I hold a view similar to the Open View of God.

Mark Quayle said:

I'll highlight this part of what you say, because it is representative of what we disagree on:

God sees A, but wants B, and so intervenes and changes the result to B, but then A never occurred, so God shouldn't have been able to see A as a future, because there was no future A.​

And that was a ridiculously simplistic example​

Right from the get-go you step out of fact into supposition. God does not simply "see A but want B". That misrepresents what God is doing. It represents the facet WE see, by virtue of a general knowledge we have of him and his nature, and by comparison to his stated commands. While we indeed (as you said) have no way of knowing what reality is for God, we can know some things, such as the fact that it is not how we see it.

It would be useful to do a good study on the theological and philosophical Attributes of God of Aseity, Simplicity and Immanence. Consider the notion, for example, that for God to think is to do, as opposed to the human notions of God considering this or that possibility. If what is possible is exactly all he does, and there is no other fact, then "what would be [otherwise] 'possible' is only by our lack of knowledge". As RC Sproul quoted, "Chance is only a substitute for, 'I don't know.'" ALL FACT DEPENDS ON GOD.

God sees A because he caused A. "There is no plan B." That B goes against his command has to do with what SHOULD HAVE happened. Don't confuse his command with his plan ( =the theological term, 'his decree').

Click to expand...

You're focusing on the wrong thing. "There is no plan B" means my choices are already decided, which also means that I have no choice or free will. The two are the same. I only think I have a choice, because God fools me into believing that, because my brain is pre-wired to believe that. If I turn left or right God already knows which way I will turn. If I debate and change my mind, God already knows I will debate which way to turn. That turns us into a simulation, no better than a robot that cannot escape its programming.

There is no rebellion by man. There is no love of God. Breaking commandments or keeping them is irrelevant. It is pre-decided whether I will repent or not. But in reality, I have nothing to repent from. My fate and actions were decided for me long before I was ever conceived. In this scenario there is only one entity to judge, and that would be God.

SuperCow said:

You're focusing on the wrong thing. "There is no plan B" means my choices are already decided, which also means that I have no choice or free will. The two are the same. I only think I have a choice, because God fools me into believing that, because my brain is pre-wired to believe that. If I turn left or right God already knows which way I will turn. If I debate and change my mind, God already knows I will debate which way to turn. That turns us into a simulation, no better than a robot that cannot escape its programming.

Click to expand...

You take that for axiomatic, just as, I'm guessing, you would take that "the command implies the ability to obey". (—It does not). If your choices are decided by God, it does not imply that you do not really choose. In fact, I think it is more obvious, since God is First Cause, that your choices are only real if God "establishes" them. (See the WCF 3.1) That you are not the prime mover in your choices does not deny that you are the immediate cause in your choices.

SuperCow said:

There is no rebellion by man. There is no love of God. Breaking commandments or keeping them is irrelevant. It is pre-decided whether I will repent or not. But in reality, I have nothing to repent from. My fate and actions were decided for me long before I was ever conceived. In this scenario there is only one entity to judge, and that would be God.

Click to expand...

False as the day is long. You continue in your notion of man as prime mover in his deeds. You indeed do WILL to do what you do, and that, by what you deem more advantageous or desirous. You choose according to your inclinations.

Let me try to point out something. God not only has the right and the ability to cause absolutely everything to happen just as it does. But any truth there is to our skewed views (and descriptions) of who chooses what and why the do so does not approach the level at which reality [itself] is caused to exist. Even if you are entirely right in the POV from which you try to describe how choice operates, you must admit that God caused it. That reality did not cause itself, nor did it exist before God showed up "on the scene". Nothing existed before God. He did not "show up".

But he also is absolutely pure and of himself holy. If he deigned to create a particular people to love, and for that particular purpose to create all that we consider 'reality', he has every reason to demand of them absolute purity and holiness, even knowing that they cannot (or will not, if you prefer) reach that level in this life. The law of righteousness is beyond any of us to accomplish. But it is not beyond the grace of God to accomplish in us. Christ is our substitute. And that is how we are made 'alive' in him. WE are not the cause of our inclusion in Christ, the mediator between God and [fallen] man.

That believers must and do actually choose Christ is not debated. That we do have real, valid, faith by which we are saved is also not debated. But the source of those things absolutely is at issue here.

Your response is full of logical contradictions.

Mark Quayle said:

You take that for axiomatic, just as, I'm guessing, you would take that "the command implies the ability to obey". (—It does not).

Click to expand...

True, It does not; however, in that case it requires deception by God to make me believe that i am not already controlled by a fixation in time.

Mark Quayle said:

If your choices are decided by God, it does not imply that you do not really choose. In fact, I think it is more obvious, since God is First Cause, that your choices are only real if God "establishes" them. (See the WCF 3.1) That you are not the prime mover in your choices does not deny that you are the immediate cause in your choices.

Click to expand...

How can you not see that you are stating every side of the argument at once and completely refuting yourself?

How does it sound to you if I were to say that "if I flicked a light switch on, it does not imply that the electrical current did not really choose to turn the light on. I think it is more obvious, since I flicked the light switch, that the electrical current's choice to turn on the light is only real if I allowed it. That the electrical current is not the prime mover in its choice does not deny that the electrical current is the immediate cause of the light turning on."

The electrical current is indeed the cause, but did it make the choice to be the cause?

Mark Quayle said:

False as the day is long. You continue in your notion of man as prime mover in his deeds. You indeed do WILL to do what you do, and that, by what you deem more advantageous or desirous. You choose according to your inclinations.

Click to expand...

First you say it is false that man is the prime mover in his deeds, and then immediately afterwards you proclaim it as true in the next two sentences.

Mark Quayle said:

Let me try to point out something. God not only has the right and the ability to cause absolutely everything to happen just as it does. But any truth there is to our skewed views (and descriptions) of who chooses what and why the do so does not approach the level at which reality [itself] is caused to exist. Even if you are entirely right in the POV from which you try to describe how choice operates, you must admit that God caused it. That reality did not cause itself, nor did it exist before God showed up "on the scene". Nothing existed before God. He did not "show up".

Click to expand...

I am not denying that God caused our reality, but within that reality I believe that God has the ability to give us a choice that is not pre-determined. You claim that God does not have that ability, but through a bunch of word-salad try to explain away the contradictions your position creates.

Mark Quayle said:

That believers must and do actually choose Christ is not debated. That we do have real, valid, faith by which we are saved is also not debated. But the source of those things absolutely is at issue here.

Click to expand...

Actually, the source of choice is not so much the issue as is whether the choice is real. If God knows our choice before it is made, then it is not really a choice either by God or by us.

SuperCow said:

How can you not see that you are stating every side of the argument at once and completely refuting yourself?

How does it sound to you if I were to say that "if I flicked a light switch on, it does not imply that the electrical current did not really choose to turn the light on. I think it is more obvious, since I flicked the light switch, that the electrical current's choice to turn on the light is only real if I allowed it. That the electrical current is not the prime mover in its choice does not deny that the electrical current is the immediate cause of the light turning on."

The electrical current is indeed the cause, but did it make the choice to be the cause?

Click to expand...

But we're not talking about electric current here, are we? God created. There was and is nothing that is not a result of that.

SuperCow said:

True, It does not; however, in that case it requires deception by God to make me believe that i am not already controlled by a fixation in time.

Click to expand...

No. Only by your parameters.

SuperCow said:

First you say it is false that man is the prime mover in his deeds, and then immediately afterwards you proclaim it as true in the next two sentences.

Click to expand...

I looked. I see nowhere I proclaimed as true that man is the prime mover in his deeds.

SuperCow said:

I am not denying that God caused our reality, but within that reality I believe that God has the ability to give us a choice that is not pre-determined. You claim that God does not have that ability, but through a bunch of word-salad try to explain away the contradictions your position creates.

Click to expand...

No. If he caused it, and that is reality, then whatever is real within that reality is caused by God. To characterize something within that reality as uncaused is therefore logically self-contradictory.

No, I do not claim that God does not (nor that he does) have that ability. I claim it is logical nonsense, a figment of the imagination, words playing in the mind of presumptuous humans.

SuperCow said:

Actually, the source of choice is not so much the issue as is whether the choice is real. If God knows our choice before it is made, then it is not really a choice either by God or by us.

Click to expand...

I did not intend "the source of choice" there. I intended the source of the ability to choose Christ, and the source of salvific Faith.

Mark Quayle said:

But we're not talking about electric current here, are we? God created. There was and is nothing that is not a result of that.

Click to expand...

The principle is the same and you're side-skirting the issue so you don't have to answer. You can't just say that because God is involved then no logic applies.

Mark Quayle said:

No. Only by your parameters.

Click to expand...

By anyone's parameters if they make an honest analysis of the situation.

Mark Quayle said:

I looked. I see nowhere I proclaimed as true that man is the prime mover in his deeds.

Click to expand...

False as the day is long. You continue in your notion of man as prime mover in his deeds.
- False that man is the prime mover in his deed. So I am not able to make my own choice.

You indeed do WILL to do what you do, and that, by what you deem more advantageous or desirous.
- You will do what you do...by what you deem more more advantageous or desirous. Now I am the prime mover after all, therefore now my initial statement is true and somehow I can make my own choice..

You choose according to your inclinations.
- Again I am making a choice according to my inclinations. Further solidifying that my initial position is true.

So the second two sentences contradict the first.

Mark Quayle said:

No. If he caused it, and that is reality, then whatever is real within that reality is caused by God. To characterize something within that reality as uncaused is therefore logically self-contradictory.

Click to expand...

I am not disputing cause. I am disputing the logical incoherence that causing something that you know the result of can result in any effect that is not pre-determined, and if it is pre-determined then it is logically incoherent to suggest that anyone besides the causer has any choice.

Mark Quayle said:

No, I do not claim that God does not (nor that he does) have that ability. I claim it is logical nonsense, a figment of the imagination, words playing in the mind of presumptuous humans.

I did not intend "the source of choice" there. I intended the source of the ability to choose Christ, and the source of salvific Faith.

Click to expand...

Oh, but you are making a claim. You just don't realize it.

Which is it? A or B?

A. I have a choice whether to follow God.
B. God already knows whether I will choose to follow him or not.

If God knows that I will follow him, then there is no reality where I will not follow him. Conversely if he knows I will not follow him, then there is no reality where I do follow him. You cannot say both, because to quote from you, it is logical nonsense.

Mark Quayle said:

No. If he caused it, and that is reality, then whatever is real within that reality is caused by God. To characterize something within that reality as uncaused is therefore logically self-contradictory.

Click to expand...

Only if God is unable to make a person or agent who can also be a causer. But if God can cause a causer, one who can affect the cosmos like God can, even if only on a tiny scale, then everything is NOT caused by God.

And if God causes all real things within the reality you speak of, then God is wholly to blame for any real sin. There is no one else to blame. And if blaming God for sin is sinful in itself, blame God for causing me to do it--I can only do what God causes me to do.

Mark Quayle said:
No. If he caused it, and that is reality, then whatever is real within that reality is caused by God. To characterize something within that reality as uncaused is therefore logically self-contradictory.

Derf said:

Only if God is unable to make a person or agent who can also be a causer. But if God can cause a causer, one who can affect the cosmos like God can, even if only on a tiny scale, then everything is NOT caused by God.

Click to expand...

What? We are all causers. Even inanimate facts are causers. But we are not uncaused.

Do you not understand the difference between First Cause, and subsequent causes? The law of causation says that every effect is caused. And I say that the law of causation is universally pervasive. Even you speak that way, and with good reason, until suddenly you back off about God causing.

I'm sure you have heard of the chains of causation. As far as I know, all effects are also causes, and all causes have multiple effects. These interwoven "chains" are always there, right down to the point where you decide what you decide. And God did that. God made that. God spoke that reality into existence.

Derf said:

And if God causes all real things within the reality you speak of, then God is wholly to blame for any real sin. There is no one else to blame. And if blaming God for sin is sinful in itself, blame God for causing me to do it--I can only do what God causes me to do.

Click to expand...

That characterization is false. You choose to do those things. I would love to hear you show me something for which God is not first cause. Even YOU believe God is the creator of all that is. If he is that Creator, and if there is sin, then he caused that there be sin.

You continue to group God into our level with the rest of reality.

Disclaimer: Now this that follows, I'm not saying is fact, but it points toward something you ignore: God does not reside with us within this reality, in the same way that we are within and bound to this reality. He MADE this reality. Consider the notion that we are mere thoughts in God's head —again, I'm not saying that notion is true, but it points at a truth. God is not like us.

Mark Quayle said:
But we're not talking about electric current here, are we? God created. There was and is nothing that is not a result of that.

SuperCow said:

The principle is the same and you're side-skirting the issue so you don't have to answer. You can't just say that because God is involved then no logic applies.

Click to expand...

You are projecting. I had good reason to say what I did. You like to lay out your parameters, and demand I follow them and answer according to them. In court, if a lawyer demands a yes or no answer, I will ask to speak to the judge, when neither a yes nor a no answer is the whole truth.

Here's what you said:

SuperCow said:
How can you not see that you are stating every side of the argument at once and completely refuting yourself?

How does it sound to you if I were to say that "if I flicked a light switch on, it does not imply that the electrical current did not really choose to turn the light on. I think it is more obvious, since I flicked the light switch, that the electrical current's choice to turn on the light is only real if I allowed it. That the electrical current is not the prime mover in its choice does not deny that the electrical current is the immediate cause of the light turning on."

The electrical current is indeed the cause, but did it make the choice to be the cause?

I'm saying that whole construction is not only silly, but that it does not represent what I espouse. But we can play that game, since you insist on beating up your strawman: 1. You are using circular reasoning. You define choice as uncaused. Then you use that definition to represent what I call 'caused' as uncaused, and say that I am contradicting myself. 2. "Prime mover" is 'First Cause'. Not 'Immediate Cause'. But, since in your worldview, choosers are little first causes trotting about the planet, you insist (in your little story) that I am speaking of 'prime mover'. I am not. 3. And this, you consider logical. You don't see that your whole structure depends on the assumption that if something/someone chooses, it is the first cause. Dogs choose—so why doesn't God hold them morally responsible for their choices? I suppose you would say that they are not because their choices ARE caused, being instinctive and reactionary, while ours are thought out. I would love to hear you pursue that to its logical end.

The electric current is inanimate. We are not. Yet, we are caused. We did not (and do not) cause ourselves.

Mark Quayle said:
No. Only by your parameters.

SuperCow said:

By anyone's parameters if they make an honest analysis of the situation.

Click to expand...

Only you and your kind are honest?

SuperCow said:

False as the day is long. You continue in your notion of man as prime mover in his deeds.
- False that man is the prime mover in his deed. So I am not able to make my own choice.

Click to expand...

Still unproven assumption. You are only restating your definition here.

SuperCow said:

You indeed do WILL to do what you do, and that, by what you deem more advantageous or desirous.
- You will do what you do...by what you deem more more advantageous or desirous. Now I am the prime mover after all, therefore now my initial statement is true and somehow I can make my own choice..

Click to expand...

Same. Still assuming the one necessarily means the other. You've proven nothing here.

SuperCow said:

You choose according to your inclinations.
- Again I am making a choice according to my inclinations. Further solidifying that my initial position is true.

So the second two sentences contradict the first.

Click to expand...

They contradict only if you assume that choice by definition makes the chooser the prime mover.

SuperCow said:

I am not disputing cause. I am disputing the logical incoherence that causing something that you know the result of can result in any effect that is not pre-determined, and if it is pre-determined then it is logically incoherent to suggest that anyone besides the causer has any choice.

Click to expand...

Wrong. But at least a small change in subject. That's refreshing.

God does not 'inhabit' this reality in the same way we do. He did not make something without knowing ahead what would come of it. This is not some experiment where mere "chance" has more causality than God, and God must risk his project on CHANCE. You do not consider yourself to be "self-existent" like God, yet somehow you consider yourself able to choose uncaused to do so. That is, to use your terminology, logical incoherence.

Mark Quayle said:
No, I do not claim that God does not (nor that he does) have that ability. I claim it is logical nonsense, a figment of the imagination, words playing in the mind of presumptuous humans.

I did not intend "the source of choice" there. I intended the source of the ability to choose Christ, and the source of salvific Faith

SuperCow said:

Oh, but you are making a claim. You just don't realize it.

Which is it? A or B?

A. I have a choice whether to follow God.
B. God already knows whether I will choose to follow him or not.

Click to expand...

C. You will choose because you must. You cannot avoid it. And God knows what you will choose— knew it before the foundation of the world. Argue against the Bible, if you will: Have you not heard of the Biblical term, "the elect"? Do you think the "Bride of Christ" is a haphazard compilation of indeterminate members?

SuperCow said:

If God knows that I will follow him, then there is no reality where I will not follow him.

Click to expand...

True

SuperCow said:

Conversely if he knows I will not follow him, then there is no reality where I do follow him.

Click to expand...

Also true.

SuperCow said:

You cannot say both, because to quote from you, it is logical nonsense.

Click to expand...

Not at all. Both are true statements. It is only logical nonsense that both would happen at the same time in the same way.

Further, he uses your choices to bring whichever reality about. The fact that from your POV the human doesn't know what will happen doesn't mean that it is not already determined. In fact, ha!, lately the scientific community is claiming that all of time already exists. No wonder they are struggling to come up with ways to explain how that can be true, if multiple options are actually all possible. They cannot admit to a proper definition of GOD.

Mark Quayle said:

Even YOU believe God is the creator of all that is. If he is that Creator, and if there is sin, then he caused that there be sin.

Click to expand...

You finally admit it. This is what I have been trying to tell you all along. There is obviously sin, so God caused the sin. So he wanted sin in the world, because otherwise the only conclusion to take is that God does not want sin, but could not avoid it which would not make him omnipotent.

Therefore man did not cause the sin because man is not the first causer. The law of causality would say that everything man does including choice has an initial cause, which would be God. Therefore man is not responsible for his sin.

I disagree with this, but at least it is a logical position to take. We could have saved much of the discussion if you admitted this earlier. However, I challenge you to find a scripture where it says that God caused sin or wants it to happen.

Mark Quayle said:

SuperCow said:

Which is it? A or B?

A. I have a choice whether to follow God.
B. God already knows whether I will choose to follow him or not.

Click to expand...

C. You will choose because you must. You cannot avoid it. And God knows what you will choose— knew it before the foundation of the world. Argue against the Bible, if you will: Have you not heard of the Biblical term, "the elect"? Do you think the "Bride of Christ" is a haphazard compilation of indeterminate members?

Click to expand...

Actually your (C) answer is actually choice (B), which makes sense because we established your belief that God causes sin, and you admit again I choose because I must, cannot avoid it, and God knows what I will choose, which negates (A).