In reply to katisara (msg # 43):

@Katisara

I can see how one might think that kids aren't going to listen to you unless you use the stick.  I'm constantly tempted to seek the violent option, because it's easier than the alternative, and that's how I see parenting based on fear.  It works, but plenty of scientific papers show the negative side effects that can arise from it.

Parenting based on rewards isn't much better; it's also more expensive ;P.

The one that takes the most work is parenting based on reason.  You have to build a foundation and instill moral reasoning so that you can convey why something needs to be done, rather than just what you'll do to them if it isn't done.

Sadly, it seems most parents don't have the time or patience necessary to take the optimum route. Also, once you start down the Path of the Stick or the Carrot, it's significantly harder to switch over to Ethics-based persuasion.
-----------

Edit: I'm not a parent, and I've often been told "don't tell me how to raise my kids" so I apologize if my armchair musings offend anyone who might know better through experience.
This message was last edited by the GM at 13:05, Tue 09 Oct 2012.

Parenting through reason is great, but it requires two things;

1) The child must be old enough to be able to reason
2) You must have the luxury of time in order to walk through these things reasonably

(And of course, you must be willing to accept that the child will still disagree with you, possibly for motives the child cannot articulate. There's a blizzard outside and your child will refuse to wear a coat because he's at the stage in his life when he's motivated by self-determinism. HE wants to make the choice, even if it's the wrong choice. And in five minutes when he'll reconsider, you're already half a mile from home.)

This is one aspect I still have not fully worked out when it comes to open theimsm, but I am not completely convinced that they have to be incompatible (infallibility of God and changing of mind)

Changing one's mind can be appropriate given a surprising behaviour from a free will individual.

When I play a board game that has multiple options I know that there are incredibly likely ways that my opponent will play and incredibly unlikely.  When my opponent does something that was always possible, but I never actually expected them to do, then I will change my own mind and plans in response.

In fact it is relationally correct and right to change my mind in certain circumstances if a free will individual does something that is completely different from what is expected.

It's not a perfect answer but in there might lie the core of how to deal with this question.

This is a very binary view on things. If I choose chocolate today, but vanilla tomorrow, does that mean I'm wrong today? If I tell my kindergartener we start counting at one, but my third grader that we can keep counting below zero forever, is this because I just learned something I didn't know?

Right, you're being far to narrow.

We're pretending now there are ONLY 2 options.  I'm saying something much bigger.

If you know ALL options, and you care about the outcome, you'd choose the best one (and best can mean at the most amoral the most effective and at the most moral the one that does the least harm and better the most good).

I don't have to prove there's a better option...

I only have to point to the fact that  you're claiming this option is the 'better one" because it's the one that is here.  That is special pleading.

My g-d is an awesome g-d ... so what he did is awesome, is special pleading.

Interestingly, my g-d is an awesome g-d...HE REIGNS from HEAVEN ABOVE...

Is not at all claiming he really gives a shit.  It says he has sovereignty. And that it's his was or f you.  You may see him as a tyrant king, but after all, it's good to be king.

I don't say he cannot be capricious and tyrannical.  I just say that can't be also "all good".

...

So to summarize.

The set of all possible "either/ors" is not simple punishment / simple reward.  Further, you're g-d.  So you're MORE like the "youTube" than your mundane parental 'bribes' can be (that is, your rewards are vastly more impressive than we can imagine).

The suspect nature is, the "either/or" offered is exactly the one we'd expect in fiction.  (That is not PROOF it is fiction, it is EVIDENCE that it is a fiction.  Sometimes the absence of evidence, is the evidence of absence).

AH, that wasn't clear from your previous posts.

I don't know. I don't feel like threatening hellfire is, in itself, an especially bad thing (and is in fact good if it's true). So in this particular case, your argument doesn't really sway me.

HOWEVER, when we come into other cases, or the greater situation of the existence of eternal suffering (hell) common in most interpretations, it does become a serious consideration. Can God, under any circumstances, permit a human to fall into a scenario of eternal suffering, and still be good?

Yeah, that's where the concept of being omniscient and infallible fall apart.  If every move is predestined, then there's no free will, even for god.  Therefore, god cannot be omnipotent.  But if we allow for free choice, then god cannot be omniscient and infallible, because he'd be forced to change his mind in response to changing situations.


Your example is bad.  Making one choice today and making a different choice tomorrow is not a case of changing your mind on the first choice.

I disagree. To give a limited, one-dimension in time metaphor (since that's what we're stuck with), imagine I video tape your birthday. During your birthday, you certainly have free will. That I record it does not change that. If I watch the video again, I already know how it will end, but that doesn't invalidate your free will.


Your example is bad.  Making one choice today and making a different choice tomorrow is not a case of changing your mind on the first choice.
</quote>

But this is precisely what you seem to be saying!

Actions alone are not sufficient to infer that you've changed your mind.

If you said "I'm only ever going to eat chocolate, because it's the best", then you ate vanilla, that'd be changing your mind.

So you need a statement of intent, and then a contradicting action or statement.

I want to say that two actions can't contradict each-other without a statement of intent, but I can't be sure of that because there might be a few exceptions.

Well if omniscient means 'all that is knowable' (so ... not the future) then changing one's mind appropriately based on evidence is not fallibility necessarily.

That was where I was going with the argument.  I still need to to work through the logic of it.

I've suggested that God's superpowers would be virtually rather than unconditionally absolute, but that doesn't seem to be good enough for some people.

Omnipotence in the Absolute sense is itself logically impossible; the whole "can he microwave a hot pocket so hot that even he can't eat it?" test question demonstrates this.
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:58, Tue 09 Oct 2012.

Indeed you are correct.  There are already limits on omniscience even within classical christian beliefs.

In reply to katisara (msg # 53):

No.  I have no idea what your birthday metaphor is about, but making two different decisions is not the same as going back on a previous decision.  To use your example, if I choose chocolate today and vanilla tomorrow, that's two decisions.  If you say: "I, katisara the grand poohbah, do hereby decree that I shall only ever eat chocolate ice cream!", then have vanilla later, you've changed your mind.

In reply to Grandmaster Cain (msg # 58):

1) I'm not seeing where God said that precisely.
2) Again, we're ignoring circumstances. For example, I tell my four-year-old he can't cross the road and never talk to strangers. Obviously, that doesn't apply to my sixteen-year-old. But again, the difference is not due to my not knowing something in one case I know in the other.
This message was last edited by the GM at 00:22, Wed 10 Oct 2012.

1.  I'm not referring to any particular god, just omnipotent and omniscient gods in general.  That said, YHVH has been known to relent on several occasions, which I'm not bothering to look up right now.

2.  Then you changed your mind as circumstance changed.  An omniscient being, however, would have foreknowledge of the circumstance changing and made an exception in the first statement: "You can't cross the street by yourself, you're not old enough."  Omniscience combined with infallibility means the circumstances never change, which means changing your mind is an impossibility.

1. If you can't come up with an example, we can't exactly discuss it :) I believe it was Abraham who was tasked with warning a city that it would be destroyed, and when he asked God if, if Abraham could find 50 good people, God would relent and not destroy the city. I'm not aware of any other situations of God 'changing his mind', and in that case, the scenario did not play out as you might expect.

2. My mind isn't changing based on circumstances; the requirements are. My four year old cannot talk to strangers. It's not because talking to strangers is maybe good or maybe bad, and I"m not sure. It's because he's four, and he's not mature enough to know if a particular stranger is trustworthy or not. My fourteen-year-old may talk to strangers, because he has that wisdom. I'm not changing my mind because the rule is 'four-year-olds may not talk to strangers, but fourteen-year-olds may'. That stays the same. But the child's age changes, so the rule applies differently.

(Of course, from his perspective, it may appear that I'm changing my mind, but that's why I brought this up as an example. My mind is made and does not change in this case. He just hadn't fully explored the rule when he was four.)

Katisara,

God's dealing with Hezekiah in 2 Kings 20 (adding years to his life), and God explicitly states he will relent or be kinder depending on the reaction of people in Jeremiah 18.  There are many more but those are two clear ones.

And the alternative here is to assume that g-d is a taunting jerk who pretends there's a chance to change minds when all along knows that Jeremia's task is fruitless.

Again, the bible god is a tyrant or changing, but cannot fail to be at least one

I"m not sure, but I think I may have changed my mind.

Making a joke or sincere?

Sincere.

In reply to Kathulos (msg # 66):

i REALLY wish there were a "way" to like posts. on this...  Like on facebook to give a thumbs up vote...

Kathulos, I had to sort of search for your previous position.

In what way is your mind "maybe" changing.  (Drips with irony)

Ah, well, I'm sure you'll be disappointed, but, I don't believe God can change his mind, I just believe he has a firm plan in things.

I also believe that the God of Open Theism has a firm plan, but that those plans are dependant on the actions of people.  Also, God could potentially have a plan for all possible possibilities, but based on knowing everything knowable, would see some alernatives as practically impossible.

However, since God is surprised at times in the Bible, it is clear that man's gift of free will has the ability to cause incredibly unlikely things to happen, and this change God's plans accordingly.

I also see Open Theism as doing a MUCH better job of dealing with the problem of evil, as well as actually giving purpose to prayer (where as I see little to no value to it under a more traditional view of God).

Yes, but an omniscient and infallible god would only have to deliver the rule once, and include all the exceptions.  Circumstances cannot change in a way such a god cannot plan for.  In your case, you're not saying: "Never talk to strangers"; you're saying "Don't talk to strangers until you're older."

Even in this case, you made a mistake.  You said X when you really meant X+1.  It's not a huge mistake, you basically say: "Oops, I really meant don't talk to strangers right now, I guess I didn't say it properly.  The real rule is 'be careful when talking to strangers.'"  You're arguing that this isn't changing your mind, but it is admitting a mistake, something an infallible god cannot do as infallible beings cannot make mistakes.