Predestination, All Things are Determined by God, Even the Outcome of a Roll of a Dice

[Radagast]

Did you read #548???

I explained exactly what I meant. Instead of repeating my post you can just read it all the way to the bottom.

I read that post. It explained nothing.

By the way have you ever heard of Alvin Plantinga, JP Moreland, William Lane Craig, fredosso, Flint, etc.

Yes.

Molinism is held by the majority of Protestant Christian Philosophers, according on Craig and Plantinga.

Molinism is, to a first approximation, the Catholic version of Arminianism. I doubt very much that it is held by the majority of Protestant Christian Philosophers, although it is held by a few.

 

[DingDing]

I do reject Calvinism, but an appeal to complexity cuts both ways. Why not appeal to the scriptural data that:
1 - God loves "All"
2 - God is patient, not wanting "Any" to parish.
3 - to "as many" as received him he gave the right to become children of God.

The Calvinist in the unfortunate place of having to insert "of the elect" after each of these descriptions in quotes above.

What we want to avoid is the Calvinist saying, "I know it looks like God is a moral monster creating people he not just knows, but determines will be eternally tormented, for his good pleasure! Hey, but God is complex and that is just a mystery."

I fully agree with your 3 points.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Every time you have witness a car accident where you saw that there was no other possible outcome than that accident (due to road conditions, speed of the cars, whatever) you knew the cars would collide but you didn't cause them to collide.

1. God knows the total-future
2. Therefore, God knows His own future
3. God is free to do as He pleases
4. Therefore, God is not constrained by His own future
5. Therefore, God does not know His own future

So each of us, if libertarian free will is true, is responsible causally for God's knowledge about what we choose. And his knowledge about what we choose is not causal!

Knowledge of the future may not be causal, but it is known, or it's not knowledge. If it's known, before it occurs, and God does nothing to change it, then God is responsible for everything that will ever happen, past, present and future. He is literally held responsible for every single thing that happens, even if He Himself is not making the choices or causing those choices to be made. The knowledge of it, before it happens, is enough to convict Him of all evil.

 

[com7fy8]

Do you have a source or reason for thinking he is predestined as a result of being a necessary, uncreated, timeless being?

I think I explained this > even God can not change whatever is really going to happen.

 

[Uber Genius]

1. God knows the total-future
2. Therefore, God knows His own future
3. God is free to do as He pleases
4. Therefore, God is not constrained by His own future
5. Therefore, God does not know His own future

Once again you are conflating knowledge with freedom.

This conflation is why fatalism is necessarily false like square circles or married bachelors.

Knowledge of the future may not be causal, but it is known,

There should be no "buts" here.

If it is not casual in nature then our actions cause God to know, not the other way around.

 

[Uber Genius]

I think I explained this > even God can not change whatever is really going to happen.

So no source?

Not one scripture?

Nothing?

I would like to see evidence that someone in the history of Christian understanding has thought God was predestined?

Deism and other impersonal worldviews like pantheism have suggested things like you suggested but essential to being an uncreated personal being is that he is free to choose, and things he creates that share his attributes may inherit some of his attributes.

But if you find a source, from anyone who represents the Christian G od as predestined by all means share it and I will reengage, but this is not a Christian belief. It is not even a cultic Christian belief.

 

[Uber Genius]

I doubt very much that it is held by the majority of Protestant Christian Philosophers, although it is held by a few.

Still haven't engaged 548.

Tired of your "operation greased pig," where you spend no time engaging the data, its meaning, or the references but instead obfuscate, produce red-herrings, blanket unsupported denials.

I'm done playing your little word-games

Here is your reference below is from one of the leading philosophers opposing molinism. He states,

"[MOLINISM] THE MOST POPULAR OF FIVE OR SIX THEORIES"

Dean Zimmerman is the one to make the claim after taking the lead opposing Molinism for the past 15 years.
“Molinism”, in contemporary usage, is the name for a theory about the workings of divine providence. Its defenders include some of the most prominent contemporary Protestant and Catholic philosophical theologians."1
YET ANOTHER ANTI-MOLINIST ARGUMENT∗ Dean Zimmerman Rutgers University
http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/zimmerman/Anti-Molinist-Arg-Jan-25.pdf
1 - "Among philosophical theologians based in the philosophy departments of Anglophone universities, Molinism may well be the most popular of five or six competing theories. For some defenses of Molinism, see Alvin Plantinga, “Replies to my Colleagues”, Alvin Plantinga, ed. by James E. Tomberlin and Peter van Inwagen (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1985), 313-396; Jonathan Kvanvig The Possibility of an All-Knowing God (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986); Richard Otte, “A Defense of Middle Knowledge”, International Journal Philosophy of Religion 21 (1987): 161-69; Alfred J. Freddoso, “Introduction”, in Luis de Molina: On Divine Foreknowledge (Part IV of the Concordia), trans. by Freddoso (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1988), 1-81; Edward Wierenga, The Nature of God (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1989); and Thomas Flint, Divine Providence: The Molinist Account (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1998)."



William Lane Craig has also made this claim in his debate with Helm on Justin Brierley's program "Unbelievable" last year.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Once again you are conflating knowledge with freedom.

This conflation is why fatalism is necessarily false like square circles or married bachelors.





There should be no "buts" here.

If it is not casual in nature then our actions cause God to know, not the other way around.

But which of these two points is false:

1. God knows the total-future
2. God is free to do as He pleases

Because these two characteristics produce logical contradictions as I showed already in #583.

And this is still true: Knowledge of the future is known or else God doesn't have knowledge of the future. Even if the way it is known is by the free-agents causing the knowledge. It doesn't change the fact that God is now responsible for the effect of their actions. He can see what will be chosen only after they choose it, but before it happens. Yes? Therefore, if God knows the total-future, He is 100% responsible for evil. I'm not saying He caused the evil, but He saw how His free agents caused the evil, before it happened, and didn't stop it.

This is different to my position. My position is that God created the potential for evil, but in the very strictest sense, DID NOT KNOW if the free-agent would choose evil beforehand AT ALL. Therefore He is responsible for the POTENTIAL for evil in the way a person who designs a car is responsible for road accidents. Very different IMO.

 

[Uber Genius]

But which of these two points is false:

1. God knows the total-future
2. God is free to do as He pleases

Because these two characteristics produce logical contradictions as I showed already in #583.

You have an illicit premise!!!!

God can't know something unless it is determined.

So that is your problem.

It is false as I have shown elsewhere.

If God freely does x he will know that he will do x.

With humans and other "free" agents God's knowledge though chronologically prior to and event is logical posterior or dependent on the event.

W thought the hidden or illicit premise ere is no contradiction between God's knowledge and his free actions.

Here is some research you can do on fatalism and how Plantinga resolves it.

6. Theological Fatalism: Molina, Plantinga and middle knowledge
Some philosophers, notably Luis de Molina (1535–1600) and Alvin Plantinga, have held that God knows not only what actual people will freely do in the future, but what each possible free creature would have freely done in each set of possible circumstances, if fully specific; and that he had this knowledge at the creation. (An action is free in the required sense if not causally determined and not predetermined by God.) Propositions about what a creature would do in a set of circumstances (possible as well as actual) are commonly called “counterfactuals of freedom”, and God's knowledge of them is called “middle knowledge”. (Molina, On Divine Foreknowledge (Part IV of the Concordia); Plantinga 1974, IX))

 

[YouAreAwesome]

You have an illicit premise!!!!

God can't know something unless it is determined.

So that is your problem.

It is false as I have shown elsewhere.

If God freely does x he will know that he will do x.

With humans and other "free" agents God's knowledge though chronologically prior to and event is logical posterior or dependent on the event.

W thought the hidden or illicit premise ere is no contradiction between God's knowledge and his free actions.

Here is some research you can do on fatalism and how Plantinga resolves it.

6. Theological Fatalism: Molina, Plantinga and middle knowledge
Some philosophers, notably Luis de Molina (1535–1600) and Alvin Plantinga, have held that God knows not only what actual people will freely do in the future, but what each possible free creature would have freely done in each set of possible circumstances, if fully specific; and that he had this knowledge at the creation. (An action is free in the required sense if not causally determined and not predetermined by God.) Propositions about what a creature would do in a set of circumstances (possible as well as actual) are commonly called “counterfactuals of freedom”, and God's knowledge of them is called “middle knowledge”. (Molina, On Divine Foreknowledge (Part IV of the Concordia); Plantinga 1974, IX))

Ok but it is quite simple in my opinion. If God does not have total foreknowledge (because He doesn't know His own future actions) then He doesn't have foreknowledge in this universe either. BECAUSE He interacts with us.

1. God does not know His own future actions
2. God interacts with us
3. Therefore God does not have foreknowledge in the earth

 

[Uber Genius]

Ok but it is quite simple in my opinion. If God does not have total foreknowledge (because He doesn't know His own future actions) then He doesn't have foreknowledge in this universe either. BECAUSE He interacts with us.

1. God does not know His own future actions
2. God interacts with us
3. Therefore God does not have foreknowledge in the earth

I did your research for you.

It is a book called:

Divine Impassibility: An Essay in Philosophical Theology
By Richard E. Creel



It essential suggest that God is eternal and not temporal. Therefore God can not have the type of knowledge about future counterfactuals (Free choices by free agents) due to his being outside of time. Secondly there is nothing that would make future hypotheticals true.

However grounding theory is highly contraversial. And clearly refuted by the types of knowledge of future free actions recorded in the Bible.

Further few agree that God couldn't know these things given the enormous amounts of specific prophecies about events 100s or 1000s of years in the future.



Jesus demonstrates this type of specific knowledge throughout the gospels.

Further only Richard Swindurne believe this knowledge would limit God the way you discuss, but he has no explanation of the data from scripture.


https://books.google.com/books?id=d...ledge of the future limit his actions&f=false

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I did your research for you.

It is a book called:

Divine Impassibility: An Essay in Philosophical Theology
By Richard E. Creel



It essential suggest that God is eternal and not temporal. Therefore God can not have the type of knowledge about future counterfactuals (Free choices by free agents) due to his being outside of time. Secondly there is nothing that would make future hypotheticals true.

However grounding theory is highly contraversial. And clearly refuted by the types of knowledge of future free actions recorded in the Bible.

Further few agree that God couldn't know these things given the enormous amounts of specific prophecies about events 100s or 1000s of years in the future.



Jesus demonstrates this type of specific knowledge throughout the gospels.

Further only Richard Swindurne believe this knowledge would limit God the way you discuss, but he has no explanation of the data from scripture.


https://books.google.com/books?id=dGRLAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=is+god's+knowledge+of+the+future+limit+his+actions&source=bl&ots=R1MgOU6zIk&sig=VQs6Nd6IhcELaOXt_aeBrDXyeuo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsi7TGqprQAhVM9YMKHTTpBywQ6AEIQTAI#v=onepage&q=is god's knowledge of the future limit his actions&f=false

Thank you for researching, I just don't have time at the moment unfortunately, in a month I will do some reading hopefully.

My biggest problem with my own view at the moment is, how does God know future evil? Future good He can make happen due to omnipotence. Future evil is a problem I haven't resolved.

If God is in the present only, He is not outside of time, and this is the view I'm exploring. The paper you cite relies on God being outside of time and to me, this is like dividing by zero, it can prove paradoxes.

 

[Uber Genius]

Thank you for researching, I just don't have time at the moment unfortunately, in a month I will do some reading hopefully.

My biggest problem with my own view at the moment is, how does God know future evil. Future good He can make happen due to omnipotence. Future evil is a problem I haven't resolved.

If God is in the present only, He is not outside of time, and this is the view I'm exploring. The paper you cite relies on God being outside of time and to me, this is like dividing by zero, it can prove paradoxes.

The book engages all the views on god in relation to time.

Have your studied molinism? It is the most popular view amongst Christian Philosophers at explaining the data from scripture. Namely all prophecies good and bad are a result of God's knowledge of what to us is future.

But if you anthropomorphize God, you can put him in a body bounded in space and time. His knowledge of what we call future is no more complex that a propositional statement like:

On 11/08/2016 Uber will type a reply to You Are Awesome about god's foreknowledge.

That proposition exists with trillions of others inside God's mind. It is only when we force God into out temporal limitations that we limit his knowledge.

Molinism:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-and-the-problem-of-evil

This site will help. It rehearses Alvin Plantinga's free will defense and demonstrates how it could be the case that God knows yet the future, and that it will accomplish his goal, and yet agents are free. Best of luck.

This defense originally offered in response to JL Mackie, was so crushing that few philosophers engage the logical problem of evil after it was published in 1974.

Best of luck.

 

[Uber Genius]

Thank you for researching, I just don't have time at the moment unfortunately, in a month I will do some reading hopefully.

My biggest problem with my own view at the moment is, how does God know future evil? Future good He can make happen due to omnipotence. Future evil is a problem I haven't resolved.

If God is in the present only, He is not outside of time, and this is the view I'm exploring. The paper you cite relies on God being outside of time and to me, this is like dividing by zero, it can prove paradoxes.

This would be a good new thread!

Ask for people to identify their view by name e.g. Open theism, Arminianism, Calvinism, molinism, hybrids, etc.

And to justify with examples from scripture.

You could represent your view of God's own predestination based on his own foreknowledge (Swindburne)

 

[com7fy8]

even God can not change whatever is really going to happen.

So no source?

Not one scripture?

Nothing?

I simply thought of this.

I would like to see evidence that someone in the history of Christian understanding has thought God was predestined?

Deism and other impersonal worldviews like pantheism have suggested things like you suggested but essential to being an uncreated personal being is that he is free to choose, and things he creates that share his attributes may inherit some of his attributes.

I believe God is our Father and Jesus His Son and the Holy Spirit . . . personal.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

This would be a good new thread!

Ask for people to identify their view by name e.g. Open theism, Arminianism, Calvinism, molinism, hybrids, etc.

And to justify with examples from scripture.

You could represent your view of God's own predestination based on his own foreknowledge (Swindburne)

Agreed.
I'm reading through the papers you linked first though.

 

[DingDing]

... even God can not change whatever is really going to happen.

Oh boy! Now the real theology starts. Oh thank God for you, because without you, God would have no clue. Poor God.

 

[com7fy8]

Oh thank God for you, because without you, God would have no clue. Poor God.

It is true that God does not need our help.

"'For who has known the mind of the LORD?
. Or who has become His counselor?'
.'Or who has first given to Him
. And it shall be repaid to him?'"
. . . . . . . . . . (Romans 11:34-35)

 

[YouAreAwesome]

It is true that God does not need our help.

Why do you post anything on CF? Why don't you leave it to God to make your point?

 

[Honoluluwindow]

This is a common Arminian assertion, but I don't think those who say it really think about what this means. This is simply an impossibility. Sovereignty is the result of God's perfections, which are a part of his nature. One simply cannot will to be of a different nature, even God. Here Charles Hodge addresses this very issue:

He self imposed a limitation on His ability to flood the world like He did with Noah.