James White to Debate Bob Enyart on Open Theism

[Tambora]

Let's look at logic a moment: If I, a finite man, obtained an almanac from the future, and saw that you wore a red shirt today, I have definite foreknowledge BUT, had nothing to do with your choice and you chose it. IOW, I cannot negate your free-choice simply because I know you will do it. I know without doubt, two of my children will always want Chocolate ice cream and one will want vanilla. It never changes BUT my knowledge of that does not mean they didn't have a choice, just that I surely knew which they were going to choose. I assert that knowing something does not mean you had no choice.

Does not compute.

If you already know what happens in the future, then there would be no time in that future that you could ask who?, what?, when?, where?, how?; because you were already aware of who, what, when, where, how.

There would be no time in that future that you could say "if"; because you were already aware of the conclusion.

 

[Lon]

Does not compute.

If you already know what happens in the future, then there would be no time in that future that you could ask who?, what?, when?, where?, how?; because you were already aware of who, what, when, where, how.

There would be no time in that future that you could say "if"; because you were already aware of the conclusion.

Right, so it would not be a question for me, only for you.

Before I received an almanace from the future, I had all the W's questions. After I received it, only you have them left. Therefore your future is open, mine is not.

Now, if I interact, let's say it does change the future. It may even change your choice. I then would need to get a revision almanac to see what my interaction did. But, just because I changed your choice, doesn't mean you didn't have one. We can negate one another's choices. If I accidentally ruin your favorite shirt, you can never wear it any more, even though you want to.

Looking into the future can be confusing, I'm just saying knowing it isn't a deal-breaker to you having choice.

In Him,

-Lon

 

[Stripe]

Right, so it would not be a question for me, only for you. Before I received an almanace from the future, I had all the W's questions. After I received it, only you have them left. Therefore your future is open, mine is not. Now, if I interact, let's say it does change the future. It may even change your choice. I then would need to get a revision almanac to see what my interaction did. But, just because I changed your choice, doesn't mean you didn't have one. We can negate one another's choices. If I accidentally ruin your favorite shirt, you can never wear it any more, even though you want to. Looking into the future can be confusing, I'm just saying knowing it isn't a deal-breaker to you having choice. In Him, -Lon

Your description seems to be analogous to God having written a book detailing every event, and that the book is 100 percent accurate.

 

[Stripe]

Your description seems to be analogous to God having written a book detailing every event, and that the book is 100 percent accurate.

If that is true, then -- continuing the analogy -- God is the author of evil.

 

[Tambora]

Right, so it would not be a question for me, only for you.

Before I received an almanace from the future, I had all the W's questions. After I received it, only you have them left. Therefore your future is open, mine is not.

Now, if I interact, let's say it does change the future. It may even change your choice. I then would need to get a revision almanac to see what my interaction did. But, just because I changed your choice, doesn't mean you didn't have one. We can negate one another's choices. If I accidentally ruin your favorite shirt, you can never wear it any more, even though you want to.

Looking into the future can be confusing, I'm just saying knowing it isn't a deal-breaker to you having choice.

In Him,

-Lon

The point I was getting at is that God does ask w questions.
And God employs the use of "if" many times.

Using your analogy of knowing that Lighthouse would wear a red tie on a certain date; then you would not say "If you choose to wear a red tie".

The same with your daughter that you already know will always choose vanilla ice cream. You would not say "If you choose vanilla ice cream".

In your omniscience, there would be no "if".

 

[GuySmiley]

The word 'will' implies freedom. Will has to be free, or it isn't will. Don't try to pretend you believe in free will vs libertarian free will.

Sovereign does not mean that you control every aspect of everything. That's a tyrant. God can be sovereign while humans still have their own will.

If you think God cannot have His way in the presence of will-possessing humans, you have too small an opinion of God.

 

[Tambora]

If that is true, then -- continuing the analogy -- God is the author of evil.

In a certain sense, can't we say that is true (that God is the author of evil)?

While the disobedience of Adam was the reason a curse was placed on creation (ie. thorns and weeds, pain in childbirth, etc.), it was not Adam that placed the properties of the curse in motion, it was God.
Can we safely assume that all plagues and disease were also a result of the properties God set in motion?

I mean, it was not as if God personally touched a person with His finger and they got cancer, but it was the properties that God set in motion that was the cause of cancer. And cancer can befall on the righteous and the unrighteous alike.

The cause of the tree of good and evil was God, not man. It was God that placed it the garden.

Or, to put another way, if everything can be linked back to the first cause, and the first cause is God, then everything is linked to God.

:think:

I'm so glad this debate happened and that it is being discussed.
It really makes you think, instead of just repeating clichés we've heard over and over again throughout our lives.

Makes me dizzy at times. :dizzy:

 

[Lighthouse]

I suppose there are chemicals, but I was talking about will. You can temporarily interrupt smelling, cannot stop it by will alone.

But this is getting caught up in what isn't important. The point I was making was that just because you cannot do something does not mean it is a lack. If you are the strongest man in the world, and cannot lift a building, it is no lack in you being the strongest man in the world. IOW, God is all, there is nothing beside Him, only what He has created. That He cannot lie, is no lack. It isn't a limitation. That is where analogy was headed. Sorry I lost you on it, it wasn't intended.

You didn't lose me on anything.:doh:

And a limitation is certainly not a lacking. On this we agree. God is limited by His own volition and as a byproduct of the limitations of existence. Neither of these mean God is lacking in any respect.

I rather said that God who is infinite, comprehends fully what is finite. All His creation is finite.

But does He comprehend that which does not exist?

:nono: That's a strawman. John went to heaven in the future and saw all the events as they will happen, when they were happening. It is a weird way to say it, but this is exactly what happened. He met and talked to a future elder there. I've addressed this at length in one of the OT threads.

It is your argument that John traveled through time?

Care to show that with the supposed Scripture you claim states it?

Whose? Your's or His? John visited God's reality in a future event and interacted there in the future. For me, I'm very uncomfortable saying God cannot do exceedingly abundantly more than I (a mere finite man) can think or possibly imagine (see sig scripture).

Time for a grammar lesson: there is no apostrophe in the possessive "yours."

Now, as for whose reality, the fact of the matter is there is only one reality. Regardless of our ability to fully comprehend that reality there is still only one reality in existence. So, the question remains, does God exist outside of reality? And just to clarify, in hopes you will stop being obfuscatory, does God exist outside of that which He can comprehend?

I gave this in one of the time threads awhile ago and believe I talked with either Muzman or Patman about this in one of the OT threads.

Let's look at logic a moment: If I, a finite man, obtained an almanac from the future, and saw that you wore a red shirt today, I have definite foreknowledge BUT, had nothing to do with your choice and you chose it. IOW, I cannot negate your free-choice simply because I know you will do it. I know without doubt, two of my children will always want Chocolate ice cream and one will want vanilla. It never changes BUT my knowledge of that does not mean they didn't have a choice, just that I surely knew which they were going to choose. I assert that knowing something does not mean you had no choice.

Predictions based on former events are a non-starter in this discussion.

And I am 100% with you in that your knowledge does not effect my choice. It is the fact that the knowledge was available, thus negating my being able to choose otherwise.

Let me lay it out for you: if you had said almanac and you knew I was going to wear a red shirt, because the almanac said so, could I wear a blue shirt?

Ah. Yes.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

The word 'will' implies freedom. Will has to be free, or it isn't will. Don't try to pretend you believe in free will vs libertarian free will.

Sovereign does not mean that you control every aspect of everything. That's a tyrant. God can be sovereign while humans still have their own will.

If you think God cannot have His way in the presence of will-possessing humans, you have too small an opinion of God.

:thumb:

 

[Stripe]

In a certain sense, can't we say that is true (that God is the author of evil)?

No.

While the disobedience of Adam was the reason a curse was placed on creation (ie. thorns and weeds, pain in childbirth, etc.), it was not Adam that placed the properties of the curse in motion, it was God.

Thorns and pain aren't evil. Weeds were not a part of the curse.

Can we safely assume that all plagues and disease were also a result of the properties God set in motion?

God did not set these things in motion. He barred Adam from the tree of life, as He had to do to maintain His holiness.

The cause of the tree of good and evil was God, not man. It was God that placed it the garden.

Which was a good thing as it gave the garden a "door."

Or, to put another way, if everything can be linked back to the first cause, and the first cause is God, then everything is linked to God.

The creation of the ability to rebel is not the rebellion. There is a necessary distinction between what God made and what is bad. He did not create or design anything bad.

Makes me dizzy at times. :dizzy:

I'm just glad the evolutionists tend to ignore these discussions.

 

[Christian Liberty]

If that is true, then -- continuing the analogy -- God is the author of evil.

Vincent Cheung, anyone? (Nang and AMR may be the only ones who get this.)

 

[Christian Liberty]

In a certain sense, can't we say that is true (that God is the author of evil)?

It kind of depends on how you define your terms. I would define "author of evil" or "author of sin" in a way that makes God not the author of sin. But I guess that's really just because the connotations of the term "author of sin" are negative, at least for me. It implies that God is responsible for sin, or at the very least, that sinners do not choose to sin. By contrast, they do choose to sin, according to their sinful natures yes, but they still do choose to sin.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Its sort of like this: lion chooses to attack zebra when it is hungry and spots the animal grazing alone. Did the lion make a choice? Yes. Is anyone else responsible for that choice? No. Could the lion have chosen differently? Not really, because the lion did as its nature suggests it should.

 

[Tambora]

No.

Thorns and pain aren't evil. Weeds were not a part of the curse.

God did not set these things in motion. He barred Adam from the tree of life, as He had to do to maintain His holiness.

Which was a good thing as it gave the garden a "door."

The creation of the ability to rebel is not the rebellion. There is a necessary distinction between what God made and what is bad. He did not create or design anything bad.

What would you say was the first act of evil committed by man in scripture?

I'm just glad the evolutionists tend to ignore these discussions.

 

[Nang]

Vincent Cheung, anyone? (Nang and AMR may be the only ones who get this.)

 

[Christian Liberty]

I don't see it exactly as Cheung does, but I think it would be really, really funny to see the open theists try to get their heads around his argument.

 

[Nang]

I don't see it exactly as Cheung does, but I think it would be really, really funny to see the open theists try to get their heads around his argument.

Ha! I have to pray to get MY head around Cheung, but all and all, he cannot be disputed according to scripture. Not easily, at least.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Ha! I have to pray to get MY head around Cheung, but all and all, he cannot be disputed according to scripture. Not easily, at least.

Not easily indeed.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Vincent Cheung, anyone? (Nang and AMR may be the only ones who get this.)

Sigh.

http://www.proginosko.com/aquascum/

AMR

 

[Nang]

Sigh.

http://www.proginosko.com/aquascum/

AMR

Did not have access to hearing the debate . . .

Who, in your opinion, was the winner?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Sigh.

http://www.proginosko.com/aquascum/

AMR

Don't misunderstand me, I don't believe God is the author of sin. There's just something about Cheung's "so what" response that kind of makes me chuckle because it really leaves the emotional arguments with no answer.