Does an Omniscient Creator Lead to Fatalism?

[JimL]

There's no logical need for any god to be either omniscient or omnipotent, though those features clearly fulfill philosophical and psychological needs among their followers. All that's actually needed, for even the most exalted being, is to be more knowledgeable and powerful than its followers can imagine.

Not sure why christians insist on an omniscient god in the sense of knowing the future anyway. Their own bible shows him not to be omniscient, all though it does contradict itself at times. Apparently god didn't know that Adam and Eve would disobey him and partake of the forbidden fruit, he should have known better, and apparently he didn't know that his creatures would turn out to be so evil that he would have to flood the entire earth and murder them all. And even that didn't work out for him.

[37818]

Not sure why christians insist on an omniscient god in the sense of knowing the future anyway. Their own bible shows him not to be omniscient, all though it does contradict itself at times. Apparently god didn't know that Adam and Eve would disobey him and partake of the forbidden fruit, he should have known better, and apparently he didn't know that his creatures would turn out to be so evil that he would have to flood the entire earth and murder them all. And even that didn't work out for him.

". . . Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: . . ." -- Isaiah 46:9-10.

[Littlejoe]

". . . Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: . . ." -- Isaiah 46:9-10.

I like how you cut off the passage before it contradicts the point you are trying to make with it!

Open Theism views this passage differently. The whole passage is Isaiah 46:9-11. Pay attention to the bold parts that show the context:

9"Remember the former things long past,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,
10Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying, 'My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';
11Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man of My purpose from a far country
Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass.
I have planned it, surely I will do it.controlneed only know his own

[37818]

I like how you cut off the passage before it contradicts the point you are trying to make with it!

Open Theism views this passage differently. The whole passage is Isaiah 46:9-11. Pay attention to the bold parts that show the context:

9"Remember the former things long past,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,
10Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying, 'My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';
11Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man of My purpose from a far country
Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass.
I have planned it, surely I will do it.controlneed only know his own

Open theism fails to correctly understand the role of the Son of God.

All appearances of God in the OT is the Son.
". . . No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him]. . . ." -- John 1:18.

". . . And the Angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and He said, Here am I. And He said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from Me. . . ." -- Genesis 22:12.

The fact that the Son of God deliberately limited His omniscience in some things (John 1:2; Mark 13:32; Acts 1:6-7).

[One Bad Pig]

Quit babbling on physics you don't understand any better than you can spell atheist. Yes, there's a space-time continuum, and even one we can visualize with pretty little cones. No, that doesn't imply an outside perspective in which causality is reversed.

Really, Sparkles.

I try not to get much involved in these sorts of discussions, because lao tzu is smarter than I am.

[Littlejoe]

Open theism fails to correctly understand the role of the Son of God.

Even if I were to grant you this totally unsupported assertion...which I don't....

All appearances of God in the OT is the Son.
". . . No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him]. . . ." -- John 1:18.

". . . And the Angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and He said, Here am I. And He said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from Me. . . ." -- Genesis 22:12.

The fact that the Son of God deliberately limited His omniscience in some things (John 1:2; Mark 13:32; Acts 1:6-7).

AFAIK, no one believes, much less has proven that in the OT Theophanies, Jesus had limited omniscience like he did in the Incarnation.

And to be honest, I don't see how this in any way refutes my previous post...

[JonathanL]

A creator intentionally choosing the future history of its creations directly contradicts free choice for its created creatures.

That's not an argument.

[JonathanL]

But again, there are only 2 logical ways in which god could know the future, specifically your future choices, and those ways have to do with the 2 theories of time. If the B-theory is correct, then time is just another dimension, it doesn't flow from past to future, past, present, and future are all just as real, moments in time, like the measuring lines on a yard stick, are all their own nows, existing together, in separate locations along the time line coordinate. Since all of time exists according to this theory, then I think you can see that free will is impossible according to B-theory.
On the other hand, according to the A-theory, time does flow, only the present is real, the future is open, so there is no way to know that future unless, like in dominoes, what will happen, is built into the creation. In other words, if the future is known by an omniscient being according to A-theory, then the reason it is known is because he engineered it that way, and so, just like in B-theory, free will would be is impossible. Now like Tass said, you can disagree if you want, but unless you can actually refute the logic of the argument with your own counter argument, then your disagreement is of little value to the discussion.

Only two ways in which God can know the future? Your entire argument hangs on that point, and unless you can argue for it successfully it loses all of it's persuasiveness.

[JonathanL]

Just saying I'm wrong is not good enough. You need to say WHY you think me wrong. Otherwise I have nothing to argue against.

I don't have to do anything here. You're the one who made the claim that they're identical, so you're the one who'll have to support that claim.

[Tassman]

I came back to this because I realized that you were probably asking me why I thought you were wrong about the two statements

Yes, thanks for getting back.

cannotdo notcannot do.

I think you've got it backwards here. I don't have to do anything here. You're the one who made the claim that they're identical, so you're the one who'll have to support that claim.

They are not identical statements, clearly, but they both have the same outcome...namely no actual freedom to choose. This is my point.

[JonathanL]

cannotdo notcannot do.

Yes, but just because one does not do something doesn't mean that one cannot do it. Logically, if one cannot do X, then it clearly implies that one does not do X, but not doing X does not in any way imply that one cannot do X.

They are not identical statements, clearly, but they both have the same outcome...namely no actual freedom to choose. This is my point.

But they clearly don't have the same outcome. Not doing X, and not being able to do X are clearly two distinctly different things. Not being able to do X is one of possible reasons for not doing X, but it's not the only one. Not choosing to do X is another reason.

[JimL]

Only two ways in which God can know the future? Your entire argument hangs on that point, and unless you can argue for it successfully it loses all of it's persuasiveness.

I gave you a logical argument, there are only 2 logical ways that the future could be known. If you disagree with that, then you need to refute it and present an alternative argument. If you can't refute it, and have no alternative solution of your own, then you're just blowing smoke.

[JonathanL]

I gave you a logical argument, there are only 2 logical ways that the future could be known. If you disagree with that, then you need to refute it and present an alternative argument. If you can't refute it, and have no alternative solution of your own, then you're just blowing smoke.

No, that isn't how this works. You're the one who claimed that there are only two logical ways in which the future could be known, so you're the one who's going to have to give an argument for why there couldn't possibly be any other ways to know the future. Unless you're able to do that I'm completely justified in dismissing your argument.

[carpedm9587]

No, that isn't how this works. You're the one who claimed that there are only two logical ways in which the future could be known, so you're the one who's going to have to give an argument for why there couldn't possibly be any other ways to know the future. Unless you're able to do that I'm completely justified in dismissing your argument.

So let me get this right. There are two ways time is understood to operate (actually there is now a C-Series, so arguably three). The impact of those two (maybe three) on free-will is outlined (I'm not saying I agree with those points), but you are saying there is still room for a god on the basis of a hypothetical 3rd (4th?) way of looking at time that you are not obligated to explain? Instead, JimL is required to prove that such a 3rd (or 4th) way doesn't exist?

Do I have that right?

[JonathanL]

So let me get this right. There are two ways time is understood to operate (actually there is now a C-Series, so arguably three). The impact of those two (maybe three) on free-will is outlined (I'm not saying I agree with those points), but you are saying there is still room for a god on the basis of a hypothetical 3rd (4th?) way of looking at time that you are not obligated to explain? Instead, JimL is required to prove that such a 3rd (or 4th) way doesn't exist?

Do I have that right?

No, you do not have it right. JimL's point (as I understood it) is that there are only two ways in which God could know the future, and which one of them is right depends on whether the A-theory of time, or B-theory of time is right. I'm saying that if he wants to make such a claim he's obliged (atleast if he want's to persuade anyone) to give an argument as to why there couldn't possibly be any other ways to know the future under the two different theories of time, not why there couldn't possibly be another way of looking at time.

Let's look at it this way: If I was putting forth one of the different first cause arguments, and at the end of the argument I claimed that the beginning of the universe had to have had a personal cause, would you require me to explain why I thought that the first cause couldn't possibly be anything other than a personal cause (assuming that you had been convinced by the argument up to that point) or would you simply think that if you couldn't come up with any counter-examples that showed how an impersonal cause for the beginning of the universe was possible you would be intellectually obliged to accept the claim that the only option was a personal cause?