The Narrow Path Ministries

Paidion wrote:No. To make my claim, I wouldn't have to know anything about God at all!

So you can make sweeping claims about God's nature and abilities without knowing anything about Him at all? Wouldn't you say such a claim has to be considered only an assumption? And with no knowledge on which to base it, most likely an incorrect assumption. Maybe a theory, at best, if it meets all available evidence, which yours does not. You've mentioned logic a lot in this thread, so I'm only applying a little logic here.

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.

There's no contradiction in saying God isn't subject to that which He created; to the contrary, it seems nothing could be more obvious. Why would He be subject to time, any more than He's subject to you or me, unless He specifically chose to be? In fact I believe that's part of what Jesus did in becoming human (Phil. 2:5-8), but the Father never did. All the relevant Biblical evidence says God is not subject to time, and does know that which to us is future; if you have any that says otherwise, please present it.

BWM wrote:So you can make sweeping claims about God's nature and abilities without knowing anything about Him at all? Wouldn't you say such a claim has to be considered only an assumption? And with no knowledge on which to base it, most likely an incorrect assumption. Maybe a theory, at best, if it meets all available evidence, which yours does not. You've mentioned logic a lot in this thread, so I'm only applying a little logic here.

No. I'm not making sweeping claims about God's nature and abilities; I'm not making any claims at all about God's nature and abilities. I'm making claims about logic. For example, a child's toy cannot be totally red in colour and at the same time totally blue in color. When I say that God cannot make the toy totally red and totally blue simultaneously, I am saying NOTHING about God's abilities. I don't have to know anything about God to make that claim. That's because it's a contradiction. Contradictions are NOT objects of power. I believe that knowing in advance what a free-will agent will choose is a contradiction. That's the only reason that I am saying God cannot do it. God is omniscient. He knows all things. But that fact isn't sufficient to claim that He can know he unknowable. Contradictions are not objects of knowledge. God is also omnipotent. He can do all things. But that fact isn't sufficient to claim that He can perform contradictory acts.

1. Can a person make a ball go up and down simultaneously?
2. Can a person make a cushion totally hard and totally soft simultaneously?
3. Can a person make your change purse both full of coins and totally empty simultaneously?

The answer is obviously "No." Contradictions are not objects of ability.
Now substitute the word "God" for "a person" in these questions. Does this make the answers to these questions "yes"?

I have always liked your analogies, Paidion and have helped me understand your position. I would add that God can't make square circles and that doesn't bother me in the least. When you say God can't do something some people do tend to freak out a tad.

Your logic is sound; the only issue is whether "knowing in advance what a free-will agent will choose" is TRULY a contradiction. You have explained why you believe it is very well and I can't rebut it. Even so, I am not 100% convinced which may seem illogical. The reason is that I just don't know how God IS, exactly.

Well I can't see any contradiction in an omniscient being knowing in advance what a free will agent will freely choose to do. There is no causative link between the two. What God knows before has no more effect on what I choose to do than what He knows after. One is truth the other is fact. Different categories.

A square and a circle are two different things. They are made. Two different things are made and can not be simultaneously made identically, but they are both things.

Hi Homer,you wrote:Well I can't see any contradiction in an omniscient being knowing in advance what a free will agent will freely choose to do. There is no causative link between the two. What God knows before has no more effect on what I choose to do than what He knows after.

"There is no causative link between the two." As you know I fully agree with this statement. I have said so twice now in response to your suggestion that I thought there was.
Now I'll say it again. IF God couldknow in advance what a free-will agent would do, that knowledge would NOT be a cause of the free-will agent's acts.
So that is not the reason I deny this foreknowledge. I deny it because it is a logical contradiction like the other examples I gave. Also I explained in earlier posts WHY it is a contradiction. But you cannot see it as a contradiction. So I guess we'll just have to leave it as that.

Paidion wrote:No. I'm not making sweeping claims about God's nature and abilities; I'm not making any claims at all about God's nature and abilities. I'm making claims about logic.

...which brings us back to what I said before: Logic is useless if one starts with incorrect assumptions. Your logic, and your point, depend on the assumption that God is subject to and bound by time in the same way we are. That assumption, I think, contradicts all the relevant Biblical data.

This response to me, and your response to Homer in the meantime, make me think you didn't read the second paragraph in my post to which you responded (this one). If you wouldn't mind reading and responding to that, I think it would further the discussion.

backwoodsman wrote:..which brings us back to what I said before: Logic is useless if one starts with incorrect assumptions. Your logic, and your point, depend on the assumption that God is subject to and bound by time in the same way we are

.

You seem to be using the word "logic" in a different sense than I. Apparently you are using it in the sense of "reasoning." Otherwise you wouldn't refer to "your logic." I don't have some specialized logic that I own. I was talking about formal logic such as is taught in university philosophy classes, and is independent of any particular person's reasoning. Here are some examples:

Modus Ponens:
If p then q
p
∴ q

Example of application:

Premises
If Mary sees a St. Bernard dog, she pets the dog.
Mary sees a St. Bernard dog.
Conclusion:
Therefore Mary pets the dog.

The above is known as "a logical argument."

In formal logic, if p represents a statement then p and -p (not p) represents the contrary, both statements cannot be true.

Now to apply formal logic to the problem Let A and B represent two persons. Let is be assumed that both A and B have free will, that is, the ability to choose.
Let X represent an act that it is possible for B to accomplish at a given time T.
Therefore B can choose X or B can choose -X.
Now suppose that A knows prior to time T that B will choose X at time T.
When time T comes about, B, having free will can choose either X or -X
So suppose B chooses -X.
This contradicts our supposition that A knew prior to time T that B would choose X.
Therefore A didn't know prior to time T that B would choose X.
For A to actually KNOW prior to T that B would choose X, then it is not possible for B to choose -X at time T. And that would imply that B doesn't have free will.
Conclusion: It is not possible to know in advance what a free-will agent will choose.

Hi Paidion,
You wrote:

"There is no causative link between the two." As you know I fully agree with this statement. I have said so twice now in response to your suggestion that I thought there was.
Now I'll say it again. IF God couldknow in advance what a free-will agent would do, that knowledge would NOT be a cause of the free-will agent's acts.
So that is not the reason I deny this foreknowledge. I deny it because it is a logical contradiction like the other examples I gave. Also I explained in earlier posts WHY it is a contradiction. But you cannot see it as a contradiction. So I guess we'll just have to leave it as that.

So you agree that God's foreknowledge, if my view is true, is not causative in the decision of a free-will agent. I assume you would say that the only cause of the decision is the person. As I maintain, God knew beforehand in Peter's case what that decision would be. The scriptures plainly indicate as much.

In the case of Peter's denial, foretold by the Lord, We agree that Peter was the sole decider in his subsequent denials. Now, if there was no outside cause other than his own fear, his decision was a free-will choice, was it not, at least to the extent we have free-will?

Christ's foreknowledge had nothing to do with Peter's choice. You deny the possibility of foreknowledge in regard to free-will decisions; Christ could have been in error. But there are scriptures that appear to inform us of God's foreknowledge. To your knowledge are there any scriptures that deny it? It appears to me your basis for denying foreknowledge lies solely in human reasoning.

It seems to me that in your view the only foreknowledge of events that God can have is of those which He is or intends to be the cause of.

It seems to me that in your view the only foreknowledge of events that God can have is of those which He is or intends to be the cause of.

Yes, that is correct. However, God can and does predict the actions of people in advance, based on His complete knowledge of those people's character, attitudes, etc. Even human beings make predictions about what others will do, based on their limited knowledge of them. And often their predictions turn out to be correct. But God who has COMPLETE knowledge of the people in question, is in a MUCH better position to make predictions about people's future actions (which do in fact turn out to be correct more often than man's predictions). Notwithstanding, God's predictions do not ALWAYS turn out to be correct.

I offer again Jeremiah 3:7 for your consideration in which God said, "I thought, ‘After she has done all these things she will return to Me’; but she did not return..." (NASB)

If God THOUGHT Israel would return to Him, and she didn't, then clearly God didn't KNOW that she wouldn't return to Him.

Paidion wrote:You seem to be using the word "logic" in a different sense than I. Apparently you are using it in the sense of "reasoning." Otherwise you wouldn't refer to "your logic."

Thank you for the refresher lesson on logic; I'm sure someone will find it useful.

By "your logic," I mean the logic that led you to an incorrect conclusion because you started with an incorrect assumption. The logic itself is not the problem, and in fact is irrelevant as long as that incorrect assumption persists. If you're interested in getting that sorted out, or in figuring out why I'm so stuck on it so you can help me get it sorted out, you could do worse than reading, carefully considering, and responding to the paragraph I referenced and linked in my last post. On the other hand, if you're not interested in one or the other of those goals, there's no point in continuing the discussion, so no need to respond further.