A problem with open theism (HOF thread)

[docrob57]

Foreknowledge doesn't necessarily equal constraint unless the foreknowledge is exhaustive and perfect. If foreknowledge is perfect it cannot be altered (otherwise it wouldn't be perfect) and therefore the future is constrained to what is contained in that pefect foreknowledge. Can you argue any differently? (that question sort of sounds rude - it isn't intended to be rude).

Yes I can.

Going back to my original argument. Free will actions are not uncaused. God should be able to anticipate the outcome of anything that is caused. Unless He is the cause, which, of course, He is not in all cases, he is not constraining the outcome even though He knows it.

 

[philosophizer]

What if God doesn't want to know who we will vote for a millennia into the future?

Also, if God had full foreknowledge of who my great-great-great-grandson was going to vote for on his first presidential election, what would that knowledge be driven on? On the possible DNA sequence for a person who does not yet exist? If that's true then God's "intimate knowledge" is not really based on the person and the person's mind, thoughts and feelings, but merely on their biological make-up. Cold-hard-nature.

If that's true, then our DNA is just a programming of all our future behaviors and actions.

And we are just robots.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yes I can.

Going back to my original argument. Free will actions are not uncaused. God should be able to anticipate the outcome of anything that is caused. Unless He is the cause, which, of course, He is not in all cases, he is not constraining the outcome even though He knows it.

Anticipation is not equal to perfect foreknowledge, would you agree with that?

 

[docrob57]

Anticipation is not equal to perfect foreknowledge, would you agree with that?

Perfect anticipation is equal to perfect knowledge

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Perfect anticipation is equal to perfect knowledge

OK, so if that is the case you are simply exchanging the word "knowledge" for "anticipation". There is no sense in debating the terms so lets just agree to use these words interchangeably OK?

In your opinion regarding God's foreknowledge, which happens first?

- God's foreknowledge of a future event
- The future event itself.

 

[docrob57]

OK, so if that is the case you are simply exchanging the word "knowledge" for "anticipation". There is no sense in debating the terms so lets just agree to use these words interchangeably OK?

In your opinion regarding God's foreknowledge, which happens first?

- God's foreknowledge of a future event
- The future event itself.

God's foreknowledge

 

[Nathon Detroit]

God's foreknowledge

Of course, which is why we call it foreknowledge right? I.e., knowledge beforehand.

So in other words you believe that there was a time some millennia ago where God knew all that would happen in every detail down to every movement of every molecule for all of history. All of this knowledge was in God's mind prior to ANY of these events happening.

Do you disagree with that statement in any way?

 

[docrob57]

Of course, which is why we call it foreknowledge right? I.e., knowledge beforehand.

So in other words you believe that there was a time some millennia ago where God knew all that would happen in every detail down to every movement of every molecule for all of history. All of this knowledge was in God's mind prior to ANY of these events happening.

Do you disagree with that statement in any way?

No, I can't say that I do. (Hiding my head and waiting for the punches to fly)

 

[Clete]

Yes I can.

Going back to my original argument. Free will actions are not uncaused. God should be able to anticipate the outcome of anything that is caused. Unless He is the cause, which, of course, He is not in all cases, he is not constraining the outcome even though He knows it.

Didn't you already concede that if God knows what I will do that I do not have the ability to do otherwise?

How is this not in conflict with that?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

No, I can't say that I do. (Hiding my head and waiting for the punches to fly)

Please help me to understand what you believe.

How would your belief would differ from....

So in other words you believe that there was a time some millennia ago where God knew all that would happen in every detail down to every movement of every molecule for all of history. All of this knowledge was in God's mind prior to ANY of these events happening.

 

[docrob57]

I do believe that. You asked "do you disagree," and I said "I can't say that I do"

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I do believe that. You asked "do you disagree," and I said "I can't say that I do"

:doh: my bad!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Now....

Since you believe that there was a time some millennia ago where God knew all that would happen in every detail down to every movement of every molecule for all of history. All of this knowledge was in God's mind prior to ANY of these events happening.

Isn't the logical conclusion that:

1. God's knowledge of the future is the cause and or source for the future to be actualized in the manner that the future comes to pass therefore removing all notion of a true freewill.

and that . . .

2. If that knowledge is accurate there can be no variance to the actual outcome of this knowledge which again removes any possibility that a true freewill exists.

If you disagree with either of these two statements combined with the foundation you have agreed to in these previous posts I believe you are being logically incoherent.

 

[docrob57]

Now....[/b]

Since you believe that there was a time some millennia ago where God knew all that would happen in every detail down to every movement of every molecule for all of history. All of this knowledge was in God's mind prior to ANY of these events happening.

Isn't the logical conclusion that:

1. God's knowledge of the future is the cause and or source for the future to be actualized in the manner that the future comes to pass therefore removing all notion of a true freewill.

No, because my argument is that foreknowledge as I am describing it IS knowledge of the free will choices that are made based on knowledge of the causes of the free will choice.

and that . . .

2. If that knowledge is accurate there can be no variance to the actual outcome of this knowledge which again removes any possibility that a true freewill exists.

There could have been variance in the outcome had different choices been made, but God knows what the choices will be.

If you disagree with either of these two statements combined with the foundation you have agreed to in these previous posts I believe you are being logically incoherent

I must respectfully disagree. The only way that could be true is if free will choices are uncaused, and I do not believe that to be the case. I could be wrong, but I am at least logically consistent given my view of free will.

 

[Freak]

To a Calvinist, much of it. Apparently it is problematic in light of the classic, traditional view. Most Open Theists do not deny the essentials of the faith (Deity and resurrection of Christ; salvation by grace through faith, etc.).

Assuming you like chocolate. Did you choose to like chocolate or did you discover that you, indeed, liked chocolate? Don't worry I'm going somewhere with this.

I do not see why Clete thinks you are deliberately a liar with the intent to deceive. Ignorant, misinformed, playing games? Not a liar?

Clete is someone I'll simply ignore for the time being.

 

[DEVO]

Assuming you like chocolate. Did you choose to like chocolate or did you discover that you, indeed, liked chocolate? Don't worry I'm going somewhere with this.

Some folks discover that they like chocolate. Others, grow to like chocolate. Some, like chocolate but then get sick of chocolate and don't like it anymore and finally some never liked chocolate and never will.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Knight: God's knowledge of the future is the cause and or source for the future to be actualized in the manner that the future comes to pass therefore removing all notion of a true freewill.

Lee: Well, does this scale down? If I know with 90% certainty that Bob will order apple pie at Friskies, then did I cause 90% of this choice, when he orders his apple pie...

Clete: No, is the answer.

If there is any uncertainty at all, freedom is preserved.

Yes, but isn't freedom less, the more probable an outcome is? Even if it's preserved? And isn't there increasing knowledge of the outcome, and thus shouldn't this increasing knowledge be a cause of the event, in some way?

The more probable a decision is, the more I cause it, by knowing this?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Clete]

Hi everyone,


Well, does this scale down? If I know with 90% certainty that Bob will order apple pie at Friskies, then did I cause 90% of this choice, when he orders his apple pie, like I thought he would?

Blessings,
Lee

An outstanding question!

No, is the answer.

If there is any uncertainty at all, freedom is preserved. This is why I think I have a bit of a disagreement with what Knight has said. I do not believe that God could know the future exhaustively even if He wanted to, given the way that He has created us. I do not dispute that He could have made a universe and a human race that was completely predictable but I do not believe that He did so. The fact that God knows the future (if in fact He does) is not the only thing that would destroy our freedom. Even the ability to exhaustively predict the future with absolute unwavering 100% accuracy would mean that we do not have a free will. It is the fact that we are free which makes the future unknowable with such precision. It's not that God doesn't know the future and therefore I have a free will but it is rather the opposite of that. It's, I have a freewill, therefore God cannot know the future exhaustively because it is unknowable.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

An outstanding question!

No, is the answer.

If there is any uncertainty at all, freedom is preserved.

Ditto!

This is why I think I have a bit of a disagreement with what Knight has said. I do not believe that God could know the future exhaustively even if He wanted to, given the way that He has created us. I do not dispute that He could have made a universe and a human race that was completely predictable but I do not believe that He did so.

I don't see any disagreement.

When I say God could have created in a way knowing the entire future all I am saying is God could have scripted the entire future and created a race of robots to act out His script. Heck, even us humans can do this to some extent.

 

[DEVO]

There could have been variance in the outcome had different choices been made, but God knows what the choices will be.

Where is the freedom in that?

It seems to me you would have a much more consistent argument if you simply dumped the idea of freewill.