The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Contradictions Are Not Objects of Power or Knowledge

Theology Philosophical
#70

It is absolutely true and no one can know in advance (in the absolute sense of “know”) what a free-will agent will choose. This concept contradicts the very nature of the ability to chose. If a person’s actions could be known in advance, then he didn’t have the free will to choose those actions.

So you are still maintaining that the actions of a free-will agent cause someone’s foreknowledge. I pointed out to you that this is backwards causation—future events causing earlier events. But you totally ignored that point,.

Jesus fully knew the impulsive and fearful character of Peter, and thus made the prediction that Peter would deny him before daybreak. I suggest that the phrase “will deny me three times” was added by the writers. For the gospels were believed to have been written between A.D. 66 and 110, many years after this event. Because Peter denied Jesus three times, the writers thought Jesus had included “three times” in His prediction—just a matter of Matthew not remembering that detail accurately, while while Mark and Luke were not even present at the time.

Just to consider a clear case of someone not getting a detail accurately, Matthew remembered our Lord as saying “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times” whereas Mark records our Lord’s words as, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.”

#71

No, if a person’s actions could be known in advance by God, then it simply means that it is necessarily true that if God knows you will do A, then you will do A. It doesn’t mean you must do A. If it is true that you will do A, not that you must do A, then you have the freedom not to do A. But if you do not do A, God would have foreknown that, too.

I didn’t ignore it. I addressed it, but you ignored my answer. I said God’s foreknowledge, being logically caused by future events, is something possible in the case of a being, like God, who can escape the limitations involved with the time dimension.

#72

I’m not God, but… I can know your freewill future action for sure if for example I hold a dagger to your partner’s throat and demand you give me your wallet — you don’t have to but you’ll give it!

#73

That depends on your definition of free will. In this case, something other than the agent has affected the outcome. That is not, to some people, an exercise in free will.

Also as you said, “you don’t have to but you’ll give it.” If you don’t have to, then one cannot say that it is for sure that the free-will decision is known to an observer.

#74

Do you know that? Or just strongly believe that? Perhaps I value my money more than my partner. Or perhaps I’m not fully sane.

#75

Well, I’m pretty sure I would know your future actions prior to you making them :wink:

#76

I won’t argue with that.

1 Like
#77

That reminds me of a skit on the old Jack Benny show. Jack had a reputation of being very tight with his money.

Jack is approached by a thug who says to him, “Your money or your life.”

Jack pauses for several seconds and the thug repeats even more forcefully, “Your money or your life!”

Jack finally replies loudly, “I’m thinking about it!”

#78

“Pretty sure.” Yes. There’s a vast difference between “pretty sure” and “know.”

#79

That’s a good one!:grin:

#80

All of this is excellent. I would like to see Paidion respond to how Jesus knew that Peter would deny him, and yet claim that people have free choice if that is not possible. To me, this is a silver bullet against Paidions position. I like the practical application here.

#81

Davo to Lancia.

Or you might be thinking it over, where the money is concerned! :crazy_face:

Well, he embraces theology similar to Open Theism. So we just need to see, how they would respond.

Of course, stuff like time, omniscience and free will…are the most coherent, in the Zombie wormhole theory - IMHO. :crazy_face:

image
image

#82

Yes, I got the punch line wrong, i.e., I said Jack replied, “I’m thinking about it!”

Is that close enough to “I’m thinking it over!” to make the joke still funny?

I’m thinking it over.

#83

Jack Benny was a master, of timing and body gestures. He could have made it funny - either way. But the punch line given, is what his writers came up with.

#84

If the text does not fit in with my preconceived ideas, then the text must be wrong (but only on those little bits which do not work with my theory).

1 Like
#85

Well you never will see any response to you. I don’t defend myself or my theology to a person who personally attacks me. I once respected you for the wisdom that you seemed to show. Not anymore.

#86

Not only similar but it is what is now called “open theism.” Simply that future choices of free-will agents cannot be known in advance, though one can make a wise prediction based on knowledge of the individual. Even I, as a fallible human being, was able to predict, based on my knowledge of my son who was 2 years old at the time, that if I said, “Jamie, come here,” he would come. For he always did.

God, who has complete knowledge of us, including our thoughts, is in a much better position to predict what we are likely to do than is any human being. But even He doesn’t know in advance what we will do. We find a clear example in Scripture where God had thought Israel would do a certain thing, but she did the opposite.

The LORD said to me in the days of King Josiah: "Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the whore? And I thought, ‘After she has done all this she will return to me,’ but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. (Jeremiah 3:6,7)

Israel did not return to God, though God thought she would. So clearly God did not know that she would not return.

#87

I chuckled, because the truth is, we all do this for one reason or another, but some of us can’t admit our tendency for bias. Others can point it out, but we fail to see it. Certainly while we all cary some of this, some more than others. I think ultimately, we weigh evidence based on our experience differently and because all of us have such different experiences, we all can look at the same thing and come to a different conclusion.

I think most people are generally honest when it comes to their opinions on matters, or maybe honest isn’t the right word… Maybe sincere, because perhaps we are scared to face the possibility of being wrong. In any event, the only people to be wary of, imo, are the dogmatic ones who can’t fathom that they may be wrong.

1 Like
#88

This tends to be your go-to method for debate. You can’t defend your position, ignore postings of others asking about it, and then find an excuse as to why you can defend it, but choose not. As for personally attacking you? Not sure where you are getting that from. I find your antics frustrating to deal with, but I don’t see how asking you to defend your position and to quit avoiding questions is a personal attack. There are too many people here (some no longer a part of this forum) who have asked you to clarify your positions, only to see you ignore the response and continue respond to other people in the thread.

Not everyone has to like me and in fact, I don’t like everyone. That is OK to me. If that is all this is, no problem. But just because you don’t like me doesn’t make your excuse any more valid as to why you are dodging questions. I don’t wish any ill on you, but certainly won’t back down on my opinion that you are dodging questions like this is a game of dodge-ball.

#89

FWIW I may misread, but I don’t find Paidion significantly less responsive in interactions on threads than most of us on the forum, nor any more ad hominem than most of us.

I continually am frustrated that questions I pose are ignored, and suspect I’m not alone.