Open Theism vs Predestination

[ancientpaths]

What are you going on about? Look, I'm all for argument, but your response just seems mean spirited and I just don't see any reason to respond to an assertion like Antley's in that way. Also, unless you're Leonard Pitts, you might consider giving him some credit for that response.

You are right. I quoted Leonard Pitts and failed to credit him. I offer a public apology on this forum for quoting from Leonard Pitts's column of 22 Feb. 2010 and not crediting him.

I understand you take exception to my "every inner decision . . ." statement, so I will concede that this refers only to a very strict libertarian view which is probably not worth arguing about. Nevertheless, it's one thing to claim that there might be one decision that is completely free (and yes, I know you are not arguing this just clarifying definitions) but it cannot be proved. This would require a demonstration that one "could have done otherwise." But of course this is impossible since there is only one string of events to look at.

One is left with leaving libertarianism as a claim only (without proof) or working to demonstrate that it is consistent or inconsistent with the rest of reality. The scriptures I mentioned earlier and others I haven't mentioned rule it out based on the nature of God (other users like Mudcat have presented some arguments along these lines). But I'm not sure anyone is interested in arguing scriptural content.--ap

[Sargon]

Hi Mudcat. I'd like to comment on some of the excellent questions you've asked. Like Joseph Antley, I'm not a philosopher either. I'm just a guy behind a keyboard.

Do you mean the future doesn't exist because it has not happened, even for God? I mean do you believe God is constrained "within" time so to speak?

Yes, I believe that God exists within time. Part of the reason I believe this is because I can't fathom what it is like to operate outside of time. It seems quite impossible to me. So, the future does not exist because it hasn't happened yet even for God. For example, the second coming of Jesus has not happened yet, and so it currently does not exist outside of an abstract plan for it to occur in the future.

If God is bound within time, then doesn't it make just as much sense to say the past doesn't exist because it already happened. I mean in that case, what happened yesterday is as equally irretrievable to divinity as what will happen tomorrow. What do you think?

Yep.

Could anyone explain how an infinite atonement can actually exist if God is uncertain of future sin? If God is unaware of the future, then how can a term like "infinite" actually be utilized. The concept of a God who is simply just probabilistically almost always 100% certain of the future IMO puts infinity beyond God's grasp.

This is a really good question. My thought is that it means that the atonement is such that it can't be exhausted. It can't be used up. It isn't going to run out. It is a resource that never runs dry. So, no matter how many sins are committed in the future the atonement is ready. I don't think we have to believe that the atonement was carried out for a specified number of past and future sins, and then after that it runs dry. But I also like your idea about how the atonement is fully sufficient for every person.

Out of curiosity, I have another question on this line, if you have the time or proclivity for it. Seems LDS believe in an infinite regression of events. Is this regression attributed to God's memory. I mean is their literally an infinite number of events that have occurred and God remembers them all?

Sure. Though, I wouldn't be surprised if God has a huge underground storeroom full of film from the infinite home movies he has shot to help refresh his memory.

What I find difficult about "Open Theism" is the fact that it seems to have to maintain some margin for "the unknown" for God. To accept such a concept, you would have to embrace the notion that regardless of God's ability to know what we will do. It must also be possible for us to do something that God didn't know we would do

I find this implication rather beautiful and attractive. Our relationships with God become so much more meaningful if we are allowed to say "no", and to be allowed to say "no" we must be given total control over our will...a corollary of which is that God doesn't predestine all things by his exhaustive foreknowledge.

Sargon

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't beleive that God knows with a perfect knowledge what we will do in every case that a choice is presented to us. What I do believe is that God knows us well enough to know generally what we will do.

[Lamanite]

Anyone care to fit Josephs "one eternal now" comment into this discussion.

I'm not the greatest with open theism, determinism, libertarianism et al.; but I think it may have implications.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Brade]

You are right. I quoted Leonard Pitts and failed to credit him. I offer a public apology on this forum for quoting from Leonard Pitts's column of 22 Feb. 2010 and not crediting him.

I'm sure Leonard appreciates it.

I understand you take exception to my "every inner decision . . ." statement, so I will concede that this refers only to a very strict libertarian view which is probably not worth arguing about.

Well, I agree that the view you labeled 'libertarianism' in your earlier post is probably not worth arguing about. For one thing, I don't know of anyone that defends such a view.

Nevertheless, it's one thing to claim that there might be one decision that is completely free (and yes, I know you are not arguing this just clarifying definitions) but it cannot be proved. This would require a demonstration that one "could have done otherwise." But of course this is impossible since there is only one string of events to look at...One is left with leaving libertarianism as a claim only (without proof) or working to demonstrate that it is consistent or inconsistent with the rest of reality.

Hold on a second. I mean, on some robust sense of "proof" you probably can't prove that there are other minds or that you are now reading words on a computer screen. Right? I mean, to take the Cartesian route, in order to prove that you are sitting before a computer screen you'd need to demonstrate that you are not a brain in a vat or in the Matrix or being deceived by an evil demon or whatever. Good luck! I dare say that most philosophy doesn't even come close to pretending to prove things in the way that I think you're intimating. So, in that sense, I agree. Of course it can't be proven!

What can be done, and the project of almost all philosophy, is to construct theories that retain as many of our pre-philosophical common-sense judgments and as many of our philosophical (and perhaps scientific) judgments as possible. Trade-offs will be made in the process. In trying to theorize about something, one might find that certain common-sense judgments are inconsistent with certain philosophical/theoretical judgments. Something will have to give, and a lot of philosophy involves attempts to explain why one judgment should be retained at the expense of another.

To take this topic as an example, simple logic ultimately bears out the fact that you can't have a consistent theory with divine foreknowledge, free will as in the ability to do otherwise, and universal common-sense temporality. One or more of those concepts will have to be abandoned to make a consistent theory, and there are different configurations which retain different elements at the expense of others. Each theory will maintain that it's the one that's equalized in the right way, because it's retained the important judgments. But, ultimately, that isn't a proof that it's true. Certainly, certain theories won't be compelling to those that simply have different intuitions about the strength or weakness of certain judgments.

Consider Robert Kane (a famous contemporary defender of libertarianism). If you said "hey, prove that we have the ability to do otherwise", he'd probably go about assessing in detail the alternatives and would claim that he's shown them all lacking in some way. He might spell out some alternative and say, "see, if you accept this option, then you're committed to this absurd belief". To which you might respond, "Eeew, you're right, that belief is absurd. Therefore, I'll abandon this alternative". And, assuming you feel that way about all the alternatives, you might then feel compelled to adopt Kane's libertarianism. Now, as philosophy goes, that's about as much proof as you're ever going to get. And, in fact, that's about as much proof as anyone ever claims to have on most matters. Of course, you might respond by saying, "Actually Kane, I'm perfectly happy being committed to that belief you call 'absurd'. In fact, I just don't think it's absurd at all. The alternative, Robert, seems quite absurd to me. Phooey on your libertarianism". I suspect his response would be something like this, "Ok, fine by me. As long as you're consistent. We obviously just have a fundamental disagreement."

The scriptures I mentioned earlier and others I haven't mentioned rule it out based on the nature of God (other users like Mudcat have presented some arguments along these lines). But I'm not sure anyone is interested in arguing scriptural content.--ap

Hmmm, by just about any sense of the expression "proof" what you've said there seems to be proof of the weakest kind imaginable. It appears to me that you're suggesting that some statements in a old book entail that libertarianism is false. The truth of the Bible's metaphysical claims hardly reaches the level of intuition and it seems to me that if you're seriously going to argue, from biblical statements, that libertarianism is false, then you'd better be prepared to offer some reason for folks to think that those statements are true that amount to more than saying that they're true because they're in the Bible. And, with respect to the Bible, I haven't even mentioned interpretive problems, ambiguity, and vagueness.

[Sargon]

Anyone care to fit Josephs "one eternal now" comment into this discussion.

I'm not the greatest with open theism, determinism, libertarianism et al.; but I think it may have implications.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Here is the quote:

The great Jehovah contemplated the whole of the events connected with the earth, pertaining to the plan of salvation, before it rolled into existence, or ever "the morning stars sang together" for joy; the past, the present, and the future were and are, with Him, one eternal "now;"

http://www.kristus.dk/jkk/text.php?id=90184

If Joseph was teaching that God knows every thing that will take place in the future, I'd have to regretfully disagree with Joseph!

[Lamanite]

Here is the quote:

If Joseph was teaching that God knows every thing that will take place in the future, I'd have to regretfully disagree with Joseph!

I'm not sure how it all fits, but when I read Joseph's statement I always think of speed/space/time and relativity. Could God's relative speed and distance from us provide Him with a unique dimensional distinction?

Random thoughts,

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Anijen]

I think that God knows. He knew I was going to take the candy bar when I was 8 he knows when I die... All things are present with him his knowledge is perfect. Does that take away my agency? I don't think so, I am still free to choose, he just knows how I will choose. He allows us to go though life for our benefit and growth not his.

[Lamanite]

I think that God knows. He knew I was going to take the candy bar when I was 8 he knows when I die... All things are present with him his knowledge is perfect. Does that take away my agency? I don't think so, I am still free to choose, he just knows how I will choose. He allows us to go though life for our benefit and growth not his.

Why did he send Cain down here if he knew Cain was just going to screw up and go to Hell? If it were up to me I would have just kept Cain home until he was prepared to at least make telestial decisions. Why not give Adam a revelation detailing Cains demise and have Adam prep Cain against the upcoming Satanic onslaught.

I know the typical Mormon response, but it seems hollow and superficial, IMO

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Mudcat]

Hi Mudcat. I'd like to comment on some of the excellent questions you've asked. Like Joseph Antley, I'm not a philosopher either. I'm just a guy behind a keyboard.

Hey Sargon,

Yes, I believe that God exists within time. Part of the reason I believe this is because I can't fathom what it is like to operate outside of time. It seems quite impossible to me. So, the future does not exist because it hasn't happened yet even for God. For example, the second coming of Jesus has not happened yet, and so it currently does not exist outside of an abstract plan for it to occur in the future.

This may sound a bit off topic Sargon, but I watched Forrest Gump the other night. It was always a great movie, but the ending where he is at Jenny's grave sticks out to me as pertinent.

From the transcript of his monologue at her graveside.

I don't know if mama was right

or if it's Lieutenant Dan.

I don't know if

we each have a destiny,

or if we're all just floating around

accidental-like on a breeze.

But I think maybe it's both.

Maybe both is happening

at the same time.

At least as it relates to God. I see he him as a bit of both things... in time and out of it.

On the one hand, there is this magnificently powerful being who made life, the universe and everything, including me and you. I can see the timelessness of such a being.

On the other hand, there is a man who was raised in the family of a Jewish carpenter. He lived, did his best, then suffered and died for us. I certainly see how "in time" he was.

If we divorced ourselves from a need for preference of one view over the other, isn't it possible, that all of this stuff might be a bit beyond us all and that both things may actually be true?

I suppose when I contemplate how our free will and the possibility of God's foreknowledge come together. I see two questions come to light.

If God does know all, which I believe he does, then is it actually possible for him to love us?

IMO, he answered this question in full from the Garden to Golgotha.

However, the question I think we wrestle with is a bit different.

If God does know all, then is it actually possible for us to love him?

...For me the answer is the same.

This is a really good question. My thought is that it means that the atonement is such that it can't be exhausted. It can't be used up. It isn't going to run out. It is a resource that never runs dry. So, no matter how many sins are committed in the future the atonement is ready. I don't think we have to believe that the atonement was carried out for a specified number of past and future sins, and then after that it runs dry. But I also like your idea about how the atonement is fully sufficient for every person.

Since we seem to be sharing viewpoints here, I will give you my take as well. I sort of view the period of the atonement as some sort of nexus in time, so to speak. It's a point where all things past, present and future sort of fold together. I suppose you could say that I think that if I sin tomorrow, then my sin reaches back through time and heaps more weight upon the shoulders of Christ. Metaphorically, I would call him the Atlas That Did Not Shrug.

Maybe I am wrong there. But I know that he died for me and maybe this is my way of trying to understand it.

Sure. Though, I wouldn't be surprised if God has a huge underground storeroom full of film from the infinite home movies he has shot to help refresh his memory.

Well I am hoping he does the whole east/west thing with those tapes, and at the least chunks all the stuff pre 98' and prior in regards to me specifically.

I find this implication rather beautiful and attractive. Our relationships with God become so much more meaningful if we are allowed to say "no", and to be allowed to say "no" we must be given total control over our will...a corollary of which is that God doesn't predestine all things by his exhaustive foreknowledge.

Well, I would agree that our ability to say "no or yes" makes the relationship what it is. I suppose I don't fully understand why God knowing what we will do impedes this relationship.

I think about Christ's parable about the workers. Some worked all day, some part, some a little. They received the same wage.

I think about my own children. I love them even though at times they disobey me.

Would I love them less if I knew beforehand they would disobey me? No, they are my children.

Regards,

Mudcat

[ancientpaths]

Well, I agree that the view you labeled 'libertarianism' in your earlier post is probably not worth arguing about. For one thing, I don't know of anyone that defends such a view.

I would have thought your familiarity with Kane would cause you to run across two others: William Hasker defines libertarian freedom on a choice-by-choice basis.

[Zeta-Flux]

I don't understand what non linear causality is.

Causality that does not necessarily follow the arrow of time.

How do you demonstrate it? or do you just imagine it - like a unicorn?

Can you demonstrate that I imagine unicorns, or are you just imagining it - like a unicorn?

[Brade]

I would have thought your familiarity with Kane would cause you to run across two others: William Hasker defines libertarian freedom on a choice-by-choice basis.

[ancientpaths]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there because neither of those individuals defend what you call "strict libertarianism". My comment that "I don't know of anyone that defends such a view" was a response to when you stated that you "will concede that this refers only to a very strict libertarian view which is probably not worth arguing about." Up to that sentence you were, apparently, using the expression 'libertarian' to refer to 'a very strict libertarian view'. The very strict libertarian view, by your account, is one that includes the claim that "every inner decision must be free". My point was that nobody defends a libertarianism which includes the claim that "every inner decision must be free" (what you call "a very strict libertarianism"). Neither Hasker nor McGregor defend such a view.

I'm simply saying that I will revise my understanding of libertarian free-will along the lines of the quotes from Hasker and McGregor - essentially, on a decision by decision basis libertarian free-will is when a decision is made which is ultimately autonomous from outside determination. (Yes, I am able to learn and yes, definitions are often scoffed at but are absolutely critical in a discussion). It appears that these definitions describe a libertarian free-will that is on a case-by-case basis "strict."

Sorry, I admit that I jumped the gun on that one. I can see that you're simply engaging in the process I described. You obviously give a certain interpretation of some scriptural statements significant weight, and in so doing allow such things to inform your theory of free will. I'm actually genuinely interested in understanding why you accept some or all of the claims of the Bible (your epistemology, if you like). It'd be a derailment to have that discussion in this thread. But, if you're interested, this thread would be a suitable venue.

I'll check out the thread soon. --ap

[ancientpaths]

Causality that does not necessarily follow the arrow of time.

This idea is simply self-referentially incoherent. If A "causes" B but time goes backwards then we simply have that B causes A. There, you can now rid your thinking of another unimaginably silly concept called "non linear causality."--ap

[Mudcat]

This idea is simply self-referentially incoherent. If A "causes" B but time goes backwards then we simply have that B causes A. There, you can now rid your thinking of another unimaginably silly concept called "non linear causality."--ap

Not to be overly critical here. But expanding what you seem to be saying.. as it relates to Christ.

How do you explain Christ's sacrafice for sin? In the sense that his sacrafice was for past, present and future sin. An obvious emphasis on "future" sin.

In the future tense of it, Christ died for something that didn't happen in a linear sense. Yet you seem to dismiss B causing A as "unimaginably silly". If that is the case, how do you ramify that with Christ's sacrifice and the sins of man that had not yet occurred in any linear sense?

Not trying to take you task, just want an explanation is all.

Regards,

Mudcat

[ancientpaths]

How do you explain Christ's sacrifice for sin? In the sense that his sacrifice was for past, present and future sin. An obvious emphasis on "future" sin.

In the future tense of it, Christ died for something that didn't happen in a linear sense. Yet you seem to dismiss B causing A as "unimaginably silly". If that is the case, how do you ramify that with Christ's sacrifice and the sins of man that had not yet occurred in any linear sense?

I see it this way. There are two parts: 1) faith and justification which have a cause and effect relation and 2) Crucifixion/resurrection (the basis of justification) which was decided/caused before the foundation of the world. Regarding point 1) Paul declares under the inspiration of the spirit in Romans 5:1

[Zeta-Flux]

This idea is simply self-referentially incoherent.

No it isn't. It just appears you don't understand the idea.

If A "causes" B but time goes backwards then we simply have that B causes A.

First, I didn't say "time goes backwards" so you don't appear to be addressing the concept I was talking about. Second, you seem to have completely missed the point: causality may not depend on the flow of time, and so reversing time does *not* necessarily reverse causality. Third, you seem to be implicitly accepting the idea of an "absolute" time line; but modern science posits that the order of some events which are separated by enough distance (literally) depends on your frame of reference.

If non-linear causality is hard for you to picture, think about those Star Trek episodes where someone travels back in time and doesn't *change* the past.

There, you can now rid your thinking of another unimaginably silly concept called "non linear causality."--ap

Name calling aside: If only it were that easy. There are quite a number of physical phenomena in the real world, such as quantum entanglement, where there can be effects which occur outside the light cone, and thus not caused in a temporal manner. (In other words, from the point of view of someone traveling near the speed of light, it looks like A causes B. From another person's point of view, say sitting on earth, it looks like B causes A.)

[ancientpaths]

No it isn't. It just appears you don't understand the idea.

First, I didn't say "time goes backwards" so you don't appear to be addressing the concept I was talking about. Second, you seem to have completely missed the point: causality may not depend on the flow of time, and so reversing time does *not* necessarily reverse causality. Third, you seem to be implicitly accepting the idea of an "absolute" time line; but modern science posits that the order of some events which are separated by enough distance (literally) depends on your frame of reference.

If non-linear causality is hard for you to picture, think about those Star Trek episodes where someone travels back in time and doesn't *change* the past.

Name calling aside: If only it were that easy. There are quite a number of physical phenomena in the real world, such as quantum entanglement, where there can be effects which occur outside the light cone, and thus not caused in a temporal manner. (In other words, from the point of view of someone traveling near the speed of light, it looks like A causes B. From another person's point of view, say sitting on earth, it looks like B causes A.)

I did retract my

[Zeta-Flux]

I did retract my