ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Philetus]

All the execrating comments and mud slinging on this thread just resulted in one of those serendipitous moments of personal realization that the door hitting you in the butt on the way out is a lot like shaking the dust off your feet. The only difference might be in accepting the blame and taking responsibility or placing it on others while justifying yourself. It’s a little more humiliating at the moment, but none the less exhilarating once you accept the sad fact that either way there is no productivity in the present endeavor; the future which is no longer what it once was, now lies elsewhere. Sometimes it takes a kick in the butt to realize the future is still open even when your feet are still dirty. And besides, the only one who gets his feet dirty in a butt kicking is the one doing the butt kicking even if all he is doing is kicking his own butt.

It’s time to move on and let your peace return to you.


Philetus



PS Probably, the only reason God created us physically so we couldn't easily kick our own butt is because he knew we wouldn't anyway.
rolleyes: Like that takes divine foreknowledge.)

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Godly Men Abdicating Their Roles As Protectors of Women

Godly Men Abdicating Their Roles As Protectors of Women

That not a single man in this forum, other than the two or three who differ with unsettled theism, has come forward to admonish those that would speak to a woman the way Nang has been treated in this forum.

It appears these men, and I am being charitable by that label, instead of calling for an end to this behavior, would rather "win" or revel in reading the most unconscionable name-calling and disrespect for a woman that is a wife, mother, grandmother, an elder of us all, and a Christian. And please save the sanctimonious retorts about what Jesus would do for those that do not understand the Scriptures.

There is no amount of strained biblical arguments that will support this kind of treatment of a woman by anyone who claims to profess Christ as their Savior. While Christ spared no harsh language when dealing with many that disagreed with Him, there is not a single instance of our Savior treating women as we are witnessing the treatment of Nang in this forum by some persons. Yet, the silence is deafening by men who should know better and should be calling for it to stop.

The past few days of vitriolic posts directed to Nang herein by persons that can only be described as hate-filled vipers are an embarrassment to us all. I ask each of you to look into your heart of hearts and examine what you know to be the truth in what I am saying and join in a call for this vile behavior to cease. Anyone who has a wife, mother, grandmother, or sister that is now with the Lord has someone that is looking down on this situation and weeping at your actions. And I weep with them. You men dishonor your departed loved ones and yourselves by allowing this to continue. You dishonor our Lord's teachings. You grieve the Spirit within you. Seek forgiveness for your inaction and begin anew.

 

[RobE]

That not a single man in this forum, other than the two or three who differ with unsettled theism, has come forward to admonish those that would speak to a woman the way Nang has been treated in this forum.

The past few days of vitriolic posts directed to Nang herein by persons that can only be described as hate-filled vipers are an embarrassment to us all. I ask each of you to look into your heart of hearts and examine what you know to be the truth in what I am saying and join in a call for this vile behavior to cease. Anyone who has a wife, mother, grandmother, or sister that is now with the Lord has someone that is looking down on this situation and weeping at your actions. And I weep with them. You men dishonor your departed loved ones and yourselves by allowing this to continue. You dishonor our Lord's teachings. You grieve the Spirit within you. Seek forgiveness for your inaction and begin anew.

Nang, you have my apologies.

Clete needs a mother in his life to teach him how to play nicely with others. It's probably always been an issue for him. Many of us here have grown used to his tirades and ignore them in an attempt to communicate with him.

He's much like an angry teenager which I'm sure you've met before being a mother and grandmother......

....instead of producing all this shrieking and crying and noise by pounding your little fists and feet.

....And with all of this Clete knows he's right. Maybe he needs a good talking to...

Translation: If someone does not agree with my views, they better not post, or I will punish them for speaking their mind.

This is ad hominem for it is not only insulting to my character, but it is a fallacious statement. God knows I do not lie.

I simply hold another theological view, which you cannot handle or accept like an adult.

AMR keeps this place interesting. You dislike him because he is so much more knowledgeable than yourself. You feel inferior, so you bad-mouth him, which only, if you do not know it, makes you appear even less knowledgeable than you are.

For that is the bottom line, Clete . . . you end up the loser. Others of intelligence, like RobE and Lee, have trouble getting past your hatred and emotional temper tantrums. You complain about not finding decent discussion and argument, but you are the one causing the obstruction to civil discourse on this site. You are your own worst enemy, and I can't see how you elevate the reputation of TOL with your bad behavior.

All this name calling is nothing but verbal fillers thrown out to cover up your lack of solid argument. If you really had answers to Calvinism, you would be too busy making effectual points, instead of producing all this shrieking and crying and noise by pounding your little fists and feet.

This is simply how you justify your bad behavior. You tell yourself you are o.k. You seem to have no sensitivity to the feelings and reactions of others . . .no conscience at all. And yet the OVT you are supposed to be representing, is based upon Godly love and relationships.

Are you maturing spiritually and emotionally as a result of your OT beliefs? Seems to me you are becoming more and more strident and hateful, with more and more people.

Go figure . . .:down:

Nang

I see you've already done this. I'm afraid there is probably no hope since I see that Clete ended up calling you an idiot and liar in response to your gentle admonishing. It might be time to call the authorities - Clete might develop better in a foster home.

Clete, knock it off with the lady.

Rob Mauldin

 

[RobE]

I am not talking about neutral choices Rob!

I really don't think I'm willing to do the heavy lifting on this for you, in fact I know that I am not.

Of course, not.

Suffice it to say that there is more than one facet to a man's character, several of which can be in play at any particular time and a person's instincts may be unclear or even conflicted concerning a particular decision. None of which is even relevant frankly. This is all just muddying the water. The fact is that if we cannot have done otherwise then are action was not free - period.

And this is where you lose the logic. If God foresaw what would happen within creation it doesn't mean that we were unable to do otherwise. I base this on the facts that God only foresees what we actually will do, not some alternate version of the facts which would be God foreseeing what we might(and can) do.

An example:

If 'a' were to happen then Judas will betray Christ.
If 'b' were to happen then Judas would not betray Christ.​

God simply foresees that 'a' will happen and therefore Judas will ultimately betray Christ even though Judas is quite capable of doing otherwise.

I don't have to know how the will works, nor do I have to be able to explain the intricate details of how a decision is made. It doesn't matter how it is done. The fact is that God is just and he holds us accountable for our actions and we MUST therefore must have the ability to choose to do or to do otherwise.

Ok.

This sounds like you've just endorsed causality. You said that if we are not free then we will have to have been coerced in some way. How is causality not coercion (assuming for the sake of argument, your inaccurate definition of the term)?

Causality is not coercion if those causes are natural to us. Basically our nature determines what causes we will embrace. Some African tribes put bones through their noses and it seems that those are perfectly reasonable choices for that group of people living in that environment. Does their environment cause them to behave in this way? Yes. Are they free to choose alternate outcomes because they have free will? Yes.

Then you categorically deny free will altogether. We are merely the next domino to fall.

No, because freedom only requires an opportunity to do otherwise; not doing otherwise.

Rob: I'm not sure where you got this from. Prescripted suggests a coercion of its own.

You see Rob! This is what I'm talking about. This has just got to be the stupidest thing posted on TOL today!

Who is being coerced? Take for example a movie everyone has seen, or at the very least that everyone is is familiar enough with to follow the conversation, like Star Wars. Using the movie Star Wars as an example, who is being coerced and by whom to what end?

What you are overlooking is that during the creation of the movie the writers, directors, etc... coerced the actors to perform a certain way which ultimately produced the movie you see before you.

The difference with foreknowledge is that God didn't write for or direct most of the actors. He put the actors on the stage(creation) and told them to do whatever they wanted to do.

The obvious question here is how did God know what they would do? My response would be if you put John Wayne, Lou Costello, or another actor that we are familiar with; then each actor would act according to his own nature. If I were all knowing then I would be able to figure out what would happen through the use of psychology. Thomists, of course, would say that God simply exists 'outside of time' and was able to report what happened after the fact.

It wasn't praise Rob! It was a very thinly vialed insult. :doh:
I have no anticipation that this conversation is going to be any more productive than any previous one has been with you. But having said that, as long as you continue to be responsive and not a complete waste of my time I'm willing to continue, if you are.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I didn't realize it was veiled. Insults from some are no insult at all. :chuckle:

 

[Philetus]

Only AMR could excuse himself by reducing this to an issue of sexual bigotry while cloaking himself in clownish chauvinism. You’re as guilty as the rest of us Mr. Religious. And so is Nang! The only reason you haven't called Nang names is because she agrees with you in refuting the challenge that Open Theism presents to your position. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself with this one.

And the only reason I'll post this in your neg-rep is because you only listen to what you are made to.

AMR's sig: "I fear explanations explanatory of things explained." You must scare yourself to death.

Philetus

 

[themuzicman]

A form of coercion.

If you consider determination coercion.

Decisions are certainly foreknown, but un-made.

A logical contradiction, unless there is external coercion or determination. A free will decision, by definition, cannot be certainly know before it is made.

What form of coercion could produce foreknowledge? Determination requires knowledge, so I don't think it would have any bearing on the discussion.

You assumed that foreknowledge coerced, and I'm pointing out that error, so it has a major bearing on the discussion.

how do they violate free will is the question?

1) Libertarian free will requires that agent X in circumstance Y at time Z be able to do A or ~A. (Defintion of LFW)
2) Exhaustive, definite foreknowledge requires that all decisions be eternally known.
3) Thus it is eternally and definitely known that X will do A at time Z.
4) Thus, X can only do A at time Z, (2,3).
5) Thus, X cannot do ~A at time Z. (4)
6) Thus, X does not have LFW (5,1)

Note that this does NOT state that EDF coerces anything. It simply states that LFW is logically impossible in the presence of EDF.

Since you are unable to explain the mechanism by which you believe decisions are foreknown, that remains unaddressed.

We know many things before they happen. It doesn't mean that our knowledge had anything to do with the events. How does knowledge translate to a violation of free will?

Just explained above.

However, we don't definitely know things beforehand. We have a pretty good idea, but unless something is following a scientific law that we've accurately described, we can't definitely state that ANYTHING will happen.

What is it exactly which takes away our freedom? Could it be that knowledge could simply illuminate the fact that freedom is an illusion as defined by LFW? That in reality we are constrained by our natural behaviors and environment to the point of having only very limited freedom of action? Maybe we aren't really sure what freedom is.

Well, if you're going to get to the point where your case is refuted, and then try to change the terms of the debate, I'm not sure there's any point in going further. LFW, EDF, and freedom are clearly defined. You can embrace or deny any or all if you wish, but I'm not going to go chasing definitions around.

But, in the end, you have yet to explain how LFW decisions are definitely known before the agent who makes them exists.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

Only AMR could excuse himself by reducing this to an issue of sexual bigotry ...

Well, no, it's bad regardless, and worse when done to a lady. And the point is not that it's bigotry to pour abuse on a lady in this way, not what is being done here, for I don't think Clete is focused on such distinctions as gender in his outbursts. The point is that there is special conduct expected of men, and special consideration.

Why are you not rebuking Clete? Saying everybody does it doesn't make it right, nor does it mean it should be glossed over, or allowed.

I note in passing that if I or another Calvinist were to continually use such language to Open Theists, I would get myself booted pronto--this I have seen happen here, alas--speaking of double standards, and such.

 

[elected4ever]

The Will

The Will

1. The will is the capable of choosing for itself.

2. The will cannot be exercised out side the capacity of its owner.

3. God cannot exercise a will that is set apart from Himself.

4. Man cannot exercise a will that is not his own.

5. God cannot exercise a will that is not His own.

6. Choice is limited by the ability of the one who possesses the will.

 

[lee_merrill]

But, in the end, you have yet to explain how LFW decisions are definitely known before the agent who makes them exists.

How about you explain how you see with your eyes and brain, before I believe you have the ability of vision? This process need not be explained, and Rob has a good point about examining coercion, foreknowledge need not have any coercion, and thus need not cause decisions.

 

[themuzicman]

How about you explain how you see with your eyes and brain, before I believe you have the ability of vision? This process need not be explained, and Rob has a good point about examining coercion, foreknowledge need not have any coercion, and thus need not cause decisions.

I agreed with Rob when he said that. That's a strawman.

The problem isn't what causes the decision. The problem is how a freely made decision can be certainly known before the agent who makes it exists.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

I agreed with Rob when he said that. That's a strawman.

The problem isn't what causes the decision. The problem is how a freely made decision can be certainly known before the agent who makes it exists.

Muz

Limited proximal foreknowledge is possible without affecting free will (if I jump off a building, it can be predicted that I will fall to the ground...cause-effect), but exhaustive definite foreknowledge of free will contingencies (not inanimate cause-effect, but moral agents) is not compatible with genuine freedom (Robe argues from limited specific and extrapolates wrongly to generalization).

 

[themuzicman]

Limited proximal foreknowledge is possible without affecting free will (if I jump off a building, it can be predicted that I will fall to the ground...cause-effect), but exhaustive definite foreknowledge of free will contingencies (not inanimate cause-effect, but moral agents) is not compatible with genuine freedom (Robe argues from limited specific and extrapolates wrongly to generalization).

Right. I can explain how I definitely know that when I release a 5 pound weight on the face of the moon without any outside factors the fact that and how how long it will take to hit the surface of the moon.

Actually, Rob committed a category error when he said that we could "know" the future free will decisions of others. We cannot. We can guess and be right, but we cannot definitely know.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

I agreed with Rob when he said that.

Sorry, I haven't been following this discussion closely.

The problem isn't what causes the decision. The problem is how a freely made decision can be certainly known before the agent who makes it exists.

Are you claiming that this is logically impossible? If so, then on what basis, I wonder? I mean, God might have supernatural knowledge! He might--just as he has supernatural power.

Limited proximal foreknowledge is possible without affecting free will...

Yes, so then it seems plausible that complete foreknowledge is at least possible, that there is no logical contradiction here.

but exhaustive definite foreknowledge of free will contingencies (not inanimate cause-effect, but moral agents) is not compatible with genuine freedom...

This would be the conclusion, whence then, the reasoning? Again, Rob focuses (quite splendidly, I think) on coercion, and asks where the coercion is in complete foreknowledge.

If I know to some degree that Bill will order ice cream at Friskies, do I cause his choice to some extent by my partial foreknowledge regarding his choice?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[themuzicman]

Sorry, I haven't been following this discussion closely.


Are you claiming then that this is impossible? If so, then on what basis, I wonder?

I asserted that Rob needed to demonstrate how the future free will decision of an LFW agent could be definitely known before that agent exists, because it appears to be a logical contradiction, based upon the proof I provided earlier.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

Lee: Omnipotence is not limited by not being able to create square circles or married bachelors or 2+2=4 and 5 at the same time. These are logical absurdities/contradictions, not something supernatural power makes coherent in your speculation.

Omniscience is parallel in that exhaustive foreknowledge logically precludes genuine freedom which has an inherent element of uncertainty (vs determinism). You may not see it, but based on modal logic (possibilities, necessities, probabilities, certainties, etc.), there is a logical contradiction, not a limitation on omniscience.

If you want to defend exhaustive definite foreknowledge, you will have to give up libertarian free will (and come up with strained compatibilism which compromises genuine free will and is still a form of determinism based on desires). Since God chose to actualize a free vs deterministic creation, it was a voluntary self- limitation for God to only have exhaustive certain knowledge of the past and present. The future is correctly known as possible until it becomes the fixed past through the present. Speculation about 'eternal now', supernatural knowledge, etc. is not biblically explicit.

As well, simple foreknowledge would do nothing to help an omnicompetent God deal with the future (God does settle some vs all of the future, hence the two motifs that our camps proof text). It becomes bizarre to even think about it (God's knowledge would be false if it helped him help us change the bad future for a good one...think about it).

 

[Philetus]

Are you claiming that this is logically impossible? If so, then on what basis, I wonder? I mean, God might have supernatural knowledge! He might--just as he has supernatural power.

Who says God has supernatural anything! That sounds magical not biblical. He has unlimited power and total knowledge of everything knowable from which all lesser knowledge and power is naturally derived and/or delegated. That might seem unnatural to you, but in the Open View it makes perfect sense.

 

[themuzicman]

Why do Calvinists think that appeal to mystery refutes something?

Muz

 

[Philetus]

Why do Calvinists think that appeal to mystery refutes something?

Muz

:up:
That's super-duper or for non Calvinists thats just supper-dupper.

Philetus

 

[lee_merrill]

Who says God has supernatural anything! That sounds magical not biblical.

This is the Open View God, who is not especially supernatural, instead, his abilities are basically a (very large) extrapolation of ourselves and our abilities. Who says God has supernatural abilities? God does, for he created nature.

That God is supernatural in his abilities is by the way, orthodox Christianity.

 

[themuzicman]

This is the Open View God, who is not especially supernatural, instead, his abilities are basically a (very large) extrapolation of ourselves and our abilities. Who says God has supernatural abilities? God does, for he created nature.

That God is supernatural in his abilities is by the way, orthodox Christianity.

I figured Lee would completely and intentionally miss the point, but I figured I'd give him a chance to actually engage the dialog, rather than do nothing more than take unwarranted pot shots.

Muz