ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[themuzicman]

You should certainly know therefore that a given percentage is not guaranteed, and that any possibility is possible.

However, as any statistician will tell you, given a certain percentage error, given a sufficient sample size (and I believe the number is 31 for many samples) that percentage will pretty much fall in line. For every possibility of failure, there is also a possibility of success. You seem to forget that.

In reality, they probably won't--please stop making this mistake.

In the same way that your DNA probably identifies you. The odds are so infinitesimal that they aren't even worth talking about. For any other endeavor, the reasonable person understands that the percentages effectively make on option certain.

And you continue to base your assumptions on God's knowledge, and completely ignore God's omnipotence and His love. Do you honestly think God brings things about by knowing them?

So what would God do differently so it won't possibly come down to just Noah again? Note--possibly...

Read your bible. It's in there. If you'd pay attention while reading Genesis, you see that God is at work, preserving a people for Himself.

Muz

 

[Clete]

Apology accepted, I wasn't trying to speak for you, by the way, I was trying to speak to you.

If so, foolishly so.

And do please refrain from insulting Rob, he is gracious and willing to grapple with issues, and is not actually the person you perceive him to be.

Bull!

I've only given the guy... What? 50 chances?

Every single time, he comes up with a new and exciting way to intentionally twist things around to mean the exact opposite of what I said. He's no more interested in debating this issue than he is in scratching my left foot. He's here to disrupt these conversations and make sure they remain in the realm of the obscure and the inane. He has single handedly had more destructive influence on having any real substantive discourse on this issue than any other single person in TOL history, so far as I am aware, and the pattern is perfectly consistent to the point that I cannot help but believe that it is entirely intentional.

You can go on repeating the same old tired points over and over again with him, boring the whole world to tears and moving TOL a closer and closer to being a complete waste of time on the issue of Open Theism if you like, but as for me, he has chosen to elect himself as one worthy of nothing but disrespect and ridicule and he can therefore expect to get nothing at all from me except exactly that.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[lee_merrill]

However, as any statistician will tell you, given a certain percentage error, given a sufficient sample size (and I believe the number is 31 for many samples) that percentage will pretty much fall in line.

No, it depends on the variance, 31 won't do.

For every possibility of failure, there is also a possibility of success. You seem to forget that.

I'm certainly aware that success is possible, and that the sample average may match the population average.

In the same way that your DNA probably identifies you. The odds are so infinitesimal that they aren't even worth talking about.

So Noah could not have refused? the probability is infinitesimal in all such situations?

And you continue to base your assumptions on God's knowledge, and completely ignore God's omnipotence and His love. Do you honestly think God brings things about by knowing them?

Certainly not, and I'm not presenting my view as to how God brings his certain predictions about, I'm asking for the Open Theist view on this.

If you'd pay attention while reading Genesis, you see that God is at work, preserving a people for Himself.

I know he is, I'm a Calvinist, remember? So the assurance of this I do subscribe to--however I wonder how Open Theists can explain how God can be so sure that a remnant will be saved, and only a remnant, and this by his sentence.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[themuzicman]

No, it depends on the variance, 31 won't do.

But several hundred thousand will.

I'm certainly aware that success is possible, and that the sample average may match the population average.

Not just may. Will.

So Noah could not have refused? the probability is infinitesimal in all such situations?

Noah is NOT a group situation. Noah is NOT a remnant.

Certainly not, and I'm not presenting my view as to how God brings his certain predictions about, I'm asking for the Open Theist view on this.

Then stop inserting your presuppositions.

I know he is, I'm a Calvinist, remember? So the assurance of this I do subscribe to--however I wonder how Open Theists can explain how God can be so sure that a remnant will be saved, and only a remnant, and this by his sentence.

It's been explained. The only thing left is for you to open your eyes.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

What are the odds? Based on perfect knowledge of past and present history and human nature and God's ability to influence, the probability is virtually certain that it will happen as predicted.

But it's not certain, and God says it's certain?!

The same problem occurs with any sure prediction that hinges on some free decision.

I find this more problematic: how could God know I would do this igherogihoighjoighogjjdffgdndfjnbjknda right now from trillions of years ago if I freely did it without a deterministic explanation?

I thought you weren't going to use this argument any more! Just because we don't know how God could know this, doesn't mean he couldn't do it.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[lee_merrill]

But several hundred thousand will.

Well, it still depends on the variance, but yes, the law of large numbers means the sample average converges quickly to the population average, if you have representative samples.

Not just may. Will.

Why then do they give confidence levels for sample averages?

Noah is NOT a group situation.

That's exactly the problem. How can this then be group dynamics guaranteeing a remnant will be saved, if group dynamics is how God sees this will happen? for this would apply to situations such as Noah with one righteous person, the remnant can come down to one person, as we see here.

Lee: however I wonder how Open Theists can explain how God can be so sure that a remnant will be saved, and only a remnant, and this by his sentence.

Muz: It's been explained. The only thing left is for you to open your eyes.

But this is not an explanation, nor is group dynamics. Nor is probability certainty, do a little experiment, and flip a coin 100 times, and see how many heads and tails you get. It's not alway 50...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[themuzicman]

Well, it still depends on the variance, but yes, the law of large numbers means the sample average converges quickly to the population average, if you have representative samples.

There ya go. You have your answer.

Why then do they give confidence levels for sample averages?

Because you're not going to hit the number exactly. There's going to be a range (I believe based upon standard deviations) that's possible. (68% chance within 1 SD, 95% within 2 SDs, and virtually all data within 3, if memory serves.)

The point is that you can be assured that, while each part may be in error, you will get some parts that are not.

That's exactly the problem. How can this then be group dynamics guaranteeing a remnant will be saved, if group dynamics is how God sees this will happen? for this would apply to situations such as Noah with one righteous person, the remnant can come down to one person, as we see here.

But that's not the case, here. Remnant applies to the remnant of Israel or how God knows He will have a people to Himself.

But this is not an explanation, nor is group dynamics. Nor is probability certainty, do a little experiment, and flip a coin 100 times, and see how many heads and tails you get. It's not alway 50...

But it never comes up 100-0. That's the point. A remnant isn't a specific number. It's just not zero and not 100.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

... you're not going to hit the number exactly. There's going to be a range (I believe based upon standard deviations) that's possible. (68% chance within 1 SD, 95% within 2 SDs, and virtually all data within 3, if memory serves.)

99% within three standard deviations--note, never 100%.

Remnant applies to the remnant of Israel or how God knows He will have a people to Himself.

No, it applies to the current time: "So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace." (Rom. 11:5) Not "estimated by group dynamics", by the way.

Afterwards, "all Israel will be saved," it will be time for the fullness of Israel, and this will not be a remnant--but how can God know these two results? A remnant, and then fullness.

But it never comes up 100-0.

It can, though, as illustrated by the days of Noah.

A remnant isn't a specific number. It's just not zero and not 100.

And it's also less than half, let's not be obtuse here, please!

Blessings,
Lee

 

[themuzicman]

99% within three standard deviations--note, never 100%.

But no one gives serious consideration to the remaining percentage, as it doesn't happen.

No, it applies to the current time: "So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace." (Rom. 11:5) Not "estimated by group dynamics", by the way.

There is no comment as to how this happens. You can't claim EDF from this verse, either. You're looking for an explanation as to how God might know there will be a remnant, and this is a valid explanation.

Afterwards, "all Israel will be saved," it will be time for the fullness of Israel, and this will not be a remnant--but how can God know these two results? A remnant, and then fullness.

Well, that's easier, since drawing is required before one is able to come (John 6:44). God simply doesn't enable all, and all won't come. God also knows, given a particular sample size, that some will, even though He doesn't know exactly who.

It can, though, as illustrated by the days of Noah.

If Noah had anything to do with remnants, you might have a point. He doesn't, so you don't.

And it's also less than half, let's not be obtuse here, please!

LOL.. You're speaking of the .1% case which no one seriously considers as though it's a real possibility, and you're asking me not to be obtuse?

If you want less than half, then God draws less than half, and some percentage of those drawn come. QED.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

But no one gives serious consideration to the remaining percentage, as it doesn't happen.

Let's say you're 99% sure the apple juice you have is not poisoned--do you drink it?

"99% of our flights have safe landings!" All aboard?!

Lee: "So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace." (Rom. 11:5) Not "estimated by group dynamics", by the way.

Muz: There is no comment as to how this happens.

By grace means by God's decision, and so this would not be simply an observation of group behavior, this is "his sentence on earth."

You're looking for an explanation as to how God might know there will be a remnant, and this is a valid explanation.

Not if it's a sure prediction, you can't base a sure prediction on probabilities that aren't 100%.

Lee: ... but how can God know these two results? A remnant, and then fullness.

Muz: God simply doesn't enable all, and all won't come. God also knows, given a particular sample size, that some will, even though He doesn't know exactly who.

But "fullness" requires that most, if not all, will come. But how can this be known?

If Noah had anything to do with remnants, you might have a point. He doesn't, so you don't.

How is it that the remnant cannot come down to one person, as it did in his days?

And is God not seeking to save every lost person? How then can he draw less than all people?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

www.enc.edu/history/ot

Open and Relational Theology engaging science conference Azusa Pacific U.

(speakers include Boyd, Sanders, Hasker, Basinger, Pinnock Rice, Rhoda, etc.)

Sounds like 'mecca' for OT.

What is Open Theology?

http://www.enc.edu/history/ot/what.html

Are there any rich people on TOL who would like to send me?

 

[lee_merrill]

Godrulz, there are pending questions...

The invincible chessmaster does not always get His way.

I still need to know how he is then invincible.

And you say free choices are not inherently unknowable--but the Open View holds that they are, this is why the future is open.

I have even been told that knowing a future free choice made it fixed, and this was a contradiction. If EDF and free will are logically incoherent, how is knowing one free choice coherent with free will?

Are there any rich people on TOL who would like to send me?

Only if you raise your hand and ask some specific questions! To be named later...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[themuzicman]

Let's say you're 99% sure the apple juice you have is not poisoned--do you drink it?

"99% of our flights have safe landings!" All aboard?!

How typical. We're talking about error rates and group dynamics, and you pull this ****. Now I remember why you were on ignore in the first place.

Neither of these have anything to do with statistics or group dynamics.

By grace means by God's decision, and so this would not be simply an observation of group behavior, this is "his sentence on earth."

Yeah, that's God's drawing.

Not if it's a sure prediction, you can't base a sure prediction on probabilities that aren't 100%.

Again, this is why you're on ignore. I've just gone through many many posts showing how through group dynamics that God can be certain, and you pull this ****.

But "fullness" requires that most, if not all, will come. But how can this be known?

Depends on how you read Romans 11. I think that the remnant IS the fullness of Israel.

How is it that the remnant cannot come down to one person, as it did in his days?

That's not the point. The point is that I would use group dynamics to explain Noah, but rather use present knowledge of Noah's heart.

And is God not seeking to save every lost person? How then can he draw less than all people?

To fulfill prophecy and His purposes. God is just, as well, and Israel rejected His messiah.

Don't look for another response. You've gone where you always seem to go.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

Godrulz, why do you usually seem to skip the difficult questions?


I still need to know how he is then invincible.

And you say free choices are not inherently unknowable--but the Open View holds that they are, this is why the future is open.

I have even been told that knowing a future free choice made it fixed, and this was a contradiction. If EDF and free will are logically incoherent, how is knowing one free choice coherent with free will?

Blessings,
Lee

Your slowness to grasp our explanations does not mean we are avoiding answering you. Who said God is invincible? Jesus died an ignominious death. God is vulnerable and even takes risks in order to not be all-controlling to allow for love, relationship, and freedom in significant others. You must define and qualify invincible. No one can dethrone God or derail His redemptive project. Anyone can reject His will for them and perish in hell. God does not always get His way every moment of the day (people rape, kill, commit suicide, etc.). Does that mean He is invincible or not?

You are not distinguishing probability, necessity, contingency, certainty, possibility, etc. You are extrapolating from the specific to the general. Knowing one choice is not proof He knows all choices as settled. Loosing one battle does not mean He will lose the war. The future is partially open and partially settled. Don't misrepresent OT.

Saying that we do not know how God could know thisietghwaeroighorigheorigheoghoih is not an answer. OT presents disciplined, logical, philosophical arguments to support the premise that EDF and libertarian free will are incompatible. Perhaps you are not familiar with the detailed academic literature and are making indefensible, simplistic assumptions?

 

[lee_merrill]

Neither of these have anything to do with statistics or group dynamics.

Probabilities don't have anything to do with statistics?

I've just gone through many many posts showing how through group dynamics that God can be certain...

Strange, I did think 99% wasn't certain...

Depends on how you read Romans 11. I think that the remnant IS the fullness of Israel.

Apparently you missed the context, which clearly describes a change, now a few, then--fullness.

That's not the point. The point is that I would use group dynamics to explain Noah, but rather use present knowledge of Noah's heart.

But the prediction is not about present people, so knowing hearts doesn't help explain God's knowledge of "only a remnant" for thousands of years.

To fulfill prophecy and His purposes.

I disagree, God is seeking to save every lost person.

Don't look for another response. You've gone where you always seem to go.

I'm left still wondering how God knows a remnant will be saved.

Who said God is invincible?

"Invincible chessmaster" kind of implies God is invincible in major and in critical purposes. If you say God is invincible in minor purposes, I shall wonder why you use this superlative for that.

No one can dethrone God or derail His redemptive project. Anyone can reject His will for them and perish in hell.

So people could have all refused--then how could God's redemptive project not be derailed?

God does not always get His way every moment of the day (people rape, kill, commit suicide, etc.). Does that mean He is invincible or not?

I was asking you, sir...

Saying that we do not know how God could know thisietghwaeroighorigheorigheoghoih is not an answer.

That was my statement to you, actually!

OT presents disciplined, logical, philosophical arguments to support the premise that EDF and libertarian free will are incompatible.

So how can you say knowledge of one given free decision does not necessarily involve a contradiction?

Perhaps you are not familiar with the detailed academic literature and are making indefensible, simplistic assumptions?

Dear sir, it's your job to defend your view, I shall not seek to defend it for the Open Theists...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Clete]

www.enc.edu/history/ot

Open and Relational Theology engaging science conference Azusa Pacific U.

(speakers include Boyd, Sanders, Hasker, Basinger, Pinnock Rice, Rhoda, etc.)

Sounds like 'mecca' for OT.

What is Open Theology?

http://www.enc.edu/history/ot/what.html

Are there any rich people on TOL who would like to send me?

Keep an eye out for any publications that come out of that conference. I'll be wanting the video if they produce one.

 

[Yorzhik]

Right. That's the point. "God could not tell you how your palms would be"

God knows, but He cannot say!

So what?

A note before I answer: This response will include an insult, but only for practical purposes. The insult is merely a label that applies to this situation, and it is the most effective thing to initiate change, despite its chances of actually being a catalyst for change. It's also the most efficient and effective way to express the depth of intellectual difficulty RobE has gotten himself into.

"SO WHAT"?!?!?! You idiot! You've just relegated your god to the same script the rest of us are in! The real question now becomes: who's the real God? Who's the script-maker for your god, this god that knows but cannot say?

RobE continues:

God can't tell you how they will be in this scenario because it will cause a rebellion within you changing the outcome. Again, so what? It doesn't mean that God doesn't know where you palms would be.

Just a side-note here; it doesn't matter whether rebellious people are the only people with will. HOWEVER, there is no rebellion contained in this scenario.

Neither turning your palms nor deciding to put your palms the other way is sinful. Try it with your wife.

Remember, God is not commanding you to put your palms a certain way in this scenario. He's just telling you how your palms will be (or knowing via divine-infinite-foreknowledge but not telling :rotfl.

Get it? It's a logical contradiction. You have a few choices:
1. Don't get rid of the logical contradiction, just say "God can do the logically contradictory.
2. Say that mankind does not have a will.
3. Say that God does not know the future exhaustively.

That's it. You can create a 4th choice, but all choices after these 3 are "I'm illogical and nothing I say matters".

What's your choice RobE? Or are you going to retract "God could not tell you how your palms would be"?

What do options 1,2, and 3 have to do with God saying something to a rebellious individual? You're sure drawing a lot of conclusions from this. I'm interested in the thinking so why don't you explain where your conclusions come from?

First, it doesn't matter if it's a rebellious individual or not. HOWEVER, this scenario doesn't happen to include a rebellious individual.

So what's your choice? 1, 2, or 3? Or maybe you can find a way out of "what I say doesn't matter". Remember, there is no rebellion cited in this scenario.

 

[RobE]

So what's your choice? 1, 2, or 3? Or maybe you can find a way out of "what I say doesn't matter". Remember, there is no rebellion cited in this scenario.

I offered you an opportunity to explain how and why your scenario wasn't flawed. Simply insisting it is valid doesn't prove anything.

Now.....

This is true. However the term 'decreed' doesn't affect my objection at all.

So when you ask:

Yorzhik(A): God could communicate how one would have their palms 5 seconds into the future. ......;.....

Yorzhik(B).....can a person will to have their palms other than what God says?
Analysis of the question:

The term 'would(A)' above speaks to a man's will.
The term 'will(B)' above speaks to a man's will.​

You ask if what God says can be unequal to what you would(B) do if we accept the fact that what God says equates to what you would(A) do. The contradiction appears.

Again, whether the term 'decree' exists within the thinking or not.....

A. God says = your will
B. God says <> your will​

Rob

p.s. One way to issue a decree is through speaking it.

Ok. If God were telling you what your will is, then this would be valid. But the test is to see if God can tell you how your palms will be, not what your will is. If you will to have your palms the opposite of whatever God says, even if God knows that, then even God could not say, correctly, how your palms will be. It's so simple even a grammar school student could understand.

Yorzhik,

Your scenario: "If you will to have your palms the opposite..."

Your response: "If God were telling you what your will is, then this would be valid...."​

Are you able to understand the problem here?

The real question now becomes: who's the real God? Who's the script-maker for your god, this god that knows but cannot say?

In the case of your free action, you are. God simply knows the script you choose to write which validates the position of Traditional Christianity.

I'll off you another opportunity to put the pieces together. I realize you see something here......something of significance.......something important. Lay it out in a coherent way, without insult, and in an straightforward manner. I'm truly interested.

 

[Clete]

RobE,

There is just no way that anyone can really be as stupid as your last post portrays you to be.

Is your disruption of all the Open Theism threads on TOL intentional? Is this some sort of role your are playing in order to destroy anyone's ability to have a substantive conversation on this subject or are you truly the moron of the century that you would have to be in order to believe the things you write?

 

[lee_merrill]

Is your disruption of all the Open Theism threads on TOL intentional?

Difficult questions can be disruptive. To repeat a Rob question, what does it matter in regard to the problem of evil if God sees an event in the future, and allows it, versus him seeing an event in the present, and allowing it? Open Theism does not solve the problem of evil by removing foreknowledge.

Insults are what people shoot when they're out of other ammunition, if they are lacking in Christian grace--it would possibly be time to resume the eulogy for Open Theism here.