POTD :first:Clete said:I just cannot stand for such blatant nonsense as this and so I will suspend my boycott of eccl3_6 in order to directly respond to this idiotic post 102 that he is so proud of and put it to rest as the non argument that it is once and for all. Whether my boycott will remain suspended will depend on the intellectual honesty of the response I get from eccl3_6 in return. In other words, don't hold your breath.eccl3_6 said:Has a counter argument been formulated yet? I notice that the 'foreknowledge thread' is popping up in different areas of TOL. It makes little difference how frequently and resoundingly a theory is defended it only needs to shown to fail once and it is disproved.
Does OT have a defense to the post #102. Please make numbered points or give post refences.
This is only so if the possibility exists that God might be proved wrong. Whether He ever is or not (which He has been) is irrelevant. The point is that freewill as this open theist understands it REQUIRES the ability to do or to do otherwise. If the ability to do otherwise is removed by whatever means, free will becomes impossible. Thus if it is not possible for God's to be proven wrong free will cannot exist.eccl3_6 said:Freewill/Closed view contradiction?
If the following statement in itself is not contradictory.
'God is proved right by your action' not, 'your action is by God's decree'
It means that 'freewill' itself, as an open theist understands it, need not necessarily exclude a closed view, i.e. God could know the future.
Then why are you going around pretending as thought this "post 102" has disproved open theism, saying things like "It makes little difference how frequently and resoundingly a theory is defended it only needs to shown to fail once and it is disproved."?This does not mean that the statement is TRUE...nor does it infer that Open Theism must be correct or otherwise either. But if the statement cannot be identified as contradictory within its own confines then it is just as viable as any other theory until the statement is proved to be inaccurate by other means.
#2 Only allows for open theism if the additional caveat of God being possibly proven wrong is added to it. As I said the first time I responded to this axiom of yours, it does not provide enough information to be helpful because it could be said by itself whether open theism is true or not. Thus it is irrelevant to the debate when taken by itself.This is the crux....equally viable. To say:-
'#1. The future is unknown to God in order to allow freewill'
is now only equally as valid as saying
'#2. God is proved right by your action'
Either one may be true or false. Both advocate 'free will'.
This is where you completely ignore my argument and overstate your own.However #1 Comes at a cost...........#2 Does not!
#1 Stimpulates that 'freewill' exists at the expense of God's foreknowledge. He is not allowed to predict with 100% accuracy, 100% of the time
#2 Stipulates that 'freewill' can exist at no expense to God. It does not rule out His ability to predict with 100% accuracy, 100% of the time.
First of all, it has been show that God has not been 100% right 100% of the time.
Secondly, the logical consequences of an idea do not speak to the truth of that idea unless those consequences can themselves be shown to be necessarily false. The exhaustive foreknowledge of God is not a logically necessary doctrine to the Christian faith and so your consequences are rendered moot.
Third, it is not so that your #2 comes at no cost to God. The cost is that neither we nor God are able to really love anyone because love is and must be volitional to be real. Thus if I have not free will, I cannot love and in the case of your #2 neither could God.
Now, do you want to make a wild guess as to whether or not the concept of volitional love is a logical necessary doctrine to the Christian faith? I'll give you one guess.
Nothing you've presented proves this statement and unfortunately for you, saying it doesn't make it so.Open Theism has been made redundant.
Thats not to say its False but it can't be argued to be True either. In fact there is no need for it at all. It came about as a root of an essay which argued that Freewill and a closed view were at odds. The statement, with its incumbent nature,
'God is proved right by your action' not, 'your action is by God's decree'
means that the open theist argument is not necessary.
First of all you need to figure out what the word 'redundant' means. I think the word you were shooting for here was 'moot' but you haven't shown the 'mootness' of open theism to be a necessary conclusion either.
There are many problems with your statement but one of the main ones is that it is not logically necessary for God to decree something for my freewill to vanish. As I've said many times, if my ability to do or to do otherwise is removed BY ANY MEANS then I do not have free will. Thus you MIGHT be able to make the argument you are trying to make IF the only alternative to free will was that God decreed everything that happens but that isn't the case and so your argument falls flat on its face. It simply doesn't take enough of the logical possibilities into consideration.
Well of course there are many reasons.So why have open theism?....it has not been disproved but why is it necessary to have it at all in the first place? The answer is there is no longer a reason.
Without it...
*
...we cannot love God.
...we cannot love one another.
...we are not responsible for our actions.
...God is the author of sin.
...God is unjust
...morality is meaningless.
etc. etc, etc.
The word for this is "unfalsifiable" and your argument has in no way shown open theism to be unfalsifiable.If I say,
"God rides a pink unicorn which He calls Amanda"
I have no reason to believe this,
no reason at all....
I have nothing to support it.
But you have nothing to refute it either.
As a matter of fact, there are really only the two options, either the future is open or it is closed. All closed theological systems can be falsified by the presentation of one single prophecy that did not come to pass. The presentation of God as expecting one thing and getting another IN ANY CONTEXT would also falsify closed theism and thus PROVE open theism as the only logical alternative which is an argument I have presented more than once myself. Open theism must be true because of the logical impossibility of the contrary.
No there isn't. The consequences of closed theism are different but they do still exist and I have made the argument that the logical consequences of closed theism are far more serious than are those of open theism.And it is in this scenario that open theism finds itself. It casts restrictions on God's nature (His inability to see the future) but it no longer has its previous logical foundation...there is an equally valid, logical option which assumes less.
Occam's razor must be double edged because it's sliced your head off three or four times now.This, when considering the application of the 'occam's razor' principle, rings an ominous toll for Open Theism.
Yes it can and has. Your ignoring the argument or claiming that it hasn't been made doesn't make it go away, it just makes you look like the intellectually dishonest ignoramus your are.I will not advocate that God either rides a pink unicorn or that He calls it Amanda, for I have nothing to support the proclamation, even though nobody can prove it false.
Open Theism can be no more substantiated than 'Amanda'.
I have established the truth of open theism both a logically and Biblically in several different ways, not the least of which is falsifying the idea of a closed future, all of which you have completely ignored.
Resting in Him,
Clete
context
