Noā¦ I just get a little more robust and forthright at times.
I didnāt say Randyās voice has no validityā¦ he pushed back against my response inviting somewhat of a critique, so unlike most others here I took some time and I gave it.
1 Like
Well, there are really 3 types of zombies, I deal with - here on the forum:
-
Biblical zombies (zombies as possible, end-times tribulation possibilities)
-
Philosophical zombies
-
Hollywood zombies
ANY of these three categories are appropriate to illustrate a point. So in the case, of the logical exercises. Well, folks who created the cartoon logical exercises - were using āHollywood zombiesā as subject matter. NOT Biblical zombies. And I used their examples, knowing full well - they are Hollywood zombies.
On a deeper level, we need to address this question. Why are so many people claiming to see zombies - in dreams and visions - who are devote Christians? Well, there might be scientific explanations. There might be demonic influence explanation. And they might be really having visions or prophesy. And how do we āinterpretā, what they see? Literal? Symbolic? Etc. I presented a theory. People are free to present alternative theories or viewpoints, when I utilize Biblical zombies - NOT philosophical or Hollywood zombies.
Back to prophesy. Whatās the difference between the gift of prophesy and intuition? Well, my Protestant mom, was told she was born - with a veil over her eyes. This was interpreted to mean, that she had the gift of prophesy - which she demonstrated in my life. But I also had a female coworker, who was agnostic. And she could also tell you, what would happen. But I call this intuition. So what is the difference, between the gift of prophesy and intuition? And when can we explain ESP, by scientific explanations, natural causes, demonic influence or gifts from God? In the Native American Lakota teachings, intuition was within our capacity to develop. And this ALL differs, from the ādime store psychicsā - who advertise, sell tickets and charge admission. Which is something NEITHER my Protestant mom (with the gift of prophesy) - nor female agnostic coworker (with developed intuition) - have done.
Sometimes a Holy Fool or āaspiringā Holy Fool, can teach folks a few things. 
Whoever has ears, let them hear. Matthew 11:15 New International Version
But, back to our āoriginalā zombie post - on this forum thread. Now rest assured. The prompt I used - and the video creators used ā¦were Hollywood zombies - like these:
But some here might be āobliviousā to tell the difference, between Biblical, Philosophical and Hollywood zombies - or zombies in āgeneralā.
1 Like
Dr. Olsonās post wrestles with our question of whether God knows future free and undetermined choices.
To me Randy is funny and off beat which i like but everybody is different & his stuff wonāt appeal to many, but thatās OK.
1 Like
If open theism is true it means we bible believers for the most part have misunderstood an aspect of reality, nothing to do with Godās omniscience.
1 Like
Hereās an interesting article, from todayās Patheos Evangelical newsletter.
I donāt think the person who took exception, literally meant that it diminishes the glory of God.That is a figure of speech and therefore, I donāt see how he was caught in a logical conundrum. More like word-play and āgotcha!ā tactics.
Additionally, if the author wrote that in a book, I donāt see how or what method āI asked if howā even applies. I mean, did he write the author and did the author not answer? Maybe the author didnāt even know he asked the question? Maybe the author found it waste of time to engage? This type of rhetoric doesnāt sway me one bit.
That said, I donāt particular like southern baptists, so it isnāt like I am defending this āunknownā author. I just see this lack of charity when it comes to debates, and this is no more true than in Christian theology.
No one can know in advance (in the absolute sense of āknowā) what a free-will agent will choose. If that stance defines āopen theistā then I am one.
That is not true, as the modal fallacy shows, as was repeatedly explained to you.
Also, one can look to the Bible to see that your claim is false.
In several places in the Bible, Jesus knows and announces things that will later occur. These things are contingent, such as things resulting from what a free-will agent will choose. For example, Jesus tells Peter, as in Matthew 26:34, āTruly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.ā And that night, Peter indeed denied Jesus three times before the rooster crowed, supporting the contention that one (an omniscient one) can and does know what a free-will agent will do.
He also told (correctly) his disciples that their friend Lazarus had died, a contingency, even though Jesus could not have known Lazarus had died through any means other than omniscience. (John 11:11-15)
But Jesus not only knows omnisciently things that will happen due to human free will or other contingencies, he also knows things that would happen due to human free will if certain conditions, such as described in certain possible worlds, were met.
āWoe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.ā (Matthew 11:21)
Jesus predicts that the people of Tyre and Sidon, who died unrepentant, would have repented had they witnesses the miracles. He predicted the outcome of a contingency based on free will.
So both logic and the Bible disagree with your claim.
1 Like
Iām just playing the devilās advocate here, since I donāt have the answer to the questions of omniscience and free will - but the things that you point out as āomniscienceā could easily have been revealed to Jesus, just as some things were revealed to prophets who were not thereby considered to be omniscient.
Thus he could have been ātoldā in some manner - angel, the holy spirit - that Lazarus was dead. In fact that seems reasonable to me.
And perhaps his understanding of the Tyre and Sidon tale, gotten from his reading and pondering the OT, gave him insight as to how they would have repented, given the same miracles he was performing.
IOW it may be possible to āknowā things by being smart and studious, or being informed by a spiritual agent, that do not require omniscience. I personally donāt think that Jesus was omniscient, but aside from that, Iām just not sure it is necessary as an explanation for things he did. āI do what I see my Father doā.
But I donāt know any of this as a certainty.
1 Like
I like that lack of uncertainty you admit to. I admit to uncertainty also.
But if Jesus were told about Peter and Tyre and Sidon, then the somebody who told him was omniscient. Yet Paidion said nobody can be omniscient.
Also, with respect to Jesus studying to see the counterfactual response of Tyre and Sidon, I donāt see how study alone would have helped Jesus. These people were as evil as they come. What could possibly have suggested to Jesus through study that the miracles would have led them to repent? Thatās probably why Jesus chose them as an example: to shame the Jewish cities of Bethsaida and Chorazin by comparing them to the worst of the worst.
Thatās a good point. Itās all speculation for me at this point - but could it be that his Father, who knows all that has happened, each thought and activity, knew the people of Tyre and Sidon thoroughly, and thus knew that they would have repented if the miracles had been done for them - and revealed that to the Son? That would be an instance not of omniscience but of knowledge.
In over my head on this oneā¦
1 Like
Such legitimate revelation could be viewed as a derived omniscience.
But wait. Omniscience is knowledge. Itās knowledge of what will happen (or in the Tyre and Sidon case, what would have happened).
You explain a possible way that God could have known how people would have behaved (i.e., how they would have freely chosen). Your idea seems reasonable. But however omniscience can be explained, itās still omniscience to know something before it happens (or would have happened).
You may be right! Iām not sure of any of the following: what āomniscienceā means, what āfree willā means, what ātimeā is. So really, what the heck am I doing on this thread? lol
Iām pretty clear in my mind that the Calvinist theory of predestination would āsolveā my questions about Time and Free Will. Because, if predestination is:
" **ā¦the doctrine that because God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and completely sovereign, he āfrom all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass,ā (Westminster Confession)."
ā¦then by definition God would know everything (be omniscient) because He actually predestined it and knows it beforehand not because he āseesā the future, but because He made the future; free will would then be an illusion (I see no way around that). So, all problems cleared up. Sorta kinda.
Calvin would probably be happy with all that. In once place in the Institutes, he says something to the effect that we can simply observe life as if we are in a theater - everyone is playing their appointed part, and saying their appointed lines at the appointed time - itās all a show designed and predestined to show Godās glory. Even evil. Itās quite a vision and, I think, quite wrong.
But, if that sort of predestination is NOT true, then we find ourselves in this thread. With legitimate problems.
Well, hereās the thing. Things like:
-
Calvinist Compatibilism
-
Open Theism
-
Middle Knowledge
-
The Zombie wormhole theory (donāt even get me started on this)
-
Etc.
And we can put time, omniscience and free will - into one of those āneat and tidyā frameworks. But it might be, like this:
1 Like
I havenāt argued above against predestination, whether I agree with it or not. (I donāt, at least as a general rule without exception.)
My point was and has been that if free will exists, then it is not true, as Paidion has said, āNo one can know in advance (in the absolute sense of āknowā) what a free-will agent will choose.ā Nothing is preventing an omniscient being from knowing what such an agent will freely do. Omniscience and free will are not incompatible.
I get it, and within the parameters you set out, Iām inclined to agree.
My point is this: actually more than one pointā¦
- Omniscience that is a result of predestination does NOT allow for free will. Iām pretty sure about that.
- Omniscience in the sense of āknowingā the future can conceivably allow for free will - but only if Time is inexorable i.e., Time is in some sense ādoneā already, and God is a passive viewer of our free actions. In this sense āknowingā is somewhat like āseeingā - a passive activity.
Now even though Iām not yet persuaded that God does know the future, if He does know in the sense of āseeingā, then I agree that free will is maintained as a possibility.
I agree with the possibility that āTime is in some sense ādoneā already, and God is a passive viewer of our free actions.ā
Time is in some sense ādoneā already. I see that sense to be how God experiences time, not as an unfolding continuum but as an all-in-one view. He is free from the limitations imposed by time, as we experience time. Thus, God can indeed be a passive viewer of our free actions. He knows of those free actions simply by observing them. But He has not controlled them.
1 Like
Really, Dave? No problem, Iām with you. I read the following verses and wonder if I know very much at all about Godās thoughts and actions. Except for one thing - God is Love.
āFor My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,ā declares the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.
"Behold, God is exalted, and we do not know Him; The number of His years is unsearchable.
"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.
Who does great and unsearchable things, Wonders without number.
"Can you discover the depths of God? Can you discover the limits of the Almighty?
"Behold, God is exalted in His power; Who is a teacher like Him? "Who has appointed Him His way, And who has said, āYou have done wrongā?
O LORD, You have searched me and known me. You know when I sit down and when I rise up; You understand my thought from afar. You scrutinize my path and my lying down, And are intimately acquainted with all my ways.
Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all. You have enclosed me behind and before, And laid Your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it.
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth Does not become weary or tired His understanding is inscrutable.
Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR?
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
Good luck (to both of us) in our search!
1 Like