ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[themuzicman]

There's not much left to say. Rob's test has been exposed as invalid for a variety of reasons, and mine is still in working order.

Not that I expect Rob to agree.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

Open Theism dead? I don't think so! ... It may get a little homicidal at times, but hang in there ...

Well, the requirement is that OVT win the arguments, and the OVT argument fell silent in response to points about God controlling and planning even sinful events for good, there is no further reply on the point of whether God changes his mind, or changed his overall plan in specific instances, and now we are wrangling over whether free will and foreknowledge are compatible, an admittedly murky area in many aspects, yet for which there are clear Scriptures which show that God knows future choices to be made, and even these verses have alas, been met with more silence.

So this would imply the Open Theists have been addressed in their major arguments--time perhaps, to close the open case...

 

[themuzicman]

Well, the requirement is that OVT win the arguments, and there is now silence on the point of God controlling and planning even sinful events, for good, on the point of whether God changes his mind, or changed his overall plan in specific instances, and now we are wrangling over whether free will and foreknowledge are compatible, an admittedly murky area in many ways.

So this would imply the Open Theists have been addressed, in their major arguments, and now are reduced to arguing obscure points of less importance--time perhaps, to close the open case.

Or, more accurately, these questions have been answered, and what remains is the sniveling of reformed theologians who don't know when to stop digging.

To be honest, Rob is down for the count on his defense of compatiblism.

Muz

 

[RobE]

Robe makes a good and valid - none the less totally meaningless and for that reason idiotic - point. No matter what you do you didn't do otherwise, which is the very same as the inverse saying that Everything we do is otherwise than what we didn't do. The stupidity in all that is that it has absolutely no practical application in reality (past, present or eventual future) or any meaning in anyone’s theology, not even his own.

Consider this....

The only way to prove the validity of doing otherwise is to assume foreknowledge.

Muz made a great point in saying that we are unable to know for sure that we did other than A if A is unknown. For example, I assume that I will wash my car, but then I don't. The assumption of what I foreknow I will do proves the validity that I did otherwise.

If doing otherwise is only able to be validated if the action is assumed to be foreknown, then.....

Either;

LFW's definition is untrue because it is unverifiable because of the lack of the assumed foreknowledge,

or

LFW's definition assumes that foreknowledge is present and therefore is able to make the statement 'able to do otherwise' and rejects a conflict between foreknowledge and free will as being true.

Please don't be too hasty in coming to a conlusion on this. This requires some thought.

 

[RobE]

The problem is that "A" is undefined in his test. It shifts based upon my future unknown choice. That's why the test is invalid: There's no standard to say whether I did otherwise or not.

And A must remain undefined for open theism to remain true unless we assume that foreknowledge is true.

 

[lee_merrill]

Or, more accurately, these questions have been answered, and what remains is the sniveling of reformed theologians who don't know when to stop digging.

This alas, seems to be a wishful sort of thinking. Where are the responses to the verses I posted about Cyrus? And then "Before they call I will answer" is not saying God is nimble and quick to form an answer to spoken prayers because he reads thoughts(!). God does know future choices, as is also shown by prediction of future choices in Revelation.

And God does not speak and then not act, he does not promise and not fulfill, and he does not take back his words, we may take the OVT proof texts as having implied conditions--as in the case of Jonah, instead of saying God changed his overall plan.

God does plan even sinful events for good, as in the cross, as in Paul's thorn in the flesh, which was given to keep him humble, this would therefore be given by God.

There remain few if any main points in OVT that now are needing to be addressed...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[RobE]

RobE,

I am intentionally ignoring all but the below quoted portion of your post because it was all entirely unresponsive and obfuscatory. Why do you respond to the points I've made and ignore the arguments which support them? Are you trying to waste my time? Is that it?

Not in the least.

I'm going to make the same argument again, only in an abbreviated fashion and you will either respond to it directly or I will understand that you have conceded the debate.

Does this mean I must respond to it in the manner of your choosing or I'm wrong?

Don't bother elaborating on it, it isn't the same topic.

Does this mean you aren't interested in my thinking and you're simply trying to pigeon-hole the entire discussion?

What I want you to acknowledge is that I have shown with clear examples that one can have authority, strength and knowledge without being a good person.

One can have authority, strength, and knowledge without being a good person.

That's the main point I want you to focus on Rob! Forget everything else I've said for now and focus exclusively on that single point. Since you seem incapable of anything more complex than that, we'll take this one baby step at a time.

I appreciate your patience.

Do you acknowledge that the amount of authority, strength and knowledge a person has does not speak to the quality of that person; that a person can have more authority than anyone he knows, be the world's strongest man, and know more stuff than anyone else around and still remain the most evil guy on the planet?

I would say that his authority, strength, knowledge, and evilness were all qualities because a quantity isn't established within your description. i.e. a little authoritative, very evil, full of knowledge, etc......

DON'T ELABORATE! Just answer the question, "Yes, Clete I acknowledge that authority, strength and knowledge is not what makes someone a quality person." or "No, I will not acknowledge that a person who is more powerful than someone else isn't also better than that other person."

Sorry, I elaborated before I saw this part......

Yes, Clete I acknowledge that authority, strength, and knowledge is not what makes someone a quality person.

and,

Power doesn't make someone better than someone else.

Finally, (more elaboration, sorry) these are all qualities which people have in greater or lesser quantities.

 

[themuzicman]

Consider this....

The only way to prove the validity of doing otherwise is to assume foreknowledge.[/qutoe]

This is true. Thus, we must rely upon our logical conclusions, rather than trying to demonstrate it.

Muz made a great point in saying that we are unable to know for sure that we did other than A if A is unknown. For example, I assume that I will wash my car, but then I don't. The assumption of what foreknow I will do proves the validity that I did otherwise.

If doing otherwise is only able to be validated if the action is assumed to be foreknown, then.....

Either;

LFW's definition is untrue because it is unverifiable because of the lack of the assumed foreknowledge,

You can't conclude truth or falsity based upon a lack of evidence. That's arguing from silence.

or

LFW's definition assumes that foreknowledge is present and therefore is able to make the statement 'able to do otherwise' and rejects a conflict between foreknowledge and free will as being true.

Except that the test of LFW in the presence of EDF is valid and verifiable, and it failed.

Please don't be too hasty in coming to a conlusion on this. This requires some thought.

All that thought that is necessary is to realize that EDF with LFW is kapute. It's logically impossible, as demonstrated through the test I provided.

So, we're left to choose between EDF with determinism, or LFW.

Muz

 

[RobE]

All that thought that is necessary is to realize that EDF with LFW is kapute. It's logically impossible, as demonstrated through the test I provided.

So, we're left to choose between EDF with determinism, or LFW.

Even though the proof of LFW's truth requires EDF to substantiate it?

 

[themuzicman]

Even though the proof of LFW's truth requires EDF to substantiate it?

LFW doesn't require EDF to validate that it is logical. We simply do not have a scientific method of testing it. That would be because LFW isn't repeatable, and science requires the ability to create or observe conditions in a repeatable fashion.

Thus, it is a limitation of the scientific method that is at issue.

So, we're left with other external evidence of LFW, specifically from a Scriptural standpoint, the nature of what God has created and His purpose in creating. From an OVT perspective, both God's desire for loving relationships and God's just nature which results in wrath against those who do not believe in Him both require Libertarian Free Will.

Muz

 

[RobE]

LFW doesn't require EDF to validate that it is logical. We simply do not have a scientific method of testing it.

Ok. Do so. Give me an example of 'doing otherwise' without assuming foreknowledge of what you would do. A logical argument, not scientific since you admit it is scientifically untestable.

Remember - You can't conclude truth or falsity based upon a lack of evidence. That's arguing from silence. - Muz

 

[Clete]

Not in the least.



Does this mean I must respond to it in the manner of your choosing or I'm wrong?



Does this mean you aren't interested in my thinking and you're simply trying to pigeon-hole the entire discussion?



One can have authority, strength, and knowledge without being a good person.



I appreciate your patience.



I would say that his authority, strength, knowledge, and evilness were all qualities because a quantity isn't established within your description. i.e. a little authoritative, very evil, full of knowledge, etc......



Sorry, I elaborated before I saw this part......

Yes, Clete I acknowledge that authority, strength, and knowledge is not what makes someone a quality person.

and,

Power doesn't make someone better than someone else.

Finally, (more elaboration, sorry) these are all qualities which people have in greater or lesser quantities.

They are not qualities in the sense in which we are using the term. They are attributes, yes but not qualitative ones because they do not speak to the quality of a person but only the person's attributes. In other words, a person has strength or he does not, either way he can be righteous or he can be evil. It is what he does that determines the quality of a person's character not how big and powerful he may or may not be.

Would you agree with that?

It is a crucial point because otherwise you will continue to make the category errors you have been making in trying to argue against it. There is nowhere else for us to go until this point is understood.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[themuzicman]

Ok. Do so. Give me an example of 'doing otherwise' without assuming foreknowledge of what you would do. A logical argument, not scientific since you admit it is scientifically untestable.

Logically, LFW says that agent A at time Z may do A or ~A.

I am agent A, Z is 11am this morning, and 'A' is going to Wendy's to buy lunch. (Assume it is 9am this morning, for the sake of this example.)
Am I able to do 'A' at time Z and maintain the truth of LFW? (Yes.)
Am I able to do '~A' at time Z and maintain the truth of LFW? (Yes.)

In fact, at 11am this morning, I went to Little Caesars to get a slice of pizza and some bread with sauce.

Thus, I freely chose to do '~A.'

Thus, it is shown logically that LFW is consistent.

Remember - You can't conclude truth or falsity based upon a lack of evidence. That's arguing from silence. - Muz

Correct. I assert truth based upon logic, rather than scientific evidence in this case.

Muz

 

[Nang]

Correct. I assert truth based upon logic, rather than scientific evidence in this case.

Muz

It is still a humanistic approach, tho . . .and hardly qualifies as "theology."

"Theology" is the study of God who is revealed in the propositional truths contained in Holy Scripture; proven by faith alone.

(I had to argue with you a little bit, because Clete sent me a neg rep for not joining this discussion.) :chuckle:

You and Rob may now continue your debate . . .

Nang

 

[themuzicman]

It is still a humanistic approach, tho . . .and hardly qualifies as "theology."

I tried to get back to theology in my previous post, but RobE ignored it.

OVT IS based upon a Scriptural view of God, man, and creation. LFW is simply one of the ways that some try to describe them.

"Theology" is the study of God who is revealed in the propositional truths contained in Holy Scripture; proven by faith alone.

(I had to argue with you a little bit, because Clete sent me a neg rep for not joining this discussion.) :chuckle:

You and Rob may now continue your debate . . .

Nang

Thanks.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

Consider this....

The only way to prove the validity of doing otherwise is to assume foreknowledge.

Muz made a great point in saying that we are unable to know for sure that we did other than A if A is unknown. For example, I assume that I will wash my car, but then I don't. The assumption of what I foreknow I will do proves the validity that I did otherwise.

If doing otherwise is only able to be validated if the action is assumed to be foreknown, then.....

Either;

LFW's definition is untrue because it is unverifiable because of the lack of the assumed foreknowledge,

or

LFW's definition assumes that foreknowledge is present and therefore is able to make the statement 'able to do otherwise' and rejects a conflict between foreknowledge and free will as being true.

Please don't be too hasty in coming to a conlusion on this. This requires some thought.

Thanks for your thoughtful yet narrow and limited reply.

Hasty? I've been reading this garbledeegook for days and reached my conclusion after years of wrestling with the issues ... long before you boiled truth and reality down to two options; neither having anything to do with the view of Open Theism.

I say it is garbledeegook only because it is totally irrelevant to the view you are arguing against. You don't even entertain the Open View premise in your two options above! You show no evidence that you even understand Open Theism by your persistence to put forth arguments and offer options that have no meaning in an unsettled future. So, hear me out.

OR (option #3 omitted above)
Foreknowledge as definite/exact knowledge of future events as if they already happened rather than possible, promised and/or achievable goals, is mere theological fiction/invention which has no sound basis in scripture whatsoever. It is the result of exaggerations of texts read in isolation from the over all truth about God.

Robe, your position has absolutely no opposite or opposing argument in Open Theism. That is the idiocy of trying to discuss it in a meaningful way with you. It is meaningless from an Open Theism point of view because (for us) in a realistic world view there is not anything to foreknow as you define foreknowledge. Open Theists approach the future with hope while living in the already reality of that COMING future by grace in love because we have placed our faith in the One who both can and will achieve the end results He has established as certain even if they are yet to be fully achieved. That is why we must speak of the Kingdom of God as both now and not yet. The reign of God is not yet complete (it is being resisted) yet IS both a present reality (at least in part but never the less real) and is a future certainty because God is (among other things as you rightly pointed out) faithful and able.

The argument you raise doesn’t even inter into the equation for Open Theism. The future simply doesn’t exist. NOT YET! There is nothing to foreknow as fact. But there are things we can expect as certain. Things both mundane (you might wash your car) and things earth shattering (the sun will ‘come up’ tomorrow IF God doesn’t intervene) and things cosmic (Christ Jesus will return, the Kingdom will come and it will last forever). NOTHING will prevent God from accomplishing His intention even if He changes His mind about mundane or even earth-shattering things. There is only a future to be shaped and reached not one already known as existent. The future God plans and will bring about remains a goal and yet it is even now BECOMING a reality in the lives of those in Christ and God in infinite wisdom uses all His attributes and unlimited resources to achieve that future. He will not fail even if we do not reach the future with God. Some just refer to that as death/the final judgment or eternal punishment/damnation. Call it what you want; it amounts to a future void of God.

“A” and a million “not As” present themselves as choices daily and when one has been chosen and acted on every other possibility becomes otherwise at that instant and “A” becomes a known reality that influence and helps shape the not yet and somewhat different future. (Will you be driving a cleaner or dirtier car tomorrow?) No one can destroy the future God has planned as the end of this world and the creation of the next by simply making bad choices moment by moment. But, you can bet your best bippy we can most certainly miss the future God has planed for us by making the bad (sinful) choice to trust in and pursue our own imagined futures. The end of that way that seemeth right unto man (the future that doesn’t believe in and move toward the future God plans and invites us to join) is destruction. Not the destruction of the future that God will reach and carry believers into, but self-destruction which is in reality NO FUTURE AT ALL.

God has planned and made provision for all to experience His future. God may have finished creating the world in six days; but God is very actively involved at the present re-creating us for the future He is now preparing. You may certainly do otherwise. Some call it LFW and try to force it into an imagined future. Others just refer to it as God given freedom to follow Jesus into His Kingdom (THE future) in faith ... or not.


New creature living in hope and expectation,
Philetus


Simple response: Don't impose your petty little options on the God of Open Theism.
The only way to prove the validity of doing otherwise is to just do it and then explain it to everyone else when you get to hell.:chuckle:

 

[Philetus]

Well, the requirement is that OVT win the arguments, and the OVT argument fell silent in response to points about God controlling and planning even sinful events for good, there is no further reply on the point of whether God changes his mind, or changed his overall plan in specific instances, and now we are wrangling over whether free will and foreknowledge are compatible, an admittedly murky area in many aspects, yet for which there are clear Scriptures which show that God knows future choices to be made, and even these verses have alas, been met with more silence.

So this would imply the Open Theists have been addressed in their major arguments--time perhaps, to close the open case...

take your meds

 

[lee_merrill]

take your meds

But this is not a refutation, this only prolongs the silence, it does seem the Open View has given up on its main points here, and in another forum too, and I talked with a theology professor the other day who said this was what he had seen as well, so sorry for the end of a noble effort in various of OVT's aspects, and truth is what we are all after, regardless of the view, yes?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Nang]

No one can destroy the future God has planned as the end of this world and the creation of the next by simply making bad choices moment by moment.

How can God "plan" the future if He doesn't know it?

God has planned and made provision for all to experience His future.

What exactly is the future that God has planned and provided? Do you teach details? If so, where do you find the details of what God's future plan entails?

How does the OT'er know for sure God will not change His mind, and alter the future?

New creature living in hope and expectation,
Philetus

What exactly is your "hope and expectation?" Surely you do not advocate BLIND faith . . . do you?

Nang

 

[Philetus]

LFW doesn't require EDF to validate that it is logical. We simply do not have a scientific method of testing it. That would be because LFW isn't repeatable, and science requires the ability to create or observe conditions in a repeatable fashion.

Thus, it is a limitation of the scientific method that is at issue.

So, we're left with other external evidence of LFW, specifically from a Scriptural standpoint, the nature of what God has created and His purpose in creating. From an OVT perspective, both God's desire for loving relationships and God's just nature which results in wrath against those who do not believe in Him both require Libertarian Free Will.

Muz

:first:

I've tried to pos-rep you a dozen times in the past day ... gotta spread it around some.



Expressed/acted on LFW becomes history (settled) immediately.