Philetus
New member
I gotta admit ... I love messing with him.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
I gotta admit ... I love messing with him.
lee_merrill
New member
Um, how did I misunderstand you? Your position seems to be that God does not have supernatural abilities.
And I am kind of waiting on Rob to chime in on these points you all were discussing, I didn't want look like I was coming in and trying to monopolize the discussion. I note however that you all did ignore my question about ice cream at Friskies...
Last edited:
lee_merrill
New member
So Clete--if I am stupid and an idiot, what is the limit of n / (ln
^2) as n goes to infinity?
How can every point except one in a sphere be mapped to a point on the infinite real plane, so that all the points on the real plane are covered?
Why is the law of large numbers important in statistics?
I could ask some more questions, maybe Clete can help me with this one, how can the multi-valued complex logarithm function be remapped to form a continuous Riemann surface? This is one I'd like to know the answer to...
^2) as n goes to infinity?How can every point except one in a sphere be mapped to a point on the infinite real plane, so that all the points on the real plane are covered?
Why is the law of large numbers important in statistics?
I could ask some more questions, maybe Clete can help me with this one, how can the multi-valued complex logarithm function be remapped to form a continuous Riemann surface? This is one I'd like to know the answer to...
Last edited:
RobE
New member
The point is that open theism's position on determination amounts to coercion.
Who's definition. Certainly this has been argued since the dawn of man.
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.
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.
Allright, stay with me for a moment. A modal fallacy occurs in this proof
by...inserting...a...necessary...condition...when...none...is...called...for!
Without that fallacy in modality the proof doesn't help your position.
An example:
"If Paul has two sons and a daughter, then he has to have at least two children."
True or False?
False. Paul need not have any children.
While it is true that Paul does (in fact) have at least two children (he has three), it is false that he has to have three. He doesn't have to have any. He doesn't have to have one. He doesn't have to have two. He doesn't have to have three. He doesn't have to have four. Etc., etc. Put another way: There is no necessity in Paul's having any children, let alone having three. There is no necessity for Paul (just as there is no necessity for anyone else) to have at least two children.
4) Thus, X can only do A at time Z, (2,3).
Where does your proof prove that x can 'only' do A.
It's not in the supporting premise - 3) Thus it is eternally and definitely known that X will do A at time Z.
It's only eternally known that x will do A, not that x must do a, or the that x will have to do a. If you are saying any of these things then coercion exists(notice I didn't say must).
Sencond Example: Originally Posted by themuzicman
Just because God CAN change His mind, doesn't mean He WILL.
An excellent example BTW.
The mechanisms are the natural law, environment, and nature of the individual being known completely by God. God is smart, really smart. If BF Skinner is able to figure out things about human nature, etc...; then how much more is God able. He created man, his evironment, nature, well everything! Could BF Skinner make a new element? Energy? God's mind is vast. If man is able to know one thing about his fellow man, then I submit God is able to know all things about us. Do you think for a moment that man is more complex and harder to understand than the entire cosmos?
Well our 'pretty good idea' is a sure thing with enough knowledge. Natural law is scientific law. We just don't know that much about man's nature - like the Creator does.
Philetus
New member
Get a bigger box, Lee. One preferably with windows.
You don't monopolize the discussion, Lee. It's an open forum.
I like ice cream ... what's Friskies?
Rob, will. It's his nature.:noway: (Did I say that?)
You didn't miss my point, Lee. You missed God's point. God isn't created in our image (some kind of 'supernatural being'; just larger than reality) ... we are created in HIS image(very natural indeed: just a little lower than the angels but loved all the more).
God is reality! Creation is a reflection of just how real God is. God isn't bigger than life. God is life.
God ain't Superman, Lee. :jump:
Philetus
New member
:up: :rotfl:
After about 20 min. with AMR, I asked the same thing. At least you can talk to Hilston.
I now suspect Lee is really Hilston. (That last post is a dead give away.)
I also think that AMR is a closet cross-dresser, and doubles as nang; that GR is Jesus with an AT&T wireless card (who else could post so much); that Clete is the Apostle Paul and thinks his gospel is really first - not second; that pastor Hill has been raptured and we don't realize it yet; that Knight has given up on us but doesn't know how to break it to us; and that at least one very sanctified pig does fly (and is looking for E4E's house).
Now if I could just figure out who you are ... Oh, no! I'm ... I'm ... skitzoid!
The things you learn on TOL.
P
Lon
Well-known member
Not so much cannot, but for some reason, it doesn't seem to be on the priority list. He doesn't explain Himself to us other than as it relates to us very often. For instance, we have a triune view, but it isn't like God spent a large space of scripture explaining it. Similarly, I believe we have atemporal expressions from God but again, they are not explained. I believe they are true none-the-less, but that's the point of our discussion. I cannot help but hear in the silence "You just worry about Lon and 'do' what I told you to do."
These discussions are important, but perhaps we spend too much time, sometimes on thinking as opposed to doing and living as we ought (just a thought I ponder at times).
The 'if' here caught me a little off guard. I think I hear what you are saying, but it is an OV colored question. For me, God knows all event outcomes, not just a certain event. In your chess game (or whoever brings it up) analogy, it isn't just that God knows the outcome ('checkmate') but that He names the pieces left on the board, where they are all located and the order in which the pieces were removed from the board. Yes, I understand the problem with the free will scenario, but I honestly see God knowing these details from scripture and would rather wrestle with the questions afterwards than call his foreknowledge incorrectly. If I make an error at all, I'm much more willing to make a human error than see it as God's. He knows and doesn't err. Sanders was wrong on that point.
I appreciate your perspective, but have to disagree with you. He says quite plainly 'You will serve either one or the other." Option 'C' doesn't come to mind here for me.
Because we know what we are supposed to be like even if we aren't like that. We are created imago deo. We are made to do one thing and sin affects us opposite. "He then, who knows the good he should do, and doesn't do it sins."
Conversely, he who knows the evil he shouldn't do and does it also sins.
"Wretched man that I am, who will save me from this body of wrath?"
I think context gives those answers adequately.
lee_merrill
New member
So outside the box, that would be God creating nature, that would by definition be supernatural power.
An imaginary ice cream store, but the question is whether partial knowledge on my part is a partial cause of my friend's decision to buy ice cream. Or if total knowledge removes freedom, does partial knowledge remove some freedom?
That's a good point you have, and I agree, yet Open Theism paints God with the same brush as us, which is what I object to, God's abilities and man's abilities are not commensurate.
This is quite false, God is certainly bigger than life.
What on earth?! Can you be serious? God is much greater than any super-abilities ascribed to such heroes. Your God is too small (to quote the title of a book by J.B. Phillips).
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
I agree with this. The only thing we can know about future is what God has told us will happen. All the rest is predictive ability rather than absolute foresight.
God however has foreknowledge (again, something we do not have). The definition of this term creates logic perplexities all by itself.
If we could just talk about these concept problems logically and objectively, OV would just join the tradition crowd and we could stop this nonsense (sorry sorry sorry, I'm kidding).
At the very least it would help us understand respectively how either of us deal with logical conundrum. It seems to me, we both have to work through a problematic logical perception to come to grips with God's Foreknowledge.
lee_merrill
New member
Hi all math peoples,
Well, just for funs, the limit of n/ln^2 is an indeterminate form as n goes to infinity, so using L'Hospital's rule and differentiating top and bottom several times we wind up (I believe) with n/2 as n -> infinity, which diverges, so this has no limit.
To map every point save one in a sphere to a point on the real plane and cover every real point, run a line straight through from the top of the sphere, through it to where the line intersects the plane, and this covers every point on the plane, and uses every point on the sphere except the top one. So the sphere has one more point than an infinite plane! Well, sort of.
As far as the law of large numbers being important in statistics, this law means we don't need large samples, since the sample average converges to the population average very quickly, so then instead we only need a representative sample.
As far as the last question, I still don't know! This thought, and the mapping of the sphere above both came from Penrose's book "The Road to Reality," which is kind of a recreational math tour for those interested in varied math ideas. It's also a book that's kind of unreal...
Blessings,
Lee
Well, just for funs, the limit of n/ln
^2 is an indeterminate form as n goes to infinity, so using L'Hospital's rule and differentiating top and bottom several times we wind up (I believe) with n/2 as n -> infinity, which diverges, so this has no limit.To map every point save one in a sphere to a point on the real plane and cover every real point, run a line straight through from the top of the sphere, through it to where the line intersects the plane, and this covers every point on the plane, and uses every point on the sphere except the top one. So the sphere has one more point than an infinite plane! Well, sort of.
As far as the law of large numbers being important in statistics, this law means we don't need large samples, since the sample average converges to the population average very quickly, so then instead we only need a representative sample.
As far as the last question, I still don't know! This thought, and the mapping of the sphere above both came from Penrose's book "The Road to Reality," which is kind of a recreational math tour for those interested in varied math ideas. It's also a book that's kind of unreal...
Blessings,
Lee
RobE
New member
Hi all math peoples,
Well, just for funs, the limit of n/ln
To map every point save one in a sphere to a point on the real plane and cover every real point, run a line straight through from the top of the sphere, through it to where the line intersects the plane, and this covers every point on the plane, and uses every point on the sphere except the top one. So the sphere has one more point than an infinite plane! Well, sort of.
As far as the law of large numbers being important in statistics, this law means we don't need large samples, since the sample average converges to the population average very quickly, so then instead we only need a representative sample.
As far as the last question, I still don't know! This thought, and the mapping of the sphere above both came from Penrose's book "The Road to Reality," which is kind of a recreational math tour for those interested in varied math ideas. It's also a book that's kind of unreal...
Blessings,
Lee
:hammer:
2 + 2 = 4 now, but what will it equal tommorrow? a quote from open math
You lost me at hello.
I'm not a math person, but I know my gravies. :chuckle:
RobE
New member
Lon. I disagree with your statement above. I definitely know that God(a free will agent) will not lie. I definitely know that all greyhound buses won't turn into pumpkins tommorrow. Predictive ability, prophetic ability, are the same. The difference between prediction and prophetic is just the amount of knowledge the prophet has.
When I go to walk, I must know that in the future I will walk. If I need to turn left in 2 miles, I must know that I will turn left in two miles. We use foreknowledge constantly. Is it always definite? No, because of the 'outside' forces which are unknown to us. We are unable to account for them in our calculations. God, however, being the inventor of all things is able to account for them, making His prediction definite.
Can you think of some actions we are able to definitely foreknow?
lee_merrill
New member
Good gravy! (as I used to say a many a long year ago)
We do know that one book plus one cover equals one book, though! :juggle:
Blessings,
Lee
lee_merrill
New member
"For the Lord himself will appear from heaven with a shout..." Then does our foreknowledge of this event cause it somehow, or will this make it not be a free choice on the Lord's part when it occurs?
Certainly not, just as the cross was foreknown, and foreseen, and yet Jesus laid down his life freely, this was even at the last moment, a free choice on his part.
"I lay it down of my own accord..." (Jn. 10:18)
Blessings,
Lee
Philetus
New member
When I said Get a bigger box with windows I wasn't referring to God, nature, creation or anything bigger than a bread box. I was referring to your thinking space.
No, 'outside the box' refers to thinking beyond yourself. "Windows' refers to honestly attempting to understand another's view (not what you think it to be.)
Open Theism does not paint God ... :bang:
Open Theists read scripture ... scripture 'paints' God.
"God ain't Superman" is the same as "God is much greater than any super-abilities ascribed to such heroes." You simply are arguing with what you think or want Open Theism to say ... NOT WHAT IT SAYS. You want your view to be right so much you keep making up stuff about Open Theism that isn't accurate. You have a false and inaccurate understanding of Open Theism and you proved it by just arguing with a statement that says essentially the same thing you countered it with. The settled view is the one that insists on exaggerating what Scripture actually says about God in order to make Him (in your own word) 'supernatural'.
A bigger box with windows simply means that you don't have to agree with Open Theism but before you dismiss it or argue against it you need to at least understand it. Look beyond your own limited understanding and at least understand your opponent's view accurately.
Right after the post on 'supernatural' and 'superman' I even said to Muz, "I love messing with him (Lee)." Muz even said that "you would miss the point intentionally." You walked right into it. The future you want to exist as settled simply doesn't exist yet. Just as you might influence your friends decision as to where he might decide to eat ice cream in that future, God is offering us a future and patiently waiting to see how we will respond.
I remember reading "Your God Is Two Small" years ago in an undergrad class on Intro to Theology. It helped me move beyond the settled view. Are you sure you read it, or just like to throw the title at people who don't use the term "supernatural" to buy into your 'too little' box?
Partial knowledge on your part is the cause of your own confusion ... nothing more.
Philetus
lee_merrill
New member
Sorry about the misunderstanding, yet when you say God has no supernatural abilities, I shall think you mean God is less than Superman when you say "God ain't Superman." Saying to me "you aren't Michael Jordon" implies you are saying I don't play tremendous basketball (I don't).
But God is certainly supernatural, he made all of nature, so by definition he is supernatural.
But it's sure, and to some degree known even by us, as in the unconditional prophecies we read.
I have read the book "Your God is Too Small," by the way, long ago...
Blessings,
Lee
Philetus
New member
Saying God is greater than His creation isn't necessarily the same as saying God is 'supernatural' when you are using it to exaggerate His attributes to the state of absurdity.
Saying you ain't M. Jordan may simply mean YOU DON'T PLAY BASKET BALL at all. The whole point is your assumption and conclusion on what is implied by saying saying 'God ain't Superman'. We don't have to exaggerate God's knowledge to include what isn't knowable.
God experiences and knows the future the same way we do (ONE DAY AT A TIME) with NATURAL yet exceptional difference. His knowledge of the past and present is exhaustive and His power to make ANYTHING HE INTENDS actually happen so far exceeds our own ability to plan seem ... well ... supernatural (if you insist on the word). It's actually only divine. That ought to be enough for us to place our trust in Him to accomplish HIS purposes, regardless what we do or do otherwise.
I can't play B-ball either.:chuckle:
- Status