tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post763015181880945294..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Wiktionary exegesisRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24605141022060518782009-03-02T12:23:00.000-05:002009-03-02T12:23:00.000-05:00Dan said,“On the contrary, I think it's intuitive ...Dan said,<BR/><BR/><I>“On the contrary, I think it's intuitive to think something is wrong with the argument that foreknowledge rules out freewill, even if people can't quite put their finger on why. While some questioning on the subject of foreknowledge and freewill is natural, most Christians don’t drop either foreknowledge or freewill. So I think saying common sense says they are irreconcilable is a bit of a stretch. Only a small minority of Christians (Calvinists, Thomast and Open Theists) think that, and in my experience those that do tend to favor philosophy.”</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, he ripped much of this off from Hunt's chapter in Four Views on Foreknowledge. Funny, since Hunt critiques Dan's molinism. Anyway, in tghe szame book Craig says that there is a prima-facie conflict - so why didn't Dan include Molinists above? dan is either ignorant of or dishonest with the facts.<BR/><BR/>Also, Boyd &c. believe that they are taking the clear teaching of _Scripture_ and formulating their position. Boyd cites many verses he thinks demonstrate his view, especially the clear teaching that God changes and meets some future events and actions for the first time with his creation. Indeed, this bolsters the idea that God is love. So, Open Theists match Arminians like Dan Scripture for Scripture, then play the Arminian card more consistently than the Arminian.<BR/><BR/>Besides, as Helm notes, it is plausible to think that the denial of a philosophcial position is a philosophical position. And Dan reads Scripture denying our philosophical position that foreknowledge is incompatible with libertarian freedom, which is itself a philosophical position. At any rate, Dan's given away the farm. When asked how God can foreknow the libertarian actions of men, he says, "I don't know." So Dan admits the problem and admits ignorance. He should allow this move to others. So, from now on, I will say that freedom is compatible with determinism, I just don't know how.<BR/><BR/>Actually, most American Christians believe God predestined things to happen - where this means determined in advance - and that man also has libertarian free will. They chalk it up to "mystery."Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25118275287845842542009-03-02T11:07:00.000-05:002009-03-02T11:07:00.000-05:00Steve, Just out of curiousity, do you use voice re...Steve, Just out of curiousity, do you use voice recognition software? Some of your typos give that impression, e.g., "is a fall" should be "in a far."bellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15263644056413736693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87605942872271009142009-03-01T23:40:00.000-05:002009-03-01T23:40:00.000-05:00But it does seem to indicate that the basis of God...<I>But it does seem to indicate that the basis of God’s knowledge was the event. So likewise, the basis of His foreknowledge was the future event.</I><BR/><BR/>Earlier,when I asked Dan how God can know the outcomes of indeterminate objects of knowledge without them instantiating (eg. the future), Dan said he didn't know. I can accept that as an honest answer.<BR/><BR/>However,here's a good place to draw attention to the problem that Dan needs consider:<BR/><BR/>Dan says that the basis of God's knowledge was the event.<BR/>Ergo, the basis of His foreknowledge was the future event.<BR/><BR/>Here's the missing part of the equation: Dan needs to answer this question: What is the basis of the event.<BR/><BR/>If the basis of God's knowledge is the event (ergo did for His foreknowledge) then the basis of God's foreknowledge is a determinate object of knowledge. But that's NOT the issue with respect to <I>fore</I>knowledge. Nobody denies that God knows what determinate objects of knowledge are. Rather, the question arises with respect to the basis of the events themselves. Until they are instantiated, God cannot know them if the <B>basis </B> of such knowledge is the events themselves. How then does God know with certainty which events will come to pass if the objects of knowledge themselves are indeterminate in nature? To say that the basis of God's foreknowledge is some future event is to say that the basis of God's foreknowledge is a determinate object of knowledge,not an indeterminate object of knowledge, yet to say that these events are dependent upon indeterminism, is to say they are indeterminate,not determinate objects of knowledge. <BR/><BR/>It is high time for Dan to simply admit that LFW is not an exegetically derived action theory and admit that LFW and certain foreknowledge of future events do not go together.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1643082219410062162009-03-01T12:40:00.000-05:002009-03-01T12:40:00.000-05:00"I said they avoid the common sense definitions an..."I said they avoid the common sense definitions and use exotic, philosophical counter-definitions; like the ones Paul provided."<BR/><BR/>Dan is dishonest. The initial definitions I provided, which were not *counter* definitions, were in a post I wrote where I showed that given even libertarians understanidng of "choose," choosing is not problematic on compatibilism. Dan responded to his own side by quoting the dictionary and then saying that the Bible was written for the common man, therefore it had Websters understanding of choose in mind.<BR/><BR/>I was doing something enitrely different and it was *Dan* who changed the debate to citing dictionary definitions to counter the definitions his own side gave.<BR/><BR/>I then provided *counter* definitions from the dictionary. Dan chose to ignore all of these and go with the dictionary definitions that went his way. So, he was dishonest on this score too.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.com