 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > The Nail in the Coffin: The Ultimate Victory of God | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/10/2010 10:19 PM (GMT -6) |   | Tom:
What do you mean by “forever chooses”? I’m VERY serious. You can mean ONE of two things: Either (1) we succeed in actualizing all our future possibilities, traversing eternity, and rejecting God throughout the entirety of it. You SAY you see how this is impossible. OK, then that leave only one option, that by “forever chooses to refrain” you mean that (2) for any given point in time, we’re free to land and free to refrain from landing. That’s it. I think (2) is the case. That’s it. There IS NO other meaningful way to phrase the question.
I'm going to take this very, very, very sloooooooow.
Given (2), if the ship, continuously and WITHOUT CEASING, exercises it's freedom to refrain from landing, will the ship ever land on the planet?
Dude, I swear. If you don't answer this question straight up...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/10/2010 10:27 PM (GMT -6) | | D: Given (2), if the ship, continuously and WITHOUT CEASING, exercises it's freedom to refrain from landing, will the ship ever land on the planet?
T: It will never land on the planet.
OK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wonderful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now...
Breaking planet's gravity <=> Irrevocable self-separation from God
Landing on planet <=> Leap of faith in receiving God's love and salvation
Staying in orbit <=> Experienced self-separation from God
Let's do plug-and-play, shall we? Just changing the underlined parts...
If a hell-experiencing creature, continuously and without ceasing, exercises her freedom to refrain from "leaping" towards God in faith, will the creature ever experience God's salvation?
My answer: She will never experience God's salvation.
Are there any logical snafus on this thinking?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/10/2010 10:33:00 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/10/2010 10:33 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/10/2010 11:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Glutton for punishment...
Tom:
Dude, to say "they SHALL NEVER experience God's salvation" is to say CAN NEVER experience it. It's to say there's no possibility that they can. That's what NEVER means. You can't say that. If they MAY experience it, you can't say they NEVER SHALL experience it.
Ok, Mr Spock. Let's play it your way.
Will, Will Not, Might, Might Not.
You want to say that at every present moment in hell, it MIGHT and MIGHT NOT be the case that the person refrain from submitting to God. And every moment that the creature chooses to refrain from submitting to God, it's still "MIGHT and MIGHT NOT" in the next moment and the next...and the next. Because of this, it cannot be the case that the "MIGHT and MIGHT NOT" resolves into WILL NOT for you. And as you say...so long as a person in hell refrains from trusting God, the person will not experience God's salvation.
I suppose what I've been saying is this: Even though there is an irrevocable "MIGHT and MIGHT NOT" in the freedom to choose submission to God, it can still be the case that the creature resolutely chooses ONLY to rebel every new moment without fail. Basically, the creature would be choosing "MIGHT NOT" every new opportunity it had to do so. And logically speaking, if the creature did that without fail, then even though the "MIGHT" option is a genuine possibility, it would not be actualized at all. From my standpoint, if it is genuinely possible that the "MIGHT" option of the "MIGHT and MIGHT NOT" situation is not actualized during the creature's existence with God (HOWEVER LONG THAT IS), then this means that the creature may NEVER EXPERIENCE the "MIGHT" option of God's salvation.
Please Lord help me....ok...here goes...
Let's say that Bruce is immortal, ok? Let's further say that Bruce has endless access to caviar. Let's also say that Bruce might and might not choose to eat caviar. He always has this choice. Let's say that Bruce, for whatever reason, resolves not to eat caviar for as long as he lives...and given his strong will, he can really do that. So, whenever he is offered caviar, he refuses it, actualizing the "MIGHT NOT" part of the choice. IF (please keep that in mind: IF!!! ) he does this without fail, then it is CERTAIN that Bruce will not actualize the "MIGHT" aspect of the choice to eat caviar...and this will happen for the rest of his life. Now, was it rendered certain that Bruce "WILL NOT" eat the caviar? Nope? He always has the "MIGHT and MIGHT NOT" in that choice. At the same time, it can be genuinely possible that Bruce never eats caviar for the rest of his life immortal, right? Right.
In my mind, this is EXACTLY the reasoning that I have with the whole hell thing.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/10/2010 11:49:41 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/11/2010 12:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Oh, I got a good one.
YOU, Tom, have the "Might and Might Not" ability to commit beastiality with a female sheep. (Yeah, I'm goin' there.  ) Let's say that you had immortality and immediate and endless access to sheep...and that, twice a day, someone offered you a female sheep to have sex with , everyday for the rest of your life. Now, sure, the "might and might not" element of the choice is irrevocable. At the same time, would it be possible for you to refrain without fail to commit beastiality with a female sheep your whole immortal life? YES, IT WOULD. And you wouldn't be making a "WILL NOT" out of a "MIGHT/MIGHT NOT" situation...you would just be enacting the "MIGHT NOT" option available without fail.
I sure hope this works.
"Baaa", you T you...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/11/2010 12:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Aha! Getting to the heart of things...check out the "Hexagon of Opposition" paper...
Z(S) = It is determinately the case that state of affairs S occur (“S will obtain”)
Z(~S) = It is determinately the case that state of affairs not-S occur (“S will not obtain”)
Q(S) = It is indeterminately the case that state of affairs S occur (“S might and might not obtain”)
Let S = Tom having intercourse with a sheep sometime in his existence. ( )
So Q(S) = It is indeterminately the case that Tom has intercourse with a sheep sometime in his existence. Now, obviously, Q(S) doesn't become Z(~S). But it just is the case that, day after day, Tom has the ability to choose ONLY actualize the "might not" aspect of Q(S), such that Tom (in choosing to refrain from getting freaky with a sheep every time he's asked) doesn't EVER experience sex with the sheep. Please note AGAIN that this doe NOT make Q(S) change into Z(~S). In like manner... Let S = Person X in hell choosing to continue rejecting God's love. So Q(S) = It is indeterminately the case that Person X in hell chooses to continue rejecting God's love. Again, obviously, Q(S) doesn't become Z(~S). At the same time, it just is the case that Person X has the ability to choose ONLY actualize the "might not" aspect of Q(S), such that Person X (in choosing to refrain from receiving God's Love and Salvation whenever given as opportunity) doesn't EVER experience God's Love and Salvation in his immortal existence. Being redundant on purpose: Q(S) does NOT, I repeat, does NOT become Z(~S)!!!!! If this don't get it, I don't think anything can... 
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/11/2010 12:51:02 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 5/11/2010 12:51 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/11/2010 1:58 AM (GMT -6) | | |
D: IF (please keep that in mind: IF!!! ) he does this without fail, then it is CERTAIN that Bruce will not actualize the "MIGHT" aspect of the choice to eat caviar...and this will happen for the rest of his life. Now, was it rendered certain that Bruce "WILL NOT" eat the caviar? Nope? He always has the "MIGHT and MIGHT NOT" in that choice. At the same time, it can be genuinely possible that Bruce never eats caviar for the rest of his life immortal, right?
T: Not certain I’m following. I’ve got the image of that cute sheep there in the back center of your photograph stuck in my mind.
You ask, if he does this without fail “for the rest of his life” or “for the rest of his life immortal” and all I can say is: does not compute, does not compute, does not compute. There is no rejecting God “without fail” for “the rest of one’s immortal life,” since the "the rest of an immortal life" is "the rest of an infinite length of time." There you go agaaaain.
-----------------------
Either FREE implies “might and might not” or it doesn’t. You tell me. If it does, then that’s just what it means to say the future’s open. If it ever becomes the case regarding some future decision that either of “might” and “might not” is false, then we no longer have an open future with respect to that choice. If “might” is what’s false, then “will not” is true. If “might not” is false, then “will” is true. Now, “Bruce WILL NOT repent” closes the future to God and that, we agree, is not possible. On the other hand, “Bruce WILL repent” closes the future to rejecting God. A person’s future CAN become closed with respect to rejecting God, sure. The problem is with this being TRUE about Bruce BEFORE BRUCE FREELY DETERMINES IT. And you want WILL to be true RIGHT NOW of every person who ever has, does, and ever will exist. You want it to be true RIGHT NOW for everybody that they WILL repent. If that doesn’t entail the denial of LFW I don’t know what LFW is, honestly.
It’s like this. You have two things you can ask me about: finite lengths of time or an infinite length of time. We both agree that sinners cannot reject God for an infinite length of time. I agree. This should answer most of your questions, right? For the record: No person can succeed in rejecting God infinitely. Impossible.
Now that that’s out of the way, ask me about FINITE lengths of time, ANY finite length of time X. Go ahead. Can a person reject God for X length of time? My answer will be yes, whatever that length of time is. Dudn’t matter. A day, month, year, millennium, google of years, a google to the power of google number of years. Those are alllllll fiiiiiniiiiiiite lengths of time, and no finite length of time can comprise the “rest of one’s life” or even the “rest of one’s immortal life” (assuming one is immortal). So asking me if Bruce can do X “for the rest of his immortal life” can ONLY mean to me that you’re asking me if he can do X for an infinite length of time. And the only answer to that is: No, Bruce can’t do that.
And if you want "certainly inevitably" for the choice, then I'll ask you HOW you know this? What grounds this inevitability? Is it Bruce or God? What? You're saying it's true RIGHT NOW for everybody who ends up in hell. So it must be God or something about human nature per say that grounds this probability of 1 that all choose rightly after some finite length of time. All I know is if Tommy's choosing X in the future has a probability of 1, then Tommy ain't choosing X freely whenever the time comes along.
D: would it be possible for you to refrain without fail to commit beastiality with a female sheep your whole immortal life? YES, IT WOULD.
Tom: No, it wouldn’t. It would be possible for me to refrain for ANY finite length of time, yes. That’s definitionally the case if we go with “might and might not.” Ask me about finite lengths of time. But it’s NOT possible to refrain “my whole immortal life” because “whole immortal life” means “infinite length of time.” If it doesn’t mean “the whole of the infinite future” then the ONLY other option is SOME FINITE length of time, right? Right. But no finite span of an immortal person’s life can comprise “the whole of their immortal life.” See?
So you tell me. Does “my whole immortal life” that you’re asking about comprise a finite or an infinite length of time? Just tell me that, THEN I’ll tell you whether or not I’d be able to refrain from beastiality that THAT length of time.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 5/11/2010 2:24:55 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/11/2010 2:43 AM (GMT -6) | | |
D: Aha!
T: U-oh.
D: Z(S) = It is determinately the case that state of affairs S occur (“S will obtain”)
Z(~S) = It is determinately the case that state of affairs not-S occur (“S will not obtain”)
Q(S) = It is indeterminately the case that state of affairs S occur (“S might and might not obtain”)
T: Yeah. Heh.
D: Let S = Tom having intercourse with a sheep sometime in his existence.
T: Oka-a-a-a-a-a-a-y.
D: So Q(S) = It is indeterminately the case that Tom has intercourse with a sheep sometime in his existence.
Now, obviously, Q(S) doesn't become Z(~S). But it just is the case that, day after day, Tom has the ability to choose ONLY actualize the "might not" aspect of Q(S), such that Tom (in choosing to refrain from getting freaky with a sheep every time he's asked) doesn't EVER experience sex with the sheep. Please note AGAIN that this does NOT make Q(S) change into Z(~S).
T: Simplified. A drunk is drying out. Every day for a year he’s libertarianly free to have a drink. Even has an opportunity every day. But he freely says no to drinking every day of that year. Yes, on each day through that year it was true that I “might” take a drink and NEVER true either that I “will” or that I “will not” take a drink.
So what?
D: In like manner...
T: Okaaaay…
D: Let S = Person X in hell choosing to continue rejecting God's love. [Tom’s emphasis]
T: For what length of time does “choosing to continue rejecting God” refer? To a FINITE or an INFINITE length of time? Your call. But I HAVE to know this to answer what I know you’re gonna ask me.
D: So Q(S) = It is indeterminately the case that Person X in hell chooses to continue rejecting God's love.
T: Chooses to continue rejecting God for how long? A finite or an infinite length of time?
D: Again, obviously, Q(S) doesn't become Z(~S). At the same time, it just is the case that Person X has the ability to choose ONLY actualize the "might not" aspect of Q(S), such that Person X (in choosing to refrain from receiving God's Love and Salvation whenever given as opportunity) doesn't EVER experience God's Love and Salvation in his immortal existence. Being redundant on purpose: Q(S) does NOT, I repeat, does NOT become Z(~S)!!!!!
T: Judging from the private note, I’m guess you’re just saying that FOR HOWEVER LONG A FINITE LENGTH OF TIME a person who is free with respect to accepting/rejecting God rejects God, it remains the case throughout that length of time that they’re also free to accept God; hence it was never the case during this length of time that WILL or WILL NOT were true regarding the future choice.
I agree. SO LONG AS a person freely rejects God they’re also free to believe in God. How simple can that be? And so long as they reject God they can’t be experiencing salvation.
Satisfied?  Baa Raam U. To your fleece be true. Baa Raaam U!
------------------------
Now let’s talk about what the REAL issue is:
D's INEVITABILITY that all WILL believe.
I claim “inevitably X” means “X WILL…” (= probability of 1) and contradicts MIGHT/MIGHT NOT X.
(It's right there on the Hexagon paper!)
What say you?
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 5/11/2010 2:47:11 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/11/2010 2:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
I claim “inevitably X” means “X WILL…” (= probability of 1) and contradicts MIGHT/MIGHT NOT X.
Oh, that's right. As long as it's friggin 99.999repeating% chance that APPROACHES 1...but never reaches 1, then the might/might not still holds, huh?
Oy vay.
You (Tom) said....
"If you want to agree that God doesn’t checkmate the ‘will’ and that those in hell remain free to say ‘no’ at EVERY point they’re in hell, then what’s the problem? But conceding this means it’s CONCEIVABLE that the creature go on and on and on renewing that rejection—potentially forever."
What did you mean by "the creature go[ing] on and on and on renewing that rejection--potentially forever"? Please help me understand what you meant...because I thought rejecting God "potentially forever" naturally meant that suffering from rejecting God was "potentially forever." It didn't seem like you were talking about any finite amounts of time there...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/11/2010 3:49:46 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/11/2010 6:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: I don’t think such actions on God’s part can bring about the sort of right relating God wants, so I don't think "stopping every mouth" means zero epistemic distance.
Jeff: I don't see how the latter follows from the former. I agree with the former in the sense that that route is the less preferred by God. But Christ IS honored by it supposedly.
I see it like this. Paul says in Rom. 6-7 that in the flesh (i.e., without the Spirit) we can see the right and still not live it. The epistemic distance isn’t necessarily the problem. It’s that the flesh is literally incapable of fulfilling a spiritual law. Or as Paul says, the law is spiritual, but I’m carnal sold under sin. I see the same situation with the unbeliever being judged. The epistemic distance is zero. But he can't change his heart. All he can do is intellectually SEE the truth as did Paul about the holiness of the law without being able to live it. But God, in mercy, will FILL THAT NEED just as He did for us.
Tom: So, somebody who has no sinful nature or flesh to deal with, whether inherited or conditioned by a sinful environment, will necessarily make all righteous choices?
That’s why we’re discussing this…what grounds D’s absolute confidence that a person WILL, certainly, choose God? What do you ground it in? Looks here like you ground it in an absence of sinful flesh.
I got a couple friends I want you to meet, Jeff. Jeff, meet Adam and Eve (perfect environment and no fallen sinful flesh or sinful tendencies, yet they managed to say 'no' to God). Guys, meet Jeff.
I’ll try to come back to this. Gotta run right now.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTA | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/11/2010 10:56 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Read a few pages. I just want to be clear on something here. OL you hold that there is a dualism if one continues to reject God and God is patient with them. Reject God. God is patient. Reject God. God is patient again. And so on. You don't hold to dualism and you posit that a finite being cannot resist God for all eternity. Tommy seems to say that one can infinitely reject God because to not do so would mean a loss of freedom. It would be dualism because the strength to "outlast" God's patience (or resist God's love) would be equal. (I suppose it really wouldn't be OUTLASTING God's patience because all things being equal, the resistance of said finite being and the patience of God would hold to the same longevity--they would endure the same in terms of duration and not necessarily in terms of power which could be a reason for the finite being to be "fatigued" by God's patience. God's patience would be ultimately "outlast" the fatigue of the finite being).
However, why not posit (as Greg did in his sermon on hell) that God will say "enough is enough" and annihilate the finite creature. There is no dualism at this point and God will be "all in all" because all that God is in is all that exists. Unless of course you guys have given up on annihilationism (I think Greg believes in it). In other words, I don't know if I would posit that God's patience is infinite. At some point God's patience wears thin but this does not have to mean dualism.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 5/11/2010 11:01:02 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/11/2010 12:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Read a few more pages. Understand what OL is saying. No need to posit annihilationism. Think I would side with D on this.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/11/2010 12:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon: Tommy seems to say that one can infinitely reject God because to not do so would mean a loss of freedom. It would be dualism because the strength to "outlast" God's patience (or resist God's love) would be equal.
Tom: Actually no, I think infinitely rejecting God is impossible. If I thought we could reject God for an infinite length of time THEN that would be a kind of dualism. But I don't think we can infinitely reject God. Nope.
Brandon: Why not posit (as Greg did in his sermon on hell) that God will say "enough is enough" and annihilate the finite creature. There is no dualism at this point and God will be "all in all" because all that God is in is all that exists.
Tom: Annihilation certainly silences any possibility of dualism. The problem is that for D and me annihilationism would mean God annihilates people who are still capable of fulfiling their destiny. But for us, there's no solidifying past some point of "no return." God would be snuffing out the very possibility that creatures possess (by God's own will) to yet know and love him. And THAT, in addition, would be incompatible with God's being love as the very grounding act of our existence.
I could be wrong, but Greg would only go with annihilation IF it were the case that persons freely solidified irrevocably into an anti-God state. THEN Greg says the loving thing to do would be to annihilate such persons. I agree...i.e., agree that IF it were the case that such irrevocable solidification occured, God would act accordingly, but the problem is we think such solidification is impossible.
I don't worry about dualism. It's not possible given my metaphysics (Only ONE necessary being, God, who created all else and sustains all else in love). Metaphysical dualists usually posit an eternal necessary interdependence (and struggle) between Good and Evil which, though they struggle, balance each other out and hold each other in existence. Each one REQUIRES the other. The other unacceptable sort of dualism is entailed in ECT supporters, for though they don't posit an eternal/necessary Good and Evil existing side by side and dependent upon each other, they DO posit an eventual, utter and irrevocable evil that shall exist alongside God without end. So for ECTers, reality itself will BECOME a permanent dualism of good and evil; creation will be irrevocably split (with Evil actually getting a greater slice of the reality pie than God, but never mind that).
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 5/11/2010 1:41:37 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 488 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:51 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|