 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Infinite Intelligence and the anthropomorphic god | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 3:17 AM (GMT -6) |   | Author Message Go To Page 2 3 >>
GregBoyd
03/28/01 5:58 PM
Infinite Intelligence and the anthropomorphic god
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to float another intellectual balloon.
Bruce Ware and many others argue that the open view posits a God who is much less in control of the world than the classical view. Indeed, in his book he argues that the God of Open Theism is a "hand-wringing deity." This view of God is also "anthropomorphic," for it supposedly makes God in a human image.
I want to suggest that it is actually Ware's view of God that is anthropomorphic, and this is revealed by his criticisms of the open view as being anthropomorphic.
Here's the argument.
IF God is unlimited in intelligence (who would deny this?) than God can attend to, anticipate, prepare for, etc... a million trillion possibilities as perfectly as he could one certainty. WE humans have to divide our intelligence up between options we consider, so the more options we have to consider, the less perfectly we can anticipate them. Our intelligence gets "spread thin" the more we have to attend to. Hence, WE are more in control with ONE certainty than we are with two, or ten, or a hundred possibilities.
But this is not so with God. If he truly has infinite intelligence, his intelligence doesn't get "divided up" or "spread thin." He can attend to each of a billion trillion possibilities as thoroughly and as perfectly as he could one certainty.
Hence, whatever possibility comes to pass, it is AS THOUGH God had eternally know THAT ONE possibility -- as if it were the ONLY possibility that would ever happen. WHATEVER comes to pass, God eternally foreknew it AS THOUGH it were certain. He was eternally preparing for THAT ONE possibility. It's just that he is SO intelligent he didn't need the future to be fixed in this fashion for him to perfectly anticipate it.
BUT to insist that the future God knew AS THOUGH it was the only possible future had to actually BE the only possible future is to suppose, anthropomorphically, that God can be BETTER prepared for the future THE LESS possibilities he has to consider -- just like us humans. It assumes that God has FINITE intelligence. In other words, insisting that God is more in control if he only has one future to consider than he is if he has a trillion possible futures to consider is CRASS ANTHROPOMORPHISM.
Ware's criticism reveals that he thinks of God anthropomorphically. HIS God would undoubtedly be "wringing his hands" if he faced a multitude of possibilities, because HIS God apparently is not infinitely intelligent. He needs to concentrate only on ONE future, and needs to meticulously control THAT one! And, since Ware assumes his anthropomorphic view of God is the standard of divine perfection, he claims that any view that would suggest God doesn't need to have only one future "diminishes God's glory." Throughout his book Ware argues that if the future is partly open, we can't trust God.
We should all be wringing our hands.
And if HIs limited God were in charge -- I suppose we should, for his God would.
What all this shows is that, if we think through the implications of infinite divine intelligence, the open view of the future doesn't have God knowing LESS about the future than the classical view, but MORE. It doesn't in any way diminish God's confidence regarding the future. It simply says that God is SO intelligent, and so confident, he can have this assurance without needing to reduce his attention span to only one future story line.
Think about it.
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
03/29/01 6:04 AM
RE: Infinite Intelligence and the anthropomorphic god
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc-
Excellent.
But…I think something needs to be said regarding 1) God’s understanding of the “probabilities” attached to the many possibilities you are claiming God knows perfectly, i.e. Does God anticipate all possibilities as equally probable? and 2) how does this figure into passages (like Jer. 3) which describe God as being surprised at a particular event, i.e. How is it God may react with “surprise” at what you claim he was as perfectly prepared for as if it was the only possibility?
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
might-be-don
03/29/01 7:06 AM
RE: RE: Infinite Intelligence and the anthropomorphic god
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the Right Reverend Doctor Gregory A. Boyd,
Hmmmm... the lines are becoming a little blurred for me. God now considers each of the possibilities AS IF it were the only one. Tom wonders where's the surprise, so do I ( also my ever present "changed mind" ). I would assume that God has a plan of action waiting in the wings for each of these possibilities, that according to earlier statements God can nudge in whatever direction He sees fit , when He sees fit. Remember, some of the future fixed, some open. With this thought in mind the OV seems to hold on to the stability of classical theism as it concerns the future, while getting around the "problem of evil" (which I see as the driving force of the OV ) . Maybe not a bad thing.
don
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
03/29/01 7:53 AM
Surprise and Perfect Anticipation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe not a bad thing indeed, Might-be-Don.
On the probability question... think this through.
We are LESS prepared for UNLIKELY occurrences ONLY BECAUSE we have finite intelligence, and thus wisely attend MORE CLOSELY to events that are MORE LIKELY to occur. We consider someone exceptionally intelligent to the extent that they were able to prepare for the unlikely.
The point is that, being perfectly prepared for something DOES NOT AT ALL affect the likelihood or unlikelihood -- the probability -- of an event. It's just that in ordinary human finite intelligent living, preparation and probability go together, for reasons said above.
Hence, an INFINITELY INTELLIGENT being would be AS PREPARED for the unlikely as the likely. But this doesn't mean the unlikely is likely. It just means God is perfectly prepared, EVEN THOUGH IT IS UNLIKELY.
An infinitely intelligent being would know ALL the objective probabilities of future possibilities, however low or high they may be (and they undoubtedly change all the time), but would be as perfectly anticipating low probability evenets as he is high probability events. When the low probability events occur, God is genuinely suprised, or disappointed -- as ANYONE who perfectly knew the objective probabilities of the situation would be. But only FINITE BEINGS are less prepared the more surprised they are.
A master chess player playing an average chess player may be surprised at how stupid a move the average player made -- but is no less prepared to take advantage of it, just because it was indeed an improbable move.
Think about it.
Peace
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
03/29/01 1:10 PM
Can Things "NEVER Enter the Mind" of an Infinitely Intelligent Being?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Quote
Quote from "God of the Possible", page 61-62
"However we understand the phrase "nor did it enter my mind," it would at the very least seem to preclude the possibility that the Israelites' idolatrous behavior was eternally certain in God's mind. If the classical view is correct, we have to be willing to accept that God could in one breath say that the Israelites' behavior "did not enter my mind," though their behavior "was eternally in my mind." If this is not a contradiction, what is?"
*************************************
The Scriptures that Doc Uses for the Quote
Jer 7:31 They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire-- something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind.
Jer 19:5 They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal-- something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.
Jer 32:35 They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molech, though I never commanded, nor did it enter my mind, that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.
***********************************
The Elaboration
Doc said:
"Hence, whatever possibility comes to pass, it is AS THOUGH God had eternally known [sic] THAT ONE possibility -- as if it were the ONLY possibility that would ever happen. WHATEVER comes to pass, God eternally foreknew it AS THOUGH it were certain. He was eternally preparing for THAT ONE possibility. It's just that he is SO intelligent he didn't need the future to be fixed in this fashion for him to perfectly anticipate it"
and...
"An infinitely intelligent being would know ALL the objective probabilities of future possibilities, however low or high they may be (and they undoubtedly change all the time), but would be as perfectly anticipating low probability evenets as he is high probability events. When the low probability events occur, God is genuinely suprised, or disappointed -- as ANYONE who perfectly knew the objective probabilities of the situation would be. But only FINITE BEINGS are less prepared the more surprised they are.
As Doc says, this means that all possibilities were ETERNALLY in the mind of God such that he would be FULLY prepared for all contingencies. This means that God had all these possibilities "in mind" BY DEFINITION. Otherwise, how could he be the great chessmaster, right? Again, the possibilities had to be known fully by God in order for God to be fully prepared for the contingency.
****************************************
The Question
IS GOD LYING TO US IN THE JEREMIAH PASSAGES WHEN HE SAYS THAT THOSE POSSIBILITIES NEVER ENTERED HIS MIND?
If we say NO, then God truly did NOT have what these people did in his mind AT ALL, and God is no longer infinitely, eternally intelligent according to Doc's standards.
If we say YES, then we've got some serious issues, now don't we?
I've learned a lot from your exegetical treatment, Doc...so I figured I'd try to apply it here. What's the answer?
***********************************
The Example of the Problem
Doc said:
"A master chess player playing an average chess player may be surprised at how stupid a move the average player made -- but is no less prepared to take advantage of it, just because it was indeed an improbable move."
Thus it could NEVER be said that the stupid move itself nor the POSSIBILITY of the stupid move being MADE "never entered the mind" of the master chess player.
*******************************
Reconcile that.
Amused and Wondering What Could POSSIBLY Be the Answer To THIS One,
Mephistopheles 2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
03/29/01 1:37 PM
Does "Never Enter My Mind" Include Possibilities?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two preliminary points:
1) How these verses are addressed doesn't affect the point of the argument. Don't let this be a red herring.
2) Whatever difficulty these three verses pose for the Open view, they pose at least as much difficulty for all views that admit that God is infinitely intelligent. So, we're ALL wrestling with these passages. There's nothing unique to the Open view in this regard. We are, in effect, dealing with a different issue altogether.
Still, Mephi is right to wonder about how believing in God's infinite intelligence (Which we ALL do) squares with three verses, Jere. 7, etc... in which God says "It never entered my mind." Here's the three options I can think of.
Option A) "It never entered my mind" = I was eternally certain this would occur (though from YOU'RE perspective YOU might think it never entered my mind).
Option B) "It never entered my mind" = I really never thought you'd actually do this, it was so improbable (though of course I eternally knew this low probability was remotely possible).
Option C) "It never entered my mind" = Even the possibility of this event didn't occur to me.
"Though some Open Theists might want to defend "C," I would rule it out because it denies PRESENT knowledge. Whatever happens was obviously first possible. Possibilities are eternally real, and hence are the kind of thing an infinitely intelligent being would HAVE to know. And if God knows everything, he would have to know the possibility. Hence its down to A or B.
"A" is obviously the traditional view, but "B" strikes me as more natural to the text. (I'm not sure what "A" even means). Whatever technical logical incongruity is involved in affirming "B" (technically "it never entered my mind" might seem to rule out even knowing the possibility of "it"), it is MUCH less incongruity than in the traditional view (where both the possibility AND THE CERTAINTY is "in the mind of God" from all eternity).
All this is to say, If the extreme paganism of the Israelites was a very remote possibility -- not an eternal certainty -- I can give meaning the Lord's statement "it did not enter into my mind." (It would be awkward in public parlance for the Lord to make this philosophically precise by qualifying it, "well, of course the remote possibility was in my mind"). If the extreme paganism of the Israelites was an eternal certainty to God, however, I don't know what meaning to give the phrase "it did not enter my mind." Nothing can be unexpected to a God who eternally knows what is coming, and if nothing can be unexpected, than no clear meaning can be given to "it did not enter my mind."
For what its worth.
Now I'd like some interaction with my argument. Do you agree that an infinitely intelligent being would know and anticipate each of a million trillion possibilities as thorougly and as perfectly as he would ONE certainty? And do you agree that this means that none of God's trustworthiness or our confidence that God is prepared for the future is undermined in the open view? Do you agree that any view that would argue in this direction (e.g. Ware) reveals itself to be anthropomorphic in doing so?
The Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
03/29/01 2:02 PM
No Words...No Words...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
Utterly Speechless,
Mephi
PS: Give me some time to recover from what I've just witnessed. Later...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
03/29/01 3:21 PM
RE: No Words...No Words...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am curious, do you say such things like "amused, give me some time to recover from what I just witnessed," to be rude to another point of view, or just to show how ridiculous you believe the view to be? Seems the way you word things many times is just plain rude...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
03/29/01 4:17 PM
RE: RE: No Words...No Words...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writerdad,
Do you REALLY want to start with me about "rude" or untoward behavior? Let's not go there.
Meph
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
03/29/01 5:00 PM
RE: RE: RE: No Words...No Words...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meph,
Take Writerdad's point to heart. WriterDad is just pointing out the thing I pointed out in the Freedom of God thread (I believe it was). In a nutshell, you too frequently say things that frankly make you come across as rude or cocky. e.g. when on another thread you wondered out loud if anyone else found it hard not to laugh when they read my ideas. Then you sign off, "amused." Thank you very much. This does get irritating Meph.
These sorts of theatrics cause you to come across as an arrogant person (probably, in the minds of some, compensating for latent insecurities). This doesn't enhance your credibility with anyone, Meph. You probably don't even know you're doing it -- which is why Writerdad (and now I) are telling you.
As to the topic on hand, Writerdad is just noticing that your little "stunned into silence" ditty could give the impression that you think Boyd has just offered one more thing that is so blatantly stupid, or so maliciously deceiving, that it has stunned if not offended your superior intelligence and character -- so much so that you have to pause, catch your breath, and gather yourself before you once again stoop to this undignified level to provide the obvious response to the obvious silliness and omission of Boyd. Now, maybe you don't mean this at all. But Writerdad is right to notice that this (and other) such expressions come across in this way.
You sometimes have good things to say Meph. But they would get a better hearing if you would just address IDEAS. If you have something constructive to say, say it. But leave your insulting theatrics off the screen.
Thanks
Brother who cares
Greg
ps. I'd really like feedback, postive or negative, as to my argument. If valid, it proves that Open Theism LOOSES NOTHING to the classical view by way of confidence in God regarding the future. It means that for God to KNOW WITH CERTAINTY that x will occur ADDS NOTHING to God knowing the possibility that X. It means that all the views that criticize the open view for undermining our confidence in God are in fact revealing themselves to be anthropomorphic in this very criticism.
If this is correct, its pretty big. Tell me what you think.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
CHF
03/29/01 5:03 PM
RE: Does "Never Enter My Mind" Include Possibilities?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc-
What instantly strikes me is how you want to take the phrase "it never entered my mind" figuratively....strange?
Option B gets at something important:
Option B) "It never entered my mind" = I really never thought you'd actually do this, it was so improbable (though of course I eternally knew this low probability was remotely possible)."
How do I mean this gets at it? What I mean is that this speaks anthropomorphically about God to express something REAL. The realness is the utter sinfulness, or "stupidity", as Option B says. Sometimes I am so appalled at things (but I think especially of parents with kids) that I say "I can't believe you!" What is my point in doing this? To express the limitations of my knowledge? NO! To express how terrible someone has acted....something real is expressed through this anthropomorphism. Your fallacy is to think that this is an untrue phrase if it isn't taken "literally". To take it the way you do, as Meph more brilliantly points out, makes it false period.
I am not sure why you think a God who processes possibilities is more wise or awesome....how do you substantiate that? That doesn't put me in awe, I only think "gee, aren't you clever!" Preparedness doesn't make one more human as you say....I am hardly ever prepared and my grades often reflect this! I take into consideration to be prepared and what that means, how I could do it; but I don't actually follow through sometimes because possibilities that cross my mind, which I think won't happen, do happen(kinda like the Open god?). We are like God in some ways, so you falsely assume a classical theist shies away from saying "God is like this, and we can even see this expressed in man or nature".
Ultimately, the Open View doesn't have a god that knows more truth....just a bunch of junk that never really happens. But I guess God can brag and say: "Hey! You know that one time that thing didn't happen? Yeah. But can you imagine if it did? Oh man, I would have been like 'bloooowwww'!"
Just some musings of mine. Please elaborate with good support HOW God doing things off the cuff makes Him more glorious...and how you can take "it never entered my mind" figuratively on one plane, but not on another (Meaning God really had it in mind at some point (so that was fugurative) but this really expresses the future is open (so this part is literal)).
Craig
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
03/29/01 5:20 PM
Later for this...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc said:
"These sorts of theatrics cause you to come across as an arrogant person (probably, in the minds of some, compensating for latent insecurities)"
Ok. That's it. Meph needs to break for a bit. Shine...I mean, Doc, sorry to all for any and all inconvenience.
Meph
PS:
CHF: You said:
"How do I mean this gets at it? What I mean is that this speaks anthropomorphically about God to express something REAL. The realness is the utter sinfulness, or "stupidity", as Option B says. Sometimes I am so appalled at things (but I think especially of parents with kids) that I say "I can't believe you!" What is my point in doing this? To express the limitations of my knowledge? NO! To express how terrible someone has acted....something real is expressed through this anthropomorphism. Your fallacy is to think that this is an untrue phrase if it isn't taken "literally". To take it the way you do, as Meph more brilliantly points out, makes it false period."
Thank you for getting my point, CHF.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
03/29/01 9:44 PM
RE: No Words...No Words...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Utterly Speechless"
Isn't that a Steven Curtis Chapman song, Mephi? Are you stunned and considering coming on over?
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
writerdad
03/29/01 10:51 PM
RE: Does "Never Enter My Mind" Include Possibilities?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dovc: what I really liked about your post is that you point out the fact that we ALL must deal with these verses, that they are hard verses and, truly, there isn't an easy answer for them. Many times when I talk with those who oppose open theism, they seem to think that simply bring up criticism of how we deal with such verses is enough to defeat our view. Yet their answers tend to be pedestrian, a glossing over without going the hard route of actually looking at the verses and seeing what they truly are saying. As you said in God of The Possible (sorry, can't remember where), if they don't mean what they are saying straightforward, what exactly is God trying to tell us (That is a true paraphrase...sorry). Its like Modes said in another post: no view is without its problems. We must try and come as close to the biblical revelation as possible. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
03/29/01 10:57 PM
Speechless. ..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speechless is both a Steven Curtis Chapman song and the title of his lastest album...not a fan, just someone who sells his records...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
RevivalTheology
03/30/01 7:01 AM
RE: Later for this...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have resisted weighing in on this, although it is something I have noticed almost from the beginning of participating on this board. Meph wrote:
"These sorts of theatrics cause you to come across as an arrogant person (probably, in the minds of some, compensating for latent insecurities)"
Ok. That's it. Meph needs to break for a bit. Shine...I mean, Doc, sorry to all for any and all inconvenience.
When one is speaking to another, this might not be so obvious, but in writing it comes across as quite intentional (though perhaps you think we're all so dense as to not catch it). You have made your opinions about Doc's "Shine" persona well known. You then write a response like the one above making it clear that you think what Doc has written is more in line with the "Shine" persona. This is like the "stunned into silence" post, which was so obviously disdainful and disingenuous - if you were really "stunned into silence" you wouldn't have written anything.
Meph, you get so few responses to some of your queries at times because people don't want to be bothered with your sarcastic wit and superior than thou attitude. Frankly, I agree with Doc that you really need to take these criticisms seriously and maybe do, as my wife would say, "a check up from the neck up."
In the Lamb
Oh, BTW, no sarcastic, sardonic or facetious responses are necessary.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
03/30/01 8:59 AM
Final Word on Personal Digs, okay?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to offer a word and an apology to Meph, and ask that this close this issue. Then I want to respond (in a subsequent posting) to CHF's critique of the Infinite Intelligence Argument.
Mephi, I really hope you're not too offended by these comments, but they are a mirror that may be helpful to you. I personally like your brain and your humor. The substance of your participation is great. And there's certainly nothing wrong with humor, sacrcasm, even off-color comments (heh, even LUTHER did that, right ? (: ). But, as several have noticed, sometimes there's a personal dig in them that is irritating and insulting, and serves to undermine the good stuff you say. I have especially noticed this in your interactions with me. Revival man is also right in noting that this tendency makes some people shy away from interacting with you. (I know this is a fact from outside interactions). At the same time, all of us LIKE what you have to say -- usually -- even when we disagree with it. We WANT your participation because we like the substance of your criticism. We're just asking -- and I'm just asking -- you to pull back on the personal digs.
Now, you bring up Shine again. I have in the past apologized for saying you were a "schmuck" as Shine, because you brought it to my attention that that was wounding (or at least felt insulting). As I've mentioned, I had no idea it was an insulting term. I had Billy Crystal in mind when I wrote it, and I did it LOL. I thought it was sort of an affectionate playful equivalent of "you poop" (while smiling). If Shine every was personally insulting or demeaning to you on other occasions, I apologize for those as well. I mean it. I am perfectly capable of letting bitting humor slip through my fingers. (I survived Jr. High well).
Lets just make a new go of it and commit to keeping it clean -- at least on the personal quibs bit. Okay? (NOT saying that we can be as rawnchy and nasty as we want, so long as noone gets hurt). (:
Okay, can we close this now. Hopefully.
WE LOVE YOU MEPHI!!!!
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
03/30/01 9:15 AM
On "Never Entered My Mind" -- response to CHF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CHF proposes that Jer. 7:31 and others in which God says "it did not enter my mind" are equivalent to "I can't believe you!" They are nothing more than an idiomatic way of expressing surprise. This may be correct. And so I may be wrong in citing these verses in support of the Open View. On the other hand, it may be that it is easier to accept the idiomatic expression in one view of the future than on another. I'm slightly inclined to think that a view that allows God to experience surprise can make better sense of expressions of surprise than one which says that God eternally knows exactly what is going to happen.
Is it inconsistent for an Open Theist to take one expression idiomatically while we take others literally, as CHF suggests? Why is this inconsistent of us, but no one else? CHF takes some things literally ("God knows the end from the beginning) and some things figuratively (e.g. the entire openness motif). This isn't inconsistent on his part. It just lies in the nature of language that some things are factual, some are not. We don't disagree on THIS point. We just disagree on what expressions are to be placed in what category. Open theists see no reason to place the entire openness motif of scripture in the camp of idiomatic/ figurative/ phenomenological or anthropomorphic language.
But folks, exegesis is one thing. Logic is another. I started this thread, so I get to be BOSS. (: The logic of the Infinite Intelligence Argument is either valid or invalid, and this validity or invalidity has NOTHING to do with Scripture. So, for the purposes of this thread, I surrender Jer. 7:31 and 19 whatever. In fact, for the purposes of this argument, pretend like I'm a MUSLIM.
Now, I offer this interesting argument. For a God of infinite intelligence, there is no advantage being CERTAIN of X and KNOWING X is POSSIBLE. Hence the Open View looses NOTHING to the classical view in terms of God's ability to confidently move into the future.
What think ye? yeh or neh. TGB weighed in as yeh. Others?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
03/30/01 9:22 AM
RE: RE: Does "Never Enter My Mind" Include Possibilities ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHF askes: "Please elaborate with good support HOW God doing things off the cuff makes Him more glorious."
Here's my standard analogy:
Imagine three chess champions.
The First is assured of winning because she's playing a computer SHE programmed. (roughly analogous to Calvinism)
The Second is assured of winning because she's playing a computer which, while she didn't program it, she has a blueprint of how it is programmed to move in response to every possible move. (roughly analogous to classical Arminianism).
The Third is assured of winning not because she's playing a computer she programmed or has a blueprint of -- for she's playing a real person: rather, she is assured of winning because, while she doesn't know exactly how her opponent is going to move, she is SO SMART she can perfectly anticipate EVERY POSSIBLE move her opponent might make. She can think ahead every possible series of moves and countermoves all the way through to the checkmate of every possible game. (roughly analogous to the open view).
which chess champion is more praiseworthy?
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
03/30/01 9:43 AM
IIA (Infinite Intelligenc e Argument) and chess
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm kind of hogging this thread this morning, aren't I.?
Last one.
At the very least CHF, can you see how a chess champion of infinite intelligence would GAIN NO ADVANTAGE by KNOWING how her opponent WILL move. She is AS PERFECTLY PREPARED for each POSSIBLE move as she would be if each was the ONLY POSSIBLE MOVE she had to consider.
So, the Infinitely Intelligent chess champion can be AS CONFIDENT of winning as is the first (Calvinist) and second (Arminian) chess champion -- but her confidence is more praiseworthy because its rooted in her intelligence as she plays a real opponent with a mind and will of his own.
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:54 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|