Open Theism?

[frisian]

Any thoughts on Open Theism? I had heard something called Chaos Theology. Someone @ RR exposed me to this.

http://www.carm.org/open.htm

http://web.syr.edu/~nmagee/chaos.html

[frisian]

"What is Open Theism?


Open theism, also called openness and the open view, is a theological position dealing with human free will and its relationship to God and the nature of the future. It is the teaching that God has granted to humanity free will and that in order for the free will to be truly free, the future free will choices of individuals cannot be known ahead of time by God. They hold that if God knows what we are going to choose, then how can we be truly free when it is time to make those choices since a counter choice cannot then be made by us because it is already "known" what we are going to do.1 In other words, we would not actually be able to make a contrary choice to what God "knows" we will choose thus implying that we would not then be free.
In open theism, the future is either knowable or not knowable. For the open theists who hold that the future is knowable by God, they maintain that God voluntarily limits His knowledge of free will choices so that they can remain truly free.2 Other open theists maintain that the future, being non existent, is not knowable, even by God.3 Gregory Boyd, a well know advocate of Open Theism says,

"Much of it [the future], open theists will concede, is settled ahead of time, either by God's predestining will or by existing earthly causes, but it is not exhaustively settled ahead of time. To whatever degree the future is yet open to be decided by free agents, it is unsettled."


The above is from the first link.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by frisian
It is the teaching that God has granted to humanity free will and that in order for the free will to be truly free, the future free will choices of individuals cannot be known ahead of time by God. They hold that if God knows what we are going to choose, then how can we be truly free when it is time to make those choices since a counter choice cannot then be made by us because it is already "known" what we are going to do.1 In other words, we would not actually be able to make a contrary choice to what God "knows" we will choose thus implying that we would not then be free.
"Free will" is still "free" as long as God(s) does nothing to direct or influence the course of action of all future events.

The fact that God(s) can know about the future does not imply that the will is not "truely 'free'".

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Yahweh

"Free will" is still "free" as long as God(s) does nothing to direct or influence the course of action of all future events.

The fact that God(s) can know about the future does not imply that the will is not "truely 'free'".

Thats one of the most concise summaries I've seen it a long time... thanks.


*has spent much too much time going over why open theism is not necessary for our actions to be "free"*

[The Don]

Being very harsh......

It's just another example of someone bending the dogma of religion to meet their particular set of beliefs.

Either say that you're properly religious, in which case bend your beliefs to meet the text or say that you have you own opinions, in which case you accept you'er going to HELL. Don't do this wishy-washy half way house thing.

Of course there's no problem because God goes not exist

[Graham]

Originally posted by Yahweh

"Free will" is still "free" as long as God(s) does nothing to direct or influence the course of action of all future events.

The fact that God(s) can know about the future does not imply that the will is not "truely 'free'".

Except that, if God knows the future, the future is determined going forward and has been determined from the very start.

Thus, by creating the universe the way it is, exactly the way he did, God has in fact done something to direct or influence the course of action of all future events.

Graham

[frisian]

Originally posted by Graham


Except that, if God knows the future, the future is determined going forward and has been determined from the very start.

Thus, by creating the universe the way it is, exactly the way he did, God has in fact done something to direct or influence the course of action of all future events.

Graham

See I agree with this Graham, but regardless the funny thing is I feel I got "sounder" answers here than from the Christians over at Rapture Ready.

Weird.

[frisian]

Originally posted by The Don
Being very harsh......

It's just another example of someone bending the dogma of religion to meet their particular set of beliefs.

Either say that you're properly religious, in which case bend your beliefs to meet the text or say that you have you own opinions, in which case you accept you'er going to HELL. Don't do this wishy-washy half way house thing.

Of course there's no problem because God goes not exist

This is one confusing as hell post.

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat


Thats one of the most concise summaries I've seen it a long time... thanks.


*has spent much too much time going over why open theism is not necessary for our actions to be "free"*

Agreed, I also enjoyed the free will thang Yahweh stated.

However open theism may be necessary to say God is not all knowing, or at least in the sense of "fore-knowing".

[Dorian Gray]

The fact that God(s) can know about the future does not imply that the will is not "truely 'free'".
Agreed. Knowledge of the future does not necessarily mean that the future is influenced in any way.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

Agreed. Knowledge of the future does not necessarily mean that the future is influenced in any way.

Unless you happen to be the creator of the universe, in which case it does.

Graham

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by frisian
However open theism may be necessary to say God is not all knowing, or at least in the sense of "fore-knowing".

If you mean foreknowing in the sense that God looks into the future from some point in time, then yes, it would be. But thats hardly the way we conceive of him.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Frisian said:
This is one confusing as hell post.
It was pretty clear, I thought. What's does religion mean if you can customize it to your own desires? Nothing. It becomes just another bunch of philosophy.

~~ Paul

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Graham
Except that, if God knows the future, the future is determined going forward and has been determined from the very start.

Thus, by creating the universe the way it is, exactly the way he did, God has in fact done something to direct or influence the course of action of all future events.
In my opinion, that is quite an impressive knock-down argument. You deserve this clapping smilie thing :clap:


I'll reiterate anyway...

Because God(s) knows the future, does that somehow imply Fatalism (which is the Philosophical theory that all events are predetermined in advance for all time and human beings are powerless to change them)?

See compatibilism (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism):
Compatibilism, also known as "soft determinism" and most famously championed by Hume, is a theory which holds that free will and determinism are compatible. According to Hume, free will should not be understood as an absolute ability to have chosen differently under exactly the same inner and outer circumstances. Rather, it is a hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been differently psychologically disposed by some different beliefs or desires. Alternately, Hume maintains that free acts are not uncaused (or mysteriously self-caused as Kant would have it) but caused in the right way, i.e., by our choices as determined by our our beliefs and desires, by our characters. While a decision making process exists in Hume's determinism, this process is governed by the so-called causal chain of events. For example, a person may make the decision to support Wikipedia, but that decision is determined by the conditions that existed prior to the decision being made.
To summarize:
Humans have "free will" (the ability to consciously make "choices" at their own accord). A person will only "choose" differently provided the inner and outer cirumstances are not identical (to test this theory, you'd probably need a time machine...).

By Compatibilism, a God(s) that sits in the sky and merely acts as an observer to the real world permit both human's "free will" and a God(s) which knows the future. To an extent (though not a reasonable extent as you'd need to twist quite a bit of crazy Philosophy) you could say God(s) influencing of the environment allows Free Will, as long as he is not taking away a human's ability to freely make decisions at his own accord*.

Of course, the Philosophical conundrum is: If God(s) knows the future, does God(s) have "free will".

Note: Free Will (ability to make choices) does not imply Free Action (ability to perform anything; omnipotence), which is why rape does not nullify free will (Hobbes would disagree with me, but only on a basis of semantics).


* I'm sure if I put in a little effort, I could weasel out of the knock-down argument by either seeking refuge behind the definition of "free-will" and the semantics of "influencing future event". You'll notice in the example I provided, I quite conveniently neglect that God(s) would be taking away the "free-will" of the objects he manipulates (provided that they are capable possessing free-will), so if God manipulates a bunny to entertain a child for a few seconds (possibly so they wouldnt wander into the road to get squished by a car), that would be an example of God(s) removing "free-will". But of course, you could away with that by saying "humans have 'free-will', but God(s) can take it away at anytime... that doesnt make "free-will" nonexistant, nor does it make "free-will" and illusion (for clarification, I'm describing how "Free-Will" and "Devine-Will" can be compatible).

[c4ts]

"Chaos theology?" Sounds like the Dischordians are at it again.

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat


If you mean foreknowing in the sense that God looks into the future from some point in time, then yes, it would be. But thats hardly the way we conceive of him.

Who is "we"?

You mean "believing" humans?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

It was pretty clear, I thought. What's does religion mean if you can customize it to your own desires? Nothing. It becomes just another bunch of philosophy.

~~ Paul

I don't believe it is customizing to ones own desires. It is "customizing" it to one interpretation and understanding.

Far different. But then what drives your desire if not some "pre-destined" variables such as sociological and cultural influence, genetics and personality "shape"?

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by frisian
Who is "we"?

You mean "believing" humans?

Christians, more specifically. Its the basic Augustinian view.

But lets take we in a personal sense even... how do you conceive of God in relation to this issue?

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat


Christians, more specifically. Its the basic Augustinian view.

But lets take we in a personal sense even... how do you conceive of God in relation to this issue?

Which issue? Free will, all knowing, or God in relation to time?

Most of what I speculated about is in the thread you didn't read over @ RR.




:p

[Dorian Gray]

Unless you happen to be the creator of the universe, in which case it does. If I am the creator of the universe, I am absolutely sure that it does not.

But a better example is watching a movie or game for the second time - you know exactly what will happen, but you still can't influence the events. This is what I propose happens when God knows the future - one difference being that he can influence the events. But he doesn't necessarily have to.

Gosh, isn't that what I said before? Knowledge of the future does not necessarily mean that the future is influenced in any way. Why yes, it is.

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by frisian

Which issue? Free will, all knowing, or God in relation to time?

Most of what I speculated about is in the thread you didn't read over @ RR.

:p

God and time, I suppose.

Once it gets more interesting over there, I'll start reading again ;)

[Martin]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
But a better example is watching a movie or game for the second time - you know exactly what will happen, but you still can't influence the eventsTo sharpen up the analogy, suppose that you created the movie or game or whatever. Then there's no need to influence the events, because you caused them all to happen the way they do.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Martin
To sharpen up the analogy, suppose that you created the movie or game or whatever. Then there's no need to influence the events, because you caused them all to happen the way they do.

Exactly, that is where "all knowing" whether or not "pre-knowing" can still curtail if not deny free will.

[Aussie Thinker]

Free will seems the most ridiculous thing about religions.

It epitomises the contradiction which all religions are.

God must have given us “free will” otherwise he must have made some of us evil (and a loving God can’t do that)!

But the “free will” is completely negated by God being “all knowing”.

God already knew what we were going to do before he created us, so making us and just letting that happen is the most pointless ridiculous exercise imaginable.

So God is either evil or a cretin.. when confronted with this religious people just mutter about mystery and we can’t understand God and we don’t really know.. etc etc..

[Dorian Gray]

To sharpen up the analogy, suppose that you created the movie or game or whatever. Then there's no need to influence the events, because you caused them all to happen the way they do. I meant 'game' as in a sporting event.
Soccer, or football to non-Americans, was invented long ago, but who invented it is unknown. Ostensibly there was someone who invented it or 'created the game', and thus caused events to happen the way they did regarding soccer. If that person watched a game, and then watched it again on a tape, he would know what would happen, would have caused events to happen the way they did, yet wouldn't have any influence on the outcome of the game itself.

God may have caused life and matter to exist, and may know how they turn out, but doesn't necessarily have to have any influence on the outcome of one specific atom, molecule, life form, planet, galaxy, etc. All I am arguing is that while 'God' certainly could influence the future that he has foreknowledge of, it doesn't necessarily follow that he will or must influence the future in a specific manner.

Perhaps a better analogy is you throwing a ball down a hallway. You know which direction the ball will go, but not whether an object or person will move to block the ball at some point before it comes to rest naturally (due to friction, gravity, etc.). If God watched you throw that ball, he might very well know that 5 seconds after you throw it, 'Bill' will come from around a corner and catch it - but that doesn't necessarily mean that God caused Bill to catch the ball.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
I meant 'game' as in a sporting event.
Soccer, or football to non-Americans, was invented long ago, but who invented it is unknown. Ostensibly there was someone who invented it or 'created the game', and thus caused events to happen the way they did regarding soccer. If that person watched a game, and then watched it again on a tape, he would know what would happen, would have caused events to happen the way they did, yet wouldn't have any influence on the outcome of the game itself.

God may have caused life and matter to exist, and may know how they turn out, but doesn't necessarily have to have any influence on the outcome of one specific atom, molecule, life form, planet, galaxy, etc. All I am arguing is that while 'God' certainly could influence the future that he has foreknowledge of, it doesn't necessarily follow that he will or must influence the future in a specific manner.

Perhaps a better analogy is you throwing a ball down a hallway. You know which direction the ball will go, but not whether an object or person will move to block the ball at some point before it comes to rest naturally (due to friction, gravity, etc.). If God watched you throw that ball, he might very well know that 5 seconds after you throw it, 'Bill' will come from around a corner and catch it - but that doesn't necessarily mean that God caused Bill to catch the ball.

With respect, your analogy is still flawed.

In your ball scenario, God created you, the ball, the walls and 'Bill'. He created throwing, bouncing, catching and all possible combinations of the three.

God may not have thrown the ball for you, he may not have been the wall that it bounced off of and he may not have been 'Bill' who caught it but he created all those things and indirectly set them all in motion and is therefore the ultimate cause of them all.

Did you ever play that board game 'Mousetrap' when you were a kid? You move around the board and set up a complicated mechanism of levers, rolling balls and elastic bands. When the mecanism is complete, you start the thing going at one side of the board and, on the other side of the board entirely a cage falls onto the mouse.


http://tt.mit.edu/~erica/images/mousetrap.gif

God is the person who builds the trap and the person who trips the switch on the near side of the board. The mouse never sees him nor does it even know he exists, necessarily, but he is nevertheless the one responsible for the mouse's capture.

Gosh, isn't that what I said before?

by creating the universe the way it is, exactly the way he did, God has in fact done something to direct or influence the course of action of all future events.

Why yes, it is!

Graham

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
God already knew what we were going to do before he created us, so making us and just letting that happen is the most pointless ridiculous exercise imaginable.

So God is either evil or a cretin.. when confronted with this religious people just mutter about mystery and we can’t understand God and we don’t really know.. etc etc..

One point... by saying God knew before, you're placing God inside of time. If, instead, you conceive of him as outside and looking at our entire timeline, this problem can be cleared up. This way, he sees our actions because we do them, and not before or after- all our times are the present to him.

[Graham]

Originally posted by sparklecat


One point... by saying God knew before, you're placing God inside of time. If, instead, you conceive of him as outside and looking at our entire timeline, this problem can be cleared up. This way, he sees our actions because we do them, and not before or after- all our times are the present to him.

Placing God outside of timeonly makes the problem worse, IMO since at the moment of creation he created the whole thing, from begining to end, all at once.

He didn't even have to wait and watch us "play out" the game plan. He created each and every one of our actions in that one moment of creation.

Graham

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Graham


Placing God outside of timeonly makes the problem worse, IMO since at the moment of creation he created the whole thing, from begining to end, all at once.

He didn't even have to wait and watch us "play out" the game plan. He created each and every one of our actions in that one moment of creation.

Graham

Not necessarily. What if instead he were only to create the initial starting conditions? Then yes, he would see the results of the whole thing, but not have caused them.

Assuming any sort of free will is possible, but thats another matter.

[Graham]

Originally posted by sparklecat


Not necessarily. What if instead he were only to create the initial starting conditions? Then yes, he would see the results of the whole thing, but not have caused them.

Assuming any sort of free will is possible, but thats another matter.

What if I put it this way:

"Time A" - at least a single moment pre-creation

"Time B" - the moment of creation of the starting conditions and

"Time C" - from starting conditions to the entire history of the universe.

Even if God is outside of time, there still has to be A and B - this is the critical flaw in the "outside of time" argument, IMO.

Ignoring that for a minute, though, if God is outside of time, C is created at the same time as B, from his perspective.

He creates them both, do you see?

Or am I missing something?

Graham

[sparklecat]

How does that work though, if you have God creating time itself? There wouldn't be moments pre-creation, just.. eternity, for lack of a better word, with our reality (time included) inside of that.

The mental image is a bit hard, admittedly :D

[Graham]

Originally posted by sparklecat
How does that work though, if you have God creating time itself?


It doesn't :D

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat


One point... by saying God knew before, you're placing God inside of time. If, instead, you conceive of him as outside and looking at our entire timeline, this problem can be cleared up. This way, he sees our actions because we do them, and not before or after- all our times are the present to him.

You seem to be defining all knowing differently then the typical theologian. I thought the typical thought was that God foreknew.

[Skeptical Greg]

What if God doesn't bother with ' looking into the future ' ?


It seems that this would clear up the free will problem..

[Graham]

Originally posted by Diogenes
What if God doesn't bother with ' looking into the future ' ?


It seems that this would clear up the free will problem..

I have this vision of god creating the world with his eyes screwed tight shut and his hands over his ears and shouting "LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA"

. . .

On second thoughts, that does explain rather a lot

. . .

:(

[frisian]

Originally posted by Diogenes
What if God doesn't bother with ' looking into the future ' ?


It seems that this would clear up the free will problem..

:D

[Skeptical Greg]

Just thought to add..

He certainly has enough to keep him busy just dealing with the present. And there are those who might suggest he is not doing a very good job at that...

Anyone see ' Bruce Almighty '? I'm reminded of all unintelligible noise of everyone praying at the same time..

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by frisian

You seem to be defining all knowing differently then the typical theologian. I thought the typical thought was that God foreknew.

Define typical theologian ;)

Personally, I don't use the word because I don't like it. I think its an incorrect way of looking at things, if God is to be seen as in "eternity."

And its necessary to retain his omniscience...

[Aussie Thinker]

Graham,

I just don’t think people are listening to you.

You have spelled it out clearly.

I would like to add the POINTLESSNESS of a creation that you KNOW the outcome of if that creation is “supposed” to have some special purpose !

Can you imagine.. you make a human (or their soul or whatever) and you want them to love you and come into your kingdom.. yet you KNOW they will fail and reject you and you will have to send them to hell.. what sort of cruel animal would make the creature in the first place KNOWING he will send it to eternal torment !

The “busy managing of day to day stuff” and “not bothering to look at the future” are just strange excuses to avoid facing the inevitable truth that the God proposed by most humans could not be “all knowing” and make any sense.

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
...the inevitable truth that the God proposed by most humans could not be “all knowing” and make any sense.

Aargh... speaking of not listening to someone.

I assure you that I did listen to Graham, and we had a little discussion a few posts back on that very point.

As for the other posts, I assumed that they were at least slightly facetious.

[Aussie Thinker]

Sparkle,

How can I argue with that little smiling Kitten…

I think we all mostly agree here.. I was just trying to reiterate that ALL the human made Gods are so ridiculously contradictory that is beggars belief that people still believe in them..

I assume religion will eventually resort to some sort of “realistic” God !

[sparklecat]

I knew it had to come in handy for something ;) I'd say the same, but your avatar has fear more than cuteness on its side... ah well.

I agree. If a human makes a god, it'll be self-contradictory... which is one of my tests for the veracity of a belief system.

[Aussie Thinker]

Sparkle…

Our avatars are at least of the same family.. yours even has little tiger stripes.

I barrack for a football team in Melbourne called the Tigers.. hence the tiger in the avatar.. it wasn’t meant to be threatening !.

[sparklecat]

Quite true, though I doubt mine will grow up to look quite like yours...

Good reason. I just thought this one cute :D

Though actually it was Martin that found it for me.

[frisian]

Ahem, I believe you two can flirt via PM.

Thanks.

:p

[sparklecat]

But fris, the thread needed a little... livening up :D


Though I'll keep your suggestion in mind ;)

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat
But fris, the thread needed a little... livening up :D


Though I'll keep your suggestion in mind ;)


You do seem a tad familiar. Have we met before?

Perhaps if I had foreknown your entry into this thread I would have altered its course.

:p

[sparklecat]

Was someone just saying something about sidetracking?


*wouldn't think it that hard to foreknow she'd enter this thread...*

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat
Was someone just saying something about sidetracking?


*wouldn't think it that hard to foreknow she'd enter this thread...*

Indeed I knew I would mention hijacking or sidetracking. I also shaped all of my posts in a manner that would dictate your response, but alas you felt as though you had some free will in terms of what you posted. If only you saw things from my angle.

;)

[sparklecat]

If only... well, as I'm without free will, no point complaining about it.

Amazing how well I can order my life in a vaguely satisfactory way, for someone without free will...

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat
If only... well, as I'm without free will, no point complaining about it.

Amazing how well I can order my life in a vaguely satisfactory way, for someone without free will...

Complaints come with the perspective I enabled you to have.

Well I shaped the cultural, sociological, genetic, and tradition based influences within and around your life, knowing the choices you would make. Afterall I shaped all of your personality quirks as well.

[sparklecat]

God? :eek:




He's just popping up all over the board...

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat
God? :eek:




He's just popping up all over the board...


Heh. Don't make me unleash the Nephilim.

:D

[Martin]

Good job Franko isn't here.