 |
| 
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/25/2001 9:24 PM (GMT -6) |   | No Problem, Doc. Glad I Could Help.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, glad that I could be of service, Doc. All to God's Glory, big daddy! Some things, since I have insomnia right now...
You said:
About post number 1: Mephi, I argued that character renders behavior predictable, and then you respond to me by saying that open theists deny that God can ever predict behavior. Now, I'm an open theist, and I just told you the cases in which I believe God can predict, with certainty, future behavior. My only point is that we are responsible for the behavior predicted of us only to the extent that it flows from a character we ourselves chose when we could have chosen otherwise. So your whole first post, so far as I can see, missed the point.
Meph:
I do understand what you were arguing, Doc. But, as I'm looking at my post, all I was saying was that there is no way that God, via the open view cosmology, could predict ANY future state from any antecedent state of reality with 100% accuracy. And I think that matters a lot. My quote:
"I'm fully accepting your view of God's knowledge and LFW here. What this means is that at ANY GIVEN MOMENT, God could never predict with 100% accuracy what WILL happen in the next moment. God could only know all of the possibilities that may or may not become actual in the next moment. To be sure, God could use what knowledge He had about past circumstances to predict what MAY or MAY NOT happen. But God could NEVER predict what WOULD happen the next moment.
See what I was saying? Given the existence of LFW, and the natural uncertainty that pervades existence because of it, there is absolutely NO WAY that God could ever be able to predict with 100% anything that WILL happen. God's knowledge would always be probabilistic. Isn't that true? Isn't that why you postulate "subjunctive conditional truths" in the first place?
Now how does this work out with character-solidification? I'll give a great example. I am a comic book fanatic. I've been reading them for as long as I remember. As such, I have a great affinity for them, especially well drawn and written ones. It is pretty much in my nature now that, when the opportunity presents itself and when I have the time, I WILL visit a comic book shop at least once a month. I've done so for EVERY month since the age of 10. (That's every month for 16 years!) (BRODIE!!! ) It's habit for me. A characteristic, if you will. Now, I have set this pattern up in myself by my choices. I could have just easily chosen to go every 2 months instead of every one month. But I am responsible for my predictable behavior. But here's the question. Could ANYONE, even God, predict that in the coming month of June, that I WILL DEFINITELY visit the comic book shop one time before the end of June? I submit that the answer is NO. Why? Because all types of things could happen that could alter my established plan and habit. Heck, I could die TOMORROW...and God doesn't know for CERTAIN that I won't (unless he is providentially keeping me from death for some purpose) Any number of things can happen. The only thing that God could reasonably say is this...
Given Dwayne's characteristic habitual nature with comics, unless something occurs that keeps this nature from bringing itself forward, he, in all likelyhood, will visit a comic book store before the end of this month.
Do you see the difference between this statement and this one:
Dwayne will CERTAINLY visit a comic book store before the end of this month. This is definite knowledge of Dwayne's future.
There is a big difference. The first statement is probabilistic in nature and is MUCH MORE conducive to the open view of God. The second view has a CERTAINTY about it that, in the open view cosmology, can ONLY mean that God is someone working specifically to bring it about. Otherwise, it could never be certain to become actuality at all. See what I'm saying?
I basically just wanted to show you why I feel that my first post actually did NOT miss the mark, but hit it bullseye. Even granting that Peter's character was "solidified" such that it was almost a foregone conclusion that he would fold at the time of testing--even if we go as far as to say that Peter's characteristics (for some mysterious reasons) demanded that 3 times of denial would be his limit--, it could NEVER have been the case that God, given open view suppositions, would know DEFINITELY that Peter WOULD deny Christ a specific number of times within a specific time frame. God could only know that probabilistically, because of the nature of libertarian free will and the reality that God created. To ensure the certainty within the open view framework, we'd have to say that God significantly micromanaged the entire affair. I certainly hope that this is crystal clear now.
*******************************
As for the second part. This is quite exciting! I wanted to note something. First I want to get your quote and analyze it before I make my claim. You said:
"So I need to modify this point. Even though Peter can't now change the past, and thus can't render it false that, given such and such circumstances he will certainly deny Christ (circumstances that God is going to make sure occur so as to sqeeze out this ugliness from Peter) -- even though this is true, I want to say Peter is yet responsible for his future denials, for he's responsible for the character that renders them certain. So, I should perhaps revise my argument to read:
We are not responsible for what we cannot, OR COULD NOT EVER HAVE, changed. (Emphasis mine)
The first thing that I want to mention is that by making the change that you make, you seem to implicitly disperse the singular category that your definition of "fact" creates wherein fits both past historical events uncontrolled in any way by a given agent...AND future foreknown events made by that selfsame agent. What I mean is that now it is more directly shown that the certainty of "the past" is NOT the same category as the foreknown future events of agents, at least for the purposes of the argument itself. By doing this, I think a major source of force for your argument is diminished.
Second thing. From what I understand, you are basically now saying that Peter's responsibility is based upon whether or not it was reasonably within the his power to change his nature or circumstances that lead him into the current situation where he denied Jesus. This looks remarkably familiar...
d': Human beings are not free or morally responsible for action or thought that, UNDER THEIR OWN SPHERE OF ABILITY OR POWER, they cannot exhibit agency to change their respective situations.
This is exactly what my D' is talking about. Human responsibility lies in the ACTIONS (psychical and physical) OF THE AGENT. As long as it can be said that a given agent performed an action that was definitely under his/her own sphere of ability and power, then said action can be reasonably called free. What you are saying is that, since, Peter is responsible for his character development in a significant way (Note: By the way, this would fit Bandura's social learning theory PERFECTLY ), it can be said that, EVEN THOUGH, his actions were predicted with definiteness, he was still "free" in doing his action.
Hold your breath, peeps. This...is...compatibilism! This is almost a DEAD RINGER for what compatibilists believe....almost. If anything, this reconstruction of Doc's argument allows for the metaphysical existence of compatibilism to be acceptable within the paradigm. I've got to make sure this is clear to everyone. I call Millard Erickson back to the stand! From Christian Theology, page 383. All emphases Erickson's...
At this point, we must raise the question of whether God can create genuinely free beings and yet render certain all things hat are to come to pass, including the free decisions and actions of those beings. The key to unlocking the problem is the distinction between rendering something certain and rendering it necessary. The former is a matter of God's decision that something will happen; the latter is a matter of his decreeing that is must occur. In the former case, the human being will not act in a way contrary to the course of action God has chosen; in the latter case, the human being cannot act in a way contrary to what God has chosen. [Meph's Note: PLEASE NOTICE THIS DISTINCTION] What we are saying is that God renders it certain that a person who could act (or could have acted) differently does in fact act in a particular way (the way that God wills).
See what Erickson is saying? This is almost a direct fit for what your modified premise D is saying. I can summarize like this. In modifying your Premise D the way that you do, you do 2 things:
1. You take a big step in eliminating the "power to the contrary" assumption that used to lie in Premise D...and thereby...
2. You open up your argument to the validity of compatibilism, which COULD, in principle, be reconciliable with EDF.
This means that you could no longer say that "the EDF doctrine logically undermines morally responsible, self-determining freedom" The implications from the Peter example gives direct evidence against this claim. But making that claim was the whole point of the argument itself, wasn't it?
To be sure, my thinking may be flawed in here somewhere. But personally, I don't think so. But I think we're making good progress here. I definitely appreciate you being so open to critical interaction. Thanks.
Blessings,
Meph
PS: "Letters to a Compatibilist: A New Skeptic Challenge" It could be big, I tell ya, BIG! LOL | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/25/2001 9:26 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: Thanks for the Critical Insight
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc-
Reworking your “d” makes things a little clearer, Doc, but wasn’t the point to argue how on its own assumptionsEDF didn’t make sense?
I want to throw in something here that has helped me makes sense of the Peter episode. Why cannot God himself have been responsible for the three confrontations and their timing? That is, he is responsible for the “occasion” which was a “test” designed by God to deal with Peter’s character which, I’d agree with Doc, was such that predicting Peter’s denial (given the occasion) was not difficult. God determines the three tests, the rest is history (given Peter’s character).
The difficulty with the Peter example being a straightforward example of EDF is that Doc, as I understood him, is dealing with the future “exhaustively foreknown by a timeless God”; as such his knowledge is “uninformed” by beings other than himself. But with Peter God’s knowledge of the future is different altogether (I think), for it is “informed” by Peter himself (at least that’s how I understand Doc). So, the three episodes are determined by God and thus the occasion is certain; but the denials are free choices of Peter known by Jesus because of the state of his character at the time.
One last question, this time about simple foreknowledge. Is the future which God previews in this view inclusive of God’s actions at the time? And if so, do those who hold to simple foreknowledge argue that God makes use of such knowledge in planning his responses? Personally I think simple foreknowledge is void of any providential value. So, on the simple foreknowledge view of the future, doesn’t the future which God exhaustively foresee turn out in the end to have been formed/constituted in exactly the way the OV argues it is? That is, is not the future which God foresees (in the SF view) an open future (but simple already played out and viewed by him)? I don’t agree with this, but I’m asking whether or not those who hold to simple foreknowledge have any good reason for refusing the open view, since what they already believe God foresees is an open, give-and-take, relational future. Doesn’t make any sense I know. I’m just wondering why those who hold to simple foreknowledge object to the open view of the future.
Tom
I haven't read Mephi's last post yet. So I'm a little behind.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/25/2001 9:26 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: RE: Thanks for the Critical Insight
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can I bring up a point? I realize that I'm not a scholar when it comes to OV. I've begun to embrace it over the last year (even though I heard about it first six or seven years ago from another book...and I was always intrigued by it), so things aren't completely solidified in my mind. However, maybe this viewpoint of what happened with Peter is viable:
Jesus tells Peter that he will deny Him three times before the rooster crows (in Mark's gospel alone, crows twice...). Sure, Peter could have slipped on the road and hurt himself, thus preventing him from fulfilling this prophecy. But God will make sure that Peter gets there...he will protect Peter from falling or from any other diversion. Just like God will make sure that anything else He prophesies will come to pass. He knows what diversions might prevent him from fulfilling this prophecy, and God's resources are unlimited, so God knows how to do this without violating Peter's will.
Now in regard to Peter's character, I believe that God hardens hearts and softens them as well. We have OT examples of God hardening Saul's heart, Pharoah's heart, etc. One might say, "That's not fair to the individual making the choice!" That's what Paul says in Romans 9. But then he says, "Who are you to talk back to God?" ...An interesting, if not cheap, comeback. Anyway, it's obvious that God doesn't make things equally easy for people anyway. There are people today who have a lot easier chance to become saved because of the country they live in, and some who have a much harder chance because of the situations they find themselves in as well. So it isn't surprising to me that God would harden Peter's heart, thus influencing Peter's will, to cause Peter to be susceptible to denying Christ. God would know what to bring along to cause Peter to commit such actions. Peter is still responsible, because he is still choosing to deny Christ. It's just that God knows how to get the desired result He wants. God is showing Peter that he's not as committed and sold-out to Christ as he thinks he is.
I think this can happen in our lives, and we don't even realize it. God is always influencing our decisions. He may direct us by providing a path that is simply irresistable...we choose that path, but God knew how to direct us to choose it...He made the conditions so good, we would surely CHOOSE it. It may seem paradoxical, but I hope you understand my point.
All of this being said, for some reason other than biblical evidence, I do believe that God can override our "free will." I think He normally doesn't do this, but I think there are times when He does. I don't think there's anything stopping Him from doing so. In those cases, I don't know if I think the individual is responsible for their actions. It wouldn't seem right to me. I don't think this is the case with Peter, however. If the person who has no free will in that situation is still responsible, it doesn't seem fair, but a lot of things in this life don't seem to be fair.
IntentOnTruth
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/25/2001 9:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Did Jesus make conditiona l prophecies ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc said:
While other open theists see Jesus' prediction as a conditional warning, I'm more inclined to read this as an example of a "word of knowledge" regarding a certain, definite future action.
Wislawa asks:
Is there any reason that you are inclined to read this as a word of knowledge or is just a hunch? I don’t mind hunches it’s just than in comparing your treatment of Peter’s denials in “God of the Possible” with Sanders treatment in “God Who Risks” I found his argument much stronger. But maybe you have other reasons that didn’t come out in the book. If so what are they? Do you have any problem with Sanders speculation that if Peter had not denied Christ three times the prophecies would have never appeared in the text? Do you think Jesus made conditional prophecies that were never recorded because they panned out differently?
Others can weigh in as well but I’m interested in Doc’s take mostly because I thought he did a really good job on other ‘problem texts’ in “G o’ the P” but found this particular text treated in an uncharacteristically weak way.
Wislawa
P.S. Doc don’t make this site a procrastination from the writing you said you needed to do. May I play the nagging figure and tell you to do you homework (sheesh and a proff too) before you go out to play!?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/25/2001 9:28 PM (GMT -6) | | 
What ya'll think?
Not much, just wanted to use this picture.
don aka - might-be-don | | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/25/2001 9:31 PM (GMT -6) | | So you're saying all I do is yap yap YAP, heh ol friend?
Real cute, Don. Thanks.
You'll be hearing from my lawyer. (:
yap'n Doc
(I don't have a clue how you computer geeks figure out how to do all that fancy stuff on these boards. I'm still working on a smiley face!)
I'll be back, hopefully tomorrow, to respond to the last several posts.
see ya Donny boy.
Doc | | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/25/2001 9:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc-
I'm trying to pin down a couple of items and you very quick, gut response to something I included in a post (two or three posts up from this one I think!) would really help me. Take you time, but just tell me if I'm off. I said:
One last question, this time about simple foreknowledge. Is the future which God previews in this view inclusive of God’s actions at the time? And if so, do those who hold to simple foreknowledge argue that God makes use of such knowledge in planning his responses? Personally I think simple foreknowledge is void of any providential value. So, on the simple foreknowledge view of the future, doesn’t the future which God exhaustively foresee turn out in the end to have been formed/constituted in exactly the way the OV argues it is? That is, is not the future which God foresees (in the SF view) an open future (but simple already played out and viewed by him)?
Get my point? Isn't Simple Foreknowledge just "prerecorded open theism"? If what God foresees is not predetermined, if it's previewed "on-the-spot interactment", again, if what God previews are his own actions in genuine response to men (and visa versa), then what is foreknown IS an open future, just prerecorded. And if this is so, then didn't God go through it the first time as open theism claims he's going through it at present?
Lastly, am I losing my mind?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/25/2001 9:32 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: No Problem, Doc. Glad I Could Help.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Mephi 6/2 comments:
I) a) Mephi: "Given the existence of LFW, and the natural uncertainty that pervades existence because of it, there is absolutely NO WAY that God could ever be able to predict with 100% anything that WILL happen. God's knowledge would always be probabilistic. Isn't that true? Isn't that why you postulate "subjunctive conditional truths" in the first place?"
I b) Doc: Mephi, you’ve never been able to see this. You are simply wrong in this "all-or-nothing" thinking. You’re reasoning in a linear Newtonian fashion, when both contemporary science and personal experience show this type of reasoning to be restrictive. The future is partly open and partly settled. And the settled parts can be predicted with 100% accuracy by an omniscient being.
II a) Mephi’s response to my compatiblism. "This...is...compatibilism! This is almost a DEAD RINGER for what compatibilists believe....almost. If anything, this reconstruction of Doc's argument allows for the metaphysical existence of compatibilism to be acceptable within the paradigm."
II b) Mephi, I’ve always admitted that I think the blanket rejection of compatiblism is just as wrong as the blanket rejection of incompatiblism. The truth, as usual, is in the middle. We are composed of both. We make libertarian free choices, and, if continued, our choices make us. The purpose of libertarian freedom is to become compatiblistic freedom. Our character solidifies. We either end up with the greatest form of freedom – free to love God without possibility of falling – or the greatest form of bondage – the utter inability to love God without the possibility of doing so.
Here’s the big difference between my compatiblism and YOUR compatiblism. We choose our compatiblistic character in my scheme. In your’s God ultimately chooses it. So, despite appearances, we are yet light years apart.
My time is out
love
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/25/2001 9:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Spell It Out, Meph: A Tome For Clarificat ion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Disclaimer: The following post is pretty involved. You know the drilly, yo. If you're not down for it, push on to other things. No biggie. If you do want to read this, put your thinking cap on and proceed. Please try to read it through well before attempting to respond (IF you want to respond) HEY, DOC! => If you want to look at this, how about you read this over a period of a WEEK or two. That way, you won't screw up your writing schedule. Plus, you can TAKE YOUR TIME in digesting what I've said...and not run the risk of misreading me because of just scanning it. This ain't no affront to you at all. This is just for the sake of cutting short any misunderstandings or what have you. Thanks!
****************************
Doc said the following:
"Mephi, you’ve never been able to see this. You are simply wrong in this "all-or-nothing" thinking. You’re reasoning in a linear Newtonian fashion, when both contemporary science and personal experience show this type of reasoning to be restrictive. The future is partly open and partly settled. And the settled parts can be predicted with 100% accuracy by an omniscient being."
BACKGROUND
Ok. It's time to set this straight once and for all. The relegation of compatibilistic cosmology to 18th and 19th century physics is JUST AS BAD with open view theists as relegating the theological view to Plato all the time. It's just plain wrong and unfair. Hopefully, the following will show this. First of all, let's get the essential characteristics of my view in focus. All of the points below have been discussed on this board at some length.
1. I have said time and again that I'm not a classical theist...for very important reasons.
2. I have asserted, from the beginning of my time here, a God who is temporal.
3. I have espoused a worldview that is essentially melioristic and relational, NOT clockworkish.
4. I have placed HIGH primacy on God's omniscience, intellect, and position as sole ex-nihilo creator and the implications of those things as being the grounds for my belief in EDF.
5. I have asserted that compatibilism is intelligible.
I just wanted to put all this in the background for what I'm about to discuss here.
Let this be said Many compatibilists and classical theists are NOT, I repeat, NOT aware of chaos/complexity quantum physics, or anything of that nature. This is quite unfortunate, because the lack of familiarity with these subjects obviously show up in their theologizing process. This, in my view, has been a big positive for both process and openness theologians. Said theological schools BOTH recognize the findings of these fields and what implications that they hold for any type of cosmology. By not taking these subjects seriously, many compatibilists have really placed themselves in the predicament of being perceived to have archaic thinking epistemologically and cosmologically. However, my friends, Sir Mephistopheles, by constant reading and pondering, is not so ignorant in this area. Granted, I am not as well read as some theologians I know in this area, but I have been known to peruse the subject on occasion. I am far from expert on the subject, but I do feel that I have a very coherent grasp of the subjects mentioned and their implications on theological discussion. Bottom line: Could it possibly be that Meph has taken quantum mechanics and even the chaos theory into consideration with his belief? If I may be so bold, dare I say YES.
What I wish to do in this post is to show Doc and others how my view interacts with these subjects, and why, even given these subjects, I believe WHOLEHEARTEDLY in theological determinism. Let's begin...
*******************************
CHAOS THEORY
Let's talk about chaos theory. I want to try to summarize this as quickly and non-technically as possible. Basically it states that reality is composed of both chaos and order. More to the point, that chaos is actually self-organizing, forming endless complexity. For chaos to happen, you have to have a system that is sensitive to the initial conditions and that is interdependent with its environment. (Doc's probably read this a million times.) What this means is that, as I understand it, the BACKBONE of chaos theory is the INABILITY to exhaustively know the INITIAL conditions as well as the relational capacities of each and every existent or possible existent. It's very simple, y'all. Though there may seem to be a lot of regularity and all that, there are TONS of things that we don't know about the initial conditions of the universe itself...as well as the initial conditions of many emergent existence that have arisen after the Big Bang. Without exhaustive knowledge of those intial conditions and their impact on relationality, it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to predict what WOULD happen next. Knowledge would always be probablistic. As a good point, the idea wisely goes beyond the idea of positing STRICTLY ex-nihilo events (events completely popping out of nothing) Instead, it suggests that acts of randomness that would APPEAR to be ex-nihilo truly AREN'T. The explanations lie in a ENDLESS barrage of dynamic actions that arise from unknown and unknowable initial conditions. Because we can never be aware of the initial conditions of anything, it may as well be ex-nihilo, pragmatically speaking. This gets the view away from logical absurdity. Can we say "non-linear dynamical systems"?
Why is this important, Meph? Simply because this idea completely contradicts what many CONCEPTIONS of determinism are based upon: sheer clockworklike movement. Newtonian physics and the like. Because, unfortunately, most theological thinking, Reformed and otherwise, had been born in a framework of a "clockwork type" cosmology, this thought is reflected in many aspects of things like the foreknowledge discussion. Many compatibilists, by holding to this pattern, are seen to be disqualified by many relational theists because of their ignorance in this area. Simply stated, chaos theory tacits contradicts a significant amount of past theologizing about our worldview.
****************************
EPISTEMOLOGICAL RELATIONALITY
Yo. But let's go deeper! Episemological relationality is BIG because of the understanding of quantum physics. In other words, we now "know" (hehe ) there is no definite line of separation between the knower and what is being known (I guess we could say "perceiver/perceived" as well) As a matter of fact, they always affect one another! This goes against the Cartesian separtion. It's cool. Interestingly enough, the ideas of epistemological and ontological relationality are NOT very far from certain psychological understandings. Remember that silly idea of Albert Bandura's "reciprocal determinism" and social learning theory that I keep blathering about. Over and against radical behaviorism, Bandura stated that NOVELTY of action was possible over and against certain predictions because the agent was interactive with his/her environment. Both acted upon each other in a RELATIONAL way...such that even though general behavior could be predicted, it could NEVER be predicted with 100% accuracy because of the relationality. (Sheesh, does this sound familiar?)
So between a good understanding of quantum physics with its HUP, chaos/complexity thought, and epistemological relationality between the subject and object, it would seem that any type of determinism is simply outdated thinking and on its death bed, right? Perhaps not...
*****************************
INTEGRATION: MEPH'S VIEW
Remember when I would ask certain questions about God's knowledge, including questions like "Does HUP remain binding upon God?" and all of that. Those questions arose from certain things that have always been implicit in my view. Remember, my main things have always centered around primarily 3 things about God. His omniscience. His intellect. And his being ex-nihilo creator. I had always posited a God "within" time.
Now this had always been my understanding of God's omniscience. At the state of reality before creation, the only things that God knew were as follows:
1) All possibilities that could emerge
2) Himself (complete self-awareness)
Remember. There was nothing else to be known. Between these two things, God could pretty much know all events, acts, and agents that could come to be...AS WELL AS His potential reactions to all of those things, given his complete self-awareness. The only thing that would be lacking is God's actual EXPERIENCE of any of these possibilities and relationships in actuality because none of them were actual yet. (You're with me, right, Doc? ) Now part of this set of infinite possibilities is EACH AND EVERY potential set of INITIAL CONDITIONS for EACH AND EVERY potential event, existent, or agent. God creates. Something like the Big Bang event occurs. And the event itself has all of the initial conditions that corresponded to one in God's knowledge bases of possibilities.
[Note: This, as Doc said, formed a condescension of sorts. By the concept of actualizing itself, God made it that some things would be actual while others would not.]
Now, let's remember back to what I said in my very first few posts on this board last year. You know, the "mental exercise"? God is exhaustively aware of each and every existent at T=0. He is aware of every essence and capability of each existent. (the beginning) This means that God is FULLY AWARE of each and every initial condition that there is to be known! Now given his information base, it is nothing for him to predict with 100% accuracy what WILL occur in the next temporal moment we'll call T=1. He now fully aware of each and every condition at T=1...which will be the INITIAL CONDITIONS for T=2...and so on. Thus, in speaking of non-sentient existents, it seems clear that, between God's omniscience regarding initial conditions, He could predict INFALLIBLY what would happen in the future.
---------------------
What about free willed beings?
I hear (and HAVE heard the retort):
Ah, but what about the existence of VOLITIONAL, SENTIENT beings, Mephi? Don't you realize that if you posit any type of constitutional dualism of human beings, that the essence of sentient life is OUTSIDE the realm of mere matter and energy? Thus, even if God could predict all INANIMATE objects from initial conditions with 100% accuracy, He could not do so with beings with a center of will external to Himself. Not only that, but because we know know that PERCEIVERS actually effect reality itself in some way, it would seem that even the INANIMATE objects of reality could not be predicted exhaustively because they would be affected by the autonomous sentient beings. There is a fundamental root of indeterminism and it is the WILL of the sentient being!
In response to this, let me return first to God's eternal knowledge of all possibilities. This knowledge would incorporate all possible agents and their possible choices. But the question is this: Is the immaterial aspect called the "soul" or "spirit" something that is within any type of determinism? Shouldn't we considered the "spirit" or "soul" as a bonafide "unmoved mover" with respect to the will.
[Note: I will assume that the persons here will consider the spirit to be more than just anima (that is, just some life force that pervades the body) I'm assuming that many people here believe the spirit to be the essential part of a human being, in which the mind and will are centrally located.]
Something that can in NO way be determined? Well, in order to figure this out, one would have to postulate the MAKEUP of a spirit...which, being an essentially metaphysical concept, we cannot do. Thus, it becomes relegated to an ASSUMPTION. We can either assume that a spirit can be within some form of determinism or we can assume the opposite. But I think there is a way, within the Christian framework, to choose between the two. The fundamental difference between indeterminism and determinism is one of knowledge. If the spirit or soul were to be considered inderministic, then it would stand that the spirit of soul could NEVER be exhaustively known by God or anyone else, by definition. However, if it could be reasonably shown from some source that God exhaustively knows the spirit of a person, then it can be shown that God would know the interworkings of that spirit with any number of scenarios...thus being able to have significant predictive power DIRECTLY RELATED to how much knowledge He had of the environment of said spirit. Positing that God knows THAT environment exhastively, one would have a base for saying that theological determinism is a posibility for spirit beings. Now, I believe that the Bible gives plenty of evidence that God is exhaustively aware of spiritual composition, not only His own, but those of others. This evidence provides the context from whence my ASSUMPTION comes about the indeterminate or determinate nature of the "spirit" God cannot exhaustively know a spirit, IF SAID SPIRIT IS TRULY ONE OF INDETERMINISM. Because I believe that God exhaustively knows the spirit, I cannot rationally affirm that spiritual indeterminism is true.
Now, let's go even further down to human beings. Fundamentally dualistic creatures who exist in a conditional unity type wholism. As modern psychology has told us time and again, while we breathe life in these bodies, our development of selves are INEXTRICABLY linked to brain activity and reaction to environmental stimuli. Human development never takes place in a vaccuum. Understanding this, if we were to say that God not only has exhaustive knowledge of the spirit within a new human being, e. k. (exhaustive knowledge) of the developmental capabilities of that human being, and e. k. of all environs that would contribute to the development of said human being, we would have the grounds to say that God exhastively knew all initial conditions and processes of that human's development of selfhood. If we take the concept of "reciprocal determinism" seriously, this means that the human being interacts with and IS ACTED UPON by his/her environment. The aspect is fundamentally relational. Though this relationality could NEVER be known by human beings exhaustively, it CAN be known be God exhaustively. Why? Because he knows all of the conditions of all the existents involved at any given time.
******************************
SUM IT UP/CONCLUSIONS
I've said a lot...so what's the bottom line.
Chaos theory. Complexity understanding. Partial order and chaos. They all rock. And they are all a very good understand FOR HUMAN BEINGS because as human beings, we could never fully and exhaustively know ANY initial states at ANY time. I affirm the dynamic and relational nature of existence. But the question is this: IS ANY OF THIS A PROBLEM FOR THE OMNISCIENT, INFINITELY INTELLIGENT, CREATOR GOD, AS HE HAS BEEN DEFINED HERE?? Absolutely, emphatically NOT. If you have a God who knows ALL initial conditions of ALL reality exhaustively...and knows ALL potential sentient beings exhaustively...than you have a God who can exhaustively predict the behavior of NON-LINEAR DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS that exist with SENTIENT, VOLITONAL BEINGS. This is why I don't have so much of a problem with Whitehead at all. This is why I don't have a problem with Chaos theory or quantum physics. And this is why so many arguments of classical theism completely miss me! Basically, I'm saying that dynamic relationality and "edge of chaos" does exist in our universe...however, the complexity and unknowability involved ONLY applies to any creaturely being, NOT GOD! God, by nature of his omniscience, intellect, and being ex-nihilo creator is EXEMPT from all this "complexity" mess.
The puzzle analogy is SO friggin apropos here. We are trying to put together a 10,000 piece puzzle with only 100 pieces...with NO original frame of reference! God, on the other hand, has a FULL PICTURE of what the puzzle is supposed to look like and how it fits together...and also has all 10,000 pieces!
Moreover, notice how this is a far cry from saying that the complexity and "edge of chaos" stuff is not GENUINE. Of course, it's genuine. The only thing is that it is only BINDING upon creations. See what I've been trying to say all this time? So, THIS, Doc, is why I believe that it is ultimately an either/or type thing. Either the complexity and indeterminacy applies to God's knowledge or it doesn't. It's that simple. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND THERE. There is no "partial" probabilistic knowledge and influence. Either it is or it isn't. We must not use vulgarized ideas of "certainty" and "accuracy" If God cannot have 100% accuracy in predicting anything, then by definition, all of his predictive ability would be probabilistic. 99.9% is NOT certainty...and if this is the case, you can never say that reality is "partly settled" You can ONLY say this:
"With God's power and ability, God can make it such that something he wills to happen has an EXTREMELY HIGH PROBABILITY of occuring. Like 99.999999999% or something."
Notice that you could NEVER say the following:
"God will make it so that what God wills to happen DEFINITELY WILL HAPPEN."
It would go against your fundamental suppositions about indeterminancy. I hope this is very clear now.
Well, that's it. I know this was long (even for me) however, I think this will be fruitful. Hopefully, this will show Doc and everyone else here that I am a little aware of modern cosmological, philosophical, and psychological discussion as it bears upon this topic. And hopefully, this will also show why I feel that rational beings who DO somewhat understand modern day scientific findings can 1) affrim theological determinism and 2) deny libertarian free will.
Peace out,
Sir Mephistopheles 2K
PS: Allen Iverson, baybayyy!!! Who's "Kobe" again? WhaWhAAAT, Fuul!!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/25/2001 9:34 PM (GMT -6) | | What Foreknowle dge is Helpful? Response to TGB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TGB: On simple foreknowledge: "if what God previews are his own actions in genuine response to men (and visa versa), then what is foreknown IS an open future, just prerecorded. And if this is so, then didn't God go through it the first time as open theism claims he's going through it at present?"
You are exactly right. John Sanders argued this point in a journal several years ago. God sees what’s going to take place, but this knowledge can’t allow him to modify what’s going to take place – since what he sees is, presumable, what IS going to take place (not what would have taken place did he not intervene). Hence, simple foreknowledge offers no providential advantage.
What is more, what this shows is that the only way to gain providential value by foreknowledge is for God not to foreknow what IS going to take place, but to foreknow what MAY or MAY not take place – and for God to be able to intervene, to some extent, to affect what takes place. But this, please note, is precisely what open theists affirm.
Now, we of course deny that God’s influence is the only variable affecting what takes place, and some could argue that this is a providential disadvantage. True, but a) only strict Calvinists affirm that God is the only variable affecting what takes place; and b) given what takes place – the grotesque evil – one wonders how affirm that God is the only variable ultimately determining this is a providential "advantage."
Good insight Tom.
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/25/2001 9:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Must the future be all open or all determined ? Response to Meph
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meph, three points:
a) Congrats on setting a new record for length of tome on a Cool Board posting.! I appreciate how seriously you take discussions here. I'm also baffled by how you can manage to do this, given your school and family commitments. (You better never come at me with a law suit cause you either divorced or flunked out of school!!!!
b) You're posting provided a nice summary of non-linear dynamics and such. You convinced me, at least, that you are familiar with the field.
c) Which leaves me all the more puzzelled. I wasn't charging that you did not know this stuff, but with not applying it to the issue at hand. More specifically, given what you know about quantum theory, chaos theory, complexity theory, emergent property theories, statistical analysis, etc... how can you continue to argue that God can't predict anything with 100% accuracy in the open view? This is what is "plain wrong." It's all or nothing thinking -- viz. the future is either totally open, or totally closed -- when logic, science, and experience (basically everything) tells that this kind of thinking is misleading.
Once you accept that the future can be partly open and partly settled ahead of time, and if you accept the idea of gradual accruing of soldified character, there is no difficulty accounting for Peter's predicatable behavior 12 hours into the future.
Blessings bro.
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/25/2001 9:36 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: Must the future be all open or all determined ? Response to Meph
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc, you seem to be uncharacteristically fixated on law suits lately…? You know I think you’re the greatest, but here’s some friendly feedback: I don’t know how others perceived this post, but it seemed not only unpersuasive but unnecessarily personal (i.e. reference to Mephi’s family and school commitments, and total disregard for his disclaimer). Anyway, I know you’re just kidding around, but I can see how people who only know you from your posts would find this insulting. GDG
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/25/2001 9:36 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: Must the future be all open or all determined ? Response to Meph
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peronally, I thought the thing about lawsuits was funny, but hey, what do I know...
-Writerdad | | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/25/2001 9:37 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: Spell It Out, Meph: A Tome For Clarificat ion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Mephi:
Very good post. You have raised some questions in my mind. I think I see your point about the necessity of the future being either totally open or totally closed. "Sensitivity to initial conditions" would seem to preclude any form of a "partially open" future in a universe where any form of indeterminism is at play. The smallest deviation in initial conditions results in widely divergent future states. One wonders how anything could be truly settled. Perhaps Doc will clarify how a partially open universe is possible. Do you know of any VERY specific biblical prophecies (specific to a time and place)? Such a prophecy would possibly put to rest any form of openess. If not, in your view, what are the implications of a totally open future?
Keep up the good work, you make us all think things through.
Rob aka - Still_unsure | | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/25/2001 9:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Response to Rob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob said:
"Do you know of any VERY specific biblical prophecies (specific to a time and place)? Such a prophecy would possibly put to rest any form of openess."
I Kings 13:2-5
He cried out against the altar by the word of the LORD: "O altar, altar! This is what the LORD says: 'A son named Josiah will be born to the house of David. On you he will sacrifice the priests of the high places who now make offerings here, and human bones will be burned on you.'" That same day the man of God gave a sign: "This is the sign the LORD has declared: The altar will be split apart and the ashes on it will be poured out."
When King Jeroboam heard what the man of God cried out against the altar at Bethel, he stretched out his hand from the altar and said, "Seize him!" But the hand he stretched out toward the man shriveled up, so that he could not pull it back. Also, the altar was split apart and its ashes poured out according to the sign given by the man of God by the word of the LORD.
2 Kings 23:16-18
Then Josiah looked around, and when he saw the tombs that were there on the hillside, he had the bones removed from them and burned on the altar to defile it, in accordance with the word of the LORD proclaimed by the man of God who foretold these things.
The king asked, "What is that tombstone I see?" The men of the city said, "It marks the tomb of the man of God who came from Judah and pronounced against the altar of Bethel the very things you have done to it." "Leave it alone," he said. "Don't let anyone disturb his bones." So they spared his bones and those of the prophet who had come from Samaria.
***********************************
The first prophecy was made to Jereboam, which places this at LEAST 250-300 years before Josiah became a ruler. The place is SPECIFIC. The person is SPECIFIC. The time is not specific, but given the other dynamics, it's still very noteworthy.
Now there is one of two things that we can do with this. Either we can say that this was NOT ACTUAL prophecy and that the author(s?) basically made the whole thing up or redacted it as prophecy..or we can consider this as genuine prophecy that historically took place. As Doc would tell us, we'd have to make an ASSUMPTION that foretelling of the future is not possible for us to completely jive with the first option. I personally believe that the prophecy is genuine.
How's that, Rob?
Meph
PS: Thanks for the accolades. Promoting thought and vigorous dialogue is one of the main purposes. Thanks for putting up with my stuff. LOL
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/26/2001 5:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Sorry if I insulted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To GDG: Your feedback took me way by surprise. I was completely 100% silly fun carefree kickback nonserious jolly filled joking with the school/ family/ lawsuit thing. I'm not sure how it could be taken as an insult, but I frankly tend to be a bit dull on these things. Hence I acquiesce to the trustworthy perception of Ghost dog and apologize to Mephi if he was insulted.
I'm curious Mephi, did you think the posting anything other than silly?
Now, judging from Rob's comment, I perhaps need to go back and re-read Mephi's long posting, because I apparently missed something. What I mostly got out of his posting was how one could affirm recent dynamic scientific findings and be a determinist. I disagree but don't feel like fighting it right now. What I didn't get out of his posting was any proof of how dynamic scientific findings rule out the openness view that that aspects of the future can be settled, hence predictable, while other aspects remain open. At the very least, it seems to me, these developments show the intelligibility of a partly open partly closed future, as most theorists in the fields are now arguing.
I'll take another look tomorrow.
Night all.
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/26/2001 5:01 AM (GMT -6) | | RE: Will Theologize For Food
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I here ya. I'm currently looking at temp jobs for the summer and NOTHING looks chalanging at all. Good ol' Qohelet is making a ton of sense right now. One tip though. Once in the Mami airport I sat outside a resterant with a sign that said "Artist avalible for diner." No one took me up but I did read about an artist for whom it did work. Maybe you might try "Theologian avalible for dinner" sometime and let me know if you have any success.
-wislawa | | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/26/2001 5:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Wholly Open Future Inconceiva ble
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of "those nights." So, may as well theologize -- for free, Wislawa
A few posts above Rob gave accollades to Mephi for showing how a partially open future is inconceivable on the basis of the sensitive of the "initial conditions" of chaos theory. If the future is open at all, it is totally open. God can't predict anything with 100% accuracy. This, in a nutshell, is Mephi's claim. (Readers should note that this is not idiosyncratic to Mephi. Ware, Erickson, Giesler, Sproul and numerous other critics of the open view have made similar critricisms, though not on the basis of chaos theory).
Now, I believe Mephi deserves accollades gallore, but in this case I want to argue that both Rob and Mephi are in error. Not only in error factually, but in error by logical necessity. I want to show that the very notion of a wholly open, completely unsettled, completely unpredictable future is unintelligible.
Here is the argument. As Mephi frequently says: please consider it carefully. Don't be turned off by the abstract talk. It's actually very simple.
The "initial conditions" of a system -- the system at a given point in time (T1) -- are such that they may lead to outcomes A or B or C or D at another point in time (T2), depending on variables w,x,y,z. This is what it means to say that a system is "sensitive" to w,x,y, or z. Let us suppose, along with openness cosmology, that this openness to A or B or C or D is genuine. It is ontological, not just epistemological. That is, it is open even to God.
Now note, the possible outcomes of the system at T2 are A, B, C, or D. The system is "open" to A, B,C,or D. But it is NOT "open" to A, B, C, D or E. Nor to F, G, H, I, etc.... The system is "settled" relative to the options A, B,C, or D.
The future is partly determined.
Suppose God, who is omnipotent and therefore can do anything not logically contradictory, decided A and D were unaccepable outcomes. Well and good. He decides to further specify the future of this system such that the possible outcomes are now only C and D.
The future is even more partly settled.
Suppose, for good and sovereign reasons, God decides to go further and make the only possible outcome D. Suppose he wants to tell us this ahead of time for good and sovereign reasons (e.g. Josiah). Would that be impossible to God? It would certainly restrict free agents within the system (if there be such) relative to options at T2, but only relative to these options at T2. (e.g. If Josiah's name was predetermined, his parents weren't libertarianly free to call him George.) That is hardly catastrophic, since libertarian free will is never infinite, viz. it is always restricted in various respects.
Suppose that Rob and Mephi are correct that to admit any openness is to admit total openness. This implies that the possible outcomes of a system at T2 are not A, B, C, or D, but A,B,C,D,E,F,G..... a,b,c,d,e,f,g, ad infinitum... In other words, a wholly open future is indeterminate and unspecified in all respects, which means there are no boundaries to what can happen and thus the future is 100% unpredictable, even to God!
So, instead of saying (as chaos theory does) that the flap of a butterfly wing in Tiawan could be the decisive variable in bringing about a hurricane in South Carolina a month later, we'd now have to say that the flap of a butterfly wing in Tiawan could triple the AIDS epidemic in Tiawan and turn all left handed people into elephants. Indeed, from any set of variables at T1 and other possible state of affairs could follow -- as their natural effects!
This is clearly absurd. To say that a future state "follows from" a past state at all is to say that the future is partially settled. Introducing libertarianly free agents doesn't change this in the least. Nor does introducing quantum particles. It simply requires that the settledness of the future be A,B,C or D (unless God restricts it to B or C) instead of (say) only D.
Hence, for a priori reasons, I regard Mephi's contention to be inaccurate. The future can be partly open and partly settled. It cannot be wholly open. And we live on the assumption that it is not wholly settled.
Doc
PS... Question for Mephi. Let us define determinism (of whatever variety) as any system that postulates only one possible outcome at T2 for any system at T1. If, for whatever reasons, God wanted to leave the outcomes of a system open -- genuinely open, viz. open even to him, could he do it? If God wanted to leave a system open to A, or B, or C, or D... could he? If he couldn't, why couldn't he? If he could, then you can't say that holding to a partially open future is logically inconsistent, for this is exactly what this view asserts... and it is, indeed, exactly theview I hold.
Love, joy peace and nirvanic consciousness to all enlighted postal workers of the etheral buddhahood.
Sleepy Doc.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/26/2001 5:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Inconceiva ble, Indeed. Hmmmm....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc, I hate to say this, but I think you've missed my point. Your take on openness and settledness in your argument is something akin to what we discussed way back in the "Subjunctive Conditional Truth" days. Instead of trying to refute your argument, I think it would be better to present my own that would give what I am trying to say. Here goes...
First off. There is a difference between saying that nothing is predictable AT ALL and saying that nothing is predictable with 100% certainty. You don't seem to be making the distinction, Doc. I am saying that, in a completely openness system, NOTHING could be predicted for certain. All See, we must remember the scientific enterprise. All scientific laws and theories are NEVER, I repeat, never considered "settled" All scientific laws and theories are inductive and PROBABILISTIC in nature. Theories are never proven. They just FAIL to be disproven. In this regard, some phenomena are so repeatable that we consider the information about them to be "facts" (like the law of gravity) However, as any scientist will tell you, the laws and theories are ALWAYS tentative, based on current information. There is always the possibility, no matter how remote, that some object of chaos can be found to completely screw up the works. In an openness system, God can basically do exactly what we humans do, but a tad better. He can look at our past and present and try to make tentative PROBABILISTIC predictions based on those things, all the while understanding that something could not happen the way He expects.
**************************
THE GAME ANALOGY
I truly believe that God helped me come up with this. This analogy will be to show my thinking about the all-or-nothing stuff. This game will be simulating an "open" system as Doc is referring to it. We are presuming a system where a person only sees possibilities AS possibilities...and cannot see the future. This game simulates the situation the God would have, given libertarian free will and any other type of indeterminism. What I will try to show is that EVEN if we don't posit God's knowledge of all initial conditions (which logically leads to a more compatibilist understanding), by positing a God who can micromanage a situation in an open, relational system, we STILL end up with a all-or-nothing idea.
Let's say I have a game we'll call Game 1. You have a 50% chance of winning a prize if you guess the right side of a coin, heads or tails. BUT in order to get the coin, you have to pick the right ONE cup out of THREE. The probability of picking the right cup is 33.3% Now what is the probability that you will win the prize on the first go round? 16.6% (which is the 50% multiplied by the 33.3%) Now, let's say to even get the chance to choose the right cup, you have to pick the correct ONE card out of ten. That's 10%. Your chances of winning the prize on the first go round NOW stand at 1.6%!
[Digression: Let's do something before we move on. Why are we using probabilities in the first place? Because we are fundamentally ignorant of ALL the factors involved in this whole process. We basically have to examine the game itself, excluding all other factors, and see what the chances are to win. I want to make this very clear.
We are using probabilities because there is SOME LEVEL OF IGNORANCE by which we are operating]
Now, we will assume that nothing is being changed during the time you are playing. What is the numerical range of TRIES that it could take you to win the prize, if you were able to try over and over until you won. Simple. A minimum of 3 tries all the way up to a maximum of 15 tries. If you got lucky, you could do all the things in one try and win. If you were terribly unlucky, you would pick the right card on the 10th try, the right cup on the 3rd try, and the right side of the coin on the 2nd try. Given JUST THIS KNOWLEDGE ALONE, could you ever predict how many tries that it would take you win the prize? HECK, NO! All you could do was give probabilities. So, your knowledge of possibilities and the corresponding probabilities wouldn't do JACK to tell you what WILL occur on your next try. Remember this well, for this is characteristic of the "open" system, as we have defined it.
Now, how could I, in this system, make it so that it would be MORE LIKELY that you would win on the first go-round? Well, first of all, I could rig the card section of the game so that the right card would always be marked and easily stand out, making it very simple for you to choose the right card on the first try. What's happened? The probability of your winning just shot up from 1.6% to 16.6%! But that's not enough. I REALLY want you to win. So I continue I rigging micromanagment. I fix the cups so that only ONE of them can have the coin under it...and it would be clearly marked. You've gone from 16.6% to 50% chance of winning. But that's still not enough. I mark the coin so that you can guess the right side everytime. You know have a 100% chance of winning each time that you play!
In an open system like this, the ONLY WAY any being to make circumstances such that certain outcomes would be certain would be to so MICROMANAGE and arrange affairs that only ONE outcome was possible. Taking this to God, the ONLY way that God, in the open view cosmology, would be able to make something "settled" is to so effectively micromanage it that all probabilities of other things happening are driven to nil.
But how does this take place in a fundamentally RELATIONAL cosmology? To see this, we will add some complexity to the game
Let's work with interdependent systems. Let's say that you are playing another game (Game 2) simultaneously with Game 1. Game 2 is directly related to Game 1 in that it also relys on the same instance of picking the right card out of 10. If you you choose the right card, you win money in Game 2 while you just move forward in Game 1. In the 2nd game, you get to pick the right card only AFTER you choose between 3 doors for the right door. The two games are set up so that you CANNOT play Game 1 WITHOUT first getting past the doors on Game 2! In other words, once you choose the right door for the 2nd game, you NOW begin playing Game 1 as well. Hopefully everyone understands!
The probability of winning the second game would be 3.33% Now notice something. If my main goal is to fix the FIRST game such that you have 100% win rate, I automatically have to fix the 2nd game. Why? Because it's a necessary link in the chain. Remember you can't even PLAY Game 1 unless you reach the second level of Game 2. So, I have to make sure that things are fixed so that you make it to the second level of Game 2. This means that I have to make it such that you WILL pick the correct door out of the 3 choices in Game 2. In doing this, I have FIXED Game 2 in order to fix Game 1.
But MORE complexity. The "doors" section of Game 2 was ACTUALLY the second level of a Game 3! Thus to make sure that you even get to the doors section, I HAVE to make sure that you reach the second level of Game 3...which means that I fix that game too.
What this means to show is that in the open (relational) system, if any being fixed the circumstances of one event for the purposes of narrowing possibilities, then ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES that rely on that particular event will ALSO be narrowed necessarily. Taking this to God, this means that for every situation that God would micromanage, there would be other possible events, agents, etc..that would be to some degree micromanaged.
Now here's where it gets deep. As I've tried to show, in order to micromanage one situation, any and all contingent situations that are linked to that situation must ALSO be micromanaged to accomplish the goal. With God, this is where the chaos theory and complexity theory work in reverse. Just like the chaos theory says that, for any system, any and ALL initial conditions must be understood to predict lines of causality infallibly, it would ALSO say that,for that same system, ALL lines of causality must be settled in order for something to be known with 100% certainty. And it makes perfect sense, doesn't it? If ALL things are interelated such that everything affects everything else, then doing something to one thing would NECESSARILY do something to the ENTIRE system. Thus either the entire system must be micromanaged in that fashion or none of it.
Here's the bottom line, troops. In an open system, there can NEVER truly be any "settled" situation where there is 100% predictive accuracy, unless there is MONUMENTAL MICROMANAGMENT such that ALL "links in the chain" are solidified. To do this, all contingent situations that are dependent upon the situation to be settled must ALSO be settled. Because of the nature of an open system, EVERYTHING is interrelated. Nothing stands alone. This means that to MICROMANAGE one situation, ALL SITUATIONS must be micromanaged to insure 100% predictability because of the relationality!
It can't GET no clearer than this.
So what can this mean theologically. (LISTEN UP, GDG!!) If we say that God micromanages ONE affair such that it is 100% certainty that it WILL happen in the future, then we must say that ALL affairs have been micromanaged. So, what can be done to get away from this implication? Very simple. Say that 1) God doesn't providentially guide ANYTHING, he merely influences...and 2) say that indeteminism exists such that God cannot know all existing things exhaustively. Guess what this is? You guessed it: PROCESS THEOLOGY!!!! Process theology holds to a TRULY open system where no one, including God could know ANYTHING for 100% certainty for any reason!
Now, does everyone see what I mean by the "either/or" thing?? We cannot have our cake and eat it too. Either our system is COMPLETELY OPEN such that God cannot know ANYTHING with 100% accuracy and providence is NEVER specifically guided by God...OR our system is COMPLETELY CLOSED such that God knows EVERYTHING with 100% accuracy and providence is basically ALWAYS ultimately guided by God. To say that a COMPLETELY RELATIONAL worldview can be partially open and partially settled such that God can know exhaustively certain things and predict future events with 100% accuracy...while NOT knowing others...doesn't make sense. Hopefully this analogy shows why. Doc, if you keep wondering why I value process theology's consistency over and against open view theism...Whoop, there it is!! LOL
***************************
Now to your question, Doc:
Let us define determinism (of whatever variety) as any system that postulates only one possible outcome at T2 for any system at T1.
Meph:
I would want to really define "possible outcome" better...but since I want to hit on something else, I'll hold off.
If, for whatever reasons, God wanted to leave the outcomes of a system open -- genuinely open, viz. open even to him, could he do it? If God wanted to leave a system open to A, or B, or C, or D... could he? If he couldn't, why couldn't he?
Meph:
Sure, he could do it. This is all God would have to do is one, or a combination of these things:
1) Limit his knowledge such that God does not know the center of will of sentient beings. Like Wislawa said, it would be an autonomous unmoved mover unknowable by God.
2) Limit his knowledge such that he does not know the inner beings of humans. He cannot read minds or thoughts.
3) Create reality such that TRULY EX-NIHILO events were possible. Because EX-NIHILO events would 1) not be predictable by God and 2) impact sentient beings outside of God, he would be reactionary by necessity.
ANY ONE of these things would be sufficient to say that the system was "genuinely open" as you are defining it. If you can show me biblically, theologically, or philosophically that ANY ONE of these are the case, then I will wholeheartedly convert to a open view theist (Note: Probably the ONLY reason why I would become an open view theist instead of a process theologian would be an IDEOLOGICAL bias for validating the miracles of Jesus. Just being honest.)
Peace out,
Meph
PS: Doc, I didn't feel you insulted me. It's all love, cool daddy.
PSS: Question for you: Can you try to explain what types of things would have had to have been micromanaged for the Josiah thing to have happened? Remember, we are observing this from YOUR worldview and YOUR idea of freedom and the cosmology based upon it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/26/2001 5:03 AM (GMT -6) | | RE: Inconceiva ble, Indeed. Hmmmm....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ohh ohh ohh
Mephi said:
Meph: Sure, he could do it. This is all God would have to do is one, or a combination of these things...3) Create reality such that TRULY EX-NIHILO events were possible. Because EX-NIHILO events would 1) not be predictable by God and 2) impact sentient beings outside of God, he would be reactionary by necessity.
oh can i say this? i think i want to say this but i don't know if i can. God can create ex nihilo and we are created in his image. can we create out of our otherness just like God? do i just want to say stuff? i don't even know what im' saying. i need to go to sleep. i also need a life!
sleepy no life wislawa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/26/2001 5:04 AM (GMT -6) | | RE: RE: Inconceiva ble, Indeed. Hmmmm....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stimulating posting Meph. I’ve been told that when you and I start going at it, we loose all but a few die hards (e.g. TGB, Wislawa, Ghost Dog sometimes), and even some these fall to the wayside after a while. I hope others are listening, because this is good stuff. (Keep chirping in now and then Wislawa and others... ) Personally, I think both of our most recent postings were positively brilliant. What do you think Meph? If we’re just going to talk to each other, we may as well turn it into a mutual self-congradulating society.
Okay, I’ll respond to a couple of points. I’ll need to come back for a thorough response to your game analogy later. But I’ll say as much as I can now before having to leave. (Ghost Dog gets worried when I get personal in humorous ways, but I’ll risk this. If my editor sues me because I’ve neglected my work on my late book, ’m coming after YOU. ) Sorry GDG
Meph: "There is a difference between saying that nothing is predictable AT ALL and saying that nothing is predictable with 100% certainty. You don't seem to be making the distinction, Doc. I am saying that, in a completely openness system, NOTHING could be predicted for certain."
Doc: I am not clear on your distinction between ‘at all" and "for certain." In any event, there are two senses in which I suspect you are mistaken my friend.
A)If God predicts that the outcome of chaotic system z or libertarian free agent Joe will be A,B,C or D, he is 100% certain it will be A, B,C or D. (Is this what you mean by predict "at all" versus predicting "for certain"? If so, the distinction breaks down, for A,B,C or D is "for certain"). This parameter constitutes a 100% settled aspect of the future. The parameters of possibility are precisely defined, and thus are definite, and thus actual, thus 100% knowable by an omniscient God.
B) If God predicts that the outcome of chaotic system z or libertarian free agent Joe will be A and NOT B,C,D or any other form of –A, God can do it. He can do it in the chaotic system by precisely controlling all variables (along the lines you show in your game analogy – more on that later). And he can do it with the free agent Joe either by
i) knowing Joe’s solidified character (if it be such) relative to a particular possible action (A) and controlling all variables to have Joe manifest his self-acquired character in that action; or
ii) simply delimiting the range of Joe’s libertarian freedom and controlling relavant variables such that action (A) at a particular time will be manifested. Either way, the prediction is 100% accurate.
Mephi: "In an openness system, God can basically do exactly what we humans [vis-à-vis the scientific enterprise] do, but a tad better. He can look at our past and present and try to make tentative PROBABILISTIC predictions based on those things, all the while understanding that something could not happen the way He expects."
Doc: Why on earth should I be inclined to accept your assumption that God is in the epistemological limited situation that human scientists are? I think you'd admit it if I pressed you that depicting the God of open theism as only being capable of doing "a tad better" than scientists is a humorous caricature of the view. God is infinitely intelligent: we are not. God is omniscient: we are not. God knows directly: we must infer. Etc. etc. etc. Really Mephi
Mephi: You then give a very well thought out analogy based on game probabilities. In essence, you show that if God wanted to ensure, with 100% accuracy, that a particular person won a long string of probability "hands" (let us call them), God would have to micromanage (viz. meticulously control all the variables of) each hand, thereby reducing the probability for a person to "win" each hand, and thus the streak of hands, to 1. If God is unwilling to micro-control any game in particular, he cannot ensure any outcome for the whole sequence. Than you conclude:
"Either our system is COMPLETELY OPEN such that God cannot know ANYTHING with 100% accuracy and providence is NEVER specifically guided by God...OR our system is COMPLETELY CLOSED such that God knows EVERYTHING with 100% accuracy and providence is basically ALWAYS ultimately guided by God. To say that a COMPLETELY RELATIONAL worldview can be partially open and partially settled such that God can know exhaustively certain things and predict future events with 100% accuracy...while NOT knowing others...doesn't make sense. Hopefully this analogy shows why. Doc, if you keep wondering why I value process theology's consistency over and against open view theism...Whoop, there it is!! LOL"
I think your analogy is clever and warrants a better response than I can give it right now. I will for now simply offer three preliminary observations and then come back to this at a latter date.
Doc: 3 Preliminary Point.
Prelim Point #1: Part of the issue here is your concept of "completely relational worldview." I don’t know what "complete" means here. To have relational aspects in a world, you must have non-relational aspect. (E.g. if people are to relate they must do so through a medium that is nuetral to their relationality). I suspect, however, that your concept of "complete" here is part of the problem.
Prelim Point #2: Process theology may not be as consistent as you think, for it does not hold to a "completely open" future the way you envisage it in your critique of open theism. Most "orthodox Whiteheadians" (interesting phrase that is used sometimes) hold that the aspects of the future are settled by a) the primordial pole of God’s nature; b) the subjective aim offered to each actual occasion in the intial phase of its concresence; c) the objectied data that is relevant to that actual occasions concresence. Grant it, in Process thought God can never unilateral bring about (and hence predict) ONE particular event – and here lies the main difference between Process thought and Open Theism – but God CAN predict, with 100% accuracy, at any point in time, A,B,C or D as opposed to –A, -B,-C or -D. The future is partly settled, even in Process thought.
Prelim. Point #3: While I can’t go into it now, I would simply call attention to the fact that the force of your analogy hangs on the assumption that every event is like a probability hand. If every free decision at least (let alone every quantum event!) is like drawing a particular card out of a hand of ten (10%), then the likelihood of drawing a particular card out of a hand of ten ten straight times is 1%. If God wants to predict that you will accomplish this feat, he must either be very very lucky, or control all the variables – in which case we aren’t dealing with an open system.
As a preliminary point, however, notice two things:
a) Even to predict that there is a 10% chance of drawing a particular card is to postulate a partly settled future. Knowing (or perhaps determining) all the cards in the dealers hand, God can tell us that a person will NOT draw (say) a Jack of hearts, or a 4 of clubs, etc… He can predict THIS with 100% accuracy. It’s not an all-or –nothing thing.
B) If there’s any truth to your assumption (which I mostly disagree with) that probability thinking is only thinking based on ignorance, then a God who knew all the variables would be able to surprisingly predict (much better than us or even human scientists) particular outcomes. For example, knowing the habit of the dealer to inadvertently give clues with her body language, knowing the habit of the player to pick from the left when slightly inebriated, etc… God can predict much more accurate than we the range of cards that will be picked.
But most of this is beside the main point. The main point I will need to come back to because I am really late for a graduation set up shin-dig (my second daughter is graduating tonight!!!! I have to work a both at the school party all night long. ) But while I’m out, consider this:
when God ensures that X takes place in the world, must it be of the kind of nature Mephi presupposes in his analogy: namely, the "lucky" conclusion of winning a string of lucky hands? Is Mephi’s analogy an accurate depiction of the world, at least according to Open Thought? If God desires that X occur in the future – to the point of wanting to gaurantee it with 100% accuracy – must he control every variable all along the way to do it? Is there, finally, a difference between saying "X shall occur" and "X shall occur as the result of particular outcomes of probability games a, b, c,d?
Think about it. Give feedback. As Arnold says: "I'lllll beeee baaaack."
Good stuff folks!
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/26/2001 5:04 AM (GMT -6) | | RE: RE: Inconceiva ble, Indeed. Hmmmm....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sleepy Wislawa:
If we are free in a libertarian sense, then we must have a slice of God's ability to create ex nihilo. This, I suspect, is part of what it means to be made in the image of God. Our decisions bring into being definite realities that a) never existed before and b) did not have to exist.
You may have been sleep and have no life -- but insightfully so.
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/26/2001 5:05 AM (GMT -6) | | RE: Wholly Open Future Inconceiva ble
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If the future is completely predetermined, there can be no freedom." But Scripture does speak as if there were both, Judas' and Peter's sins were predicted, and they were held accountable.
Let us consider "free will," the Bible says there are various gods in the world, and that people serve one of them (their appetites, the devil, etc.), or they serve the one true God. Now here free will simply becomes whom we will serve (Josh. 24:15), not whether we will serve. It seems that there is possibly some confusion about free will, with people thinking that they can "steer their own ship," but it seems that Scripture teaches that we can only choose whom to serve:
2TI 2:26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
If we all serve a master, then our choices are indeed predictable, depending on which master we are serving at the moment. As C.S. Lewis remarked, "how alike al the great dictators have been!" They were all serving the same god, and their actions followed from their allegiance.
God bless you,
Lee_Merrill
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/26/2001 5:06 AM (GMT -6) | | I have two cents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meph says: Either our system is COMPLETELY OPEN such that God cannot know ANYTHING with 100% accuracy and providence is NEVER specifically guided by God...OR our system is COMPLETELY CLOSED such that God knows EVERYTHING with 100% accuracy and providence is basically ALWAYS ultimately guided by God.
GDG: Both process and openness claim that God’s knowledge is 100% accurate. They just take time seriously—e.g. not everything has happened yet, and thus not everything is known by God as actual, but also as possible. Plus process is quite clear about the “fixed,” “given,” and “determining” aspects of every moment of becoming. Every subjective aim involves an occasion’s synthesis of inherited feelings with possibilities. God’s redemptive activity does not obliterate our own creativity, but it is surely present in a shaping way. It seems to me that relationship is incoherent without some fixed elements and some free. GDG | | Back to Top | | |
|
Forum Administrator
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 6/26/2001 5:07 AM (GMT -6) | | An Imagined Conversati on Between Doc and Meph
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see it! I see it! At least, I think that I do. I see where we are differing here. Allow me to do this in the form of a conversation between Doc and me.
*************************************************
Doc: Look, Meph. God can predict things with 100% accuracy. He knows in ANY given situation X what the LIVE OPTIONS of that situation will be. For example, He would know that actions A-D would be viable while actions E-G would not be viable. Therefore, with respect to situation X, the future is "settled" that ONLY actions A-D could occur in the future and God could predict this "settledness" with 100% accuracy
Meph: Oh, I see now! When you talk about "settledness" in existence, you are referring to something being known DEFINITELY as a certainty. You are saying that, by God's creating things with certain constitutions, he has made is CERTAIN that for each existent, there is only a limited amount of possibilities for said existent. This set of limited possibilities is a SETTLED issue. This goes back to our discussion of "live options" For each existent, there are only so many live options open to that existent. This is over and against the silly idea of any existent having an INFINITE amount of live options open to it. If I'm not mistaken, it is this that you were trying to criticize in your argument against what I was saying. (See your thing)
Let this be said. I completely agree with what you are saying. Actually, I've said this before myself. But, the existence of "live options" was always an assumption to me. A given. I have not been thinking of "settled" in the same way as you. What I've been doing is is talking about is the understand of CERTAIN FUTURE ACTIONS THAT WILL OCCUR as opposed to others that will not. Think about your actions A-D. Though the action range is A-D, we are assuming that only ONE of these actions WILL take place. My beef is not with the range of possibilities being limited or "settled" My beef is with whether or not one particular action in that set can be predicted to DEFINITELY occur with 100% accuracy. Due to the nature of open cosmology, God could NEVER predict with 100% accuracy which of the actions (A-D) that WOULD emerge. There's no way.
But this is cool. Do you see how we've been missing each other here?
Doc: Hmmm. Actually, yes, I do. I've been thinking about reality WHOLISTICALLY while you've been thinking more SPECIFICALLY, only dealing with specific future events. So, basically we have been talking on different wavelengths with respect to "settledness" But now that you see my point of view, do you see how reality is both "settled" and "open" at the same time...and how it can be so in an open view theism worldview? That's what I'm advocating. It's not a completely "either/or" situation.
Meph: Yeah, I see your point. IF you are speaking about the necessary reduction of POSSIBILITIES due to certain situational constitutions as being "settled", then I would agree with you. Completely. For example, by creating human beings the way that he has, God has removed the possibility of humans getting direct energy from photosynthesis. He didn't create us that way. Therefore, it has been "settled" that I will not be photosynthesizing anytime soon. However, Doc, we must remember the context of our discussion. We are trying to ascertain ultimately whether or not EDF is a VIABLE notion to attribute to God. Therefore, I thought that we were speaking of "settled" as where God could predict a SPECIFIC ACTION in the future with 100% accuracy, not merely ranges of action. The whole main discussion about foreknowledge and predestination deals with specific future acts being known by God, not just ranges of possibilities. See what I'm saying?
Doc: Yes. But surely you see that this issue is only a matter of DEGREE between us then, Meph! If you agree with me that that God can "settle" certain things in reality such that some things DEFINITELY can occur and other things definitely CANNOT occur, then that has far reaching implications. It means that it is possible that God can make things such that things may be definitely this and definitely NOT that. Taking this into consideration, isn't it possible that God can whittle the potential live options of a situation down to where only ONE action is possible...and where 100% predictive accuracy of that one act is possible? I would say so. And I'm saying that this is compatible thinking with open view theism. So, do you see that it is really a matter of degree?
Meph: Well, yes. But, tell me, how would doing this be any different from what I'm calling "MICROMANAGEMENT"? It's essentially the same animal. You basically have God "fixing" things of the environment such that only ONE option will emerge. Isn't this micromanagment? Isn't this the main problem that open view theists have with the more Reformed view. And again, even this thought is assuming that all things can be micromanaged by God. If we posit some seriously autonomous agency (will or ex-nihilo events), then it goes without saying that 100% accuracy would be precluded. And let's face it. Open view theism doesn't really stand unless you posit some locus of indeterminism...and that locus of indeterminism is usually located in the human will.
Doc: It's not micromanagement in the strictly Calvinistic sense, Meph. This is because, unlike Calvinism, open view theism says that human beings have a genuine part to play in the whole thing. We are centers of causation, causing new lines of causation that would not have taken place without us. We formulate our our characters and interact with God. What God can do is providentially arrange circumstances in LIGHT OF our self-solidified will in order to be able to predict certain human activities with 100% certainty. But the key is that it is US, not God, who solidified our characteristics. Thus our true libertarian freedom is not diminished. So while you may be correct about the locus of indeterminism primarily being the human will, you surely MUST see how God can use both "settled" and "free" aspects of reality to bring about what he wishes.
Meph: See, Doc, it almost works for me...except for one big issue: the formulation of the self. Maybe I've just read too many psychology books, but I understand that the self NEVER emerges in a vaccuum. In other words, any and all character development that we have is formed from the relational INTERACTION between an agent (physical, mental, biological factors included) and it's environment. It's almost like the hermeneutical spiral. (I'm using this idea because you are a theology professor. You start at a point (generally your suppositions) and look at the text. The more you analyze the text, the more understanding you gain, which becomes a part of your knowledge base. So NEXT time you return to the text, you will bring what you have learned from the previous analysis to the suppositions of you NEXT analysis. And the process builds from there. May I say that it is the SAME WAY with the development of the self. Just like the emergence of a theology is reciprocally determined and contextual, so is the self development. This means that it is NEVER a agent vs. environment dichotomy, per se. There is a highly relational capacity between agent and enviroment. What this entails for our theological discussion is the following: By God working extensively with the environment of an agent, he has HUGE means with which to develop the self of any given agent. When you ALSO propose that God exhaustively knows a human's psychological and spiritual makeup at any time, then you have all the ingredients to say that God actually MAKES a person who and what they are. By God placing individuals in specific contexts, giving them specific capacities, AND knowing both of these factors exhaustively, he has pragmatically ORDAINED what said individuals will be.
This is why your self-solidification thing really makes no sense to me. It seems like you are saying that WE are the ultimate developer of our selfhood, when, as modern psychology indicates, that's the furthest from the truth. Though we do have a part to play in the reciprocal determinism thing, we still must say that God, by his knowledge, has effectively ordained WHO we will be.
Doc: I see what you are saying, Meph. But you are forgetting something. God's ultimate wishes. It is my chief supposition that God is a RELATIONAL, LOVING God who wishes to share his ultimate love with other non-God beings. Love cannot be forced and must be accepted freely. Given this, I believe that God would arrange this situation so that his primary purpose would be realized: that of having free beings accept his love without any coercion. So, this gives me cause to say that God grants human beings significant freedom such that it can take place. Now, let's look at what you've said, Meph. How would this relate? Basically I would postulate that God has made us such that, even though we are INFLUENCED by different factors, it is STILL ultimately the human will that directs what a individual will be. This is consanant with the idea of "power to the contrary" that I speak about. Notice that even though we could postulate that God can read minds, there is still genuine freedom for human beings. Can you really say that this is not possible of God?
Meph: Not at all, Doc. Of course, we can say that God could do it. But in my opinion, we would HAVE to say that God could NOT exhaustively understand sentient beings. We'd have to say that God created the human will such that even HE could not exhaustively know it or it's behavior. This is a NECESSITY. Now my question to you is this: Are you willing to do that? Are you willing to say that God does NOT know the human constitution in its entirety exhaustively? Given what the bible says, I really can't do that. Again, I say. If anyone can give me theological, biblical, or philosophical evidence to show that the human will is ESSENTIAL autonomous such that it is fundamental interactive, yet INDEPENDENT of the mind and God, then I will quickly and wholeheartedly become an open view theist (or process theologian) But I seriously doubt that you can do this.
*****************************
I'll stop here. I'm tired. But I do think this is what's going on. See if this helps us. I'm gonna take a nap.
Meph
| | Back to Top | | |
| 94 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:59 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 |
|
|