 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 5:18 PM (GMT -6) |   |
Mephi2K
06/05/01 8:51 AM
How Well Does God Know Human Beings?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, all.
I want to try something. Whoever chooses to answer these questions, just numerate your answers according to the questions. Basically, all of these questions are to hone in on what God actually knows as far as human beings go. This is the beginning of something I'm going to develop possibly, so please feel free to justify your answer. Thanks.
1) Can God read minds? Restated, at any given time, can God EXHAUSTIVELY know the contents of a person's mind and mental activity? To make it even more clear, is there ANY way to hide ANY thoughts, feelings, or emotions from God?
2) Does God know how the human will works exhaustively? Restated, does God know how human mental activities come together to form the context of the center of will in any given human being?
3) Does God have EXHAUSTIVE knowledge of every existent and its relations, past and present, at any time?
4) Does God know EXHAUSTIVELY, at ANY time, the state of spiritual nature in any given human being?
5) Final question: Is there ANYTHING about any human being that God does NOT know exhaustively? (Note: I'm not talking about the future. I'm talkin about the mental, physical, and spiritual makeups of a human being, past and present)
Thanks.
Meph
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
06/05/01 11:49 AM
RE: How Well Does God Know Human Beings?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting questions. Before taking a stab at them, I wonder if I might suggest reframing things a little? I think that open and non-open theists will agree that the answer to your question, “How well does God know human beings?” is that since God is omniscient, God knows human beings as well as they can possibly be known. The question then becomes “How well can human beings be known?” GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
06/05/01 12:49 PM
Reframing? Sure. Why Not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, that's cool. You bring up something else I'd been thinking about. I think the statements that are often used are incomplete. For example, instead of only saying that:
God's omniscience means that God knows reality as much as it can be known.
...I think we ought to change that. Why? Because most open view theists that I've read keep saying that this is a SELF-LIMITATION based on what God wanted to do. Thus, God's omniscience could have been such that classical theistic EDF was fully possible, but He chose otherwise. So let's make that plain in the statement thusly:
In the open view, God's omniscience means that God knows reality as much as it can be known, given His plan of creating a reality giving human beings "genuine" freedom.
[Note: For the time being, I'm going to forego my substantial problems with the nebulous term "genuine" in description of freedom. That's for later...]
Doesn't this fit a WHOLE lot better? I think that it does. And we could rephrase the other one as well...
Given the open view and it's chief assumptions about God and His plan for reality, how well can human beings be known by God while preserving "genuine" freedom for humanity?
See how that works out? I think this is what is TRULY MEANT by such statements in the first place. The statement and question both give a fuller view of the presuppositions that will be taken into consideration while answering the question. I think this works. Just a thought. At any rate, can't wait for your answers, GDG (and others)
Meph
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
06/05/01 1:47 PM
RE: Reframing? Sure. Why Not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you missed the point. I understand your beef with smuggling presuppositions into the discussion or whatever, but even with all your additions and emphases—Given the open view and it's chief assumptions about God and His plan for reality, how well can human beings be known by God while preserving "genuine" freedom for humanity?—my answer is still: Since God is omniscient, God knows humans as well as they can possibly be known.
So nothing is gained by your qualifications, and something very important is lost: unity. Granted, all Christians will import our own presuppositions into our various formulations of God’s omniscience (gasp!), but the more general phrasing I suggested meant that we could start with what we all confess to be true: God is omniscient. Once we get down to the nitty gritty about how that all works out, I’m sure plenty of disagreement will emerge—even among people who hold the same view. But confessional unity means that when we talk about these areas of disagreement, we can keep them in the proper perspective. I’m just trying to keep the main things the main things, and I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir here. GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
06/05/01 1:44 PM
RE: How Well Does God Know Human Beings?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Can God read minds? YES. Restated, at any given time, can God EXHAUSTIVELY know the contents of a person's mind and mental activity? YES. To make it even more clear, is there ANY way to hide ANY thoughts, feelings, or emotions from God? NO.
2) Does God know how the human will works exhaustively? YES. Restated, does God know how human mental activities come together to form the context of the center of will in any given human being? YES.
3) Does God have EXHAUSTIVE knowledge of every existent and its relations, past and present, at any time? YES.
4) Does God know EXHAUSTIVELY, at ANY time, the state of spiritual nature in any given human being? YES.
5) Final question: Is there ANYTHING about any human being that God does NOT know exhaustively? NO.
GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
DaveSherrill
06/05/01 2:23 PM
RE: RE: Reframing? Sure. Why Not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDG,
If two people use the same word to describe something but the meanings they pour into the word are different and ultimately mutually exclusive, there is no real "common ground" between them. To knowingly take this approach in order to foster agreement when none is truly there is, in my opinion, misleading and false. The attempted use of unqualified "omniscience" you propose here is a prime example that is no more than a word game.
Dave
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
06/05/01 2:33 PM
RE: RE: RE: Reframing? Sure. Why Not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So how do we know that when I confess that God is omniscient, I am merely playing a “misleading” and “false” “word game,” and when you confess that God is omniscient, your confession unequivocally corresponds to God’s Being? GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
06/05/01 2:38 PM
Keepin' It Movin...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDG,
Thanks for answering! Being honest, I don't expect too many Christians to answer any differently than you have. (If someone does give a different answer for any of the questions, PLEASE say something and explain your reasoning.) My thing, however, is that if the answers for the above are true, then we seem to have some issues with a certain concept of divine relationality.
Thought experiment. Pretend that you are a being that has knowledge of another person such that ALL of the answers you have given above are true for you. In other words:
1. You can God read this persons mind. At any given time, you EXHAUSTIVELY know the contents of this person's mind and mental activity.
2. There is no way for this person to hide ANY thoughts, feelings, or emotions from you. As a matter of fact, you know this person's mind and self-concept WAY better then he/she does!
3. You know the human will works exhaustively. There is NO mystery to you about the way this person's center of will operates. You know exactly what triggers do what and how they interact fully.
4. You not only know each and every thought or deed this person has ever done in their existence, you also EXHAUSTIVE knowledge of every existent and its relations, past and present. In other words, all those complicated factors of existence that Doc talks about? You know those.
5. You know EXHAUSTIVELY, at ANY time, the state of spiritual nature in of this person. You know EXACTLY how his immaterial portion of his constitution interacts with the material portion at any given time.
In short, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that you do not know exhaustively about this person.
Question: What would your relationship with this person look like? What would the give-and-take look like in this scenario? For sub-questions under the main one, how often would you be surprised in this relationship? How often would you be wrong about how that person would behave in any given situation? What percentage of accuracy would you think you'd be able to predict how this person will act in any given situation? Would you ever really have to EMPIRICALLY test this person to know what they would do at any time?
This is a VERY important thought experiment, so put on yer thinking caps, peeps.
Meph
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
06/05/01 2:51 PM
Some Biblical Basis for Why I Think What I Do On This Matter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really think this is pretty extraneous, but I figured that I'd do it anyway. I've been thinking on this subject for a while now. The following are some Scriptures that, for me, at least, give me an indication that God exhaustively knows the human being, especially spiritually and psychologically. I could well be wrong in my reading here. If you think I've taken anything out of context or skewed something, let me know.
1 Sam 16:1
But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
1 Kings 8:37:40
"When famine or plague comes to the land, or blight or mildew, locusts or grasshoppers, or when an enemy besieges them in any of their cities, whatever disaster or disease may come, and when a prayer or plea is made by any of your people Israel-- each one aware of the afflictions of his own heart, and spreading out his hands toward this temple-- then hear from heaven, your dwelling place. Forgive and act; deal with each man according to all he does, since you know his heart (for you alone know the hearts of all men), so that they will fear you all the time they live in the land you gave our fathers.
Prov 20:27
27 The lamp of the LORD searches the spirit of a man; it searches out his inmost being.
1 Ch 28:9
9 "And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts.
Gen 6:5
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
Ps 94:11
The LORD knows the thoughts of man; he knows that they are futile.
Psalm 139:1-6
O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD. You hem me in-- behind and before; you have laid your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain.
Prov 22:12
12 If you say, "But we knew nothing about this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?
[Meph's Note: I think this is a good place to mention something. Isn't the VERY REASON that we trust God's reasoning and judgement so much is because we KNOW that God cannot be fooled? That God exhaustively knows a person to render completely just judgment?? More on this later.]
Jer 20:12
O LORD Almighty, you who examine the righteous and probe the heart and mind, let me see your vengeance upon them, for to you I have committed my cause.
Jer 13:19b
Your eyes are open to all the ways of men; you reward everyone according to his conduct and as his deeds deserve.
Rom 8:26-27
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will.
Heb 4:12-13
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
Jesus speaking:
Mat 9:4
Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?
Luke 16:15
He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight.
What do you think?
Meph
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
06/05/01 3:50 PM
Tell Me Somethin Good…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some musings.
1) I think that whether or not your theology allows for novelty makes a huge difference in answering this question.
2) It is often the case that the more you know a person (i.e. parent/child relationships, marriage relationships—the two primary ways God’s relationship with us is portrayed) the more you love them (important caveat: it can also be the case that the more you know a person, the more you hate them). Thus it seems that relationship is enhanced in proportion to knowledge.
3) And, the element of surprise, uncertainty, etc., does not necessarily decrease as knowledge of a person increases. For example, I know my ghost-dog-guy pretty dang well, but he never ceases to amaze me. In some ways, he is more mysterious to me now than when we were just getting to know each other.
4) So exhaustive knowledge of a person does not necessarily entail exhaustive certainty about a person’s nature or actions. For example, if a person I know exhaustively is currently unresolved about whether or not she is a Chaka Khan fan, then all I really know for certain is that she is uncertain, and I better muster all my persuasive power to help her resolve herself if it’s really important to me. And if I really need to know, then I would have to come up with some kind of a test—i.e. provide an opportunity for her to resolve herself one way or another about Chaka.
GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
06/05/01 6:36 PM
RE: How Well Does God Know Human Beings?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi, I have the same answers as G-D-G for 1,3,4, and 5 but I have a different take on 2.
2) Does God know how the human will works exhaustively? Restated, does God know how human mental activities come together to form the context of the center of will in any given human being?
My problem is not so much with G-D-G’s answer as it is with the way you’ve structured the question. The way I see it the will is not merely the function or the result of functions in the mind. Restated, morality is not a matter of right feeling or right thinking but rather a matter of right willing. Of course if your thinking is wrong it will probably have consequences in the will, and feelings interact somehow with the will, but neither alone nor both together can exhaustively explain the will. We can will counter our thinking and our emotions. This to me suggests that the will is related to but independent of the mind.
So, 2) Does God know how the human will works exhaustively? YES Restated, does God know how human mental activities come together to form the context of the center of will in any given human being? WRONG KIND OF QUESTION.
However the will works I think God understands that mechanism I just don’t think that mechanism is completely submitted to the mechanism of the mind.
As for your project at large I think you’ve got a rather cool idea on your hands. Your thought experiment is cool. As for you question ‘how would a give-take relationship work with this kind of being?’ I would say that it boils down to the relationship between knowledge and the will, or more specifically the relationship between knowledge and the will to love.
As I have stated earlier in any give-take relationship the one who loves less is in control. When I first entered into your thought experiment I felt a little manipulated by God. After all someone who knows me that well, much better than I know myself, could probably get me to do anything He wanted, whereas my hands would be tied trying to get Him to do what I wanted. I felt initially that I was in the hands of a very powerful God who I don’t quite trust to have such power over me. But exhaustive knowledge of this kind cannot force someone to love Him. In this way the most powerful creature in the universe is at my mercy. I can hate Him if I want to and that gives me power. Even if I chose to love him I have power because He loves me more than I love Him.
So I don’t think you can explain away the will by explaining away the workings of the mind or the workings of exhaustive knowledge. Knowledge only applies to knowable things. Knowledge is a tool. “When the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.” –Abraham Maslow. In other words God’s knowledge (hammer) may run into knowable things (nails) but it may encounter something that requires another tool such as the will (a screw). The problem of human will is more like a screw than a nail in that we can really screw God over with ours (hehe I’m so clever.) Some people might think this is limiting God’s knowledge but I say if we let knowledge be all God is we are forgetting His other attributes like omniresourcefulness.
Mephi check out my response to you on the moral outrage thread. I finally got the guts to agree with you Also in regards to novelty I think I might start a thread that explores the limits of God’s novelty under an openness paradigm.
Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
DaveSherrill
06/05/01 8:08 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Reframing? Sure. Why Not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDG,
Listen to the word. omni-scient. All knowing. The word indicates unqualified knowledge and has been understood that way for centuries. If you make the claim "God is omniscient" without providing some qualification to your definition in order that someone else will agree with you, being unaware of your qualified meaning of omniscience, such a basis for agreement is misleading, false, and a mere word game.
It is akin to a Christian and a Mormon both professing to believe in the Trinity and dismissing qualification of the definitions they hold to so they can embrace each other as brothers in common faith in the Trinity. The facts would indicate that the Trinities they profess are different, even to the extent of being mutually exclusive. Yet their unqualified use of the terminology gives them the opportunity to declare agreement between the different positions. It's hogwash, to state it gently.
Did I say that my definition corresponded to reality? No I didn't. But the position you hold to is a novel use of the term "omniscience". Therefore, it is necessary for you to qualify your use of the term to clearly communicate the definition you hold to. If you simply say "omniscience", an entirely different meaning will pop into the head of those hearing you who are unaware of the novelty behind the term.
I find it hard to believe that openness proponents would use the term "omniscience" to describe their view of God's knowledge when they are the innovators, the johhny-come-latelys to the discussion of omniscience. Perhaps it would be most helpful if a new term could be coined which would better communicate your meaning without causing undue confusion o assumptions of meaning on either side of the debate.
I have no ideas what that term would be, but omniscience is already taken. Choose something else.
Sincerely,
Dave
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
06/05/01 11:30 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Reframing? Sure. Why Not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave: actually, the meaning and how we can use words change. For instance, I believe it was Thomas A who first said that God cannot do the logically impossible. Therefore, if one believes that, then there are things God cannot do. Many people, at the time, found such a belief heretical, yet many Christians hold such a belief today. Likewise, trying to figure out exactly what God does and doesn't know (according to scripture) does not mean that one needs to use another word. For instance, as I write this God does not know me as a single person, because I am not a single person. I am married. Therefore God cannot know that. He also cannot know the weather here in California as rainy, because it is. Therefore there are things God cannot logically know. Therefore God does not everything. God knows everything that can be known. GDG's point stands. The problem is that reformed believers seem to want to co-operate the definition for themselves and if anyone doesn't agree with it, then they just don't believe God is truly all knowing. That's kind of like saying if you don't believe in the second coming as I do, you should use a different term, because you really don't believe in the second coming.
Finally, there is a big difference between who one believes God is and what one believes God knows. I would urge you to simply join the discussion and set about trying to prove why your way of viewing what God knows should be the correct way instead of dividing the post by asserting your view is the only true view. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
06/05/01 11:45 PM
Reforming? Why not
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't that the whole point of "always reforming?"
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
06/06/01 8:12 AM
On the Independence of the Will
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wislawa,
I disagree with your take on the human will. Let me show you the problem that I have with saying that the will is INDEPENDENT of the mind.
King Analogy
I think that most people envision the will like a king on a throne. His advisors, Reason, Intellect, Instinct and Emotion, are brought before this king, and then the king makes a decision of what he wishes to do in this situation. The king is INFORMED by the 4 advisors, but his decision is ALWAYS based upon his own whim. Sometimes his whim chooses to heed the 4 advisors. Sometimes not. This shows analogically how, as Wislawa says, "the will is related to but independent of the mind."
However, there is ONE serious problem with this whole scenario. WHO RULES THE KING? What I mean is, with respect to the self, who's in ultimate control? Is the will COMPLETELY autonomous of the mind, which houses (IS?) the core "self"? Doesn't the will serve the "self"? To be totally truthful, isn't the will some sort of EXTENSION of the self? I believe YES! See, the only way that this could work is to say that the center of will IS the essence of the core self. However, as any competent developmental theorist (regardless of ANY particular theory affiliation) will tell you, our core self does NOT emerge in a vaccuum. It is a building process that deals with the 4 advisors we talked about. What does this mean? The self is a continuous CONTEXTUAL CONSTRUCTION, not autonomous in and of itself. This can only mean that the center of will is NOT autonomous as well. (Bandura's reciprocal determinism and social-learning theory rocks). The will is at the mercy of the "self", which is ultimately a composite work that THEORETICALLY could be known fully, if one were to have exhaustive knowledge, such as the type that my questions provide God.
To contrast, what would a COMPLETELY autonomous will look like? It's like I've said before. Imagine a disease like epilepsy or Turrett's but on a MUCH MORE pervasive level. Your will just fires off WITHOUT provocation or reason, biological or otherwise. You make spontaneous choices and actions even before you are truly cognizant of what you are doing. Now many indeterminists try to say that this idea is not what they are advocating. I agree. My problem with them, I feel, is that many of them don't seem to understand that there is NO "partial" autonomy of the will. Either the will IS autonomous or it is not. If libertarians were to be consistent with their presuppositions, I believe that they would have to admit this.
This is why I keep saying that theological determinism truly IS compatible with a robust sense of freedom, autonomy, and will. The will can NEVER be separated from the self, which is the core of what we consider the "mind". The two are inextricably linked. If one exhaustively understands one's mind, that same one cannot help but exhaustively understand how one's WILL operates within that mind. Hopefully, this hasn't been too convoluted. Basically, I'm just saying that I disagree with you on the fundamental autonomy of the human will. I don't think the thought is sustainable.
*************************
On the second thing, let me ask you this? Where would you be if you didn't assert fundamental autonomy of the will? Think about it. You said:
"As I have stated earlier in any give-take relationship the one who loves less is in control. When I first entered into your thought experiment I felt a little manipulated by God. After all someone who knows me that well, much better than I know myself, could probably get me to do anything He wanted, whereas my hands would be tied trying to get Him to do what I wanted. I felt initially that I was in the hands of a very powerful God who I don’t quite trust to have such power over me. But exhaustive knowledge of this kind cannot force someone to love Him. In this way the most powerful creature in the universe is at my mercy. I can hate Him if I want to and that gives me power. Even if I chose to love him I have power because He loves me more than I love Him."
Without your autonomy of the will idea, you'd probably be a compatibilist of some type, huh? Welcome to the club, buddy. You were completely on the right track. If ANY being knew any other being that well, the first being would be VASTLY able to get the 2nd one to do WHATEVER he wished...even such that the 2nd used his/her OWN WILL to accomplish what the 1st wanted in the first place. And it wouldn't be force! But by postulating the autonomy of the will, you insert a partition here. It would never matter how much God knew about you. Because of the autonomy of your will, you would always have the power to NOT do what God tries to orchestrate. But as I've stated before, asserting the autonomy of the will from the mind has INSOLUABLE problems when completely thought out.
Here's the bottom line with this one, Wis. Given your answers to the questions, the only thing dealing with the human will that can salvage any idea of libertarian free will is the postulation of an AUTONOMOUS WILL that is INDEPENDENT from the mind. But I'm wondering if you have any truly good reason for asserting the autonomous will?
This is the reasoning that I think most people give:
"Well, we perceive ourselves making irrational and decisions that often contradict what we feel we want. This existential "inner struggle" of will and desire gives us prima facie evidence for asserting the autonomous will."
This is a different version of the SAME problem that I have with libertarian free will as a whole. The existential PERCEPTION is elevated to the level of consummate REALITY and goes undisputed. Why, you say? Because the adherents say that there's no good reason to doubt our perceptions in this matter. I contend however that there is PLENTY of good reason to at least REDEFINE our perceptions, given certain evidence from psychology and philosophy.
Having said all this, I have two questions:
1) Why do you think that the will is in any way INDEPENDENT from the mind, Wislawa?
2) Can you see why a person like me would be much more inclined towards compatibilism?
Meph
PS: I saw the other thread. Cool stuff. I'll try to reply sooner than later.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
06/06/01 9:52 AM
RE: On the Independence of the Will
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay to start out it looks like you know a whole lot more about theories of selfhood than I do so be patient with me
1) Why do you think that the will is in any way INDEPENDENT from the mind, Wislawa?
I think the will is independent from the mind because if it were not than Plato would be correct when he said “to know is to do” when in truth we do know and we do not do.
Mephi also said:
However, there is ONE serious problem with this whole scenario. WHO RULES THE KING? What I mean is, with respect to the self, who's in ultimate control? Is the will COMPLETELY autonomous of the mind, which houses (IS?) the core "self"? Doesn't the will serve the "self"? To be totally truthful, isn't the will some sort of EXTENSION of the self? I believe YES! See, the only way that this could work is to say that the center of will IS the essence of the core self. However, as any competent developmental theorist (regardless of ANY particular theory affiliation) will tell you, our core self does NOT emerge in a vaccuum. It is a building process that deals with the 4 advisors we talked about. What does this mean? The self is a continuous CONTEXTUAL CONSTRUCTION, not autonomous in and of itself. This can only mean that the center of will is NOT autonomous as well. (Bandura's reciprocal determinism and social-learning theory rocks). The will is at the mercy of the "self", which is ultimately a composite work that THEORETICALLY could be known fully, if one were to have exhaustive knowledge, such as the type that my questions provide God.
Wislawa:
It seems to me that you can’t understand that the will doesn’t need another will (which you call the mind or the self) to rule over it. Why does the will need a boss? Whatever you propose as that boss will simply become a new will with a different name. We are on an infinite regress here. In the end, I propose, there has to be an end in the chain of command and that end inside each ego is an unmoved mover known as our will.
As to the emergence of the will I would argue that it is not so much the will that emerges as the self. So I’ll turn the tables on you my friend. I have no problem with the idea of an emerging soul (which is the word I learned to use here) which is influenced by the mind, body, emotions, environment, genetics, you name it. You said that “My problem with them, I feel, is that many of them don't seem to understand that there is NO "partial" autonomy of the will,” but you don’t say why. I am not suggesting that the will is hermetically sealed from the mind, emotions, body, etc, rather I am suggesting that these things are in a heteronomous relationship with the will. Of course in a heteronomy there will be interaction, even an emergence, but this does not threaten the will’s right as king.
2) Can you see why a person like me would be much more inclined towards compatibilism?
I can only see why you might be inclined towards compatibilism if you believed that being fooled into acting a certain way is the same thing as being forced into acting a certain way. The point is not that God could get us to do what He wanted, the point is that there is a morally responsible unmoved mover inside each ego that God cannot touch even if He can manipulate the heck out of us. An intelligent enough being could trick Mother Teresa into committing murder by manipulating her. What they could not get her to do is to will a murder. I see a big difference between these two outwardly identical actions.
I’m not sure if I understood you perfectly but I answered you to the best of my ability to understand you. We may need to clear things up if I didn’t do so good a job of it. Hey others help me out if you see holes in this or see holes in Mephi that I missed.
Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Mephi2K
06/06/01 12:28 PM
CALLING TOM!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wis said:
"Hey others help me out if you see holes in this or see holes in Mephi that I missed"
Hey, I know, Wis. We'll call TOM! Tom's always so bright, he can give all of us some insight on this one. How about you answer the questions and give your own viewpoints on the "will" thing, while you're at it, Tom? We'd love it. I know I would.
Meph
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Up to Msg List | Send to a Friend | Help << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Community Moderators: adiaphora
Site-Specific Moderators: springs
Jump To: cdearmond's Forums Christus Victor Ministries
Christus Victor Ministries
This site is part of the Christus Victor Ministries Community
GET A FREE MESSAGE BOARD. CLICK HERE.
Add This Forum to Your Site | Get a Free Message Board | Browse Other CoolBoards
What is CoolBoard? | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | ©1999-2000 CoolBoard.com
Copyright © Christus Victor Ministries, 2000, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:52 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 |
|
|