 |
| 
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/28/2003 12:06 PM (GMT -6) |   | In regared to a scenario use to defend the Open View, something never occured to me. So first, here's the scenario, and then I'll talk about it.
Say God appears to me and says, "Starkman, I know exactly what you're going to do in 60 seconds; I've seen the future like watching a film. I know everything that will happen. In 60 seconds, you will scratch your head with your right hand, blink twice, take two breaths, look over to the left and then in front of yourself."Well, 60 seconds comes along, and I just sit there. Don't do a thing. What's God going to say to me, "Well, I knew you'd just sit there, too." And to that statement I'd have to ask, "Then why didn't you tell me that?"
The point of the scenario is that there is no fixed time for God (or anyone) to say There! Now the future is settled as to what Starkman will do; it can't be changed. There are two exceptions (at least only two that I can think of): 1) God determines that I'm going to do something whether I like it or not; 2) God has informed me of something I'm going to do, the circumstances of which I cannot control (e.g., "You're going to die because you're heart is giving out"). With the exception of these two things there is no place in time where my future forces me to do anything ... well, okay, I have to pay taxes, but that falls under the "determined" part! (It had better, or I'm darned well going back for a rebate!)
Now, as a rebuttal against this scenario, it cannot be said that God simply won't tell me what I'm going to do, thus preserving His omniscience, because for God not being able to tell me what I'm going to do is to slave God's omniscience to silence: God has to be silent in order to be omniscience. That simply doesn't work. Either God knows the future exhaustively or He doesn't. The facts seem clear: our human lives testify to our existence in which there is no future to know other than that future which God determines or that future where the day-to-day path of life moves on--the sun rises and sets, people live and die, etc.
Here's what never occurred to me. This scenario is not just a defense of the Open View, it is proof (until, and if, it can be proven false) that any other view of God's foreknowledge CAN'T be true; the ONLY view of God's foreknowledge that can hold up under investigation is the Open View.
I have always used this scenario to defend the Open View, but now I am proposing that the scenario is not just a defense for the Open View but is proof that the Open View is the ONLY viable view of God's foreknowledge.
Help me out here, folks, if I've missed something. I certainly don't want to keep using a defense that's no good. RD, you tangled with this scenario--and you're the only one who's done so!--, but there's got to be a better argument against it before I will concede a defect in the scenario.
Well, time to go home!
Starkman
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
 |
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/28/2003 12:16 PM (GMT -6) | | An OV'er said it here - ". Either God knows the future exhaustively or He doesn't" - I agree! But doesn't that statement rule out the oft-stated "partly settled, partly open" statement?
As far as this scenario- I quoted at length William Craig's answer to this under one of the threads- I can't remember which. But read his book "The Only Wise God" - also Alvin Plantinga's books address this issue. So no, you haven't put out a statement that can't be refuted here :) They both do not think that God's foreknowledge precludes free actions.
Also - if what you say is true, and God says that you will do such and such in 60 seconds, you WILL do it. I believe you are determined to do it. THe problem for you is you find this distasteful and therefore believe it's impossible for it to be the case that God determines things. I do believe that God's foreknowledge precludes free actions - so I differ from Craig, et al, in that respect, but they do have a logical refutation of your assertion. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/28/2003 12:28 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
An OV'er said it here - ". Either God knows the future exhaustively or He doesn't" - I agree! But doesn't that statement rule out the oft-stated "partly settled, partly open" statement?
No, because partly settled, partly open is part of the scenario where God doesn't know the future exhaustively?
quote:
As far as this scenario- I quoted at length William Craig's answer to this under one of the threads- I can't remember which. But read his book "The Only Wise God" - also Alvin Plantinga's books address this issue. So no, you haven't put out a statement that can't be refuted here :) They both do not think that God's foreknowledge precludes free actions.
You can deny its T-truth value, but then again the hypothesis that everything that will be has always been ain't exactly a falsifiable hypothesis. It just is incompatible with the other two hypothesis that God is Love and Evil is Real.
quote:
Also - if what you say is true, and God says that you will do such and such in 60 seconds, you WILL do it. I believe you are determined to do it. THe problem for you is you find this distasteful and therefore believe it's impossible for it to be the case that God determines things. I do believe that God's foreknowledge precludes free actions - so I differ from Craig, et al, in that respect, but they do have a logical refutation of your assertion.
The question is whether God say what we will do for the entirety of our existence. I'd like to think that the amount of time I've spent on this board the past four months or so was an act of Satan taking over my free-will, so I could excuse myself with the phrase, "The Devil Made Me Do It", but I doubt that would hold well with the tenure committee of my university(Actually, here in MX, I get tenure of sorts automatically after the first three months of teaching, but if I don't publish I get paid almost entirely in tacos!).
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
I wish we didn't live in a world where buying and selling things (especially selling) seems to have become almost more important than either producing or using them.
C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/28/2003 12:31 PM (GMT -6) | | | DLW I agree with you, the amount of time I am on here too also shows that i have no free will, or that it has been usurped by the devil or some other force...:) | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/28/2003 12:42 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
DLW I agree with you, the amount of time I am on here too also shows that i have no free will, or that it has been usurped by the devil or some other force...:)
Either that or there is an OVTheist shaped hole in your heart caused by the failure of your Calvinist-Theology to provide an adequate psychic balm.
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
I wish we didn't live in a world where buying and selling things (especially selling) seems to have become almost more important than either producing or using them.
C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 7/28/2003 2:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Starkman:
quote:
Here's what never occurred to me. This scenario is not just a defense of the Open View, it is proof (until, and if, it can be proven false) that any other view of God's foreknowledge CAN'T be true; the ONLY view of God's foreknowledge that can hold up under investigation is the Open View.
I have always used this scenario to defend the Open View, but now I am proposing that the scenario is not just a defense for the Open View but is proof that the Open View is the ONLY viable view of God's foreknowledge.
I don't think your argument is this conclusive Starky.
You start out by saying "God appears to me and says, "Starkman, I know exactly what you're going to do in 60 seconds; I've seen the future like watching a film. I know everything that will happen."
Then, "In 60 seconds, you will scratch your head with your right hand, blink twice, take two breaths, look over to the left and then in front of yourself."Well, 60 seconds comes along, and I just sit there. Don't do a thing.
O.K., God has seen the future but not that future? Methinks somethings not right here.
If God truly saw the future, it would include His interaction with you thus you could not "trick" him this way. It is not possible. It's difficult to conceptualize but His knowledge and revelation to you would involve something akin to a "feedback loop". You would be unable to not do what He revealed.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/28/2003 4:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Yes, Albert, that is pretty much what Craig says. The thing is - whatever God sees as the future (being perfect)- necessarily is the future. So you can reconcile that w/ free choice, by saying, God looked ahead and saw what your free choice would be. Not to say you could not have chose otherwise- if you had, though, God would have seen THAT alternate decision -
The problem is, though, that if God looks ahead and sees what you will freely do, but yet TELLS you ahead of time, you are then under the impression that you have no choice - that fate, forces, etc. are driving you to do a particular action - and you don't think that you could have done otherwise. | | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 7/28/2003 5:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Something that might help. It's necessary to approach this from God's end. If Starkman wasn't going to scratch his head, God wouldn't tell him that he would. It seems that God would be unable to reveal future free choices without influencing them.
Starkman is now exclaiming "..did you not read my possible rebuttal and my reply to it!!"
I did read them but I think your objection is invalid if God's limitation here is strictly logical. We all admit that God's omnipotence is logically limited. Why not His omniscience?
Who's Albert? | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/28/2003 5:11 PM (GMT -6) | | | Sorry, I meant "anewbeginning" - OK I'll go now... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 7/28/2003 7:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman,
Why would God reveal anything to me, or you, about the future? We are supposed to walk by faith, not by sight. Even so, there are certainly examples of God revealing the future to someone, and they happened just like He revealed. For example Agabus and Paul, Acts 21.10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
11 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.
14 And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 7/29/2003 1:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Real life example,
God had shown me my future in the past, and it has turned out the way he showed me, just like many of the examples I read in Scripture.
What do I do with this information?
I balance it against all of the, if, then things He has shown me also, again just like in Scripture, is anybody truly confused now, not God, nor me, you look somewhat dazed though!
True story of which more is to be revealed . . . update in and of my life . . . stand by for more information when made available . . .
Disclaimer: In recognition of the limitations of my knowledge and of the tentative nature of my probable beliefs and opinions  ; such ought to lead me to a tolerance of those people holding beliefs different from mine. Instead of attacking the beliefs of others, I should strive to find better grounds for my own. And when I encounter conflicting testimonies, e.g. historians, I can only weigh all sides and form a belief, conjecture, guess, doubt, or disbelief, as the case seems to warrant.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/30/2003 4:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Well, thanks for the responses you folk (who responded) gave.
RD,quote:
An OV'er said it here - ". Either God knows the future exhaustively or He doesn't" - I agree! But doesn't that statement rule out the oft-stated "partly settled, partly open" statement?
Partly settled simply means God has determined some things to happen, but not in the framework of seeing into the future as if to have watched a film. It simply means that God will bring about cetain things that He has determined, and that He will do so with the ability to control a future that is unknown (such as having already watched the future).
And ...quote:
As far as this scenario- I quoted at length William Craig's answer to this under one of the threads- I can't remember which. But read his book "The Only Wise God" - also Alvin Plantinga's books address this issue. So no, you haven't put out a statement that can't be refuted here :) They both do not think that God's foreknowledge precludes free actions.
the argument you gave in regard to my scenario absolutely did not refute this scenario. All the logic in the world doesn't address this real, live scenario as I gave it. Proof is that you followed up with ... quote:
Also - if what you say is true, and God says that you will do such and such in 60 seconds, you WILL do it. I believe you are determined to do it. THe problem for you is you find this distasteful and therefore believe it's impossible for it to be the case that God determines things. I do believe that God's foreknowledge precludes free actions - so I differ from Craig, et al, in that respect, but they do have a logical refutation of your assertion.
First, it simply will not do to say that if God tells me I will do something in 60 seconds, then I WILL do it. That doesn't hold unless we resort to determinism, which I included as one of the exceptions: there are times when God does determine. But your argument simply assumes the position of exhaustive (determined!) foreknowledge all the time. That simply isn't a good enough argument, however, in context to my scenario. That you believe in an exaustively known future is one thing; that you can insist my scenario fit it when it doesn't is another.
Now, Anewbeginning said, quote:
O.K., God has seen the future but not that future? Methinks somethings not right here.
If God truly saw the future, it would include His interaction with you thus you could not "trick" him this way. It is not possible. It's difficult to conceptualize but His knowledge and revelation to you would involve something akin to a "feedback loop". You would be unable to not do what He revealed.
It seems as if you are promoting a dualistic or split reality. And now you, too, are trying to "fit" your view into my scenario rather than stick with what is real. Resorting to this split reality protests a bit too much! The real reality is that I can't "trick" God at all, because there's nothing with which to trick Him. The scenario (still) demonstrates that real, live interaction with God could not possibly include the very conversation itself known by God ahead of time. That's reality! Hypothesizing here won't help!
Then RD said, quote:
Yes, Albert, that is pretty much what Craig says. The thing is - whatever God sees as the future (being perfect)- necessarily is the future. So you can reconcile that w/ free choice, by saying, God looked ahead and saw what your free choice would be. Not to say you could not have chose otherwise- if you had, though, God would have seen THAT alternate decision -
The problem is, though, that if God looks ahead and sees what you will freely do, but yet TELLS you ahead of time, you are then under the impression that you have no choice - that fate, forces, etc. are driving you to do a particular action - and you don't think that you could have done otherwise
Oh, you are trying to have your cake and enjoy every tasty morsal, aren't you, RD!!!  But you keep setting your feet in both camps of free choice and determinism. It simply can't be, RD, that God can predict to you, me or anyone else what we will do in, say, 60 seconds and NOT have it be determinimism (free will out the door) if we cannot change it, UNLESS that is exactly what God is doing: determining. Otherwise, you may believe it "logical" to be both free yet bound (though I can't see now), but it is not reality. You have yet to offer a clear and real space-time refuation of the scenario! (So, take that, RD!!! )
Now, I've been thinking about when Jesus told Peter that Peter would deny Jesus. According to my scenario, once Peter was told he would deny Jesus, Peter was placed in one of three camps with regard to what the Lord told Peter he would do: 1)free will--Peter could change the future; 2)determinism--Peter could not change the future; 3)or it was out of Peter's control to change the future. (In my scenario of God appearing to me and telling me what I'm going to do, these are the options available.) Which do ya'll think it was for Peter?
I want to stress that if you choose #2, you must--and I mean there's simply no way out of it--accept that since Peter was told what he was going to do (deny the Lord), Peter was no longer free. Determinism is set; he must deny the Lord whether he wants to or not. He won't even be able to contol his mouth; it will form the words regardless of Peter's will. But you may say, "Ah, but Starkman, Jesus knew the future--he could see into it and know that Peter would deny Him. Peter thought he would NOT deny his Lord and that's why He did." No, that's not going to work! Under option 2, it is determined, period! No way around it.
So ...
Once the cat is out of the bag--Peter's been told that he's going to deny the Lord--we are smack-dab in the middle of my scenario. And as any of you or I could do (reality, remember?), we are then faced with asking ourselves, as Peter COULD have done, "Do I HAVE to deny the Lord?" And that's the crux of the whole issue, right there. Peter, like you or me, could have said, "Wait a second! I don't HAVE to deny Him. The Lord wouldn't 'make' me deny Him ... that doesn't go along with how God made us to worship Him." And Peter could have thought the issue through. He did not, however, and THAT is what Jesus knew about Peter--impulsive, set in his way, determined to stick foot in mouth, but darned devoted. For Jesus (who knew Peter's heart and mind like a book) to have predicted that Peter would deny Him, was not for Jesus to determine that Peter would do so, it was to know something about Peter's make up so well that Jesus knew Peter was in it too deep; he'd be trapped before he knew what hit him. For Jesus to make such a prediction about Peter was as secure as predicting that a gymnast, no matter how strong he/she is, will eventually tire out and let go of the bars. It's inevitable, and it's unstoppable. I believe the same was for Peter. He was way too impulsive, undisciplined, unable to think things through, and ... deeply devoted to His Lord on top of it all: a no-win situation for him. And for Jesus knowing this heart of Peter, it was not a 99.9% surety that Peter would deny Him, it had become destiny, but not because Jesus saw into the future or because Jesus determined it so.
I, therefore, choose #3: It was outside of Peter's control (at this point in the game) to have changed it. Even more, Peter probably didn't even give a rat's eye about thinking too much about it--"Never happen to me, Lord!" And then when the pressure was on, Peter was again too busy to think about it, because he was trying to dodge those who might have recognized him ... he was already deyning his Lord before he spoke! Ah, but look at Peter after the resurrection, after Pentecost. Now, the man will never deny His Lord! His heart and soul were changed, not what God determined Peter would say.
Further, in view of God's love for Peter and the desperate need for Peter to see his own heart, it would be no problem at all for God to orchestrate the events to pin Peter against the wall ... "You, you were with Jesus, weren't you." And right on time, Peter is denying Jesus. That's not determinism, that's God's care (and ability) to deal with each of our hearts to get expose it for what it is.
Well, it's back to work!
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:24 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 |
|
|