ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[voltaire]

rulz. God knows the future in minute detail. we dont know if the future already happened or if God exists out of time. the spirit world is not parallel to the physical world. time is a construct of the physical world. it is part of what the creation is made of. energy would not exist if time did not exist. matter would not exist if energy did not exist. E= mc 2. c = meters per second. seconds are a unit of time. without time, the whole kit and kaboodle vanishes.

 

[voltaire]

muz. a robot is incable of wanting to do anything. an animal is capable of wanting to do things because he is driven by survival instincts. the deer runs from the lion because he knows in his mind that the choice to stay still means instant death.
humans have the ability to want to do things motivated by survival and greed, and fame, pride and because it feels good. a robot cannot feel good, cannot feel pride cannot feel anger.

 

[Clete]

Clete. you say that when there are no options, there is no choice. you say that if we had no choice other than to cheat on our wife(an example), we cannot be held morally culpable for our actions.
for 3 years, i was a fornicator. God knew from eternity past that i would be a fornicator during that time. each time that i fornicated, i had no other option but to do so. did i know this? NO.

Whether you knew it or not is irrelevant because if God exhaustively foreknows everything that is going to happen then you can't think otherwise either. Thinking is an act of the mind and so you've only shifted the discussion from actions of the body (eating steak) to actions of the mind.

However, this argument you've put forward does tacitly concede my point concerning the need for an ability to do otherwise in order to be justly held morally responsible for our actions. I point this out because it will become important later when you've gotten tired of running around the barn on this.

we sin with our mind. each time that i sinned, there was a choice to be made in my mind.

Not if God foreknew what that "choice" would be, you didn't!
The argument I presented earlier proves this. You might try finding a premise within the argument that you think is faulty. That would be a better tactic.

i knew that i did not have to have sex. having sex was NOT my only option in my mind where my morality stems from.

This is not true if God knew your mental action in advance of you making it.

i understood my options. in my mind , i had plenty of options.

If your theology is correct then your perception of this is an illusion.

i did not know that God had foreknew that i would have sex. as fas i knew, God foreknew that i would not have sex. a choice to have sex was made MORALLY within my mind. we make choices with our mind. we think that we have options available to us. i thought i had the option to refrain from sex. even though the reality was that i had no options,

Okay, I could have picked this apart a couple of more times and repeated the same point over and over but it is not my intention to bore you to death.

Once more, all decision are made in the mind - all of them, including you decision to eat steak and so your shifting the argument to inside your head makes no progress against the argument I presented earlier. If God knows your action (whether mental or otherwise) then the occurrence of that action was logically necessary (i.e. doing otherwise was NOT possible) and thus any appearance of their being options from which to choose is an illusion. Here's the formal argument again, I suggest once again that you attempt to argue against it directly. I've been doing this for quite a while and I'll detect any attempt to go around it.

Presume that T = You will answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am.
(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 it is not logically possible for you to do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of "necessary"]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7][Definition of logically (im)possible]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]
source​

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[themuzicman]

muz. a robot is incable of wanting to do anything. an animal is capable of wanting to do things because he is driven by survival instincts. the deer runs from the lion because he knows in his mind that the choice to stay still means instant death.
humans have the ability to want to do things motivated by survival and greed, and fame, pride and because it feels good. a robot cannot feel good, cannot feel pride cannot feel anger.

But these things are not elements of the will. The will is simply a chooser, something that directs action. A robot's programming directs its actions.

And, at the end of the day, that's what Calvinsts make humans out to be: A very complex, biological robot.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

rulz. God knows the future in minute detail. we dont know if the future already happened or if God exists out of time. the spirit world is not parallel to the physical world. time is a construct of the physical world. it is part of what the creation is made of. energy would not exist if time did not exist. matter would not exist if energy did not exist. E= mc 2. c = meters per second. seconds are a unit of time. without time, the whole kit and kaboodle vanishes.

Food for thought:

Presentism vs eternalism

A vs B theory of time

Endless time vs timelessness

Einstein was not right about everything

The potential, not yet future becomes the fixed past through the present

 

[voltaire]

clete. you state that if God knows the future exhaustively then i cannot think otherwise either. that is true as well. but, i am still morally culpable. lets think this thru. i commit fornication. you say that i cannot do anything but commit fornication. why? because God already knew that i would commit fornication and every thought and detail leading to it. how does God know this? we arent sure of the mechanism. what if he knew because he looked into the future and saw my everythought, action and the fornication itself? lets go with that mechanism. lets consider the time to be eternity past. i had not committed fornication yet. am i morally culpable in eternity past? no, i do not exist. am i morally culpable when the act took place? it depends on whether i had any options available. i had no options available. why not? because God knew that i would do it. so you can onlx do wiat God knew you would do? yes. did God Make you do it? no. did anyone force you to do it? no. so the only reaso

 

[Delmar]

...we dont know if the future already happened...

Um, If it had it wouldn't be the future.

 

[voltaire]

so the only reason you had no other options available is because God looked into the future and saw you doing it and even saw your thoughts? yes. were you sinning when God saw you do it in eternity past? i would have to say yes at that point in time because i had options available in eternity past as God was watching me from that vantage point. so you are saying that at the time of the fornication, you had no options available soley because your actions were seen from eternity past? yes. you were free when God watched you from eternity past but became a robot the instant the fornication was known tn God? Yes. If god did not foresee you from eternity past then the same thoughts and actions are not robotic and you are morally culpable? yes. but you did the same thoughts and actions in both cases. yes. so foreknowledge turns a sin into a robotic action? yes. :dunce:

 

[Delmar]

so the only reason you had no other options available is because God looked into the future and saw you doing it and even saw your thoughts? yes. were you sinning when God saw you do it in eternity past? i would have to say yes at that point in time because i had options available in eternity past as God was watching me from that vantage point. so you are saying that at the time of the fornication, you had no options available soley because your actions were seen from eternity past? yes. you were free when God watched you from eternity past but became a robot the instant the fornication was known tn God? Yes. If god did not foresee you from eternity past then the same thoughts and actions are not robotic and you are morally culpable? yes. but you did the same thoughts and actions in both cases. yes. so foreknowledge turns a sin into a robotic action? yes. :dunce:

The idea that God knows every detail of the future is an extrapolation that is not specifically stated in scripture. It just isn't there.

 

[Clete]

clete. you state that if God knows the future exhaustively then i cannot think otherwise either. that is true as well. but, i am still morally culpable. lets think this thru. i commit fornication. you say that i cannot do anything but commit fornication. why? because God already knew that i would commit fornication and every thought and detail leading to it. how does God know this? we arent sure of the mechanism.

The mechanism is irrelevant. The argument that others and I have presented is simply based on the existence of foreknowledge and is entirely independent of HOW foreknowledge works.

what if he knew because he looked into the future and saw my everythought, action and the fornication itself?

It wouldn't make any difference. Again, the argument is not predicated on how foreknowledge works but simply on whether it exists.

lets go with that mechanism. lets consider the time to be eternity past.

No, let's stick with the argument presented and deal with it rather than going off onto irrelevant rabbit trails.

i had not committed fornication yet. am i morally culpable in eternity past? no, i do not exist. am i morally culpable when the act took place? it depends on whether i had any options available. i had no options available. why not? because God knew that i would do it. so you can onlx do wiat God knew you would do? yes. did God Make you do it? no. did anyone force you to do it? no. so the only reaso

Okay, first of all, what the heck is going on with your typing? :shocked:

But seriously, in the context of your theological worldview, the idea of "making you do something" commits a stolen concept fallacy because it actually presupposes the existence of free will. That is to say that if we did not have a free will, there would be no such concept as coercion, just as without the existence of love there would be no concept of hate. Without the existence of a thing, its negation is meaningless.

And finally, I'm just starting to wonder whether you have any intention of actually addressing the argument. I noticed earlier this morning that Muz presented the same argument just a few posts before I did and I've posted it twice myself, and as of right now, you've basically ignored it altogether. Is that the way things are going to go or won't you respond to our arguments giving them the respect they deserve just as we have done with yours?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[oftenbuzzard]

The idea that God knows every detail of the future is an extrapolation that is not specifically stated in scripture. It just isn't there.

He knew you'd type that!

 

[Lon]

Except that you can't know all that is logically knowable to God.

My point is that it is omniscient according to OV definition. At the very least, OVers will need to redefine what they are saying much more clearly.
Because of the ad hoc and sophomore presentations of the OV, it portrays as a juvenile theology. This is an indictment I don't mean to cut to the heart or slam, it is a genuine concern of mine. I could never adopt a theological system that is so imprecise.

Sorry, which church council determined this to be a heresy?

The first Council of Nicea and The Council of Chalcedon

Comprehensible? Hardly. Try logical.

Maybe I AM smarter than everybody else? The OV version of God is fairly well understood by me. According to OV definitions of Omniscience, and Omnipotence, I think with the eternal years ahead of me, that I can come pretty close. That's a shame really. Logical? Not when I can attain to His Divine Attributes, that kind of reasoning just isn't gonna fly.

Umm... no. You asked how the Peter story works with OVT. I explained it. Explanation has nothing to do with doctrine. I didn't and don't base my doctrine on the Peter story (or the Genesis story, for that matter.)

But here you are criticizing me for "bad doctrine" based upon these verses.

Moving goalpost.

Second chance: Cart them out. What scripture passages DO you use?

Already did. I laid out a foundational case for OVT. That's when you jumped back to Genesis 22 and Peter.

...alright, backtracking... Let's see, not here (no scriptures even mentioned), not here (no scriptures even mentioned), not here (yadda yadda-but telling me to read my bible ), not here (yadda yadda), not here (yadda yadda), not here (yadda yadda), here, here, or here. <-- Sad, not one verse in all of that. I thought we were discussing Christian Theology? Here: two references (and that's all). Nothing laid out. Let's see how pedantic they are. For OV assertion, they should be VERY clear.

Exodus 32 and Jeremiah 3:6-7

Exodus 32 Would He have destroyed Israel? Yes! Did Moses really change God's mind? NO! There is no need to tell Moses if God were determined. There is no reason to involve Moses if He didn't want to do something. God was lying then? He had no intention of destroying the people? This is not correct. If Moses did not defend his people, the Israelites would have perished. The lesson: God will answer us. That's it. God did NOT change His mind, Moses was being crafted into the mediator he needed to be. God's interaction with man requires a mediator. That is why 1Ti 2:5 "...there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." This passage does not assert that God changes His mind but that He moves to the responses of His creation. God foreknew the action and isn't lying. Without Moses' intervention, they would have perished. It is a precursor to Christ. He didn't change His mind, for He foreknew Moses would mediate. He didn't lie, because in an alternate reality (Moses failing) God would have destroyed them. Moses is the actor. His actions specifically, is what changed. God didn't need to 'remember' his promises as Moses called Him to do. God didn't 'need' to have Moses intervene. He chose Moses to intervene. Moses needed to intervene because God's mercy must be shown against His justice. They deserved justice and a mediator (Christ-ultimately) is needed to stay God's Character. He has to punish sin. He was always of the same mind toward mercy (hence the promises in the first place). He was always of the same mind toward Justice (demanded by sin). A mediator is required to tip the scale because justice demands justice and love demands mercy. Because we are the agents that change, change comes by our responses. Moses is the decider between two things that do not change in God: His mercy and his righteousness.

Jeremiah 3:6-7 The KJV handles this in proper translation:
אמר
'âmar
"to say"

Chasm? You know, as you slowly lose this debate, you continue insert little emotional arguments such as this to try to puff up your argument.

LOL, yeah, I've had my share of cheapshots. It is nice you think you are winning. I guess I wouldn't call them cheapshots. I'm trying to show clearly how I'm seeing OV so they are purposeful, not malicious. If I'm ever going to see the OV as anything more than ad hoc grassroots inaccuracies, I have to press what I see as absurd or you don't get to correct my understanding. I know you know this, but I'm saying this for any other readers. You and I enjoy our banter and know one another well enough to take those sparring jabs.

Everyone believes that God is omnipotent. OVT possibly more so, since we're the only ones who think God can bring about prophecy without foreknowing the exactly how the future will work out to get there.

Everyone believes that God is omniscient. We have a disagreement about what is knowable, but we all embrace omniscience.

Everyone believes that God is omnipresent.

Everyone believes that God is both Just and Loving.

The only real difference is the nature of what God created, and that OVT attempt to reconcile all of these concepts both Scripturally and with internal consistency.

But in so doing, it redefines these terms, and not very clearly. As clearly as I understand the OV, I can be considered omniscient (knowing all that is knowable for me) and omnipotent (able to do all that is doable for me).
Once OV puts restraints on omnipotence or omniscience, it is no longer omni (all).

Eph 3:20 Now to him who by the power that is working within us is able to do far beyond all that we ask or think,
Eph 3:21 to him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

If I can think it, it is hardly far beyond. This doesn't mean the silly or ridiculous, but it can. As with 'a rock He cannot pick up' my logic (thinking) sees it as ridiculous.
I can answer 'yes' for all eternity and that is far beyond what I can think or imagine.
"Then He couldn't lift it?"
"Yes, He could."
"Then He couldn't create a rock that He couldn't pick up."
"Yes He can."
"That doesn't make sense."
"Good!"
"Why is that good?"
"Because He is able to do far beyond all that we ask or think!"

But OVTers weren't kicked out of ETS.

. They did reject Open Theists

Additionally, I don't know that Boyd was kicked out of SBC for his OVT views. Might you have some other details on that?

Yes, it is in the SBC pdf's. Millard Erickson and John Piper were instrumental.

Seems to me that Luther was excommunicated, too.

Was a long road. Longer than Boyd's

But you still fail your own test.

LOL, why did I feel it was a set-up in the first place?

Where?

We've already done this: Psalm 139, Act 2:23, 1Pe 1:2, etc. etc.

That's too bad.

OV objections against Arminian thought were warranted.

LOL

You can't have a line if it doesn't extend in both directions. (It is a ray otherwise). Our logic with time must follow the math.

No, I just have to disagree with you to embrace the text of Scripture.

I know, small party, we are all invited. Forgive me if I have a better offer.

Again with the emotional language. If you expect X, you aren't guessing at it. You expect it.

Then He wouldn't have been surprised. I think you actually agreed with me on this before against OV assertion in the past. Forgive me if I forgot and address it if untrue or you've changed position.

So, your only real rebuttal is that you can't find a historical path or a huge group of people to agree?

Only? No. One that weighs in on this, yes. This was disingenuine considering I said 'scripture.'

So, you want a god who can be measured?

I recind my 'bright fella' comment (not really, but puh'lease).

It's doing fine so far.

I understand.

The problem isn't whether it's created or not. The problem is the property you assign to all created things, namely that their actions are determined externally.
But more importantly, it's a created thing without a free will.
Again, the problem isn't that I'm created, but what I'm created with. In your robot theory, you lose the doctrine of justification, because ultimately, we can only do what God has programmed us to do.
In your robot world, yes. In a world with free will, no.

Well, being created, they are. It cannot be otherwise, but I don't wish to take it to the extreme. There is something about us that is culpable. One idea is that our culpability was created in conjunction with the serpent and at least this portion or consideration of LFW is a result of the fall. I tend to see veracity concerning this. We wouldn't have ever sinned so would have been producing nothing but what was placed in us to do. If you object or agree with any of this, I'd like to see a good treatment as I'm still working over the fuzzy bits of this speculation: If it holds up against scripture, if it explains or clarifies, etc.

Key word: POSSIBLE. Arminaisn don't assert possible.

I believe RobE did mention this at one time. I wouldn't be able to readily verify if you are correct here.

LOL.. by your assertion..

Okay, now I'm asserting somewhat, but not before.

And?

I'm bloomin' omniscient (by OV definition).

Go for it.

Sorry, it was a poor stab at humor. I've been 'going for it' with scripture. You offered to walk through the passages.

Free will. Make choices that aren't knowable before they're made.
When did God start loving?

When did your love first begin? When was the first time you ever loved?
My answer: When Christ invaded my life.

He can. He just didn't

Absolutely, uniquivocally, venehemently disagree. Gen 1:26,31

OK, you're trying to make this an all or nothing deal. Just because you embrace a robot doesn't mean that we can't have a free will being that has desires, which he may choose to follow or reject.
How can they "allow" something, if they're just robots? Doesn't that go back to the programmer "allowing" it?

We are created beings so all our responses are created. This is not to say that God made us to fall. He made us perfectly. This doesn't mean we weren't breakable. Flawless glass can be broken. Satan knew of man's weakness. The sin was not in Adam and Eve exposing the weakness, it was in allowing him to reshape it or add to it for desire of the tree. A part of us, reshapen or added, was then broken because it did not work in the original design. He had to mess with God's design in order for man to sin.

But they did know right from wrong with respect to the tree.

Yes, and because of perfect design, the tree held no offering, it was Satan that caused the conflict. He created the dilemma that didn't exist without him.

So, you're saying that Adam and Eve can act against their programming?
Muz

Only after tampering. He didn't break them, that was done when the faulty part was introduced. They are culpable because they used something other than what they were created with: a choice to do otherwise.

 

[Clete]

I typically ignore Lon's posts because he's so often proven himself to be a waste of everyone's time, but I couldn't let this go....

I'm bloomin' omniscient (by OV definition).

Lon,

You are either stupid or a liar, which is it?


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Delmar]

He knew you'd type that!

I absolutely believe He knew I would type it before I typed it. Did He know about it before the foundation of the world? I have no reason to believe that.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

I absolutely believe He knew I would type it before I typed it. Did He know about it before the foundation of the world? I have no reason to believe that.

A God with an increasing IQ how quaint.

 

[Lon]

I typically ignore Lon's posts because he's so often proven himself to be a waste of everyone's time, but I couldn't let this go....

Lon,

You are either stupid or a liar, which is it?
Resting in Him,
Clete

No, let it go, you and I had this understanding. If we want to go way back and smooth over and make an effort to meet one another mutually, we could start on a new foot, but let's keep to our agreement until such a time.

I have no problem just talking to you, but I don't want to get into debate with you until we clear the air upon our original agreement.

For this concern: There was context I think you missed.

The opportunity to clarify an OV version of an omniscient God:

I can know about anything that is knowable. What this means and what this means for God are two different things. I cannot know what He knows. That isn't knowable. The problem with your exponential here is that this is all you mean by God being omniscient. When I finally learn all there is to know on this earth, according to your definition. I'll become omniscient as OV defines it.

Your definition of omniscience is "only that which is logically knowable." By your definition, I can know these things as they are there to be known, so when I know all that 'can' be known, I'll attain to the OV definition of omniscience.

Classical theists and Open Theists can agree that omnipotence means able to do all that is doable/all=powerful (you would say everything is doable, even logical nonsense like creating square circles?), and that omniscience is knowing all that is knowable (you would say that everything, past/present/future, is exhaustively knowable, so it is redundant, but not a false definition for you). For omniscience, we both believe God knows everything, but we differ as to what everything entails (saying that God does not know 2+2=5 does not mean He is not omniscient or saying He does not know what Yoda is eating for supper right now is not a limitation, but an absurdity).

Where is Philetus when you need him? It is a breath of fresh air vs frustration when people get it (lights go on..ah ha eureka). KISS.

So when I know all that is 'knowable' I'll be omniscient by OV definitions!!!
When I am able to do everything any man can do sometime in the future (winning the highest jump, weight-class, can weld better than any, bake the best loaf of bread) according to OV, I'll also be omnipotent. I have all eternity to work on it. Before someone comes behind me and breaks the records, I'll have been omnipotent according to the OV definition. Man can do whatever OV redefines God to be

I would RATHER be accused of being silly for believing God can make square-circles than drop my standards for the OV definitions (not that I believe it absurd that God can and does know all future actions). [O]ne preserves God being able to do that which is beyond our "hope or imagination." Sheesh, you'd think Paul was trying to tell us something! Eph 3:20

I totally agree [to] our views being totally different ...and incompatible. When we both say omniscience, we mean two completely different things. I can eventually attain (theoretically) to the OV... lowbrow definition.

My point is that it is omniscient according to OV definition. At the very least, OVers will need to redefine what they are saying much more clearly.

Once OV puts restraints on omnipotence or omniscience, it is no longer omni (all).

Eph 3:19 and thus to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.
Eph 3:20 Now to him who by the power that is working within us is able to do far beyond all that we ask or think

If I can think it, it is hardly far beyond. This doesn't mean the silly or ridiculous, but it can. As with 'a rock He cannot pick up' my logic (thinking) sees it as ridiculous.
I can answer 'yes' for all eternity and that is far beyond what I can think or imagine.
"Then He couldn't lift it?"
"Yes, He could."
"Then He couldn't create a rock that He couldn't pick up."
"Yes He can."
"That doesn't make sense."
"Good!"
"Why is that good?"
"Because He is able to do far beyond all that we ask or think!"

That was the context,
the line for line conversation went in this order:

As a created being with free will, my future decision are unknowable. That's the difference. You have created being that are 100% predictable.
Muz

Sigh, and your response was so close to 100% predictable just to me! I could have written this line for you...

And?

I'm bloomin' omniscient (by OV definition).

I quote most of this below to show that if you'd read the entire post, the context in just the referenced post is enough to see what my point was.

My point is that [this] is omniscience according to OV definition. At the very least, OVers will need to redefine what they are saying much more clearly.

According to OV definitions of Omniscience, and Omnipotence... that kind of reasoning just isn't gonna fly.


But in so doing, [OV] redefines these terms, and not very clearly.
As clearly as I understand the OV, I can be considered omniscient (knowing all that is knowable for me) and omnipotent (able to do all that is doable for me).
Once OV puts restraints on omnipotence or omniscience, it is no longer omni (all).
I'm bloomin' omniscient (by OV definition).

As you can see, your either or option keeps our original agreement in good standing. It was a wise choice for both of us.

 

[Lon]

The position you hold is logically inconsistent. And everyone, including OVers know this to be true.

I just gave you a 'walk-thru-culpability' of the Garden.
Shoot holes in it, but at least look at it.

This is just a form of guilt by association. Just because Pinnock is wrong on something unrelated, you refuse to listen to anything he says?

Ahem...

Pinnock has always been an odd theological duck.

If that's what you think of him, what am I supposed to think?

Thanks for conceding the point that you are no better off in this boat than I am, that the majority of the church and theologians disagree with you.

This is a great opportunity to play "Ask a Catholic" They actually addressed many of Luther's concerns. Timing is everything.

And I thought you were going to post a list that was historical, not recent, and was Orthodox, not Protestant.

Quite disappointing.

You could have specifically asked? I'm compliant but it is all work. I'm glad to do it because of your good-hearted engagement, but help a little?

Clement on Foreknowledge
Justin Martyr on the Absolute Foreknowledge of God
Irenaeus

The list is long. Go here for much more.

1) Yesterday, God infallibly knew that you would choose ice cream at 6pm tomorrow. (assumption)
2) Today, it is now-necessary that God knew yesterday that...
3) Thus, you will not freely choose ice cream at 6pm tomorrow.

That's the short version. The other steps are just to explain the principles involved in arriving there.

Just as we argued from the Almanac traveling backward in time, the Almanac automatically records what is chosen, even if something is changed. We showed it does not remove choice (that's my short-version response).

Umm... All this verse states is that at some point we all sin. There is nothing in this verse that denies free will. If it said that "At every possible choice, every person must choose the worst possible sin", then it would be removal of free will. But, because it is a general statement about a kind of act that we all commit, it doesn't rise to that level.

Rom 5:12 So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned
Rom 5:13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam (who is a type of the coming one) transgressed.

According to this principle, we could not be held morally culpable if we have no other choice.

Sin is not only a choice to commit, but remittance. We are born separate from God. Your definition of sin is too limited and I truly want to see it accurate toward your proof. It is wrong. You are born separate from God through no conscious choice.

This is just silly. Whether someone is born under sin or not doesn't prescribe any particular action.

It is one example in which the definition doesn't work.
You posted the logic presentation. You know, whether it has direct or indirect relevance, that it is a point that must be addressed for the proof to stand. All I'm trying to do there is show that it doesn't hold true in every situation. If it doesn't, it isn't an embraceable proof in the proof set.

Done.

Not as far as I'm ▲concerned▲

The proof does not address guilt at all. It addresses whether one can freely choose.

The priniciple of Alternative Possiblities is this: A person is morally culpable only if he could have acted otherwise.

Perhaps you are referring to another proof in the set, but this one is exactly about guilt/culpability.

LOL.. Where did you get the idea that this is about guilt or culpability? The proof demonstrates that free will is incompatible with EDF.

The priniciple of Alternative Possiblities again, is this: A person is morally culpable only if he could have acted otherwise.

This is another Punk't isn't it?

Free will does not mean unlimited ability. Just because I cannot flap my arms and fly to the moon doesn't mean I don't have the ability to choose between vanilla and chocolate ice cream

Have no idea what you are talking about. We are talking about The principle of Alternative Possibilities, right? It isn't about limitations or no limitations upon freewill but rather if we are culpable if we had no other choice. I was disproving that. I have no idea what this has to do with a dog named Bill.

LOL... I don't think you understand the proof.

Muz

A couple of links for your consideration:

Rutgers College

Frankfurt

JSTOR Philosophical Review

Where is the camera? Seriously.
And you thought you were winning this debate somehow?
This isn't my goal or concern, I am having good-natured sparring with you and appreciating the necessity of some doctrinal jabs. Not mean spirited at all and I don't care who wins as long as we are really trading jabs of truth. I cannot help but feel some of your jabs are completely missing for several rounds now. Have you been busy? Or is it similar to me in trying to follow two posts through thread now (I've had to address some of GR's and Clete's concerns as well).

 

[Lon]

Brief recap

Brief recap

The priniciple of Alternative Possiblities again, is this: A person is morally culpable only if he could have acted otherwise. We are born to sin with no other possible choice. How is it that we are born to sin with no other possibility and under the wrath of God? The proof actually denies the truth of scripture: 1) all have sinned and fall short 2) the wages of sin is death. According to this principle, we could not be held morally culpable if we have no other choice.

Muz addresses this but it is important to understand that sin isn't just comittance, it is also by omittance. We are, from birth, unable to measure up to God's standards of righteousness, have a need for regeneration to commune with our Father, etc. We sin by not doing what we are supposed to as much as doing what we are not supposed to.
Romans 7:14-15

I address this with several considerations: 1) we are culpable from others' decisions. Examples: British criminals were deported to Australia. Children born in Australia were not criminals themselves, but were born under the judgment, not by their choice, but by their birth. They are under a culpable judgment, not by action, but by birth.
Morally culpable does not necessitate a decision [and again, is also applicable to omission James 4:17 ].
The priniciple of Alternative Possiblities seeks to prove culpability upon choice alone and it fails in this proof for man under the bondage of sin[omission and commission]. This consideration alone questions veracity of the proof.

2) Acting otherwise. This proposition also does not include all considerations. It is a limitation upon the proof because it does not recognize instances of guilt-by-association, guilt by a failure not-to-act[omission], guilt by ignorance, etc. In other words, the proof is too narrow to be true.
If one does not know walking on the grass or driving over a certain limit is an infraction, he had no choice to do otherwise. Ignorance removes his 'choice to do otherwise' but it does not remove the infraction. He is guilty, not by choice but by ignorance (he was not given a choice, perhaps the "Keep off the grass" sign was maliciously removed, or perhaps a tree was blocking the speed limit sign." If he is absolved from the crime, it still does not remove his guilt and culpability (he was still breaking the law). It is only grace (understanding by the court) that will allow him to walk free. He is guilty, not by choice to do otherwise, but by culpability of infraction.

#9 topples because it is not true. [If the truth is questionable, it cannot support/uphold the conclusion (end proof). This being the case, it does not stand and I've only considered one of 9 proofs here for veracity of the conclusion. There are 8 more proofs that must also be scrutinized. As I said, I do not have a major problem with them but some of them also stand on shaky ground.]

Lon

 

[godrulz]

A God with an increasing IQ how quaint.

God is infinitely intelligent (IQ). He is omniscient, knowing all things. The issue relates to what are possible objects of certain knowledge. The future does not exist, except as possible, so it is correctly known as such. As it becomes real, it is known as such.

It is telling that Voltaire cannot explain simple foreknowledge but just assumes it. God cannot look into the non-existent future and see it like the fixed past if it is not really that way. If we have not settled the future, there is not a parallel universe seen where it is. This is a contradiction, an absurdity, an indefensible assumption. We either have made the choices or not. If not, then God sees reality as it is.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

The future does not exist, except as possible, so it is correctly known as such. As it becomes real, it is known as such.

God is not just a mega-mensa.

God is not a captive of time, He is the creator of time. He can function in time but need not outmaneuver his creatures to achieve his ends.

Read Tozer, Knowledge of the Holy and get a of the God unfettered by OV confusion.