Yorzhik , gets my post of the day! [ context ]
Yorzhik said:
No. I mean "programmed". "Designed" has a different definition. And don't say you mean designed when you describe programmed.
Jim replied:
Why can't I say it, especially if it's what I mean? Just ask any programmer whether or not he designs his software. Ask any software designer whether or not he programs software. Or just look it up. Here:
I used a poor idiom. The idea I meant to convey was that you are using "designed" and "programmed" interchangeably, but you describe only "programmed" when you use either of these words. I won't disagree that they are very close in meaning. However, the difference between the 2 words is that programming is designing to make sure of a certain outcome - that is the purpose of programming. When I program a computer, and it does not do what I expect - but it is programmed correctly to do what I expect, and there is no hardware failure at all - then we have a contradiction.
But if a program has a libertarian free will component, then we need to differentiate it from what a program normally is - because the libertarian free will component will cause unexpected results. "Designed" would be a good word.
The Open Theist complaint that preprogramming nullifies freedom is specious at best.
If I respond with the obvious, we won't get anywhere. Let's hope we can get to the real reason this topic even matters later on in the post.
I just can't help it. I'll respond with the obvious: "The Open Colorists complaint that pure black nullifies white is specious at best."
I know this is unacceptable to the Open Theistic view, but again, the point is that Open Theists should stop asserting that free will cannot exist with predetermination. I think you see this.
I don't agree with you. I assert that libertarian free will cannot exist with predetermination. Humans have libertarian free will as the bible claims. If humans did not have libertarian free will, then God would not bring the animals to Adam "to see what Adam would name them". Even I, imperfect, would be greater than God if I can see the silliness of having my "free-will" robot create names that it does not create because I created the names in my programming. How much more would a perfect God have a genuine reason for bringing the animals to Adam.
Yorzhik said:
Jim replied:No, I mean Jer. 18 - the story within its context.
Please elaborate
Did the potter (God) intend to make the first vessel before the clay (Israel) was marred in his hands? Or did God program Israel to rebel against Him? If God did program rebellion into Israel, even I, being imperfect, would be smart enough to see the cruelty or stupidity of that move.
Yorzhik said:
Either that or God had him trained like a dog. Personally I think Pharaoh was a dog.
Jim replied:
Please elaborate further.
No, what I said is clear, and enough.
Do you agree that God makes decisions absolutely and entirely unconstrained by anything outside of Himself? My guess is that we would both say "yes."
Your guess would be correct. Provided we don't call reality (like logic and time) a constraint. And I wouldn't.
So then God's free will unequivocally fits the definition [of libertarian free will]
Yes.
Do you agree that all of man's decisions without exception are constrained by innumerable and myriad influences? If you agree, do you see that the definition could not possibly describe man's experience? If you disagree, please give me one example of a choice you made that was absolutely and entirely unconstrained.
Good point. My choices are not unconstrained. But it isn't just a matter of unconstrained choice. It is a matter of not predicting *every* choice. Even if Adam and Eve's choices were constrained, God was not sure if Adam and Eve would try to return to the Garden of Eden. God even said so.
Yorzhik said:
Jim replied:Wrong. God was hoping Adam would not sin.
Where does it say that?
It says it in Gen 1:31. He created man and called it good. Now unless you think sinning is good?
But if that incredibly strong inference isn't enough, God commands man not to sin in Gen 2:17.
You've piqued my curiosity: Where does God "hope" anything in scripture?
Isaiah 5. God hoped for good grapes.
Yorzhik said:
Jim replied:Since He did not set up Adam to fail (that would be outside of the nature of God),?
Why would that be outside of the nature of God?
Because God is hoping that His children will succeed. Even you, being imperfect, are better than to set up your child to fail.
I'm sure you can come up with an example where you created a situation for your child that they couldn't possibly succeed in just to teach them something. Please don't do that. Please understand that to be consistent with the situation in the Garden of Eden you would have to show an example of setting up your child's death just to teach him something.
Yorzhik said:
Jim replied:He expected Adam to remain in good relations with Himself.
Scripture says otherwise. God decreed that man would sin and require redemption in order to fellowship with Him. That is why, and this is the sense in which, Christ was slain from before creation, before man was created, before Adam sinned.
Is the only scripture you have to support this the one about Christ being slain before the foundation of the world? I would interpret that passage differently, but I would be interested if there is other evidence that is more compelling.