justchristian
New member
Their "rational impossibilty" that free will requires an open future. And an open future requires God not knowing what will happen for sure.
Does God know the future?
- Thread starter intro2faith
- Start date
So open theism must be true because we cannot have freewill and for God to know the future at the same time. An all powerful God whos knowledge and power is beyond our means.
So Clete your 'rational impossibility' is that God knows more than you could understand.....there's a contradiction right there!
So Clete your 'rational impossibility' is that God knows more than you could understand.....there's a contradiction right there!
This will be the last post I make on this thread. Eccl, is to stupid to even understand the argument and I'm not going to repeat myself again.
An open future (and thus Open Theism) must be true because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.
The contrary being a closed future which is mutually exclusive of love. God is love. Love is the central theme of all Christianity. If love is impossible so is the Christian faith and if the Christian faith is not possible all of what we could call rationality goes out the window with it.
Love requires the ability to do or to do otherwise, or put another way, we must choose to love. If I cannot do or do otherwise there is no choice and therefore love is impossible because love is a choice, by definition.
An abbreviated version of the syllogism goes like this...
This logic is iron clad; it cannot be escaped by any rational means. Closed Theism is therefore rationally impossible and since the only logical alternative is Open Theism, it must be the truth.
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." — Sherlock Holmes in "A Scandal in Bohemia" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Resting in Him,
Clete
An open future (and thus Open Theism) must be true because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.
The contrary being a closed future which is mutually exclusive of love. God is love. Love is the central theme of all Christianity. If love is impossible so is the Christian faith and if the Christian faith is not possible all of what we could call rationality goes out the window with it.
Love requires the ability to do or to do otherwise, or put another way, we must choose to love. If I cannot do or do otherwise there is no choice and therefore love is impossible because love is a choice, by definition.
An abbreviated version of the syllogism goes like this...
- Freedom of choice means I have the ability to choose to do or to do otherwise.
- Love must be chosen.
- Therefore if I have no freedom of choice I cannot love.
- If the future is closed I cannot do other than what the closed future has in store for me to do, I cannot do otherwise.
- Therefore if the future is closed I have no freedom of choice.
- Therefore if the future is closed I cannot love.
- The inability to love is antithetical to everything Christianity is about.
- Therefore the future cannot be closed if Christianity is true at all.
- Christianity must be true because of the rational impossiibilty of the contrary (I will not establish this point).
- Therefore the future is open.
This logic is iron clad; it cannot be escaped by any rational means. Closed Theism is therefore rationally impossible and since the only logical alternative is Open Theism, it must be the truth.
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." — Sherlock Holmes in "A Scandal in Bohemia" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
Clete said:
Why is a closed future mutually exclusive of love? A closed future doesn't necessary mean an absence of free will. God is omnipotent....seeing things from his point of view and understanding what He can do is gonna be pretty difficult. If I can see and experience the effexts of time dilation in our physical world it is a given that an omnipotent God can see and witness it too however but you resist even this.
You how ever are postering that this is not the case, and further more you are saying what He can't do because it is beyond you ability to reason it. But God is beyond our reason by your own admission.
So straight away the argument you present is built on a foundation of what God cannot do by your fallible reasoning. Proven fallible by your inability to grasp physics. Even before I began your metaphysical argument.
'Whoosh' goes another argument Clete.
Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character Clete.
deardelmar said:
Its a contradiction isn't it. I know. Its a contradiction because its open-theism carried through logically. Its not my philosophy. Its not what I believe. But as soon as they accept time dilation as a concept....open theism becomes contradictory.
Why do you think the Vatican employs physicists these days? Why do you think practically nobody supports open theism?
Open Theism has swallowed its own tail.
deardelmar said:
I didn't argue that...I argued that if open theism ends up accepting dilation then it becomes contradictory.....your contradiction 'physical'.
Which has since become irrelevant because of Clete's metaphysical argument. If the metaphysical argument is removed then there's nothing to debate regarding Open Theism and the answer to the thread is 'no-one knows'. Clete's argument was that open theism must be so, because it is illogical for something beyond my reasoning to be so. Why must free will be exclusive to open theism? Just because you find it confusing why should it be beyond God. After all GR/SR/Time dilation was already beyond the open theist. Considering the physical nature of time I wouldn't assume to know what God/nature still has in store for us still to come. Open Theism however has already decided and dictated to its congregation.
I'm still getting over 'infinite past' :LoJo:
Last edited:
godrulz said:
"Assuming time is a physical thing"......you position has consistently been opposed to this. It's not the achilles 'heel' to your argument, its a full on cardiac arrest. Open Theism reasoning logically with dilation leads to several contradictions regarding the philosophy. Like I said before, you will see open theism swallowing its own tail.
Kinda like ouroboros.....the irony is killing me.
Everglaze said:
God knows some of the future as settled (many prophecies are judgments that God has the ability to bring to pass, including Satan's doom). He also knows some of the future as possible/probable/unsettled/open (many prophecies are conditional and could go either way depending on human response). God knows all that is knowable. Exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies are correctly known as possibilities, not certainties, until the choices are made.
Time dilation and Einstein are not relevant to these self-evident concepts.
eccl3_6 said:
I think you are commiting a reductionist logical fallacy. You are making a complex issue to simple. You cannot rely on a physical argument alone when the issue of free will, contingencies, knowledge (epistemology), etc. are moral vs metaphysical/physical. You cannot divorce disciplines of logic, philosophy, etc., from your speculative science. Clocks on mountains or astronauts do not resolve the intricacies of God's nature and relationship to time and creation.
Shoo fly, don't bother me. Stick to chemical reactions until you are ready to consider the philosphical, biblical, and theological debate surrounding the issue (that does not rely on your view of time dilation).
eccl3_6 said:
Why not refute the logic of the paragraph without physical science? If time is not a created thing, your science is inconclusive. If it is physical only, then you should be able to give logical/philosophical refutation in addition to so-called science (that cannot fully deal with free will issues, right?). The future is not here yet. Get over it. This is good news since fatalism does not rule us. Freedom reigns!
godrulz said:
'God' has granted me intellect and reasoning, why should I forgo them? You ask, "Why not refute logic of the paragraph without physical science?"
Because it would be like looking at a Picasso with one eye shut.
Wrong way round....science (what exactly is my science?) conclusively states that time is a product of creation.
I highlight a contradiction in open theism through applying observation (observation of nature - science) and logic. Free-will is more of a metaphysical argument....I don't need to go there to refute open theism. However I have gone there with Clete when I said freewill need not be exclusive to open theism just because you find it awkward to rationalise. Once again Open Theism tries to box in their deity.
No the present is.....whats that got to do with the price of fish?
Open Theism cannot accept modern physics because it brings its own contradictions to the fore...which is why you still deny general relativity, special relativity and any spin off discoveries. Even though you use practical applications of this science every day of your lives.
Apply physical logic instead of metaphysical reasoning and open theism joins the Dinosaurs.
In the Evolution of Faith, Open Theism has become over specialised.
....a metaphysical argument doesn't fair much better either as Clete found out! :doh:
Last edited:
Raw science cannot solve all issues such as love and morality. Free will is very relevant to the open theism debate. Do you know anything about supra vs infralapsarianism? Calvinism vs Arminianism? Various views on sovereignty and free will? If you will not engage these theological issues, you should pack your bags and go to a science or atheism forum. Science does not deal with all areas of knowledge. We are not anti-science, but it does have limited value in the Open Theism debate (which does talk about chaos theory and quantum mechanics). Assuming your understanding is infallible (scientists have various views on your pet theories) and misrepresenting open theism does not prove your point.
godrulz said:
Nobody said it could....more diversionary tactics.
Have I talked about them. No. More diversionary tactics. All I have said that open theism is fatally flawed when logic and reasoning is applied to it. There is a strong physical argument refuting open theism as contradictory.
No but when assigned to your philsophy with reasoning Open Theism is flawed. Theologically Open Theism is flawed because it assumes God must experience time as we do and it is essential in enabling free will. Its only essential because you cannot, will not, accept that things may not be as the open theist decrees. Physics proves that things aren't as clear cut and so you refute it...
just like the Church did with Gallileo
You are saying , "God MUST experience time as we do because we cannot understand otherwise."
Very limited if you have your way, after all it destroys the foundations of your argument.
The reason why Quantum hasn't cropped up in the thread is because I'm not opposed to your cause and effect, which you will use Quantum to villify your argument. Once again I will not be drawn into a cause and effect argument because it is not necessary for me to refiute open theism.
You are not anti-science as long as science agrees with you!
Fact remains open-theists still will not accept GR,SR or any of their spin offs(i.e. time dilation....regardless of the proof and everyday application of the science) because it is the proverbial stake through the heart of the open theist. This thread has even seen Clete arguing against E=mc2. Why? I have no idea - but he did!
Practical Application example 1. WE DROPPED THE BOMB ON HIROSHIMA (e=mc2)
Try telling 30,000 crispy Japs Einstein's work is purely meta-physical!!!
Practical Application example 2. GLOBAL POSTIONING SATTELITES (time dilation)
How can I misrepresent open theism when I don't represent open theism...I am just applying logic to the argument and finding it contradictory....
Open Theism sounds like something a wannabe physicist Reverend would come up with on a Saturday afternoon after buying a second hand book on Chaos theory with half its pages torn out.
IF YOU WANT TO STAY AWAY FROM THE SCIENCE THEN FINE ANSWER EVERGLAZE'S VIEW. How can Biblical prophecy be so detailed if God doesn't know the future?....I'll argue against open theism from a metaphysical perspective. But as soon as you slip into science again the gloves will come off.
Open Theism.......why the Vatican employs physicists.
Last edited:
At the request of others on this thread I would like to make a clarification of my previous point. eccl3_6 need not respond (although I know he will anyway), as I will ignore anything else he has to say on the subject.
The central point to the argument that I have been putting forward over the last several posts is that time dilation is irrelevant to Open Theism because even if time dilation occurs all the parties, whether they are observing or being observed, whether they are moving or not, moving slowly or super fast, all exist together at the same moment in time. Or put another way everything that exists regardless of their state of motion exists NOW. All of existence is now. The past no longer exists and the future does not exist yet, the ever present NOW is all that is. Thus the argument about different time frames and all the silly questions about which of them God exists in are all non-sequitor. God exists now as does everyone and everything else that exists. Nothing that eccl3_6 or Johnny or Einstein has said refutes this single fact and so even if Einstein was completely correct it makes exactly zero impact on Open Theism.
And one further point concerning metaphysical vs. scientific arguments. Einstein's work is almost entirely metaphysical. It is math pure and simple math. Math is as metaphysical as you get, it is pure logic and nothing more; there simply isn’t anything empirical about it at all. The more appropriate terms for such an objection would "rationalism vs. empiricism" but the point is eccl3_6's own science uses both to get to the conclusion that he is defending in this thread and he cannot exclude either one without destroying his own argument.
It is my intention to completely ignore anything eccl3_6 has to say on this thread from now on, so if there is anyone who would like further comment from me just ask me and I'll do so.
Resting in Him,
Clete
The central point to the argument that I have been putting forward over the last several posts is that time dilation is irrelevant to Open Theism because even if time dilation occurs all the parties, whether they are observing or being observed, whether they are moving or not, moving slowly or super fast, all exist together at the same moment in time. Or put another way everything that exists regardless of their state of motion exists NOW. All of existence is now. The past no longer exists and the future does not exist yet, the ever present NOW is all that is. Thus the argument about different time frames and all the silly questions about which of them God exists in are all non-sequitor. God exists now as does everyone and everything else that exists. Nothing that eccl3_6 or Johnny or Einstein has said refutes this single fact and so even if Einstein was completely correct it makes exactly zero impact on Open Theism.
And one further point concerning metaphysical vs. scientific arguments. Einstein's work is almost entirely metaphysical. It is math pure and simple math. Math is as metaphysical as you get, it is pure logic and nothing more; there simply isn’t anything empirical about it at all. The more appropriate terms for such an objection would "rationalism vs. empiricism" but the point is eccl3_6's own science uses both to get to the conclusion that he is defending in this thread and he cannot exclude either one without destroying his own argument.
It is my intention to completely ignore anything eccl3_6 has to say on this thread from now on, so if there is anyone who would like further comment from me just ask me and I'll do so.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited by a moderator: