 |
| 
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/2/2004 3:26 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
Hi everyone,
quote:
Sahid:
1. Foreknowledge eliminates all but one option.
2. Freedom requires more than one option.
3. Therefore, foreknowledge eliminates a requisite condition for freedom.
I disagree with the first statement, though. How do we know this?
Hi Lee,
If exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF) is true, than it by definition follows that the future is already settled--in every detail, with only one possible "choice" being made in each and every circumstance.
For instance, if God knows that I will choose to eat a peanut butter sandwich on whole wheat for a snack tomorrow at 3:00 p.m., then either: (1) I cannot do other than eat a PB sandwich on whole wheat at 3:00 p.m., or (2) God's foreknowledge of this event is NOT certain; it might or might not be true that I eat a PB sandwich at 3:00 p.m. (Actually, I'm likely to eat a PB sandwich any time during the day, but...) 
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 9/2/2004 5:50 PM (GMT -6) | | To equate the past with the future is to assume what we are trying to decide. To think of the future being settled like the past is essentially the same as thinking of God possessing certain foreknowledge. When a free decision is made, it is made in the face of an open future. Looking back on the decision we can see that the decision was made freely but also that we can't go back and re-do it. The only way to make the past/future comparison work is to think of God as standing outside of time looking at a fully formed past and future. But this view of God is by no means unassailable.
The open view is that the future does not exist, and that the past is settled. I think this is just common sense. quote:
I would say that accountability is due to consent, not to the deed per se. Thus unbelievers are accountable for their consent to the deeds they were destined to do, and believers have real freedom, but they can use it to sin, and also be accountable for that.
So I can refuse to consent to the sin that I commit, and that make me innocent of that sin? I kill a man, but I don't want to, so I'm not guilty? Or are you saying that's it's impossible to help but consent to your deeds. This seems to beg the question. Now we're talking about free consent rather than free events. The same problems remain. quote:
But how about the Open View and God foreknowing his choices? Doesn't that amount to God's choices being fixed, and yet those choices being free, if God freely chooses?
I don't know if I speak for open theists in general, but I'd say (1) God does change his mind from time to time, so sometimes his foreknowledge of his choices may not be certain (like in Ex. 32), and (2) we may be confusing the making of the decision to act and the foreknowledge of the act after it is decided upon. Honestly, I don't know if time existed before creation, so eternal characteristics of God are confusing. Maybe God never decided to be loving but just was. Maybe not. I don't know. However, deciding to have a characteristic is like deciding to decide. And now I'm losing my train of thought and can't quite keep all this stuff in my head. I'll try again later to say whatever it is I'm trying to say more concisely.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 9/3/2004 5:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Sahid: Foreknowledge eliminates all but one option…
Lee: I disagree ... How do we know this?
Jee: If exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF) is true, than it by definition follows that the future is already settled--in every detail, with only one possible "choice" being made in each and every circumstance.
I still think there is an assumption here, though, "the only possible choice" being caused by the future being fixed, makes me wonder why the past being fixed doesn't have the same effect.
quote:
Sahid: To equate the past with the future is to assume what we are trying to decide.
Well, I do hold that they both are fixed, and we are arguing about implications of believing that, so I think I am not assuming the conclusion here. If they both are fixed, and if the future being fixed makes a decision not be free, then why doesn't the past being fixed have the same effect?
quote:
Sahid: The open view is that the future does not exist, and that the past is settled. I think this is just common sense.
Well, common sense doesn't follow physics, though, and maybe we are dealing with areas that are more complex than that! What about déjà vu, just as a side issue, for example?
quote:
Lee: I would say that accountability is due to consent, not to the deed per se.
Sahid: Now we're talking about free consent rather than free events. The same problems remain.
I thought someone would call me on this eventually! I'm still busy thinking about this one, I plead the fifth. Beethoven's fifth…
quote:
Lee: But how about the Open View and God foreknowing his choices? Doesn't that amount to God's choices being fixed, and yet those choices being free, if God freely chooses?
Sahid: I'd say … God does change his mind from time to time, so sometimes his foreknowledge of his choices may not be certain (like in Ex. 32).
Well, I don't think we can say that God didn't include that possibility in his plan, though. That's what I'm after here, not "does God estimate correctly?" even, but "does God know what he would choose in any (even in any impossible) situation? If so, then we have, I think, pretty much the same dilemma as you are posing for me. Is that the bell? Let's head off to our corners until the next round…
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/3/2004 6:46 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
Hi everyone,
quote:
Sahid: Foreknowledge eliminates all but one option…
Lee: I disagree ... How do we know this?
Jee: If exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF) is true, than it by definition follows that the future is already settled--in every detail, with only one possible "choice" being made in each and every circumstance.
I still think there is an assumption here, though, "the only possible choice" being caused by the future being fixed, makes me wonder why the past being fixed doesn't have the same effect.
Hi Lee,
I assume we all would agree that God created the world, knowing at least what could happen (OV) or what definitely WOULD happen (EDF). That being the case, if the future is already settled, then God has known it as such before He ever created, and thus, all events are due to his creative act.
About the past, I have no idea how that bears upon the question of the future; could you 'splain a bit? OVTism affirms that the past is settled, and cannot be undone.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 9/5/2004 10:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Sahid: The past choice is no longer free, but it was at the time.
Yes, I think I do understand (or I'm trying to understand) your view, I'm just saying you all have some more work to do! If merely knowing a choice makes it not be free, then the past choices have been made not free, once we know them, that's all I'm saying. So I need to hear your further qualifiers! It needs to be "knowing a future free choice makes it not free," for example, not just "knowing a choice makes it not free." And then we can talk further.
And speaking of talking further! I did try and look up verses about whether an unbeliever can choose their motives, and didn't find any definite ones, either way. So I'll have to say I don't know for now, on this one, and say it might be that unbelievers can choose their motives, and it might not. I do hold that unbelievers can't choose a really good motive, they can't love with God's love, all I would allow is that they could push the accelerator as the car travels downhill, and be judged for doing that.
And one more note! How about the problem of God knowing his future choices, in the Open View? Just want to keep that on the table…
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 9/6/2004 8:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Sahid,
quote:
I think certain knowledge follows from the certainty of the event, not the other way around. The events of yesterday are certain and therefore can be known certainly. The events of tomorrow are not certain and therefore cannot be known certainly.
But again, this is stating your position, but I need to hear why future knowledge removes freedom from a choice, but past knowledge does not. I agree that the past is known and fixed, and I believe that the future is, too, and we are not arguing about your position on the future, but mine.
quote:
As to the unbeliever, I think the unbeliever is free to do whatever anyone else is free to do, even accept God's love and be pleasing to him. That choice is the big one. All good and bad choices are wrapped up in that one.
Well, I do think we have clear Scripture verses that say God makes that choice. But I'm not sure we can know if unbelievers have no choices in their motives. If you know of a Scripture verse one way or the other on this, I would be glad to hear it.
quote:
After there are free creatures, I think uncertainty enters the picture. But I think God's choices before the creation of free creatures may have been determined all along or maybe time didn't exist …
Even with uncertainty, though, does God not know how he would choose in any hypothetical (or even impossible) situation? I don't think most theological folks would go along with saying God's choices were determined before creation, that makes God a machine. And I do think there was time before creation:
John 17:24 … you loved me before the creation of the world.
Ephesians 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.
1 Peter 1:20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.
quote:
All I (think I) know is that when there are free creature involved, things are no longer certain and therefore cannot be known with certainty.
That is my question, though! How can we know this? What can we base such a conclusion on?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 9/6/2004 1:01 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
But again, this is stating your position, but I need to hear why future knowledge removes freedom from a choice, but past knowledge does not.
I do not think that future knowledge removes freedom from a choice, so I have no reason why it would. What removes the freedom is the lack of any alternative. That is also what allows for future knowledge.
The consequences of there being only one option are
(1) lack of freedom
(2) God's certain foreknowledge.
(2) implies (1). But, (2) does not cause (1).
For there to be certain knowledge of the future the future has to be certain. The certain future allows for certain foreknowledge, not the other way around.
Story time! Let's say there are two twins, John and Jim. You meet John and he tells you that he is a twin. The existence of twin John implies the existence of another twin. Likewise, twin Jim's existence implies the other twin. But, John did not cause Jim's existence, nor did Jim's existence cause John's. They are caused by their parents. Let's make John = 'lack of freedom', Jim = 'certain foreknowledge', and the parents are the actual certain future. The existence of either twin implies the existence of the other, but neither causes the other.
It's not a great analogy, because with our debate a certain future necessarily leads to lack of freedom and foreknowledge, and in my story parents don't necessarily lead to twins. But if we believe in certain foreknowledge, then we believe in a certain future. And if we believe in a certain future, we believe in only one option. And if we believe in only one option, we don't believe in freedom.
I'll look up some verses on freedom of unbelievers later. Sorry, I haven't addressed it well yet.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/7/2004 4:22 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
Hi Sahid,
quote:
Sahid: I do not think that future knowledge removes freedom from a choice, so I have no reason why it would. What removes the freedom is the lack of any alternative.
Yes, I agree. And I don't see why the one implies the other, why is there this implication? On what basis can we decide if this is really true?
Blessings,
Lee
Hi Lee,
If, before creation, God possessed exhaustive definite knowledge of the future, then in creating he caused everything that happened as a consequence of his creative act.
If, on the other hand, God did not possess EDF prior to his creative act, but if prior to creation His knowledge of the future included some possibilities ("might" counterfactuals) then it follows that the future is to that extent open.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 9/8/2004 3:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Sahid: I do not think that future knowledge removes freedom from a choice... What removes the freedom is the lack of any alternative.
Lee: Yes, I agree. And I don't see why the one implies the other, why is there this implication? On what basis can we decide if this is really true?
Jee: If, before creation, God possessed exhaustive definite knowledge of the future, then in creating he caused everything that happened as a consequence of his creative act.
I don't believe determinism, though! I don't think the past causes the future, completely. What I am questioning is why knowing a choice means there was no alternative.
quote:
Jee: If, on the other hand, God did not possess EDF prior to his creative act, but if prior to creation His knowledge of the future included some possibilities ("might" counterfactuals) then it follows that the future is to that extent open.
Yes, and there is another possibility! The possibility that God knows future free choices! Such as his own...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 9/8/2004 10:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Let's say that I'm choosing a flavor of ice cream: vanilla, chocolate, or strawberry. Those are my three "alternatives". Let's say you know with certainty that I will choose vanilla. From my point of view I have three alternatives. From your point of view you realize that I think that I have three alternatives, but you know that only one choice is possible. Assuming that your knowledge is certain, there is only one "option" or "alternative". But in fact it's not an option or alternative, because these words imply that something else is also choosible. (Or is that choosable?)
I'll tell you something that I'm almost certain of: You are taking apparent freedom and real freedom to be the same thing. They ain't. Another story.
You put me in a big maze. But this is a funny maze. Some of the walls instead of being walls are instead the most transparent, non-glaring windows imaginable. The maze is also situated on a hill and the start of the maze is on the top of the hill, so I can see the entire maze before me. I can "choose" my route. But in this maze all but one path cannot be taken, because what looks like a good path is actually blocked. A lot of build up for this: I think I'm free to choose my path, but I'm not. Certain foreknowledge presupposes the existence of these "invisible walls".
To truthfully know something assumes that what is known is true. If there are ten apparent options, but God knows that I will pick #4, God's knowledge of this event assumes that the event will occur that way. That is to say that my picking option #4 is determined as opposed to being up in the air. Not determined necessarily by cause and effect. That is only one special kind of determinism. Minimal determinism is that everything in the universe is not up in the air. There is one way things will happen and there's no changing that. I may be confusing things but I think fatalism is a synonym. It is to say there is a destiny or fate, but more than that, that every step along the way to destiny is destined or determined. To say that God knows every step we will take is to say that every step we take is destined.
None of this allows for human freedom. It works great with a false perception of human freedom. But I claim that freedom is more than thinking you are free. Imagine a cult where all members are brainwashed (let's say by a futuristic drug that has very specific results) into thinking they want to be in the cult. They think they freely choose to stay. They are wrong! They are forced to stay. There is a difference between apparent and true freedom.
You say you don't believe in determinism, but I'm assuming you believe that God knows the future exhaustively. How is that possible? This is plainly a contradiction. If God knows the future exhaustively, then the future can be known exhaustively. If it can be known exhaustively, then it must be determined.
It's like watching a prerecorded lottery drawing live and going home before it's aired and telling your friends "Anything's possible". No, it's not. Only one thing is possible. The TV is going to show the numbers that you know it will show. There is no chance that your friend, who chose different numbers, will win. Anything is not possible. Only one thing is possible.
If the future is knowable, there is only one possible future. That leaves no room for freedom. And without freedom, I would argue, there is no room for love.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 9/9/2004 1:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Sahid,
quote:
… choosible. (Or is that choosable?)
My spelling checker doesn't pick either version. So you can choose either one! 
quote:
From your point of view you realize that I think that I have three alternatives, but you know that only one choice is possible. Assuming that your knowledge is certain, there is only one "option" or "alternative".
Do we have any indication of a free choice made by God, that was yet known in advance? I think we do:
John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.
I think we may conclude from this statement that Jesus' decision to go to the cross was a free one, even at this point. Yet Jesus' sacrifice was predicted in Scripture! His decision was known, and yet it was free.
quote:
You say you don't believe in determinism, but I'm assuming you believe that God knows the future exhaustively. How is that possible? This is plainly a contradiction. If God knows the future exhaustively, then the future can be known exhaustively. If it can be known exhaustively, then it must be determined.
Jesus knew what was in peoples' hearts! Now we don't understand how that can happen, but God indeed has ways of perception that we don't have, that seems quite impossible to us.
quote:
Lee: What I am questioning is why knowing a choice means there was no alternative.
Sahid: Knowing a choice -> The choice will be made that way.
-> The choice will not be made a different way.
-> All alternatives have a 0% chance of happening.
-> All alternatives are not truly alternatives.
Where do we disagree?
Well, with a past choice, the choice will not be made in a different way, all alternatives have a 0% chance, but does that mean all alternatives were not truly alternatives?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 9/11/2004 4:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Sahid,
quote:
Lee: Well, with a past choice, the choice will not be made in a different way, all alternatives have a 0% chance, but does that mean all alternatives were not truly alternatives?
Sahid: The choice is free before the fact ("the choice will not"). It is not free after the fact ("alternatives were not"). Properties of an event can change with time.
All I meant by "will not" is that the decision has the property of being fixed now, though. And thus all the statements you made about my view on future choices apply, the past choice is fixed and all alternatives have a 0% chance, and yet those alternatives are not therefore to be thought of as meaningless, with respect to that choice. I can still make my point here if the properties change, they change to match my view of the future! So how does my view of the future differ from your view of the past? And yet you are holding that past decisions can have been free ones. I agree!
And also, what can we say about the example of an apparently free choice, made by Jesus, to lay down his life, which was yet known in advance?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 9/11/2004 2:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Sahid,
quote:
Of course a past choice will not be made in a different way. It's in the past. I guess I don't understand what you're saying. I think the choice goes from free beforehand to determined after the fact.
I don't necessarily disagree with you! I'm just saying you all have more work to do, if your definition of the past agrees with each aspect of my view of the future, that you point out, saying these aspects remove freedom from a choice.
quote:
As far as Jesus' choices I think his choice to die was free. God is different from us in that he has no sin and that he is fully loving. This loving character is good and the only way to get rid of it would be bad, sin. Really this all is a mystery to me. Free takes on a different meaning with God, because he doesn't sin.
Well, I think sin removes freedom, rather than just changes it without removing it.
John 8:34 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin."
quote:
To me I think He could sin if he wanted to. But his love endures forever. I've heard people say that he cannot sin, but I think he could but won't. But this is way over my head.
Certainly it's over my head, too! All I (try to) know is what I read in the book. I do think the book says God can't sin, he can't lie, for instance (Heb. 6:18), the word here is "not able," not just "won't do it."
But if "God works in you to will" (Phil. 2:13), then may we not will (and thus choose) like he does? And if the freedom comes from God, I think we may reasonably conclude it is like his:
Galatians 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.
Revelation 3:21 To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 9/12/2004 2:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Sahid,
quote:
For what reason do you think that the future is settled? That's what I think the past is.
I haven't really thought about the exact reasons I believe this, actually! That's what I was taught, and I have found it consistent with Scripture, so it's more like being told that there are nine planets, and all I have heard about the planets has borne this out, though I haven't seen them all myself, or studied this specifically. But here is a reason that occurs to me: God is claiming special knowledge in his prophecies, not special strength:
Isaiah 43:9 All the nations gather together and the peoples assemble. Which of them foretold this and proclaimed to us the former things? Let them bring in their witnesses to prove they were right, so that others may hear and say, "It is true."
Isaiah 41:22-23 "Bring in your idols to tell us what is going to happen. Tell us what the former things were, so that we may consider them and know their final outcome. Or declare to us the things to come, tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods."
So God is not just saying "I can bring it about!" He is saying "I know the future!" Real knowledge of the future per se, too, not just knowing so much about the present that the future is therefore predictable, since most prophecies involve human decisions, and some of them decisions in the area of salvation:
Jeremiah 23:6 In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The Lord Our Righteousness.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 9/14/2004 2:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Sahid,
quote:
Open Theism presupposes that time is real and not just an illusion.
Certainly I believe time is real. I just also believe God is not at only one point. Relativity tells us time depends on matter! No matter, no time. That's a problem, for the Open View...
quote:
It supposes that God's use of the word 'if' is more than a white lie, that our perception roughly corresponds to reality.
I believe that is from our perspective. "If you put your hand on the stove, you will be burned." Now I may intend to stop you if you try this! But the statement is still true, and not a lie.
And statements don't even have to be possible, to be true: "If you jump off a train that is going a million miles an hour, you will hurt yourself."
quote:
As to strength or knowledge, you can make a case either way.
But God's point is not strength, when he says he can predict, and the idols can't. So that is an indication that God is making his knowledge of the future proof of his divinity, not his ability to plan, and bring it to pass.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
| 104 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:53 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 |
|
|