ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[lee_merrill]

Open and Relational Theology engaging science conference Azusa Pacific U.

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

I'm half inclined to go, to ask some various questions of Greg Boyd and John Sanders & company...

 

[Yorzhik]

Difficult questions can be disruptive.

It's not a difficult question. You are a fool that cannot understand the answer.

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?

You'll understand the reason for insults when you realize the question has been answered. Knowledge of an event does not cause the event. Creation plus exhaustive foreknowledge does cause an event. A computer program is creation + foreknowledge. Did God create everything initially?

lee_merrill continues:

Open Theism does not solve the problem of evil by removing foreknowledge.

We remove the problem of evil by giving man a will of his own. Man having a will is incompatible with exhaustive foreknowledge by the creator (it is not incompatible with exhaustive foreknowledge by the non-creator). The kitchen table scenario has proven it, and both Rob and you have failed miserably to prove otherwise.

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.

Insults are also used when they are an accurate label. When God called the rich man a fool in Luke: Luke 12:20: "But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you.'" Would a person like that really be a fool? Or was God lacking in Christian grace?

 

[lee_merrill]

You'll understand the reason for insults when you realize the question has been answered. Knowledge of an event does not cause the event. Creation plus exhaustive foreknowledge does cause an event. A computer program is creation + foreknowledge. Did God create everything initially?

Certainly--and this does not answer the question.

The kitchen table scenario has proven it, and both Rob and you have failed miserably to prove otherwise.

I still believe God can get my hands palms up on the table, and if he says they will be that way, indeed they will.

Insults are also used when they are an accurate label.

Do people generally insult someone when they think it's inaccurate? So saying "Oh, but it's deserved," well, basically everyone giving insults says that.

When God called the rich man a fool in Luke: Luke 12:20: "But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you.'" Would a person like that really be a fool? Or was God lacking in Christian grace?

There are real fools--however, to call a Christian brother a fool puts a person in danger of the fire of hell.

Matthew 5:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca' [a term of contempt - think 'idiot' here] is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

 

[lee_merrill]

Verses describing foolish behavior:

Proverbs 10:18 .. whoever spreads slander is a fool.
Proverbs 10:23 A fool finds pleasure in evil conduct ...
Proverbs 12:16 A fool shows his annoyance at once ...
Proverbs 14:16 A wise man fears the Lord and shuns evil, but a fool is hotheaded and reckless.

Proverbs 18:2 A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.
Proverbs 28:26 He who trusts in himself is a fool ...
Proverbs 23:9 Do not speak to a fool, for he will scorn the wisdom of your words.
Proverbs 29:9 If a wise man goes to court with a fool, the fool rages and scoffs, and there is no peace.
Proverbs 29:11 A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control.
Ecclesiastes 7:9 Do not be quickly provoked in your spirit, for anger resides in the lap of fools.

 

[Yorzhik]

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

You need to first show me the flaw. Please explain more completely.

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?

I don't understand the problem here. I think you are trying to point out the flaw in the argument, but you need to spell it out for me. What you say here is hardly understandable as English.

I just had a great idea! Use a syllogism.

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.

Wow... you don't seem to understand the concept of the script at all. The script being referenced here is the one written before the foundation of the earth. Are you saying we write the script before we exist? Or are you simply employing a cheap debate tactic and changing the definition of what the script is, not the one clearing being referenced here?

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.

Dude, you are SOOOOOOOOO the salesman in the pet shop in this Monty Python skit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfIVMchKd_U

. This is why insults are a proper response to your posts. Re-explaining the child-level simple scenario and it's ramifications would do no good. But it's summed up in "God knows, but He cannot say". That's your quote; don't you see how weak your God is with that statement?

 

[godrulz]

I'm half inclined to go, to ask some various questions of Greg Boyd and John Sanders & company...

The bouncers might throw you out

Future choices are simply not there yet in reality to be known as certain. To simply assume that God sees or knows the future is begging the question. God is omniscient, but the contents of what is knowable vary (past/present knowable; future known as possible because that is the way it really is...to assume the future is identical to the present or fixed past is where you guys are going off track).

 

[lee_merrill]

The bouncers might throw you out

I did get bounced from the Open Theism forum! I talked a bit with Greg Boyd there too, when it was his forum. He was not active when I got me-self banned.

To simply assume that God sees or knows the future is begging the question.

But I don't assume this, I look for instances where God makes a sure prediction, where the event predicted hinges on a free decision--such as Peter's faithfulness in being a martyr...

 

[RobE]

You need to first show me the flaw. Please explain more completely.

I don't understand the problem here. I think you are trying to point out the flaw in the argument, but you need to spell it out for me. What you say here is hardly understandable as English.

I'll attempt to do so.

Originally Posted by Yorzhik
Ok. (1)If God were telling you what your will is, then this would be valid. (2)But the test is to see if God can tell you how your palms will be, not what your will is.
(3)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.

In sentence #1 you state that the argument is completely valid if God is telling you what your will is.

In sentence #2 you deny that the test is for God to tell you what your will is.

In sentence #3 you propound "If you will and God says(what you will)​

Let's back up to the test and see:

Let's show this by example: God has decreed your palms will be up, but your will has determined that your palms will be the opposite of whatever God has decreed. God tells you his decree, and you change the decree because it is known... but changing a decree is a contradiction.

Again this specifically states that God 'tells' you His decree. You deny this in sentence #2 above.

Does this clarify the problem?

Wow... you don't seem to understand the concept of the script at all. The script being referenced here is the one written before the foundation of the earth. Are you saying we write the script before we exist? Or are you simply employing a cheap debate tactic and changing the definition of what the script is, not the one clearing being referenced here?

No. I'm telling you that God knows the script we will choose to write before we write it. Using this knowledge God has either A. decreed to allow us to write it or B. decreed to intervene and not allow us to write it.

But it's summed up in "God knows, but He cannot say". That's your quote; don't you see how weak your God is with that statement?

Perhaps I should have said, "According to your 'test', God knows and He cannot tell you because this would result in a logical contradiction." This exposes the problem with your test because it requires God to 'tell' you.

In other words a contradiction exists within your 'test'. The contradiction between 'God tells you' and 'you do the opposite' reduces the 'test' to an absurdity.

 

[RobE]

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?

Clete,

Until you argued that 'knowing' wasn't really 'knowing', I thought you had some depth. In order to have a substantive discussion, one must have a substantive subject. My crime has been believing what you say and no more. What are you talking about? Engage. Discuss. Teach.

I await your instruction.

Your Brother in Christ,

Rob Mauldin

 

[Philetus]

It is perfectly logical to hold that God is the continual source of all being without necessarily concluding that this gives him absolute power and control (or reason to exercise either) over all that issues from their existence. "In order to be the perpetual fons et origo from which everything derives its being moment by moment, what God has to be is not all powerful but inexhaustible" (Bishop J.V.Taylor): not power but patient persistence. God is long-suffering ... for sure!

God plays by his own rules; but play by the rules he does. If it were only a matter of exercising power over others, I'm sure God would have made Lee understand by now and made RobE vaporize some time ago. What fine examples of God's openness to the future without guarantee they both are.

Philetus

PS I love ya Lee and I hope you get to the conference. I'd ride with you but wouldn't want to leave early. :chuckle:

 

[Philetus]

Clete,

Until you argued that 'knowing' wasn't really 'knowing', I thought you had some depth. In order to have a substantive discussion, one must have a substantive subject.

Rob Mauldin

:bang:
If the subject is so meaningless, why don't you take a break for a month or so and let others who stay away because of you have it for a while?

Nothing wrong with the subject and in your case 'knowing' isn't 'knowing' at all. In order to have a substantive discussion, one must have a substantive counter. You don’t! Never have. And worst than that … you have never shown any capacity to learn from the discussion. You provide nothing in your posts that even hints that you understand the Open Theist’s position on anything. You are your own problem and you spread yourself way to thin.

Oh, brother, where art thou?

Philetus

 

[Clete]

Clete,

Until you argued that 'knowing' wasn't really 'knowing', I thought you had some depth.

I know that the word 'know' has a range of meaning and I also know that you are a complete blithering idiot.

In order to have a substantive discussion, one must have a substantive subject.

Then why do you stick around here wasting everyone's time? Is this an admission that you intentionally disrupt these conversations?

My crime has been believing what you say and no more.

If this were so, you wouldn't have to respond to what I say as though you and I agreed with one another.

What are you talking about?

This made me laugh! :rotfl:

Engage. Discuss. Teach.

Been there, done that. You are either incapable or unwilling to participate honestly.

I await your instruction.

You should learn to await my ridicule; you won't be getting anything else from me.

Your Brother in Christ,

Rob Mauldin

I wonder.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

I did get bounced from the Open Theism forum! I talked a bit with Greg Boyd there too, when it was his forum. He was not active when I got me-self banned.


But I don't assume this, I look for instances where God makes a sure prediction, where the event predicted hinges on a free decision--such as Peter's faithfulness in being a martyr...

Peter/Judas = proximal vs remote knowledge based on perfect past and present knowledge (not known from eternity past before they were born= EDF); also does not negate the more common unsettled/unknown passages.

 

[Yorzhik]

Ok. (1)If God were telling you what your will is, then this would be valid. (2)But the test is to see if God can tell you how your palms will be, not what your will is.
(3)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.

In sentence #1 you state that the argument is completely valid if God is telling you what your will is.

In sentence #2 you deny that the test is for God to tell you what your will is.

In sentence #3 you propound "If you will and God says(what you will)​

Let's back up to the test and see:

Let's show this by example: God has decreed your palms will be up, but your will has determined that your palms will be the opposite of whatever God has decreed. God tells you his decree, and you change the decree because it is known... but changing a decree is a contradiction

Again this specifically states that God 'tells' you His decree. You deny this in sentence #2 above.

Does this clarify the problem?

It clarifies that you have a problem with either reading or understanding. "Will" has 2 meanings; and the way "will" is used with either meaning in the scenario is clear. There is "will" as in desire and there is "will" as in to-be-done-in-the-future. You are confusing the 2. Consider that when I say "will be" you can replace it with "state is in the future". Okay?

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.

Wow... you don't seem to understand the concept of the script at all. The script being referenced here is the one written before the foundation of the earth. Are you saying we write the script before we exist? Or are you simply employing a cheap debate tactic and changing the definition of what the script is, not the one clearing being referenced here?

No. I'm telling you that God knows the script we will choose to write before we write it. Using this knowledge God has either A. decreed to allow us to write it or B. decreed to intervene and not allow us to write it.

And if it's already written in the mind of God, then our script is merely a copy. But what you are saying is that your god's script is also just a copy! When you say "God knows but cannot say the state of your palm" you relegate your god as the player in the script of the real God.

Perhaps I should have said, "According to your 'test', God knows and He cannot tell you because this would result in a logical contradiction." This exposes the problem with your test because it requires God to 'tell' you.

In other words a contradiction exists within your 'test'. The contradiction between 'God tells you' and 'you do the opposite' reduces the 'test' to an absurdity.

I rest my case. RobE, the test is something you can do, so the test itself cannot be absurd. However, it does show that exhaustive foreknowledge is absurd.

 

[lee_merrill]

Peter/Judas = proximal vs remote knowledge based on perfect past and present knowledge (not known from eternity past before they were born= EDF)

Yet how could God know that Peter would be faithful many years hence? What, Peter could not really choose otherwise? there was no chance he would again fail?

[this] also does not negate the more common unsettled/unknown passages.

The Open View will need major revision however, if God knows just one free choice before it is made.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Yet how could God know that Peter would be faithful many years hence? What, Peter could not really choose otherwise? there was no chance he would again fail?


The Open View will need major revision however, if God knows just one free choice before it is made.

Blessings,
Lee

It would be possible for Peter to fall away in the future like Judas did. I do not see a verse prohibiting this possibility.

Even men know free choices before they are made at times. There is room in OT to account for your exceptional e.g.

 

[lee_merrill]

It would be possible for Peter to fall away in the future like Judas did. I do not see a verse prohibiting this possibility.

Jesus however, was responding to Peter saying "You know all things" with this prediction. I don't think an estimate would be appropriate at such a moment.

Also, "truly, truly" means "this is really true," not "I think this is likely."

Even men know free choices before they are made at times.

But this is not certainty, people do act out of character, otherwise, they're just robots, as far as that choice, correct?

It seems we're trying to have it both ways here, Peter could have refused, but his choice was certain--now if Peter's free choice was known already, then he had no possibility of refusing? how then would this fixed choice¹ to remain faithful bring special glory to God?

Blessings,
Lee

[1] I'm adopting the Open View perspective here about known choices.

 

[RobE]

It clarifies that you have a problem with either reading or understanding. "Will" has 2 meanings; and the way "will" is used with either meaning in the scenario is clear. There is "will" as in desire and there is "will" as in to-be-done-in-the-future. You are confusing the 2. Consider that when I say "will be" you can replace it with "state is in the future". Okay?

The assumption here is that you are free to do. In this case what 'will be' is brought about and equivalent to your 'will'. Perhaps the problems aren't all mine.

Simply put, when speaking of a free choice what you 'will to do' and what you 'will do' are the same.

And if it's already written in the mind of God, then our script is merely a copy. But what you are saying is that your god's script is also just a copy! When you say "God knows but cannot say the state of your palm" you relegate your god as the player in the script of the real God.

What I'm saying is that God's chosen script(or decree) for you is based upon the script you freely choose. God knows what you will choose before you know what you will choose.

The assertion - "then our script is merely a copy" - is unfounded. Our script is the original. God did not choose for you to sin, or do right; you did. God merely allows you at times to do as you choose.

Does God know before your act because God exists atemporally or is it done through calculation?

I rest my case. RobE, the test is something you can do, so the test itself cannot be absurd. However, it does show that exhaustive foreknowledge is absurd.

No. You mis-interpret the findings. The test doesn't present the argument in a valid way. Prove the validity of your test. Perhaps with a syllogism.

The test is not something which can be done.

1. God foreknows = your choice.
2. Your choice = to do the opposite of what God foreknows.

One of the two are false. This is your point as I have understood it.

The falsehood is that in 2. "You will choose to do the opposite of 1. "your choice"

1. Your choice = what God foreknows
2. Your choice = ~(what God foreknows)

Summary: 3. Your choice <> your choice.

The error is in choosing to do the opposite of what God foreknows. It's impossible that you will choose the opposite of your choice. However, the question is not whether you 'will' choose, but whether you 'can' choose the opposite. Your 'test' does nothing to prove the latter. If it did you might have something.

The test is invalid so what does it prove and how does it prove it? Lay it out step-by-step.

 

[RobE]

:bang:
If the subject is so meaningless, why don't you take a break for a month or so and let others who stay away because of you have it for a while?

Nothing wrong with the subject and in your case 'knowing' isn't 'knowing' at all. In order to have a substantive discussion, one must have a substantive counter. You don’t! Never have. And worst than that … you have never shown any capacity to learn from the discussion. You provide nothing in your posts that even hints that you understand the Open Theist’s position on anything. You are your own problem and you spread yourself way to thin.

Oh, brother, where art thou?

Philetus

Speaking of proverbial returning dogs. How've you been?

 

[Philetus]

Speaking of proverbial returning dogs. How've you been?

Speaking of vomit; I've missed you too. :chuckle:

Phil