 |
| 
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 6/7/2004 11:10 AM (GMT -6) |   | What are the bare minimum assumptions of open theism? I submit that there are three:
(1) The Indeterminacy / Contingency Thesis (IC): There exist genuine future contingencies. The future is not exhautively determined by the past and present.
(2) The Incompatibility Thesis: Genuine future contingency is incompatible with an exhaustively settled future. If the future is settled in some respect, then it is not genuinely contingent in that respect. In other words, "will happen" and "might not happen" are, strictly speaking, incompatible.
Given (1) and (2) what I have in other threads called the "Open Future View" (OFV) follows. If (1) and (2) are true, then the future cannot be accurately and exhaustively described in terms of what either "will" or "will not" happen and must be partially describable in terms of what both "might" and "might not" happen.
We get open theism by adding onto (1) and (2)
(3) There exists an omniscient God. (i.e., God knows all and only true propositions)
As omniscient, God has exhaustive knowledge of all correct descriptions of the future, and by (1) and (2) some of that knowledge will consist of propositions regarding what "might" and "might not" happen.
As far as I can see, that's it. These assumptions are quite modest. With respect to (1), open theism simpliciter does not require that libertarian freedom exist or that there be real quantum indeterminacy. All it requires is that there be some domain of real indeterminacy. With respect to (2), all that is claimed is the seemingly obvious platitude that if something will in the strict sense of "will definitely" happen, then it cannot also be the case that it "might not" happen. And (3), of course, is an assumption shared by all the main parties in the open theism debate--theological determinists, Molinists, Ockhamists, simple foreknowledge folks, etc.
(1) and (2) are controversial, however. (1) is rejected by theological determinists. And (2) is rejected by non-open freewill theists like Molinists. These are matters of complex debate, but there are a number of very respectable philosophical arguments for both (1) and (2).
At any rate, open theism as I have characterized it here assumes divine omniscience in the classical sense of knowing all and only truths, so the oft-repeated charge that it compromizes divine omniscience is merely a straw man.
Thoughts and feedback appreciated.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 6/7/2004 2:31 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Epistemologically, I don't see how anyone could have legitimately come up with the idea of a "domain of real indeterminancy" apart from the concepts of "libertarian freedom" and/or "quantum indeterminancy." Is there another source for that idea?
Charles Peirce posited "objective chance" as a fundamental component of his metaphysics back in the 19th century, before quantum mechanics was proposed. Long before that, Epicurus supposed that atoms could spontaneously "swerve". Other philosophers have from time to time posited the existence of real indeterminism independently of either libertarian freedom or quantum mechanics. Whether any such speculations are correct, my point about open theism was that it doesn't have to presuppose any one particular domain of indeterminacy. So, for example, one could be an open theist and reject libertarian freedom. Similarly, one could be an open theist and hold that quantum indeterminacy is merely epistemic.
Regards,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 6/8/2004 4:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Alan,
This is slightly off topic, but I want to defend your (2) incompatibility thesis using insights from your previous posts on the Open Future View.
Let S = the set of possible worlds which branch from the world at time t. I define:
A will do B = for all worlds in S, A does B
A might not do B = there exists a world in S such that A does not do B
So Craig's argument in Divine Foreknowledge would be:
(1) Necessarily, if at t God foreknows that A will do B, then for all worlds in S, A does B
(2) at t God foreknows that A will do B
-----------------------------
(3) for all worlds in S, A does B
Now Craig wants to say that (3) should not be that "A will necessarily do B", because for him (3) is contingent. It is possible that A does not do B. "From God's foreknowledge that I shall do x, it does not follow that I must do x but only that I shall do x." However, if we restrict our domain to S, defining "will do" using possible worlds sounds like how one would define the modality of necessity:
necessarily p = p is true in all possible worlds.
But (3) says that there is no possible world such that A does not do B (again, with respect to S). This refutes Craig's account of libertarian freedom. I think you are right Alan and that Craig de-futures the future. I do not think that Craig would offer an analysis of "will do" in terms of possible worlds probably because he does not really think the world branches at t.
Now to the topic,
I agree that you are too minimal, I would like to see the indeterminacy domain to be libertarian free-will, but only for a historical reason, open theists are interested in libertarian free-will.
It is interesting that William James did offer radioactivity as possible evidence for free-will. Of course, it was found later that radioactivity is a quantum mechanical phenomenon. Now, Peirce's Tychism I think came about circa 1891, years before the discovery of radioactivity (1896?), so, I doubt Peirce was influenced by quantum mechanics. I do think open theists would be helped to give an acoount of objective indeterminacy if the indeterminacy in quantum mechanics turns out to be merely epistemic.
Shalom, kingsaint
"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."
--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 6/8/2004 5:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Kingsaint: Let S = the set of possible worlds which branch from the world at time t. I define:
A will do B = for all worlds in S, A does B
A might not do B = there exists a world in S such that A does not do B
Alan: I think you are right in defining your terms this way, but your definition of "A will do B" needs an argument to justify it. Craig would reject that definition because he thinks that "will" and "might not" are compatible. For him, "A will do B" simply means "at some time subsequent to the present A does B". The problem with this way of construing matters, however, is that it is at odds with Craig's committment to a settled future. If it is really possible NOW for A not to do B, then it is not NOW settled that A will do B, precisely because A might not. Craig's response would be to invoke a kind of backward causation (though he would say it isn't causal, but logical) and say that if A does B at T1 then it would have been true at T0 that A will do B at T1. In other words, he would argue that the truth values of contingent predictions is grounded not in the past and present, but in the future. But this is circular, however, for it says that "A will do B" is true iff it will be the case that A does B. But "it will be the case that A does B" is true iff "it will be the case that it will be the case that A does B", and so on. The sense in which it is NOW true that "A will do B" is never explicated but is eternally deferred. In short, Craig can't have his cake and eat it too. If he defines "will" so it is consistent with "might not" then he has no way to ground the claim that the future is NOW settled. But if the defines "will" so as to ground a settled future, then it is not compatible with "might not".
kingsaint: So Craig's argument in Divine Foreknowledge would be:
(1) Necessarily, if at t God foreknows that A will do B, then for all worlds in S, A does B
(2) at t God foreknows that A will do B
-----------------------------
(3) for all worlds in S, A does B
Now Craig wants to say that (3) should not be that "A will necessarily do B", because for him (3) is contingent. It is possible that A does not do B. "From God's foreknowledge that I shall do x, it does not follow that I must do x but only that I shall do x." However, if we restrict our domain to S, defining "will do" using possible worlds sounds like how one would define the modality of necessity:
necessarily p = p is true in all possible worlds.
But (3) says that there is no possible world such that A does not do B (again, with respect to S). This refutes Craig's account of libertarian freedom.
Alan: Again, I think you are right, kingsaint. But Craig is slippery. He routinely (and largely unknowingly, I think) exploits the vagueness in our ordinary language usage of words like "will" and "true" to defend his positions. Thus, when he wants to ground God's foreknowledge "will" takes on the meaning of "definitely will". But when he wants to defend libertarian freedom "will" takes on a weaker sense like "probably will". It's a bit more complicated than that, but I think you'll get the idea. Craig and other defenders of non-open freewill theisms routinely equivocate on their terms. It seems they haven't noticed that ordinary language usage is quite flexible--e.g., people will call lots of things "true" (e.g., proverbs like "haste makes waste") when, strictly speaking, it ain't always the case.
kingsaint: I agree that you are too minimal, I would like to see the indeterminacy domain to be libertarian free-will, but only for a historical reason, open theists are interested in libertarian free-will.
Alan: I also agree that "minimal open theism" is too minimal to be of significant practical interest. It does have theoretical significance, however, for it means there is a lot of flexibility in how we defend and flesh out open theism into a practical theological and philosophical system.
Shalom,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 6/9/2004 6:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan,
I agree with your argument against Craig's position that "will" and "might not" are compatible. Here is how I would argue the case that "A will do B = for all worlds in S, A does B":
For Craig, A will freely do B iff (1) it will be the case that A does B AND (2) A might not do B. I contend that "A might not do B" would be defined something like:
(I) "there is a world in S, such that A does not do B". (This says that it is possible that A does not do B, which is what libertarian freedom requires.) If Craig denies (I), then he runs into problems like you mention. He thinks that if ~B happened, then condition (1) would be different, but this is to say that the possibilty of ~B given (1) is a sham.
My argument is that the negation of (I) would be captured by "A will do B". This refutes Craig's position.
The negation of (I) would be "it is not the case that there is a world in S, such that A does not do B" or "for all worlds in S, A does B". The important question is, what term(s) would capture "for all worlds in S, A does B"?
If the answer to this question is "A will do B", then Craig's position is refuted, unless of course Craig makes the charge of equivocation.
Shalom, kingsaint
"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."
--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 6/10/2004 9:14 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm curious, kingsaint. Your bio says you're a "philosopher looking for a job". That kinda describes my position, as I just recently completely my Ph.D. and will be going on the job market this Fall. Anyway, could you fill me in a bit on your background and interests in philosophy? I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 6/11/2004 2:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Alan,
Thanks for your interest. I have my B.A. and a M.A. in philosophy. I also have a Masters in Theological Studies. It was while pursuing my masters in theology, however, that I had the privilege of taking four courses in philosophy from a famous philosopher, Hilary Putnam. Two of those classes were "American Pragmatism" and a siminar on William James. Putnam, who was on the "Committee on the Study of Religion", was a breath of fresh air compared to the atheistic, analytical philosophy I was then immersed in. Putnam got me hooked on Pragmatism, especially C.S. Peirce and William James. As an aside, I wrote a paper for Putnam on William James' theology, where I basically argued that James was an open theist, though I did not call it that because I was not familiar with the term. I also wrote a paper on "Peirce's Puzzle" which has to do with the applicability (or not) of probabilty in single-case decisions. My masters' thesis was on George Berkeley's arguments for God's existence. I argued that David Hume tried to counter these arguments without explicitly saying so. Berkeley is still one of my favorite philosophers. I think open theists can learn from Berkeley's courage to go against the grain. It's not an accident that Peirce called Berkeley one of the founders of pragmatism (as did James). Anyway, my interests in philosophy are wide (ethics, qualia, consciosness etc.), but due to time contraints, I'm more involved in theology and Biblical studies right now.
Anyway, unlike you (congratulations!) I do not have a Ph.D. (long story, but suffice it to say that with a bit more wisdom and humility, I think I would have got it). This makes your position much, much better than mine in the job market and I wish you much Providence!. I gather that your Ph.D. was in logic. It is your turn to spill your philosophical guts and tell me about your philosophical journey.
Shalom, kingsaint
"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."
--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 6/20/2004 2:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Hello...The following was a letter I sent to a Christian radio show which was talking about God and Time/Open Theism . I sent this to provide perhaps a different way of looking at the issue. Im sending it off to other groups as well and if anyone might like to talk and respond I would be delighted to hear from you. Thankyou kindly.
I wrote I was listening to a teaching on the net about Free Will from your web site and would like to respond with a comment or another way of looking at it. One of your guests brought up what is called Open Theism, that is that God doesn’t know everything. You the host made a point that such doesn’t make sense. I would agree. God does know the future. The idea that God does things by logical guess work doesn’t fit. God doesn’t just predict the future he knows it for example when Judas betrayed Jesus he did it for 30 pieces of silver.
How could God possibly know it would be thirty pieces of silver if he didn’t know all the close details? Of course he wouldn’t. But this causes error on the other side of the ditch which would say that God must make all these things happen or occur or that he prescribed right to a detail how things would turn out. [as if he made them turn out that way] For example Peter denied the Lord three time. For example why would God even set up a situation where Peter would deny the Lord three times?
Of course he didn’t. That was Peter’s doing. God is only revealing what he saw Peter doing from the realm of eternity. For some to say that God was guessing Peter would deny him three times is beyond comprehension that he would be able to put all that together, except if you took the position that God made all those thing happen a position which I don’t hold to.
So then the only alternative would be that God must be in the future we would say right now as we speak?? No. How could a future be a reality that has not occurred? To believe that a future exist which has not occurred is like saying what did that T-bone steak taste like that you are going to eat tomorrow? That is a violation of everything which can be made sense of. I would submit it would be like asking, "What do you think the weather is really like right now in the land of the Wizard of Oz?!?"
What was the weather really like there? There is nothing real about the place. The question really has no right to be asked. The same as the future. The future is not a reality until it occurs and God deals only in thing of reality. Let me say that again God deals only in things of reality and not fantasy. But we swing back now and ask how did God know then or how does he know about the many things he has given foreknowledge about?
Many have struggled with this. I suggest that I might have here the answer. The following I feel does cause all the loose ends to be tried up and brings order and peace and a real understanding to the dilemma . I ask each one to prayerfully consider it. God does not know the future for God only deals in things of reality, [but hold on now, stay with me here and hear me out] God does know the future and always has. Am I a crazy man spouting off a clear contradiction ?
Not a contradiction . Please consider. God does not know the future but yet again he does in this sense . When the future unfolds it then has become knowable. Its now become a reality. He sends back or if I might put it this way he blasts back a revelation back through time, back to the time before the creation of the heavens and the earth. Lets say it’s splashed down on a canvas in front of him so now he sees the end from the beginning. What has happened?
God has changed by blasting a revelation back through time God has in effect changed something. He has changed the fact that he didn’t know something but now he does know it. Please consider once again it is not a limitation to not be in a place that is not a reality. Let me say that again it is not a limitation to not be in a place that is not a reality. But when it does become a reality God can do something with that.
He can send the knowledge of it back through time. So this answers the question when the scripture states God knew by foreknowledge before the foundations of the earth who would be his elect this explains it, I believe clearly, how this can be without God having made people choose a certain way. Its rather interesting also that in physics mathematically speaking the universe is set up this way that if something were to go faster then the speed of light you would be going retrograde through time or in other words backwards.
There is no way however of going to the future for the future is not a place that is a reality. But there is a way to get to the past, by going above the speed of light! So the host of your show was pointing out that to believe that God doesn’t know the future, open theism, doesn’t make sense for we have all the book of Revelation with all the intricate details revealed. It can’t be just an intelligent one making guesses and I agree.
There is no way God could have known by guessing that Judas would betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver or that Peter would deny the Lord three times. It can’t be someone just making guesses but it has to be someone seeing the actual future as an open book. But by God having the capacity to blast a revelation of what he saw as time unfolded back before the creation of the earth does actually line up in the theory of physics.
This is a true and real paradox. This means if I can put it this way that there’s a revelation beam above our heads coming say from the west [which I ask you to consider we’ll call the future] going to the east [which I ask you to imagine as being our past] The knowledge of the future is blasting past us in our present and going back to God to the time before he created the earth.
One might claim im speaking a blasphemy, that im saying God is not all knowing, and that he has, or had, however way you choose to look at it, that God had a limitation, but no, again it is not a limitation not being in a place that does not exist! So I guess I would say the open theists are right in a way but they are also wrong when they say God doesn’t know the future and also folks who look upon this from the usual orthodox way of doing so are also wrong.
God did test Abraham to see if this or to see if that. But there are two realities here. There is a reality from the standpoint of time but a reality from the standpoint of eternity. Both are correct. If I might conclude we have an example from this in our physical realm. A high speed jet flying through the air from a ground observer, from his perspective of sound he looks up to the place where he thinks the jet is and he’s shocked to find he doesn’t see it!
He looks farther up ahead and now with his eyes he sees the jet along way up ahead [from where his perception of sound tells him where the jet should be! So you have two type of realities, in a sense the reality of where that jet is from the standpoint of his perception of sound and the reality of where the jet is from the standpoint of sight. Two different realities and both are real. So I can say God doesn’t know the future [which would be like my sound with the jet illustration] but then again God does know the future [my sight illustration]
We can take comfort to know just like the greater reality is that where the jet is from the standpoint of sight is the more real or truer reality, in like way God knowing all the future likewise is the more truer reality. Nothing can or in real terms has taken God by surprise. The reality of God not knowing the future lags way behind the fact that God does know the future. Or to put it this way the reality of God not knowing the future has been overcome by the speed of his knowing it ! [Keep in mind the jet illustration]
So in closing if one were to claim that I was saying God doesn’t know the future I think you might agree I can refute that claim boldly and rightly say "No I don’t believe that! I believe that God has always known the future!" And I do believe that! I believe that God has always known the future for he closed the gap of time where he didn’t know it. Its just what we have here is a true and real paradox. Something which seems to contradict itself but really doesn’t.
So in closing when the open theist brings out all the type of verses which says things like I tested Abraham to see if this or that, or the same with Israel, to see if this or that, what we’re really observing is the first loop around the track if you will. [The only way I think I can explain it] We’re reading there statements from the Spirit of God from the standpoint of time. But all the scriptures which show us the end from the beginning well you’re seeing the second loop or God now telling you things from the position of his now knowing the future. A first loop and a second loop. Some of these things have been hard to put into words but I hope you found it of interest. Have a nice day.
Bob Richards
robertbrent2@hotmail.com
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 6/20/2004 8:47 PM (GMT -6) | | | Bobber: open theists do not believe that God doesn't know everything. That is a conclusion reached by those who disagree with them and don't take the time to look at what open theists believe. Open theists believe God knows all that can possibly be known, yet there are not some things God cannot possibly know (for instance, I, being a man, cannot be known by God as a woman). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/20/2004 9:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Bob-
Welcome, and thanks for your post. It’s nice to see that you recognize the problems related to the two traditional view of foreknowledge, namely, that God foreknows all as definite because he determines all unconditionally, and that God foreknows all because he timelessly “sees” all. The first recognizes maximum divine control for providence and no human freedom while the second recognizes human freedom but allows no divine providence. I applaud anybody who admits the problems related to these two views and who tries to come up with another answer.
Your answer is actually not new. It amounts to what is otherwise known as ‘retroactive causation’, or ‘changing the past’. As far as I know it’s universally recognized that the past is unchangeable. But in your proposed view God blasts back a revelation to the past to inform himself of what has happened. In this way God can make accurate prophecies.
I agree that retroactive causation is an impossible view. Not even God can change the past. But even if he could, this view would suffer from the same fatal weakness that the second traditional view above (that God timelessly “sees” past, present, and future) suffers from, namely, it provides God know ‘providential advantage’. On your view God can only foreknow what is to happen. He cannot use that knowledge to ‘change’ or ‘prevent’ what is to happen, for what has happened IS (on your view) what is blasted back via revelation to the past. God cannot use this knowledge for any providential advantage whatsoever. So, two strikes: 1) retroactive causation is impossible, and 2) such knowledge would be of know practical or providential advantage to God whatsoever.
One last comment. You reject the open view because, in your understanding, it “doesn’t make sense.” So you obviously expect people who make truth claims about God and the world to avoid contradicting themselves, to make sense, to be meaningful, etc. That’s an excellent rule to hold others to. But you must hold yourself to this same rule. Yet, in claiming ‘retroactive causation’ (viz., that God changes the past) you are not making sense (you admit this is a paradox) and open yourself up to the same accusation you make against open theists. Now, if YOU can admit paradoxes and can claim something like retroactive causation is possible, then so can open theists. They can take refuge in paradox too. They can play the “mystery” trump card and not have to explain their views in a way that “makes sense” to you.
My point is, if you can’t make retroactive causation meaningful (and you won’t in a million years), you’re just as guilty of “not making sense” as you claim open theists are. But if you can play the “mystery” trump card and claim “It’s a paradox! I can’t explain it. I believe it by faith!” then you have to grant open theists the right to make this claim about THEIR views. Personally, I don’t believe the Bible ever asks us to bow knee to self-contradictory truth claims. So I avoid making them, abandon them when I discover I’ve made them, and hold others to the same rule.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/20/2004 9:21 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by kingsaint
Hi Alan,
...Anyway, unlike you (congratulations!) I do not have a Ph.D. (long story, but suffice it to say that with a bit more wisdom and humility, I think I would have got it). This makes your position much, much better than mine in the job market and I wish you much Providence!. I gather that your Ph.D. was in logic. It is your turn to spill your philosophical guts and tell me about your philosophical journey.
Shalom, kingsaint
I'm a Ph.D too! Poor Helpless Deacon!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 6/21/2004 12:49 PM (GMT -6) | | As far as I know it’s universally recognized that the past is unchangeable. [Tom]
It’s universally recognized that the past can’t be changed? I don’t know. It seems to me ive read various writings where men of science have a hard time conceiving such but who could say for sure, that is looking at it from science. I submit the past can be changed if God so wills to allow it. What would happen if the past were changed? What would happen is what would occur if you put a damn in middle of a river. The river would merely go another direction and the other what would have been the future would disappear. [if I might say it that way][Bobber]
I agree that retroactive causation is an impossible view. Not even God can change the past. But even if he could, this view would suffer from the same fatal weakness that the second traditional view above (that God timelessly “sees” past, present, and future) suffers from, namely, it provides God know ‘providential advantage’. On your view God can only foreknow what is to happen. He cannot use that knowledge to ‘change’ or ‘prevent’ what is to happen, for what has happened IS (on your view) what is blasted back via revelation to the past. God cannot use this knowledge for any providential advantage whatsoever.
[Tom]
Well I would say that God can and also that he does, that is when he can find a human being to cooperate with him. For example if you study out Acts 21:4 you’ll see that the Spirit of God through some Christian believers impressed Paul not to go up to Jerusalem. Then the next day he went to another town and a prophet came to see him and God revealed this through the prophet.
And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.
12 And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. Acts 21: 11,12
So what do we see there? God tried to warn his servant and change something he saw from the standpoint of eternity! It was not the will of God at a certain time for Paul to go to Jerusalem for the scripture declares that it wasn’t. Paul went anyway, but God tried to change what he saw as taking place. I can show other examples in the scriptures that if they listened to Gods warning s certain things wouldn’t needed to have taken place but sometimes they wouldn’t listen. Even in our modern day I would submit that God tries, many times and endeavors to change some things he sees as taking place on the time line, [if I might call it that] Sometimes he’s been able to change certain things because the people will cooperate with him and some times he can’t.
So, two strikes: 1) retroactive causation is impossible, and 2) such knowledge would be of know practical or providential advantage to God whatsoever. [Tom]
Well I would say it most certainly is. God can give prophecies or revealing [not predictions] but revealing of the future to demonstrate his reality.
My point is, if you can’t make retroactive causation meaningful (and you won’t in a million years), you’re just as guilty of “not making sense” as you claim open theists are. But if you can play the “mystery” trump card and claim “It’s a paradox! I can’t explain it.
Well when I mentioned it’s a paradox I mean it in a way which says something which seems to contradict it self but really doesn’t.
If you remember my illustration with the jet airplane, to say where the jet airplane is from the standpoint of my perception of sound and where the jet airplane is from the standpoint of sight well such could be understood, but it seems or it sounds like a contraction.
It really isn’t though. It can be understood.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SwanLake
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 6/21/2004 5:36 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Bobber
Well I would say that God can and also that he does, that is when he can find a human being to cooperate with him. For example if you study out Acts 21:4 you’ll see that the Spirit of God through some Christian believers impressed Paul not to go up to Jerusalem. Then the next day he went to another town and a prophet came to see him and God revealed this through the prophet.
And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.
12 And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. Acts 21: 11,12
So what do we see there? God tried to warn his servant and change something he saw from the standpoint of eternity!
And if I'm in a traffic helicopter and I radio to you and tell you not to use a certain freeway due to congestion, it's because I see it from the "standpoint of eternity". Wow, I'd have "exhaustive foreknowlege" of events that haven't happened yet.
What's to prevent God from listening in on conversations and reading the present thoughts of people to know what they propose to do? NOTHING in that passage suggests the future has already happened and God is browsing through it.
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
and this is what annoys me." -- Jack Handey | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/21/2004 11:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Bobber: It’s universally recognized that the past can’t be changed?
Tom: Yup.
Bobber: I submit the past can be changed if God so wills to allow it.
Tom: Then I submit that God can make a square circle and a married bachelor. If this is allowable, dialogue is over, for at no point would either of us be able to substantiate the claim that the other’s view is logically impossible.
Bobber: What would happen is what would occur if you put a damn in middle of a river. The river would merely go another direction and the other what would have been the future would disappear.
Tom: That’s not changing the past or ‘retroactive causation’. That’s affecting an open future. Let’s say you put the damn there and change the course of the river. Can you THEN undo this event? No.
quote:
I agree that retroactive causation is an impossible view. Not even God can change the past. But even if he could, this view would suffer from the same fatal weakness that the second traditional view above (that God timelessly “sees” past, present, and future) suffers from, namely, it provides God know ‘providential advantage’. On your view God can only foreknow what is to happen. He cannot use that knowledge to ‘change’ or ‘prevent’ what is to happen, for what has happened IS (on your view) what is blasted back via revelation to the past. God cannot use this knowledge for any providential advantage whatsoever.
Bobber: Well I would say that God can and also that he does.
If it helps you solve some puzzle, go for it.
quote:
....For example if you study out Acts 21:4 you’ll see that the Spirit of God through some Christian believers impressed Paul not to go up to Jerusalem. Then the next day he went to another town and a prophet came to see him and God revealed this through the prophet: “And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.” So what do we see there? God tried to warn his servant and change something he saw from the standpoint of eternity!
What did God see from his eternal standpoint? That Paul DID IN FACT go up to Jerusalem and get arrested? If so, then this knowledge serves no providential use for God, for God cannot on the basis of knowing that Paul DOES in fact go to Jerusalem warn Paul not to go. But the passage makes perfect sense if one supposes that the future with respect to Paul’s going to Jerusalem is not yet a done deal.
Bobber: It was not the will of God at a certain time for Paul to go to Jerusalem for the scripture declares that it wasn’t. Paul went anyway, but God tried to change what he saw as taking place.
Tom: Sounds perfectly ‘openness’ to me.
quote:
Bobber: I can show other examples in the scriptures that if they listened to Gods warning s certain things wouldn’t needed to have taken place but sometimes they wouldn’t listen. Even in our modern day I would submit that God tries, many times and endeavors to change some things he sees as taking place…
No problem. We do that all the time. I see my daughter headed for trouble by getting involved in an unhealthy relationship. I warn her. I prevent some evil event from happening. I don’t need an eternal point of view to do this. All I need is to know what the possibilities are.
quote:
Tom: So, two strikes: 1) retroactive causation is impossible, and 2) such knowledge would be of know practical or providential advantage to God whatsoever.
Bobber: Well I would say it most certainly is. God can give prophecies or revealing [not predictions] but revealing of the future to demonstrate his reality.
I’ve been over this seven hundred times the past few years, Bob. I appreciate your zeal in believing you’ve found “the key” that solves the puzzle, but it doesn’t solve anything. Believe God can change the past if it helps you.
quote:
Tom: My point is, if you can’t make retroactive causation meaningful (and you won’t in a million years), you’re just as guilty of “not making sense” as you claim open theists are. But if you can play the “mystery” trump card and claim “It’s a paradox! I can’t explain it.
Bobber: Well when I mentioned it’s a paradox I mean it in a way which says something which seems to contradict it self but really doesn’t. If you remember my illustration with the jet airplane, to say where the jet airplane is from the standpoint of my perception of sound and where the jet airplane is from the standpoint of sight well such could be understood, but it seems or it sounds like a contraction.
It really isn’t though. It can be understood.
There’s not even an apparent contradiction in the science between perceiving the jet in it’s actual position by sight and hearing its trailing sound. Sorry, this doesn’t illustrate ‘retroactive causation’.
Keep trying! 
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 6/22/2004 10:52 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
What's to prevent God from listening in on conversations and reading the present thoughts of people to know what they propose to do? NOTHING in that passage suggests the future has already happened and God is browsing through it. [SwanLake]
Well I think maybe there is SL, where its revealed in the verses which follow that after Paul goes to Jerusalem the Romans end up doing exactly what God said in the prophecy he said they would do…..Going up to Jerusalem which Paul decided to do could have ended up with a variety of end results. The Prophet revealed the future as if it was an open book, and no I don’t believe that God made it occur this way. God was merely revealing what he saw from outside of time.
Then the chief captain came near, and took him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains; and demanded who he was, and what he had done. Acts 21:33
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Isaiah 9:10 | | Back to Top | | |
|
SwanLake
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 6/22/2004 11:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Bobber
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Isaiah 9:10
"Declaring" the end from the beginning means declaring what He will do. I can declare what I will do in the future as well, it's just that God has more power to bring it to pass than I do.
"Things not yet done" and "I will do" are both future tense.
Isaiah 48:3 "I declared the former things long ago
And they went forth from My mouth, and I proclaimed them.
Suddenly I acted, and they came to pass."
1. He declares
2. When the time comes, He acts
I don't see any science fiction in scripture.
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
and this is what annoys me." -- Jack Handey | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 6/22/2004 11:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Bobber: It’s universally recognized that the past can’t be changed?
quote:
Tom: Yup.
Bobber: Naw, Just a quick check on the interntet ‘Time Travel’ and can the past be changed provides with one with various sites which offer up a possible way it could work.
quote:
Tom : What did God see from his eternal standpoint? That Paul DID IN FACT go up to Jerusalem and get arrested?
Bobber: Ya I think you’re getting it Tom…
quote:
Tom: If so, then this knowledge serves no providential use for God, for God cannot on the basis of knowing that Paul DOES in fact go to Jerusalem warn Paul not to go.
Bobber: Why not? Why can’t you maybe appreciate that God can allow you a second run at how some things in your life will turn out?
quote:
Tom: But the passage makes perfect sense if one supposes that the future with respect to Paul’s going to Jerusalem is not yet a done deal.
Bobber: Well I agree Tom. I would say that it doesn’t have to considered a done deal.
Bobber: I can show other examples in the scriptures that if they listened to Gods warning s certain things wouldn’t needed to have taken place but sometimes they wouldn’t listen. Even in our modern day I would submit that God tries, many times and endeavors to change some things he sees as taking place…
quote:
Tom: No problem. We do that all the time. I see my daughter headed for trouble by getting involved in an unhealthy relationship. I warn her. I prevent some evil event from happening. I don’t need an eternal point of view to do this. All I need is to know what the possibilities are.
Well hold on Tom….some of what you say is true that you can see her heading for trouble but you don’t say a police officer on a said given night is going to come and arrest you putting you in handcuffs. You wouldn’t be able to tell her that one of her friends is going to turn her into the police for say thirty pieces of silver like it was said of Judas about Jesus. To absolutely define how Paul was going to meet his difficult time and the intricate details concerning it can only be one seeing the future was if it had already taken place. It is not a prediction in Acts 21 about Paul, but rather a revelation or a revealing and there is a big difference between a revealing and a prediction.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 6/23/2004 2:15 AM (GMT -6) | | The ability to change the past still seems to me to be at the heart of classical Molinism. Consider the case that 5 minutes ago God forebelieves that I will ring your doorbell (see Hunt's example in Divine Foreknowledge, pp. 85-86). Since God's belief is now set (imagine that he told his belief to a prophet and the prophet recorded the belief), it does not matter if "were I not to ring your bell, then God would have believed something different" is true, I have no choice but to ring your bell, that is, I am not free. Were I not to ring your bell after God believed that I would, then God's forebelief would be wrong.
Craig's response to Hunt's example is to say that what is impossible is the conjuction "God believes I will ring your bell AND I will not ring your bell" but it is still possible that "I will not ring your bell". At least twice in Divine Foreknowledge (pp. 112, 129-30) Craig says that the constraint on my act not to ring your bell is unintelligible.
However, I think that if a God prophet were to regularly tell us God's beliefs about the future, then I think the language of "contraint" and the like would enter our language. For example, let's say a God prophet named Daniel becomes world famous for predicting the future. Whatever Daniel says 5 minutes ago comes about. Furthermore, Daniel says that I will ring your bell. I ring your bell, at midnight, say. You get up and are really mad. "Why did you ring my bell?" "I'm sorry, but I had no choice, world famous Daniel told me I would." "Well, o.k. Daniel is never wrong and you could not have possibly gone against world famous Daniel."
It seems to me that if a Daniel existed, then we would probably start talking of God's foreknowledge as if it were a constraining "force". "Daniel's God foreknowledge" would become another "cause" in our vocabulary, intelligible or not. (Hunt points out that "cause" is itself a slippery concept--just read about it in a philosophy of science book.)
I submit that the reason that Craig thinks that it is possible that I will not ring your bell even if God foreknows that I will is that we simply do not have Daniels around who makes God predictions, at least, not that I know of ;)
"Nobody who omits doing good works nowadays does so in order not to be tempted to become self-righteous; he omits it because it is easier."
--Philip Merlan, "Toward the Understanding of Kierkegaard" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 6/23/2004 2:37 AM (GMT -6) | | kingsaint, here's part of a rebuttal Dr. Curley gave Dr. Craig in a debate posted on Craig's website:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-curley07.html
"what do we mean when we say that a person acts freely when he does something? Well, on an indeterministic conception of freedom, what we're saying is that, at the point of action, the person had the power to act otherwise than he, in fact, did act. Now 20,000 years ago––not to go too far back––God knew, if he has foreknowledge, that the person would make the choice he made. So what are we saying when we say that at that point in time he had the power to act otherwise? Well, we seem to be saying that he had the power to change what God believed 20,000 years ago. That's backward causation, and I don't think it makes any sense."
To me, the saddest thing about this illogical arminian/foreknowlege view is that it presents a barrier to the gospel reaching some smart people, people who see through the illogic of it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/23/2004 3:42 AM (GMT -6) | | I once posted something about a type of backward's causation. But it got characatured beyond resemblance.
Such "backwards" can happen easily where it involves the "meaning" of something, and not the physical act, or emotional act _as existing._ IOW, you can't undo the past. But the meaning of an early chess move -- a dumb one -- can be reversed when its possition becomes crucial later.
I had posted the fact that for dreams (A long dread lasta about five seconds.) a sound exterior to the dream can "begin" a dream that ends in that sound. And, in fact, the dream HAPPENS BACKWARDS but is remembered forwards.
But, to repeat: History can't be undone . . . just the meaning of it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 6/23/2004 3:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Such "backwards" can happen easily where it involves the "meaning" of something, and not the physical act, or emotional act _as existing._ IOW, you can't undo the past. But the meaning of an early chess move -- a dumb one -- can be reversed when its possition becomes crucial later.
I had posted the fact that for dreams (A long dread lasta about five seconds.) a sound exterior to the dream can "begin" a dream that ends in that sound. And, in fact, the dream HAPPENS BACKWARDS but is remembered forwards.
But, to repeat: History can't be undone . . . just the meaning of it.
I'll buy that, we can re-interpret something past, just can't change what actually happened.
Ordered sequences of duration move in one direction only------>
| | Back to Top | | |
| 142 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:45 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 |
|
|