Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

rossfadeinout
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428

Posted 11/26/2004 12:12 PM (GMT -6)

I was reading on John DePoe's blog today and he was recapping his time at the EPS meeting in Texas. He said that he thought that the papers that Alan and Doc presented were both very well done and he thought that they were the beginnings of the next wave of discussion in the foreknowledge debate.

I would really LOVE to hear from Doc or Alan as to how they thought their presentations were received.

Blessings,
Ross

"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 11/26/2004 3:07 PM (GMT -6)

Heads up on your email bro.

I'd like to know if the EPS has any papers available online. And, yeah, Alan, what did you present at the conference?

Tom

orphan child
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 68

Posted 11/27/2004 5:53 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by TGB

Heads up on your email bro.

I'd like to know if the EPS has any papers available online. And, yeah, Alan, what did you present at the conference?

Tom

These are the currently available online papers:

http://www.etsjets.org/meetings/2004/papers/2004-papers-idx.html

[navigate at the top]

illegitimate child (now orphaned) of Miss Manners (now deceased)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 11/28/2004 11:03 AM (GMT -6)

Those papers, orphan child, are papers presented at the ETS, not the EPS. We're looking for the EPS papers. I doubt they're online.

Tom

orphan child
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 68

Posted 11/28/2004 12:58 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by TGB

Those papers, orphan child, are papers presented at the ETS, not the EPS. We're looking for the EPS papers. I doubt they're online.

Those papers are from the meetings, whose program
http://www.etsjets.org/meetings/2004/2004-Program.pdf

lists Dr. Rhoda's paper and Dr. Boyd's paper on page 30 (34 of the pdf).
under "Affiliated Society: Evangelical Philosophical Society I"

So I'm assuming that's where they'd show up once(if) they're submitted to be put online.

illegitimate child (now orphaned) of Miss Manners (now deceased)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 11/28/2004 2:59 PM (GMT -6)

Aaaaaaaah.

Bandit

rossfadeinout
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428

Posted 11/29/2004 4:56 AM (GMT -6)

Tom,

Thanks for the e-mail. You guys should be proud of the work that you have done on this issue. Out of curiosity, have yall been in correspondence with Bill Hasker about your work? I wonder what his take is.

Peace, Ross

"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 11/29/2004 5:21 AM (GMT -6)

Yeah, I emailed Hasker a bit very early on. Told him about where we were going with indeterminacy logic. Hasker has a different view on it. We agree that bivalence holds universally and that propositions describing future contingents are either true or false, but Hasker holds that it's logically impossible for such propositions to be known. Strange I know. I'm not convinced I've understood him, but that's basically what I got. Alan can clarify.

So Hakser would disagree (I think) with our argument that "will" and "will not" are both false just in case "might" and "might not" are both true. Since event X ends up happening, it must (Hasker thinks) have been true before X occured that "X will occur." Hasker just argues that God doesn't know the truth value of "X will occur" because there's nothing there to know (in spite of the fact that bivalence holds). I'm sure I'm slaughtering Hasker's view. But that's what I understand of his view.

Tom

orphan child
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 68

Posted 11/29/2004 5:44 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Hasker just argues that God doesn't know the truth value of "X will occur" because there's nothing there to know (in spite of the fact that bivalence holds).

Remember Australian Albert? I think he said something similar.

Futures contingencies are not facts, thus there's nothing to know, or something like that.

I'd like to see the "all possibilites" expanded upon. Are they "all possibilities" based on a general knowlege of types (metaclasses, metatypes) or "all possibilites" based on specific knowlege of each possible actuality (each instantiation of a metatype)?
I'm slaughtering the language now....

illegitimate child (now orphaned) of Miss Manners (now deceased)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 11/29/2004 5:53 AM (GMT -6)

orphan child: Future contingencies are not facts, thus there's nothing to know, or something like that.

Tom: How is it some people make so much money on Futures then?

Tom

orphan child
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 68

Posted 11/29/2004 6:11 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by TGB

orphan child: Future contingencies are not facts, thus there's nothing to know, or something like that.

Tom: How is it some people make so much money on Futures then?

I was trying to restate something I thought Albert from Australia said.

The reason people are willing to gamble money on Futures is because there's no way to make money on Pasts.

I'll bet you $100 that Seattle Slew wins the Triple Crown in 1977.

illegitimate child (now orphaned) of Miss Manners (now deceased)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 11/29/2004 6:17 AM (GMT -6)

orphan: The reason people are willing to gamble money on Futures is because there's no way to make money on Pasts. I'll bet you $100 that Seattle Slew wins the Triple Crown in 1977.

Tom: Ha!

But (this is interesting), Craig says you CAN affect the past. He says you can pray regarding a past event and it can fingure into the outcome so long as you don't know what the outcome was. For example, I find out after the fact that a loved one was in the Twin Towers when they were struck by the planes, but I don't know that my loved made it out of the buildings before they collaposed. Craig says I can pray after they collapsed, even long after, for God to get my loved-one out of the building and to saftey and God, foreknowing what I "would" pray in this situtation via middle knowledge, will take that into consideration BEFORE the Towers collapse. But it doesn't work if I know my loved one already died, or got to safety. I have to be ignorant of the outcome Criag argues.

Sweet, eh?

Bandit

orphan child
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 68

Posted 11/29/2004 6:23 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by TGB
But (this is interesting), Craig says you CAN affect the past (in a sense). He says you can pray regarding a past event and it can fingure into the outcome so long as you don't know what the outcome was. For example, I find out a loved one was in the Twin Towers just after they both collapsed, and I don't yet know of my loved one's well-being. Craig says I can pray after the fact for God to get my loved-one out of the building and to saftey and God, foreknowing what I "would" pray in this situtation, takes that into consideration BEFORE the Towers collapse. But it doesn't work if I know my loved one already died, or got to safety. I have to be ignorant of the outcome Criag argues.

You're kidding.... Where's he say this? I thought he was a temporal God guy (post creation).

If a fact happens in the forest, did it really happen?

Maybe Craig was bobber? ya think? Tongue

illegitimate child (now orphaned) of Miss Manners (now deceased)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 11/29/2004 6:32 AM (GMT -6)

Can't think of where I ran across this in Craig. But trust me. I was surprised too. I'll try to track it down.

It makes sense though if you grant the sort of middle knowledge Craig argues for. God knows what you "would" do if placed in the situation of having a loved one caught in the Twin Towers. Based on THAT God acts or doesn't act.

Tom

orphan child
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 68

Posted 11/29/2004 6:46 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by TGB

Can't think of where I ran across this in Craig. But trust me. I was surprised too. I'll try to track it down.

It makes sense though if you grant the sort of middle knowledge Craig argues for. God knows what you "would" do if placed in the situation of having a loved one caught in the Twin Towers. Based on THAT God acts or doesn't act.

42!!!!

Guess a number between 1 and 10.

Big Smile

illegitimate child (now orphaned) of Miss Manners (now deceased)

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 12/12/2004 9:26 PM (GMT -6)

Hey Ross,

I totally overlooked this thread until now. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I remember speaking with John DePoe at some length. Nice fellow.

I thought my presentation, entitled "Is the Future Open or Settled?", was very well received. CVM's own Payaso showed up. I had about 30-35 people in attendance. Greg had circa 100. I got lots of good questions from the audience and positive feedback afterward. They were definitely intrigued by my argument that if the future is open, then it is defender of exhaustive definite foreknowledge who has to compromise omniscience. One older gentleman asked a truly weird question: "Aren't you assuming", he asked, "that there is such a thing as the present?" I basically answered with, "Yes, doesn't everybody?" That didn't seem to satisfy him, but what can you do?

Basically, my talk was an abbreviated form of the longer paper that myself, Greg, and Tom have been working on. I explained the settled future view and the open future view and the consequences of each for the foreknowledge debate. I then rebutted the three a priori arguments that Craig offers (see "The Only Wise God" pp. 55-60) for thinking that the future has to be settled given bivalence. Greg's talk followed. He laid out the Hex and explained how one could affirm bivalence, omniscience, and an open future.

If you'd like, I can email you a copy of my conference presentation. The longer paper's nearly done, though. I'll be posting a link to it within the week.

God bless,
Alan

Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!

Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690

Posted 12/12/2004 10:29 PM (GMT -6)

Hi again, 'tis me, your friendly neighborhood Violin person...
(in case you caught the quote... Spiderman. Yup. Was that me singing in movie #2?... hmm.)

Anyway, Tom and Orphan... I was curious about the Craig thing too when I just read it...

The Only Wise God, p. 87

"It seems, therefore, that backward causation is logically possible. ... What then is retrospective prayer? In the first place, this is not an example of backward causation at all. The prayer itself does not effect something in the past. Rather, God foreknowing the prayer, brings about something in the present."

Gee, couldnt' we just pray about something 4000 years ago then? ( Eight Ball

Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!

Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690

Posted 12/12/2004 10:32 PM (GMT -6)

Yes, the Spiderman reference is a bit obscure, but hey, another reason to see the cool movie again! (No, I'm not Asian Cool

)

rossfadeinout
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428

Posted 12/20/2004 7:04 AM (GMT -6)

Alan,

Thanks for your response. From what I read on John Depoe's blog, he is a proponent of molinism. In fact, I think that he wrote his Master's Thesis defending Middle Knowledge. He has been very influenced by Bill Craig.

Speaking of which, it would be really cool to hear a response to your paper from Craig.

Doc, Tom and Alan, keep up the good work Smile

Ross

"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:56 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual