ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[godrulz]

I won't be standing in line for the Great White Throne or the tree of life.
If you're in the Body of Christ, you won't either.

Now, carry on with your silly banter...

Clete gave strong biblical support for time in eternity (there are a few other verses in Revelation). Response?

Eternity does not have to mean timelessness (Augustinian/Platonic assumption). It is shown to be endless time from Gen. to Rev.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Clete gave strong biblical support for time in eternity (there are a few other verses in Revelation). Response?

Eternity does not have to mean timelessness (Augustinian/Platonic assumption). It is shown to be endless time from Gen. to Rev.

My response to Mr. Philetus wasnt about time, but dispensational truth.

I certainly hope that you aren't planning to be judged at the Great White Throne,
or planning to need to eat of the tree of life which is for the "healing of the nations."

 

[RobE]

I notice that RobE is still up to his old tricks.

Hey Rob, you should go find even older arguments that everyone here has refuted a dozen times and repeat those too!

Or better yet! You could just repost the same argument (it doesn't matter which one - just pick one) over and over and over and over again for like say fifty or sixty times in a row and then maybe by some magic the word necessary with flip upside down and turn purple after which time it will suddenly become a perfect synonym of the word contingent! If that happens you'll win the whole debate! Wow! What a technique! Good luck with that.

Excuse me now while I go over here to hold my breath.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete. I realize you think that it being impossible that you won't do something equates to you not being able to do it.

Consider:

You won't do things which you can't do. --- True.
You won't do things that you can do. --- True.
You can do things you won't do. --- True.
You can't do things you won't do. --- False.

Only the last one of these things is false. Your proof relies on it being true. No games.

To say you:

(6) So it is now-necessary that you will answer the phone tommorrow at 9. [3,4,5]

(7) If it is now-necessary that you will answer the phone tommorrow at 9, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of "necessary"]​

This is saying you can't do things you won't do. Now if this has been disproven several times over as you state, I would appreciate a link to the post which has done so. I'm sure you won't take the time or trouble to do so, but it never hurts to ask.

 

[RobE]

Why do we take this black kettle off ignore ... eternal optimism? :idunno:

Some think of God saying you 'will be destroyed' (the true consequence of sin) and destruction not occurring as salvation by grace through faith - not a lie. The water shed issue is (IMHO) that sin pays a wage, but the gift of God is eternal life. The consequence of sin is overturned by the gracious action of God in Christ through the Spirit. God has nothing to do with causing sin ... just correcting it.

Philetus

My point was that this is the same type of argument being levied against my position. It's false, either way.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

So you aren't sure? You've been saying all along that God knowing a choice does not remove a person's will. How much more so for a being that wasn't God that merely knew the same choice but had nothing to do with it? Shouldn't it be a whole-hearted "yes!"?

Okay, I'm ready to get to the meat of your point.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Clete. I realize you think that it being impossible that you won't do something equates to you not being able to do it.

Consider:

You won't do things which you can't do. --- True.
You won't do things that you can do. --- True.
You can do things you won't do. --- True.
You can't do things you won't do. --- False.

Only the last one of these things is false. Your proof relies on it being true. No games.

To say you:

(6) So it is now-necessary that you will answer the phone tommorrow at 9. [3,4,5]

(7) If it is now-necessary that you will answer the phone tommorrow at 9, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of "necessary"]​

This is saying you can't do things you won't do. Now if this has been disproven several times over as you state, I would appreciate a link to the post which has done so. I'm sure you won't take the time or trouble to do so, but it never hurts to ask.

:think: RobE has always made a lot of sense to me.

 

[themuzicman]

:think: RobE has always made a lot of sense to me.

Rob's error is that he fails to realize that those things that are necessary CANNOT be otherwise, and not merely won't be otherwise. He's trying to change that term.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

My response to Mr. Philetus wasnt about time, but dispensational truth.

I certainly hope that you aren't planning to be judged at the Great White Throne,
or planning to need to eat of the tree of life which is for the "healing of the nations."

Correct. My sins were judged on the cross. His death provided redemption for my sins. The GWT is for the unregenerate and millenial saints who die, not the Church.

I will be judged at the Bema Seat of Christ during the Tribulation after the rapture in heaven. It is a judgment of works/rewards, not faith/destiny/sin.

I am not a Trib or Millennial saint eating trees. I will be raptured before this with a glorified body, a heavenly vs earthly hope.

 

[godrulz]

Rob's error is that he fails to realize that those things that are necessary CANNOT be otherwise, and not merely won't be otherwise. He's trying to change that term.

Muz

Modal logic is relevant. It would also be helpful to understand middle knowledge and counterfactuals of freedom (though Molinism is incorrect; will/will not, might/might not, etc.). The discussions get technical and beyond my scope.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I am not a Trib or Millennial saint eating trees. I will be raptured before this with a glorified body, a heavenly vs earthly hope.

Is this to the Church/the Body , then? Rev 2:7 KJV.

 

[themuzicman]

Modal logic is relevant. It would also be helpful to understand middle knowledge and counterfactuals of freedom (though Molinism is incorrect; will/will not, might/might not, etc.). The discussions get technical and beyond my scope.

The key is that the event is necessary. It then MUST happen.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

Is this to the Church/the Body , then? Rev 2:7 KJV.

The context is to Ephesian (Pauline) Christians. The paradise of God can refer to heaven and is identified with the New Jerusalem, the heavenly city in the eternal state. The tree may be symbolic for life since we do not literally have to eat fruit to live forever. The historical church at Ephesus was not a Jewish Christian Church, but contains Paul's profound truths of the gospel. I would not proof text this verse to try to teach MAD since it is clearly about Ephesus, not just Jewish Christians before Paul.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

What do you guys make of this?:


Fatalism argues:

1. Necessarily, any event that God foreknows will happen.
2. God foreknows x.
3. Therefore, necessarily x will happen.
However, this argument is not logically correct. It is incorrect to include that (3) is necessary as only one of its premises is necessary. Instead the argument must be:

1. Necessarily, any event that God foreknows will happen.
2. God foreknows x.
3. Therefore, x will happen.
But this is no longer fatalism as it no longer concludes that an event must happen - it only concludes that that it will happen.


Dave Bryant - www.cloudsofheaven.org

 

[themuzicman]

Looks like a strawman to me, if you're responding to the other syllogism.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

I won't be standing in line for the Great White Throne or the tree of life.
If you're in the Body of Christ, you won't either.

Now, carry on with your silly banter...

Sourpuss. :rain:

I just don't think there will be lines in heaven ... or 'breakfast in heaven after eleven'. :noway:

The point was about standing in line for months in heaven where you indicated there would be no time in eternity. Nice duck!

Sorry, I'll try to straighten up.
Philetus

 

[Philetus]

What do you guys make of this?:


Fatalism argues:

1. Necessarily, any event that God foreknows will happen.
2. God foreknows x.
3. Therefore, necessarily x will happen.
However, this argument is not logically correct. It is incorrect to include that (3) is necessary as only one of its premises is necessary. Instead the argument must be:

1. Necessarily, any event that God foreknows will happen.
2. God foreknows x.
3. Therefore, x will happen.
But this is no longer fatalism as it no longer concludes that an event must happen - it only concludes that that it will happen.


Dave Bryant - www.cloudsofheaven.org

If it looks like a duck .....
Sorry again, I just couldn't help it. It was totally unnecessary but foreknown.



Honestly, at what point in time and who exactly determined that a foreknown event would in fact but not necessarily happen?

So, if we can't call it 'fatalism' what do you purpose we call it?

Fatalism:

• the philosophical doctrine according to which all events are fated to happen, so that human beings cannot change their destinies
• the belief that people are powerless against fate
• an attitude of resignation and passivity that results from the belief that people are powerless against fate​

Philetus

 

[Clete]

What do you guys make of this?:


Fatalism argues:

1. Necessarily, any event that God foreknows will happen.
2. God foreknows x.
3. Therefore, necessarily x will happen.
However, this argument is not logically correct. It is incorrect to include that (3) is necessary as only one of its premises is necessary. Instead the argument must be:

1. Necessarily, any event that God foreknows will happen.
2. God foreknows x.
3. Therefore, x will happen.
But this is no longer fatalism as it no longer concludes that an event must happen - it only concludes that that it will happen.


Dave Bryant - www.cloudsofheaven.org

This post makes no sense. You effectively claim premise one as valid and then argue that it is not. The first syllogism is correct. But so is the second. They are identical. You don't have to say the word necessary in order for it to be there; its implied. In any rational argument if the premises are true and the argument sound the conclusion is necessarily true. Dave Bryant either doesn't know what he's talking about or else he is playing games and being intentionally deceptive. I would guess that it is the former.

Here's an earlier portion of the same article by Mr. Bryant...

To recap, the English philosopher Nelson Pike argued the following, assuming that there is a hypothetical individual called Jones, who on Saturday afternoon mows his lawn.

1. God's being omniscient implies that if Jones mows his lawn on Saturday afternoon, then God believed at an earlier time that Jones would mow his lawn on Saturday afternoon.
2. Necessarily, all of God's beliefs are true.
3. No one has the power to make a contradiction true.
4. No one has the power to erase someone's past beliefs, that is, to bring it about that something believed in the past by someone was not believed in the past by that person.
5. No one has the power to erase someone's existence in the past, that is, to bring it about that someone who did exist in the past did not exist in the past.
6. So if God believed that Jones would mow his lawn on Saturday afternoon, Jones can refrain from mowing only if one of these conditions is true:
(i) Jones has the power to make God's belief false.
(ii) Jones has the power to erase God's past belief.
(iii) Jones has the power to erase God's past existence.
7. Alternative (i) is impossible. (This follows from steps 2 and 3).
8. Alternative (ii) is impossible. (This follows from step 4).
9. Alternative (iii) is impossible. (This follows from step 5).
10. Therefore, if God believes that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday afternoon, Jones does not have the power to refrain from mowing his lawn on Saturday afternoon.

This argument can also be slightly rephrased if we assume that God is timeless rather than temporal, but it remains very similar.

The only premise that is really available to deny is (6) by finding another alternative. We cannot deny (1) or (2) without saying that God is not omniscient. All the other premises are fairly simple logic and so cannot be denied (without serious problems).

So does an alternative escape route exist that allows us to deny premise (6)? I think there is.

(iv) Jones has the power to act differently, and were he to act differently, God would have foreknown that instead.​

This made me laugh! :rotfl:

He's replaced premise six alright but by doing so he denies both premise 1 and 2, which he just got through saying he cannot do without saying that God is not omniscient! Premise six cannot be denied without denying premises one and two as it is directly based upon them. Premise six can be reworded as follows, "Given premise 1 and premise 2, Jones can refrain from mowing only if one of these conditions is true...". Mr. Bryant's modified premise 6 isn't really a modification of premise six at all. Its really just a change of premise one and therefore Mr. Bryant, by his own admission has just defeated his own theological worldview.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Yorzhik]

I haven't put myself into a dilmna at all except within your thinking. The best course would probably for you to review our entire conversation before continuing.

The 'gap' seems to occur because you fail to recognize that the state of your palms is your will. Until this is resolved you will continue to struggle.

The argument you created doesn't allow God to speak to you what the outcome is without changing it. This has no bearing on a 'puppet state' or any other illusional condition you wish to place on the situtation. Re-read our discussion for clarity.

Just as Jesus said, "Do it quickly!". In your 'test', you have simply made your own ideas the thing which is greater than God and yourself by determining what God and you will do respectively. It proves nothing. Re-read our discussion and you'll see that you have already conceded my position if your own will is determining the outcome instead of God.

It's nice you feel this way. However, you've offered no proof as to God not being able to calculate/know anything. You've only established a condition in which God is not able to tell you/speak to you His knowledge beforehand without creating a dilemna.

It's saying that in effect God's knowledge of your choice and your choice being the opposite of God's knowledge is an absurdity. Your idea is absurd based on the idea that God's knowledge cannot be the opposite of God's knowledge....Just as, your free choice can't be the opposite of your free choice. This is essentially what you ask for proof of. Your thinking is trapped by your own cleverness. Absurd questions yield absurd answers. Step back and have a look.

I'm saying that your question, which is absurd, produces absurdity. I've said nothing about reality, but have only discussed the absurdity within your question.

RobE, you truly are someone who needs to have a soda of immense proportions. If it weren't for the fact that STP said that he thinks you make sense, I'd have to put you on ignore just to save time. But, STP thinks you make sense so I'll to answer you.

Exhibit 1: "I haven't put myself into a dilmna at all" - "God knows but cannot say" It's your quote, it's your dilemma. STP... do you realize RobE is not making sense here? STP, understand that every time God gives a prophecy that "He's saying" (palms, births, whether people are going to repent... it's all the same to God).

Exhibit 2: "you fail to recognize that the state of your palms is your will" The state of any physical object is not the will of the object. Despite God or man willing objects to be here or there, the state of the object before during and after the choice is made is not the choice itself. STP... do you realize RobE is not making sense here? That it doesn't matter where you will your body parts, they end up somewhere... just like births and names and everything else God has prophecy'd.

Exhibit 3: "In your 'test', you have simply made your own ideas the thing which is greater than God and yourself by determining what God and you will do respectively." I didn't determine what God and you will do respectively... to say such a thing doesn't make sense. STP do you see that the scenario simply makes my own ideas the thing which is greater than God only if a man has a will?

Exhibit 4: "It proves nothing. Re-read our discussion and you'll see that you have already conceded my position if your own will is determining the outcome instead of God." If our will determines the outcome instead of God, then God does not know the outcome BY DEFINITION. STP, do you see that man having a will causes God to know but not to say? Consider you've given the analogy of seeing a tape of the future - could there possibly be anything on that tape you could see and not way what was happening?

Exhibit 5: "However, you've offered no proof as to God not being able to calculate/know anything. You've only established a condition in which God is not able to tell you/speak to you His knowledge beforehand without creating a dilemna." God in a dilemma... you realize you're saying God gets Himself into a dilemma every time He prophecy's? STP, you realize that God getting into a dilemma like this doesn't make sense?

Exhibit 6: "It's saying that in effect God's knowledge of your choice and your choice being the opposite of God's knowledge is an absurdity." What it's saying is that man having will changes what is possible in the future, unlike man having had will for events in the past does not change events in the past. It's your quote -

God can know but He cannot say

 

[Yorzhik]

But this is no longer fatalism as it no longer concludes that an event must happen - it only concludes that that it will happen.

Um... STP? You do realize that "must" and "will" have the same meaning in this context?

 

[Yorzhik]

I'm sorry, I forgot what this point of discussion was about.

We were determining if you can honestly answer if a computer program is, in essence, creation + foreknowledge.

Just because I can make you blink by popping a balloon behind you doesn't mean you have no free will--one action I cause doesn't mean no free will at any time.

Way to prove my point. If you want to equate an involuntary act (blinking when a balloon is popped) to a voluntary act (turning your palms), then the very thing you are saying is that man does not have will. There is no place to draw the line between where God is responsible for an event or man is responsible for an event.

But this is very plain, what do you think Jesus meant about calling people terms such as airheads (a rather literal English counterpart of "raca") or fools?

I think the word "about" is causing this sentence to not make sense. Did you mean "by"?

If you did mean "by"'; Jesus called people names to shame them, renounce them, and to show them the truth.

And truth be told - you need a soda.