ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
themuzicman

themuzicman

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Sure it is. God knowing something doesn't take away my choice.
Click to expand...

If it is definitely known, then it cannot be contingent. That's the point of the syllogism. In those words, your decision is "now-necessary", which means that it is NOT contingent.

A contingent requires that there be more than one possible outcome. However, the outcome is already certain, and no other outcomes are possible at the moment you choose, thus, it cannot be contingent.

You're operating in a logical contradiction.

Muz
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
themuzicman said:
If it is definitely known, then it cannot be contingent. That's the point of the syllogism. In those words, your decision is "now-necessary", which means that it is NOT contingent.

A contingent requires that there be more than one possible outcome. However, the outcome is already certain, and no other outcomes are possible at the moment you choose, thus, it cannot be contingent.

You're operating in a logical contradiction.

Muz
Click to expand...

Fine. It's now necessary that I freely choose T.

This syllogism does not convince me that if God knows what I will
freely choose to do, then I'm a prisoner to do it. If I choose to do otherwise,
he foreknew it.
 
themuzicman

themuzicman

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Fine. It's now necessary that I freely choose T.
Click to expand...

:rotfl: (I think I found a new sig line. That's funny.)

You're the only person I know that thinks that something that is necessary is freely chosen. How much koolaid did you have to drink to believe that?

This syllogism does not convince me that if God knows what I will
freely choose to do, then I'm a prisoner to do it. If I choose to do otherwise,
he foreknew it.
Click to expand...

Well, if you want to continue to embrace a logical contradiction, you can do so, but don't expect to convince anyone else of what you believe.

Muz
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
themuzicman said:
:rotfl: (I think I found a new sig line. That's funny.)

You're the only person I know that thinks that something that is necessary is freely chosen. How much koolaid did you have to drink to believe that?

Muz
Click to expand...

Thank you. I dont drink koolaid, but I do enjoy mountain dew.
I like the new sig line almost as much as the one I used to have about you:

Apostle Paul: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
Muz: Flesh and blood CAN & WILL inherit the kingdom of God.

:chuckle:
 
elected4ever

elected4ever

New member
Philetus said:
Hey, Elected4ever, Longtime no space.

Then is God 'fool hardy' to have become flesh in order to make Himself known 'in a more perfect way"? Is it 'fool hardy' for God to expect us to know Him at all? The incarnation most certainly informs us as to the fact that God has limited Himself in order to relate to His creation. The closer the intimation the greater is the limitation from “you are free to eat from any tree” (make choices) to “He could do no miracles among them.” The ultimate limitation (as I see it) is God coming near without destroying us altogether. The very fact of our existence precludes God giving room or making space for us to exist as significant others.
Click to expand...
This is not related to the topic at hand Time and distance. Having said that this is also true, It has always been God's self revelation to man for the purpose of making man into His express image.

Philetus said:
Is God transcendent (independent of the world, existing outside the material universe and so not limited by it? Yes! But, transcendence viewed from within the created order means nothing. To understand God’s transcendence is to understand God drawing near, not remaining aloof.

Philetus
Click to expand...
How else would we know God if God had not made Himself known to us. As limited as our knowledge of God is we would not known God but by His initiative.
 
themuzicman

themuzicman

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Thank you. I dont drink koolaid, but I do enjoy mountain dew.
I like the new sig line almost as much as the one I used to have about you:

Apostle Paul: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
Muz: Flesh and blood CAN & WILL inherit the kingdom of God.

:chuckle:
Click to expand...

If you want to embarrass yourself like that, go for it. Clearly there are contextual issues that you simply refuse to deal with in that case, and if you want to put it out there, by all means do so.

Muz
 
themuzicman

themuzicman

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Did time exist before God created the universe?
Click to expand...

Created time? No.

However, it is necessary for God to experience a sequence of events in order for 'ex nihilo' creation to be possible, and for the Father's relationship with the Son to go from acceptance to forsaken to acceptance.

Thus, God experiences some kind of temporal existence.

Muz
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Perhaps you guys have answered this before, but I'll ask anyway.

Did God know from the beginning of the world that his Son would perform
the work of the Cross? Acts 2:23 KJV. Acts 15:18 KJV.
 
G

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Philetus said:
Great question.

I wonder what the settled viewers really consider to be at stake if they toss out EDF? Or if they have considered the gains.

Philetus
Click to expand...

They generally assume that a denial of EDF is a denial of omniscience and God's perfection (neither of which is true if properly understood apart from pagan philosophy or traditions that are not based on solid truth).

The issue is more about the openness of creation and its nature than about God and His attributes.
 
G

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
SaulToPaul said:
What God foreknew was realized when I made the choice.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between certain, actual, necessary, potential, probable, possible, contingent, etc. (modal logic). You blur these distinctions and fail to understand the logic presented by Clete and Muz and great thinkers in theological/philosophical circles that argue against 'eternal now', EDF, etc. (without compromising God's great attributes or biblical truth).
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
godrulz said:
You blur these distinctions and fail to understand the logic presented by Clete and Muz and great thinkers in theological/philosophical circles that argue against 'eternal now', EDF, etc. (without compromising God's great attributes or biblical truth).
Click to expand...

I fully understand their "logic".
 
G

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
SaulToPaul said:
I said it's certain to God, who in my view has EDF.
Click to expand...

Begging the question, circular reasoning, assuming what you are trying to prove. Assuming EDF does not prove it. Predestination or determinism would make EDF possible, but you reject this in favor of free will. Unfortunately, you cannot have your cake (EDF) and eat it too (libertarian free will)....you just don't see it...yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top