ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[SaulToPaul 2]

It's the same proof. If you change 'T' to be what you've proposed, the proof is still valid.

Muz

The result is the same, I will perform T. But, choice is not eliminated since
God knew I would choose T.

 

[themuzicman]

The result is the same, I will perform T. But, choice is not eliminated since
God knew I would choose T.

No, the conclusion (given your substitution) is that, because of necessity, you did not freely choose T. The syllogism works either way.

(Yes, you choose it, but not freely.)


(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 choose to answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
(8) Therefore, you cannot choose to do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot choose to do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you choose to answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]
Muz

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

No, the conclusion (given your substitution) is that, because of necessity, you did not freely choose T. The syllogism works either way.

(Yes, you choose it, but not freely.)


(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 choose to answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
(8) Therefore, you cannot choose to do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot choose to do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you choose to answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]
Muz

So, the premise is that God knew I would choose T.
But yet, when I do finally choose T, I didnt choose it?

 

[themuzicman]

So, the premise is that God knew I would choose T.
But yet, when I do finally choose T, I didnt choose it?

Well, the question isn't whether you chose it, but whether you freely chose it.

I can program my computer to choose to display "You are smart" whenever I hit the 'M' key, but it doesn't FREELY choose to do it.

The key word that you're missing is "freely".

Muz

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

So, the premise is that God knew I would freely choose T.
But yet, when I do finally freely choose T, I didnt freely choose it?

 

[themuzicman]

So, the premise is that God knew I would freely choose T.
But yet, when I do finally freely choose T, I didnt freely choose it?

No. The proof demonstrates that, if your choice is foreknown, then you cannot freely choose it.

Muz

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

No. The proof demonstrates that, if your choice is foreknown, then you cannot freely choose it.

Muz

Well, we'll just have to differ.
If the premise is based on freely choosing, the result of making the choice
does not eliminate the freedom.

 

[themuzicman]

Well, we'll just have to differ.
If the premise is based on freely choosing, the result of making the choice
does not eliminate the freedom.

T doesn't necessarily represent "freely" choosing. It represents choosing. The question is whether that choice can be free, if it is foreknown.

And the syllogism is still valid.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

Lee, we are the remnant. We are Israel's way back, Israel's hope.

Well, Paul mentions Gentiles in Romans 11, in clear contrast to the remnant from Israel, these are separate groups.

The "remnant" is not a prophecy of the number of people to be saved.

Seems "a remnant will be saved" is talking about a relative number of people.

By all, Paul is not referring to every Jew past present and future, but all as in "all those present at that time."

I agree.

How can he accomplish this? Because he is LORD.

Right, salvation is by God's decision, as to who is saved and who is not.

But I don't think the Open View will be glad to hear this, just ask Godrulz!

Romans 9:28 "For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality."

Blessings,
Lee <- Thinks he's the bee, and OVT, the bonnet

 

[Yorzhik]

The assumption here is that you are free to do. In this case what 'will be' is brought about and equivalent to your 'will'. Perhaps the problems aren't all mine.

Simply put, when speaking of a free choice what you 'will to do' and what you 'will do' are the same.

But this doesn't get you out of the dilemma you've put yourself into.

God is not relating what your will is, but simply the state of your palms. You still have to extricate your god from the puppet state of knowing but not being able to say. God knowing your will doesn't help. If God knows the future exhaustively, then He can know and can say just as He can know and say whatever has taken place in the passed - but you say He can't; therefore either God does not know the future exhaustively, or the god you describe here isn't real.

What I'm saying is that God's chosen script(or decree) for you is based upon the script you freely choose. God knows what you will choose before you know what you will choose.

The assertion - "then our script is merely a copy" - is unfounded. Our script is the original. God did not choose for you to sin, or do right; you did. God merely allows you at times to do as you choose.

But you step right back into the logical contradiction. It doesn't matter if God has the original or the copy. If He has the state of your palms before you do, and the information is exhaustive, it's the same as seeing a tape of the past for God. If you see a tape of something, there is nothing stopping you, all things being equal, from saying what is happening on the tape. To know but not be able to say makes God a not-the-real-God because something is stopping God from saying while knowing, something more powerful than God. Figure out what that is and you have your REAL God RobE.

RobE continues:

Does God know before your act because God exists atemporally or is it done through calculation?

What God knows about the future is either through His plans or through calculation. There are some things God cannot calculate and they would be some things based on future freewill contingencies. The kitchen table scenario proves this, and so far you've only supported that proof.

No. You mis-interpret the findings. The test doesn't present the argument in a valid way. Prove the validity of your test. Perhaps with a syllogism.

The test is not something which can be done.

It can only not be done with exhaustive foreknowledge. But you can do the test. Try it with your wife.

RobE continues:

1. God foreknows = your choice.

What does this mean? It is saying that God's knowledge is your choice. Now, God might have knowledge of a choice, but that knowledge couldn't be the choice itself, UNLESS, God's knowledge is all that exists and choices don't exist. But that is what you are saying here. Can you explain this or are you going to let this statement stand in opposition to your position that man has will?

RobE continues:

2. Your choice = to do the opposite of what God foreknows.

One of the two are false. This is your point as I have understood it.

You obviously don't understand it.

RobE continues:

The falsehood is that in 2. "You will choose to do the opposite of 1. "your choice"

1. Your choice = what God foreknows
2. Your choice = ~(what God foreknows)

Summary: 3. Your choice <> your choice.

The error is in choosing to do the opposite of what God foreknows. It's impossible that you will choose the opposite of your choice. However, the question is not whether you 'will' choose, but whether you 'can' choose the opposite. Your 'test' does nothing to prove the latter. If it did you might have something.

The test is invalid so what does it prove and how does it prove it? Lay it out step-by-step.

If you really want to say that what God knows IS your choice (the definition of "God's knowledge = your choice"), then you are saying choices do not exist, but only God's knowledge exists. Then, by your definition, man does not have will. That will answer the test. Do you want your answer to stand? Or do you want to change your answer?

 

[Yorzhik]

Certainly--and this does not answer the question.

So you don't agree that a computer program is creation + foreknowledge?

I still believe God can get my hands palms up on the table, and if he says they will be that way, indeed they will.

Sure He can. As long as humans don't have will.

Do people generally insult someone when they think it's inaccurate? So saying "Oh, but it's deserved," well, basically everyone giving insults says that.

"Oh, but it's deserved"... sometimes it's true. And it's true when someone says that a computer program isn't creation + foreknowledge.

There are real fools--however, to call a Christian brother a fool puts a person in danger of the fire of hell.

Matthew 5:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca' [a term of contempt - think 'idiot' here] is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

If I ever trust your ability to interpret scripture is the only time I'll be in danger of hellfire.

We are to tell our brothers who are being fools that they are fools to a much greater extent than we tell the lost.

 

[godrulz]

There is a choice, it's just foreknown.

To say "cannot do otherwise" is like saying that if God knows I will answer the phone at 9 that a mysterious force will drag me out of my lazyboy and force my hand to pick up the receiver.

A choice cannot be certain and contingent at the same time. God knows reality as it is. He knows choices as contingent or certain (law of non-contradiction; you have flawed logic).

 

[lee_merrill]

So you don't agree that a computer program is creation + foreknowledge?

I'm sorry, I forgot what this point of discussion was about.

Sure He can. As long as humans don't have will.

Just because I can make you blink by popping a balloon behind you doesn't mean you have no free will--one action I cause doesn't mean no free will at any time.

If I ever trust your ability to interpret scripture is the only time I'll be in danger of hellfire.

But this is very plain, what do you think Jesus meant about calling people terms such as airheads (a rather literal English counterpart of "raca") or fools?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

A choice cannot be certain and contingent at the same time. God knows reality as it is. He knows choices as contingent or certain (law of non-contradiction; you have flawed logic).

Certain from God's perspective and contingent from mine.
Thanks for the compliments.

 

[Clete]

Certain from God's perspective and contingent from mine.
Thanks for the compliments.

STP I am truly disappointed in this sort of intellectual dishonesty coming from you.

You're simply choosing not to be convinced for no reason. I don't get it. I mean look, if you're comfortable with this sort of intentionally irrational mind set concerning EDF vs. Free Will then why bother with arguing the way you do for Dispensationalism? How do you justify the inconsistency? How would you respond to Godrulz if (and when) he pulls the same sort of "don't bother me with the facts" mentality that you've displayed here?

You started so well too! The question you asked about whether it would be valid to change it from "cannot" to "will not" was a totally valid question! Why have you ignored my response and simply chosen to insist on changing it anyway? It doesn't work, STP. Changing it is irrational. You might like the way it sounds better because your more comfortable with the conclusion but that isn't what makes an argument valid and you know it.

You're lucky I'm a dispensationalist otherwise I'd clobber every argument you made on that subject to death with the very same form of argument you've presented here and then when you objected, I'd simply show the world how you contradict your own standards.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[patman]

Well, Paul mentions Gentiles in Romans 11, in clear contrast to the remnant from Israel, these are separate groups.


Seems "a remnant will be saved" is talking about a relative number of people.


I agree.


Right, salvation is by God's decision, as to who is saved and who is not.

But I don't think the Open View will be glad to hear this, just ask Godrulz!

Romans 9:28 "For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality."

Blessings,
Lee <- Thinks he's the bee, and OVT, the bonnet

Lee, I didn't say anything about God making people get saved. Doesn't Revelation talk about Satan tempting people in that kingdom? "All" is a superlative.

And I know there are 2 groups of remnants here. Paul says we, the body of Christ (gentile believers), are one and compares our usefulness to the remnant of Elijah's day. Both, though different, are used to save "all" Israel.

You only read what you want to hear.

 

[patman]

What you forget is the big picture. Unlike Joe, God would know about the truck or anything else which would occur before making a decision. Complete knowledge is much different than a man's belief about what might occur. God is just a little more intelligent than Joe according to open theism. I hold to the idea that God is infinitely more intelligent than man, so what a man is able to do in a limited way - God is able to do in an infinite manner.

Blessed Easter and see you in a couple of days.

Your Friend,
Rob Mauldin

Did you get lost in the analogy?

Remember, the past is the future in it. When Joe said "I died today" he, like your view of God, knew all the circumstances when he made the statement after the fact.

You have to think in reverse. Settled past knowledge for us is like settled future knowledge to God(except he knows all the details).

Joe knew the facts of the past were settled, he knew certain circumstances could have changed the outcome, but they are irrelevant to truth because the fact was he didn't die.

Your theology makes God out to be a liar, Rob.

 

[godrulz]

Certain from God's perspective and contingent from mine.
Thanks for the compliments.

The event is inherently contingent or certain, not both at the same time. God knows it is 2008 now. He does not think it is 2010. He knows contingent events as possible, but certain events as certain. It is illogical to think He knows a contingent event (may or may not happen) as certain before the possible choice becomes actual. He knows reality as it is. Just because it involves God does not mean antimony or logical contradiction becomes logical instead of illogical.

You honestly fail to grasp even the basics of this issue. You are saying the choices are made and settled before they are made. This makes no sense. It would make sense if God was making the choices ultimately, but this would negate human will.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

STP I am truly disappointed in this sort of intellectual dishonesty coming from you.

You're simply choosing not to be convinced for no reason. I don't get it. I mean look, if you're comfortable with this sort of intentionally irrational mind set concerning EDF vs. Free Will then why bother with arguing the way you do for Dispensationalism? How do you justify the inconsistency? How would you respond to Godrulz if (and when) he pulls the same sort of "don't bother me with the facts" mentality that you've displayed here?

You started so well too! The question you asked about whether it would be valid to change it from "cannot" to "will not" was a totally valid question! Why have you ignored my response and simply chosen to insist on changing it anyway? It doesn't work, STP. Changing it is irrational. You might like the way it sounds better because your more comfortable with the conclusion but that isn't what makes an argument valid and you know it.

You're lucky I'm a dispensationalist otherwise I'd clobber every argument you made on that subject to death with the very same form of argument you've presented here and then when you objected, I'd simply show the world how you contradict your own standards.

Resting in Him,
Clete

It's illogical to believe that God knowing beforehand what I will freely choose
makes the choice no longer free.

I am disappointed that you are trying to bully me into accepting Open Theism with this "proof" which many people more scholarly than you & me believe is flawed.

Clete, are you more interested in winning arguments about Open Theism or
showing people the gospel and how to rightly divide the word of truth? Be honest.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You honestly fail to grasp even the basics of this issue. You are saying the choices are made and settled before they are made. This makes no sense. It would make sense if God was making the choices ultimately, but this would negate human will.

God foreknowing doesn't mean the choices have been made and settled.
I grasp the basics of this issue & I reject the "logic" that's being used against EDF.