Open Theism: God's Knowledge & Our Freedom - CCT Conversations - Zimmerman/Crisp
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- Philosophers Dean Zimmerman (Rutgers University) and Tom Crisp (Biola University) discuss Zimmerman's views about God's knowledge and human freedom.
God knows the future infinitely more than he knows it precisely
I don't understand why open theists assume that future contingencies don't have a truth value. It is either true or false that some event E will happen. If it is either true or false that E will happen, then God knows whether it's true or false, given that he knows the truth value of every proposition. It doesn't mean He is causing it. It doesn't mean the event is determined. It just means God knows it. The principle of bivalence still applies. That seems obviously true to me at least.
I very much disagree with Zimmerman here.
There are different views among open theists as to how best to describe the senses in which the future might be open to God, some of which affirm the applicability of the principle of bivalence in this situation, while others give reasons not to; see the section on varieties of open theism by following this link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism#Varieties_of_open_theists
If you want to find out more regarding ways open theists seek to explain how facts (and any uncertainties) about the future might relate to God's knowledge, Google Alan Rhoda, Greg Boyd, or something similar for essays they've written on the subject (such as opentheism.info/information/hexagon-opposition-thinking-outside-aristotelian-box/ , www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2006/02/four-versions-of-open-theism.html , www.alanrhoda.net/papers/opentheism.pdf , and www.alanrhoda.net/papers/Generic%20Open%20Theism.pdf). I hope that wasn't overdoing it!
"It is either true or false that some event E will happen."
If there is libertarian free will, then there is a third option: It is open. If the agent is free: It is open that some event E occur. It can't be either true or false until it happens; otherwise, that means the agent could not have done otherwise, since there is already a fact-of-the-matter that existed beforehand and can't be proved wrong. It has to be not-yet true nor false -- genuine openness.
"It doesn't mean He is causing it."
There is no reason to keep bringing up the obvious. This is not the argument.
"It doesn't mean the event is determined."
Not necessarily causally; there's also non-causal and logical determinism. If there's already a true proposition about what will happen, then it is fated to happen. Logical fatalism.
"That seems obviously true to me at least."
It seems obvious that I can't change what God foreknows, and hence, I do not have free will. Sartre was right: if God exists, Man is not free & if Man is free, God does not exist.
@Meta-character
Zimmerman is questioned in another interview and laughably admits to having a higher view of man than God.
If Eddie Van Halen wore glasses and discussed philosophy.
It isn't that they don't have truth value, it is that the value is yet undetermined. Tomorrow I may get up and drink coffee or tea. For God to know which, someone other than me needs to have determined which I would drink tomorrow because I truly have not yet decided which, ergo, I am not free to make that choice because the determination was made by another. But you are wrong, it does in fact mean someone other than me made the choice if it is known before I choose, and is is necessarily so. It cannot be both ways. If so, freedom is an illusion as Luther, Augustine, and Plato well understood. Then sin is not a choice we made, how then is is just to judge us for it? All works-around attempt simply fail to adequately explain this. Believe them if you like, but under the pain of self delusion.
You are completely incorrect about this Prof. God simply knowing what you will freely choose absolutely does not determine it to happen. This is a fallacy in modal logic.
Necessarily, if God foreknows X, X will happen. But that doesn't mean X will necessarily happen. X could fail to happen. But if X failed to happen, God's knowledge would have been different. Think of God's knowledge like an infallible barometer.
Here is why your logic is fallacious. For example:
Necessarily, if Bill is unmarried, Bill is a bachelor. But it doesn't follow that Bill is necessarily a bachelor. Bill could possibly be unmarried.
Think about it. Let's say God foreknows that I will have Corn Flakes for breakfast tomorrow. That means I will have Corn Flakes. Now's let's assume the same scenario plays out and I have Corn Flakes, but in this case, God didn't foreknow I would have Corn Flakes... What has changed? How in the world, just by removing God's foreknowledge, does that magically restore my freedom?
It's an unintelligible view and, indeed, a fallacy in modal logic.
ivjdivfjalekvvjp You did not explain how my statement is fallacious, nor modal. However, you negate your own argument by a presumption that you are correct, you even give a barometer metaphor about your question begging. Your assumption cannot be your conclusion or you have no argument at all. You merely set up several straw men with your assumption at the center, each begging the question.
Set up a syllogism and then check it for validity and formality. Sorry, but what you presented was simply nonsense, completely circular. However, I am afraid that is how the argument has been supported for over a millennium.
I was refuting your claim that by God knowing the future, we thus wouldn't have free will. And I pointed out, this is a fallacy in modal logic. Simply because it is necessary that if God foreknows X, X will happen; it doesn't follow that X will necessarily happen. To think so is in fact a fallacy in modal logic.
I agree that, for instance, the winner of the 2016 election is undetermined. But it is still either true or false that any given candidate will win or not. And God, being omniscient, knows any and all truths. Seems to me He would know this just by His nature. Knowing what someone would freely choose doesn't stand in causal relation to what their choice will be be.
1) God is the greatest conceivable being.
2) God, being maximally great, would entail His omniscience.
3) If God is omniscient, He knows any and all truths.
4) All counterfactuals of human freedom have a truth value.
5) Therefore, God knows the truth value of all counterfactuals of human freedom.
Btw, why are you getting so hostile? My goodness.
+ivjdivfjalekvvjp Your points are well made. I totally agree with you and thank you for being non confrontational towards the person you were explaining it to. God bless
+ivjdivfjalekvvjp First, I show no hostility. People are made in the image of God. They should be treated with love and respect. My statements are not hostile in the least. Humans can and often do delude themselves. e all do this at points, at least everyone I have known does.
Above, you are begging the question that is being debated. You beg the question by tucking the proposition that God knows the future into your assumption about God's character: "God, being omniscient, knows any and all truths." He can know all current truths and know truths when they become true, but not before they actually exist. The future does not exist, ergo cannot be know. It could be planned, say, by God (i.e. prophesy) but not known, and those plans are flexible, not hard set. (Does God know the thoughts of Barbie, the doll? Why, because plastic does not have a mind to think thoughts, ergo they do not exist. Neither does the future, ergo, it cannot be known.)
Being omniscient is defined by the Greeks as knowing all future contingencies, but not in the Bible. Numerous statements in the Bible make it clear unless your worldview excludes a literal reading of the text. But you probably claim that you do take the Bible literally, except in those areas you don't. Yes, there are metaphors, etc., but these are not that kind of statements. They are direct, clear, and the meaning is simple.
In your list above 1. where in the Bible is this claim made? It isn't true because it is accepted by many theologians, and it is true that people overstate things (turn on any political debate going on now, March 2016, Trump, Cruz, Hillary, Sanders, etc.) So rejecting premise 1. above stops your argument.
As opposed to 1. above, isn't it true that God actually reveals his true character in the Bible and that extra-biblical references tend to drift away from that based on denominational dogma (not used pejoratively)? Well, yes, it is, and just choose any other denomination than yours and you will likely be able to see their bias. Now, being objective, can you see your own? It took me a while being raised in Presbyterian and independent Baptist churches (Tim LaHaye's), but when the question was asked, "what does the Bible say the purpose of the rainbow is?" I was dumbfounded at what it said as opposed to what I was taught it said. This returned me to the Bible for still another full reading to see what else I had been biased against.
It is very hard to reconsider one's worldview especially in the mental state we all are born with that easily falls into a simple trap: The Bible is absolute truth, so our justification center of the mind tells us that the person's who taught us that fact must also be close to absolute truth. It is just easier to believe that as opposed to being like the Bereans and going to the Bible daily to see that it actually says. It's hard work.
Interesting counter example, Jeremy, but GOD has one essential attribute the candy bar story missed: omnipotence. If you had the ability to alter the child's preferences, the analogue would better hold.
Open theism doesn't seem logical to me...the bible makes it pretty clear that God is not restrained by time, that he is outside of it. So any form of logic based on time has no meaning in comparison to God. Furthermore...if I have two candy bars in my hand and stand before my child...and I know he's going to pick the Baby Ruth because I know he likes that one slightly better...he still has free will. My knowing he would pick that one does not mean he lacks free will. I just knew he would pick that one BASED on his choices from free will.
There is no such thing as "outside" of time. True, time can only be measured by material objects, (stars for the seasons, sun rise, sun set for a day), but liner time happens everywhere.
Free will and Open Theism make the point that God has at times has been surprised at Israel much like as if your child did not choose the Baby Ruth. You may think with a high degree of certainty what your child will choose, but since they have free will, sometimes they will do the unexpected. Not to worry, God has thought through His course of action for an unexpected scenario as well.
There is a spiritual battle aswell which u!timately Jesus has won but we can still act in the spirit of the devil in our flesh.I'm really fine with not adhering to any theological system and I'm willing to say some things are a mystery. I'm not Gonna try to box God up ,he is who he is ,nothing is impossible for God.
There is one thing impossible for God
it is impossible that God contradict himself or his own character
@@bo1jon227 it's a clever saying and true saying .but an unnecessary saying.a bit like;" do not unto your neighbour as you would not have them do unto you."I prefer to say "nothing is impossible for God "because that is from his word ,it's not my words.and God's word will remain forever.but I appreciate your thoughts and comment and that you shared that with me . I hope you have a lovely day .thanks for the reminder that Our God faithful .
so 'god' is just rolling the dice like the rest of us? poor 'god'...
Father forgive them for this evil, demonic teaching. Save them please in Jesus name and protect all the little ones from their sinister slander against your Holy name!!!!
@@drewconstable1424 A god who chooses evils to occur and the sins he created “free” people to do is good? Robotic auto-matrons. And if he just knows he created knowing and brought into being what he willed of evil. Open theism makes more sense the only problem is perspective of how one approaches it, something paradoxical doesn’t mean “bad,” infinity itself is somewhat difficult to understand but it’s not “made up.”