 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:54 PM (GMT -6) |   | Destinatio n of Creation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsure asks me: do you feel He has a specific "destination for creation"?
Doc: Absolutely. In both the Old and New Testaments God's primary aim is revealed to be to have " a people for himself." Jesus' prayer in John 17, especially vss 20-25, reveals the center of God's plan beautifully. He wants a people who embody and reflect back to him the unsurpassable triune love that he eternally is. It is predestined that God shall have a "bride" (Eph 1). Who shall be in it, however, is not. It must be chosen.
Blessings
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Just a Little More Info, Doc...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc,
I've been crafting something here over the past few days, when I've had time. But I need to know something. You've made it very clear that God could have possessed EDF, but chose not to do so. He created reality such that somethings could be definitely known by him while others couldn't. Here's the question?
What is the locus of God's ignorance? Restated, where is the locus of indeterminacy in Creation that facilitates God NOT KNOWING certain things? Is it with the human will or with some aspect of Creation itself?
Be sure to understand what I'm asking. I'm NOT asking about how our universe is relational and how human beings have ignorance of much that goes on. I'm asking about GOD'S knowledge of the universe. Hopefully, I'm not being vague and you understand what I'm asking. Polkinghorne and the others you've read should help you here. Please be specific, yet comprehensive. I think you answer will be a crucial lynchpin in my argumentation. I want to have all my ducks in a row here. This is gonna be great.
Meph
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:56 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: Just a Little More Info, Doc...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m confused. Mephi, just because open theists deny EDF, does NOT mean they believe God is ignorant. Thought you knew that. But you ask, What is the locus of God's ignorance? Restated, where is the locus of indeterminacy in Creation that facilitates God NOT KNOWING certain things? Open theists believe God GOD KNOWS EVERYTHING. They simply disagree that creation is exhaustively settled. I must be misunderstanding your question…
-GDG
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi, Why Is God Ignorant In Your Theology?? ??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Meph, with Love:
With Ghost Dog I'm a bit surprised at the premise of your question, which alleviates a bit the great anticipation of the forthcoming magnum opus. Nevertheless, I plow on.
You ask:
What is the locus of God's ignorance? Restated, where is the locus of indeterminacy in Creation that facilitates God NOT KNOWING certain things? Is it with the human will or with some aspect of Creation itself?
Of course, as GDG noted, no openness person grants that God is "ignorant", so nothing "facilitates God NOT KNOWING certain things." Read my fingers: God is omniscient God is omniscient God is omniscient. He knows EVERYTHING , both the actual and the possible.
I could just as easily (and just as unfairly) ask you , "Mephi, please tell me, what is it in your system that faciliates God's ignorance, such that he doesn't know certain things." Why? Because you deny that God knows possibilities and, in my view, possibilities are there for God to know. Why do you attribute ignorance to God Mephi? Why? In your view God doesn't know all the "maybes" that are out there!
Now, I know that the reason you believe God doesn't know possibilities as possibilities is because you don't believe there are, in reality, for God, real possibilities. So, I won't accuse you of denying God's omniscience because you deny that he knows something I think he ought to know. We openness folk just ask for the same courtesy. Why do so many non-openness (note, didn't say "classical" ) theologians have trouble seeing this?
So, I suggest your question should have been (alterations in bold),
What is the locus of God's knowledge of possibilities? Restated, where is the locus of indeterminacy in Creation that facilitates God NOT KNOWING future possibilities as actual? Is it with the human will or with some aspect of Creation itself?
Answer: a) The locus of God's knowledge of possibilities is the fact that he created reality partly composed of possibilities, hence he knows them as possibilities, for his knowledge is perfect.
b) What "faciliates" him not knowing future possibilities as actual is that God's knowledge is perfect, so he knows reality exactly as it is and not otherwise. Hence he knows possibilities as possibilities.
c) Where are these possibilities located? From scripture I discern that they arise from the free will of human and angelic agents. From science I discern that they are also located throughout creation.
Does that help?
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Line Upon Line, Precept Upon Precept...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want to get to far afield here. I'll try to do this quick. I used the term "ignorance" a while ago back in the "Subjunctive Conditional Truths" thread and justified its use. I guess that was forgotten. No problem. Main point: Doc, I think you and I are saying the same thing in different terms.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.
IGNORANT adj. 1. lacking knowledge 2. resulting from or showing lack of knowledge 3. unaware, uninformed.
Ok. Everyone look at the above definition really closely. It is this definition that I was thinking of when I used the word "ignorant"
Now, I said:
What is the locus of God's ignorance? Restated, where is the locus of indeterminacy in Creation that facilitates God NOT KNOWING certain things?
Before we analyze this, let's go to what I said right before this:
"You've made it very clear that God could have possessed EDF, but chose not to do so. He created reality such that somethings could be definitely known by him while others couldn't."
This was the context of my question. Notice how I said that God created reality such that some things could be known definitely by him while other things could not (analogous to what you would call "open") This is the partially definite-partially open thing you talk about, right? I've taken this with the understanding that, as you have said, God COULD have exhibited EDF with Creation. What this means is that God with his infinite intelligence could have exhibited EDF...but, given his wishes, he chose instead to create reality WITH SUCH A CONSTITUTION that God would not possess EDF. This was a self-limitation on God's part. In other words, according to your view, God has created a reality where even HE would be able to know possibilities AS possibilities. Thus, the self-limitation was NOT seen as God decreasing his knowledge ontologically (ie. God just choosing "not to know") but of creating a reality where his capacity to know possibilities as possibilities would be a necessary outworking.
Now I take into account the little I know about metaphysics and stuff. Including indeterminacy. What is the way that God could create a universe where even HE would know possibilities as possibilities, even with his infinite intelligence? My understanding is that there has to be some type of locus in existence that produces the indeterminacy. It has to be in existence and NOT in God, because, as we've said before, it's not like God just decided to not know. There has to be some type of locus within the structure of the universe THAT GOD PLACED THERE that, by it's existence, makes it impossible for God to know all things as certainties. Now, when speaking of this "locus" itself, it must be said that God cannot know this locus exhaustively at all (specifically how it functions), for if God did exhaustively understand the locus, then it could not be a true source of indeterminacy. With respect to this locus, God would be fundamentally IGNORANT of it, in many respects! Is everyone with me?
All this is the say this:
The knowledge of possibilities AS possibilities is built upon the idea that some locus of indeterminacy exists SOMEWHERE! It is this locus that I am looking for. To be sure, this locus EXISTS either as a function or as an existent. Thus, it is something that would constitute reality. The locus of indeterminacy is a source of genuine LACK OF EXHAUSTIVE KNOWLEDGE on God's part...which could be called ignorance. The use of ignorant was not meant to be some heated word that people seem to be making it here.
I certainly hope that this has cleared this up.
****************************
Now as far as your answers:
Doc said:
a) The locus of God's knowledge of possibilities is the fact that he created reality partly composed of possibilities, hence he knows them as possibilities, for his knowledge is perfect
Now, it is here that it seems that you kind of understand where I'm coming from. You said "...he created reality partly composed of possibilities..." In other words, you recognize that the source of the indeterminacy must be in CREATION, and not God. That's cool. But you don't really answer my question. WHAT is the locus of indeterminacy that has been woven into Creation to make it such? You haven't given it yet.
Doc said:
b) What "faciliates" him not knowing future possibilities as actual is that God's knowledge is perfect, so he knows reality exactly as it is and not otherwise. Hence he knows possibilities as possibilities.
Same problem. The question is NOT whether or not God knows reality AS IT IS perfectly. The question is what aspect of reality ENABLES God to know possibilities as possibilities, instead of straight EDF. Still looking.
Doc said:
c)Where are these possibilities located? From scripture I discern that they arise from the free will of human and angelic agents. From science I discern that they are also located throughout creation.
Doc, you've answered that the possibilities are located in the free will of humans and throughout creation. Is this the same as saying that these are the loci of which I speak? If so, what I'm getting here is you are saying this. PLEASE correct me if I am wrong for this is very important.
"I, Doc, am saying that the locus of indeterminacy in Creation lies in the free will of human and angelic agents."
It is the WILL OF SENTIENT BEINGS that are such that God could NEVER exhaustively know future states. In fact, the only way that a human being's act of will could ever be in any wise predictable by God is when self-solidification happens where the will basically is self-limited by a corresponding creature of habit. Though God can see the outworking of the human or angelic will, God does NOT EXHAUSTIVELY know how that will operates or functions. Unless a given person "self-solidifies", their exact states of being could never be predicted with 100% accuracy. Restated:
God is fundamentally IGNORANT of how the human and angelic wills function.
Is this, in effect, what you are saying? I've said this before, you know. (Recall the Subjunctive Conditional Truths thread)
Next you talk about "from science" they are located throughout creation. OUTSIDE of the human will, of what do you speak? Ex-nihilo events that essentially have no cause and are totally unpredictable by ANY means? This is the only thing that I can think of. If you are saying this then this would be analogous to God creating reality with its own sort of randomizer switch where made certain ex-nihilo events occurs, that even God couldn't predict. Is that what you are saying?
***********************
So far, we seem down to the choices that I've been talking about:
1) God, by the way he creates the will, limits his knowledge such that he does not know the center of will of sentient beings exhaustively. Here, God would be somewhat IGNORANT of human will.
2) God, by the way he creates the human mind, Limit his knowledge such that he does not know the inner beings of humans. He cannot read minds or thoughts. Here, God would be somewhat IGNORANT of the human mind.
3) God creates reality such that TRULY EX-NIHILO events were possible. Here, God would be somewhat IGNORANT of some the operations of his universe.
Are you choosing one or two of these options? I need to get this down concretely. Please be a little more specific, if you would. And for my sake, PLEASE don't harp on the terminology possibly being pejorative or accusatory so much, ok? I think you (GDG and Doc) and I are WAAAAY past that by now, ain't we?
Taking it a Step at a Time,
Meph
PS: It wouldn't bother me in the least if you called God ignorant in my view. That's just me.
PSS: At times, I LOATHE semantical dancing. Connotations can be such a pain in the friggin neck!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:58 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: Line Upon Line, Precept Upon Precept...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memphi asks: "What is the locus of God's ignorance? Restated, where is the locus of indeterminacy in Creation that facilitates God NOT KNOWING certain things?"
And Doc said: "c)Where are these possibilities located? From scripture I discern that they arise from the free will of human and angelic agents. From science I discern that they are also located throughout creation"
I want to throw something out and I REALLY hope that I will at least be answered back -- please, please, pleaseeeeee! When I read the dialogue between you guys, a question came to my mind so I thought what the heck I will ask it. Wouldn't the locus of God's ignorance be in human free will, yes, BUT go beyond that to Satan's schemes,to evil, to darkness ...? Wouldn't His locus be in demonic activity and evil since God is the absolute opposite of that? He gives humans free will thus allowing Satan to have an impact in influencing. Day and night never meet -- where there is light there is not dark -- the two cannot know one another. Does that make sense because it sure does to me. Perhaps I am WAY OFF but I figure that I can at least learn if I am way off target, and that's what this board is all about, right?
I am REALLY curious and can get so sad when no one answers me back
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:58 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: Line Upon Line, Precept Upon Precept...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My turn to hang you in suspense Mephi. For right now I will simply say, everything you said in this post confirms my suspicion that we are not arguing semantics on the issue of God's ignorance. You are presupposing a particular view of reality which open theists deny and then alleging that our view of God embodies ignorance because our view of God doesn't include God knowing reality as you presuppose it. You certainly don't mean to do this, and I don't think you even see that you do it. But you are. I'll try to help you see it tomorrow or Sunday if I have time.
I do appreciate your on-going tenacity and patience in these dialogues. I think that your last post will help us get to what is, I suspect, the most fundamental issue between us -- and the most fundamental obstacle to you understanding the open view. Tomorrow comrade.
Til then
Blessings
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:59 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: RE: Line Upon Line, Precept Upon Precept...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trosie
Certain no one wants you to be sad. ):
I agree that angelic beings as well as human beings have free will, and as such are a "locus" of indeterminacy in the cosmos. That's why I made my comment about free agents, not just free humans. But Mephi also wants to know about indeterminacy among non-sentient beings -- like the indeterminacy in quantum particles. He's looking for the rock bottom metaphysical principle that allows for things to embody an element of randomness (in physical creation) and freedom (in free agents). So multiplying the number of free agents who embody possibilities (that is, including Satan and evil agents among them) doesn't go deep enough to answer his question. He's looking for the "locus" of indeterminacy as such, not just among sentient beings.
Night night
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 7:00 PM (GMT -6) | | The HEART of the Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay Mephi, I’m not as good at keeping in suspense as you are. So here’s my take on your most recent posting. Please read it carefully. I attempt to show that all your misunderstandings of open theism are rooted in a view of reality which you presuppose to be true. I thereby attempt to show that your attribution of "ignorance" to the God of open theism was not merely semantic. This essay, I believe, gets to the heart of the issue. As with you, I shall take it "step by step." There are 12 points, with comments.
1) To clarify that you didn’t mean by "ignorant" what I thought you meant, you provide the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary definition.
IGNORANT adj. 1. lacking knowledge 2. resulting from or showing lack of knowledge 3. unaware, uninformed.
Doc: This is precisely what I thought you meant by the word "ignorant." Neither I or any other open theist would agree that God lacks knowledge, shows lack of knowledge or is uninformed. God has complete and total knowledge of all of reality. Period.
2) You further try to show that you understand the open view when you say that in our view "God created reality such that some things could be known definitely by him while other things could not (analogous to what you would call "open") This is the partially definite-partially open thing you talk about, right?"
Doc: God didn’t create the world such that some things couldn’t be known as definite to him. The problem in your statement is that "things" is definite and so in saying that God can’t know them as definite you attribute ignorance to God. God knows all things – and some of the" things" he knows are definite, others are indefinite (possibilities). You couldn't have included possibilities as "things" in your statement, for if you did it wouldn't lead to ascribing ignorance to God.
3) You say that in our view "God has created a reality where even HE would be able to know possibilities AS possibilities. Thus, the self-limitation was NOT seen as God decreasing his knowledge ontologically (ie. God just choosing "not to know") but of creating a reality where his capacity to know possibilities as possibilities would be a necessary outworking."
Doc: This is closer to what we hold, but God didn’t have to create a certain world to know possibilities AS possibilities. He just creates a world where there ARE possibilities. God knows all things perfectlyby virtue of his being omniscient, so he knows possibilities AS possibilities by virtue of being God, not by virtue of creating as certain kind of world.
4) You ask:" What is the way that God could create a universe where even HE would know possibilities as possibilities, even with his infinite intelligence?"
Doc: Wrong question Mephi. Again, God doesn’t have to create a certain kind of world where he can know possibilities as possibilities. He simply has to create possibilities to know them as possibilities. As God, he knows all things he creates just as they are.
5) You state: "there has to be some type of locus within the structure of the universe THAT GOD PLACED THERE that, by it's existence, makes it impossible for God to know all things as certainties."
Doc: If you say "makes it impossible for God to know all things as definite," the answer to your question is, "possibilities." There is something in the locus of creation (if you insist on speaking this way) that makes possibilities real. Hence it is impossible for God to know all things as "certainties" (definite realities) because his knowledge is, by virtue of his nature, perfect. He can’t know things wrongly, so he can’t know possibilities as definite realities.
6) You say, "Now, when speaking of this "locus" itself, it must be said that God cannot know this locus exhaustively at all (specifically how it functions), for if God did exhaustively understand the locus, then it could not be a true source of indeterminacy. With respect to this locus, God would be fundamentally IGNORANT of it, in many respects! Is everyone with me?
Doc: Here’s we're getting to the rub of the issue, Meph. Whether you know it or not, you are defining "locus" as that which determines outcomes. Hence, if there is anything "open" to God, it can only be because he is fundamentally IGNORANT of the functioning of this locus. In point of fact, you are simply denying the REALITY of a locus that can be GENUINELY non-determinative. In my view, God knows the locus perfectly – and the locus issues forth in possibilities. Hence, even in knowing the locus perfectly, there is yet indeterminacy in creation, and therefore for God who knows creation perfectly.
7) "The locus of indeterminacy is a source of genuine LACK OF EXHAUSTIVE KNOWLEDGE on God's part...which could be called ignorance."
Doc: Here we are again. The locus of indeterminacy is a source of lack of ignorance on God’s part only if you presuppose that the locus isn’t REALLY indeterminate. If it IS really indeterminate, then God can exhaustively know it and yet not know what definite outcomes it might produce. Indeed, precisely BECAUSE he knows the locus perfectly, he knows the POSSIBILITIES that flow from it.
8) You ask, "WHAT is the locus of indeterminacy that has been woven into Creation to make it such? You haven't given it yet."
Doc: Again, getting to the heart of the issue. The question is answerable only if you assume that indeterminacy is not a fundamental constituent in creation. You’re look for something more fundamental to indeterminacy to explain determinacy – which is simply to say that you are assuming a deterministic creation.
One can no more provide the "locus" of indeterminacy in creation than one can provide the "locus" for determinacy. I could ask you, "provide for me the locus of determinacy in creation." You can only say, "things are this way. One cause, one effect." So too, I can only say, "things are this way. One cause, many possible effects." It’s build into creation. You can’t get behind or beneath that.
9) The question is NOT whether or not God knows reality AS IT IS perfectly. The question is what aspect of reality ENABLES God to know possibilities as possibilities, instead of straight EDF.
Still looking.
Doc: And so long as you pose the quesiton this way, you shall be forever looking. For nothing "ENABLES" God to know possibilities as possibilities. He just does. I could just as easily say to you, "what is it about creation that ENABLES God to know definite realities as definite realities. Still looking." You see the misguidedness of the question, don’t you?
10). You say that in my view, God is fundamentally IGNORANT of how the human and angelic wills function.
Doc: Only if you presuppose that wills function deterministically. If wills function as I hold they function, God knows the possibilities that flow out of them precisely because he is NOT ignorant of how they function. In my view, (I don't mean this at all insultingly) DETERMINISTS are ignorant of how wills function precisely because they think that if they knew the wills perfectly there would only be one possible outcome.
11) You ask, OUTSIDE of the human will, of what do you speak [when speaking of indeterminacy]? Ex-nihilo events that essentially have no cause and are totally unpredictable by ANY means? This is the only thing that I can think of.
Doc: A person reflects much of their worldview by what alternatives they can conceive of. You're list of alternatives reveals how entrenched you are in a deterministic view of creation. You assume that the alternatives are either a) one cause- one effect or b) ex-nihilo creations. A third alternative that you haven’t yet grasped (as you admit) – but it permeates contemporary science – is c) one cause – many possible effects.
12) You then give your three alternatives, which you think are exhaustive. All three presuppose your deterministic model of creation. Here’s a fourth: God creates the world in which possibilities arise from causes, including human and angelic wills.
I suspect this fourth alternative frustrates you for you can’t understand how one cause can produce different possible effects. I can only help you by pointing out thatthe only reason this alternative is less intelligible to you than the view that one cause produces one effect is because you aren’t used to thinking this way. Metaphysically, there’s no more reason why one cause should produce only one necessary affect than that one cause should produce multiple possible effects. Heck, no one even knows what the word ‘cause" means, as Hume showed. So it certainly is presumptuous to assume that causes can only lead to one effect and that any other understanding of it is unintelligible.
13) You say, "At times, I LOATHE semantical dancing. Connotations can be such a pain in the friggin neck!
I hope what I’ve said here has clarified why I do not think your attribution of ignorance to God in the open view was merely semantic.
Chew on this awhile Meph (and all other readers, if you wish). I think it gets to the HEART of the matter.
Blessings
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 7:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Confucious Says...or Was That Professor X? Heh...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superb, Doc. Patience is a virtue...and this is worth it, if this works out right. I have no problem waiting. While I am waiting, can I take a wild guess?
I'm guessing that you are thinking that I am presupposing that reality can ONLY consist of actual existent things, and NOT possible things or concepts. With this presupposition, then exhaustive knowledge of all possibilities as possibilities would NOT be constitutive as "knowledge" per se, because the one presupposing only associates knowledge with actual things. It would be considered a lack of knowledge to not be able to know something as "true", possessing CERTAINTY. Thus, my "ignorant" claim would seem to fit into this well. It should also be noted that this view of reality DOES NOT preclude God knowing possibilities as such. (This will be important later)
On the other hand, the open view grants that actuality and possibility are BOTH ingredients of "reality" Therefore, "knowledge" would encompass both, as they are. This would mean that any omniscient being would know actualities as such...and possibilities as such...and He would know these things perfectly. The probabilistic nature of God's knowledge and predictive ability of the future would not be considered a lack of knowledge under this supposition. Hence, the subjunctive conditional truths come into play. God "knowing" maybes, right?
Does this seem right, Doc? If so, perhaps I'm not as "ignorant" of the situation as one might think. Just maybe. Anyway, my problem is that, to me, at least, all of this misses the point. Why? Because of what is said about God's knowledge by open view theists. From what I understand, many open view theists say that God CHOSE not to possess EDF (over and against what process theology says) In other words, God WOULD have possessed EDF and the classical version of sovereignty, but he RELINQUISHED that, so that he could have "free" beings other than himself. According to open view, this entailed God being able to know possibilities as possibilities, thus allowing for libertarian freedom. The fact that open view people think this type of knowledge (within their supposition) is superior to the EDF view is completely irrelevent. The simple fact remains that God constituted reality so that He would know possibilities as possibilities. My question has been fairly simple, I've thought. What aspects of reality MAKE it this way?
Now, before we just say that I am going by my assumption and crying foul, hear me out. I believe that Just saying that God knows possibilities as possibilities...or that God created a reality that is conducive to this...is not enough. I think what some people want to do is just use it as an axiom.
"Reality is composed of possibility and actuality. God knows this reality exhaustively. Period."
If this is one's chief assumption, then one won't find it NECESSARY to try to ascertain the specific loci of indeterminacy. Why? Because they will just say that human and devine wills (and whatever else) are only indications of their chief assumption, NOT necessarily the CAUSE of the assumption. Because this would be a chief assumption, any given open view theist who uses it would just be able to say:
"Look here, Meph. You are just going by different assumptions and presuppositions about reality than we are. Accordingly, you are trying to judge us by a standard EXTERNAL from our belief system. This is unfair. Perhaps if you examine our belief by OUR suppositions, you would see how we have such problems with your "ignorance" statement."
Guess what? If this is the case, if my take on your assumption is indeed correct, I want to challenge that assumption. How? By making something clear. To say that God COULD have possessed EDF at all implicitly says something. It implicitly says that God could have headed an existence where there would be NO possibilities that he would know as possibilities. Now, listen carefully. This fact NEGATES the assumption above. How can one assume a God that can possess EDF (which is tacitly antithetical to God knowing possibilities as possibilities), and AT THE SAME TIME, use the primary assumption that reality is composed of possibility and actuality by the simple fact of being "reality"? It doesn't add up. These two assertions are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Are you with me, Doc, ol' buddy, ol' pal?
On the other hand, the first assumption works VERY WELL with the idea that God could have possessed any type of EDF, now, doesn't it? Yes, it does. Moreover, what the assumption notes is that the root of indeterminacy HAS to lie within Creation and not within God. Therefore, it must be some characteristic within Creation that makes EDF not viable for God. And this is what I'm trying to say.
To be sure, I may be wrong about everything I've written here. But, it was only a guess anyway. If none of these shoes fit, throw em away, aiight? LOL! I'll wait patiently for your thing. This is like a big link in the chain for my thing...and I've gotta have it. I appreciate the accolades too, Doc. Thanks.
Patiently,
Meph
PS: Trosie, Doc pretty much got it. Don't worry, be happy!
PSS: The Sixers lost...and Tiger's behind in the Open. Damnation!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 7:02 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: RE: RE: Line Upon Line, Precept Upon Precept...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Doc:
Have you read Ilya Prigogine's "End of Certainty"? I'm having difficulty finding any of his work in paperback and this is the only hardcover of his I can afford to purchase. Is it worth buying? It looks interesting from the publisher's comments.
Rob
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 7:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Dealing with the Heart of the Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose that you've seen that the things that you talk about I'd largely had in mind already. Hopefully, this shows you that my "misunderstandings" aren't as large as you think they are. I will focus on the things not-so-obvious. Let me tie some things together.
Your 1 and 2 are pretty much the same as I predicted that they would be.
For #3, you say:
"This is closer to what we hold, but God didn’t have to create a certain world to know possibilities AS possibilities. He just creates a world where there ARE possibilities. God knows all things perfectlyby virtue of his being omniscient, so he knows possibilities AS possibilities by virtue of being God, not by virtue of creating as certain kind of world."
Notice that you really aren't doing much but saying that God just creates a world where possibilities exist, he knows them as such and that's that. Seems like familiar territory. This is bolstered by your #4:
"Again, God doesn’t have to create a certain kind of world where he can know possibilities as possibilities. He simply has to create possibilities to know them as possibilities. As God, he knows all things he creates just as they are."
NO explanation is even attempted. Hmmm... But your #5 is very interesting:
If you say "makes it impossible for God to know all things as definite," the answer to your question is, "possibilities." There is something in the locus of creation (if you insist on speaking this way) that makes possibilities real. Hence it is impossible for God to know all things as "certainties" (definite realities) because his knowledge is, by virtue of his nature, perfect. He can’t know things wrongly, so he can’t know possibilities as definite realities.
See, Doc. You trip me out. This is exactly what I'd been saying. Exactly. So what's the problem? I can't see it. Now I want to spend some time on the number 6
Whether you know it or not, you are defining "locus" as that which determines outcomes. Hence, if there is anything "open" to God, it can only be because he is fundamentally IGNORANT of the functioning of this locus. In point of fact, you are simply denying the REALITY of a locus that can be GENUINELY non-determinative. In my view, God knows the locus perfectly – and the locus issues forth in possibilities. Hence, even in knowing the locus perfectly, there is yet indeterminacy in creation, and therefore for God who knows creation perfectly.
Now, let me get this straight. You are talking about a genuinely non-determinative locus that God knows perfectly. Hmm. Do you know what this like? How about an example?
Let's say that I am listening to a string of numbers in sequential order. It is naturally such that I could easily discern the pattern and always predict the very next number to be called. I don't like this. It's "boring" So, I build me a RANDOMIZING MACHINE, and attach the randomizing machine to the number calling maching. I create this machine to randomly insert different numbers at different times at different intervals. With this occuring, I could never exhaustively predict what the next number WILL be, because I never would know when the randomizing machine would mess up the regular pattern. Now, though I built the randomizing machine and I know how it operates (mechanically wise), I could never know exhaustively HOW it chooses the numbers and intervals that it does. If I were to know exactly HOW it chooses the numbers and intervals that it does, then I would be able to exhaustively predict any and all numbers that the randomizer would provide. Thus the randomizer would be the LOCUS of indeterminacy in my string of predictable numbers.
Do you understand what I've been saying know? Sure you could know what makes the randomizer tick somewhat, but you could never know how it FUNCTIONS the way it does, otherwise it wouldn't be randomizing anymore. This is what I'm saying either about the human and divine wills or ex-nihilo events. They would function in this randomizing way. So, if THIS is what you mean by "genuinely non-determinative locus", I already had this covered.
Now #7 seems to anticipate something that I may say in my thing later. You say:
"If it IS really indeterminate, then God can exhaustively know it and yet not know what definite outcomes it might produce. Indeed, precisely BECAUSE he knows the locus perfectly, he knows the POSSIBILITIES that flow from it."
Let's stick with my randomizing thing. If I create the randomizer such that it ONLY gives NUMBERS, then even though I couldn't predict exactly which number would be next with 100% accuracy, I could ALWAYS predict that whatever the randomizer gives WILL be a number...and I can have 100% certainty of THAT fact. But it has to be said that I CREATED the randomizer to work in this way. (Oooh. PLEASE listen to this. This is a big precursor to an important point that I will make in my magnum opus. Heh) Moreover, it STILL must be said that though I know a bit about how it works, because of the way I've programmed it, i would not understand it EXHAUSTIVELY for the same reasons I've said above. I would still be fundamentally ignorant on the choice of numbers and intervals. (For the sake of anticipation, I'd advise you to REALLY get this down)
#8 and #9 are well predicted, especially #8 where you say:
"One can no more provide the "locus" of indeterminacy in creation than one can provide the "locus" for determinacy. I could ask you, "provide for me the locus of determinacy in creation." You can only say, "things are this way. One cause, one effect." So too, I can only say, "things are this way. One cause, many possible effects." It’s build into creation. You can’t get behind or beneath that."
The old suppositions game. Was I on point or what? Professor X, eat yer heart out.
On 10, it seems that you get me twisted. You seem to imply that God doesn't know how the will functions AT ALL. Notice this is not what I said. I said that God is fundamentally ignorant of the will such that he couldn't predict it's behavior exhaustively.
On 11. This is so old. One cause, many effects. Let's get my definition of determinism, shall we? I roughly define determinism in the following manner:
Determinism is the belief that every state of reality has its determining conditions in the previous states of reality temporally prior to it. This has many implications. But here's something that needs to be understood. Determinism does not NECESSARILY hold that there is only ONE state of reality for every ONE specific "effect" being monitored. NO, NO, NO! In fact, there can be more than one state of reality that leads to some specific effect being monitored. What it does specify is that for any state of reality at time T, there is only one state of reality that WILL emerge in the next temporal moment. This is what I've been trying to say. It is possible that one may have the mandated, totally determined state of reality emerge from its direct antecedent...AND STILL HAVE changes in specific monitored effects. (Recall Unsure's thing) This is where chaos theory and "initial states" come in. Remember that determinism holds, almost like Whitehead, that any given state of reality is related to ALL the antecedent states of reality before it in some real way. And this effect of "novelty" may be created.
This is what frustrates me about this discussion at times. People look at things like Young's experiment and think that that does away with any type of determinism when it DOES NOT. It does away with Newtonian physics largely, but NOT with the idea of determinism, especially when understood in light of chaos theory. But more on this later. I'm running out of time.
Finally, #12. You say:
"God creates the world in which possibilities arise from causes, including human and angelic wills."
Doc, how is this nothing more that a more vague way of saying that God created this reality such that human and divine will acts as a locus of indeterminism? Come on, now...
*******************************************
Having said all of this, I want to get some things that I can take to the bank. Would you say that...
1) wills of agents forms a locus of indeterminism primarily for sentient beings?
2) some ex-nihilo generator in Creation forms a locus of indeterminism primarily for other existents?
2) all loci of indeterminism act like the "randomizing machine" analogy that I presented?
3) the implications of what is asked above are how God can know possibilities as possibilities?
4) the implications of what is asked above are why God DOES NOT possess EDF?
******************************************
Keep on keepin' on, Doc. You got, you got, you got what I NEEEEED! Give it to me...hehe...
Moving his Bishop into Position,
Meph
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 7:03 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: Dealing with the Heart of the Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi mephi:
You wrote-
"It is possible that one may have the mandated, totally determined state of reality emerge from its direct antecedent...AND STILL HAVE changes in specific monitored effects. (Recall Unsure's thing) This is where chaos theory and "initial states" come in. Remember that determinism holds, almost like Whitehead, that any given state of reality is related to ALL the antecedent states of reality before it in some real way. And this effect of "novelty" may be created. This is what frustrates me about this discussion at times. People look at things like Young's experiment and think that that does away with any type of determinism when it DOES NOT. It does away with Newtonian physics largely, but NOT with the idea of determinism,..."
Have you ever heard the term "cognitive dissonance". I'm sure it's something we all suffer from here to a certain extent but it can be overcome. I'm gonna keep working on you.
Rob
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 7:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Some Stuff to Check Out
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figured this would be good stuff to check out for later.
Does God Simply Choose to Limit His Knowledgewww.opentheism.org/does_god_limit_his_omniscience.htm
Personally, I think that Dr. Sanders' second paragraph of his answer is very interesting...
Meph
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 7:07 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: Line Upon Line, Precept Upon Precept...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just got back. Meph, I have’t read your exchange with Doc yet, but I’m surprised you’re sticking to your guns on this one. Remember when you explained to me what “begging the question” was? Well isn’t your question a perfect illustration of this rhetorical snafu? If we answered it, we would implicitly affirm your conclusion that the God of open theism is ignorant—which open theists deny. GDG
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 7:08 PM (GMT -6) | | straight up
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meph offers this definition and the following comments:
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.
IGNORANT adj. 1. lacking knowledge 2. resulting from or showing lack of knowledge 3. unaware, uninformed.
Ok. Everyone look at the above definition really closely. It is this definition that I was thinking of when I used the word "ignorant"
Now, I said:
What is the locus of God's ignorance? Restated, where is the locus of indeterminacy in Creation that facilitates God NOT KNOWING certain things?
Before we analyze this, let's go to what I said right before this:
"You've made it very clear that God could have possessed EDF, but chose not to do so. He created reality such that some things could be definitely known by him while others couldn't."
This was the context of my question. Notice how I said that God created reality such that some things could be known definitely by him while other things could not (analogous to what you would call "open" This is the partially definite-partially open thing you talk about, right? I've taken this with the understanding that, as you have said, God COULD have exhibited EDF with Creation. What this means is that God with his infinite intelligence could have exhibited EDF...but, given his wishes, he chose instead to create reality WITH SUCH A CONSTITUTION that God would not possess EDF. This was a self-limitation on God's part. In other words, according to your view, God has created a reality where even HE would be able to know possibilities AS possibilities.
Modes picks it up here:
A. God is all that exists. God knows all things actual as actual and all that is possible as possible. At this point (and saying this matters!!!), all that is actual is God. NOTE: even here, God knows possibilities as possible! . Foreknowledge is not changed, God knows all things perfectly.
B. God creates the universe. God still knows all that exists as actual, and all that is possible as possible. Not all that is actual is God. ONTOLOGICAL REALITY has changed. God now has an “other.” Foreknowledge is not changed, God still knows all things perfectly.
C1. God did not create a world where EDF was available in relation to it, but this is irrelevant, because even if God had, God would still retain the omnipotent ability to realize future possibilities beyond the parameters of such a world. SO: Had God created a world in which God relates to it with EDF, IN THAT relation, God would know all that is actual—FOR THAT world—AS ACTUAL —BUT!—would still know and be able to realize other possibilities. In this case, the omnipotence of God is retained. Foreknowledge is not changed, God still knows all things perfectly.
C2. In this scenario, God is self-limited in such a way that God is BOUND to this creation in a certain way of relating. This is the idea of Covenantal Creator. In this view, it is still true that God knows all possibilities as such. What has changed is the degree to which the Divine-world relation is kenotic on the divine side. In C1, the only element of emptying is the sharing if reality with non-divine entities, in this scenario, creative power is also shared. Foreknowledge is not changed, God still knows all things perfectly.
IN NONE OF THESE SCENARIOS IS IT CORRECT TO SPEAK OF GOD AS IGNORANT.
God is not unaware of any content to be known, either actual or possible. What’s hard about this, Meph? The difference between C1 and C2 is a matter degree to which God is kenotic.
Let’s go back the other way:
A. God is all that is. God knows ALL things as actual. There is no “thing” or “event” to be known that God does not know. We could say, that “Hey, God is ignorant of possibilities” but what is true here is that there is no such bird. Possibilities are not real. All statements are eternally either true or false.
B. God creates a world in according with this metaphysical scheme: God knows all things as actual. Possibilities are still not “real” for God. Nothing waiting for resolution or completion ONTOLOGICALLY speaking, though our experience of ourselves is certainly such that we experience ourselves very much in the process of becoming (phenomenologically speaking). BUT God knows all that will occur, and IT WILL occur accordingly with that knowledge. Any deviation from that in God’s mind would constitute an ignorance of reality.
C. NOW it makes sense to call the God of Openness ignorant, but all this must be posited in place (and in spite) of our own system.
In any system which starts where the Openness starts above, God will always be in a position to know possibilities because they are constituitive of reality, much like sequence. This is not something we add, its already there. In any system which follows the second scheme, possibilities are logically ruled out a priori. Open theists have the resources to accommodate the notion that God could have created a universe to which God relates with EDF, but this does not eliminate the necessary reality that God will still know possibilities as such. Those possibilities will have a different context than the universe which God knows with EDF, the intertrinitarian relations are of this sort… the alternate view, that of denial of possibilities is less adequate in that it cannot account for the former. The former can, however account for the logic of the latter. By this I simply mean, the God of Openness could do (creationally) what the God which denies possibilities could do, but the opposite is not true. This makes the God of Openness more adequate.
Meph, where you emphasize “with such a constitution” above, I simply say, it is already the case ontologically that possibilities are real for God before creation. It is only sensible that they be real for God in relation to creation, at least to some extent.
What did I miss?
ModesofThought
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 7:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Still Plowing...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still plowing away...
A. God is all that exists. God knows all things actual as actual and all that is possible as possible. At this point (and saying this matters!!!), all that is actual is God. NOTE: even here, God knows possibilities as possible! . Foreknowledge is not changed, God knows all things perfectly.
Meph:
God knows possibilities as possible. What are the possibilities? The types of universe(s) to be created? What is the locus of indeterminacy at this pre-Creation state of reality? God's willing. At that state of reality, God lacked the knowledge of WHICH universe(s) He wants to create! In other words, there was NO infinite regress of knowing his own decisions. God's lack of certainty (at THAT state of reality) about which universe will be created is the LOCUS OF INDETERMINACY for that state of reality that creates genuine possibilities that God knows AS possibilities. At this state of reality, God could NOT exhaustively predict what WOULD come to pass because He Himself would be deciding what world to initiate. If you willl notice, this is only the libertarian argument placed upon God. Following me?
*****************************
B. God creates the universe. God still knows all that exists as actual, and all that is possible as possible. Not all that is actual is God. ONTOLOGICAL REALITY has changed. God now has an “other.” Foreknowledge is not changed, God still knows all things perfectly.
Meph:
WHAT is the locus of indeterminacy at THIS state of reality? What is that from whence the possibilities EMERGE? It's NOT God's lack of knowledge about which universe to actualize because this has already been accomplished either previous to or simultaneous with the creative act. What is the locus within creation that makes it such that God is not exhaustively sure of what WILL take place in the future exhaustively?
*****************************
C1. God did not create a world where EDF was available in relation to it, but this is irrelevant, because even if God had, God would still retain the omnipotent ability to realize future possibilities beyond the parameters of such a world. SO: Had God created a world in which God relates to it with EDF, IN THAT relation, God would know all that is actual—FOR THAT world—AS ACTUAL —BUT!—would still know and be able to realize other possibilities. In this case, the omnipotence of God is retained. Foreknowledge is not changed, God still knows all things perfectly.
Meph:
Some things. 1) We should have stopped at your first sentence before the first comma. THIS is what I'm agreeing with. Surely you see this. I want to know what is the CONSTITUENT factors of this world that make EDF unavailable to God. 2) You take the word "omnipotent" and your take on it and basically say because God is omnipotent BY DEFINITION, even if a world with EDF would have been created, God STILL would know possibilities as possibilities. I don't find this cool. You seem to be using your apriori defintion of "omnipotence" and trying to use that to answer the question. This ain't working, in my opinion. Perhaps you can show me how EDF is possible FOR THE SAME GOD-WORLD RELATION in which God can know possibilities AS possibilities. Personally, I think that the two are mutually exclusive, as do some theologians.
*****************************
C2. In this scenario, God is self-limited in such a way that God is BOUND to this creation in a certain way of relating. This is the idea of Covenantal Creator. In this view, it is still true that God knows all possibilities as such. What has changed is the degree to which the Divine-world relation is kenotic on the divine side. In C1, the only element of emptying is the sharing if reality with non-divine entities, in this scenario, creative power is also shared. Foreknowledge is not changed, God still knows all things perfectly.
All this is missing the point. Whether you talk about the Covenantal Creation, kenotic theories, or whatever is beside the point. What I'm STILL asking is what are the constituents of reality that PROVIDE THE CONTEXT for this "Covenental Creation"? Please notice in your B and C that my question never really gets answered.
*****************************
IN NONE OF THESE SCENARIOS IS IT CORRECT TO SPEAK OF GOD AS IGNORANT.
Meph:
On the contrary, my friend, in ALL of these scenarios, God is ignorant of something, meaning not knowing SOMETHING. Hopefully, you are seeing that.
*****************************
Look, I'm sorry, but I REALLY don't see this as being that hard.
I'm NOT disputing that, in the open view,
--God knows all things actual and possible.
--God knows these things as they are, which means God knows possibilities as possibilities.
--God knows these things exhaustively.
--knowledge that encompasses all of the above things is considered "omniscience"
What I'm saying is that, if what is being claimed is true, then God has designed reality such that the things are true. He has designed reality such that there are certain things about the future that he CANNOT predict exhaustively, in order to give the "freedom" necessary for this "covenantal" relationship. So, WHAT, God help me, WHAT are the loci for indeterminism in this Convental Creation, libertarianly free universe? What are the things that KEEP our universe from being in ANY way purely deterministic, either naturalistic or theistic? What are the centers of operation that cause us to question fundamentally the Universal Causality principle, even at the highest level? Is it the will of sentient beings? Is it some "randomizing factor" designed by God into the universe, dealing with ex-nihilo events? What IS it?
Something else. In my conception, it's NOT that God doesn't know possibilities, if you are speaking like counterfactuals. I'm saying that God CANNOT know possibilities as possibilities such that he has PROBABILISTIC KNOWLEDGE...unless he specifically countoured the universe such that He could not. With any conception of EDF, God would not have probabilistic knowledge.
****************************
Moving on...
Modes says:
Open theists have the resources to accommodate the notion that God could have created a universe to which God relates with EDF, but this does not eliminate the necessary reality that God will still know possibilities as such. Those possibilities will have a different context than the universe which God knows with EDF, the intertrinitarian relations are of this sort… the alternate view, that of denial of possibilities is less adequate in that it cannot account for the former. The former can, however account for the logic of the latter. By this I simply mean, the God of Openness could do (creationally) what the God which denies possibilities could do, but the opposite is not true. This makes the God of Openness more adequate.
Meph:
You are going to have to prove your reasoning on this one. From what I understand, if we would be COMPLETELY CONSISTENT in all manners, it would be just as impossible for the God of Openness to possess EDF as it is for any God conception that posits EDF to be a God of Openness, AS DEFINED BY most open view theists. Pinnock, Sanders, Hasker. All these people keep saying that EDF is INCOMPATIBLE with the libertarian freedom understood in openness theology. LOGICALLY incompatible. So if you are going to try to tell me that, somehow, they ARE compatible, please show me. I'd love to see that.
Meph, where you emphasize “with such a constitution” above, I simply say, it is already the case ontologically that possibilities are real for God before creation. It is only sensible that they be real for God in relation to creation, at least to some extent.
Meph:
LOL And, hopefully, I've shown you that the REASON possibilities are REAL for God before creation was because there was a LOCUS of indeterminacy in place at that state of reality: God's own ability and capacity to choose WHICH and WHAT KIND of world to create! And there's NO way that you could really deny that without calling libertarian free will into question.
(Digression: May I just say that this is part of the reason why I firmly believe that the only TRULY FREE being is God Himself. The only being that has any real hope of having LFW is God, IMO. There are specific reasons that I say this...but that's a whole nother topic)
Therefore, it is only "sensible" that there be a locus of indeterminacy of SOME type for God in relation to creation.
Next?
Meph
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 3:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Author Message Go To Page << 3 4 5 [6] 7 >>
ghost-dog-girl
06/18/01 5:20 PM
RE: Still Plowing...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meph, Could ask the same question and simply substitute “indeterminancy” for “ignorance”? It seems like you are using the terms interchangeably anyway. GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
06/18/01 6:31 PM
RE: RE: Still Plowing...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wowzer! I don't know how many readers are still following this thread, but this is metaphysics folks... GREAT STUFF. I think GDG and Modes are zeroing in on the core issue. I think it is best captured in Mephi's RANDOMIZING MACHINE ANALOGY.
Mephi says "I could never know exhaustively HOW it (the RM) chooses the numbers and intervals that it does. If I were to know exactly HOW it chooses the numbers and intervals that it does, then I would be able to exhaustively predict any and all numbers that the randomizer would provide."
NOTICE, Mephi, this is only true if you assume that the randomizing machineISN’T TRULY RANDOM. If the HOW is deterministic , then if you or God knew perfectly HOW the machine works, you and/or God would know exhaustively WHAT it will choose.
But this is precisely the model of reality open theists DENY. This, in a nutshell, is the mechanistic model of reality. In my view, Meph, you are thoroughly entrenched in it. Hence, all apparent indeterminacy can only be a function of ignorance. GDG is correct, I think, in observing that you basically use the terms interchangably.
Now, you are understandably frustrated (given your worldview) with our inability to give a "locus" -- the mechanism -- that produces indeterminacy. You do not accept my assertion that it simply is wired into creation that one cause can produce multiple effects. You respond by claiming that you do not disagree with this.
"Determinism does not NECESSARILY hold that there is only ONE state of reality for every ONE specific "effect" being monitored. NO, NO, NO! In fact, there can be more than one state of reality that leads to some specific effect being monitored. What it does specify is that for any state of reality at time T, there is only one state of reality that WILL emerge in the next temporal moment."
Mephi, read your response carefully. The issue is NOT whether there can be "more than one state of reality thatleads to some specific effect," but whether there can be more than one state of reality that follows from some specific cause.
Nor is the issue whether "for any state of reality at time T, there is only one state of reality that WILL emerge in the next temporal moment." Every sane person affirms that only one state will emerge... otherwise we'd have multiple universes generated for by every cause. The question is, was the one state that the ended up emerging the only state that could have emerged, given the totality of antecedent conditions.
If you don't assume that only one state CAN emerge from the totality of antecedent causes, then there's no more mystery (and just as much mystery) in asserting that possibilities lie in the nature of things as there is in saying that there are no possibilities in the nature of things. Whether there are possibilities or not must be decided on grounds other than one's definition of reality. (Unless it can be argued that the very idea of possibilities or the very idea of exhaustive determinism is a self-contradiction. I suspect the latter is, but that is for a different thread. ).
In sum, I think Modes and GDG are correct in suggesting, in various ways, that you are unwittingly presupposing a particular model of reality (viz. deterministic) and alleging that the God of Open Theism is ignorant on the basis of this supposition.
Finding all of this refreshingly stimulating.
Doc
PS. Mephi, I must say I was impressed by how much of my response you anticipated in your simultaneously posted "guess" at what I was going to say. Still, the heart of the issue remains, I think.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
06/18/01 6:51 PM
RE: Still Plowing...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meph:
God knows possibilities as possible. What are the possibilities? The types of universe(s) to be created? What is the locus of indeterminacy at this pre-Creation state of reality? God's willing. At that state of reality, God lacked the knowledge of WHICH universe(s) He wants to create! In other words, there was NO infinite regress of knowing his own decisions. God's lack of certainty (at THAT state of reality) about which universe will be created is the LOCUS OF INDETERMINACY for that state of reality that creates genuine possibilities that God knows AS possibilities. At this state of reality, God could NOT exhaustively predict what WOULD come to pass because He Himself would be deciding what world to initiate. If you willl notice, this is only the libertarian argument placed upon God. Following me?
Modes:
1. THIS is why I insist that the main issue is pansequentialism--because panexperientialism and panpsychism depend upon it. The "locus of indeterminancy" is weaved into the very nature of reality. Every occasion participates in it to some extent or other. Rocks very little, sentient beings, quite a lot. BUT EVEN ROCKS CHANGE. When they change is it most sensible to see that as deterministic? or with some degree of variability? All my indicators point toward the latter…
[Skip this if you don't want to get distracted… but come back to it, it might help fill in holes: Besides this, are you not Trinitarian? You speak as though God were a big (Capital "H" male? In reference to massive "Male"ness?) single individual analogous to a human being. How anthropomorphic! What is the context of divine commands and intentions? A single mind? Not at all!!! A divine community which both interpenetrates and coinheres. Each makes time and space for the others and retains an identity distinct from the others. This sort of communal context sets the stage for a communal/relational creation. In creation, God chooses to have another "other", now there is the community of God AND the the community of the world. The second community needing much redemption and transformation but the goal being final reconciliation between the two communities.]
Meph:
WHAT is the locus of indeterminacy at THIS state of reality? What is that from whence the possibilities EMERGE? It's NOT God's lack of knowledge about which universe to actualize because this has already been accomplished either previous to or simultaneous with the creative act. What is the locus within creation that makes it such that God is not exhaustively sure of what WILL take place in the future exhaustively?
Modes:
2. The "locus of indeterminancy" is still constituent of reality itself. It is true for God and also for creation. To quest for a "locus of indeterminancy" is like questing for a "locus of reality," we all believe (at the very least, we live as though we believe this) it exits, but it can be tough to prove formally. Sorry to make you ask twice…I jumped all the way from your definition of ignorant to my own response…
Meph:
Some things. 1) We should have stopped at your first sentence before the first comma. THIS is what I'm agreeing with. Surely you see this. I want to know what is the CONSTITUENT factors of this world that make EDF unavailable to God. 2) You take the word "omnipotent" and your take on it and basically say because God is omnipotent BY DEFINITION, even if a world with EDF would have been created, God STILL would know possibilities as possibilities. I don't find this cool. You seem to be using your apriori defintion of "omnipotence" and trying to use that to answer the question. This ain't working, in my opinion. Perhaps you can show me how EDF is possible FOR THE SAME GOD-WORLD RELATION in which God can know possibilities AS possibilities. Personally, I think that the two are mutually exclusive, as do some theologians.
Modes:
3. Here's my take on omnipotence: (quoting Paul Sponhiem) "a divine limitation in origin yields a real limitation in effect" God WAS omnipotent, formally and properly in every respect of that word. NOW (in the act of creating) God has chosen a better way…
4. Meph, here you are plainly wrong. Ignorance is, like any word, only meaningful in a context. In any given context, a being can be said to be ignorant if there is something to know that remains unknown to the knower. It must be the case that it is conceivable that a "thing" be known in a way superior to the way in which the said knower knows it. This is not the case so far in any of the examples I have listed. Please demonstrate otherwise…EACH DEMONSTRATION fulfilled WITHIN the respective onto-theologies.
DING, ding, ding ***
#5 here's the fatal error in your thinking… "What I'm saying is that, if what is being claimed is true, then God has designed reality such that the things are true. He has designed reality such that there are certain things about the future that he CANNOT predict exhaustively, in order to give the "freedom" necessary for this "covenantal" relationship."
Modes:
NO, it simply IS the case that possibilities cannot be known exhaustively! NOT by design, but by sheer force of reality. SINCE God decided to create our reality in continuity with God's own reality (sequential-experiential, etc…) we participate in this process of becoming in a way as real as God! When this is denied, and it often is, you get analogies which are so close to reality that the disctinction "analogy" is not useful, like your analogy of the playwrite and the play!
God does not simply designate reality!!! If you want to say that God is "real" you will have to concede that God abides by some metaphysical truths as well. Like "existence." God can grant reality to things, but those things, insofar as they are real, will also have to cooperate with existence as it happens, not otherwise. So Mephi, "Does God Exist?"
Do you see the pansequentialism? Do you see the nature of reality understood as a process of moving from determinate through indeterminate (panexperientialism/panpsychism to the very minutest occasion) to determinate and so on? You keep asking for a definite knowledge of "certain somethings" in the future, this language works analogically here, but is not truly comensurate with what is being said…or better, becomes commensurate by a sort of communication between attributes. When we say God can know something as actual in the future, we must do so first by way of omnipotence, not omniscience. Only then, can we say with assurance that it is proper knowledge (by logical deduction from God insuring the act omnipotently and thereby binding God's actions in the future to accomplish said act! See even here we must speak of God's self-limitation!), though without the omniscience it would not be. I know that sounds odd, but it is central to what keeps us from being process theologians. That is why I brought up divine power previously.
Meph:
You are going to have to prove your reasoning on this one. From what I understand, if we would be COMPLETELY CONSISTENT in all manners, it would be just as impossible for the God of Openness to possess EDF as it is for any God conception that posits EDF to be a God of Openness, AS DEFINED BY most open view theists. Pinnock, Sanders, Hasker. All these people keep saying that EDF is INCOMPATIBLE with the libertarian freedom understood in openness theology. LOGICALLY incompatible. So if you are going to try to tell me that, somehow, they ARE compatible, please show me. I'd love to see that.
Modes:
6. God could create what would by analogy be a puppet show for Godself. This puppet show would lack some fundamental characteristics of what God knows to be reality, but it could be done. In such a scenario, God could have EDF with relation to such a puppet show. In this way, Openness subsumes Classical theism, which, in the end, winds up being little more than divine self-entertainment of that nature. We are simply saying, we have reason to believe that we are "more real" than that. What I have been doing above and in the last post is describing that "more real" way of being (or becoming, rather).
7. Of course I don't deny that God possess LFW. I simply take it the rest of the way through and recognize that to say God possesses it an no other does, creates an insolvable dualism whereby one is real and the other is really not. If things cannot, in the end, be placed in some sort of relation to one another, we are talking about incomensurable things and the connections all break down. If we say that God has LFW it makes sense think that creation exhibits some elements of that, or at least receptivity to LFW, and further more, those made in the image of God should be expected to possess such an attribute though certainly on the far end of a large continuum, as is the case, with power, knowledge, extension (our physical presence), mind, etc. With the distinctions as sharp as you make them, God becomes incommensurable with Creation by virtue of LFW, to which we should then have no analogy and no way of describing or speculating about, because our experience ought to be void of it.
Yet you'd like to say that God wrote our awareness of LFW into the play, but didn't actually go the whole way and give LFW to anything.
I'd simply say, no, God has LFW supremely but not exclusively. Everything else has LFW to a much less extent, with a large about of variance in a sweeping variance over one extreme end of the continuum.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
unworthy
06/18/01 10:36 PM
RE: Still Plowing...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memphi, et al,
Again, let me be up front by saying that I am not committed to any position. I'm leaning more and more towards some form of OT. But I am still trying to find a logically viable view of omniscience that will work for the Reformed or Armenean positions.....at this point to no avail. I do have a beef with attempts to portray OT as something illogical / unbiblical, especially when the non-OT positions espoused are frought with even more problems. So, here we go........
---------Brief note on the points at hand---------
Memphi's premises seems to be:
a.) If you know how a random number generator works at it's "locus," you will be able to predict the outcomes.
b.) If you don't know what number will be chosen by a randomizer, then you don't know how it works (and thus you are ignorant).
Memphi, Are you cross-examining your own arguments before putting them out here?
Three points:
1.) Now, I know exactly how a coin, dice, and (used to know how) a limited random number generating program works with a computer (wrote some in high school, in fact). That does not mean that I will know the outcome when I flip a coin, roll a set of dice, or run a random number generator. What you are trying to do is push what should be "understanding what will happen before it happens" (EDF), into being "understanding exhaustively how it works." But you cannot except these as different issues. Because if you do, your argument is lost.
A good programmer DOES know how it works. That's why he is able to write a functioning program. Are you saying God can't accomplish this same sort of thing in creation on a higher level? Be careful, lest your Reformed brothers accuse you of not believing God to be omnipotent.
The computer and program do not exist on their own, nor does either generate random numbers on their own. The program uses his computer to run the program which is specifically designed to PREVENT EXCESSIVE PREDICTABILITY. The "locus" of random number generation has different levels the computer it runs on, the program, and ultimately the programmer/operator who owns the computer, wrote the program, runs it, and integrates it where he thinks appropriate to acheive His prescribed goals. GEE, does this sound at all similar to creation, and our interaction with God while still accomplishing His goals???
2.) You are demanding a type of knowledge which men may not have access to. You are demanding to know the very heart ("locus") of how God creates something indeterminate, and how it operates. As noted above, there may not be a single locus. But shall everyone begin demanding such ultimate answers for your determinism? Maybe while were trying to do this you can explain to everyone how a deterministic God makes indeterminate matter? After that you can fill us in on what exactly the human soul is made up of, and how it functions?
3.) Part of your charge seems to be based upon unfortunate semantics. For conversational convenience everyone has used "EDF" to distinguish the non-Open view from the Open view. In truth, OT merely holds to a different EDF where God has exhaustive knowledge of all that can be known; from all that is, to all that is possible, to all that He specifically foreordained. As a different operational system than the one imagined in non-OT, OT has different functional demands to fulfill EDF.
Now, simply because one can conceive of non-OT EDF does not mean it really exists, or is even really possible in THIS world God created (and vise-versa for the OV). We may conceive of God making the moon a tropical paradise. Obviously, this does not mean it is so. But to argue the EDF for an OT scenario is incomplete, due to the operational definition of EDF in a different scenario is a bit ludicrous.
Finally, let me ask this. What happened to Christ in Mt. 26:39? He's under stress, so momentarily he throws his deterministic theology out the window??? Now, evidently in this case there were no other options within God's will. But evidently, Christ seemed to think that on occasion there might be, and certainly seemed to hope that it was the case at that time. Here is God in human flesh, not praying "Father, I know it's not possible that this cup be taken from me." Nope. He, being the most theologically adept man (and only God-man) to ever live prays, "My Father, IF it is POSSIBLE....." What strange behavior for one who would know that theological determinism is THE theological TRUTH for ALL things.
One favor: Stoe impassioned pleas ("Oooh. PLEASE listen to this...," etc.). Just shoot us cool, hard logic. Either your arguments will hold up, or they won't. And THAT applies both ways, too.
Sincerely,
Unworthy
Maybe we should look back at some earlier problems in this thread to improve argumentation skills.......
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
unworthy
06/18/01 11:59 PM
A little argument.. ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All,
So far this discussion has relied on physics, psychology, and probabilities as analogies, and even as attempted proofs. So I'll deal with these in parts.
Part A: Physics and Metaphysics
Part B: Probability and Metaphysics
Part C: Psychology and Metaphysics
A FEW PROBLEMS TO START WITH:
In general, there has been much abuse of argument by analogy, particularly since you are trying to build a case from aspects of something known (physics, computer programming, etc.) to unknown aspects under debate (details of the interactive state between God, his creation, and choice). This is as oposed to comparing known aspects of known things to make a point. In this case, it is all too easy to select only anologies that may appear to fit one's own scenario, or build one's own case. But because you might generate such an analogy, does not mean that there is a corresponding reality to your argument. However, it could be used as an example for a possibility.
FURTHER:
Beware constructing analogies to bolster a fallacious argument such as false dilemma.
EXAMPLE:
Memphi (sorry for using you as an example, but they stood out).....
-a.) often attempts to construct analogies that would force you into an either or answer where either determinism is true, or God is ignorant. But these (as "Doc" has pointed out) are based on the assumption that for God not to know what is unknowable in a God-made free will scenario renders him ignorant.
-b.) sometimes provides false underlying assumptions for his analogies to that end. Example: "in a totally openness system" - this is a fallacy of ambiguity - an "open system" in science means a system open to outside influences, "totally" open system would mean an experimental system with no limiting barriers or controls. Openness Theology, however does not offer such breath, being a mix of free will decisions by both men and God, and an unknown amount of divine guidance / intervention.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
06/19/01 7:02 AM
RE: RE: Still Plowing...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes good job!
Kick'n thread everyone!
I am finding it increasingly difficult to know where to post on this tread but this looks like as good a place as any. (Maybe someone else should try to break this thread up into a couple new threads that are more narrowly defined and treat some of the many topics this thread deals with?)
I’ll start with a trick question: Does every event have a sufficient cause?
--If yes, we end up with determinism which is not LFW and leaves no room for LFW.
--If no, we end up with sheer randomness which is also not LFW and leaves no room for LFW.
I’ll move on to this: God could have created a world that still had indeterminism wired into it but did not have any creatures with LFW. For instance take this world without all humans and angels (and will take animals too just to be safe) and you would have a universe that still has indeterminism. The half-lives of radioactive elements for example are random when the approach complete breakdown. This is God’s RM machine. Here I am with Doc, if it is truly random God can’t know what will come from it BUT this does not help us with LFW. After all it would seem odd if God were to hold radioactive elements morally responsible. If LFW is defended with accounts of randomness in nature it would do so at the expense of moral responsibility.
I’m with Doc that creatures have to have some slice of the ability to create ex nihilio (sp? man my Latin is bad). And I’m with Modes that this is grounded in God’s nature and God’s existence.
Modes said it so well:
…It simply IS the case that possibilities cannot be known exhaustively! NOT by design, but by sheer force of reality. SINCE God decided to create our reality in continuity with God's own reality (sequential-experiential, etc…) we participate in this process of becoming in a way as real as God! When this is denied, and it often is, you get analogies which are so close to reality that the disctinction "analogy" is not useful, like your analogy of the playwrite and the play!
God does not simply designate reality!!! If you want to say that God is "real" you will have to concede that God abides by some metaphysical truths as well. Like "existence." God can grant reality to things, but those things, insofar as they are real, will also have to cooperate with existence as it happens, not otherwise. So Mephi, "Does God Exist?"
Wislawa:
Bingo bingo bingo bingo binog biongo biongo biongoi bnoig noibni ogoinboingoinb oing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I also want to explore Mode’s statements about the nature of convent relationships between significant others on this level of reality. This ontological reality is, as I see it, the heart of the issue in regards to creaturely free will.
How can finite beings like us relate to an infinite being like God without a) dissolving into God in some form of pantheism or b) compromising God’s infinitude?
Mephi seems stuck on b claiming that LFW requires God to be ignorant. I’m partly with Mephi on this one but Modes said something like this also that I think I’m more in line with. We usually think of what we know as a subset of what an omniscient God would know. But are there things which are logically possible for us to know that are logically not possible for someone that is not us to know? Is this not an intrinsic part of the reality God created that involves significant others in convent relationships? For example God cannot know what it is like for Him to not be God. Jesus knew what it was like to be a human but not what it was like to be MERELY human. We however do because we are ontologically distinct from God. In one sense we could say that this makes God ignorant because we know something He does not, but surely God should not be said to be ignorant of the logically impossible should He? I do not know what it is like to be Mephi and he/she does not know what it is like to be Wislawa (I love talking about myself in the third person while using a fake name) I also feel that there is a great deal more which remains untranslatable, incommunicable between significant others. In this way I think we relate to God as we do other finite beings. But how do we preserve God’s infinitude?
There is an infinite set of numbers between 1 and 2 but 3 is not one of them. In the same way I want to say that God can be infinite (in knowledge as in all else) but that we can remain ontologically distinct from Him. And in this distinctness we get our own corner of the universe in which we may hide some things (but not all things) from Him. This is our cosmic no fly zone.
Back to omniscience. There is a subset of shared knowledge that includes most of what we know (by know I mean all modes of knowing including experience, mental expressions, techne [sp? my greek ain’t so good either], etc.) that is know not only by us but also by God. Then there is the ‘idea of the infinite’ as Levinas says, that we finite beings have of God’s knowledge that outstrips our own. Finally there is something like the ‘idea of the infinite’ from God’s perspective but it is obviously not the same.
If this is not granted that I fail to see how we can remain ontologically distinct from God. If Mephi’s determinism is taken we are only as distinct as the cosmic puppets Modes talked about. The whole point is that ways of knowing are also linked to ontology and that it necessitates logical impossibilities on God’s part in this covenant relationship.
Well that’s it for now. I feel silly because I had to act a bit smarter than I really am in this post but go ahead and laugh at me. I’m laughing at me too. hehe
--Wislawa
P.S. now that I reread this I think if any of it flies it would also follow that every other is infinite in this ONE specific way. I think Levinas says this too but I’m not sure and I’m not sure if it works for God too. Boy I’m dumb.
P.Post S. This might also tie into my dig in yer heals defence of novelty. ? any thoughts? / ? ? ? ? / ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ?? ????
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Mephi2K
06/19/01 10:42 AM
Response To Unworthy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, I'd like to respond to my good friend Unworthy. I'll take this one at a time, ok?
1) Now, I know exactly how a coin, dice, and (used to know how) a limited random number generating program works with a computer (wrote some in high school, in fact). That does not mean that I will know the outcome when I flip a coin, roll a set of dice, or run a random number generator. What you are trying to do is push what should be "understanding what will happen before it happens" (EDF), into being "understanding exhaustively how it works." But you cannot except these as different issues. Because if you do, your argument is lost.
Meph:
I am very convinced that the issues of God's omniscience, even within the open view understanding, and EDF are distinct issues, but inextricably linked and VERY important to the discussion at hand. I've given some indications of this in my former posts. And I would dispute that you know "exactly" how a coin, dice, or anything like that works. Given what chaos theory says, I think your claim is easily disputable.
***********************
A good programmer DOES know how it works. That's why he is able to write a functioning program. Are you saying God can't accomplish this same sort of thing in creation on a higher level? Be careful, lest your Reformed brothers accuse you of not believing God to be omnipotent.
Wow, Un. First of all, I'm pretty sure that I didn't say that God would is completely ignorant of how the locus of indeterminism would work. I thought I said that he COULD not be exhaustively knowledgeable about how it works. That how it would be "indeterminism", as I see it. And also, with regard to the good programmer who knows how it works, if we were to posit an infinitely intelligent, omniscient programmer, would the numbers still be "random" to that programmer? Just wondering.
*************************
The computer and program do not exist on their own, nor does either generate random numbers on their own. The program uses his computer to run the program which is specifically designed to PREVENT EXCESSIVE PREDICTABILITY. The "locus" of random number generation has different levels the computer it runs on, the program, and ultimately the programmer/operator who owns the computer, wrote the program, runs it, and integrates it where he thinks appropriate to acheive His prescribed goals. GEE, does this sound at all similar to creation, and our interaction with God while still accomplishing His goals???
Ah. Now with this, we are getting into the good stuff. You are absolutely right that the computer and program don't exist on their own. And about the locus thing. You've got me bent, bud. Have I ever stated that the locus or loci only apply on one level? Have I ever even insinuated that? To be sure, the loci would apply to more than one level, especially that dealing with the indeterminacy of non-sentient creation.
************************
2.) You are demanding a type of knowledge which men may not have access to. You are demanding to know the very heart ("locus") of how God creates something indeterminate, and how it operates. As noted above, there may not be a single locus. But shall everyone begin demanding such ultimate answers for your determinism? Maybe while were trying to do this you can explain to everyone how a deterministic God makes indeterminate matter? After that you can fill us in on what exactly the human soul is made up of, and how it functions?
Meph:
Again, I think you have me bent. What I have essentially been asking is: What are the loci of indeterminism in the open view theism conception? Notice that I haven't asked for HOW they work, for that would be stupid. The only person, if anyone, who could know how these loci work would be God. I'm asking can open view theism detail in any way WHAT they are. I really didn't think this was such a hard question. I was certain that one of them would be the wills of sentient beings. This is because LFW applied to human being holds that humans can initiate NEW lines of causality. Doc in another of his posts said that they could be called "ex-nihilo" in a certain sense. Moreover, we had talked about this somewhat before. That's why I didn't think this was going to be THIS big of a deal. As far as answers for my determinism, I can give my reasons, sure. I am willing to analyze my assumptions and challenge them. It's a lot of stuff and I try to do it a piece at a time.
****************************
3.) Part of your charge seems to be based upon unfortunate semantics. For conversational convenience everyone has used "EDF" to distinguish the non-Open view from the Open view. In truth, OT merely holds to a different EDF where God has exhaustive knowledge of all that can be known; from all that is, to all that is possible, to all that He specifically foreordained. As a different operational system than the one imagined in non-OT, OT has different functional demands to fulfill EDF.
Meph:
I have to ask if you are sure about what EDF means. Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge is a specific claim that deals with God's ability to foreknow the all of the future exhuastively to the last detail. As I'm sure Doc will tell you, the open view conception of omniscience does NOT entail exhaustive DEFINITE foreknowledge, for if it did, there would be no possibilities, in that conception.
********************************
Now, simply because one can conceive of non-OT EDF does not mean it really exists, or is even really possible in THIS world God created (and vise-versa for the OV). We may conceive of God making the moon a tropical paradise. Obviously, this does not mean it is so. But to argue the EDF for an OT scenario is incomplete, due to the operational definition of EDF in a different scenario is a bit ludicrous.
Meph:
Say, bud. I think it's more than an "operational definition" It entails something very specific that is understood by many people on both sides of the debate. EDF is NOT the same thing as the exhaustive knowledge of open view theism. Ask Doc.
*******************************
Finally, let me ask this. What happened to Christ in Mt. 26:39? He's under stress, so momentarily he throws his deterministic theology out the window??? Now, evidently in this case there were no other options within God's will. But evidently, Christ seemed to think that on occasion there might be, and certainly seemed to hope that it was the case at that time. Here is God in human flesh, not praying "Father, I know it's not possible that this cup be taken from me." Nope. He, being the most theologically adept man (and only God-man) to ever live prays, "My Father, IF it is POSSIBLE....." What strange behavior for one who would know that theological determinism is THE theological TRUTH for ALL things.
Meph:
This whole idea goes back significantly to the "Anthropomorphism" thread. Basically we see some Scriptural passages where exhaustive foreknowledge seems to be inferred and we also have Scriptural passages where human choice and freedom are espoused heavily. Perhaps that's why this is such a controversial matter. It's never made much sense to me. It seems that for theological determinism to be true, that biblical characters would have to phrase all of their language to show thus. Hmmm. Whatever. Anyway, if you haven't read some of it already, check out the "Anthropomorphism" thread on some of this.
*****************************
One favor: Stoe impassioned pleas ("Oooh. PLEASE listen to this...," etc.). Just shoot us cool, hard logic. Either your arguments will hold up, or they won't. And THAT applies both ways, too.
Meph:
Gee. You're just full of suggestions for me, aren't you? Just for the record, those are not "impassioned pleas" as in some type of emotional appeal or tactic. That's for punks. I just joke around and type like I'm having an energetic conversation. Acting hyper. But hey, if you want me to be Mr. Spock with you, I suppose that's cool. No big deal.
Thanks for the interaction.
Blessings,
Sir MEPHIstopheles 2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
06/19/01 10:46 AM
Another Response To Unworthy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unworthy,
I absolutely LOVE your style. Don't change, 'kay?
In general, there has been much abuse of argument by analogy, particularly since you are trying to build a case from aspects of something known (physics, computer programming, etc.) to unknown aspects under debate (details of the interactive state between God, his creation, and choice). This is as oposed to comparing known aspects of known things to make a point. In this case, it is all too easy to select only anologies that may appear to fit one's own scenario, or build one's own case. But because you might generate such an analogy, does not mean that there is a corresponding reality to your argument. However, it could be used as an example for a possibility.
Meph:
Hmmm...hold up a sec. Let's talk about argument by analogy. What is it's chief intention. As far as I know, the argument by analogy is basically an inductive logical tool. The GIVEN is that arguments from analogy are imperfect. However, what the analogies is primarily supposed to try to create are some logical links for a person such that there is more understanding for the person's thinking. They are usually used more for explanation than anything else, though they can be used for argumentation. It must be said that analogies need not be arguments. Moreover, it's inductive by nature, which means that it never conclusively PROVES anything. It just lends support (often, some type of intelligibility or elucidation) to some type of claim being made, by way of giving people something they can wrap their minds around. Maybe I've not been paying attention, but I thought that's what I had been doing. I didn't know that I was using my analogies to DIRECTLY contend for the verity of my arguments. I'll have to go back and look through my stuff. I was sure that I WASN'T doing that. It's one thing to try to do a COMPARISON of one thing to another for the sake of what was said above. It is another thing to try to use analogy to tie two distinct things together in a contrived manner to prove something. I think that you are speaking more about the latter than the former, right? I'm think that if you check at least the vast majority of my analogies, I use them in the former manner.
And going further, when using analogies, I thought that the point was to use an analogy that most suits the argument that you are using. In other words, the analogy has to be somewhat close to that which you are arguing...and it has to try to fit the scenario as fully as possible. Two things that can be lodged against arguments by analogy are 1) the analogy is weak in that there is no real solid correlation between the analogy and the point being made or 2) the analogy is almost deceptive in that it does not take all the major factors of what is being said into account in a way that slights the result. As I recall, I've always tried to open up my analogies to this type of critique. I'd be foolish to act as if an analogy is infallible.
Also, I think that argument from analogy is well suited, especially for theological discussion. Granted, as you well point out, we have to be careful about how they are used. But, I think that the discipline of theology is fundamentally analogical in many ways. So using analogies in this context seems acceptable to me.
Memphi (sorry for using you as an example, but they stood out).....
-a.) often attempts to construct analogies that would force you into an either or answer where either determinism is true, or God is ignorant. But these (as "Doc" has pointed out) are based on the assumption that for God not to know what is unknowable in a God-made free will scenario renders him ignorant.
Meph:
First of all, I think we have to get something straight. I don't construct analogies to force people into corners. I only construct analogies to try, for the most part, and illustrate my thinking. If you've read me for a long time, you'll see that I'm quite partial to analogies. I think they're very helpful to help people get a grasp of concepts. If you find something wrong with my analogy, chances are that's because there is something wrong with the thought behind the analogy. I don't create analogies to make up for holes in my argumentation. If there's something wrong with the thinking, so be it. That can always be noted. And let's not forget, THAT'S WHAT THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION IS FOR. To test our ideas for their worth, and see what we have. Fix what's broke and keep the rest.
In the meantime, I basically jumped the gun here. I have tons of ideas in my cranium that I hadn't fully explained yet to show how I got to that point. (Specifically, why I'm so interested in the loci of indeterminism) Take that and the use of an OBVIOUSLY inflammatory word (sheesh...) and you've got problems.
b.) sometimes provides false underlying assumptions for his analogies to that end. Example: "in a totally openness system" - this is a fallacy of ambiguity - an "open system" in science means a system open to outside influences, "totally" open system would mean an experimental system with no limiting barriers or controls. Openness Theology, however does not offer such breath, being a mix of free will decisions by both men and God, and an unknown amount of divine guidance / intervention.
Meph:
This stands well. I noticed this a couple of days ago when I was rereading some stuff. My idea of "open" was completely different from Doc's. This was indeed ambiguous and it lead to problems, as the next post showed. What I should have done was completely delineate what I meant by open. I partially did it but not sufficiently. Plus had I been smarter, I'd probably have used a different term altogether than "open" Maybe. Anyways, that was my bad.
Good show, Un. Tell you what. How about you be the official "keep everyone on their toes" person? I think you qualify. And honestly, we need that. Sometimes, we can get slack in the way we approach our points. This would greatly enhance our discussion. Perhaps we could take time to get some good understanding of presupps and terms...and stuff like that.
And again, it's MEPHI, not Memphi. 'Preciate ya.
Meph
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
unworthy
06/19/01 11:14 AM
Unfortunat ely large follow up
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
Part A: Physics and Metaphysics
--------------------------------
The major problem with such an argument is that it suffers from a fallacy of kind; i.e. "this is that." Because something is proven in science / mathematics does not mean it is correspondingly true of things metaphysical. As you may observe the tests in science have to do with measurable phenomena such as mass, energy, speed, direction, etc., etc.. Such measurements (as far as we know) could be done upon God (other than on the incarnate body of Christ). Nor can we now do them of the human mind, spirit, or soul (since we have little idea what these exactly are, or how to measure them). To clarify.....
Positively, one might assume:
If something is true in physics/science/psychology it must be true in the order of things classified metaphysical.
[How this would apply on a spiritual level is quite questionable (laws of motion, etc. for moral decisions?]
Negatively, one might assume:
If something is not true in physics/science/psychology it is not true in the order of things classified metaphysical.
[This would mean that one could prove God does not exist simply by not being able to observe any created thing with His attributes.]
Extrapolating theories from "physical sciences" into metaphysical truths is highly ambiguous, and even unsound. Conclusions about metaphysical implications would be drawn entirely subjectively, depending on what aspect of physics one wished to focus on. So, someone might falsely argue (as many did for centuries) that Newtonian physics (the basis for classical determinism) indicate that miracles cannot happen. Others might claim that the uncertainty principle means you cannot know if you are saved. Others may conclude (as many have) that relativity also means morals are relative. An Eastern mystic like Capra might think that Quantum Holism proves his world view.
Indeterminacy of particles does not establish providencial intervention or free will. Nor does natural law rule out free actions.
SPECIFIC FOR MEMPHI:
You employ fallacy of suppressed evidence in your by discarding Quantum for Newtonian physics when the former appears to offer opposing evidence.
------------------------------------
Part B: Probability and Metaphysics
------------------------------------
Again we are faced with the difficulty of applying science and mathematics to behavior and outcomes. Let us remember that mathematics deals with numbers or numeric equations. Numbers all relate to each other on a very distinct level. The universe is much more complex than that. We use mathematics in physics to discribe what we observe in the world. Formulas are discriptions of patterns observed. Beyond this common probability equations are based on Newtonian type generalizations about the world, which Quantum physics has shown is not the actual case.
You must make certain assumptions when attempting to apply probabilities to our issues.
1.) You must assume that probabilities and this level of metaphysics interrelate at all, and asking for some sort of measurements.
This should be apparent from the preceding discussion on physics and metaphysics
2.) You must choose to what you want to apply probability equations, and what factors you feel have import.
This is difficult since probability equations are not made to figure results based on choices. They are built to figure liklihood of occurance in random, or patterns of among objects. You do not know what factors (if any) could be quantified for calculation regarding probabilities and decision making. So, you are attempting to build something that may have no bearing at all on reality.
3.) You must assume that all states and events have the same weight of effect.
This should be obviously false. But let me give an example: Yesterday I made it to work. But today I wore different clothes from yesterday, skipped breakfast, and got gas after leaving the house. In that process I had to choose from many clothes, several cereals, two gas stations. According to a numeric figuring of probabilities, I probably shouldn't have been able to get to work today. In life, all things do not carry the same weight of effect the way numbers do in relation to each other. [Note: Also the news was different today, and the guy at the station ate a different breakfast and wore different clothes.] It should be remembered that choas theory is based on SENSITIVE DEPENDENCY of initial conditions.
4.) You must assume that these things can be applied to choices of sentient beings.
This should also be obvious. But let me explain: Sentient beings learn. In learning they decrease the possibility of more random behaviors (in a golf swing, for instance). Thus sentientness decrease the effects of randomness on themselves (which is another reason you sleep in a house, instead of in an open field where passing bugs and mountain lions might getcha).
5.) The argument about what God knows is being argued based on totally unknown probability variables.
Obviously, if one does not know the actual probabilities involved, one cannot make assumptions about the difficulty of predictability.
----------------------------------
C.) Of Psychology and Metaphysics
----------------------------------
1.) Little of psychology can be considered hard science, most is theory regarding behavior for which different models exist. The argument about what God must know has been extended based on largely hypothetical models human psyche / behavioralism.
2.) Behavior is heavily subject to interpretation. Divergent behaviors among like things renders much of it dubious (say, identical twins raised the same way - and you can't appeal to Leibniz's Law without invalidating all psych studies). Different personalities exhibited between newborn (let alone grown) twins from birth (cranky v. content, for instance) offer a real problem where behavioral models are concerned. This is not to say that it is without merit. Clearly, how one raises a child can greatly effect their attitudes and behaviors.
3.) However, theoretical maps of interrelationship between the mind, intellect, will, and soul are utterly unprovable since they are unmeasurable. Various divisions and definitions may be proposed. Various interrelationships may be imagined, all PROVING nothing. Psychology attempts to offer an explanation for phenomena. But unlike physics, most of it is not quantifiable or predictable with a large degree of specificity. There are no mathematical formulas for predicting behavior. Psychology largely offers speculations from generalized measurements of behaviors, from which they attempt to form advice.
4.) As with making metaphysical extrapolations from physics. Doing so from psychology is equally difficult and subjective. As Wislawa has humorously pointed out, one might conclude upon examining scripture that God is bipolar; or for that matter schizophrenic, masochistic, or a liar.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
unworthy
06/19/01 7:32 PM
Memphi: Apologies again....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memphi,
Hope I didn't offend again (probably did). As you can tell, I'm pretty blunt, and no master of tact. I'll try to improve. You're not likely to get fluffy talk from me in the course of an argument, cut and dry. All you'll probably get is the arguments, sylogisms to back them up, maybe some examples (but probably not analogies), and analysis of arguments. It keeps the water clear.
Let me add, my problem with the non-OT view does not rest in the issue of human free will (if such exists). It rests with God's free will (within the bounds of His holy nature). I've only argued the human choice point because of some of the problems in the opposing arguments. Many of the points in the post above apply to both sides. Otherwise it has little impact on the human experience.
I'll respond to your critique later. But a dinner date beckons....
Apologies again. I'll try to lighten up.
Unworthy
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
lee_merrill
06/19/01 7:47 PM
RE: RE: RE: Still Plowing...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the universe is completely deterministic, then God has no free will either, he is controlled, not controlling. Thus there have to be multiple possible outcomes from a given state, the future cannot be reached simply by computation.
But this seems to focus more on the branches than on the gardener, is God in control of the possibilities, or does he react to them?
It may be good to review free will a bit here, for our choices are only who we may serve, we cannot "steer our own ship" (Josh. 24:15). And if we serve God, he knows what our choices will be: they will be his! And if we serve our desires, or someone else's desires, then our actions do indeed become a matter of computation, the stomach says "food!" and we head for the refrigerator. The only really unpredictable people are those who are serving the Lord:
JN 3:8 "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
Regards,
Lee
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
06/19/01 9:45 PM
RE: Memphi: Apologies again....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umworthy,
It’s “Mephi” (note: no m), not “Memphi” (note: m does not belong). When in doubt, spell it out: “Sir Mephistopheles.” GmDmG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
06/19/01 10:44 PM
RE: RE: RE: Still Plowing...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a quicky response to Wislawa:
You pose this dilemma: "Does every event have a sufficient cause? --If yes, we end up with determinism which is not LFW and leaves no room for LFW. --If no, we end up with sheer randomness which is also not LFW and leaves no room for LFW."
This is the same kind of mistaken assumption I see Mephi making. Why assume that a sufficient reason has to be determinate? State of affairs x may be "sufficient" to bring about (and therefore account for) event a, b or c. What is required for a sufficient reason is that an event is retroactively intelligible in the light of it, not that it is futuristically predictable because of it.
Hence, I'd argue that everything has a sufficient reason, including acts of libertarian freedom. But sufficient reasons don't necessitate what they explain.
Dig?
That's all for now.
Doc
Ps. Unworthy, you sandbagger! You came on a while ago with this meek and mild "I don't know much about metaphysics stuff , and then you launch the stuff you did on your last post! I'm enjoying this thread, if only from a distance at times, a great deal. Hope you are too. Thanks for your tenacity Modes. And I love the term "pansequentialism" Modes.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
06/19/01 11:10 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Still Plowing...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the kudos... I've wondered for a while now if you even read my stuff!
[-short pause-]
Hey wait, doesn't "tenacious" just mean "stubborn"? Hmmm...I won't be holding my breath out here.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
06/19/01 11:18 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Still Plowing...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Modems, I think your stuff is great! I agree with Doc about Umworthy. I can’t wait to read Memphi’s response! GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
06/19/01 11:33 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Still Plowing...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mmm, not sure what to say about that. Are you hitting on me while eating peanut butter?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
06/20/01 2:28 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Still Plowing...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course I read your stuff. You just say everything so well that I rarely have anything to add.
P.S. have you read Derrida’s deconstruction of SK? I think you would find it interesting. I’m trying to wright a paper on it but I don’t understand it all very well. If you’ve read it I’d love your thoughts on it.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
glamdring777
06/20/01 10:57 AM
RE: Logic and the Open Future
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey All,
I'm still readin'. This is really good stuff. I actually printed it out! I was afraid we'd lose it in the board switch. A mere 50 or so more posts and you'll have topped the 'gifts' thread. We almost have us a book.
Great job Modes, Ghost you are so witty!. Like Doc I too was surprised by the mew depth I saw in Umworthy. he hee. He/She has been holding out on us.
glamdring
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
unworthy
06/20/01 6:37 PM
No sandbagger here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc, et al,
Thanks. It's a compliment for you to think I'm a sandbagger.
Actually, I'm a lowly laymen. I do enjoy logic and argumentation, and attempted problem solving on difficult biblical issues. Have done a little reading in theology, science, philosophy of science, history, and was forced to take psychology in college. Most of my arguments and conclusions were developed independently through simple observation and years of thinking. Like others of you, I've independently been moving towards some sort of Openness view (for about 12 years). Only last year did I discover that others were thinking this direction, let alone publishing on it. Otherwise, my background is distinctively less metaphysically oriented.
Oh,......I also enjoy dogs, kids, teaching bible, evangelism, good wine, dark beer, baseball, kayaking, thunderstorms (but not while kayaking), candlelight, mom's cooking, making people laugh (believe it or not), and hangin' out with friends. There. How's that for lightening up?
Dang! I'm sorry I keep messing up Mephi's name. Thanks for reminding me GDG.
-Unworthy
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
unworthy
06/21/01 6:49 PM
Responding to Mephi's Critique, Part 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi, (I spelled it right again!!!)
I take your locus / loci point well. And your comment about inflammatory language I take to heart. But the rest of the problems remain. So, 3 minor points before the big 2 on the examples later.
RESPONDING TO YOUR CRITIQUE:
1.) EDF - (this is not especially a criticism of your use, but rather of what has become common use)
I know what EDF refers to. My first point was that it really is not very good verbiage for describing the difference in views, and probably a concession for mere discussion's sake. So, in writing my point I purposely broke with this convenient but illogical convention established by Openness theologians. For on close examination it is little different than defining omniscience. Let's break it down:
Exhaustive - under debate is what can be known; thus what exhaustiveness of knowledge is.
Definite - under debate is how much of the future is definite, both maintain that all that is definite is definitely known. Thus......
Foreknowledge - under debate is how much God can definitely know (based on how much He has definitely planned).
My point: The debate over the use of "omniscience" really ought to also exist over the use of "EDF." For all the same variables are in play. I think Openness Theologians made a mistake in classifying non-OT by this terminology. By debate over these definitions its every usage is really question begging. If Openness theologians are going to yield this terminology without stipulation, they might just as well yield the term "omniscient" too.
2.) OF CHRIST'S PRAYER & GOD'S INDETERMINACY
My first point about Christ, is that not only may other options exist, but they may extend from God rather than resting with men. Man's request may or may not be independent, but God's response certainly must be. This is one of the major weak points with the non-OT view; if the traditional version of omniscience is true, then God is cannot be sovereign (in keeping with the traditional concept of sovereignty). It is quite easy to prove logically. But those arguments and their related syllogisms will have to wait for another day.
3.) ANTHROPOMORPHIC???
Now anthropomorphism in the case of Christ's prayer (Mt. 26:39) is extremely questionable (more like "not possible"). As you know, anthropomorphisms describe actions or attributes of non-human things in human terms. But if there is no actions or attributes corresponding to the human terms, then the anthropomorphism describes nothing at all. There must be a point of correspondence between the term considered anthropomorphic and the action/trait being addressed. Christ can't be anthropomorphizing the human experience of possibilities to God's experience of non-possibilities. That would be using an anthropomorphism that acts to wrongly describe God's experience and abilities. So, if God really never has other options available, then to make a statement as if he might anthropomorphizes on / to nothing, or worse: the opposite. In either case Christ's statement would be theologically false. It must be reduced merely to human experiential misinterpretation of the divine situation. ......Which would leave us all wondering, "What else did Jesus misinterpret?"
The only clearly symbolic term ("cup") in this passage is not even applied to God, but to the coming event of his crucifixion. Internally, the phrase "If it is possible" gives no indication of being anthropomorphic in any respect. If, however, one attempts to argue that the text simply illustrates how Jesus as a man experiences the situation, then you have two other problems:
A.) It is not by definition anthropomorphic (since it is describing human experience in terms standard to such an experience).
B.) The request ("If it is possible......"), while expressed by Christ based on his feelings about not wanting to go through crucifixion, etc., is not a statement ABOUT his feelings. It is a statement about the Father's sovereign power to intervene in those events. So, you're back to where you started, with God incarnate suddenly forgetting his good theology and praying using theologically false concepts.
Further (but a slightly less strong argument), to man life always appears in every case to present some different possibilities. Christ could to flee, or call on a host of angels for protection, or to stay and be crucified, etc.. Thus his statement should reflect a belief that other possibilities ABSOLUTELY exists within God's will for this particular case. Such a statement would look more like: "My Father, because it IS possible that this cup be taken from me, I hope that you will. Yet not as I will, but as you will." But Jesus instead holds hope for other possibilities as true, with hypothetical applications in this particular case. Consistent with this he later states, "Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?'' (Mt. 26: 53-54). Clearly this is in keeping with his statement in v. 39, and obviously not anthropomorphic. Here, the fulfillment of scripture is totally dependent on Christ's willingness to fulfill them. It is not a deterministically foregone conclusion.
It is only theological eisegesis that requires forcing the idea of anthropomorphism upon this text.
-Unworthy
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 3:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Author Message Go To Page << 4 5 6 [7]
unworthy
06/21/01 7:02 PM
Responding to Mephi's Critique, Part 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi:
1.) ANALOGIES
You are right about argument by analogy. However, you are trying to prove OT untrue based on analogies that you hope fit a non-OT representation. But since the two have fundamentally different presuppositions (which are under debate), analogies that fit the assumptions of the non-OT concept will inherently fail to address these issues (since by nature they can only address them under the non-OT premises). This is Boyd's point regarding many of your arguments. You attempt to use non-OT premises to prove OT (which is drawn from different premises) wrong. Since you are tied to your premises, you are tying your arguments and analogies to your own premises you will never be able to refute OT.
You said, "he COULD not be exhaustively knowledgeable about how it works.....with regards to the good programmer who knows how it works, if we were to posit an infinitely intelligent, omniscient programmer, would the numbers still be "random" to that programmer."
A.) The convenient terminology "exhaustively knowledgeable" and "infinitely intelligent, omniscient" begs the question that is exactly the premise you are asserting. You are importing the very definitions of attributes in question, and seeking to apply them to the example. But, as mentioned above, I understand that Openness folks have granted you this for argument's sake.
B.) The first part of this quote is why I made the comments about omnipotence. Your view of omniscience requires that God is absolutely UNABLE to build anything indeterministic. For the presupposition that He know all states and outcomes by definition denies an indeterminate outcome to an event (and thus a pro-indeterminate consequent in argument).
C.) As you recall, the example (or analogy if you wish to use it so) is the human programmer/random number generating program/computer compared to God. To import the idea of an "infinitely intelligent, omniscient programmer" breaches the analogy, since you are attempting to postulate a human with divine attributes. You might as well be granting such attributes to a coin or dice maker-tosser, too. In fact, you might as well be saying, "what if God is the programmer / dice or coin maker-tosser."
D.) By definition randomness is not predictable. By definition determinism is predicated on predictability from non-random states and results. Thus one simply cannot postulate determinism involving anything truly random. So, why try to assert knowable randomness?
OT needs to be refuted from inconsistency in it's own ground. This you have attempted with a couple of analogies so far. But unfortunately, the conclusions you drew from them were heavily dependent on your own non-OT presuppositions. Actually, the computer analogy seems to turn out in OT favor (a good example of how randomness or probabilities can be used while maintaining and achieving specific goals).
2.) OF DICE AND MEN
Why do we believe it is possible that God can know everything? Why not just reject such a claim? There is nothing in our experience that shows us anyone can know everything. A person may know some things well. From this we extrapolate the possibility of a being who knows completely all there is to know? There is no inherent scientific justification for this. Nor is there a any real parallel for it. Nor do we have any explanation of how such a being can know all there is to know. And if one considers the traditional view of omniscience, we certainly do not have any example of how a being could know everything from all eternity. Nor are we aware of any conceivable, examinable mechanism or force by which such a being may accomplish any of this.
Why then should there be protest if someone extrapolate from our experience of randomness (or pseudo-randomness), a Being who could create actual randomness, or non-predictive free will? Arguing from simulated random number generating programs, coin tosses, and dice rolls to absolute randomness is no less valid than arguing from our limited knowledge to the concept of omniscience, or from our making something to God creating something. [If you wish to reject all these metaphysical concepts, that's up to you.] But most protests only extend from preconception of what omniscience should include. However, if our concept of omniscience does not demand determinism or "exhaustive" foreknowledge, this problem is solved.
I know do exactly how a coin, or dice work (it's fairly easy to write instruction for using them). But that is NOT to say that I know exactly all the factors that will be in play upon them in individual instances of a toss (particularly if I have someone or something else toss them for me). This latter part is where chaos theory comes into play. I'm a bit confused as to why, having exhibited an understanding of how analogies work and don't work, you would take the view you have. You've probable tossed a coin or dice several times yourself. And since we both acknowledge that we are not omniscient, it is obvious that these analogies are not being appealed to on an atomic level. You seem to be rebuffing me based on applying chaos theory to particular instances of actual tosses, rather than knowledge of how they work (which is kind of a reducto obsurdum). But if you've read my other comments, you know that chaos theory has questionable application in decision making.
This remains: IF God has within Himself, or has made in men a mechanism that He knows [one that can make non-deterministic decisions, but may also be influenced or divinely directed], then your point is lost. It makes no difference whether we imagine that such loci rest in the wills of God or men, the presupposition disables your argument. By presupposition it asserts that such a mechanism can or does exist (just as you assert that one cannot). Thus by definition it's results are unknowable until they exist (unless directed in some way). As such, knowledge of its results only fit into the definition of ignorance one groups with the impossible like four-sided circles. While there are possible results, knowing them as the actual result before it happens is not possible. In fact, the phrase "actual results before it happens" in non-directed cases becomes purely in reference to something theoretical.
Now, before you assert "then nothing could be predicted from it probability wise":.... Remember, decisions and probabilities are based on a control: the number of real options available. Dice have a control based on number of sides. Not being God, we cannot know the number of controls and actual available options in each situation, nor how often options present themselves. For even if we are divinely directed in the face of options, we experience generally experience that direction as choice (which is why I see little point in arguing from the "experience" of choosing).
-Unworthy
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
unworthy
06/21/01 7:07 PM
P.S.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I HATE having to write lengthy arguments.
Guarantee: My proofs against the traditional view of omniscience will each take no more than a couple of paragraphs.
Still working on a hybrid view of traditional omniscience, though. I'll have to re-examine it when complete....but at the least it still requires sacrificing traditional impassibility.
You all can rake me over the coals then.
Thanks for putting up with me.
-Unworthy
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
06/21/01 7:08 PM
RE: Responding to Mephi's Critique, Part 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unworthy says: "The debate over the use of "omniscience" really ought to also exist over the use of "EDF." ... If Openness theologians are going to yield this terminology without stipulation, they might just as well yield the term "omniscient" too.
Doc: I coined the term "Exhaustively Definite Foreknowledge." Here's why. Openness theologians affirm the Exhausative Foreknowledge of God, but they deny that this foreknowledge is exhaustively definite, for they deny that the future reality, in the present moment, is exhaustively definite. Some of it is indefinite (viz. possibilities). God knows the future perfectly -- just as the future is now (not as it will be). Now, the future is partly definite, partly indefinite (possibilities, maybe's): hence it is not, for open theists, "exhaustively definite".
See the point?
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
06/21/01 7:24 PM
Hold on Unworthy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unworthy, just read your last post. I'm wondering, did you really want to say this.
"...if one considers the traditional view of omniscience, we certainly do not have any example of how a being could know everything from all eternity. Nor are we aware of any conceivable, examinable mechanism or force by which such a being may accomplish any of this. Why then should there be protest if someone extrapolate from our experience of randomness (or pseudo-randomness), a Being who could create actual randomness, or non-predictive free will? .... most protests only extend from preconception of what omniscience should include. However, if our concept of omniscience does not demand determinism or "exhaustive" foreknowledge, this problem is solved."
Doc: Here's the inconsistency I'm perceiving in your argumentation unworthy.
a) On the one hand you want to defend the possibility of a REAL indeterminant aspect to creation.
b) On the other hand you (unfortunately) seem to be willing to call into question the definition of God's omniscience as "exhaustive knowledge" in order to preserve the indeterminate aspect of creation.
You don't need both tactics. If you have a, you don't need b. If you defend b, you are basically where Meph thinks you need to be to be an open theist -- and Mephi, for all his brillliance, is wrong on this one.
If God can, and did, create a universe that embodies genuine indeterminacy -- including human freedom -- thwn God can have "exhaustive knowledge" (this is what omniscience means) and yet not know with exhaustive definiteness what is going to come to pass. Its about CREATION, not OMNISCIENCE!
You need to decide, I think, whether you think indeterminacy is ontological or epistemological, and thus whether God is or is not omnscient in your view. I'm hoping you conclude indeterminacy is ontological and thus God is omniscient. The Bible, I am convinced, shares this view.
This aside, I've been enjoying the discussion between you and Meph (primarily, but not exclusively) emensely. Thanks
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
06/21/01 7:33 PM
Darnit...d arnit...DA RNIT!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unworthy,
Now why in the WORLD do you want to start turning up the heat...JUST when stuff starts getting hectic for me at home? Do you have any IDEA how hard this is for me...resisting all this good challengin' stuff? I feel like a poor chocolate fanatic at Godiva's!! (Gosh, I'm an addict. Sheesh.) I wasn't even supposed to check the board at all. Oy vay. At any rate, I can't spend the time I used to anymore, for a number of reasons. Don't go ANYWHERE and keep yer same pace of thinking. Hopefully, stuff will ease up for me soon. Hopefully. Better yet, do me a favor. Email me. Stuff moves way too fast here. With your email, I can take 3 or 4 days to respond, without getting left in the dust. (yep, stuff is THAT hectic)
Peace, all
Meph
PS: I'm not supposed to be here, so don't tell.
PSS: Thanks for getting my name right. Sweet!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
06/21/01 7:36 PM
Ack! Y'all Posted Some MORE Scrumptuou s stuff....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAAAAAAAHHHH!
LOL
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
unworthy
06/22/01 12:01 PM
RE: Hold on Unworthy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc & Mephi,
Gotcha, on the EDF thing. Thanks for clarifying.
Thanks for catching the other part, Doc. I was not really questioning exhaustive knowledge in the OV sense. What I MEANT was exhaustive knowledge in the non-OV sense. I do believe God is omniscient. I was merely attempting to show that one has no more reason for rejecting indeterminacy (which we do have observable examples of), than one has for rejecting omniscience (which we do not have observable examples of). Why didn't I just think of saying it that way then???!!! What a goof.
All these termonology distinction about omniscience can be hard to keep straight while in the flow of writing. Things can get higgledy piggledy when YOU know what you're trying to say (because your mind is awash in your own argument), but don't write it in a way that's clear to everyone else. Long arguments are bound to miss some silly mistake in verbiage (right, Mephi?). DARN!!!
Sincerely,
Unworthy
BAD MANY WORDS:
The apocryphal works of Unworthy 2:5 "Too many words sometimes messes up what you mean in your argument."
GOOD MANY WORDS:
John 4:41 "And because of his words many more became believers."
Acts 20:2 "He traveled through that area, speaking many words of encouragement to the people,......."
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
06/23/01 3:23 PM
RE: Ack! Y'all Posted Some MORE Scrumptuou s stuff....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi, I TOTALLY empathize with the time dilemma.
Picture me having a Clintonesque moment, biting my lower lip, mumbling with a southern gravilly voice, "Brother, I feel your pain. I feel your pain."
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
06/26/01 4:45 PM
Closure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, its looking like this thread is drawing to a close. Mephi seems genuinely too tied up to give us the come back he was hoping to give. I totally appreciate his dilemma.
I'd like to end it with a poll (if I can figure out how to use it). My argument that started this thread was that if God possess EDF (exhaustively definite foreknwledge) than we can be no more free and morally responsible for our own future than we are for facts that predated our existence. For, if God possesses EDF, all the facts of our future predated our existence (by an eternity!). How many thought the argument worked?
Now I'll try a poll.
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
06/26/01 4:48 PM
Poll Question: Did Boyd's Argument Work?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all who choose 2-5, I'd appreciate hearing WHY.
Totally
Mostly
Some
Not at all
Still Can't Understand It
View Poll Results
Still_unsure
06/26/01 8:46 PM
RE: Poll Question: Did Boyd's Argument Work?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Dr. Boyd:
I voted "some" in your poll. My reason is because I think you have omitted one thing in your list of 4 things granted. You must also include that it must be granted that God's relation to time is the same as our own. Only if God also experiences time sequentially does the argument work.
Blessings
Rob
| | Back to Top | | |
| 94 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:42 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|