The Pat Answer to the Election Question

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: The Pat Answer to the Election Question

Post by Homer » Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:07 am

Hi Paidion,

I think your logic is faulty. (Perhaps I shouldn't say "your" logic as others argue the same.)

"A" knowing in advance is not causative. "B" is the cause of his action.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Pat Answer to the Election Question

Post by Paidion » Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:34 pm

Hi Homer, you wrote:I think your logic is faulty. (Perhaps I shouldn't say "your" logic as others argue the same.)

"A" knowing in advance is not causative. "B" is the cause of his action.
Homer, I have already stated that if a person could know in advance what a free-will agent would choose, his foreknowledge would not be the cause of the free-will agent's action.

Let me try one more time, and then if you still view my attempt as faulty logic, I will shut up.

First a definition of free will, to which many philosophers subscribe:
A person is said to have free will, if after he has performed a particular action at a particular time, he COULD HAVE refrained from performing the action at that time.

1. First an example of free will:
Joe Bloe has free will. Therefore, if after having chosen to eat porridge for breakfast yesterday, he could have refrained from eating porridge for breakfast yesterday.

2. Now applying that to Peter's denial of Christ.
The apostle Peter chose to deny Christ (probably because he feared the consequences of admitting that he was Jesus' disciple).
But Peter had free will. Therefore he COULD HAVE CHOSEN not to deny Christ, but to face the consequences.

3. Now suppose that Peter had in fact, chosen not to deny Christ and hadn't done so. That fact would logically contradict the assertion that someone knew in advance that he WOULD deny Christ.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: The Pat Answer to the Election Question

Post by Homer » Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:05 am

3. Now suppose that Peter had in fact, chosen not to deny Christ and hadn't done so. That fact would logically contradict the assertion that someone knew in advance that he WOULD deny Christ.
I can agree with your statement, but then I would say that if Peter had never made the choice to deny Christ, and hadn't done so, then Christ would never have said Peter would do so.

I'm not seeing how that is hard to grasp.

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: The Pat Answer to the Election Question

Post by backwoodsman » Wed Jul 25, 2018 11:32 am

Paidion wrote:If A knows at time T that B will do X at time T+n (where "n" is a quantity of time) then B is NOT ABLE to choose Not-X at time T+n.
For if B chooses Not-X at time T+n, then A DID NOT KNOW at time T that B would do X at time T+n.
Therefore, it is logically contradictory for ANYONE to know in advance what a free-will agent will choose.
That's logical only if one knows and understands everything about "A". But if God is what the Bible says He is, then your logic is faulty.

One thing of which we can be sure about God is that there's a lot about Him that's far beyond our ability to understand. (Isaiah 55:8-9; Job 5:9 & 11:7; Romans 11:33, to name a few.) Us thinking we can understand enough about God to make your thinking correct on this matter, would be like my cat thinking he understands everything about me. He knows and has a relationship with me, within the scope of his capabilities, as we do with God. But not only does he not have the faintest idea about 99.9% of what there is to know about me, he doesn't even have the capability to recognize that there's much more to me than he understands.

Your logic would be correct if applied to a man; but to think it also applies to God seems to me, at best, very short-sighted. Psalm 139:4 seems to directly contradict your view on this: "Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all."

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Pat Answer to the Election Question

Post by Paidion » Wed Jul 25, 2018 2:16 pm

Logic is logic. The illogical cannot be made logical by inserting God into the equation.

God can do all things, but can He do the illogical? Can He create a rock that is so heavy that He cannot lift it? Knowing the unknowable is in the same category—in this case, knowing in advance what a free-will agent will do.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: The Pat Answer to the Election Question

Post by backwoodsman » Wed Jul 25, 2018 3:10 pm

Paidion wrote:Logic is logic. The illogical cannot be made logical by inserting God into the equation.
True enough, but logic is only useful if one starts with correct assumptions. If one's assumptions are incorrect, the result will also be incorrect.

While we're talking about logic: To know what you claim to know on this topic, you'd have to know and understand everything about God that might have something to do with His ability (or lack thereof) to know the future. Is that what you're suggesting? If there's anything about God that you don't know or understand, then you can't know that God can't know the future.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Pat Answer to the Election Question

Post by Paidion » Wed Jul 25, 2018 6:06 pm

Backwoodsman wrote:While we're talking about logic: To know what you claim to know on this topic, you'd have to know and understand everything about God that might have something to do with His ability (or lack thereof) to know the future. Is that what you're suggesting? If there's anything about God that you don't know or understand, then you can't know that God can't know the future.
No. To make my claim, I wouldn't have to know anything about God at all! What you are suggesting is analogous to saying that you would have to know everything about God in order to make the claim that God cannot create a rock so heavy that He can't lift it. But in fact, that claim is based on denying a contradiction. Contradictions are not objects of power. God is omnipotent in spite of the fact that He cannot create such a rock. And God is omniscient in spite of the fact that He cannot know in advance what a free-will agent will choose. Contradictions are not objects of knowledge.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The Pat Answer to the Election Question

Post by steve » Wed Jul 25, 2018 6:32 pm

Hi Paidion,

Not to derail the main subject matter, but I thought I would chime in about the question of whether God could make a rock that He cannot move. Like you, I always argued that the answer was "no"—but for no other reason than that the existence of such a rock would deny His omnipotence.

I have rethought that and now think that the answer to the conundrum is, "If He wished for such a rock to exists, which He Himself could never move (and knew that He would never wish to move it), then who is to say He can't do what He wants, and make what He wants?

In a sense, I believe that God has made a rock that even He cannot move—and you believe this too. That rock is human stubborn free-will. You and I both believe that God wants mankind to have this free will, which, by definition, God cannot forcibly move.

I do differ with you an one aspect of this, and that is, I don't believe that man's will is absolutely free, nor necessarily determinative. Man is not sovereign. God can interfere with the freedom in some cases and can determine what plans of man will or will not prevail. That is, man can't choose and accomplish everything he might wish. If someone chooses to kill you (like one of the forty men who swore to kill Paul), their success is not left up to their own wishes, but God can intervene to determine the the result. Your view, often stated here, is that God cannot protect a little girl from being raped, because the rapist's will must be free—and, apparently, must not only be free, but also must prevail over God's protective intentions. Hence, our lengthy debates in the past over whether God let's lethal disasters and unjust victimhood occur or not.

Sorry, I got us off-topic....

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Pat Answer to the Election Question

Post by Paidion » Wed Jul 25, 2018 6:57 pm

Thanks for you reply, Steve.

With respect to your statement:
I have rethought that and now think that the answer to the conundrum is, "If He wished for such a rock to exists, which He Himself could never move (and knew that He would never wish to move it), then who is to say He can't do what He wants, and make what He wants?
Isn't it the case that if He created such a rock, He would no longer be omnipotent? For He would be unable to lift the rock.
But, perhaps you are right. Perhaps He could create such a rock even though it would cost Him His omnipotence.

It looks as if I will have to revise my statement as follows:
God cannot create a rock so large that He cannot lift it and retain His omnipotence.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Pat Answer to the Election Question

Post by Paidion » Wed Jul 25, 2018 7:14 pm

Steve, I fully agree with you concerning free will. It is certainly true that many times a person is not able to carry out that which he wills. A person might will to wave his arms and fly like a bird. But he cannot accomplish that. And yes, God can and sometimes does intervene to prevent a person from carrying out his will. And to refer to your example, I DO believe God can prevent the little girl from being raped. But He doesn't do it by taking away the free will of the rapist, but by some other means.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Post Reply

Return to “Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism”