Vinnie

I am not sure I understand this. God knowing "all possible outcomes" is not the same thing as kowing which outcome will actually happen in advance.

Say I lay down three cards: an ace of spades, an ace of hearts and an ace of clubs. I tell you to flip one over.

I pretty much know all possible outcomes.

You will flip either an ace of spades, an ace of hearts or an ace of clubs. Or simply tell me to go to hell and flip over my own damn cards--your not my slave.

I am not sure I fully understand you?

Classical theology is going the route of the dinosaurs. Open view theism, panentheism, process theology, etc., are the wave of the future. Get off that sinking Titanic before its too

Vinnie

Amlodhi

Not so much that you would be incapable of enacting change, just that if you did enact change you would no longer be in the multiverse that you intended to observe, but rather, in a different multiverse with a different sequence of events of which you had no foreknowledge. However, you would still have perfect foreknowledge of the events which are to transpire in the original multiverse even though you are now no longer there to observe them.

And yet the original decision to post was your free choice. Having travelled back in time I am now simply in a position to know which you will choose before you choose it. Because your future is, at this point, part of my past.


Namaste'

Amlodhi

Vinnie

This is starting to remind me of Hugh Ross' position which asserts that God has two dimensions of time. Ergo, he knows our choices from his perspective but we are still free in ours.

Two things (aside from other problems):

1) I consider escaping from reality bad practice. Inventing very problematic explanations to salvage bad theology is not a commendable practice. Of course, some desperate theists may be content to trade in "logically impossible" for "highly problematic". It is a net "gain" after all...

2) I am simply an incompatibilist. If the choices are known exhaustively from any perspective, its simply not trully free. Case closed. This seems little more than tautological though.

Yet there is contention. For those unfamiliar, definitions of various terms and stances:

http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/V014SECT1

Vinnie

Amlodhi

As far as I'm aware, the possibility of backward time travel is only precluded within the confines of the classical theory of linear time in a (uni)versal framework.

Still, I will review D.D.'s proposals and seek other examples.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Sensei Meela

Another poster in another thread presented the following syllogism, and I regret that I know not whom to give the credit to.

"Using the conditio-sine-qua-non definition of 'causation' ('a' is a cause of 'b' if 'a' cannot be hypothetically eliminated without eliminating 'b' as well), then perfect foreknowledge is a cause of 'free-will' choices:

a) God knows X will happen
b) X happens"

-----------------
I've also found the following at a Christian website, concerning the level/extent of God's control:
-----------------

“God controls EVERY aspect of a man's life, including his will. God controls man's...
love for God. Dt 30:6; 1Kg 8:58; 1Chr 29:18; Jer 24:7; Eze 11:19, 36:26; Ro 2:15; Rev 17:17
heart. Ex 4:21; Dt 2:30, 28:65, 29:4; 1Sam 10:9; Ezr 6:22; Pr 21:1
wisdom. 1Kg 3:12, 4:29; Acts 16:14
strength. Ps 27:14, 31:24
obedience. Gen 20:6; 1Sam 25:26, 34
disobedience. Ecc 3:11; Is 63:17; Ro 1:24, 26, 28
despair. Eze 32:9
blindness. Ex 4:11; Act 9:8-9
deception. 1Kg 22:22-23; Eze 14:9-10; Jer 20:7; 2Ths 2:11-12;
footsteps. Ps 37:23; Jer 10:23
goings. Pr 20:24; Is 30:21; Dan 5:21
thoughts. Job 4:12-13, 23:16; Pr 16:1; Mt 10:19-20
understanding. Is 29:10-11; Jn 12:39-40; Ro 11:8
prosperity. Dt 8:18; 1Sam 2:7; Job 1:21, 42:12-13; Ps 75:7
repentance. Ps 51:10; Jn 6:37, 44, 65; Act 5:31; 2Tim 2:25
tongue. Pr 16:1; Mt 10:19-20
gladness. Ps 4:7
praise. Ps 40:3, 51:15; Is 42:8, 61:11, 62:7; Mt 21:16
righteousness. Is 33:5, 45:8, 61:11; Mal 3:3
willingness. Phil 2:13”
FaithToFaith.org

---------------------------
And the following regarding the 'all-good' God's predetermining a world with evil:
--------------------------

“…The evil from which man suffers is, however, the condition of good, for the sake of which it is permitted. Thus, "God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist" (St. Aug., Enchirid., xxvii)….” NewAdvent.org

“God's plan included the decision to:
1. Create all - including angels and all humans;
2. Permit the fall - of both Satan and his angels, and Adam;
3. Provide salvation - for all people (John 1:29);
4. Elect some (those who believe), and leave in just condemnation those who do not believe (John 1:11-13);
5. Apply salvation - to all who believe (John 5:24).
…His permissive will permits Him to permit whatever He thinks fit to permit (or to not hinder). Whatever He permits, He also intends to regulate and use ultimately to bring about wise and great purposes of His own.” ChristianAnswers.net

Ephesians 1:11 “…being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who works all things after the counsel of His own will:”

Proverbs 16:4 "The LORD works out everything for his own ends—"

Romans 8:28 "God works ALL THINGS together for good for those who love Him, to those who are called according to His purpose.”

Matthew 18:7 "It must need be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense comes." -- Jesus, himself, speaking here

Romans 11:36 “For of him, and through him, and to him, are ALL THINGS: to whom be glory for ever.”

------------------------------
And a reply to the common apologetic that Sin was never a part of God's (predetermined) 'Plan':
------------------------------

“...First, it is asked why God, foreseeing that his creatures would use the gift of free will for their own injury, did not either abstain from creating them, or in some way safeguard their free will from misuse, or else deny them the gift altogether? St. Thomas replies (C. G., II, xxviii) that God cannot change His mind, since the Divine will is free from the defect of weakness or mutability. Such mutability would, it should be remarked, be a defect in the Divine nature (and therefore impossible), because if God’s purpose were made dependent on the foreseen free act of any creature, God would thereby sacrifice His own freedom, and would submit Himself to His creatures, thus abdicating His essential supremacy--a thing which is, of course, utterly inconceivable.” NewAdvent.org

Vinnie

That looks more like "God is the first cause" or God "is the ground of being". How does that equate to determinism or exhaustive definitive foreknowledge?

I also maintain, like all good open view theists, that until the future actually happens, it is not something to be known. God is still viewed in an omniscient sense. He knows all that is to be known.

Vinnie

Amlodhi

Hi Vinnie,

You're beginning to be difficult to keep up with here.

If this is his position, he is wrong. What I mean is, he is wrong to state this as a position as it is nothing beyond assertion.

In a previous post, I made the statement that:

This should have read: "I cannot, at this point, agree . . ."

This is not a position statement. This is simply recognition that there might be some ways in which this could be accomplished. It was my intention to explore some of these possibilities.

I am not a determinist. I do not think that our actions are predetermined, whether by the natural (yet necessary) unfolding of events or other mechanisms.

I am not a predestinationalist. I do not think that God has fore-ordained our eternal afterlife destination.

I am not a theist. I am a full fledged skeptic.

Thought you ought to know.

Nevertheless, I am still not prepared to adopt a dogmatic position that foreknowledge must necessarily preclude free choice.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Amaleq13

I think I'm following but moving to a different universe doesn't change the contradiction. The perfectly foreseen events in the original multiverse are still unable to be changed. That they might be otherwise somewhere else doesn't change the fact that they could not be otherwise where the perfect foreknowledge existed.

It was only free if I could have chosen otherwise. The existence of certain foreknowledge logically precludes that possibility so my apparent choice was not actually free.

A choice is free only if it was impossible for anyone to know with certainty what the outcome will be beforehand. Having a pretty good idea what I will choose is not the same as knowing without any possibility of error.


But do you know it with perfect certainty? If so, then I cannot choose otherwise and the appearance of a free choice is an illusion.

Amaleq13

I was wondering how you reconciled God's omniscience with this dilemma.

Do you believe this is a deliberate act on God's part (i.e. creating the universe with a future unknown even to God)?

If so, was this done specifically to allow humans free will?

Amaleq13

Unless you consider accepting logic as "dogmatic" I think that is an inappropriate term.

Also, don't forget to include the all-important word "perfect" before your "foreknowledge". It is the 100% certainty of the foreknowledge that logically precludes free will by eliminating any possibility of another outcome.

Free will depends upon the existence of multiple possible outcomes.

Certain foreknowledge depends upon there being only one possible outcome (i.e. the one foreseen).

The logical incompatibility is apparent.