ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[SaulToPaul 2]

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

"I will" is not the same as "I must".

I will - implies choice
I must - no choice

Common sense tells me that if I know you are going to eat spaghetti tomorrow night, I didn't make you eat it. I didn't influence you to eat it. A mysterious force didn't force you to eat it. You chose to eat it.

A questionable syllogism with questionable logic doesn't prove to me that I should throw common sense out the window.

I could probably throw together a little geometric proof that seems logical
that shows that a right angle is 120 degrees instead of 90. Would you buy it and arrange your entire understanding of the Bible around it?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

What's the deal with "needing a soda"?

 

[Nick M]

Will, or shall, legally means no choice. It must happen.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Will, or shall, legally means no choice. It must happen.

STP: Nick, can I have $100?
Nick: I will give you $100.

No choice?

 

[godrulz]

STP: Nick, can I have $100?
Nick: I will give you $100.

No choice?

Semantics? Other e.g. could be given in a different context to mean something else?

Nick, can I have $100? No, I (Nick) will not give it to you or No, I do not have it to give to you.

Nick: I will give you $100. I will not give you $100. I cannot give it because I do not have it to give? I may or may not give it later.

 

[Ktoyou]

What about

1.God's being omniscient implies that God knows what Jones will do. Now Jones plans on mowing his lawn after work on Friday, so he can rest on Saturday, but Jones is too tired Friday night, thus he chooses to put off the mowing until Saturday afternoon, then God believed at an earlier time that Jones would think he would mow Friday night but Jones would choose to mow the lawn on Saturday afternoon. Jones is certain he made a free decision not to mow Friday night, but God knew what Jones would do regardless of his choice.

 

[godrulz]

:dizzy:

 

[RobE]

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).

Here's the post where I said "God knows but cannot say"......

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.

However if God allows you to act freely, then your will directs the placement of your palms. Your action is the outward sign of your will. Are you saying you 'willed' to put them 'down' and found them to be 'up'?

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.

Apparently it's not that simple. God could not tell you how your palms would be in this scenario because it would result in the opposite happening. However, God might know and tell others of the result; and, your actions would verify His knowledge.

Let's say God knows that your will is to do the opposite of what He says to do.

God decreed before creation that you would put your palms 'up'.

How might God effectively carry out His decree?

I see two possibilities:

1. God foreknows you will put your palms up so God allows you to do so(through providing you hands, a will, and the environment in which to commit the action. Also He does not intervene to stop you.).
2. God foreknows you will put your palms down so He must intervene to accomplish His decree. He intervenes by saying you should put your palms 'down' which results in you putting your palms 'up'.​

Is God culpable for either action? Did God make you place your palms 'up' or 'down' in either instance or did you act freely?

Did God 'trick' you into putting them 'up' or was it your will to do the opposite of what He said to do?

"Nineveh, Nineveh, Where for art thou, Nineveh?"

First of all the quote you attribute to me is deduced in yours: Post 6695 Other posts of interest include: 6559 and 6697.

Yorzhik: Now you can stand on your stump and proclaim, "RobE says God cannot say! Robe says God cannot say! Robe says God cannot say!, Hee Hee!" until the cows come home; but it does not take away from the reality that you set the conditions by proclaiming that the one who hears wills to do the opposite of what is said.

In the cases of prophecy -

....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)

- not every individual who has heard prophecy has determined to do the opposite of what God says. Let's stretch the analysis out to its limits. What, if anything, have you proven here? If this is your dilemna then the waters are shallow. The dilemna is created by your own assumption:

Yorzhik: You will to do the opposite of what God foreknows! Aha, Rob says God cannot say!​

Let's look at the post where you acknowledge that my point is valid: 6557

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.

You state in this post, 6557, that if God were telling you what your will is, then this would be valid.

Guess what, God foretelling how you would willingly place your palms IS God foretelling what your will is.

However, because the original scenario is absurd in nature: God would be unable to tell you of His knowledge because it would result in ____________________. Fill in the blank yourself.

Do you see how all of your 'exhibits' rely on your own false assumption and are predicated by your given stipulation that one wills to do the opposite of what one wills(or what God foreknows your will is)?

Why don't you provide your original scenario and disprove my objection?

 

[RobE]

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

Muz,

As a reasonable person, you should see that 'CANNOT be otherwise' speaks to a present condition. When speaking of the same action 'Will not be otherwise' is the correct expression for a future event. In either case the necessity, of God knowing T, then T; is only necessary when together. God knowing T is necessary separately as acknowledged by the fixity of the past. The phrase 'then T', however is contingent and unnecessary since it does not yet exist and is not yet timelessly true.

Language is a barrier here.

Under modal logic, necessary propositions are said to be necessary at all possible worlds, while contingent propositions may occur at some worlds but fail to occur at others. If a proposition is necessary, it is necessary at all worlds and at all times. It is a timelessly necessary proposition that one cannot square a circle. It is timelessly necessary that 2 + 2 = 4. It is timelessly necessary that certain numbers are prime. And so on. At all possible worlds, such propositions are true.

Right now, looking into the future; both T and ~T are possible(unlike God's knowledge which is a past fixed object) since the fixity of the past doesn't apply to the future. Why? Because T occurring is not yet a timeless truth. Once T occurs it will become one.

God's knowledge is a timeless, necessary description apart and separate from the contingent truth it describes; this truth will become a timeless truth in the future once it occurs. At that point then you are able to say necessarily T, but not until it occurs.

 

[Clete]

What about

1.God's being omniscient implies that God knows what Jones will do. Now Jones plans on mowing his lawn after work on Friday, so he can rest on Saturday, but Jones is too tired Friday night, thus he chooses to put off the mowing until Saturday afternoon, then God believed at an earlier time that Jones would think he would mow Friday night but Jones would choose to mow the lawn on Saturday afternoon. Jones is certain he made a free decision not to mow Friday night, but God knew what Jones would do regardless of his choice.

None of this matters. The mowing of the lawn is just an arbitrarily chosen example of a choice someone might make. It could just as easily have been answering the telephone at 9:00am tomorrow morning or shaving your left side of your face before the right or jumping for half an hour on one foot or merely thinking about jumping for half an hour on one foot. You can fill that blank in with anything you want and the argument remains completely valid.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nick M]

How about outside of heaven? As in, before Gen 1:1. An hour still an hour?
How about the interval between the passing away of the current heaven/earth
and the new heaven/earth? An hour still an hour? How many hours will it take
for the Great White throne judgment to finish? I imagine some will be standing there watching & waiting for months?

The innocent blood shed asks when will they have justice.

 

[RobE]

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

Muz

Another objection:

But why must it happen? Is it because it's your will for it to happen? If so, then you see that doing otherwise is a superfluous part of free will's description. Doing otherwise is unnecessary to the result.

Must it happen because you can and will do it? Is it fair to say the fact you can do it might not result in you doing it? So how is the opposite of you will answer the phone become you can't do otherwise?

Is it fair to say it must happen because you cannot do otherwise when the entirety of the proof(including the given) is stated in the terms of your willingness and not in the terms of your ability?

Why does #7 suddenly speak to ability when the rest of the proof speaks to willingness? Given: God knows you will answer the phone tommorrow at 9.

I will admit that you can't do it because you won't do it, but that's the only reason. This being the case: Is it fair to say free will is gone through the exercise of your free will? The proof is flawed.

 

[Nick M]

RobE, are you going to answer my question in the other thread? You were off a couple of days. Or are you just ducking it?

 

[Ktoyou]

None of this matters. The mowing of the lawn is just an arbitrarily chosen example of a choice someone might make. It could just as easily have been answering the telephone at 9:00am tomorrow morning or shaving your left side of your face before the right or jumping for half an hour on one foot or merely thinking about jumping for half an hour on one foot. You can fill that blank in with anything you want and the argument remains completely valid.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I agree that act is arbitrary, I am not quite that stupid to assume otherwise. My point is, if one Jones thinks he makes a choice, then from his perspective, he is making a choice. He may plan to do one thing, then do another, or the same at a later time. I choose to respond now; no one is forcing me to respond. This does not mean God is not aware ahead of this time that I would respond.

The question is, what real difference is it if one believes he or she is making a choice, if God has foreknowledge, or not, the person still thinks he or she made the decision freely. This is where one needs to demonstrate how exactly God’s foreknowledge has a conscious effect on one’s actions. If it should be ordained, but we are not aware of it, we think we choose and that idea would be the same whether or not we know it.

 

[lee_merrill]

Time is unidirectional. Time travel is not possible. It is speculative sci-fi...

This is serious science, actually--t'was the point of mentioning it. An infinite swirling cylinder of light can bend time in to a circle, if Mallett's analysis is correct.

God is not making them get saved, he just knows they will be saved. How does he know? Read revelation. God will be doing some "pruning."

So the "all who will be saved will be saved," but this hardly needed stating!

But how can God know that some will repent? Can they not all refuse? I have heard these answers before, and to repeat them is not to "answer the question." You must then answer my reply!

Blessings,
Lee

 

[patman]

This is serious science, actually--t'was the point of mentioning it. An infinite swirling cylinder of light can bend time in to a circle, if Mallett's analysis is correct.


So the "all who will be saved will be saved," but this hardly needed stating!

But how can God know that some will repent? Can they not all refuse? I have heard these answers before, and to repeat them is not to "answer the question." You must then answer my reply!

Blessings,
Lee

Not understanding an answer is not the same as not getting one.

You asked how does God know? Because he is smart!

I am going to have to be blunt. It won't sound nice, but I know of no other way to say it at this point.

You asked "Can not all refuse?" No. It is dumb to think that there is even chance that no one would accept Christ. Dumb. What possible reason would one have to think no one would be saved?

Lee, God made us. He knows us inside and out. He knows our desires. He knows what decisions we are likely to make.

The only thing God doesn't know about us are the things we are yet to define. That is why God tests us.

But it is dumb to even consider that no one would be saved.

The greatest minds of our day have come up with the mathematical study of probability and statistics. Ever heard of it?

Given enough data, some really amazing projections can be made. Give a man a big enough calculator, a detailed log book, some paper and some time and he can figure out many things about trends and demographics. If a simple man can do this, how much better God?

 

[patman]

Well, Patrick, their are lies being told here, but not by God. They are being told by yourself to yourself. The future is not settled even though knowledge of it may be settled. For some reason this eludes you.

Also, God saying you 'will be destroyed' and destruction not occurring is a lie by your standard. Why don't you examine your position a little more closely, before calling kettles black.

Right. Way to answer, Rob. Instead of tackling the problem I presented head on, you call me a hypocrite and totally ignore any implications it has for you.

How many times do I have to explain what a lie is? It is knowingly misrepresenting a fact. God isn't lying if he doesn't know he will change his mind in the future.

Your settled knowledge idea is dumb, too. I catered to it by even appending the word "knowledge" to the word "settled" in my last post. It is the "knowledge" that is damning!

Why do I even answer you anyway. It is useless. You don't even consider what is being posted.

I celebrate "fellowship week" all year, I am taking this week off when it comes to you. I don't care if the Mods ban me, at least I won't be wasting any more time on you.

If you can't see that if God's future KNOWLEDGE says one thing, and he proclaims something contrary to it is a lie, then you are an XXXXX.

(I couldn't say it. It starts with "i" tho)

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

RobE, are you going to answer my question in the other thread? You were off a couple of days. Or are you just ducking it?

This one?

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1712786&postcount=196

 

[RobE]

Right. Way to answer, Rob. Instead of tackling the problem I presented head on, you call me a hypocrite and totally ignore any implications it has for you.

I know you're committed to the idea that God is a liar, even though I've made my best attempt at showing you the truth.

How many times do I have to explain what a lie is? It is knowingly misrepresenting a fact. God isn't lying if he doesn't know he will change his mind in the future.

Such as knowing something is uncertain and proclaiming it to be certain.

Your settled knowledge idea is dumb, too. I catered to it by even appending the word "knowledge" to the word "settled" in my last post. It is the "knowledge" that is damning!

By your account. I have explained before.

Why do I even answer you anyway. It is useless. You don't even consider what is being posted.

Sure I do. It's the same old stuff that's been posted between us for 3 years. I've explained that Jonah knew the Ninevites would repent. Was Jonah smarter than open theism's god? I've explained that God is able to carry out His word, but Hezekiah knew God might save him even though God said, "You will not recover."

Claiming that God is ignorant is not a valid excuse for your position. God is not ignorant, nor is He a man who changes His mind. Now, find a defense for your position which isn't rooted in the idea that God is ignorant; and apply that defense to my position. At that point we'll be done with this subject.

 

[Clete]

I agree that act is arbitrary, I am not quite that stupid to assume otherwise.

It was not my intention to suggest that you are stupid. I'm never quite that subtle in that regard.

My point is, if one Jones thinks he makes a choice, then from his perspective, he is making a choice.

So if from your perspective you are the chosen one and have been given a mission from God to kill all the Jews (for example) does that make it so?

How is the illusion of choice the same as really making a choice?

He may plan to do one thing, then do another, or the same at a later time. I choose to respond now; no one is forcing me to respond.

How do you know this? Perhaps not only your choice is an illusion but your entire life! Do you believe that since you are unaware of an overriding influence that therefore none exists? There are all sorts of things going on around you that you are completely unaware of. Do they not exist either?

How do you know that no one is forcing you to do the things you do?

I have a coherent answer to that question, do you?

This does not mean God is not aware ahead of this time that I would respond.

If God has certain advanced knowledge of T where T=any specific action you take then T was not done freely. That's what we've proven with more than one rational argument. Your having simply stated otherwise does nothing to refute those arguments.

The question is, what real difference is it if one believes he or she is making a choice, if God has foreknowledge, or not, the person still thinks he or she made the decision freely.

The difference is the same as the difference between reality and illusion. In your view choice is an illusion. That might actually be a coherent position but only if you accept God's justice, righteousness and love as illusionary as well. I wouldn't think that to be a very desirable position for a Christian to take.

This is where one needs to demonstrate how exactly God’s foreknowledge has a conscious effect on one’s actions. If it should be ordained, but we are not aware of it, we think we choose and that idea would be the same whether or not we know it.

The issue of consciousness is entirely irrelevant to the issue because a man cannot be rightly punished for an action if he could not have acted otherwise.

It it further irrelevant because actions are not just physical. We are held responsible and will give an account to God for our every thought, word and deed. What we believe and think are actions of the mind and so the syllogism applies just as effectively to what we believe as it does to what we physically do, as was my point in my first response to you. Make T="Jones believes there is no one forcing him to mow his lawn." Now the syllogism isn't about the actual mowing of the lawn but about Jones' belief, and it proves that what he believes was not believed freely. In short, rather than solving the problem, all you've done is move the problem back a step.

Resting in Him,
Clete