ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
patman
Active member
Lonster said:
Lonster, it makes me VERY happy that you believe all these things aside from the S.V. Your trust in God's love is in the right place. Others on here, like Rob and Lee, and Jim Hilston tried so hard to point to God as the author of sin. But you have the right spin on things.
As far as your ideas about the car and bank robber and God and the first law...
You are talking a very fine line with that. You chose your words very carefully. I think you realize that. You knew what not to say, and you knew why not to say it (It goes back to Patman's cape being flammable and him running from fire or something like that).
But anyway, God's foresight would surely have went beyond the first law to today's events. He would know intimately everyone who went to hell as if it happened yesterday, on the day of Creation. He knew "If I give Adam this DNA with this Protein combination it would result in XYZ emotions that would be inherited by Cain and would be a trigger in his murder in the heat of passion." So could could have removed Y, and then X and Z would be left, resulting in no murder.
Now here it gets tricky. God knew before he wanted to remove X that he would or would not remove X. And he knew the outcome of his thinking about thinking about doing or not doing it (do I sound like Jack Sparrow yet, mate?).
It would be way more complex than this... but I hope you can see how even God can't escape altering the future because he is stuck in it too. But that can't be, right? God is too powerful. And you might think it is too complex for us to understand, but don't let that stop you from seeking it.
If the future were like the past, nothing could change it. Every single plan was foresaw, and even the planning itself was already known along with the plan before it ever happened. How can God plan? How can he be patient? How can he wait? How can he morn over sinners when he made a creation that was guaranteed to have every single one of us become sinners?
Does this sound like how the Bible describes God?
patman
Active member
RobE said:
Rob,
Thank you for the kind note above. I don't really know how to respond to it. I don't intend to lead you to think I have ill will towards you, IRL I would appreciate your fellowship.
But as it were, we choose to discuss this topic of strong disagreement, and little gets hidden. I am glad you choose Jesus into your life, I am glad you share him with others. I believe you would much more effective in doing so with a different theology.
I feel I have to get you to look at the negative things of this world to appreciate how bad things are. And compared to God, he is above them all, he would never dream of being a part of them. God thinks that is better for those who are sinners to have never been born because of the Hell they will live in for their sins.
Why would he create them if he believes that?
I would never abort a child for a sin they had not yet committed... but I would uphold the punishment for them. Just to but the record straight there. But I am only a man, I have no authority, such would be murder.
But God is right, they are better of not being born. If they are better off that way, than what good purpose goes in their lives when they wind up in eternal fire? God could have, with foreknowledge, not allowed their creation to happen, and leave the ones who would be righteous be created.
I am going to stop there. I just hope you can see that with a creator of everything and a tool such as complete and utter foreknowledge, the resulting creation would have been his exact intentions. The good and the bad would all be his idea because he didn't make them turn out to be any other way.
RobE
New member
Clete said:
It's false because it states that the outcome is necessary not contingent from the perspective of the past. If you read the article I linked to in the prior post then you will see the logic laid out completely.
Yes. If a person's action is known in advance then the person would not do otherwise; whether the person could do otherwise or not.
Rob
RobE
New member
themuzicman said:
Well, if you want to talk about your posted premises only then....
I object to premise 9 on the basis that the ability to do otherwise is not necessary for you to perform your will.
I object to premise 5 on the basis that the necessity of God's knowledge is not transferrable to a future contingent action.
I object to premise 2 on the basis that according to the logic which states that future outcomes are contingent, I must point out that prior to the past outcome it was indeed contingent and the premise collapses upon itself --- simply because past outcomes were at one time contingent and in the future. (this is a little confusing. I hope I said this right)
Ditto
themuzicman
Well-known member
Well, now we're getting somewhere...
#2 refers to the principle of the necessity of the past. The argument changes a bit, if you posit that God is timeless, and I can make that change, if you wish.
However, given that time marches on, as of any moment in time, the past is now-necessary. I prefer to use the term "certain", but I didn't write it.
#5 states the principle of the transfer of necessity. For any "if p then q" if p is necessary, then q is necessary. I doubt anyone would find any counter-example to that statement. Thus, #5 doesn't transfer the necessity of God's knowledge, but states a principle of logic.
#6, then, applies that general principle to the specific statement that God's past knowledge is now-necessary, and if God's past knowledge includes 'T', then 'T' is now-necessary.
#9 doesn't speak of will, it speaks of FREE will, which requires contingency, which the proof shows the individual does not have.
Muz
(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of "infallibility"]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of "necessary"]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of "infallibility"]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of "necessary"]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/
#2 refers to the principle of the necessity of the past. The argument changes a bit, if you posit that God is timeless, and I can make that change, if you wish.
However, given that time marches on, as of any moment in time, the past is now-necessary. I prefer to use the term "certain", but I didn't write it.
#5 states the principle of the transfer of necessity. For any "if p then q" if p is necessary, then q is necessary. I doubt anyone would find any counter-example to that statement. Thus, #5 doesn't transfer the necessity of God's knowledge, but states a principle of logic.
#6, then, applies that general principle to the specific statement that God's past knowledge is now-necessary, and if God's past knowledge includes 'T', then 'T' is now-necessary.
#9 doesn't speak of will, it speaks of FREE will, which requires contingency, which the proof shows the individual does not have.
Muz
Lon
Well-known member
patman said:
Would you play a game of chess even if you knew beforehand you would lose? Would you buy a box of apples at a discount even if you had to sift through the box to illiminate many of them? Would you have 12 kids even though you knew of a statistic that said one in 12 will walk away from Christ (this one is random, but Jesus knew from prophecy, if not foreknowledge, that one of His 12 would betray Him).
I'm just trying to show reasoning on God's part. Foreknowledge is something I don't have so trying to describe it and the complexities that it carries is never an easy undertaking.
I'll try to give my understanding. Some of God's attributes I can encapsulate like wrapping my fingers around a baseball. I can get around it. Other attributes are so big I can only palm them with understanding (like a basketball or putting my hand on the global earth). The ideas are just too big. Foreknowledge gets into time considerations that do not have answers comprehensively. When we are talking about God's foreknowledge, apparent agreement or apparent contradictions are very hard to prove specifically because they cannot be grasped except superficially. For example "eternity past." God is eternal. What this means and my ability to grasp are two different things. I cannot fully grasp what this means with my finite logic. God does not have a starting point. As far back as forever, God is there. This literally blows my mind and I cannot grasp it logically.
I cannot grasp eternity future either, though I can just about get all fingers on the ball, it is still not an encapsulating understanding. God's immensity and confident power suggest absolute foreknowledge as a necessity for His future existence. "My dad can beat your dad." While the belief is unfounded, the strongest man in the world would even be hard pressed to say "I can beat anybody." Eventually someone will come along and beat him. God says He is strongest and that He will last forever. Of course OV agrees to partial views on foreknowledge, but I'm not sure what He knows in the OV. It needs further clarification because if He knows anything future, even in OV, some of your arguments against exhaustive foreknowledge fall with your own perspective.
You won't admit it but this "Yes", you just conceded the entire debate.RobE said:
This is the same tired argument that you continuously bring up and which is still as irrelevant now as it was the first time you brought it up (seemingly years ago now).
We aren't talking about one's ability to exercise their will not their ability to physically perform some task.
If it is foreknown that I will not pick up the phone, that doesn't mean my arms fall off my torso, it means that I cannot exercise my will in the direction of picking up the phone. It means that my will is not free, not that I'm suddenly physically handicapped. It means that in spite of my physical skill and highly developed manual dexterity - I not pick up the phone.
Not only that but it also means that no matter how badly I want to answer the phone it will not happen. It is no longer a real option. And in the case of divine foreknowledge the knowledge is not limited to some specific thing that I will not do, it entails what I will in fact do, thus all possible alternatives are rationally eliminated. My seemingly limitless options have been reduced to none. There is therefore no longer a choice being made, I am simply doing what was known that I would do. All the so called options are illusions and therefore so is my will.
Resting in Him,
Clete
:sigh: Some day.... maybe.... Lonster will understand the difference between simple foreknowledge (as he has described above) and EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge (the SV version of God's foreknowledge).Lonster said:
Knowing that you MIGHT have a child that betrays you is altogether different from KNOWING for CERTAIN (because you have ordained it or seen it in advance) is something else entirely.
Lon
Well-known member
Knight said:
It is not a confusion here. I have stopped arguing for 'exhaustive' foreknowledge here because of this confusion. I do believe exhaustive foreknowledge, but again, I recognize the OV problem. I'm just trying to show that foreknowledge (not prediction that emulates this) of any kind creates a problematic understanding and shows some of the holes in OV doctrine (as well as SV). Time discussion is a very difficult proposition for specific doctrine. It is a huge and overarching concept for logical considerations. This is abundantly clear when OV fails to see Rob's point. He is right, regardless.
Foreknowledge of any kind doesn't equal determinism from the knower, but determinism from the do'er. Can the person do otherwise? Perception: yes, but they won't. It is known that they won't. That is all foreknowing is. It is just knowing in advance. Foreknowledge is a Biblical term: Acts 2:23. By it's definition it means the future is 'known." Can the future do otherwise? Yes, but it won't by it's own choice.
Being known intimately is not the same as having no freewill even if the choice is already known. I cannot wrest this from your perception, but I'd like to continually give food for thought. Foreknowledge does not equate lack of choice.
I did use 'exhaustive foreknowledge' as the problematic for the extension, but all I meant there was that if you allow some foreknowledge 'as foreknowledge' and not just 'extensive prediction' then your arguements against 'exhaustive foreknowledge' lose some heat.
Lon
Well-known member
Knight said:
Please also concede that this point is blatantly clear in my mind as well and my illustrations are nothing more than trying to give plausibility, not correlation. There are things we know about the future beyond doubt (bema seat, new heaven and earth, no more pain or suffering) but this is only because God has given us this foreknowledge. We do not possess foreknowledge. It is an application, not intrinsic. Therefore, trying to explain plausibility for something I do not possess but believe God does, is a difficult proposition, and analogy fails. I have nothing in which to compare what I believe about God's Foreknowledge so rather than compare I give analogy simply to point to plausibility. The truth is that no matter if a person knows me exhaustivley into predictability, I do not lose choice because of thier knowledge.
Another weak analogy: My wife was sick last night and told me she was calling in sick.
This morning I was almost foreknowingly certain she would call in sick (and she did).
I had NOTHING to do with her calling in sick or not, even though for all purposes of this discussion, I knew she was going to do it. Could she have done otherwise? Yes. Why didn't she? Because 'she' didn't want to do otherwise. My knowledge had nothing to do with her choice. This isn't real foreknowledge in the sense that there were absolutely no doubts, or that she might have gotten better overnight, etc. I'm just trying to prove the point that any kind of predictabilty or specifically God's foreknowledge does not make the choice at all. It is similar but not the same. Nevertheless, if even accurate predictability does not equate loss of freewill, then the extrapolation to God's foreknowledge should have a similar 'ah ha' moment. Foreknowledge does not effect freewill at all.
Lon
Well-known member
patman said:
Choosing to allow you to do something is not the same as doing that something.
I had children knowing they would sin. Did I in effect 'create' more sin in the world when I chose to have children? The question is the same and my answer to both questions is 'no.' You can blame me for it, but I don't accept that accusation and I don't believe it applies to God either.
"It would be better if they had not been born." Not because of who they are, but because of what they did. God created them originally to be in relationship with Him, not to commit sin. Just because it is messed up now does not mean that it was God's intention.
If you owned an automobile company and realized that the cars were coming out of your line that had a defective part, you could do a recall on the whole line, or sale the cars and offer free repair after the cars were sold. It might even be cheaper just to put the cars out their and wait. Cost efficiency, trustability, and proficiency are all factors in that decision. I don't know what factors were present in God's choice. It doesn't however, negate my view of foreknowledge at all as I hope my analogy points out. The car manufacturer will make a choice and either his company or the customer will not be in agreement with that choice. We are discussing from our perspectives what God's choice was, but I'm not clear on the factors that made His decision.
RobE
New member
themuzicman said:
But it wasn't eternally necessary. At one point it was contingent. Even God's knowledge yesterday(as per stated premise) was contingent the day before yesterday.
My objection addresses this: I object to premise 5 on the basis that the necessity of God's knowledge is not transferrable to a future contingent action. Contingent actions are not necessary by definition.
Maybe I should have said that I object to the transfer in premise 6.
______________________My Primary Objection__________________
I'm not sure you understand my primary objection to #9.
Maybe you remember this premise which is the presupposition of #9
Premise 1a: Free will is defined as having the ability to do or do otherwise purely by an act of that will.
When has anyone ever done otherwise than what they did? Doing otherwise is unproveable. Doing otherwise is not a necessary condition of free will.
From an earlier post:
Here's an example:
Questions:
1) Can you foretell the future?
2) Will God ever do what we currently consider evil?
2) Will God ever do what we currently consider evil?
If not, then does your knowledge of Him not doing evil forever take away His free will?
After all, He has the ability to commit evil or to not commit evil because of free will, right?
The fact(outcome) that He will choose not to do evil doesn't interfere with His free will whatsoever, does it?
The logic presented in premise #9 which presumes that the ability to do otherwise creates freedom ......
I have no power to change it. I can only do that which is known. I cannot do otherwise
transfers to our Lord......
God has no power to change it. He can only do that which you know He will do. He cannot do otherwise
........And everything in me opposes this logic.
Our knowing that the Lord Jesus Christ will never(ever) commit an evil act; does not in anyway take away His free will. You know it. I know it. Logic is logic.
By the logic in premise #9 God is not righteous from choice or free will. He is simply programmed to be good and unable to achieve righteousness through His own perfect choices. Somehow your foreknowledge proves that He is disabled from doing otherwise. How doesn't matter according to open theism. It only matters that it is.
Rob
RobE
New member
Actually it was over a year ago. Thanks for remembering. :wave2:
When has anyone ever chosen to do otherwise than what they did. Let's look at the unalterable past and find an instance when this occurred. I am unable to find an example of anyone ever doing other than what they did. How important is doing otherwise when it never happens?
What's the point of having the choice to do otherwise when it is meaningless. We never do it.
Then since it is your to not pick up the phone what's the problem. There is only a problem if it's someone elses will and not yours.
Clete, your want to not pick up the phone according to your will which does it job in eliminating all of the other options. The illusion comes when you suggest that you might want to do otherwise.
Susan asks: Where in the scriptures does it say man has free will?
I never thought to ask this question. I guess my presuppositions didn't allow it.
Rob
Bob Hill said:
The future and creation is open. Open Theism is more about the openness of creation than the open God-Creator (whatever that means).
God is living, personal, responsive, dynamic. Is that what you mean by open? He is not subject to fatalism, but is a free moral agent.
Regardless, God is not static nor impersonal.
patman
Active member
Lonster said:
So far no one has been able to convert me back to S.V.. O.V. is simply extremely logical and scripturally sound.
If I had the future knowledge you say God has, and If I were to have 12 children, and one would go to hell, and If I were to see him burning in Hell for all eternity, I would not have that child. I would never even conceive him. It is not loving to have him knowing he is going to hell and to create him.
Just so I could love him and be blessed by him for myself? That is extremely selfish, and that is not an aspect of love. Why would I do that?
I do not know why you would think it is a good argument for the S.V.
patman
Active member
Lonster said:
Lonster,
Again, I am glad you believe God is good and loving. I do too. Yay us.. The O.V. shows this way better than the S.V. can ever do and requires less faith because we have more proof for O.V. on both scriptural and logical fronts.
According to the O.V., God never knew he would have "defective" cars that he would need to "repair" because of their dangerous "features." The O.V. teaches God created us with no intention of prior knowledge of how evil we would become and had actually really and truly had positive hopes we would follow him. After all, Adam and Eve knew and spoke with him. Adam was there when he made Eve, he saw his power with his own eyes.
Why would they fall? It was really a bad decision for someone as smart as Adam and one that would be unlikely by all rights.
Now we have the S.V., God knew all along everyone would fall and a good 70% of people would reject him and go to Hell. And perish there forever and ever and ever. S.V. tries to say God loved them so much he had to create them. Couldn't resist. Again, from the last post.. that is not love, that is selfishness.
"I am going to create you, but before I do I know I will be blessed by loving you, but I then send you to hell for not choosing to love me. That is why I made you."
Going back to the car illustration. If the owner knew all of his cars would be broken, sold them anyway, then issued a recall knowing only a few would bring them back to be fixed, and everyone else who drove them would inevitably be killed by these defective cars... that car maker should be executed.
:execute:
God would agree... trust me.
mitchellmckain
New member
RobE said:
The problem with this is that it ignores the involvement of the knower in the events taking place and the nature of x as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. So while this argument of yours works fine for a Deist conception of God, it fails miserably with a Christian conception of God.
In other words we must first dispense with the misleading use of x instead of God.
Premise 1: It must be that (if God knows that you are going to do [some action] A, then you will do A).
Premise 2: But if you must do A, then you have no choice in the matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus: If God knows (beforehand) that you are going to do A, then you will do A.
Premise 2: But if you must do A, then you have no choice in the matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus: If God knows (beforehand) that you are going to do A, then you will do A.
Then we must add one of these as a third premise:
Premise 3 version 1: God takes no part in or has any influence on the events of your life.
Premise 3 version 2: God, having unlimited power, knowledge and presence has a pervasive, intimate and inescapable impact on all events in the your life.
An intermediate version of premise 3 is precluded by the nature of god having unlimited power, knowledge and presence, for by the virtue of his knowledge and power it is unavoidable that his impact on these events must make it the controlling factor.
So, according to version 1: "Thus: If God knows (beforehand) that you are going to do A, then you will do A." combined with premise 3 version 1 results in the conclusion that you are the cause of A. And thus you retain free will and responsibility for your actions, but God has no part in your life and his existence can be (and should be) ignored as many atheists, agnostics and Deists claim.
But according to version 2: "Thus: If God knows (beforehand) that you are going to do A, then you will do A." combined with premise 3 version 2 results in the conclusion that God is the cause of A. This means that you retain no responsibility or control over your actions. Since God is the cause of your actions then all the responsiblity and control over the events and choices you make in your life are God's alone. This not only make no sense and envisions a God of evil few can put any faith in, but is also uttler devoid of value in helping anyone live life in a meaningful way. In fact the only benefit I can see at all are to those for whom life seems to be going well, to add an sense of divine approval which amounts to little more than self justification and self righteousness.
Since I must reject both of these conclusions as contradictory and unhelpful, this leads me to conclude that the first premise must be rejected as leading to false and contradictory conclusions. So, if God does not know what we will do and our future actions are in an indeterminate state, it is this way because God wills it to to be so and the interaction God has with the world is careful not to disturb or annihilate such indeterminate states. If, however, we destroy our own future possibilities by addiction to sin to make ourselves robotic and predictable by our participation in evil, then that choice and responsibility is ours. Regardless, free will in the hands of ignorant and nearly powerless finite human beings gives us a rather small scope of control over the events of the world and is hardly an great handicap to God in His manipulation of the events of history. Thus predestination and free will are made compatable without the need for an evil God or an abdication of human responsibility for our sins.
Last edited:
RobE
New member
I'm not sure how to respond to this.
I'm not sure how to respond to this.
This makes God the cause of your actions when He chooses to do so. Your conversion and all good acts become an extension of His mercy and grace through His desire. All other outcomes which you choose for yourself outside of His control are not so admirable. Here is the proof that all those who are reprobate are so because of their desire; and all those who come to salvation do so through the grace of God. Calvin's conclusion.
Calvinism, however, does not consider that God's grace is sufficient for all to be saved according to His desire. This is where Calvinism and I part company. I believe that sufficient Grace is offered to all and God allows us to control the outcome through our acceptance or rejection of that same grace; making it effecacious grace or making us reprobate through our own responsibility. We cooperate with God in receiving or rejecting that gift which He has offered and He has simultaneously given us the ability to accept per the scriptures. We were born with the ability to reject it. Free will.
I should note that free will leads us inexorably towards being reprobate because of our imperfection caused by our immature nature. It is only by putting aside our free will and immersing ourselves within His will do we find salvation and ultimate freedom and perfection of being. The vine and the branches. It is the laying aside of our will and the joining with the Holy Spirit which completes us and achieves His desire.
Calvin's assumption.
It is quite possible that the first premise leads to false and contradictory conclusions. After all, it was set up to remove freedom in light of foreknowlege. The virtual set up of the house of cards as it were.
I would be interested in the steps towards the conclusion of your statement:
This might shed some light on the debate from both points of view.
Rob
I'm not sure how to respond to this.
mitchellmckain said:
Premise 1: It must be that (if God knows that you are going to do [some action] A, then you will do A).
Premise 2: But if you must do A, then you have no choice in the matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus: If God knows (beforehand) that you are going to do A, then you will do A.
I didn't frame the argument. The base argument states that if the future is known at all, by anyone, under any conditions; then free will is eliminated. Therefore x. The corrected argument points out that necessity is not a condition created through foreknowledge and that the original argument is fallacious in its modality. Your assessment of the corrected version is interesting and redirects the debate towards substance.Premise 2: But if you must do A, then you have no choice in the matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus: If God knows (beforehand) that you are going to do A, then you will do A.
Then we must add one of these as a third premise:
Premise 3 version 1: God takes no part in or has any influence on the events of your life.
Premise 3 version 1: God takes no part in or has any influence on the events of your life.
Premise 3 version 2: God, having unlimited power, knowledge and presence has a pervasive, intimate and inescapable impact on all events in the your life.
Your premise 3 would be acceptable if it mentioned necessity.i.e. Premise3 version 3: God, having unlimited power, knowledge, and presence; has a pervasive, intimate, and inescapable impact on all events in your life according to His desire to do so(which isn't born out of necessity)
This makes God the cause of your actions when He chooses to do so. Your conversion and all good acts become an extension of His mercy and grace through His desire. All other outcomes which you choose for yourself outside of His control are not so admirable. Here is the proof that all those who are reprobate are so because of their desire; and all those who come to salvation do so through the grace of God. Calvin's conclusion.
Calvinism, however, does not consider that God's grace is sufficient for all to be saved according to His desire. This is where Calvinism and I part company. I believe that sufficient Grace is offered to all and God allows us to control the outcome through our acceptance or rejection of that same grace; making it effecacious grace or making us reprobate through our own responsibility. We cooperate with God in receiving or rejecting that gift which He has offered and He has simultaneously given us the ability to accept per the scriptures. We were born with the ability to reject it. Free will.
I should note that free will leads us inexorably towards being reprobate because of our imperfection caused by our immature nature. It is only by putting aside our free will and immersing ourselves within His will do we find salvation and ultimate freedom and perfection of being. The vine and the branches. It is the laying aside of our will and the joining with the Holy Spirit which completes us and achieves His desire.
Calvin's assumption.
It is quite possible that the first premise leads to false and contradictory conclusions. After all, it was set up to remove freedom in light of foreknowlege. The virtual set up of the house of cards as it were.
I would be interested in the steps towards the conclusion of your statement:
But according to version 2: "Thus: If God knows (beforehand) that you are going to do A, then you will do A." combined with premise 3 version 2 results in the conclusion that God is the cause of A.
This might shed some light on the debate from both points of view.
Rob
- Status