quote:

---

Hello Dr.Boyd, Tom...

---

quote:

---

I apologise for the long delay in replying as well as for any confusion i may have created with my questions.

---

Hi Al-

Are you kidding! If it weren’t for you questions and the confusion they create I’d have everything figured out by now! How dare you! You &$$#*!@#.

quote:

---

I guess my problem with the infinite intel argument - and with the 'chessmaster' analogy - is that it gives the impression of life being more like a Game than it is a personal r'ship, community, etc.

---

I can see how you might feel that way with respect to the chess analogy, because chess is a game (except for hard-core chess players, who feel it’s life itself! Hmmm.) By the way, I’m designing a three-dimensional chess board (and the rules for playing it). I don’t think the game exists right now. So maybe I’ll be rich some day and can support CVM! I don’t know. But being infinitely intelligent, God knows the whether or not such a thing can even happen!

Oh yeah, we were talking about II (Inf. Int.). Remember Al, chess is only an “analogy,” which means there will be aspects of REAL LIVING that will be unlike the REAL GAME. That’s OK. I only use the chess analogy to show that a superior player (say, Kasparov) would not sacrifice his “control” of the game by virtue of not knowing ahead of time each move I will certainly make.

My favorite quote of Doc’s in Satan/Evil goes something like this, “It is difficult to imagine a weaker view of God’s sovereignty than that which views him as capable only of deterministic ways of relating to creation." A good teacher may be “in control” of her class without causally determining everything students do or knowing ahead of time everything they will do. Likewise, if I were to challenge Kasparov in a game of chess, my being free to move in ways neither causally determined nor foreknown as certain by Kasparov would hardly call into question his being in control of the game. Kasparov is in control by virtue of his knowledge of all possible moves I may make and his ability to be open to more than one route to victory.

Chess IS a game, but it’s sufficiently LIKE life to justify its providing an analogous way of understanding the sort of choices, or “moves,” strategies, and genuine responses we make in life. In other ways chess doesn’t provide an example of our relationship to God. For example, I think the chess analogy fails in this respect: In Chess we play against an opponent, but in real life God is very much FOR us. He’s playing ON OUR SIDE! But Chess’s being unlike our relationship to God at this point doesn’t undermine the essential point made about the relationship between “control” and “foreknowledge,” for there we’re looking to understand God’s providential “control” (as it were, though “control” may be a bad word) of overall creation and how God directs this toward his ultimate goal.

Have I made any sense?

quote:

---

Because as a Person I'm sure that God puts 'more' of His HEART into certain possibilities (i.e. those He considers more probable) than would others. But how can one put more of one's emotions/'heart' into one option and yet be said to perfectly anticipate all options?

---

Because “perfectly” means taking into account the probability of all possibilities. Since the probabilities are all different, knowing them perfectly means God WOULD have to anticipate certain possibilities more than others.

I think you’re tending to equate “perfectly knows all possibilities equally” with “anticipates all possibilities equally.” These are different. The first phrase being true is why the second one can’t be true.

And I think you’re right about the God’s heart and emotional investment in certain possibilities. He wants certain possibilities to come to pass and he works for this. He really doesn’t want others to come to pass and he works against those. But remember, “intelligence” as such is one thing. “Emotional investment” is another.

quote:

---

Because as a Person I'm sure that God puts 'more' of His HEART into certain possibilities (i.e. those He considers more probable) than would others. But how can one put more of one's emotions/'heart' into one option and yet be said to perfectly anticipate all options?

---

"God puts ‘more’ of his heart into certain possibilities” means “God desires certain possibilities to come to pass more than others, and he’s emotionally invested in how things turn out.” Right. This certainly seems to be the case when you read Scripture. How can this be true if God “perfectly anticipates” all options? Because “perfectly anticipates” doesn’t mean “equally anticipates.” It means an anticipation that perfectly reflects the probability of an event’s coming to pass. Make sense? In other words, “perfectly” in the sentence “God perfectly anticipates all possibilities” describes the relationship between God and the probabilities. And since the probabilities are all different, perfect knowledge of this would mean God would NOT equally anticipate all possibilities. His anticipation with regard to all possible events is in each case DIFFERENT, but it is in each case PERFECT.

Am I striking out here? Weigh in here Doc if I’m messing up your Inf. Intell. argument!

quote:

---

I suppose, Tom, that you would say: God gives EVERY possibility 100% attention but SOME possibilities get MORE 'heart' than others, correct?

---

Has anything I’ve said above already answered this? I’d say that God brings all that God is to the consideration of each possibility. All that God is encompasses each possibility. Infinite intelligence means taking every possibility (and all the possible worlds that result ad infinitum) to their logical end, but it would also include knowing the likelihood any one possibility, or any one set of possibilities, would have in coming to pass. But nothing about this means God could not or does not want certain possibilities to come to pass more than others. He’s definitely invested emotionally in the outcomes.

Rent “Run Lola Run” and see if it helps.

Mephi-

I really want to apologize for not jumping into the poll and the review discussion on it. I’m just too busy! It’ll killing me not to be in there with ya.

quote:

---

Doesn't the II idea implicitly mean that God was aware of ALL possibilities that could exist before Creation? Basically the only difference between this idea and Craig's that I see would be that, at base, this idea factors in libertarian freedom MORE FULLY than Craig's...but still has the same KNOWLEDGEABLE information about "all possible worlds"

---

Doc would answer better than I, but I’d say yes, it “explicitly” does so. Counterfactual statements (whether “would” or “might” counterfactuals) possess eternal truth-value that God would know eternally. Granted, like Doc said, “counterfactual” probably isn’t a good word to use. But we’re talking about the same deal. As I read Craig, I agree wholeheartedly with Doc that it’s SO close to the open view. “Neo-Molinism” is what the OV is. But I do think that by limiting counterfactuals to the “would” type Craig undermines libertarian freedom. He doesn’t even attempt (in the Four Views book or in Time and Eternity; haven’t read God Only Wise yet) to describe what eternally grounds the facticity, or determinateness, of “would-counterfactuals.” I reeeeeally hope Craig comes out in print with something that interacts with Doc’s Inf. Intell. argument. THAT would be fun reading.

Bill, if you’re listening in, let’s have it.

Tom




Edited by - TGB on 02/22/2002 11:33:35 PM

Edited by - TGB on 02/22/2002 11:38:49 PM

Edited by - TGB on 02/22/2002 11:41:44 PM

quote:

---

It's that I can't see - yet! - how God can 'brings all that God is to the consideration of each possibility' and STILL (without contradiction) be emotionally invested in only a FEW of these possibilities. Does not 'all that God is' include His emotions, His heart, etc.?

---

We’re getting into some speculative stuff I think. Exactly “how” God does his thinking and deliberating (don’t classicalists deny that God actually deliberates?) isn’t something we have access to. So, it may be too much to expect an explanation of infinite intelligence that solves all our curiosities.

Having said that, let me try to answer you. When I think of God “bringing all he is to each possibility” what I envision is God forming accurate beliefs, contemplating all possible responses, and also responding emotionally to each possibility. So, being “emotionally invested” in each possibility means God’s emotions are properly and perfectly related to each possibility with reference to his own ultimate plans. For example, assume that

a) God knows the probability of a particular evil coming to pass.
b) In the course of time it becomes nearly certain that this evil will come to pass.
c) In the course of time it comes to pass.

In terms of mere knowledge, God knows all these possibilities/probabilities eternally. In terms of emotional investment, I think God’s emotional responses to these would constantly change. God would perfectly respond emotionally to (a) above, but this would be God’s response to a particular evil whose probability of occurring was very slim. Similarly, God would also perfectly respond to (b) above, but this would be a response to a particular evil whose probability of occurring was very great. God would also perfectly respond to (c) above, but of course this would be a response to an actual evil. All three are perfect emotional responses. This is what I mean when I say God is “emotionally invested” in some possibilities more than others. God’s going (I think) to experience actual evil on a more intense/invested level emotionally that he will a possible and improbable evil. But both a PERFECT.

So, on the one hand, the mere existence of all possibilities is a matter of pure knowledge for God. These he would know prior to creating. But as time unfolds foreknown possibilities become realized and others pass out of existence as millions of possible story lines give way to one story line.

HOW these ever changing possibilities AND their ever changing probabilities relate to God and his overall plans and purposes (that is, do they undermine or help fulfil these plans, and to what degree) is, I think, what accounts for God’s PERFECT but yet EVER CHANGING emotional investment in the present and future.

Clear as mud, eh?

quote:

---

…would it make sense to say that "My heart is fully in Option A" and ALSO that, "I given all possibilities the SAME amount of thought"?

---

I’m not sure that God thinks in “amounts” or that he has to expend more intelligence in order to perfectly account for very complex and interrelated possibilities as opposed to very simple and relatively unrelated possibilities. You’re still thinking of God’s intelligence as a “spendable” commodity. Remember…it’s INFINITE intelligence.

I hope that now it makes sense to say “God is emotionally invested to varying degrees in a zillion possibilities” (because of the relative goodness or evil of each possibility) and “God knows each possibility equally perfectly” (because God’s knowledge of existing reality is perfect) and “God is perfectly prepared for any eventuality as if it was the only thing he had to prepare for” (because he keeps infallible, unmediated, and co-terminus account of the changing state of reality). The knowledge of one possibility compared to another is itself equally perfect and is gained with equal ease by God’s infinite intelligence. But the emotional investment varies because possibilities all possess varying degrees of probability and relate to God’s overall plans differently (some propose a possible threat to those plans while others are possible fulfilments of these plans). But this varying degree of emotional response is PERFECT.

quote:

---

Dr. Boyd mentioned that 'II' allows us to say that God could deal with each possibility as if it was the only one He has to deal with (in Satan/Evil). However, if Possibility B had 'less' of the divine 'heart' as compared to Possibility A - would this not logically require that God 'shifts' His heart - which was 'previously' with A - onto B when B, instead of A, actualises?

---

I’m following you perfectly Al. And to answer, no, I don’t think that’s what Doc has in mind. I think (I could be wrong though) that when Doc talks about God’s being prepared for any possibility as if it was the only thing that could have happened, he’s talking about God’s “preparedness” not God’s actually believing that it was the only thing that could have happened.

If event X ends up happening, God foreknew it eternally. But God also would have kept infallible, unmediated, and co-terminus account of the status of the possibility of X’s happening. It may have been the case at one point in time that the probability of X’s happening was nil, while in response to the related unfolding of other possibilities the probability of X’s happening increased to near certainty. Then it finally happened. See how this all fits together to account for God’s being perfectly prepared emotionally and strategically for ANY possibility that gets actualized? When X finally happens, God can say, “Hey, I’ve been following this one forever. I’m perfectly prepared. I’m not less prepared for this because I had to attend to other possibilities as well. If X was the only thing I had to prepare for I wouldn’t be any more prepared than I am.”

One more thing. Infinite intelligence doesn’t mean God eternally has only ONE response or strategy in mind for each possibility. Possibilities are ever changing IN RELATION TO OTHER POSSIBILITIES and this affects the dynamic way different possibilities impact God’s ultimate purposes for the world. So, when you think of God being eternally prepared for possibilities, what that means is God is perfectly and infallibly monitoring his options as well, which might call for different strategies depending on the inter-related state of reality at the time of fulfilment. So, when X finally happens, God says, “I’ve know you and have kept perfect tract of you, and I know exactly how you impact my plans given the state of reality at this moment in time.”

And classical opponents think this makes God weak? I don’t get it.

quote:

---

In other words, in May God's heart may have been focused/invested in A, but come June He may have to re-focus it to B (assuming that A didn't turn out). Is this compatible with 'II'?”

---

That IS II! You got it.

quote:

---

Could the above scenario fit with the proposition that Possibility B was the 'only possiblity God was dealing with in, say, June?

---

A-a-a! Infinite intelligence means that when your B occurs it is true that God is AS prepared for B AS IF it was the only thing that could have occurred. It doesn’t mean that it was the only thing that could have occurred or that God believed it was the only thing that could occur. Remember, this is why it’s called INFINITE intelligence! It’s infinite!

Has it clicked yet?

Blessings!
Tom


Edited by - TGB on 02/23/2002 4:05:36 PM

quote:

---

Phrases like "infinite knowledge of infinite possibilities" and "acceptable risk" are still just quantifiable units that are determined by the Western fetish for quantifying things, and focusing on math and math concepts for defining (confining) reality. They preclude, even, the imaginable possibility that God could have worked his Glory "either way."

The simple observation is that qualitative is the alternative to quantitative. It may not be that simple. But "qualitative" might begin to give me (us) a handhold on the difference.

Here is a quote as to the relevance of the observation in the first paragraph:


"In the West for several centuries, this peculiar imaginary notion has been created according to which everything is 'rational' (and in particular mathematizable), that is to say, it is essentially exhaustible; and the goal of knowledge is mastery and possession of nature": Corneliua Castoriadis, L'institution imaginaire de las societe' Paris, 1975) p.369
(quoted as a footnote in Yannaras' "The Freedom of Morality", p.201


mathematizable

essentially exhaustible

possession

---

quote:

---

LOve and appreciate the discussion.

I commission TGB to be my spokesman for the II argument: YOU ROCK DUDE. At present I am without a lap top (mine was stolen) so my access to the internet is limited. So I appreciate TGB filling the role. Plus, I like listening to him more than me. He's got nuances I don't have. Thanks.

Greg

---

I actually said something philosophically that was right! I'm on my way!

PoW-

I see your point too and am thinking on it. Will get back to ya.

Tom



Edited by - TGB on 02/24/2002 12:03:37 AM

quote:

---

They preclude, even, the imaginable possibility that God could have worked his Glory "either way."

---

PoW-

Now I might show how inept I am philosophically, but…

Would not the “imaginable possibility” you speak of need to be well-reasoned and logically sound? I see your point and I’d agree that we can lose the vibrant relational aspect of faith in our effort to understand God and his knowledge of reality. However, infinite intelligence isn’t the WHOLE story. I at least am not suggesting that God be reduced to an infinitely intelligent machine-like quantity. This is why I’m trying to emphasize:

a) the dynamic interplay between the “bare facts” and God’s emotional responses.

b) that in forming her responses and strategies to an ever-changing though exhaustively foreknown set of possibilities, God relates these possibilities to her overall purposes for creation. And aren’t “purposes” relational and not mathematical at heart? Wouldn’t this add the necessary relational quality you feel is missing from the Infinite Intelligence argument?

c) Infinite intelligence wouldn’t limit God to one mathematical response to events. God is, after all, free to choose his responses, right? So when the time comes to respond, it cannot be that knowing the possibilities eternally contrains him to act in any one way. Our choices and responses too are ultimately determined by libertarian free-will, which (as I understand it) cannot be reduced to a mathematical quantity, as in “Fred chose to do X because of a, b, c, d, and that’s it.” It’s sill the case that Fred’s choice, though influenced by a, b, c, and d was ultimately determined by free-will. You already agree I should think that OUR choices and responses are always mathematically limited in number. Infinite intelligence simply says that God knows THESE, it definitely does NOT offer an explanation of the inner, and very mysterious, workings of libertarian free-will. So, I don’t see that the Infinite Intelligence argument in itself “quantifies” God or “contrains reality.” How does saying “Whatever reality is, both in terms of it’s ‘certainties’ and ‘possibilities’, God knows it” constrain reality?

d) “Infinite intelligence” is, after all, just the name of a logical argument that seeks to account for God’s knowledge of reality and our freedom. I don’t see how you’re view that this “confines reality” would not also apply to ALL God-talk. Wouldn’t you have to then abandon all hope of understanding God as being or knowing X as opposed being and knowing Y? Don’t all such propositions have a mathematical form to them?

Whew! Let’s talk about some of those passages in Romans, dude. I’m more comfortable dealing with texts!

Tom

quote:

---

TGB: b) that in forming her responses and strategies to an ever-changing though exhaustively foreknown set of possibilities, God relates these possibilities to her overall purposes for creation. And aren’t “purposes” relational and not mathematical at heart? Wouldn’t this add the necessary relational quality you feel is missing from the Infinite Intelligence argument?

---

quote:

---

Take a BIG step back.

---

quote:

---

I’m sure God is far more than infinitely intelligent, but he’s certainly not less than infinitely intelligent.

......agreed............


I don’t have a problem with anything you say here (if I understand it correctly). ..........neither did I think that you would....... why cannot GOD’s essential divine nature remain unchanged even though he experiences changing states of mind and emotion? . . . Does not our unchanging human nature “transcend” the changing states of mind and emotion we experience . . .The fact that our nature doesn’t change though our experience does is, I think, a clear example of transcendence. . . . This isn’t much different that how I’ve understood God’s transcendence. God transcends the world and his experiences of the world.

..........God's nature/essence is transcended by personal, free choice (Meyendorff, p.77) god can act outside nature freely (energies), and the biggest example is "that god can personally and freely assume a fully human existence while remaining God, whose nature remains completely transcendent." (Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, p.77) ..........

---