On the omniscience of God

[Derf]

I often wonder what it is that makes someone so loyal to the idea that God exists outside of time. What is it that they get out of it?

It allows them to say, "God is more wonderful than we can even know, so what I say about God is true." In other words, it is a blank check to support a doctrine that can mean whatever they want it to mean.

 

[Clete]

It allows them to say, "God is more wonderful than we can even know, so what I say about God is true." In other words, it is a blank check to support a doctrine that can mean whatever they want it to mean.

How does making a big deal about God existing outside of time accomplish that goal?

 

[JudgeRightly]

How does making a bid deal about God existing outside of time accomplish that goal?

You're demanding reason from someone who bases their beliefs on emotions rather than facts. (Not Derf, but any kind of person who would make such an argument.)

 

[Clete]

You're demanding reason from someone who bases their beliefs on emotions rather than facts. (Not Derf, but any kind of person who would make such an argument.)

I'd settle for a purely emotionally based explanation. I can't find any way at all to draw a line that connects the dots that get you from "god exists outside of time" to "my god is better than your god".

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'd settle for a purely emotionally based explanation. I can't find any way at all to draw a line that connects the dots that get you from "god exists outside of time" to "my god is better than your god".

I'm not saying it exists, I and Derf are just saying that's how they think. It's an irrational position.

 

[Derf]

How does making a big deal about God existing outside of time accomplish that goal?

It seems to me that when you say, "Logically, you can't both know someone will make a particular choice in every given circumstance, and that the person has the ability to choose between the different choices," the only answer is to say, "Logic doesn't apply." That's what that answer does...it says, "you got me, I have no answer, but I'm justified in maintaining my position because you (or we) can't understand God."

So, in effect, the answer is a non-answer that has no way to falsify it, so the conversation ends.

 

[Clete]

It seems to me that when you say, "Logically, you can't both know someone will make a particular choice in every given circumstance, and that the person has the ability to choose between the different choices," the only answer is to say, "Logic doesn't apply." That's what that answer does...it says, "you got me, I have no answer, but I'm justified in maintaining my position because you (or we) can't understand God."

So, in effect, the answer is a non-answer that has no way to falsify it, so the conversation ends.

I get that but that isn't really what I'm asking.

What I wonder about is what the motive for giving that answer is (i.e. within themselves)? How is, "Logic doesn't apply.", understood in their own minds as a better position to take than to say, "I can see now that this doctrine doesn't make sense, let's look for a better explanation."?

What motivates someone to allow a lack of understanding to stand as a justification for their position? A lack of understanding should serve to weaken and to question one's position, not justify it, right? And yet, they do the opposite. Why? They, out of one side of their mouths, state boldly their clear understanding that God exists outside of time and, out of the other side of their mouths, they proclaim that we cannot understand God. It's so blatant a contradiction that it seems to me that it must be intentional. They simply have to be able to see it and not only do they do it anyway but they do it on purpose and feel good about it. WHY? HOW? What do they get out of it?

I actually don't think there's an answer. They don't get anything out of it. It's a delusion, rising in some cases to the level of psychopathy.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I get that but that isn't really what I'm asking.

What I wonder about is what the motive for giving that answer is (i.e. within themselves)? How is, "Logic doesn't apply.", understood in their own minds as a better position to take than to say, "I can see now that this doctrine doesn't make sense, let's look for a better explanation."?

What motivates someone to allow a lack of understanding to stand as a justification for their position? A lack of understanding should serve to weaken and to question one's position, not justify it, right? And yet, they do the opposite. Why? They, out of one side of their mouths, state boldly their clear understanding that God exists outside of time and, out of the other side of their mouths, they proclaim that we cannot understand God. It's so blatant a contradiction that it seems to me that it must be intentional. They simply have to be able to see it and not only do they do it anyway but they do it on purpose and feel good about it. WHY? HOW? What do they get out of it?

I actually don't think there's an answer. They don't get anything out of it. It's a delusion, rising in some cases to the level of psychopathy.

Unwillingness to be wrong. "I'm right, you're wrong, I don't care what you think or say."

 

[JudgeRightly]

In other words, it's a lack of humility.

 

[JudgeRightly]

In other words, pride.

 

[Right Divider]

In other words, pride.

Selfishness is the fundamental issue behind all sin. It is the ultimate rebellion against God and causes all of those problems.

 

[Derf]

I get that but that isn't really what I'm asking.

What I wonder about is what the motive for giving that answer is (i.e. within themselves)? How is, "Logic doesn't apply.", understood in their own minds as a better position to take than to say, "I can see now that this doctrine doesn't make sense, let's look for a better explanation."?

What motivates someone to allow a lack of understanding to stand as a justification for their position? A lack of understanding should serve to weaken and to question one's position, not justify it, right? And yet, they do the opposite. Why? They, out of one side of their mouths, state boldly their clear understanding that God exists outside of time and, out of the other side of their mouths, they proclaim that we cannot understand God. It's so blatant a contradiction that it seems to me that it must be intentional. They simply have to be able to see it and not only do they do it anyway but they do it on purpose and feel good about it. WHY? HOW? What do they get out of it?

I actually don't think there's an answer. They don't get anything out of it. It's a delusion, rising in some cases to the level of psychopathy.

It's hard to give up firmly held beliefs, so they cling to whatever will allow them to maintain it in the face of logically strong opposition. That doesn't mean good arguments don't have some effect on them...I think they see the holes, and if they allow themselves to process through it, they will see the holes grow. Some people, at least. That's why we need to give answers with gentleness and respect.

 

[Clete]

Did you guys see the series about Scientology that Leah Ramini did a couple years ago?

Whenever I see someone that just isn't permitting rational arguments to contact their mind on even relatively minor issues, it engenders the same reaction in me that I got when watching that show. How is it possible that such a show is necessary? How can it be that anyone could be persuaded (as an adult) to join any sort of cult, much less one that is so blatantly ludicrous as Scientology? It's just so patently absurd from start to finish that it just seems impossible that even one person could ever become a convert and yet there are millions of those morons. What level of depravity and metal dysfunction does it require for anyone to have ever joined the Heaven's Gate cult or the Branch Davidians? It just doesn't seem like it should be possible.

Whether its Oatmeal showing up to declare that God is outside of time or DFT Dave going on and on for years about the Earth being flat, when making really good and perfectly rational arguments is like shooting spit balls at a battleship, it just makes by brain hurt to the point of anger. It feels like an insidious kind of evil akin to things like Voodoo and drag queens.

 

[Right Divider]

Did you guys see the series about Scientology that Leah Ramini did a couple years ago?

Yes.

Whenever I see someone that just isn't permitting rational arguments to contact their mind on even relatively minor issues, it engenders the same reaction in me that I got when watching that show. How is it possible that such a show is necessary? How can it be that anyone could be persuaded (as an adult) to join any sort of cult, much less one that is so blatantly ludicrous as Scientology? It's just so patently absurd from start to finish that it just seems impossible that even one person could ever become a convert and yet there are millions of those morons. What level of depravity and metal dysfunction does it require for anyone to have ever joined the Heaven's Gate cult or the Branch Davidians? It just doesn't seem like it should be possible.

I completely agree. That cult is one of the craziest. Their founder was a complete loon.

 

[Derf]

Whether its Oatmeal showing up to declare that God is outside of time

I don't fault @oatmeal too much for this, because it is pervasive in Christian teaching, just like Calvinism and Arminianism are (which are the two sides of settled theism), but it is frustrating to hear it so often, without an explanation of what it results in or much in the way of scriptural support.

or DFT Dave going on and on for years about the Earth being flat, when making really good and perfectly rational arguments is like shooting spit balls at a battleship, it just makes by brain hurt to the point of anger. It feels like an insidious kind of evil akin to things like Voodoo and drag queens.

Yes, I agree on the flat earth cult. This may not be THE apostasy Paul talks about, but it is apostasy-like.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Did you mean the logical conclusion (just thinking that accentuating the has the greater weight of what you are aiming for)?

I'm talking p → q, Lon.

The emphasis I add is to try to get the point across to you more efficiently.

I'll leave response here and also tie back into my conversation with Clete on two premises:
1) That most are jumping to a false conclusion

Why?

and
2) that they are doing so by conflating 'future' and 'past' as the same entity.

Haven't seen anyone do this here. Point it out?

That is specifically the logical problem. The future isn't like the past, but in the philosophical argument from Standford, this is the problem. They make a logical jump specifically by looking that the future and 'then' the past (which hasn't happened yet). They are actually, in both cases, looking at 'now' and assuming that past and future are stagnant.

If the future is infallibly foreknown, then the future is, in fact, stagnant, by definition, because if anything other than what is known happens, then the "infallible" part is falsified.

p → q

If the result is !q, then p is false.

One example against 'now' is that I cannot go back and save President Lincoln from being shot.

Neither can God.

They say that is what it means that the past is unchangeable but that isn't correct.

The past is unchangeable because it's already happened. You cannot undo an action.

If you jump up and down for five minutes, you cannot "un-jump," nor can you recover the energy that you used up by doing so. That energy has been expended. You cannot unexpend it.

The reason you cannot go back and save Lincoln is the same as stopping the war in Palestine: we don't have the power over circumstances and other people's choices, just our own.

No.

The reason you cannot go back is because those moments no longer exist.

You cannot undo something that has been done. You can figuratively "undo" something, but you cannot change the fact that you "did" something.

In other words, one cannot make it so that an action that was taken never occurred.

You 'can' go back and fix a relationship that has been broken.

Again, that doesn't negate that the relationship was broken.

'Past' as a concept has no bearing on anything as far as it concerns you and your current choices any more than future does.

Only because neither actually exist, they are both extant only within a thinking person's mind.

'A' conclusion.

p → q

If p, then q.

p necessitates q.

We all assert we are the logical ones.

Humans are rational beings.

Some may act irrationally, but it doesn't change the fact that God created us to be logical beings.

When we aren't actually logical, there is no appeal to 'logic' that will suffice.

Simply appealing to the rational truth is sufficient, whether someone is being rational or irrational.

That's what it means to be objective!

"If" any Christians find a problem (and we do), then it is wise to look to your own.

Meaning?

Are you actually making a case for confirmation bias?

Using the comments of people on the side of your opponents that are in support of your position is a much stronger argument for your position than using the comments of people on your own side.

This is why "two or three witnesses shall establish a matter."

If not, it has every earmark you are plugging your ears or so caught up in a small circle that you are missing the greater Christian discussions and beliefs.

Iron sharpens iron, indeed!

Granted Open Theism often thinks it is being logical in rejections, but they don't appreciate that something is in debate, like whether EDF removes choice. It is and always has been a philosophical theory.

We're literally discussing whether it does or not here in this thread.

How is that not "appreciat[ing] that [EDF removing choice] is in debate"?

"How?" is the obvious question: It can be guessed, but can it be proven?

p → q

A = A

You have a line of standing dominos all within falling range of each other, set up so that if one falls in the direction of the next domino in the line, it will hit it and knock it over, causing it to hit the next one in turn. You tap the domino at the end, knocking it towards the next domino. It falls, and hits the second domino, and transfers its momentum to the second one, which causes it to be knocked into the third domino, etc.

Your action, pushing the first domino, indirectly caused the third, fourth, fifth, etc, dominos all to be knocked down, in order. With regards only to the dominos that have been arranged in a line, YOU are the primary cause for them to have fallen over.

The line of dominos in this analogy is "time" according to the settled view (Calvinism, Arminianism, or any worldview that holds that the future is settled), with each successive domino being the next event in time. Depending on when one holds that God decided to "set" time up, either at creation or sometime before (note, I cannot account for those who believe that the "future" has always been settled with this analogy, since a ray will only ever cover half of a line, and that would necessitate that God has never been free, though this would more be along the lines of Arminianism, rather than Calvinism, addressed below), the point at which He did is the first event, the first domino in the line of dominos, time being set into motion.

According to Arminianism, God looks ahead to see what dominos were placed down, and therefore knows exactly which domino is where.

According to Calvinism, God is the one who set the line of dominos up, and therefore knows exactly which domino is where.

On BOTH viewpoints, God knows the future, because the events are predetermined.

The Open Theism position, however, is completely different. It says that there is no line of dominos, there are no dominos, fallen or yet to be knocked over.

The logical argument I posted previously is the "proof" that if Calvinism is true (not necessarily Arminianism), then God is in fact the primary (first) cause of sin, and all sinners who stand before God in judgement on Judgement day will have the perfect excuse against God for why they sinned, because He caused them to, and therefore they cannot be held accountable for their actions, because they could not do otherwise.

Realize with me the 'if' for only the objection that even if I agree, (I do to an extent), it is still a postulation.

p → q

If you set up the dominos to fall a certain way, they will fall in that way.

If God is Sovereign (according to the Calvinist definition of sovereign, ie, "no maverick molecule"), and He predestined literally everything to happen according to His will, then literally everything will happen according to His will.

It looks good, but I don't want to build upon an idea later with you that 'looks right.'

Supra, re: logical argument posted earlier

If you have a problem with any point in that chain of logical arguments, then you need to point them out for us, because I can't find any faults with it.

Remember it is an 'if' and importantly, zero control is a sudden jump

Again, p → q.

If God predetermined everything, then nothing happens outside of His will.

If God's foreknowledge is based on His predetermination of events, AND His knowledge is infallible, then nothing will happen outside of His knowledge.

Therefore:

If a man sins, it's because God is the one who predetermined Him to sin, and the man could not have done otherwise (because that would violate God's infallible foreknowledge, because it violates the definition of "infallible."

without a proposition to inspect.

The proposition (p) is that God predetermined all things (literally).

It means I cannot (nor another) logically follow because something isn't proven.

p → q

I'm not sure if you caught my almanac suggestion.

If the almanac is an infallible source of knowledge all future events, then it is not possible for there to be any deviation from that almanac's future.

If I were able, without doubt,

We're not talking "without doubt" here, Lon.

We're talking about infallible knowledge.

Infallible means incapable of being wrong or incorrect.

That seems to be the point you're missing here.

to have known what you just said above, then knowledge doesn't necessitate that you do what I knew you'd do, but that you 'did' (past tense) what I thought you'd do. Think of it in those terms: Clete and I knew a guy was going to respond a certain way. He did exactly as we both foresaw him doing. Some, Clete will argue that it isn't 'perfect' but it doesn't matter: It is future and known to ANY degree and has absolutely no bearing, demonstrably, upon the guy saying what he said. Neither of us even said 'I know what you are going to say!' There was no prompting, we just knew. In among these discussions are other omni attributes that would 'suggest' it is different when God knows, including the perfect knowledge and I appreciate that, but in a logically demonstrable scenario (I think you can follow along the proposition just fine), choice still existed. It at least posts an objection to be over-ruled. Foreknowlege, of any kind, does nothing to affect choice in and of itself, logically. Clete called this 8th grade with a few pejoratives (disapproving comments). I'm okay with that and am glad so I don't want this response to bait him back in. If you and I can do it justice without causing anyone anger?

None of this addresses the point of contention.

"Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge" does not mean "without a doubt." It means "infallible knowledge of all future events."

It by definition cannot be wrong, and if it IS wrong, then it is not infallible, by definition!

Does ANY of my objection above make any kind of sense?

It misses the point of contention.

Rather, I'm unconvinced the argument holds water. The better I know you (or anybody) the more foreknowledge I have about them

That's not foreknowledge, Lon.

That's present knowledge.

and how they will respond in the future.

You can know based on what you know about someone how they MIGHT respond in the future. In other words, you can ascribe a high likelihood of a person acting a certain way based on what you know about them.

But that's not knowledge of the future. That's knowledge about someone in the present.

The problem is that you're trying to conflate that knowledge of how they MIGHT react with infallible knowledge of the future, of which there is no indication, and every indication against, of them being the same.

Knowing has nothing much at all to do with choice other than every relationship on the planet and off it are affected by another's interaction. For instance, you may fully change my mind here. My choice of belief will have changed. If you know tomorrow that I will come in with a view that isn't Open, you will not be surprised a wit. You virtually know how I'm going to respond to any given Open discussion (you knew I was going to disagree, I know you did). Here is the proposition again: your knowledge has nothing at all, not even an iota, to do with my choosing it. Moreover, as I said, your knowledge 'actuates/supports/applauds or laments' my choices, not removes them. Every time we talk, we make our respective decisions deeper. Relationship is actually what changes/removes choice and between believers, in a great way. So it isn't knowledge, but relationship that affects and narrows choice (among other things).

Recently (within the past few months) there was a debate, on the Gospel Truth YouTube channel, between Chris Fisher and Matt Slick on the topic "Open Theism and the Bible," and there are arguments Chris makes that address these comments of yours.

You won't find it on Marlon's channel, unfortunately, because it was intentionally deleted, since they're trying to censor the debate because of how bad it makes Matt (and even Marlon) look.

You can find the debate here:

The debate aftershow here:

L091 Debate Aftershow - Matt Slick v Christopher Fisher

www.youtube.com

And Chris reading post-debate comments here:

Chris also responds to Pinecreek's (another YT channel) review of the debate here:

L094 Review of Pinecreek's Review of My Debate

www.youtube.com

I strongly recommend watching AT LEAST the debate itself and the aftershow.

I wouldn't call it 'settled' (hope that doesn't ruin an Open observation of the rest of us).

Lon, I just googled "settled definition," and here's what I got:

Settled:
1. resolve or reach an agreement about (an argument or problem).

And under that specific definition:

- determine; decide on.

Huh, that's funny... (sarcasm)

If the future has been predetermined by God (as per Calvinism), then it is settled.

It's not "open" to predictions. Predictions imply some degree of uncertainty.

If a major league baseball team was challenged by a team of elementary schoolers, you could predict with a high level of certainty that the MLB team would win the game.

But there's always the possibility that the MLB team flubs every throw of the ball, swing of the bat, and that the ES team's pitcher throws a perfect game, and every single one of their batters hits a home run.

Under the settled view, not only the outcome, but every step, motion, and thought of every player, every molecule in their bodies, has been predetermined so that the MLB team wins by a hair. There's no "prediction," because there's no uncertainty, and any predictions made are just another domino in the ever expanding chain reaction of dominos falling.

It is kind of like thinking the past is 'settled.' To any degree we aren't able to affect past choices, we are not able to affect future ones either, but rather our own, both from the past and the future. We have a limited zone affect of our power.

This is utter nonsense.

Supra.

It is why many say there is only now, because it is the only choice/decision we are capable of making. Future is conflated when people mix ideas of future and past together.

Supra.

Hard sentence: both the proposition and conclusion are from two Open ideas: That God doesn't know,

Rather, that God DOES know, and then circumstances change, thus invalidating that knowledge.

Meaning, that His knowledge of the future is not infallible.

but guesses and that knowledge cancels choice. It'd take quite a bit of dialogue to get on page.

Only if you were to obfuscate.

My proposition is that all knowledge about another is just and only knowledge. The only way knowledge comes into play in another's choice, is 'how that knowledge' causes the holder's interaction with that choice. That is why I specifically believe knowledge itself has nothing but a connection by potentiality only.

Supra.

Yes. Does it 'make' a thing happen?

See the previously posted logical argument.

Some Calvinists would say 'yep' agreeing that knowledge AND all other Omnis working together demands it.

And they would be consistent in saying so.

Open Theists have challenged me to think for 20+ years about knowledge and choice (good thing). Philosophy generally sets up fairly solid logical statements, but I yet think the whole field has missed a few cogs on this 'EDF/choice' assertions. If it doesn't frustrate you, perhaps we could delve into the details a bit.

Let's get the big picture before we dive into the details.

Some,

No. Actually all.

not my belief.

You're the one espousing those things here on this thread, are you not? Does that not justify me calling them "your beliefs"?

I see a good amount of biblical data but have taken second looks and acquiesce some may not mean EDF. Some seem to point to exactly that, at least to me. However, in either scriptural support, there isn't a strong tie-in between EDF and choice or lack-there-of.

Supra, re: the Fisher vs Slick debate (yes, I expect you to have watched at least the debate by the time your respond to this post. If you have not, please do so now before you continue.

In camp, we often skip 'how we got here.' I'm guilty all the time of it, especially when I'm tired. "Saying it doesn't make it so!" is a fine statement/request for more information. How do you support Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge demands a lack of choice?

Supra, re: the previously posted logical argument.

I've seen the statement: "If God (or anybody) knows what I'm going to say, I didn't have a choice." If I can show any foreknowledge has no bearing on choice, it can logically be extrapolated that any 'further' details, i.e. completely, have little to do with choice if even what can be shown doesn't. It can logically follow that 'if not a little, then likely and on initial, not at all then.'

This misses the point of contention, re: infallible foreknowledge.

Are you familiar with Deuteronomy 7:12-24? Joshua 23:12-13?

Somewhat.

Do either of these put a qualification on 'without fail' means?

Yes.

See Jeremiah 18.

If it can give you even pause,

It doesn't.

It's easily addressed on my view (OT).

how would you as an Open Theist try to redress this?

See Chris's response to Matt in the above linked debate on how the Biblical authors spoke and thought.

There is another where someone thinks God 'expected' bad grapes. The problem: In the text itself, Isaiah says he'll sing a song as if it were from God. It means it is analogy and we have to be very careful about pulling from texts that intimate rather than teach very clearly. In both of these cases, the rest of Christianity, so of course me, believe these must be understood in context, especially when there is already given more information on how we 'should' interpret further immediate texts.

And?

Another is that God 'changes His mind.' Often, problems in Open Theism are caused by English translations. There is literally no Hebrew or Greek that says 'changed mind.' It is a colloquialism as well, so even inaccurate in English let alone trying to apply such an idea to scripture where it doesn't even appear but in a good attempt/but poor translation.

See https://opentheism.org/verses, categories 8, 23, and 24

As you stated, the context will provide the meaning.

I'm not sure I'll 'change your mind' but I hope it is at least appreciative and worth reflection.

To state it under your beliefs, or at least, as per Calvinism:

If God has predetermined me to do so, then I will. If not, then I won't.

I am and have been aware of what Open Theists have offered, but hopefully you see I have even biblical objections.

None of which have been a problem for my Open Theism to address.

I can make a post on all of these and how they don't measure up, and not just because I'm from a differing theology perspective (certainly that too), but because of assumptions. The scripture themselves offer little help to the Open paradigm.

Supra, re: Chris's response to Matt on how the Biblical authors spoke and thought.

It is yet my view God is never and has never been wrong.

That's nice.

We agree to a point or extent then. If it is true in some occasion that it has nothing to do with choice, is there an inkling that no amount of knowledge ever affects choices of another?

If it is true that foreknowledge sometimes has nothing to do with choices (in that, a choice can be made contrary or out of alignment with that knowledge), then the future is not settled.

But to say therefore that no amount of knowledge ever affects choices would be several steps too far.

Here is an article exactly on our topic.

I mostly agree with Dr. Flowers on this topic.

The problem is that it doesn't quite address the point of contention we Open Theists bring to the table.

Right! It is why I argue this way. I think think there is often agreement and these have to be the foundations of discussion for disagreements.

Often, almost if not at times, upholding other Omnis.

The problem at that point is definitions.

OTs hold to slightly different definitions of the omnis than the classical Greek/Augustinian omnis.

I always hope I can show that agreement on somethings, can equal agreement where we disagree. Omni-anything is often argued omni-everything by extension, logically.

Only if you hold to the classical definitions of those words.

For example, for God to know He knows everything, nothing can exist but what He has caused to exist.

You have finally, inadvertently, stated the point of contention.

If God is omnicompetent, then it is more than anticipation.

Omnicompetent means that God can bring about that which He wills, without having to exhaustively know the future actions of men.

There are only so many combinations on a chess-board, and so many ways the board can play out because there is a definite number. Because in creation there are not 'infinite' but 'finite' numbers, God would know them all already.

This isn't how the Bible speaks of God's knowledge.

"Now I know" and "it never entered my mind" are just two examples.

See categories 6, 7, 9-11, 13-20, 23-26, 29, and 31-33 at the opentheism.org link above.

In a sense, we are arguing that Open Theism is conceiving 'what is knowable' way too short.

Doubtful.

I'm convinced scripture says God is all knowing

1 John 3:20 says that God "knows all things."

What people forget or miss is that exactly one chapter earlier, in 1 John 2:20, it says that men "know all things."

but even if I were Arminian in my EDF, it'd mean way more than Open Theism envisions and Omnicompetent would automatically open up all the other omnis with few qualifications.

Supra.

:Z I don't. You might, but I'm predictable on this one!

Supra, re: uncertainty

Realize the accusation is about the same. I know where I'm biased but have a long history and even current papers informing my bias, if it is. Open Theists have a much smaller pool to pull from. Because of that, we'd probably need to discuss the suppositions. The article linked may be of value.

:nono: !!!

Now you're conflating "would not" with "could not."

Just because you would not (it would go against your will) to choose a certain flavor over your favorite, doesn't mean that the choice is not there.

It is,

No, it isn't.

You telling the server every time you go to the ice cream store that you want vanilla can be true on BOTH positions, but only on the Open Theist position is it an actual choice.

but rather we are talking about really if I'm 'stuck' in vanilla. I'm not, I just like it!

Supra, re: "would not" vs "could not"

As I said, and entertain for half a block, you knowing it, near as EDF as you can know anything,

Supra, re: definition of infallibility

I 'can' still choose

There is no choice under EDF, only the appearance of it.

but it is of no consequence whatsoever that you have EDF concerning my flavors. It has no bearing on what I choose. Does it at least 'look right on paper?' Again, the article linked may do a better job.

Supra.

I think, at this time, you know my dessert choice, that I will never choose chocolate over vanilla.

Thank you for conceding the point.

That is ironclad. Even 'if' I were to go against that one day, you know for sure, tomorrow, I will eat vanilla. It has nothing to do with my choice.

If there is no choice, then you can never "choose" chocolate or vanilla, you will always have vanilla, and any "choice" that seems to exist is just a façade.

If we never talk about it, I can about prove it too. "Interaction" affects my choice. You on the other side of the States knowing? Nothing over here! It cannot be that you aren't thinking hard enough. Tomorrow you know, beyond doubt, I will go vanilla if I get a choice. Its a choice. You know it. No problem (again, see the link).

Who's the one conflating the past and the present again?

Not on vanilla. Besides, let us assume you are correct, that at some future date, it becomes unthinkable: I want chocolate. Such doesn't not remove your EDF about a particular portion of time. You have/had it! You don't even have to guess! Moreover, if I change, you'll have a limited scope of EDF about me and ice cream again.

Incorrect.

Why?

Because if the knowledge is infallible that you will always choose vanilla, then you will always choose vanilla.

But if you are able to choose chocolate, then the knowledge "you will always choose vanilla" is not infallible, by definition.

Even 'if' this was true, could be shown true, such doesn't affect the choosing of it.

If it's present knowledge, then it's not about a choice, it's about what is and/or has been.

Think of it this way: I 'negate' choice every day. I can but make one choice (often with connected choices). Because I can't go back, you could say from a conflated premise, "I had no choice" because I only can take one. That said, you 'knowing' I only chose one option doesn't negate that day.

Supra.

Knowledge, in any form, is simply an acknowledgment of what did happen.

Then it does not apply to the future, which has not happened yet.

I think Open Theism can agree with that statement: knows what is knowable comes with an idea that knowledge itself doesn't affect choice.

Only assuming that that knowlege is infallible.

There is no infallible foreknowledge (barring what God has predetermined that He will bring to pass) in OT.

There are philosophers that suggest that EDF is itself deterministic. I intimate it does not. William Lane Craig attempts to prove it in the link.

Leighton Flowers is the author of that article, not WLC.

I believe he gives a scripture proof that stands up well. Let me know your thoughts.

Supra.

Do you have a link to this argued out further?

See opentheism.org (the homepage of the above link).

Right now it is a proposition that God would not be free.

What makes you say that?

Just because the discussion often revolves around man's freedom doesn't mean that the main premise of the belief is that God is free.

It seems to me, it is changing the person free, but attempting the same argument that perfect foreknowledge negates.

I'm having a hard time parsing this sentence. Could you rephrase please?

To me, an argument for omnicompetence is an argument for perfect foreknowledge, especially as I've heard Open Theists argue it.

"To me" isn't a good argument.

If it doesn't affect decisions, in and of itself, then this premise would be incorrect.

You seem to have forgotten the context of this discussion, that being EDF.

If EDF is infallible, then God being able to choose otherwise (definition of free) than (not a typo, I did in fact mean "than") what He foreknew He would choose (EDF, infallible foreknowledge) is impossible (definition of infallible).

If God is able to choose otherwise (definition of free), then "infallible foreknowledge," EDF) is not possible outside of what He is capable of accomplishing (hence why we say He is omnicompetent), because choices have consequences.

We have a whole boat-load of prioris that inform our respective theologies.

What matters is consistency, because the truth is always consistent with itself.

I think this fills Open Theists with wonder and is a beauty to them. Thank you for sharing what I think comes from your heart.

It's mainly from Will Duffy, which he reiterated in his debate with Matt Slick.

The idea isn't shared, but I can at least, I think, walk a half-a-block for it. I've got a friend who walks through a graveyard and enjoys it. I'm not comparing, just saying that it isn't for everybody. I think your statement is most appreciated in Open circles and the rest of us have a hard time getting those shoes on. Thank you for your post!

On the settled view, God is not able to do any of those things.

And they say we're the ones putting God in a box...

 

[Clete]

You have a line of standing dominos all within falling range of each other, set up so that if one falls in the direction of the next domino in the line, it will hit it and knock it over, causing it to hit the next one in turn. You tap the domino at the end, knocking it towards the next domino. It falls, and hits the second domino, and transfers its momentum to the second one, which causes it to be knocked into the third domino, etc.

Your action, pushing the first domino, indirectly caused the third, fourth, fifth, etc, dominos all to be knocked down, in order. With regards only to the dominos that have been arranged in a line, YOU are the primary cause for them to have fallen over.

The line of dominos in this analogy is "time" according to the settled view (Calvinism, Arminianism, or any worldview that holds that the future is settled), with each successive domino being the next event in time. Depending on when one holds that God decided to "set" time up, either at creation or sometime before (note, I cannot account for those who believe that the "future" has always been settled with this analogy, since a ray will only ever cover half of a line, and that would necessitate that God has never been free, though this would more be along the lines of Arminianism, rather than Calvinism, addressed below), the point at which He did is the first event, the first domino in the line of dominos, time being set into motion.

According to Arminianism, God looks ahead to see what dominos were placed down, and therefore knows exactly which domino is where.

According to Calvinism, God is the one who set the line of dominos up, and therefore knows exactly which domino is where.

On BOTH viewpoints, God knows the future, because the events are predetermined.

The Open Theism position, however, is completely different. It says that there is no line of dominos, there are no dominos, fallen or yet to be knocked over.

The logical argument I posted previously is the "proof" that if Calvinism is true (not necessarily Arminianism), then God is in fact the primary (first) cause of sin, and all sinners who stand before God in judgement on Judgement day will have the perfect excuse against God for why they sinned, because He caused them to, and therefore they cannot be held accountable for their actions, because they could not do otherwise.

If you held the analogy together, it isn't that there aren't any dominoes because events have causes, but rather that there is more than one domino that certain previous dominoes can knock over. In the open view, some dominoes (i.e. people) have the ability to choose which domino falls next and/or whether a particular domino falls at all.

The domino analogy breaks a little here because it would mean that you have branches of dominoes that never fall or simply vanish once past by, but the logic of it holds. It's the difference between being on a road with forks in it vs. being on a conveyor belt. Are you the driver or are you simply going for a ride? Can you, with Robert Frost, choose to take the road less traveled or has your course been determined in advance by something or someone other than you? If God infallibly knows someone's course before they even exist then that someone cannot choose to take another path.