Do you believe in predestination ?

[Arthur Brain]

If God infallibly knew that the man would choose chocolate, but the man chose vanilla instead, it means that God's knowledge is not infallible (which means, in case you forgot, "incapable of being wrong"). It's a contradiction, and since God is not contradictory, something has to give.

Either:

God's infallible knowledge of the future

Or:

God's goodness (in that He lied about the man choosing chocolate when in fact he would choose vanilla).



If God knew that the man would choose chocolate, then there was never any choice to begin with, and the man never had the capability of acting freely.

It's not a matter of "tampering with his will or choice," which begs that he HAS those things to begin with.

It's that there never was any will or choice at all.



All the difference in the world.

If everything that has ever happened never could have happened any differently, then that means that there's no point to any of it, because it's all just a play being acted out, following a script written in God's mind. Which means that every wicked thing that ever happens also comes from God's mind.



If determinism is true, no person is capable of doing other than what God knows they will do. The man literally is incapable of choosing vanilla, simply because God infallibly knows that he will choose chocolate.

The question @Stripe asked exposes this very quickly, simply by stating that God tells the man he will choose chocolate.

I don't know about you, but when someone presents me two options, and tells me that "You WILL choose this option, and not the other," I have a desire to choose the opposite, simply to prove him wrong. (This has to do with how "reverse psychology works".) THAT is the essence of a will, the "ability to choose otherwise." If one cannot choose otherwise, then he does not act freely.

If God knows what choices people are going to make beforehand then of course it's infallible, that's not under dispute. Stripe's scenario had a completely unnecessary factor and only weakens his and by association your argument frankly. Why even bring God telling a man that he's going to choose one flavour of ice cream over another at all? That would be direct influence and my contention is that having foreknowledge of events/choices in itself doesn't involve that whatsoever. I'm not arguing from a determinist/predestination perspective whatsoever, I'll leave that to the likes of hyper Calvinists.

Do you understand the difference between God knowing the choices that people will make and allowing them will to make those decisions and programming events so that everything happens to a preset decree? You've had the limited will to act freely today on all manner of things whether God knew what you were going to do or not. Nobody has absolute free will but that gets deeper into an argument where you still don't seem to grasp the difference between foreknowledge and predeterminism. They're not the same thing.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Because then you wouldn't/have/a/choice.

Sure you would, unless you were forced or programmed into doing so. Foreknowledge itself doesn't equate to that so take it up with determinists or understand the difference.

 

[Stripe]

Sure you would, unless you were forced or programmed into doing so. Foreknowledge itself doesn't equate to that so take it up with determinists or understand the difference.

You think you have a choice when there's only one outcome possible.

How more confused could you get?

 

[Arthur Brain]

You think you have a choice when there's only one outcome possible.

How more confused could you get?

So you don't understand the difference between foreknowledge and predeterminism then. Okay, noted.

 

[Stripe]

Why even bring God telling a man that he's going to choose one flavour of ice cream over another at all?

Because it tests the idea that God could know while wills exist.

We know why you hate the question and do not want it to exist.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If God knows what choices people are going to make beforehand then of course it's infallible, that's not under dispute.

It's EXACTLY what is under dispute.

God's knowledge of the future being infallible is exactly what we're discussing. Or, rather, whether the future is settled (cannot be changed, all actions are predetermined), or open (the future is unknowable, even by God)

Stripe's scenario had a completely unnecessary factor and only weakens his and by association your argument frankly. Why even bring God telling a man that he's going to choose one flavour of ice cream over another at all?

Because it illustrates the problem directly and simply.

That would be direct influence and my contention is that having foreknowledge of events/choices in itself doesn't involve that whatsoever.

Then you have to show that. So far, you haven't presented any evidence to that effect.

Do you understand the difference between God knowing the choices that people will make and allowing them will to make those decisions and programming events so that everything happens to a preset decree?

The difference is the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism.

As an open theist, I'm against both.

BOTH hold to the idea that the future is settled, either because God decreed it to be so (Calvinism), or because God knows the future, as if he had used a time machine to travel into the future to watch it happen (Arminianism).

You've had the limited will to act freely today on all manner of things whether God knew what you were going to do or not. Nobody has absolute free will

"Free will" is redundant, because if it's not free, it's not a will.

but that gets deeper into an argument where you still don't seem to grasp the difference between foreknowledge and predeterminism. They're not the same thing.

As Stripe just said, if there's only one outcome, then there's no choice involved.

Whether God decreed it to be so, or just simply that he knows it to be so doesn't matter.

Sure you would, unless you were forced or programmed into doing so.

There's only one outcome, "the man will choose the chocolate ice cream."

He doesn't have a choice. Thus, he is not free. How is that so hard to understand?

And if he chooses the vanilla ice cream instead, then God's statement "you will choose chocolate" would have been wrong.

Foreknowledge itself doesn't equate to that so take it up with determinists or understand the difference.

The point is that the settled view (the claim that the future is already determined), by definition, implies that men do not have a will, that they are free to choose otherwise.

 

[Stripe]

So you don't understand the difference between foreknowledge and predeterminism then. Okay, noted.

Foreknowledge is knowing what will happen. Predeterminism is determining what will happen.

When dealing with wills, they are the same thing. If they exist, wills do not.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Because it tests the idea that God could know while wills exist.

We know why you hate the question and do not want it to exist.

No, it's rather that God affords you volitional choice in matters while knowing what it is you're going to choose/have chosen is all without any influence or coercion. Until you can grasp that basic concept it's no wonder you're struggling with the difference between foreknowledge and predeterminism.

You really wanna drop that silly royal "we" of yours, it so makes you look like such a pompous clown but hey, your choice of course.

 

[Stripe]

God affords you volitional choice

That's a new one. Can you explain the difference between a "volitional choice" and a plain old "choice"?

while knowing what it is you're going to choose/have chosen is all without any influence or coercion.

If He knows, it is determined. Unless you think it's not determined. In which case, He wouldn't know.

Words have meanings. Until you can grasp that basic concept, it's no wonder you're struggling.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's EXACTLY what is under dispute.

God's knowledge of the future being infallible is exactly what we're discussing. Or, rather, whether the future is settled (cannot be changed, all actions are predetermined), or open (the future is unknowable, even by God)



Because it illustrates the problem directly and simply.



Then you have to show that. So far, you haven't presented any evidence to that effect.



The difference is the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism.

As an open theist, I'm against both.

BOTH hold to the idea that the future is settled, either because God decreed it to be so (Calvinism), or because God knows the future, as if he had used a time machine to travel into the future to watch it happen (Arminianism).



"Free will" is redundant, because if it's not free, it's not a will.



As Stripe just said, if there's only one outcome, then there's no choice involved.

Whether God decreed it to be so, or just simply that he knows it to be so doesn't matter.



There's only one outcome, "the man will choose the chocolate ice cream."

He doesn't have a choice. Thus, he is not free. How is that so hard to understand?

And if he chooses the vanilla ice cream instead, then God's statement "you will choose chocolate" would have been wrong.



The point is that the settled view (the claim that the future is already determined), by definition, implies that men do not have a will, that they are free to choose otherwise.

When are you going to realize that I'm not ascribing to a "settled view" and understand the difference between foreknowledge and determinism? Until you can do that then this is pointless. Just because God may know what you are going to do doesn't mean that you don't/didn't have choice. It is as simple as that.

 

[Stripe]

Just because God may know what you are going to do doesn't mean that you don't/didn't have choice.

If we have a choice, He doesn't know.
If He knows, we don't have a choice.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That's a new one. Can you explain the difference between a "volitional choice" and a plain old "choice"?



If He knows, it is determined. Unless you think it's not determined. In which case, He wouldn't know.

Words have meanings. Until you can grasp that basic concept it's no wonder you're struggling.

Hey, you used to be an English teacher or something, right? Do the math or in this case, English.

If God knows what choices you are going to make and allows you the will to make those then how is that determining that you will make those decisions? Understand now? I'm guessing no but hope springs eternal an' all that...

 

[Arthur Brain]

If we have a choice, He doesn't know.
If He knows, we don't have a choice.

It's as simple as that.

Well, if you want to limit God's capabilities to your own limited frame of linear reference and understanding then sure.

Otherwise...

 

[Idolater]

Peter's told ahead of time he will deny Jesus three times before the rooster crows. And then that's exactly what he did. It's recorded four times in the New Testament.

Jesus foreknew what Peter would do, in some detail.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Peter's told ahead of time he will deny Jesus three times before the rooster crows.

All Jesus needed to know for this was Peter's personality (which was somewhat of a coward), and then once he denied Him, making a rooster crow isn't all that difficult...

And then that's exactly what he did.

If Peter had not denied Jesus the second time, but instead acknowledged that he was part of Jesus' posse, do you think Christ would have been mad that what He said didn't come about? OR do you think He would have been glad that Peter didn't deny him a second time?

It's recorded four times in the New Testament.

So?

Jesus foreknew what Peter would do, in some detail.

No.

He merely knew that Peter would deny him, and only needed a rooster to crow after the third time.

Or do you think that God had predestined a rooster to crow at that exact moment?

Couldn't the Creator and Master of the universe have just made a random nearby rooster crow?

 

[JudgeRightly]

When are you going to realize that I'm not ascribing to a "settled view"

I never said you were. That's simply what you're defending.

and understand the difference between foreknowledge and determinism?

See post #366.

Until you can do that then this is pointless. Just because God may know what you are going to do doesn't mean that you don't/didn't have choice. It is as simple as that.

Yes it does. It's as simple as that. And I've shown the logical argument as to why it does. You have yet to present any fault with it other than bald assertion.

 

[Stripe]

Hey, you used to be an English teacher or something, right? Do the math or in this case, English.

It ain't my job to explain what you mean.

If God knows what choices you are going to make and allows you the will to make those then how is that determining that you will make those decisions?

Because the outcome is determined.

It will be as God knows.

Understand now? I'm guessing no, but hope springs eternal an' all that.

 

[Stripe]

Well, if you want to limit God's capabilities to your own limited frame of linear reference and understanding then sure.

So you have a "nonlinear frame of reference and understanding"?

Explain to us how you got this "frame" and how it means that what God knows will happen is not determined.

 

[Stripe]

Peter's told ahead of time he will deny Jesus three times before the rooster crows. And then that's exactly what he did. It's recorded four times in the New Testament.

Jesus foreknew what Peter would do, in some detail.

This shows that God was right about what Peter would do, not that Peter had no choice.

 

[JudgeRightly]

This shows that God was right about what Peter would do

And the rooster! Cock-a-doodle-doo!