The stumbling block for atheists.

[dysert]

Since you all are talking about foreknowledge and predestination, please read this passage and comment. It just may throw a wrench into some peoples' thinking...

1Sa 23:1-13 Then they told David, saying, "Look, the Philistines are fighting against Keilah, and they are robbing the threshing floors." (2) Therefore David inquired of the LORD, saying, "Shall I go and attack these Philistines?" And the LORD said to David, "Go and attack the Philistines, and save Keilah." (3) But David's men said to him, "Look, we are afraid here in Judah. How much more then if we go to Keilah against the armies of the Philistines?" (4) Then David inquired of the LORD once again. And the LORD answered him and said, "Arise, go down to Keilah. For I will deliver the Philistines into your hand." (5) And David and his men went to Keilah and fought with the Philistines, struck them with a mighty blow, and took away their livestock. So David saved the inhabitants of Keilah. (6) Now it happened, when Abiathar the son of Ahimelech fled to David at Keilah, that he went down with an ephod in his hand. (7) And Saul was told that David had gone to Keilah. So Saul said, "God has delivered him into my hand, for he has shut himself in by entering a town that has gates and bars." (8) Then Saul called all the people together for war, to go down to Keilah to besiege David and his men. (9) When David knew that Saul plotted evil against him, he said to Abiathar the priest, "Bring the ephod here." (10) Then David said, "O LORD God of Israel, Your servant has certainly heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah to destroy the city for my sake. (11) Will the men of Keilah deliver me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as Your servant has heard? O LORD God of Israel, I pray, tell Your servant." And the LORD said, "He will come down." (12) Then David said, "Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul?" And the LORD said, "They will deliver you." (13) So David and his men, about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah and went wherever they could go. Then it was told Saul that David had escaped from Keilah; so he halted the expedition.

 

[Chriliman]

Since you all are talking about foreknowledge and predestination, please read this passage and comment. It just may throw a wrench into some peoples' thinking...

1Sa 23:1-13 Then they told David, saying, "Look, the Philistines are fighting against Keilah, and they are robbing the threshing floors." (2) Therefore David inquired of the LORD, saying, "Shall I go and attack these Philistines?" And the LORD said to David, "Go and attack the Philistines, and save Keilah." (3) But David's men said to him, "Look, we are afraid here in Judah. How much more then if we go to Keilah against the armies of the Philistines?" (4) Then David inquired of the LORD once again. And the LORD answered him and said, "Arise, go down to Keilah. For I will deliver the Philistines into your hand." (5) And David and his men went to Keilah and fought with the Philistines, struck them with a mighty blow, and took away their livestock. So David saved the inhabitants of Keilah. (6) Now it happened, when Abiathar the son of Ahimelech fled to David at Keilah, that he went down with an ephod in his hand. (7) And Saul was told that David had gone to Keilah. So Saul said, "God has delivered him into my hand, for he has shut himself in by entering a town that has gates and bars." (8) Then Saul called all the people together for war, to go down to Keilah to besiege David and his men. (9) When David knew that Saul plotted evil against him, he said to Abiathar the priest, "Bring the ephod here." (10) Then David said, "O LORD God of Israel, Your servant has certainly heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah to destroy the city for my sake. (11) Will the men of Keilah deliver me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as Your servant has heard? O LORD God of Israel, I pray, tell Your servant." And the LORD said, "He will come down." (12) Then David said, "Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul?" And the LORD said, "They will deliver you." (13) So David and his men, about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah and went wherever they could go. Then it was told Saul that David had escaped from Keilah; so he halted the expedition.

It is interesting that the first prophecy came true, but the second did not.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If we are only to look to Jesus in order to know God, then I'm not sure why we can't say that God began gaining knowledge at some point in the past and continues to gain knowledge in an immortal way.

Far enough, but how does that address omniscient foreknowledge?

And if you deny God's traditional omniscience, what else - omnipotence? omnibenevolence? both arguably imply logical contradictions.

 

[dysert]

It is interesting that the first prophecy came true, but the second did not.

Good! Since we have God's foreknowledge of something that didn't happen, what does that imply about the connection between foreknowledge and predestination?

 

[Chriliman]

Good! Since we have God's foreknowledge of something that didn't happen, what does that imply about the connection between foreknowledge and predestination?

I think it implies that God's foreknowledge is actually what he desires to happen, but that it doesn't always come to fulfillment because of disobedience. However, all disobedience will eventually come to an end because of God's love.

What do you think it implies?

 

[dad]

That's a temporal ontology called atemporalism - it's not as obviously incompatible with free will as foreknowledge omnitemporalism (God knows the future so it must already exist), but it does have the same problem. If God sits outside the timeline, comprehending it as a whole, the timeline, as a whole, must 'exist' for God - He knows what we'll do next year because He's 'already' there; it still implies only one possible future. In this view the universe is a classical 4D Parminidean 'block' (you could try playing with the idea of God existing over all possible timelines, but a moment's thought shows it only makes the problem worse, whether only one timeline is actually realised, or all of them). There is the further problem of how an atemporal God can act temporally, i.e. act within the timeline...

Omniscience also has a problem for God Himself - for His actions to have moral value, He must deliberately chose the good. If He knows every action He will take, that deliberate choice doesn't seem possible (if He always knows everything, He knows without deliberation), which also implies a lack of free will..

No. The timeline is for being living in time. God is above time. He made time as we know it, Time is for us. Just because our decisions take time doesn't mean God sees it that way. So forget time. Look at the decision. Since God allows us to make the decision, we all will make decisions. All of our decisions together will result in one outcome. He knows what that is.

It is not a problem for God to act in our realm...our time either! He can move here, or outside of here.

 

[dad]

This is why I like this site. I get to see just how different God is to everyone that believes. Like this non-omniscient God who knows just enough. Definitely a unique point-of-view for a Christian, as far as I've experienced.

It isn't Him that knows just enough..that would be you.

 

[dad]

Yes, from our perspective it seems like free choice; we don't have sufficient introspective insight into the determinants of our actions (arguably we can't have such introspective knowledge because of various forms of the observer effect). This is precisely what Isaac Singer's ironic aphorism means, "We must believe in free will - we have no other [logical] choice" - i.e. we can't act otherwise.

No, from His perspective as laid out in His word, we have choice. Just because our little minds don't understand how He works, doesn't mean He lied about giving us real choice.

 

[dysert]

I think it implies that God's foreknowledge is actually what he desires to happen, but that it doesn't always come to fulfillment because of disobedience. However, all disobedience will eventually come to an end because of God's love.

What do you think it implies?

Thanks for asking! I think it implies that foreknowledge does not necessitate predestination. God foreknew a possibility, but this foreknowledge did not mandate that the possibility was actually predestined to occur.

Since the event never happened, by definition it could not have been predestined. So foreknowledge and predestination are separable. Since foreknowledge doesn't require predestination, foreknown events that happen may or may not have been predestined.

 

[Chriliman]

Thanks for asking! I think it implies that foreknowledge does not necessitate predestination. God foreknew a possibility, but this foreknowledge did not mandate that the possibility was actually predestined to occur.

Since the event never happened, by definition it could not have been predestined. So foreknowledge and predestination are separable. Since foreknowledge doesn't require predestination, foreknown events that happen may or may not have been predestined.

Okay, I think essentially we agree, just using different terminology. I prefer to think of it in terms of what God desires to have happen and then knowing(predestined) it will happen because of obedience.

IOW, what God predestines is what is fulfilled through obedience.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thanks for asking! I think it implies that foreknowledge does not necessitate predestination. God foreknew a possibility, but this foreknowledge did not mandate that the possibility was actually predestined to occur.

Since the event never happened, by definition it could not have been predestined. So foreknowledge and predestination are separable. Since foreknowledge doesn't require predestination, foreknown events that happen may or may not have been predestined.

The way I see it, the concept of perfect foreknowledge and the concept of predestination indeed are seperate things. In the sense that there need not be a causal connection between both.

If someone has foreknowledge of event X, then that someone doesn't have to have any connection with event X whatsoever.

However.... I'ld say that foreknowledge of event X, can only exist if, and only if, event X is predestined to happen. How that predestination actually works is irrelevant.

One can only have foreknowledge about future event X if event X can not by avoided in any way. Not conciously, not unconciously.

The future must be "set in stone" if it is possible to know the future before it happens.

Instead of "predestination", let's call it "deterministic". The future needs to be pre-determined if it can be known beforehand.

Suppose you have foreknowledge that I WILL be eating steak at the restaurant.
You can only have that foreknowledge if, and only if, I'm predetermined to order steak.
It matters not if I am aware of it or not.

What matters, is that the only possible outcome of the chain of events, ends up with me ordering steak. No matter what happens, no matter what I do, no matter what others do.

I don't see how "foreknowledge" can exist in a non-deterministic universe.

Now, if you are going to say that one can have foreknowledge about event X and that eventually it is possible that event X does NOT happen...
Then that someone never had any foreknowledge.

The "knowledge" part is kind of important here.

 

[Chriliman]

One can only have foreknowledge about future event X if event X can not by avoided in any way. Not conciously, not unconciously.

Or future event X is proposed as a possible solution to a problem and whomever it's proposed to obeys and makes it happen.

Suppose you have foreknowledge that I WILL be eating steak at the restaurant.
You can only have that foreknowledge if, and only if, I'm predetermined to order steak.
It matters not if I am aware of it or not.

Or, you were told to eat steak beforehand for some good reason and you obeyed and ate it, which is how it became determined.

What matters, is that the only possible outcome of the chain of events, ends up with me ordering steak. No matter what happens, no matter what I do, no matter what others do.

What would matter is if you were told to eat steak beforehand for some good reason. Do you listen and obey or not?

Now, if you are going to say that one can have foreknowledge about event X and that eventually it is possible that event X does NOT happen...
Then that someone never had any foreknowledge.

The "knowledge" part is kind of important here.

Agreed.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, from His perspective as laid out in His word, we have choice. Just because our little minds don't understand how He works, doesn't mean He lied about giving us real choice.

The simple logic I showed earlier contradicts these unsupported assertions. 'GWIMW' doesn't negate logic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Or future event X is proposed as a possible solution to a problem and whomever it's proposed to obeys and makes it happen.

Then it's not foreknowledge because the person would still have the option to not make it happen.

Or, you were told to eat steak beforehand for some good reason and you obeyed and ate it, which is how it became determined.

I'ld still have the option to choose something else.

If I tell my child he should throw a piece of paper in a thrash, and he then goes on to throw it in the thrash, that doesn't make me a future-teller.

That's not "foreknowledge". That's just authority and obedience.

What would matter is if you were told to eat steak beforehand for some good reason. Do you listen and obey or not?

Not. Now what?
This would make the "foreknowledge" incorrect. Hence, it wasn't foreknowledging. At best, it was an educated guess - which turned out wrong.

Agreed.

If you agree with that, then what are you arguing about??

 

[Chriliman]

Then it's not foreknowledge because the person would still have the option to not make it happen.

I'ld still have the option to choose something else.

If I tell my child he should throw a piece of paper in a thrash, and he then goes on to throw it in the thrash, that doesn't make me a future-teller.

That's not "foreknowledge". That's just authority and obedience.



Not. Now what?
This would make the "foreknowledge" incorrect. Hence, it wasn't foreknowledging. At best, it was an educated guess - which turned out wrong.



If you agree with that, then what are you arguing about??

I'm not saying you're wrong in regards to foreknowledge. I agree that the concept of foreknowledge has to be based on actual events that actually come to pass.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Good! Since we have God's foreknowledge of something that didn't happen, what does that imply about the connection between foreknowledge and predestination?

That the foreknowledge is a lie, or an educated guess at best, and thus the deity doesn't literally see all events all at once.

 

[dysert]

That the foreknowledge is a lie, or an educated guess at best, and thus the deity doesn't literally see all events all at once.

Wrong!

 

[PsychoSarah]

Wrong!

How is that an incorrect conclusion? I make several predictions, and only some of them come true. Why couldn't the ones that did come true be explained as coincidence? For a lot of situations, people can make guesses as to what will happen and be correct. Plus, self-fulfilling prophecy, as people aware of the predictions can actively try to make them happen (or actively try to prevent them).

Since most of the predictions in the bible are very generalized, and most of them are fulfilled in the same book written decades after the events spoken about through the pages, their validity as predictions at all is questionable enough. Plus, if even the deity can get it wrong from time to time, why put stock in the predictions as anything besides a possible outcome? Even if the deity is talking about the most likely outcome, just mentioning it changes the probability if free will exists. Prophecies are entirely useless if people have free will.

 

[dad]

The simple logic I showed earlier contradicts these unsupported assertions. 'GWIMW' doesn't negate logic.

Logic of man is hopelessly inept and limited in the things of God and the spirit. It is not logical to call God a liar about our having a choice.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Logic of man is hopelessly inept and limited in the things of God and the spirit. It is not logical to call God a liar about our having a choice.

It's not logical you say? But you are a man who is hopelessly inept at logic...