Is Open Theism, Arminianism consistently applied or Arminianism come to it's own?

[themuzicman]

Gotcha. Like I said, I'm not a Molinist, so I don't really disagree too much. But that's a good case against it.

Thanks.

I'm very fond of C.S. Lewis's view:

'Suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call 'tomorrow,' is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call today. All the days are 'ow,' for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday; He simply sees you doing them, because though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not 'foresee.' you doing things tomorrow; He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrows actions in just the same way - because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already 'Now,' for Him.'

IMO God doesn't know by causing (Calvinism) or simply know theoretically (Arminianism). He knows existentially, on the basis of having ever been the end as well as the beginning, in all, with all, and through all.

That's addressed by the second proof.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

That's addressed by the second proof.

I don't know.

(1)God timelessly and infallibly believes T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2)If E is timelessly and infallibly believed, it cannot be otherwise, thus it is necessary that E occur. [Principle of Necessity]
(3)It is necessary that God believes T. [1, 2]
(4)Necessarily, if God believes T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
(5)If p is necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6)So it is necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7)If it is necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
(8)Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9)If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10)Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

The first premise (1) states that 'God timelessly and infallibly believes.' But on the Lewis-an view, He doesn't believe infaillibly - it's not a case of His having foreknowledge on the view I posted above, it's a case of His existentially knowing what we do by virtue of being there. But perhaps I'm not quite grasping something here.

 

[themuzicman]

The first premise (1) states that 'God timelessly and infallibly believes.' But on the Lewis-an view, He doesn't believe infaillibly - it's not a case of His having foreknowledge on the view I posted above, it's a case of His existentially knowing what we do by virtue of being there. But perhaps I'm not quite grasping something here.

The term "believes" is probably less accurate in this version than the previous proof. In this case, "knows" would be sufficient. In the first proof, "believes" is used becasue God knows before it happens.

The real key in the second proof in #1 is that God's knowledge is infallible.

And, if you think about it, if all decisions are made simultaneously (as would be required for a universe in which the entirely timeline was created simultaneously, so that it all could be existentially known simultaneously), there is no room for the process of free will (comprehension, consideration, decision) to occur, since they would all have to happen at the same moment, and we would literally be unable to consider past experience or even past learning when making a decision, because all experience and learning would have to occur at the same moment the decision occurs.

I realize that this isn't how we perceive time, but God's view is ultimately the real view, and in the real view, all things must happen simultaneously so He can know them all simultaneously.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

I'm loving this discussion.

And, if you think about it, if all decisions are made simultaneously (as would be required for a universe in which the entirely timeline was created simultaneously, so that it all could be existentially known simultaneously), there is no room for the process of free will (comprehension, consideration, decision) to occur, since they would all have to happen at the same moment, and we would literally be unable to consider past experience or even past learning when making a decision, because all experience and learning would have to occur at the same moment the decision occurs.

FWIW I don't believe in a pure free will - one is either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ. Practically speaking, however, I think the weakness in your view you outlined is that IMO God didn't simply create an already happened timeline that He can watch, like an ultimate movie director watching his film on the big screen. See below.

I realize that this isn't how we perceive time, but God's view is ultimately the real view, and in the real view, all things must happen simultaneously so He can know them all simultaneously.

Here I;m not so sure - does everything have to happen simultaneously for God to see everything simultaneously? Or is God simply present as all things are happening? You're certainly right - we can't see the big picture as God can. In a sense I'd say everything has happened...but also that it is happening, and will be happening, since God is eternally present.

 

[themuzicman]

I'm loving this discussion.

Same here.

FWIW I don't believe in a pure free will - one is either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ.

I'm unclear as to how this affects free will.

Practically speaking, however, I think the weakness in your view you outlined is that IMO God didn't simply create an already happened timeline that He can watch, like an ultimate movie director watching his film on the big screen. See below.



Here I;m not so sure - does everything have to happen simultaneously for God to see everything simultaneously?

Well, if something hasn't happened, can it be seen? Your example of a movie director is interesting, but the characters on the DvD don't have free will. They will do what was determined for them to do every time.

Or is God simply present as all things are happening? You're certainly right - we can't see the big picture as God can. In a sense I'd say everything has happened...but also that it is happening, and will be happening, since God is eternally present.

Well, ok, but we still have the problem of God seeing everything simultaneously, and free will requiring time to process.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

I'm unclear as to how this affects free will.

Well, if one is a slave, one doesn't have free will.

Well, if something hasn't happened, can it be seen?

Your example of a movie director is interesting, but the characters on the DvD don't have free will. They will do what was determined for them to do every time.

Exactly- and I'm saying that that's not how God is/what God does.

Well, ok, but we still have the problem of God seeing everything simultaneously, and free will requiring time to process.

My lack of knowledge in philosophy of time is showing here - but I don't think God sees everything because it's already happened - in that sense, free will would indeed be shot. I'm content to say that God is eternally present as each moment unfolds - so in a way, what I did yesterday, He's still 'watching' me do it, the phone you anwered yesterday, He's still 'there.' Does that make sense or am I just rambling?

 

[themuzicman]

Well, if one is a slave, one doesn't have free will.

Well, that might present a problem for unlimited ability, but even slaves have the ability to refrain from choosing a possible option.

My lack of knowledge in philosophy of time is showing here - but I don't think God sees everything because it's already happened - in that sense, free will would indeed be shot. I'm content to say that God is eternally present as each moment unfolds - so in a way, what I did yesterday, He's still 'watching' me do it, the phone you anwered yesterday, He's still 'there.' Does that make sense or am I just rambling?

Well, if God is already in the future looking at what's happening there, then, in reality, hasn't it already happened, even if it doesn't appear that way to us?

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Well, if God is already in the future looking at what's happening there, then, in reality, hasn't it already happened, even if it doesn't appear that way to us?

I was actually thinking that from God's view (which we would call the Real view) everything hasn't happened - it is happening.

 

[themuzicman]

I was actually thinking that from God's view (which we would call the Real view) everything hasn't happened - it is happening.

OK, but everything has always been happening, right?

 

[Walter Kovacs]

OK, but everything has always been happening, right?

From God's eternally present viewpoint, I'd say yes - everything, was, is, and will be happening. I think I know where you're going, and I'm just not smart enough in philosophy of time to come up with a great answer that can pass muster.

 

[bling]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

The same proof can be modified for "timelessness."

(1)God timelessly and infallibly believes T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2)If E is timelessly and infallibly believed, it cannot be otherwise, thus it is necessary that E occur. [Principle of Necessity]
(3)It is necessary that God believes T. [1, 2]
(4)Necessarily, if God believes T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
(5)If p is necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6)So it is necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7)If it is necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
(8)Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9)If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10)Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

This proof has been in existince at least since Aristotle, with no real objection to its validity.[/quote]
The “problem” with this example is it “assumes” God is in the same time as the phone answer and is only in that one time period (the present). This is assuming only one sequence of events (time).

For the last 100 years the idea of time being “relative” has been experimentally supported and nothing experimentally been done to contradict the theory.

The idea of the space/ time continuum being “warped” has also been supported experimentally and is part of the relativity theory, so how warped could God make it?

Is the God of the past the same God of the present and the same God of the future?

The God of your future could know historically what free will decisions you made today and send that information back to the God of your past though some “wormhole” type system (all very logical), so the God of your past “knew” what you would do in your future as historical information.

 

[themuzicman]

delete double post

 

[themuzicman]

The “problem” with this example is it “assumes” God is in the same time as the phone answer and is only in that one time period (the present). This is assuming only one sequence of events (time).

Did you read the proof? This one proves that God being timeless doesn't really change anything. There is nothing in here about God being subject to time. Indeed, it says just the opposite.

 

[bling]

Did you read the proof? This one proves that God being timeless doesn't really change anything. There is nothing in here about God being subject to time. Indeed, it says just the opposite.

Yes, I read the "proof".

It assumes a particular sequence of events (time) and thus places God in the same (and only) sequence that the phone answer is in. It is not that “E” occurs it is that “E” has occurred in God of the Future’s time frame. It is not that “he cannot do otherwise”, but he has already done in God’s perspective and cannot change what he “has done” it is history. From the phone answer’s perspective he has not yet answered the phone and has a free will choice, but the choice he makes is the historic choice he made for the God of our future (which is the same God of our past).

You can understand God’s knowledge of “history” as being infallible and unchangeable, so the God of the future can know all our history, without eliminating any human free will decisions. (That is the first step in the sequence of God’s time frame). This information can thus be sent back in something like a wormhole to God of the beginning of human time (the second step in God’s sequence). God of the present would “know” you free will decisions of your future. (the third step).

 

[themuzicman]

Yes, I read the "proof".

It assumes a particular sequence of events (time) and thus places God in the same (and only) sequence that the phone answer is in. It is not that “E” occurs it is that “E” has occurred in God of the Future’s time frame. It is not that “he cannot do otherwise”, but he has already done in God’s perspective and cannot change what he “has done” it is history. From the phone answer’s perspective he has not yet answered the phone and has a free will choice, but the choice he makes is the historic choice he made for the God of our future (which is the same God of our past).

So, the man thinks he has free will, but really doesn't. I don't find that acceptable.

You can understand God’s knowledge of “history” as being infallible and unchangeable, so the God of the future can know all our history, without eliminating any human free will decisions. (That is the first step in the sequence of God’s time frame). This information can thus be sent back in something like a wormhole to God of the beginning of human time (the second step in God’s sequence). God of the present would “know” you free will decisions of your future. (the third step).

You're assuming that we will always make every decision the same way every time. When information about the future comes back through this time wormhole to the present, there is no guarentee that the decision will be made the same way the second time around.

 

[bling]

So, the man thinks he has free will, but really doesn't. I don't find that acceptable.

NO!
Man has free will; he makes free will decision, that is step one in God’s sequence.

You're assuming that we will always make every decision the same way every time. When information about the future comes back through this time wormhole to the present, there is no guarentee that the decision will be made the same way the second time around.

There is no same way or second time around?
It is not “making the same decision twice” the decision is only made once, but viewed historically by God in the future and as it happens, God of the present.

 

[Bobber]

Well, He knows your tomorrows actions in just the same way - because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already 'Now,' for Him.'

I know this statement is years old but I do find it interesting. Not sure if anyone will respond. But if God doesn't know your action till you have done it that means there's a reality he didn't know. If that KNOWING is upgraded to his always knowing I'd say that'd have to be a loop of time travel which I think the universe at least mathematically allows for. That would mean he didn't KNOW but then he did know depending on the vantage point of the observer. Wouldn't make him any less than God either. God is the God of reality and if something had not yet taken place it's not a reality...until....it occurs. Not saying one has to believe what I"ve just shared but I do find it interesting.