The Problem Of Evil?

[tabibito]

Is it self-evident either way?

One view says that God's foreknowledge is contingent upon our acts and decisions. Another view is that our acts and decision are contingent upon God's pre-fixed knowledge, that we're strictly determined by what God's already knows. Chicken/Egg. Which came first? One appears just as sensible as the other.

Is it really a matter of taste as to what one believes in this regard, or is there a clear cut and logical pathway to know either way?

Yet another possible configuration is that God only knows what can be known, and apparently, the outcome of freewill decisions of man lie beyond what can be known. An interesting feature about this one, is that in this view (Open Theism), free will and omniscience are retained just the same. You just have to change your concept of omniscience a little. And if you do, what could be an objection other than an emotional one?

God gives a prophet a message to pass on to a person so that the person can decide for himself to do what God already knows he will choose to do, and nothing else.
The "logic" is ineffable.

[Machinist]

God gives a prophet a message to pass on to a person so that the person can decide for himself to do what God already knows he will choose to do, and nothing else.
The "logic" is ineffable.

It is indeed ineffable logic...which could be a contradiction in terms and concept.

I am trying to figure out though, why you dismiss this 4D view God's omniscience? All you have to do is place primacy on mans acts and decisions as determining God's foreknowledge. The Time component in this equation is extremely versatile as well, let me tell ya.

[seer]

You just have to change your concept of omniscience a little. And if you do, what could be an objection other than an emotional one?

I guess it could be emotional, who wants a God who doesn't know the future and could get things wrong...

[tabibito]

It is indeed ineffable logic...which could be a contradiction in terms and concept.

I am trying to figure out though, why you dismiss this 4D view God's omniscience? All you have to do is place primacy on mans acts and decisions as determining God's foreknowledge. The Time component in this equation is extremely versatile as well, let me tell ya.

It is a simple matter of understanding that prophecy is always** subject to an "if," whether implicit or explicit. The prophet (working in YHVHs service) understands that the future is uncertain.

{{** for the H_As of the world: this is a sweeping generalisation}}

I'm comfortable with the concept of God's foreknowledge resulting from human decisions. There comes a time when even humans can determine which decisions are a foregone conclusion.
For example: An experienced driver might see a car stopped on the road. He observes the car's position, the angle of the front wheels, what the driver is paying attention to: it is a foregone conclusion that the driver of that car will do a U turn.

[Sparko]

They were “pre-known” before you existed so at what point in the process did you make the “freewill choice”?

At the time I made the decision. You seem to be confused how time works. If I make a decision at 12PM on December 13, 2020, then God knows what I will decide at 12PM, Dec 13, 2020. If I choose A at that time, God knows I chose A. If I chose B, God knows I chose B. His knowledge is based on what decision I made. Just like you know right now what choice you made, say, on what to eat for breakfast yesterday. If you chose to eat cereal, then that is what you know now that you chose to eat cereal for breakfast yesterday. If you chose to eat toast, then that is what you would know now that you ate toast for breakfast yesterday. Even if you could take a trip in a time machine to 10 years ago, you would still know what you ate for breakfast on Feb 6, 2022. Your location in time doesn't change your choice.

[Machinist]

At the time I made the decision. You seem to be confused how time works. If I make a decision at 12PM on December 13, 2020, then God knows what I will decide at 12PM, Dec 13, 2020. If I choose A at that time, God knows I chose A. If I chose B, God knows I chose B. His knowledge is based on what decision I made. Just like you know right now what choice you made, say, on what to eat for breakfast yesterday. If you chose to eat cereal, then that is what you know now that you chose to eat cereal for breakfast yesterday. If you chose to eat toast, then that is what you would know now that you ate toast for breakfast yesterday. Even if you could take a trip in a time machine to 10 years ago, you would still know what you ate for breakfast on Feb 6, 2022. Your location in time doesn't change your choice.

This says that God's (fore)knowledge is contingent upon our decisions.

It's too easy to invert this and say that our decisions are contingent upon, and determined by his pre-existing knowledge...which would essentially be Hyper Calvinism. The objections that Tassman, HA, and others have raised, have been against the Hyper Calvinism side of the coin.

Probably, the reason the other side (your side) is criticized so easily, is because of how easy it is to just flip the coin

[Tassman]

At the time I made the decision. You seem to be confused how time works. If I make a decision at 12PM on December 13, 2020, then God knows what I will decide at 12PM, Dec 13, 2020. If I choose A at that time, God knows I chose A. If I chose B, God knows I chose B. His knowledge is based on what decision I made. Just like you know right now what choice you made, say, on what to eat for breakfast yesterday. If you chose to eat cereal, then that is what you know now that you chose to eat cereal for breakfast yesterday. If you chose to eat toast, then that is what you would know now that you ate toast for breakfast yesterday. Even if you could take a trip in a time machine to 10 years ago, you would still know what you ate for breakfast on Feb 6, 2022. Your location in time doesn't change your choice.

But even before you existed your decisions were known by your omniscient, omnipotent creator. Hence, you were predestined to make specific choices between cereal or toast etc. etc. on any particular day.

In fact, your decisions are not made freely. They are largely programmed by genes, social pressures and memories. You take your decisions either deterministically or randomly – but not completely freely.

[Machinist]

But even before you existed your decisions were known by your omniscient, omnipotent creator. Hence, you were predestined to make specific choices between cereal or toast etc. etc. on any particular day.

In fact, your decisions are not made freely. They are largely programmed by genes, social pressures and memories. You take your decisions either deterministically or randomly – but not completely freely.

You see, this is an attack on Hyper Calvinism, and rightly so.

What Tassman needs to do is flip the coin to the other side, by putting man's free will actions first, and God's knowledge being contingent upon those actions.

[Machinist]

That is a good way to look at that right? That these two views are simple inversions of each other?

God's knowledge is contingent upon man's acts

vs.

Man's acts are continent upon God's knowledge

It's a chicken/egg thing.

[seer]

You see, this is an attack on Hyper Calvinism, and rightly so.

Of course Tass, is a materialistic determinist. Even if Calvinism is correct, I would still choose that determinism over the blind, non-ethical determinism of nature.

[seer]

That is a good way to look at that right? That these two views are simple inversions of each other?

God's knowledge is contingent upon man's acts

vs.

Man's acts are continent upon God's knowledge

It's a chicken/egg thing.

Yes, and we can not prove one over the other.

[Sparko]

But even before you existed your decisions were known by your omniscient, omnipotent creator. Hence, you were predestined to make specific choices between cereal or toast etc. etc. on any particular day.

In fact, your decisions are not made freely. They are largely programmed by genes, social pressures and memories. You take your decisions either deterministically or randomly – but not completely freely.

As God is outside time and eternal, there was no "before" for him to know it in. That is why I keep trying to use an analogy of time travel to explain why "WHEN" you are located with the knowledge doesn't change the fact that knowing what someone did or will do doesn't mean they did not have free will.

Today, you know what you ate yesterday for breakfast. You know because you freely chose to eat X for breakfast. Your knowledge doesn't eliminate free will. You will always have eaten X on 2/7/2022. It only happens once. It can't be changed. Yet it was a free will decision.

So if you now travel 10,000 years in the future you would still know you ate X on 2/7/2022. It would still be fixed. It can't change. It was the result of a free will decision.
If you could travel outside of time to a different universe you would still know you ate X on 2/7/2022. It would still be fixed. It can't change. It was the result of a free will decision.
If you could travel to 10,000 BC, you would still know you ate X on 2/7/2022. It would still be fixed. It can't change. It was the result of a free will decision.

[EvoUK]

Even if Calvinism is correct, I would still choose that determinism over the blind, non-ethical determinism of nature.

That's sort of your problem though. You don't get to choose what's true and factual or not. Your feelings don't influence reality. Most of your complaints about 'naturalistic' morality (or whatever you call it) almost always boil down to you not liking it. Not pointing out logical reasons why it's factually incorrect - certainly making no effort to show your version is factually accurate.

I get that you're more comfortable 'on the attack' rather than backing up your own claims, but even the 'attacks' are weak.

[seer]

That's sort of your problem though. You don't get to choose what's true and factual or not. Your feelings don't influence reality. Most of your complaints about 'naturalistic' morality (or whatever you call it) almost always boil down to you not liking it. Not pointing out logical reasons why it's factually incorrect - certainly making no effort to show your version is factually accurate.

I get that you're more comfortable 'on the attack' rather than backing up your own claims, but even the 'attacks' are weak.

I can't help it if a rational God creating an intelligible universe makes more sense to me than the source being non-rational forces. Or a conscious Being creating conscious beings, rather than non-conscious forces.Or that a moral Creator is a better explanation for our moral intuitions than a-moral forces of nature. Or that a rational Creator creating generally reliable cognitive abilities makes more sense to me than forces that care nothing for, nor aim at, truth or rationality. So sue me...

[Tassman]

Of course Tass, is a materialistic determinist. Even if Calvinism is correct, I would still choose that determinism over the blind, non-ethical determinism of nature.

Your personal preferences have very little impact upon reality. - that's just wishful thinking The fact is that our decisions are programmed to a large degree by one's genetic inheritance, the social environment in which we live and and a lifetime of memories buried in our subconscious.