Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DonW
    replied
    Freewill/Closed Future Contradiction

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    Which other thread?

    Leave a comment:


  • DonW
    replied
    Hilston, who is much better at arguing this line of thought than you are, would say that there is no analogy; that there are things of God that we cannot comprehend and have no parallel in our existence.
    In the other thread I've said that and more. I have no idea what Hilston's arguments were, but if you want to see mine you need to go to the other thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yorzhik
    replied
    Originally posted by DonW
    Yorzhik, I didn't say "He doesn't expect" I said "He doesn't intend." There is a great difference.
    LOL. No way. You didn't just say that there is a great difference between "expect" and "intend" did you? So how is it possible to not get what you expect if you have exhaustive foreknowledge when you create your intentions?

    This is exactly the reason why the SV is so damaging to God's plans. God wants us to tell people how to be saved. But if we say stupid things like this then people have good reason to avoid us.

    Originally posted by DonW
    The analogy is not reversible, because I know nothing from foreknowledge. I only know principles and processes which dictate an inevitable outcome. Yet I choose to partake in life that will inevitably result in death for me and everyone I bring into this world, yet it is not my decisions that cause those deaths directly.
    This happens every time. I say "one cannot be the first cause and know the future exhaustively and not be responsible for future events." And the response always comes back "I can know some future event (like the death of a child) and yet I'm not responsible." And I come back with "Do you know the future exhaustively?" And they come back with "The analogy is not reversible" or some similar phrase divesting themselves of the analogy they just used!

    If you did have exhaustive foreknowledge and you were then first cause, then your decisions in creating the initial causes also cause every event that proceeds from those initial conditions.

    Now... please provide us with an analogy where someone with exhaustive foreknowledge and is the first cause would not be responsible for every event built upon the first cause. I'll even help you here. Hilston, who is much better at arguing this line of thought than you are, would say that there is no analogy; that there are things of God that we cannot comprehend and have no parallel in our existence.

    Your analogy fails because you assume God created for immediate gratification, that only a good result now will satisfy God.
    What did I say that would cause you to respond with this? I didn't provide an analogy.

    DonW continues:
    God could indeed have foreknown that Adam would fall on his second day of existence and chosen to create because of the ultimate benefit that some would choose the way of salvation.
    No, because that would make God the author of evil.

    Originally posted by DonW
    Your analogy of the vineyard fails for the same reason, and because the metaphor of the vineyard is not complete. Wherever the similitude fails your analogy must also fail. A grape vine does not have free will. It is an organism that responds mechanically to stimuli and resource availability.
    Thanks for the lesson in "an analogy breaks down after a certain point." Go tell God; it's His analogy. Or are you going to say that the Isaiah 5:1-7 does not contain an analogy?

    Originally posted by DonW
    Every Hebrew had a choice whether to worship regardless of how good Yahweh has been. That free will means that however rightfully God is due worship, they are not compelled to worship Him and may choose to worship the baals instead. In the time of Elijah God had seven thousand men who would not turn to idols. We are led to believe that in every generation there were found men of faith. Notwithstanding their character could not outweigh the unfaithfulness of the masses.
    This is what Clete was saying. You accept the contradiction, and so all manner of reason escapes you. Your quote immediately above - that's what we say. Since we both say it, it doesn't help your argument. One might even call it obfuscation. If you had a grasp of reason on this subject, you would show how the Hebrews had a choice when at the same time God programmed them to chose a certain way.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shadowx
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Enyart
    So, do any Calvinists or Setted Viewers think that their side lost Battle Royale X?

    Now that it's over. Do any think they won?

    I'd like to know what you think.

    -Bob

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Enyart
    replied
    So, do any Calvinists/Setters think they won/lost BR X?

    So, do any Calvinists or Setted Viewers think that their side lost Battle Royale X?

    Now that it's over. Do any think they won?

    I'd like to know what you think.

    -Bob

    Leave a comment:


  • Zakath
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Enyart
    Okay, I have a question for Zakath.

    Or for that matter, for Flipper, Taoist or Huey. (Huey! Hey, what ever happened to Heusden and his invisible mice?)

    It seems that Sam has left the Coliseum leaving behind a number of unanswered questions. I’m wondering if any of you think (or anyone else for that matter) that this situation calls for Sodium Pentothal (truth serum, for those not familiar with SP or BR VII).

    Thoughts?

    -Bob
    Well, taoist was recently banned from TOL and I haven't seen Flipper in a while and Heusden hasn't posted here since late 2003... I guess that leaves me to answer.

    I honestly lost interest in what was essentially an "in-house" argument between you and the good Dr. Lamerson after about the third round. So I'm not a very helpful person to ask about whether or not any unanswered questions are worth finding out about.

    That being the case, I'd vote "no" on using thiopental, (Sodium Pentothal™ for any old spy movie buffs).

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Enyart
    replied
    Is it time for SP, or is that too drastic a measure for BR X?

    Okay, I have a question for Zakath.

    Or for that matter, for Flipper, Taoist or Huey. (Huey! Hey, what ever happened to Heusden and his invisible mice?)

    It seems that Sam has left the Coliseum leaving behind a number of unanswered questions. I’m wondering if any of you think (or anyone else for that matter) that this situation calls for Sodium Pentothal (truth serum, for those not familiar with SP or BR VII).

    Thoughts?

    -Bob

    Leave a comment:


  • DonW
    replied
    [geek]
    Babylon 5. My sig is also an inside joke for B5ers.
    [/geek]

    Leave a comment:


  • Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by DonW
    Are you a B5 fan?
    I don't even know what B5 is.

    Leave a comment:


  • DonW
    replied
    Are you a B5 fan?

    Leave a comment:


  • Knight
    replied
    DonW I love your sig.

    Leave a comment:


  • DonW
    replied
    Yorzhik, I didn't say "He doesn't expect" I said "He doesn't intend." There is a great difference.

    The analogy is not reversible, because I know nothing from foreknowledge. I only know principles and processes which dictate an inevitable outcome. Yet I choose to partake in life that will inevitably result in death for me and everyone I bring into this world, yet it is not my decisions that cause those deaths directly.

    Your analogy fails because you assume God created for immediate gratification, that only a good result now will satisfy God. God could indeed have foreknown that Adam would fall on his second day of existence and chosen to create because of the ultimate benefit that some would choose the way of salvation.

    Your analogy of the vineyard fails for the same reason, and because the metaphor of the vineyard is not complete. Wherever the similitude fails your analogy must also fail. A grape vine does not have free will. It is an organism that responds mechanically to stimuli and resource availability.

    Every Hebrew had a choice whether to worship regardless of how good Yahweh has been. That free will means that however rightfully God is due worship, they are not compelled to worship Him and may choose to worship the baals instead. In the time of Elijah God had seven thousand men who would not turn to idols. We are led to believe that in every generation there were found men of faith. Notwithstanding their character could not outweigh the unfaithfulness of the masses.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yorzhik
    replied
    Originally posted by DonW
    But wait, didn't you just agree with me that intent is the key? So if events cascade which God allows as expressions of free will but did not intend, then God is not liable, nor lying about His transcendence (which includes not being responsible for free will acts of created agents).
    Oh. Somehow I thought you didn't agree with the Open View. And now here you say that God allows free will and things happen that He doesn't expect. Great. And here I thought you defended exhaustive forknowledge.

    Originally posted by DonW
    That assumes that God intends for the result of every free will action. That assumption is not necessary to foreknowledge.

    For example, I know that any children I have will die. I do not wish for them to die, yet I know it with certainty because of God's declared will that all die and face judgment. Your thesis is comparable to saying that if I choose to have children, I wish death upon them. Instead, I wish them to face life, and death, with courage and good character conforming to the image of Christ.

    By no coincidence, that is exactly what God wishes for every man and woman. I have learned this from God's word, and I have conformed my mind and will to His on this point. God's wish for mankind has never changed, despite His foreknowledge that all mankind would fail and face damnation. He provided a means to achieve His wish, by the blood of Christ Jesus the Son of God.
    Well, we almost are in total agreement. The only parts that are incorrect in your quote here is the part about having children means you want them to die is a valid anology in the OV, and that God was certain that Adam would fail.

    Consider; Since you know that your child will someday die, does that mean you have exhaustive forknowledge?

    God could not have known for sure that Adam would fall. If you knew the nature of God, you would know that God also said, "What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes?" He said this because He wouldn't have any less hope of a good relationship with Adam than He did with the Israelites.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lighthouse
    replied
    Then I can comment, and maybe critique, as well.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X