 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > OK, what about God and objective knowledge? And in | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 10:40 AM (GMT -6) |   |
openjoe
02/19/01 4:18 PM
OK, what about God and objective knowledge? And infinites . . . and stuff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The posts that I have received on my string of the categorical verses modal definitions of omniscience are coming in with a clear consensus that yes, indeed I am crazy. As I said, I am prepared to accept that. Everyone seems to agree that the best bet is simply to deny bivalence largely on the grounds that it denies all subjunctives propositions where God is concerned. Ok, I agree this is reasonable, but, I’m not quite licked yet, I don’t think.
Now, I am thinking on the fly so this might be a tad muddled, but, on we go, damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead.
What about the nature of Open Theist thought and the “epistemology” of God?
Might we argue that we are suggesting God holds subjective beliefs, and objective knowledge? Let me explain. If knowledge is defined as justified true belief, then we might say that God has knowledge that I am an idiot. Perhaps this is an obvious and objective fact. But, God may only hold a belief regarding my future choice to run the stop sign in front of my house. The belief is not knowledge because all relevant information is not available, mainly the “true” part of the definition of knowledge I offered above. As open theists we might well argue that it is not a true fact until I have indeed run the stop sign. This of course must presuppose that I was libertarianly free to do otherwise at the time.
We might suggest that God knows all certainties as certainties, and all possibilities as possibilities. Pretty standard Openness fair thus far. This was of course well covered in the long and fruitful discussion of subjunctives and counterpossibles on this group some weeks ago.
But here is the real question, if we have already agreed, (as I think we have) that God possess both knowledge and belief, what is to stop God from having beliefs about the truth of falsity of bivalent statements? We could posit that propositions have truth or falsity validity coeternally with the creator (Not that I am advocating they do.) Then, we may begin to talk about the way in which God gains knowledge. And finally the way in which he gains knowledge of bivalent propositions.
Remember, we have already largely agreed as open theists that God literally “gains knowledge.” He may know something as objective knowledge today that he knew as subjunctive possibility, or “counter possibility” yesterday. But where does this leave us?
Now, one might say “but Joe! If bivalence is true (as I am granting for the sake of argument) then it offers an objective truth value that should be knowable by God as all objective truth values are knowable by God.” You then might suggest this is radically different from God’s gaining knowledge of my running a stop sign because there was that vital piece of information lacking, then suddenly provided when I actually ran the sign.
In that case, what God lacked was the “truth” of my running the sign. But of course bivalence suggests that “Joe ran the sign” has been objectively true from eternity. But what if we removed God’s justification to believe it was true? If, as I have already stated, knowledge for us, as well as God is defined as justified true belief, what happens when something is true, but God is not justified in believing it to be true. But the obvious question is what could possibly bring about such a state of affairs that God was not justified in believing a truth. Well, and here things get a bit shaky for me, what if the bivalent truth was a truth, but was not objectively certain?
My tentative offering, hold on to your shorts folks, this is gonna get a bit rough. Catie bar the door and here we go, YEEEEEHHHAAAAAA!!!!!
A case of truth that God does not objectively know, yet exists as truth:
Mathematically, an infinite set may exist as a usable mathematical proposition only in the conceptual realm. However, such is able to exist only as a potential infinite in the ontological realm, or the realm of being.
An actual infinite existing in the real world is the same as a square circle or a married bachelor. As open theists, we have already agreed that God knows of no such thing as a married bachelor or square circle and this in no way thwarts his omniscience. This is because such a proposition is conceptual only, and not possibly real. However, God is fully aware of the conceptual possibility of an actual infinite in the conceptual realm. Afer all, mathematicians use the term to good and valuable effect all the time. Yet, no such thing exists in reality, and God’s lack of knowledge regarding it’s existence does not thwart his omniscience.
Now, to relate this to bivalence seems simple enough. Yes, there may be a conceptually eternal, (infinitely eternal) truth value to a proposition given bivalence. But this exists in the conceptual realm only. God is certainly well aware of the conceptual existence of bivalent values, but is in no way justified in believing the ontological truth value of such a thing in precisely the same way he would reject an actual infinite. In fact, as I think about it, Bivalence IS claiming an actual infinite, and this is logically absurd. Yet it could still exist in the conceptual realm as truth just like the concept of infinity.
well, what do we think?
Am I nutz?
Joseph S. Holt
Editor, Open Theism Information Site
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Shine150
02/19/01 9:59 PM
RE: OK, what about God and objective knowledge? And infinites . . . and stuff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure I'm following your reasoning openjoe. But here's a stab at it. You say:
"If, as I have already stated, knowledge for us, as well as God is defined as justified true belief, what happens when something is true, but God is not justified in believing it to be true. "
The definition of omniscience would seem to rule this out, wouldn't it? To be omniscient is to have one's beliefs correspond perfectly to reality. God doesn't need to "justify" his beliefs, openjoe. He needs no epistemological aids. Indeed, on a theological level, I question the fruitfullness of distinguishing between God's "beliefs" and God's "knowledge." Of course, Scripture talks about God EXPECTING things that didn't take place and even THINKING things might happen that didn't transpire (eg. Jer 3; Ex 13:17; Isa 5). And, of course, there is no reason to undermine the inspired authority of these passages by saying that "in reality" God didn't expect or think what he tells us he thought and expected. But these aren't cases of mistaken belief. They are cases of individuals and groups acting in improbable ways. God KNEW that such and such was more likely than not. Yet, because subjunctives are real, there is always the possibility -- which God perfectly knows -- that things might not go as even an omniscient being would think.
So, openjoe, I don't grant the distinction your query is based on.
As to the conceptual verses actual infinite -- I confess I do not see your point. If actual infinities are impossible (I deny this), then God knows this, perfectly. What's the problem?
Most basically, I do not see the PROBLEM you are trying to solve, and thus do not see clearly how your speculations improve the Open view position.
The Doc
who enjoys pretending he's a gen x skater who ain't got a care in world except to be digg'n on ancient Greek texts and a little whitehead. check it out.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
02/19/01 10:16 PM
RE: Egads! Shine's possessed!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yo Shine,
Heads up dude, the Doc is using your handle
to write! Don't let him get away with it man!
Take the keyboard back, all you have to do is
shout out, the power of Christ compels thee!
he he
babbling again
springs
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
openjoe
02/19/01 11:50 PM
RE: RE: OK, what about God and objective knowledge? And infinites . . . and stuff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Greg, is that you hiding behind a gen X mask? Good to hear from you. I think I see the troubles you are having with my post, and I think I can clarify. But, if your not Greg, this is going to sound mighty funny. Heck, this might sound funny no matter who you are!
You comment, “To be omniscient is to have one's beliefs correspond perfectly to reality. God doesn't need to "justify" his beliefs.”
So true, so true, I don’t deny it for a moment. I am granting that God knows reality perfectly. I should drop the “justification” language, it confuses the issue and does not really say what I want it to anyway. I was working in stream of consciousness, always takes me interesting places.
But, there is great value in distinguishing between God’s knowledge and his beliefs. In fact, you already do this. When we talk of God’s full “knowledge” of counterpossibles, we are saying
it is the case that agent Y is 90% likely to do A
It is also the case that agent Y is 10% likely to do B
Knowing all such variables perfectly, God is of the opinion, God holds the “belief” that agent Y will do A.
Now, suppose that Y actually does B, was God mistaken? Not hardly. God perfectly and correctly calculated all the variables. He was correct in his conclusion and expectations of Y. However, that incalculable “free will” factor takes it’s toll.
So, God has “knowledge” of all variables
God has beliefs formed from this knowledge.
It appears to me that to deny that God holds false beliefs is to deny Open theism outright. But to be fair, it appears from your post that you agree with me here, we are perhaps quibbling over definitions and little else. Let me know if you disagree, I know you are shy about these things.
Now, on to infinites. I must confess, I am a bit shocked to hear that you deny the non existence of actual infinites in the ontological world. Unless I have really missed something (which is not beyond the scope of possibility) the non existence of actual infinites in the ontological world is the basis of the much lauded Kalam, cosmological argument. You, being the skilled (and shy) apologist I know you to be, seem an unlikely candidate to toss the Kalam.
But, for the sake of argument at the moment, I will presuppose the existence of only potential infinites in the ontological world.
Remember, I am trying very hard to hang onto the Bivalence argument when making my case. This is how I hope to improve the position of Open Theism. I know that we can merely offer the Molinist the grounding objection, and posit the existence of subjunctives and tell him to go away and stop bothering us with all this bivalence nonsense. But such an approach has become mired in an “I say you say” stalemate. We will say, (and have said) bivalence has no truth makers in our metaphysic. And Bill Craig will say “yes they do.” And we will say, “no they don’t. . . yes they do . . . no they don’t. . . yes. . . no. . .yes. . . and so on and so forth.” (I have read Craig’s prepublication manuscript, and yes I called him and got permission) I am trying to offer a way out of this stalemate by saying “Hey, what if we just gave them their bivalence? What if we let the Molonist have his non subjunctive reality? Can the Openness position still win the day even when playing by these unreasonable rules? That, is my project.
All this having been said, I am pushing the conceptual reality of bivalence, but denying it’s authority in the ontological world. Remember, it is Bill Craig’s OWN RESEARCH that posits numbers as non existent in the real world, I’m just throwing the ammo back at him. Now, how does this sit with you? Clearer I hope.
Joe
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:38 AM (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 |
|
|