From Foreknowledge to Knowledge

[Duder]

The attitude of Cheung, is that God can do whatever he likes, and we shouldn't be asking questions.

This kind of attitude really is moronic. And if you accept it, then there is nothing to stop a "morally perfect" God from being a liar, and burning all the Christians in hell!

JM, if God can do whatever he likes, how do you know God isn't a liar? How do you know that God isn't going to burn you in hell? If he did, would God be perfectly good?

Speaking of moronic.........................

Hello, Soma -

Perhaps you should be more... well, moderate in how you denigrate people who take exception to your points of view.

You may perhaps dislike the way in which DN expressed his points, but his points stand until you make some substantial reply to them.

Since the beginning of this thread, we have been dancing around an ancient theological question called Euthyphro's Dilemma. It is a question first asked by Socrates in one of the Platonic dialogues. Here it is:

........Does God love virtue because it is good, or is virtue good because God loves it?

As a Calvinist, you would be almost forced to take the second option, which says that virtue is good because God loves it. That is because when Calvinists are asked how a good God can commit people to the flames for things they have no control over, they say "what God does is right because it is him who does it." In other words, God's actions are good by virtue of the fact that he does them. He could do anything at all, even something blatantly and terribly wrong by our lights, but it would be good anyway because of who did it. And since it is God who sends souls not responsible for their acts to hell, it is good. Who are we to question it? .

I do not hold to that answer. The reason I reject it is because I am sure that God is a good God. If good means no more than whatever God does, then the claim "God is good" means no more than "God is godly". Well, obviously God is godly. We know that already, and it is so self-evident that we should never take the trouble of saying it. It conveys no information. It is obvious, as all tautologies are.

I believe that the claim God is good is meaningful, and that it conveys real information. If we are told that God is good, and we believe it, then we should expect that God would do some things but not other things - because some things are good to do and other things are not good to do. He would not, for example, send people to the torment who are not responsible for what they do. That would not be a good thing to do, and so a good God would not do it.

As you may have guessed, I far prefer the first answer to Euthyphro's Dilemma - the one that says that God loves virtue because it is good. That allows me to say that God deserves to be worshipped because he is a good God. The second option, that virtue is good because God loves it, leaves one wondering what reason there may be to worship God, beyond simple fear.

.

 

[Solo]

The attitude of Cheung, is that God can do whatever he likes, and we shouldn't be asking questions.

This kind of attitude really is moronic. And if you accept it, then there is nothing to stop a "morally perfect" God from being a liar, and burning all the Christians in hell!

JM, if God can do whatever he likes, how do you know God isn't a liar? How do you know that God isn't going to burn you in hell? If he did, would God be perfectly good?

Speaking of moronic.........................

Hello, Soma -

Perhaps you should be more... well, moderate in how you denigrate people who take exception to your points of view.

You may perhaps dislike the way in which DN expressed his points, but his points stand until you make some substantial reply to them.

Since the beginning of this thread, we have been dancing around an ancient theological question called Euthyphro's Dilemma. It is a question first asked by Socrates in one of the Platonic dialogues. Here it is:

........Does God love virtue because it is good, or is virtue good because God loves it?

As a Calvinist, you would be almost forced to take the second option, which says that virtue is good because God loves it. That is because when Calvinists are asked how a good God can commit people to the flames for things they have no control over, they say "what God does is right because it is him who does it." In other words, God's actions are good by virtue of the fact that he does them. He could do anything at all, even something blatantly and terribly wrong by our lights, but it would be good anyway because of who did it. And since it is God who sends souls not responsible for their acts to hell, it is good. Who are we to question it? .

I do not hold to that answer. The reason I reject it is because I am sure that God is a good God. If good means no more than whatever God does, then the claim "God is good" means no more than "God is godly". Well, obviously God is godly. We know that already, and it is so self-evident that we should never take the trouble of saying it. It conveys no information. It is obvious, as all tautologies are.

I believe that the claim God is good is meaningful, and that it conveys real information. If we are told that God is good, and we believe it, then we should expect that God would do some things but not other things - because some things are good to do and other things are not good to do. He would not, for example, send people to the torment who are not responsible for what they do. That would not be a good thing to do, and so a good God would not do it.

As you may have guessed, I far prefer the first answer to Euthyphro's Dilemma - the one that says that God loves virtue because it is good. That allows me to say that God deserves to be worshipped because he is a good God. The second option, that virtue is good because God loves it, leaves one wondering what reason there may be to worship God, beyond simple fear.

.

Soma did not write that. I did. DivineNames stated that an attitude that says that God can do whatever he likes is moronic. Therefore to use a word from DivineNames vocabulary for his understanding, I insinuated that his answer was moronic. Nothing more, nothing less.

This kind of attitude really is moronic. And if you accept it, then there is nothing to stop a "morally perfect" God from being a liar, and burning all the Christians in hell!

And while you're at it, pray for him because he has rejected Jesus Christ many, many times up to this point. I suspect that he will go to his judgment a lost soul. That is moronic to me as well.

 

[Duder]

Soma did not write that. I did.

Greetings, Solo -

I realize that . . . apologies to you and Soma. I am new here, and I am mildly dyslexic, which causes me to do things like transpose two 4-letter S names.

DivineNames stated that an attitude that says that God can do whatever he likes is moronic. Therefore to use a word from DivineNames vocabulary for his understanding, I insinuated that his answer was moronic. Nothing more, nothing less.

You failed to give a full sense of what it was that DN found moronic. It was not that God is able to do what he wants. We all know that he can do that. The attitude that DN found moronic was the implied idea that God's perfect goodness could fail to prevent him from doing certain things which are, by any reasonable account, immoral and wrong.

And while you're at it, pray for him because he has rejected Jesus Christ many, many times up to this point. I suspect that he will go to his judgment a lost soul.

I will. But if your theories are right, why should I? God would have determined, before the beginning of time, that DN would reject Christ, because God wanted him to reject Christ. Would my request move God to want something different? Wouldn't God have determined beforehand that I would make such a prayer, and that you would advise me to?

And why should I trust your belief that DN will go to judgement lost? Typically, we are suspicious of ideas that are irrational. You did not come to adopt that opinion through any independent process of rational thought, but rather, God planted that belief in your head many ages before you were born, and you were thus destined to have that belief whether or not it is reasonable.

That is moronic to me as well.

That is not your own opinion. It was thrust upon you. I will disregard it.

.

 

[DivineNames]

As a Calvinist, you would be almost forced to take the second option, which says that virtue is good because God loves it. That is because when Calvinists are asked how a good God can commit people to the flames for things they have no control over, they say "what God does is right because it is him who does it." In other words, God's actions are good by virtue of the fact that he does them. He could do anything at all, even something blatantly and terribly wrong by our lights, but it would be good anyway because of who did it. And since it is God who sends souls not responsible for their acts to hell, it is good. Who are we to question it? .

I do not hold to that answer. The reason I reject it is because I am sure that God is a good God. If good means no more than whatever God does, then the claim "God is good" means no more than "God is godly". Well, obviously God is godly. We know that already, and it is so self-evident that we should never take the trouble of saying it. It conveys no information. It is obvious, as all tautologies are.

Yeah, God would be perfectly good, whatever he did, but the "goodness" would be meaningless.

Interestingly, (perhaps), Richard Swinburne takes both horns of the dilemma. The first option grounding (to a certain extent) the second option.

 

[DivineNames]

The attitude of Cheung, is that God can do whatever he likes, and we shouldn't be asking questions.

This kind of attitude really is moronic. And if you accept it, then there is nothing to stop a "morally perfect" God from being a liar, and burning all the Christians in hell!

JM, if God can do whatever he likes, how do you know God isn't a liar? How do you know that God isn't going to burn you in hell? If he did, would God be perfectly good?

Speaking of moronic.........................

Can you actually debate the point?



Come back when you can.

 

[Solo]

The attitude of Cheung, is that God can do whatever he likes, and we shouldn't be asking questions.

This kind of attitude really is moronic. And if you accept it, then there is nothing to stop a "morally perfect" God from being a liar, and burning all the Christians in hell!

JM, if God can do whatever he likes, how do you know God isn't a liar? How do you know that God isn't going to burn you in hell? If he did, would God be perfectly good?

Speaking of moronic.........................

Can you actually debate the point?



Come back when you can.

I don't debate unbelievers such as you since they go into battle unarmed. You are not seeking truth, you are seeking to attack Christianity. Unbelievers such as yourself do not know the truth because they have rejected the only one that can teach them truth, so in their arrogant pleasure they accuse those of the truth as being errant. Come back when you are outfitted with the Holy Spirit of God and we can debate on equal footing. Until then you would be at a disadvantage.

 

[Soma-Sight]

I don't debate unbelievers such as you since they go into battle unarmed. You are not seeking truth, you are seeking to attack Christianity. Unbelievers such as yourself do not know the truth because they have rejected the only one that can teach them truth, so in their arrogant pleasure they accuse those of the truth as being errant. Come back when you are outfitted with the Holy Spirit of God and we can debate on equal footing. Until then you would be at a disadvantage.

Solo, Since you tried out being a "New Ager" in the other religons board... I will try my merit at being a Fundy for this post!

The True believers in the Body of Christ accept the 66 Books of the Holy Writ to be considered "Objective Truth". Unbelievers which battle the True Saints of the Most High God often rely on faulty scripture quotes which are out of context and adopt a "relativistic" moral and ethical worldview.

The Bible is the anvil which has and will smash the teeth of all unbelievers throughout time as they are swayed by the false doctrines of lying devils and seducing spirits.

Jesus Christ rebukes those that twist His inerrant and infallible Word and to engage with those in the Truth of the White Throne of Glory will only result in defeat.

How was that? 8-)

 

[Solo]

I don't debate unbelievers such as you since they go into battle unarmed. You are not seeking truth, you are seeking to attack Christianity. Unbelievers such as yourself do not know the truth because they have rejected the only one that can teach them truth, so in their arrogant pleasure they accuse those of the truth as being errant. Come back when you are outfitted with the Holy Spirit of God and we can debate on equal footing. Until then you would be at a disadvantage.

Solo, Since you tried out being a "New Ager" in the other religons board... I will try my merit at being a Fundy for this post!

The True believers in the Body of Christ accept the 66 Books of the Holy Writ to be considered "Objective Truth". Unbelievers which battle the True Saints of the Most High God often rely on faulty scripture quotes which are out of context and adopt a "relativistic" moral and ethical worldview.

The Bible is the anvil which has and will smash the teeth of all unbelievers throughout time as they are swayed by the false doctrines of lying devils and seducing spirits.

Jesus Christ rebukes those that twist His inerrant and infallible Word and to engage with those in the Truth of the White Throne of Glory will only result in defeat.

How was that? 8-)

Close, but the Word of God is the Sword of the Spirit and is sharper than any two-edged sword. It is much handier than an anvil.
And you didn't quote any scripture to back up your position. (a typical New Age trick).

And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Ephesians 6:17

11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. 12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Hebrews 4:11-13

Jesus said, "The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 24:50-51

Unbelievers (New Agers included) cannot tolerate the truth that God is going to remove the stink of unbelief from the creation, therefore they continue to spread stink in hopes that they are right and the Word of God is wrong.

Man's words are cheap and worthless, compared to the Word of God which is life eternal.

 

[Soma-Sight]

Unbelievers (New Agers included) cannot tolerate the truth that God is going to remove the stink of unbelief from the creation, therefore they continue to spread stink in hopes that they are right and the Word of God is wrong.

Man's words are cheap and worthless, compared to the Word of God which is life eternal.

Well I tried my best..... :o

I guess as LonelyGuide said to me once... It all comes down to integrity.

Practicing what you preach and perceive to be the Truth versus mere lip service.

Maybe someday I will get it together like you have.

 

[Solo]

Unbelievers (New Agers included) cannot tolerate the truth that God is going to remove the stink of unbelief from the creation, therefore they continue to spread stink in hopes that they are right and the Word of God is wrong.

Man's words are cheap and worthless, compared to the Word of God which is life eternal.

Well I tried my best..... :o

I guess as LonelyGuide said to me once... It all comes down to integrity.

Practicing what you preach and perceive to be the Truth versus mere lip service.

Maybe someday I will get it together like you have.

LonelyGuide's, yours, and my integrity is garbage against the backdrop of Jesus Christ's integrity. If I were you I would take the Word of God as the guide into truth as opposed to feel good, nice sounding garbage from man. You will be much better off.

 

[Soma-Sight]

LonelyGuide's, yours, and my integrity is garbage against the backdrop of Jesus Christ's integrity. If I were you I would take the Word of God as the guide into truth as opposed to feel good, nice sounding garbage from man. You will be much better off.

It is True that we may be able to slap insults at each other...

But doing that to Jesus Christ would be a mistake and pointless. :

 

[DivineNames]

Can you actually debate the point?



Come back when you can.

I don't debate unbelievers such as you since they go into battle unarmed. You are not seeking truth, you are seeking to attack Christianity. Unbelievers such as yourself do not know the truth because they have rejected the only one that can teach them truth, so in their arrogant pleasure they accuse those of the truth as being errant. Come back when you are outfitted with the Holy Spirit of God and we can debate on equal footing. Until then you would be at a disadvantage.

Yes, very amusing.

But the thing is, this isn't about me being an "unbeliever", as you can't even properly debate with your fellow Christians!

:roll:

Just keep on coming out with rubbish Solo...

 

[Solo]

Can you actually debate the point?



Come back when you can.

I don't debate unbelievers such as you since they go into battle unarmed. You are not seeking truth, you are seeking to attack Christianity. Unbelievers such as yourself do not know the truth because they have rejected the only one that can teach them truth, so in their arrogant pleasure they accuse those of the truth as being errant. Come back when you are outfitted with the Holy Spirit of God and we can debate on equal footing. Until then you would be at a disadvantage.

Yes, very amusing.

But the thing is, this isn't about me being an "unbeliever", as you can't even properly debate with your fellow Christians!

:roll:

Just keep on coming out with rubbish Solo...

I recognize that you understand rubbish and covet more, but that would be contributing to your belief system of unbelief in the Lord of Lord, and King of Kings, Jesus Christ.

 

[DivineNames]

Just keep on coming out with rubbish Solo...

I recognize that you understand rubbish and covet more, but that would be contributing to your belief system of unbelief in the Lord of Lord, and King of Kings, Jesus Christ.

Actually, I said that, because I am resigned to the fact that you will always contribute rubbish to these forums. You are never going to debate issues in anything even remotely like an adult way. If you were capable of that, you would be doing it, it is simply beyond your ability. That is fine. If you want to be a brain dead fool then that is your business. I imagine that you have to be that way, that brain dead, in order to keep the kind of fundie belief system which you have.

 

[Duder]

,

Yeah, God would be perfectly good, whatever he did, but the "goodness" would be meaningless.

Interestingly, (perhaps), Richard Swinburne takes both horns of the dilemma. The first option grounding (to a certain extent) the second option.

Hello, DivineNames -

I must read this author! Euthyphro is called a dilemma for good reason. The first choice is not entirely satisfactory (it results in troubles of its own), and the second choice is downright ghastly. Splitting the horns or getting out of the bull's way entirely looks very attractive.

Thanks,

Duder

.

 

[Drew]

For God, “there is no distinctions of time†[Tertullian, Against Marcion]. Everything that exists or existed or will exist God is seen all at the same time. Like the way we view a time line with a beginning and end, God sees everything in this way, without exception.

This sounds appealing but where is the Biblical support for the idea that God sees the future as fully settled. A text of the form "God knows all things" does not do the job precisely because it presumes that "the future" is a possible object of knowledge - it is not at all obvious that "the future" is a thing has existence and is therefore something that God would know.

Furthermore a text which suggests that God has a general knowledge of "the future" would not be sufficient either since it is entirely plausible that God can know some things about the future but not everything.

Are there specific texts that ambiguously show the future as exhaustively settled, something like "God knows all things that will come to pass", etc?

Alternately, in the absence of such texts, can it be shown that an exhaustively known future is somehow logically implied by other well established items of doctrine?

 

[Drew]

In essences, since God foreknows the will of man [fallen and dead in sin, or absolutely free to choose] Gods foreknowledge determines what that will it is going to be. The will comes into being because God has foreknown it. Our wills are therefore not limited but have as much power as God wants us to have, and have with certainty. Whatever the will does, it does as a matter of foreknowledge. Since time doesn’t exist for God, foreknowledge then becomes [strictly speaking], knowledge for God knows before, during and after it happens…just as we view a time line.

I think that the idea that foreknowledge determines the actions of the human will is incorrect. I used to think otherwise. However, I was convinced to change my mind based on some very thoughtful posts by a fellow with the handle "Not_Registered". I do not believe that he has posted for a very long time. I will shamelessly reproduce his argument below. It is a little complex, but if you have the patience to follow it, I expect you will see how God's foreknowledge does not rob us of free will:

I do not believe that God's foreknowledge eliminates our ability to freely choose. William Lane Craig discusses this in part of one of his books. The following section is taken (either indirectly or verbatim) from William Lane Craig's Time and Eternity (pp. 256-263).

*****beginning of input from Craig*****

Under the section "The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Future Contingents" Craig discusses the errors fatalist make. A fatalist holds the same, or at least a similar, view that you seem to hold Drew, namely, that God's foreknowledge causes everything we do to be done necessarily thus creating merely an illusion of free will. Craig asks that we let "x" stand for any event, and then offers the following argument (from a fatalist standpoint):

Necessarily, If God foreknows x, then x will happen.

God foreknows x.

Therefore, x will necessarily happen.

Craig indicates that, based on the conclusion, that x will necessarily happen, it follows that x is not a contingent event. Because x is non-contingent (or not contingent on anything), it follows that x is not contingent on our choices, which in turn annihilates free will.

However, Craig says that the conclusion (3) is not the correct conclusion, and that the argument is logically fallacious. The correct conclusion should be: (3') Therefore, x will happen.

Craig says, "It is correct that in a valid, deductive argument the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises; that is to say, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. But the conclusion itself need not be necessary. The fatalist illicitly transfers the necessity of the inference to the conclusion itself." In short, the conclusion must necessarily follow, but it need not be necessary itself.

A major mistake fatalist make is their, as Craig states, "conflation of certainty with necessity." Given God's foreknowledge, He knows for certain what will certainly happen, but that does not mean future events are necessary.

*****end of input from Craig*****

To commit the logical fallacy which Craig discussed would be like saying (i) Sue is taller than Karen; (ii) Necessarily, if Joey is taller than Sue, then Joey is taller than Karen; (iii) Joey is taller than Sue; (iv) Therefore, Joey is necessarily taller than Karen. But, it is not true that Joey must (or necessarily) be taller than Karen. Joey could have been shorter than Karen and Sue. The correct conclusion is: (iv') Therefore, Joey is taller than Karen.

A better way to say this is the conclusion must necessarily follow the premises, but the conclusion is not necessary in and of itself. I think a good analogy to God's foreknowledge is our knowledge of past events. We know that x happened in the past, but that doesn't mean x necessarily happened. We have knowledge of x; therefore, it necessarily follows that x happened, but x wasn't necessary itself. It happened; therefore, we are certain that it happened. But, it was not necessary that it happen.

It is similar for God's foreknowledge. Aside from knowing what did happen, God knows what will happen, but that doesn't mean it must happen necessarily. Just as our knowledge of the past event did not necessitate its happening, God's knowledge of future events doesn't necessitate their happening. If a past event would have happened differently our knowledge of it would have been different, so it is not necessary that the past event happen. But, if we know that it happened then it certainly (not necessarily) happened. Similarly, if we were to act differently in the future God would have possessed the knowledge of that action instead, so our future is not necessary. But, from God's perspective (because He knows it already) it is certain. The past is what has happened for certain, but not necessarily. The future is what will happen. We determine the future (through free will), but we cannot change the future, because the future is what will happen. As Craig says, "To change the future would be to bring it about that an event which will occur will not occur, which is self-contradictory." To us the future is unknown, but to God it is known. Thus, one can propose God as the answer to the age-old question, "Who holds the future?"

Now, of course, this argument includes the belief that God knows the future, perhaps exhaustively. But this is beside the point. Even if God does exhaustively know the future (which I doubt), this argument still shows that this exhastuve foreknowledge does not rob us of free will.

 

[DivineNames]

Even if God does exhaustively know the future (which I doubt), this argument still shows that this exhastuve foreknowledge does not rob us of free will.

What it shows, is that a certain argument alleging an incompatibility is in error. This is not the same as showing that foreknowledge and free will are definitely compatible.

 

[Drew]

Even if God does exhaustively know the future (which I doubt), this argument still shows that this exhastuve foreknowledge does not rob us of free will.

What it shows, is that a certain argument alleging an incompatibility is in error. This is not the same as showing that foreknowledge and free will are definitely compatible.

I think I disagree. If the argument I have shamelessly copied is indeed correct, it shows that God's foreknowledge exerts no influence on our wills. The argument shows that even though God might know that I will do x, that knowledge did not make it necessary that I do x. I could have done y, in which case God's foreknowledge would have been different.

By establishing that there is no necessity that I do x, the argument has taken away the only possible mode by which foreknowledge could interfere with free will - the mode whereby my actions are in some way determined by God's foreknowledge.

Are you saying that even though God's foreknowledge that I will eat a Mars bar earlier this afternoon (which I did) did not make that action necessary, it still might have had some influence, such as making it more likely than if God had not had such foreknowledge? I think that showing an absence of necessity completely decouples foreknowledge from free will - the reason being that foreknowledge is not like an "influence force" that can reach into my mind and gently prompt me in the direction of eating that Mars bar. It is an "all or nothing" proposition - either God's foreknowledge necessitates my eating of the Mars bar or it does nothing.

I admit that my argument is a little soft. You raise an interesting question. I plan to think on this and get back.....

 

[DivineNames]

Are you saying that even though God's foreknowledge that I will eat a Mars bar earlier this afternoon (which I did) did not make that action necessary, it still might have had some influence, such as making it more likely than if God had not had such foreknowledge?

No.

I am saying that if you refute one argument, it is still possible that there is a better argument for the same conclusion. I think I did provide a link to an argument, which I will give again-

Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free- ... knowledge/

This one is supposed to be logically valid, at least. I am not really sure what it is trying to make out of the "necessity of the past", but anyway...

I think that showing an absence of necessity completely decouples foreknowledge from free will - the reason being that foreknowledge is not like an "influence force" that can reach into my mind and gently prompt me in the direction of eating that Mars bar.

That foreknowledge isn't an "influencing force" would appear to be right. However, it seems to me that this may not be the only way that an incompatibility could conceivably come about. Something required for foreknowledge, is the truth, now, of a certain future state of affairs. Perhaps that could cause a problem?