 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Character solidification and repentance | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/14/2005 5:45 PM (GMT -6) |   |
Starkman said...
If Nathan was refering to my movie illustration (God's Grand Theater), to which Tom stated was a bad illustration, I need to ask why it is a bad illustration? The concept of "film" is perfect in a deterministic framework, because, indeed, like images captured on film, the future—every single last iota of it—is already settled and, thus, captured on film. Further, I can fast-foward the film well into the future and see what I'm going to do. Finally, I simply do not have to do what I see. Pretty plain and simple if you ask me.
So, I'm lost as to why it's a bad example. Do tell!
I think he ran out of non sequiturs.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/15/2005 12:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Ok, what I did was point out how Starkman's version of God's Grand Theater is inadequate for the classical view of foreknowledge, since it does not take into account the effect that the act of viewing has on the thing viewed -- which would have to likewise be foreknown. A friend of mine who is a process engineer working with lasers, tells me the same principle is true in when observing atomic particles or doing other experiments.
Anyway, I also proposed that Starkman's defective version of GGT better describes OVT, since you believe that God can project some but not all of the future: i.e., can view parts of a scene, but not the contribution the viewing makes to that scene. Since in OVT God doesn't see each specific contributing detail making up the whole, then the scene could be completely changed because of unseen factors, including a determination in the mind of the viewer that this will not come to pass.
Then I explained how the classical view of God embraces both absolute and conditional foreknowledge or prophecy as revealed in scripture, but that the absolute foreknowledge is more ultimate in God's mind, since it sees all things that will be actual. After all, the only way we know about these is by what God has revealed. It is likely that God has in Himself myriads of unrevealed attributes and extensions of attributes we only know in part. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/15/2005 2:04 PM (GMT -6) | |
Nathan Straub said...
Ok, what I did was point out how Starkman's version of God's Grand Theater is inadequate for the classical view of foreknowledge, since it does not take into account the effect that the act of viewing has on the thing viewed -- which would have to likewise be foreknown. A friend of mine who is a process engineer working with lasers, tells me the same principle is true in when observing atomic particles or doing other experiments.
Anyway, I also proposed that Starkman's defective version of GGT better describes OVT, since you believe that God can project some but not all of the future: i.e., can view parts of a scene, but not the contribution the viewing makes to that scene. Since in OVT God doesn't see each specific contributing detail making up the whole, then the scene could be completely changed because of unseen factors, including a determination in the mind of the viewer that this will not come to pass.
I can volitionally will that I will wear white socks tomorrow without "viewing" anything about tomorrow. What a guy in China decides to eat tonight has no bearing on whether I wear white socks tomorrow.
You make up the idea that God views all the future and then use that to prove that God has to fore-know it as He would affect it just by viewing it. Circular reasoning...
God can volitionally will that His Son will ride into Jerusalem someday on a donkey without "viewing" anything about the event ahead of time.
The problem with quantum mechanics is that in trying to measure what's going on, the act of measuring affects the process because of the scale. This has nothing to do with the scale humans operate at.
Are you confusing laser atoms with free moral agents?
The Isaiah passage is about God comparing Himself to idols of Israel's enemies.
It's the height of inanity to think God purposes some to follow idols, purposes Israel to follow Him then abandon Him for idols, and then lectures them on the difference between the idols He's created for them and others to follow and Himself and tells Israel to "listen to me" v3, "remember this, and be assured; recall it to mind" v8, "remember the former things long past" v9, "listen to Me, you stubborn-minded" v12. God is lecturing His robots, chastising them for what He determined they do.
Post Edited (Laika) : 5/15/2005 3:50:55 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/15/2005 7:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika said...
You make up the idea that God views all the future and then use that to prove that God has to fore-know it as He would affect it just by viewing it. Circular reasoning…
Um, there's scriptural warrant for this, though. Such as Peter saying, "You know all things," and Jesus then making another prophecy about what he will do…
Laika said...
Are you confusing laser atoms with free moral agents?
But are you saying action taken in the present might not affect the future? That was Nathan's point, I think, which applies to atoms, and Adam.
Laika said...
It's the height of inanity to think God purposes some to follow idols, purposes Israel to follow Him then abandon Him for idols, and then lectures them on the difference between the idols He's created for them and others to follow and Himself and tells Israel to "listen to me" v3, "remember this, and be assured; recall it to mind" v8, "remember the former things long past" v9, "listen to Me, you stubborn-minded" v12. God is lecturing His robots, chastising them for what He determined they do.
Do be careful here, exactly this seems to have happened with Judas…
Matthew 26:24 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.
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 | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/15/2005 8:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika said...
You make up the idea that God views all the future and then use that to prove that God has to fore-know it as He would affect it just by viewing it. Circular reasoning...
You didn't read carefully. The "viewing all the future as a film" is an analogy. Of course, it describes in some way the contents of God's mind, but we were using it to experiment with the coherence of comprehensive, predictive prophecy in light of free volition on part of the film-watchers who are viewing their own future. The film analogy can be used for both the Biblical God and the Open God. In both views there is some measure of definite foreknowledge, right? It's just that there are a lot of gaps in the open tape (Richard Milhous...). It is the effect that you or I would have on our future if we viewed it on film that I was discussing.
Laika said...
God can volitionally will that His Son will ride into Jerusalem someday on a donkey without "viewing" anything about the event ahead of time.
Only if He foreknows that there will be a donkey, and a Jerusalem. Or else, He controls them in some way... and you're back with some form of determinism (commonly known as providence). Also you should research the dating involved with Daniel's seventy sevens. www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/weeks.htm
Laika said...
The problem with quantum mechanics is that in trying to measure what's going on, the act of measuring affects the process because of the scale. This has nothing to do with the scale humans operate at.
Are you confusing laser atoms with free moral agents?
Please go back and read my original argument. I wasn't specifically equating the two analogies, just that there is a similar problem... The person viewing his future actions does indeed have a causal relationship with that prophecy.
Laika said...
It's the height of inanity to think God purposes some to follow idols, purposes Israel to follow Him then abandon Him for idols, and then lectures them on the difference between the idols He's created for them and others to follow and Himself and tells Israel to "listen to me" v3, "remember this, and be assured; recall it to mind" v8, "remember the former things long past" v9, "listen to Me, you stubborn-minded" v12. God is lecturing His robots, chastising them for what He determined they do.
I'm sorry, I have no idea how you got to this from our discussion on this thread. (Maybe you copied this from a different thread?) If I were you, the first place I would check for God's intentions in this Isaiah passage is the beginning of the book where God commissions Isaiah to prophesy to the people.
Isaiah 6:8-13 said...
ISA 6:8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?"
And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"
ISA 6:9 He said, "Go and tell this people:
" `Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'
ISA 6:10 Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed."
ISA 6:11 Then I said, "For how long, O Lord?"
And he answered:
"Until the cities lie ruined
and without inhabitant,
until the houses are left deserted
and the fields ruined and ravaged,
ISA 6:12 until the LORD has sent everyone far away
and the land is utterly forsaken.
ISA 6:13 And though a tenth remains in the land,
it will again be laid waste.
But as the terebinth and oak
leave stumps when they are cut down,
so the holy seed will be the stump in the land."
Tom, I tried to post back when, but my computer crashed. Here's my basic position on what you said: first, you bring an extra-biblical assumption in the form of definitions. There is no biblical evidence for an open future as open future. Second, you are ambivalent with your definition of "might". These two statements: x might happen, and x will happen, can both be true. Likewise, x might happen, and x won't happen, can both be true. Might can describe an epistemic property (that I don't know for certain whether it will or won't), but it can also describe a metaphysical property (bare possibility).
Nathan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/15/2005 10:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Nathan: Tom, I tried to post back when, but my computer crashed. Here's my basic position on what you said: first, you bring an extra-biblical assumption in the form of definitions.
Tom: Lots of aximatic truths are extra-biblical: the law of identity, the law of non-contradition, the law of the excluded middle, etc. Do you want to expunge anything that does not have explicity biblical attestation? I trust not, since your arguments, like mine, depend upon them. So much for that objection.
Nathan: There is no biblical evidence for an open future as open future.
Tom: Let's see if I can do that...eh: There is biblical evidence for an open future as open future. Gee, I can pontificate too!
Nathan: Second, you are ambivalent with your definition of "might".
Tom: Maybe you're ambivilent about my uses. I'd be happen to explain them more precisely if you're having trouble. Just ask.
Nathan: These two statements: x might happen, and x will happen, can both be true.
Tom: Quite right. In fact, since "might" is the subaltern of "will," if "will" is true, then "might" necesarily is true. That's Aristotles Square. I never suggested otherwise.
But what can't be true are both "x will happen" and "x might not happen." These are contradictories.
Nathan: Likewise, x might happen, and x won't happen, can both be true.
Tom: This is false. On a Square of Opposites "might" and "will not" are contradictory statements.
Here's the Square showing the logical realations:
WILL................WILL NOT
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
MIGHT..............MIGHT NOT
Drawing a line from corner to corner, WILL and MIGHT NOT are contradictories, as are MIGHT and WILL NOT. Across the top, WILL and WILL NOT are contraries. Both can be false. Both cannot be true. Across the bottom, MIGHT and MIGHT NOT are subcontraries. Both may be true. Both cannot be false. Down the left side, MIGHT is the subaltern of WILL; if WILL is true, MIGHT is true. And down the right sdie, MIGHT NOT is the subaltern of WILL NOT; if WILL NOT is true, MIGHT NOT is true.
You do the math.
Nathan: Might can describe an epistemic property (that I don't know for certain whether it will or won't), but it can also describe a metaphysical property (bare possibility).
Tom: Quite true. Precisely my view. We sometimes use "might" to express our ignorance of the fact of the matter. But we sometimes use it to express the fact of the matter. Let's talk about the latter case. Now, Nathan, consider the case in which "might" describes what is metaphysically the case (i.e., what is ontologically the case with the world, as opposed to just an expression of epistemic distance, or ignorance of what is the case), OK? We're talking "might" as a real and objective feature of the world. Now conjoin "might" with "might not." This IS possible, since "might" and "might not" are subalterns on the Square of Oppositions. Both may be true--thus, "x might and might not happen." Pour yourself a cup of coffee. Sit on the back porch. And just contemplate this question: What must be true of the world if there are true "might and might not" propositions where "might" in this case describes a real and objective feature of the world? Hint: If an event "might and might not" occur, then it's false both that it "will" and that it "will not" occur, regardless of whether it occurs or not.
The question is, when an omniscient God uses "might" or "perhaps" regarding the future, he obvisously can't be using "might" as we sometimes do, i.e., to express his ignorance about the facts of the matter regarding the future. He can only be using "might" in the second sense you recognize and which we sometimes use as well, to express what the fact of the matter is about the ontological status of the future, i.e., to express what is indeterminately the case about the future.
Now for your ridiculous claim that there is no biblical evidence for an open future to be true, there would have to be zero instances in the Bible of God using "might" to describe the future.
Smellling salts are in the cabinet. Let me know when you've come to.
Tom Post Edited (TGB) : 5/15/2005 10:25:53 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/15/2005 11:05 PM (GMT -6) | | I need to clarify the definition of "might". The ontological sense of "might" means possibility given the facts stipulated to or assumed in context of the usage.
I use "might" and "might not" as practically synonymous, since if one of these is not true, then technically I might as well use the "will/will not" category.
Laws of logic are not extra-biblical in that they are part of the text itself. Cf. www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/ReviewClarkLogic.htm.
An open future, on the other hand, needs some more scriptural support to convince me.
Tom said...
The question is, when an omniscient God uses "might" or "perhaps" regarding the future, he obvisously can't be using "might" as we sometimes do, i.e., to express his ignorance about the facts of the matter regarding the future. He can only be using "might" in the second sense you recognize and which we sometimes use as well, to express what the fact of the matter is about the ontological status of the future, i.e., to express what is indeterminately the case about the future.
Now for your ridiculous claim that there is no biblical evidence for an open future to be true, there would have to be zero instances in the Bible of God using "might" to describe the future.
According to my modified definition of ontological possibility, "might" from God's mouth means possible given the factors stipulated to and assumed by both speaker and original listener. It is true, but not exhaustive, revelation.Post Edited (Nathan Straub) : 5/15/2005 11:16:33 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/16/2005 8:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika said...
You make up the idea that God views all the future and then use that to prove that God has to fore-know it as He would affect it just by viewing it. Circular reasoning...
Nathan:
You didn't read carefully. The "viewing all the future as a film" is an analogy. Of course, it describes in some way the contents of God's mind, but we were using it to experiment with the coherence of comprehensive, predictive prophecy in light of free volition on part of the film-watchers who are viewing their own future. The film analogy can be used for both the Biblical God and the Open God. In both views there is some measure of definite foreknowledge, right? It's just that there are a lot of gaps in the open tape (Richard Milhous...). It is the effect that you or I would have on our future if we viewed it on film that I was discussing.
Please go back and read my original argument. I wasn't specifically equating the two analogies, just that there is a similar problem... The person viewing his future actions does indeed have a causal relationship with that prophecy.
Laika:
You assume that people view their future.
Then you say that by viewing their future, they are affecting it.
Your first assumption is wrong and you haven't proven it. People don't view their future. They may purpose to do something but this isn't a view of their future. If a twelve year old girl says, "I want to get married someday and have six children", she is not "viewing" her future, she's making a volitional statement that she may carry out in time.
The film analogy breaks down because it's not true. God's statements of the future in scripture are almost always Him saying what He's going to do and then doing it when the time comes. This is not "viewing the future".
Isaiah 48:3"I declared the former things long ago
And they went forth from My mouth, and I proclaimed them
Suddenly I acted, and they came to pass."
1. He declares and proclaims.
2. When the time comes, He acts.
No "viewing" the future here. Statements of volition, carried out in time. You make the categorical error that so many make, confusing statements of volition ( I will do this) with passive viewing of a future that doesn't exist yet.
Predictive prophecy is not comprehensive, else God would have known Nebuchadnezzar wouldn't have taken Tyre like God had said.
Predictive prophecy is not comprehensive, else God would not have predicted that "yet forty days Nineveh will be overthrown" when it wasn't.
Predictive prophecy is not comprehensive, else God would not have predicted that Joshua and Israel would clear the entire land.
Predictive prophecy is not comprehensive, else God would not have predicted that Ahaz and Judah would not be conquered by Rezin and Pekah when they actually were.
and on, and on......
Laika said...
God can volitionally will that His Son will ride into Jerusalem someday on a donkey without "viewing" anything about the event ahead of time.
Nathan:
Only if He foreknows that there will be a donkey, and a Jerusalem. Or else, He controls them in some way... and you're back with some form of determinism (commonly known as providence).
Laika:
There's been donkeys in the middle east for thousands of years, why would God not expect donkeys to be in the middle east for a few more thousand years. News flash, thousands of years after their use, donkeys are still in the middle east.
Laika said...
It's the height of inanity to think God purposes some to follow idols, purposes Israel to follow Him then abandon Him for idols, and then lectures them on the difference between the idols He's created for them and others to follow and Himself and tells Israel to "listen to me" v3, "remember this, and be assured; recall it to mind" v8, "remember the former things long past" v9, "listen to Me, you stubborn-minded" v12. God is lecturing His robots, chastising them for what He determined they do.
Nathan:
I'm sorry, I have no idea how you got to this from our discussion on this thread. (Maybe you copied this from a different thread?) If I were you, the first place I would check for God's intentions in this Isaiah passage is the beginning of the book where God commissions Isaiah to prophesy to the people.
Laika:
You quoted part of a chapter from scripture, I read the passage in the context of the chapter and you're confused where the rest of the chapter came from? Don't YOU read passages of scripture within their context?
Nathan:
ISA 6:8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?"
And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"
ISA 6:9 He said, "Go and tell this people:
" `Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'
ISA 6:10 Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
Laika:
After they had already rejected them, He strengthens them in their obstinance.
Romans 1:18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
1. They are ungodly v18
2. They are unrighteous v18
3. They suppress the truth v18
4. They know about God for God has made it evident to them v19
5. They have seen His invisible attributes, they have seen His nature, thus they are without excuse v20
6. They knew God but did not honor Him v21
7. They knew God but did not thank Him v21
8. They knew God but grew futile in their speculations v21
9. They knew God but darkened their foolish hearts v21
10. They professed to be wise but became fools v22
Only THEN, v22, did God give them over...... everything up to verse 22 was their own doing
Romans 3:10as it is written,
"THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, <----- see 3 - 5 above
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; <--- see 1-10 above
12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; <--- see 1-10 above
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, <----- see 1-10 above
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."
Post Edited (Laika) : 5/16/2005 12:19:41 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/16/2005 10:24 AM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...
I did understand one thing. You said "An open future, on the other hand, needs some more scriptural support to convince me."
I would think a bible full of contingencies would support an open future more than a bible full of contingenices would support a world without contingencies.
Genesis 4:6Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen?
7"If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/16/2005 11:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom said...
Your explanation of "might" and "might not" was very confusing. I've pretty much obsessed with little else for the past two years, reading and writing on this very issue, so I don't think I'd have trouble understanding anything meaningful you might wanna say. But I have to admit that I understood nothing of you clarification!
Sorry. I'll try again. In my everyday usage, I use "might" and "might not" as virtually the same. You alluded to this when
you said...
Across the bottom, MIGHT and MIGHT NOT are subcontraries. Both may be true. Both cannot be false.
If MIGHT is true but MIGHT NOT is false, this equals WILL, correct? If in the category of ordinary usage, MIGHT and MIGHT NOT are equally true, then we can return to my previous statement: "x might happen," and "x won't happen," can both be true. We'll see how that plays out...
I said...
The ontological sense of "might" means possibility given the facts stipulated to or assumed in context of the usage... According to my modified definition of ontological possibility, "might" from God's mouth means possible given the factors stipulated to and assumed by both speaker and original listener. It is true, but not exhaustive, revelation.
Now, an event is made possible by the circumstances and causes present. If all the circumstances and causes are present, the event is both possible and certain. If in a conversation I say "x is possible," my statement is not falsified by x not occurring, although strictly speaking x was impossible considering the totality of circumstances, however, I was not speaking of the totality of circumstances in the conversation, but only the circumstances which we both implicitly stipulated to in the conversation. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/16/2005 12:11 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Nathan: If MIGHT is true but MIGHT NOT is false, this equals WILL, correct?
Tom: Right. Of course, one doesn’t REASON form “might’s” being true to “will’s” being true. One REASONS from “will’s” being true to “might’s” being true and “might not’s” being false. Subalternism runs FROM “will” to “might” and not visa versa.
Nathan: If in the category of ordinary usage, MIGHT and MIGHT NOT are equally true, then we can return to my previous statement: "x might happen," and "x won't happen," can both be true.
Tom: “Might” and “might not” may be equally true, but they don’t MEAN the same thing. They mean different things, and when these different meanings are combined, the meanings of both “will” and “will not” are ruled out.
Now, “might” can be true and “will not” true ONLY if “might” is taken to mean MERELY “logically possible” or “logically coherent,” for it may be that what is determined NOT to happen still describes a logically coherent state of affairs. But this particular “might” is NOT the “might” of the Square.
Nathan: Now, an event is made possible by the circumstances and causes present. If all the circumstances and causes are present, the event is both possible and certain. If in a conversation I say "x is possible," my statement is not falsified by x not occurring, although strictly speaking x was impossible considering the totality of circumstances, however, I was not speaking of the totality of circumstances in the conversation, but only the circumstances which we both implicitly stipulated to in the conversation.
Tom: Think in terms of probabilities:
WILL = “with a probability of 1”
WILL NOT = “with a probability of 0”
MIGHT = “with a probability greater than 0”
MIGHT NOT = “with a probability of less than 1”
Now run the propositions. Remove use of “will/will not/might/might not” OK? Just use objective probabilities. In this case, to say “X is possible” is to say “X has an objective probability of occurring of greater than 0.” That’s it. Doesn’t tell you if X is indeterminate or determinate. If X does NOT occur, then it obviously wasn’t the case that X had a probability of 1 (or 100%) of occurring, in which case X had a probability of greater than 0 and less than 1 of occurring, which rules out both “will” and “will not” being true about X before the event in question.
It is false to claim simply on the basis of X’s not occurring that X’s occurring was, as you say, “strictly speaking impossible considering the totality of circumstances.” On the contrary, considering the totality of circumstances, X might have occurred. X’s occurring is just as consistent with the totality of circumstances as X’s not occurring. That’s what it means to say X’s ooccuring is indeterminate. It means to say the totality of circumstances leading up to the moment in question render X’s occurring neither inevitable nor impossible. It might happen and it might not happen.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/16/2005 3:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom, thanks for clearing the possibility thing up. I understand the probability thing better now. Now, I will postulate that any event is the sum of its causes. Considering the totality of the circumstances, it would be clear that such event had a probability of 1 given those exact causes in that way. Otherwise, we would have to do away with the notion of causality.
The uncertainty principle is a simplification based on the incalculability of nuanced circumstances -- incalculability for us, not for God.
Language of indeterminacy either describes the present state of the speaker's knowledge, or the incomplete set of mutually-stipulated factors. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/16/2005 3:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika:
1. The film analogy is hypothetical. It can be used to experiment with concepts of foreknowledge. Am I correct that OVT postulates certain future events that God does know with more or less certainty? I was not using it to prove a position... it was only an analogy to prophecy.
2. Be very, very careful never to charge God with a false prophecy. That is blasphemy. As Hunter showed, both the Jonah declaration and the Peka/Rezin declaration are conditional prophecies... there are others that are absolute, such as the Book of Revelation, the betrayal of the Christ, the Josiah prophecy, etc. We just need to examine scripture carefully to tell the difference.
3. If all prophecy is God declaring what He is going to do, then so be it. This leaves us with a providential view of history (God working his purpose through human agents), and I'm fine with that. However, it is no proof that God does not have unrevealed foreknowledge of human decisions. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/16/2005 4:04 PM (GMT -6) | |
Nathan Straub said...
Laika:
1. The film analogy is hypothetical. It can be used to experiment with concepts of foreknowledge. Am I correct that OVT postulates certain future events that God does know with more or less certainty? I was not using it to prove a position... it was only an analogy to prophecy.
Yes, God knows what He will do in the future. That doesn't mean He's passively watching Himself do it in the future, it means He volitionally decides what He will do. Big difference.
Nathan Straub said...
2. Be very, very careful never to charge God with a false prophecy. That is blasphemy. As Hunter showed, both the Jonah declaration and the Peka/Rezin declaration are conditional prophecies... there are others that are absolute, such as the Book of Revelation, the betrayal of the Christ, the Josiah prophecy, etc. We just need to examine scripture carefully to tell the difference.
Conditional prophecy == open future
If you ever figure out Tom's "mights", fill me in on it too........  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/16/2005 4:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Nathan: Tom, thanks for clearing the possibility thing up. I understand the probability thing better now. Now, I will postulate that any event is the sum of its causes. Considering the totality of the circumstances, it would be clear that such event had a probability of 1 given those exact causes in that way. Otherwise, we would have to do away with the notion of causality.
Tom: Well, this doesn't follow, but that's another thread. If any event that occurs had a probability of 1 of occuring at all times prior to its occuring, then we live in a deterministic world and are not free in the libertarian sense. Sorry. I thought you were Arminian. Oops. So you're a determinist. Cool. Oh well.
Nathan: The uncertainty principle is a simplification based on the incalculability of nuanced circumstances -- incalculability for us, not for God.
Language of indeterminacy either describes the present state of the speaker's knowledge, or the incomplete set of mutually-stipulated factors.
Tom: The standard interpretation of quantum physics today is the Copenhagen School, which holds that indeterminacy is NOT epistemic. It's metaphysical. But if you're a determinist then you have to deny this. Cool.
Been nice,
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/16/2005 4:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom, I honestly do not understand quantum. I know something about language, logic, and the humanities, but I neither know much about quantum, nor can I feel comfortable using it to extrabiblically prove something about God's attributes. Two reasons:
1. the inconclusiveness and volatility (ie. short half-life) of scientific theories in this area.
2. Quantum physics studies the physical universe. God both created and transcends this. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/16/2005 5:31 PM (GMT -6) | |
Nathan Straub said...
Laika said...
Conditional prophecy == open future AAAAAAAUGH! I spent the last three posts talking about how the language of indeterminacy is not ultimate, thus does not mean an open future. What does "contingency" mean to you?
Could go any of a number of ways.
Light and matter exist as particles. What behaves like a wave is the probability of where the particle will be.
(it's velocity can be measured but not simultaneously with it's location)
Accumulate enough particles and the probabilty spread will start to appear like a wave.
I can't "buy" determinism for many reasons, some major ones being:
it goes against the grain of science
it goes against all the contingencies in scripture
it goes against my intuition that I am not a robot
it goes against any logic I can figure out
No idea where determinism came from, greek thought probably....
Post Edited (Laika) : 5/16/2005 6:16:40 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/16/2005 7:14 PM (GMT -6) | | I would define contingency philosophically to mean a statement, being, or event, that is not necessary: it is dependent on something outside itself for existence or truth. Epistemically, this means a contingent thing cannot be known abstractly without its cause. Also, I'm not sure we are going on the same definition of determinism. Here is my take: nothing could be without God. God rules all and works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will. He moves hearts do do this or that, and controls the forces of nature. How does this allow for free will? I don't exactly know. But since I got the truth about God's sovereignty from the Bible, I might as well look there for the answer about man's free will. We agree that God never causes people to sin who didn't want to already. Can you see where I'm going with this? And the Bible declares that man is responsible for his sin. And there can be no protestations, for otherwise, how could God be God? (Rom. 3:6; Rom. 9:19-21)
I don't know if I've cleared up anything so far, but this reminds me of an essay I wrote on humanism.
Nathan said...
Yet for all his humanism, the humanist is not human enough. When Dorothy saw the Emerald City through green goggles, she thought it was all green. It would have done her no good to look in a mirror, for although she could then see the color of her glasses, she could not tell that everything else was not the same color. Just so, while seeing his humanist goggles tells the humanist something about himself, he cannot see that everything else is not like himself. This is impossible until he understands the relationship between the Latin word homo and humus. Homo we translate as man, while humus means soil. Homo was no doubt coined first, but just as surely, humus was made first: for man was made from the soil (although the Vulgate uses the synonym terra instead of humus). Even now, the humanist cannot catch the distinction without reading the rest of the verse. "Formavit igitur Dominus Deus hominem do limo terrae et inspiravit in faciem eius spiraculum vitae et factus est homo in animam viventem." "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Gen. 2:7)
To really confine himself to his human perspective, the humanist is left with humus. Only with the breath of God is he made homo, a living soul.
Do you see? Without the absolutely sovereign God of the Bible, I argue that there would be no man or free will at all. So, (as I explained in my essay "The Transcendental Argument for Free-will" I affirm the necessary in order to uphold the contingent.
The sermon at my church yesterday put it like this: sovereignty and free will coexist like the bass and treble on the car speakers. They are both on; they are not mutually exclusive. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/16/2005 11:21 PM (GMT -6) | | | Lee, you'll need to elaborate on your synthesis, hopefully with a scriptural example. And don't worry, we accept you... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/16/2005 11:43 PM (GMT -6) | | TGB said...
Nathan: Tom, thanks for clearing the possibility thing up. I understand the probability thing better now. Now, I will postulate that any event is the sum of its causes. Considering the totality of the circumstances, it would be clear that such event had a probability of 1 given those exact causes in that way. Otherwise, we would have to do away with the notion of causality.
Tom: Well, this doesn't follow, but that's another thread. If any event that occurs had a probability of 1 of occuring at all times prior to its occuring, then we live in a deterministic world and are not free in the libertarian sense. Sorry. I thought you were Arminian. Oops. So you're a determinist. Cool. Oh well.
I'm sorry this thread is getting so muddled. I just reread your post and found out I missed this section.
I hope I'm not misleading you. When I say causes, I include human causes, including those arising from volition. Human volitional causes are prima facie physically uncaused. We do know that psychologically, volition is to some degree, more or less influenced by circumstances (although I'm not a Molinist) -- however, this is a sign of a weak will. I'm going to posit an idealist anthropology, where the will is basically governed by the mind, which is governed by the strongest values in the heart: i.e. power, , meaningfulness, convenience, others' opinions, etc. I got this idea from Gregg Harris, although I think it is found in Hobbes, Locke, and others. So weak volition is going to be the most arbitrary and least free, while a strong volition is going to be most consistent to the heart, and most free. I could go on with this, but basically, I could make some sort of case for a self-immutable heart, and from there a sort of determinism out of free will. | | Back to Top | | |
| 143 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:24 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 |
|
|