for EDF (our disagreement may be on the way or 'mechanism' for God's foreknowledge).

Ah, now, see. You should have waited for RobE's post. AMR said RobE was using a debate tactic of reductio ad absurdum, but then RobE came out and said clearly that, no, the "best guess" was the one that was eventually happened.

How is Rob's argument against guessing and for EDF? I'm not even talking about Rob's argument. I'm simply discussing Rob's inability to to understand what a "best guess" is. Lon... why don't you tell us what a "best guess" is?

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Time as an attribute is an interesting thought but He has never given this definition of Himself.

Actually it is “outside of time” that God has never portrayed Himself. Every portrayal of God in the Bible is in relation to time. He “waits” for His enemies to be made His footstool.

Now I realize you will argue that all of portrayals of God being inside of time are a result of mere anthropomorphisms, but to say that they don’t exist, meanwhile holding to an idea that is completely missing from the Bible directly or through anthropomorphism, is really putting it out there.

Every scripture reference I see is set to His eternal nature which I believe must be timeless because of my understanding and the constraints of the definition of time.

Whereas, I don’t limit my thinking about things we don’t understand (God and time) to semantical issues, but seek a greater truth.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I actually said there are more types of election than corporate, yes, this is talking about groups, but primarily, this involves election of individuals, is the point.

I don’t want to misunderstand you. So you agree that Romans is MAINLY talking about group election, but that indirectly it has implications towards individual election?

So then how is it that this is projected into the future, "only a remnant will be saved"? This is referred to as God's choice, his sentence.

I’m not sure what you are trying to say. This passage again underscores that Israel’s election was not secure as a nation. From out of Israel God has always planned to pull those who made it through the fire of the Tribulation. In the fire, the impurities would be burned away.

But Paul is talking about salvation primarily here, "my prayer is that Israel may be saved" not "be a good witness to the world.'

Paul is talking primarily about corporate election. He isn’t speaking of salvation of individual. We must keep context with all of Romans, and not try to pull one or two statements out of their context, read in a new one, and put the new one back into Romans 9. We've already seen how that position fell apart for you earlier.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

John 6:70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)​

This is knowledge of a future free action.

Where is the prediction of a future action in this verse?

Do you mean to say that Judas was not CURRENTLY a “devil” … of course he was as John tells us when he says Judas was from the beginning. Judas was currently a devil.

The settled view is often so confused that they point to current knowledge and say, “See God had future knowledge” This is sad.

If they can’t figure out the difference between future and current knowledge of course they are not going to be able to make your way through more complex issues.

You see, it's my position that Judas' believed therefore Christ states,

What Judas believed is difficult to say, but Jesus said that the actions were what was important (Matt 7:21). Judas certainly didn’t bear the fruit (John 12:2-6). I’d say Judas was kept despite the fact that God know he was not on-board to mke the plan of the cross come about.

Read Christ's words in John pertaining to Judas. Being under judgement is different than being destroyed. You have answered the 'doomed' but what becomes of the 'to destruction'.

Hell is destruction. Sinners are doomed to destruction – they are condemned already. “Doomed” is similar to “condemned” the “to destruction” is specific to what they are doomed to. Condemned means condemned to hell in John 3:18.

Do you see where my claim that Christ desired Judas' salvation fits free will theism better than Christ condemned Judas to destruction? In other words, do you see Christ is not merely guessing as to the future outcome of Judas Iscariot? Where God Himself was not able to quell the rebellion in Judas and "keep Judas safe"? No, Christ was not speaking of just the current condition, but Christ knew that Judas would not repent and that his rebellion would be revealed in the future(John 6:70).

First, let’s address your confusion. You are objecting to God condemning Judas to destruction. Realize that everyone who is not saved right now is currently doomed to destruction. That does not take away form the fact that God wants all men to be saved. So there is no trouble with this view at all.

Secondly if we were to look at Christ “giving up” on Judas, we have nothing to suggest that this ever occurs. In fact, we see quite often in the Bible that God never gives up on people, but all we would have to your viewpoint is your supposition that it occurs. I see you have provided no evidence or facts to back up this supposition. Why should one go that far outside of scripture and evidence?

I'm simply trying to get a firm definition of what "best guess" and "implies" is from your perspective. I wasn't attempting to 'redefine' anything. '

Then why are you arguing about what I meant? I'm not sure I believe you, but lets go on.... So do you now see that your idea of how I was using those words was incorrect?

If God 'guesses'(which I reject) then don't you accept that the Universe's 'best' guess would be the one which is accurate?

It is the one made with the most amount of information and is the most logical. It is not always the one that is accurate – so, the answer is “no”.

Also don't you accept the Universe's 'best' guess would indeed be God's guess since God has all available information?

Now you are asking what I’ve already provided. I’ve already called it “the Universes’ best guess”, that does not mean God always has guessed right in the history of the world.

 

[Lon]

Ah, now, see. You should have waited for RobE's post. AMR said RobE was using a debate tactic of reductio ad absurdum, but then RobE came out and said clearly that, no, the "best guess" was the one that was eventually happened.

How is Rob's argument against guessing and for EDF? I'm not even talking about Rob's argument. I'm simply discussing Rob's inability to to understand what a "best guess" is. Lon... why don't you tell us what a "best guess" is?

Best guess is 1) not definite 2)educated 3)an idea (inkling) not knowledge. It may or may not be correct, it is simply the most likely outcome.

A best guess is predictive, not known and subject to contingencies with no control on outcome.

Perhaps I'm not seeing Rob's argument here, but I don't believe he sees God as guessing. He has stated clearly in the past that God knows, therefore doesn't guess and I believe it is still his position, but I'll let him address a discrepancy if it exists. I don't see one. He is trying to use the OV "very smart" argument against the reasoning that God can be wrong is all.

 

[Lon]

Actually it is “outside of time” that God has never portrayed Himself. Every portrayal of God in the Bible is in relation to time. He “waits” for His enemies to be made His footstool.

Don't forget that we see God as relational to time as well, just not constrained by it. This is an important distinction for our discussion. We both see God relating to us within time and agree. The difference, to be clear, is that we see God's eternal nonbeginning nature as necessarily outside of this constraint already. God is relational to us in time, but not constrained to that relationship. God doesn't have to experience sequence like we do. If even the possibility can be shown, the point must be conceded and this is the main gist of our disagreement: God escapes time consideration logically by not having a beginning. There can be no sequence where there isn't a beginning or and ending and God has neither.

Now I realize you will argue that all of portrayals of God being inside of time are a result of mere anthropomorphisms, but to say that they don’t exist, meanwhile holding to an idea that is completely missing from the Bible directly or through anthropomorphism, is really putting it out there.

Recognize again, we agree on this particular point. That is, you buy half our argument: God is relational to us in time. Your logical problems of "when did God know I'd wear the yellow shirt?" isn't going to change much just because you deny EDF and timelessness. Denying a timeless beginning still doesn't solve the dilemma if you catch my meaning here. OV simply ignores the problem, not erases it (I hope you can see that).

Whereas, I don’t limit my thinking about things we don’t understand (God and time) to semantical issues, but seek a greater truth.

That is important and I agree with you here. We need to seek the truth regardless of what it does to our systematic theology. If we are wrong, truth should stretch or even destroy our conceptions. Hopefully you see the fact that OV doesn't escape the logic dilemma, it just dismisses it out of hand. For God to have a nonbeginning, you already have logical escape from a time understanding. The only thing I'm trying to do at this point is bring the question back into play. It is a logical problem because of our finiteness, but it is one I'd like to see OVer's mentally tackle even if you ultimately wish to ignore it. If you tackle this question indepth, I believe you 'will' agree with me, that considering God and time is no easy task and that God must in some way exist outside of time and sequence. It is just the logical outcome of playing with an eternal nonbeginnning. Most like to call it scifi or something and dismiss it. Actually do some work with it on paper and you'll see it is a logical necessity to deal with the topic for all believers. God has never had a beginning. Try applying any mathematical formula to that concept and you'll start to realize with me how hard it is to wade through the logical problems it brings forward quite readily.

 

[Yorzhik]

Best guess is 1) not definite 2)educated 3)an idea (inkling) not knowledge. It may or may not be correct, it is simply the most likely outcome.

A best guess is predictive, not known and subject to contingencies with no control on outcome.

I would add "simply the most likely outcome based on the best information available". But lest that last sentence confuse you... ignore it.

The point is that you say you don't disagree with RobE's definition, and then turn around and agree with AJ's definition!

Go confront RobE. He's making a fool of himself and the your view. And I mean that sincerely. If I didn't love you as a brother in Christ, I wouldn't suggest you confront RobE, I'd just let RobE continue to act the fool without saying anything.

 

[Yorzhik]

Perhaps I'm not seeing Rob's argument here, but I don't believe he sees God as guessing. He has stated clearly in the past that God knows, therefore doesn't guess and I believe it is still his position, but I'll let him address a discrepancy if it exists. I don't see one. He is trying to use the OV "very smart" argument against the reasoning that God can be wrong is all.

No, he is giving a definition of "best guess" that is wrong.

AMR; please take a look at Lon's quote immediately above. I'm not even talking about Rob's argument. Why is Lon even saying things like 'He is trying to use the OV "very smart" argument against the reasoning that God can be wrong is all.' It doesn't make sense. I've clearly clearly painfully clearly only talked about the definition of "best guess". Shouldn't a reasonable person get frustrated trying to have a conversation with someone who quotes tripe like this? But it isn't even that I cannot let quotes like this slide. I can. But you just watch how Lon will not own up to even the slightest bit of this kind of silliness. And Lon won't confront RobE even after admitting here RobE's gross error.

 

[godrulz]

God does not need to be omnicausal or have EDF in light of His great intelligence and ability (omnicompetence). He would have EDF if He created a deterministic universe, but He did not. Contingencies preclude EDF by definition (may or may not happen; possible vs certain; unsettled until actualized in the present).

 

[Lon]

I would add "simply the most likely outcome based on the best information available". But lest that last sentence confuse you... ignore it.

The point is that you say you don't disagree with RobE's definition, and then turn around and agree with AJ's definition!

Go confront RobE. He's making a fool of himself and the your view. And I mean that sincerely. If I didn't love you as a brother in Christ, I wouldn't suggest you confront RobE, I'd just let RobE continue to act the fool without saying anything.

Post #(s) for reference please? Thanks.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR; please take a look at Lon's quote immediately above. I'm not even talking about Rob's argument. Why is Lon even saying things like 'He is trying to use the OV "very smart" argument against the reasoning that God can be wrong is all.' It doesn't make sense. I've clearly clearly painfully clearly only talked about the definition of "best guess". Shouldn't a reasonable person get frustrated trying to have a conversation with someone who quotes tripe like this? But it isn't even that I cannot let quotes like this slide. I can. But you just watch how Lon will not own up to even the slightest bit of this kind of silliness. And Lon won't confront RobE even after admitting here RobE's gross error.

RobE's response to my assumption and your post was:

A guess is a guess, perfect or not. Yes, my argument was simply that according to AJ, any idiot(including Rob) might be more right than God(if guessing). If you wish to claim this is not an argument(reductio ad robdum) then very well. AJ defended this position and never made the connection. Saying that God guesses is absurd, because it's obvious that God does far more than guess.

Note that RobE agrees that he was using the absurdity of AJ's argument and even rejects any notions of God guessing, to wit, "Saying that God guesses is absurd..."

This is confirmed by RobE when he writes:

AJ, you are the one who posited that God was guessing. I, of course, reject the idea that God lacks knowledge of any kind;

Now later you write:

...but then RobE came out and said clearly that, no, the "best guess" was the one that was eventually happened.

The closest I can find to this statement is the following post:

If God 'guesses'(which I reject) then don't you accept that the Universe's 'best' guess would be the one which is accurate? Also don't you accept the Universe's 'best' guess would indeed be God's guess since God has all available information?

I think RobE is playing along with AJ here, and, by adopting AJ's position, showing that whatever actually occurs, even if guessed, is exactly what a perfect God would have guessed. In other words, if God guesses, His guess would always be the guess that actually occurs, for God would not be making multiple guesses.

Now when you or I guess at something, we usually throw out a few guesses. If pinned down, we may even state our 'best guess' on some matter and stand pat. I am not sure from RobE's posts that he is assuming multiple guesses by God for the sake of argument. Instead RobE is saying that among guesses, the one that actually occurs was the best guess, that is, the one that won, happened, etc. That sort of 'best guess' is NOT what I mean when I stated earlier, "if pinned down we may even state our 'best guess'", for this means only that our guess is what we think to be the most plausible based on the information we have in front of us--it might be our best guess, but it may very well be a wrong guess, too.

Have I made the situation worse or better?

 

[RobE]

No, he is giving a definition of "best guess" that is wrong.

Perhaps if you would clarify 'how' it is wrong, I might retract my assertion. Or, you might profer your own definiton of "best guess". If you've already done so, then I missed it.

2+2 = ?

a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4

Say for argument's sake we don't know the answer yet. We must guess as to the correct answer. Which guess is best? None, unless we offer up the idea that one guess is superior to the next since all four are guesses. We might have other knowledge which allows us to guess better. For instance, we might know that 2+1=3, so C is wrong; 2+0=2, so B is wrong; or that 2 is greater than 1 so A is wrong. This would leave us with option D as the best guess available because our knowledge of other facts have eliminated the other options.

When someone says give us “your best guess” what they really mean is that you must not answer unless your foretelling is accurate?

No. You have to admit that the 'best guess' is the guess that gets it right. If you give your best guess and get it wrong was it a good guess? The best would be an accurate foretelling. Yes or no?

If we define “best guess” properly, then it would be the one made from the most amount of available facts and knowledge. Sometimes these are wrong. A terrible gess would be one that goes against the available facts and knowledge. Sometimes these are right. That’s why it is called a guess – there is no certainty in it. It is using conjecture and intuition and rolling the dice of chance. If it were certain we wouldn’t call it a guess.

Well when I say the 'best guess' is the guess that gets it right, I'm speaking of the best possible guess. Of course I agree that a guess is a guess all the same whether you get it right or not. However the 'best guess' is the one which is correct. Considering that God has complete present knowledge including the hearts and minds of free agents; how good do think His guesses are?

I’m the one arguing that a “best guess” is one that uses knowledge and I termed it “the Universe’s best guess”. You are the one who seems to want to throw away the consideration of whether it was informed or not, and just look at the result. Obviously if it took a lucky guess, or one that went against the abundance of facts, in order to meet your new definition of “best guess” then whether God has or hasn’t complete present knowledge is irrelevant.

"The universe's best guess" is the one which is accurate in the entire set of possible guesses. Should we deny the existence of the guess which accurately foretells the outcome within this set? Therefore, "the universe's best guess" is an accurate and detailed foretelling of the outcome. No guess would be better than that guess: informed or otherwise.

"The universes's best guess" according to previous statements could be wrong. These statements are obviously flawed.

And yes, now that we are pressing the issue, all guesses are lucky according to your position, even well informed guesses. There isn't even enough information found in a man's heart and mind to render knowledge of action within that position unless you wish to have and eat cake simultaneously.

I’m not sure what you are saying. I’ve know read your last sentence five times and I completely agree that you can’t perfectly know what someone will ultimately do (this seems to be what you are admitting).

I'm asking you to admit that in the spectrum of guesses from 'absurd' to 'precise' the only guess which Our Lord might make is the one labeled 'precise'.

This is knowledge of a future free action.

It is the one made with the most amount of information and is the most logical. It is not always the one that is accurate – so, the answer is “no”.

Also don't you accept the Universe's 'best' guess would indeed be God's guess since God has all available information?

Now you are asking what I’ve already provided. I’ve already called it “the Universes’ best guess”, that does not mean God always has guessed right in the history of the world.

However, once the 'best' possible guess is made, then there can be no 'better' guess according to the definition of 'best'. In fact the 'best' possible guess must be in fact the known outcome otherwise it wasn't the 'best'.

AJ makes a contradiction here when He says that 1. God makes the 'best' guess(or Universe's best guess); 2. but is not always right. The two are contradictory.

Now I wouldn't say that one guess is superior to the other in the strict sense of the word. Subjectively, the 'best guess' excludes definite knowledge to be called a guess at all. But objectively when we view the entire set of possible guesses then one of the possible guesses must equate to the outcome. This would be the Universe's best guess, or God's guess. Objectively, one guess is superior to the next until we get to the Universe's 'best' guess.

In other words, if God gets it wrong then He didn't make the best possible guess at all. Some element of present knowledge would have eluded Him and another entity who had far less knowledge would indeed be just as capable as God of making the 'best' guess.

I accept that God always makes the 'best' guess possible which is knowledge itself. I deny that God 'guesses' as all.