Justin (Wiccan)
New member
:think:
Ok. I can dig that.
Ok. I can dig that.
Interaction with perfect foreknowledge?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
One question that must be asked is . . . what is the point of God's interaction with man?Justin (Wiccan) said:
Why did He tell Adam not to eat from the tree?
Why did He tell Noah to build a boat?
Why did He tell Moses to tell Pharaoh He would smite Egypt?
Why did He tell Jonah to tell Nineveh that in 40 days they would be overthrown?
Why did He become flesh?
Why did He pick and teach His apostles?
Why did He convert the apostle Paul?
Etc., etc., etc.
Why interact? What is the purpose of God's interactions?
Justin (Wiccan)
New member
Knight said:
I think it's far more relevant to ask "What is the purpose of claiming these interactions are historical," but that's just me.
justchristian
New member
I still see the logic jump that God's foreknowledge of his interaction limits that interaction. The idea of reason behind disclosing foreknowledge as preventive or building trust is valid. But again I simply don't agree with the logic error so many claim that a closed future negates freewill or God's interaction. Meh, I'll chew on it some more.
logos_x
New member
justchristian said:
I had the same problem. Demonstrated by THIS exchange .
When Knight posted this thread, the opening post just clicked for me...and i saw where the real difficulty lies.
The personal interaction of God completely resolves the problem I was having...which was this:
In order to accomodate this interaction as effective I had to answer "yes" to the hypothetical scenario that if God revealed to me in His perfect foreknowledge something that would occur, could I then act otherwise?
My answer "yes" was true...but at the same time negates God's "perfect forknowledge" because what He said would happen... would not happen because I ACTED ON the knowledge He provided. That made it nonsensical.
Knight,
Brilliant argument. I love it. :up:
It occurred to me while I was reading both of your two major posts that this is a twist on and a vast expansion of an argument that I've been using for a while about how closed viewers must live their lives just as though the future was actually open only you've had the absolute genius idea of applying that logic to God's actions rather than man's. Brilliant!
Resting in Him,
Clete
Brilliant argument. I love it. :up:
It occurred to me while I was reading both of your two major posts that this is a twist on and a vast expansion of an argument that I've been using for a while about how closed viewers must live their lives just as though the future was actually open only you've had the absolute genius idea of applying that logic to God's actions rather than man's. Brilliant!
Resting in Him,
Clete
justchristian
New member
I fully agree that from our perspective we must live as though the future is open, that our choices are ours. They are.
OK. Great thanks for spelling that out...more goodness to chew on. But I am off to camp. God Bless you guys this weekend. See you on monday.
I agree.justchristian said:
For instance:
- Knight has the free will to change his mind on this issue.
- I know that I won't change Knight's mind,
- yet I continue (for the same excellent reasons he put forth in his second post) to pursuade him that my perfect foreknowledge doesn't negate his free will!
Now, I'm just a lowly human. Just think how much better God's foreknowledge is.
Go ahead, Knight.... prove me wrong!
If this is the sort of knowledge you are speaking of when you say God knows the future then there is no disagreement. But this is not what Arminians and Calvinists say at all because in fact you do not know what Knight will or will not do, you only have really good reason to believe what he will do and are completely convinced that you are right about what he will not change his mind. But having good reason to believe is not the same as knoweldge.skeptech said:I agree.
For instance:
- Knight has the free will to change his mind on this issue.
- I know that I won't change Knight's mind,
- yet I continue (for the same excellent reasons he put forth in his second post) to pursuade him that my perfect foreknowledge doesn't negate his free will!
Now, I'm just a lowly human. Just think how much better God's foreknowledge is.
Go ahead, Knight.... prove me wrong!
Resting in Him,
Clete
logos_x
New member
By foreknowledge, for God, IMHO, it simply means being able to reasonably and with a high degree of certainty percieve what is going to occur at any given moment, unless you (as God) do something to change the outcome.
Perfect exhaustive foreknowledge would mean that everything is foreknown, with no ability to change. All time becomes immutible, predetermined, and static.
Perfect exhaustive foreknowledge would mean that everything is foreknown, with no ability to change. All time becomes immutible, predetermined, and static.
Uh . . . ditto!Clete said:
I was just starting to type a response when I saw yours which is perfect. :up:
Excellent!logos_x said:
A very clean, concise description.
Foreknowledge and divine interaction . . . . a mechanism to influence freewill.
OK, so lets again focus in on how foreknowledge and divine interaction is used to affect our will. I would like to illustrate how foreknowledge and divine interaction are meaningless unless the future is unsettled and we have the real ability to make choices that are not predetermined.
Imagine we are driving down a hot desert highway and there is nothing but miles and miles of emptiness. No towns, no gas stations, no rest stops . . . nothing!
Then we see a billboard.
The billboard says . . .
"Joe's Diner 1 mile ahead
Last chance to stop for 200 miles!"
This billboard interacts with us in a form of foreknowledge. Prior to seeing the billboard we really had no idea what the future held for us, but now we do have an idea what the future holds for us, there will be a Diner in a mile or so and there won't be another place to stop for 200 miles! So why did the creators of the billboard construct the billboard and place it on the side of the road?
The creators of the billboard did this to influence our freewill and future decisions. They desire that we stop and eat at their restaurant. And they also inform us that if we don't stop there we will not have another chance to stop for food for 200 more miles, that's about another 4 hours of driving time!
Because of this billboard we are now presented with a choice. Should we stop at Joe's diner or wait another four hours? Our freewill is now being influenced by the billboard. The creators of the billboard don't know what we will choose to do - but certainly they want to influence our choice which is the ONLY reason they took the time to interact with us
God's billboard to Adam.
God created Adam and Eve in the garden. Adam and Eve had it good! No rules, awesome surroundings, great company, communion with God, etc. Now God, wanting to have UNcoerced love with His creation didn't want to lock Adam and Eve in a box forcing them to love Him with no other option. So God introduced a rule. A single rule for Adam to follow (or not follow). Don't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Yet by introducing this rule it introduced the ability for Adam and Eve to do other than God's will for them. It introduced the ability for Adam and Eve to use their own will contrary to God's will for them. You might say that this instruction or rule was the birth of man's freewill.
This instruction was like a billboard on the side of the road.
The instruction was an interaction between God and Adam in which God gave Adam some foreknowledge... "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
This foreknowledge that God dispensed to Adam had the TWO FOLD purpose that I outlined in my post number 13 of this thread.
Purpose One: Attempt to influence Adam's will so that he doesn't eat from the tree and die spiritually.
Purpose two: If Adam DOES eat from the tree and dies spiritually Adam will have renewed faith that God is who He says He is.
If . . . (on the other hand) all of Adam's choices are already known by God (a millennia beforehand) and all of this history has already been seen by God, what appears to be an interaction between Adam and God becomes merely an interaction in appearance and nothing else. The entire point of God interacting with Adam is an attempt by God to influence Adam's will. If Adam's will can be influenced, there must be different courses of history possible - i.e., the future cannot be settled - even if only settled in the mind of God.
Interaction between man and God is a lever or mechanism to effect and conform the will of man to the will of God.
OK, so lets again focus in on how foreknowledge and divine interaction is used to affect our will. I would like to illustrate how foreknowledge and divine interaction are meaningless unless the future is unsettled and we have the real ability to make choices that are not predetermined.
Imagine we are driving down a hot desert highway and there is nothing but miles and miles of emptiness. No towns, no gas stations, no rest stops . . . nothing!
Then we see a billboard.
The billboard says . . .
"Joe's Diner 1 mile ahead
Last chance to stop for 200 miles!"
This billboard interacts with us in a form of foreknowledge. Prior to seeing the billboard we really had no idea what the future held for us, but now we do have an idea what the future holds for us, there will be a Diner in a mile or so and there won't be another place to stop for 200 miles! So why did the creators of the billboard construct the billboard and place it on the side of the road?
The creators of the billboard did this to influence our freewill and future decisions. They desire that we stop and eat at their restaurant. And they also inform us that if we don't stop there we will not have another chance to stop for food for 200 more miles, that's about another 4 hours of driving time!
Because of this billboard we are now presented with a choice. Should we stop at Joe's diner or wait another four hours? Our freewill is now being influenced by the billboard. The creators of the billboard don't know what we will choose to do - but certainly they want to influence our choice which is the ONLY reason they took the time to interact with us
God's billboard to Adam.
God created Adam and Eve in the garden. Adam and Eve had it good! No rules, awesome surroundings, great company, communion with God, etc. Now God, wanting to have UNcoerced love with His creation didn't want to lock Adam and Eve in a box forcing them to love Him with no other option. So God introduced a rule. A single rule for Adam to follow (or not follow). Don't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Yet by introducing this rule it introduced the ability for Adam and Eve to do other than God's will for them. It introduced the ability for Adam and Eve to use their own will contrary to God's will for them. You might say that this instruction or rule was the birth of man's freewill.
This instruction was like a billboard on the side of the road.
The instruction was an interaction between God and Adam in which God gave Adam some foreknowledge... "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
This foreknowledge that God dispensed to Adam had the TWO FOLD purpose that I outlined in my post number 13 of this thread.
Purpose One: Attempt to influence Adam's will so that he doesn't eat from the tree and die spiritually.
Purpose two: If Adam DOES eat from the tree and dies spiritually Adam will have renewed faith that God is who He says He is.
If . . . (on the other hand) all of Adam's choices are already known by God (a millennia beforehand) and all of this history has already been seen by God, what appears to be an interaction between Adam and God becomes merely an interaction in appearance and nothing else. The entire point of God interacting with Adam is an attempt by God to influence Adam's will. If Adam's will can be influenced, there must be different courses of history possible - i.e., the future cannot be settled - even if only settled in the mind of God.
Interaction between man and God is a lever or mechanism to effect and conform the will of man to the will of God.
Last edited:
But I already addressed this. Of course my foreknowledge is flawed. But if I were God, it would be infinitely better.Clete said:
It might be boring for God if he already knows the future, but I don't see how we can say it's a logical fallacy. We might infer that there is a purpose to his intervention, but that doesn't mean he isn't just going through the motions, so that he can say "I told you so!" (purpose #2 of Knight's second post). He might also very well know that if he didn't intervene, we would do something different.
Purpose One: Influence us to stop at their diner.skeptech said:
Purpose Two: If we don't stop, we might regret our decision that we didn't stop when we are starving like dogs three hours later.
Which in turn will make us that much more likely to stop at their diner if we ever drive down that road again.
What does infinitely better mean? As much better as it could be given the limitations of reality or absolute exhaustive foreknowledge? There's a difference.skeptech said:
By itself it is not a logical fallacy. What is a logical fallacy is when you try to have both free will AND exhaustive foreknowledge. It's falacious from about a dozen different directions which have been and are being explored on other threads.
If this were so it would pretty much prove Knight's point wouldn't it?
So what? How does this impact the argument being made?
Resting in Him,
Clete
