(transplanting from the RPGs thread):

I'm going to just restate what's been said minus the vitriol; Kathulos, that isn't changing your mind.  I don't see how you came to that conclusion.

If you had said "clean your room, and I'll spank you" and then he cleaned his room and you decided not to spank him, that would be changing your mind.

Or, if you said "clean your room, or I'll spank you" and he says "no", but you don't spank him, that would be changing your mind as well.

Also, if you said "clean your room, or I'll spank you", and he said "okay" and cleaned his room, but you spanked him anyways, that would also be changing your mind.

All of the above are examples of changing your mind given the ultimatum you've provided.  The example you provided is not, because you didn't deviate from the ultimatum.

No to mention a human being with finite intelligence does not know which outcome the child will choose, while under the standard view of God he is supposed to already know the outcome ... so there is no point in giving any sort of ultimatum.

Actually the Above ae examples of going back on your word. If you Intended to do whichever action you did but said differently you havn't changed your mind have you?

Just thought i would put fuel on the fire by putting down It could be a lie instead of changing of mind.

If God had zero intention of actually carrying out one of two options (even if it is because He knew one option would never be chosen) then he is a liar.

The easier option is that both options were possibilities, and because God cannot know the future since it is unknowable, he could only respond after the fact.

God extending the life of Hezekiah is another very clear example of this sort of thing.

It's more along the lines of God not speaking according to English grammatical rules actually.

"Repent" is what God has done. But that doesn't mean he's ever done anything wrong.

Set aside the grammatical concerns for a moment (even though I disagree that's what it is).

Were two options there for the people of Ninevah (repent or die)?

If so did both of those options ACTUALLY exist, or was one of them not a real option?

Interesting you claim to know what she "means" but argue she doesn't use language in the same way.  So God is from Venus and humankind is from Mars?

Yes, both of the options existed, but God put it like "I'm going to kill you WHEN you don't repent". Rather than "If" you don't. If I remember correctly.

I'm about to leave for the day to drive home after Thanksgiving but if both options are available then the future is not settled and God does not know which option the people will choose.

It's a clear reading of the text and does not involve and linguistic gymnastics.

Even if I've given a poor or illogical conclusion based on my interperatation of this passage, there's plenty of room throughout the Bible to suggest God does know the future. There's a reason why Prophets speak it, after all, and according to the Bible, God directly speaks through them so they can do it.

You're avoiding the text we are dealing with here though.

God gives two options to the Ninevites.

If both options exist then the future consists of possibilities that are open.

If only one option exists then saying two options exist is a lie.

Where have I erred?

Where you're erring is that God knows what they're going to say, but he has to issue the conditions of their refusal to do so before hand.

No, I reject the premise that God speaks directly through people.  What's wrong with that statement is in the very statement itself.  God isn't speaking directly if he's speaking through people.

And please consider before you say "English Grammar doesn't apply", because it isn't English Grammar; the same objection applies in French, Spanish, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Esperanto, etc.  Because it's not a grammatical error, it's Logical one.

Disregarding the rules of logic is not an option when it comes to a true statement.
---------

This is completely independent of the fact that I believe that people who claim god has told them the future are frikken nuts.

There's only one way man has ever made prophecies that came true; by studying creation.  Meteorologists make more accurate prophecies than anyone who claims to hear the voice of God.  Psychologists have an answer for the latter.

Right. If I tell my kids, "go get your backpack or I will spank you," I know they're going to get their backpacks. That I say "this or that" doesn't mean I don't know which they'll choose, it's just making the situation clear to all participants.

If you know, why bother with the ultimatum.

If I knew my kids were going to get their backpacks, the threat of punishment is more than unnecessary.

Likewise, if I knew they weren't going to get their backpacks no matter what I say, I wouldn't bother saying it.  I also wouldn't bother punishing them because it wouldn't serve any purpose.

You'd only make such an ultimatum if you didn't know, and wanted to influence the outcome.

Prophecy's one of those things that has a logic that those without a spiritual sense can't grasp at.

There's only one Logic, and it's either demonstrable or it isn't Logic.

Seems like another options is if you DO know, but want to influence the outcome.  For example, you know that IF you say "go get your backpack" they won't do it, and you know that IF you say "go get your backpack or I'll spank you" then they will do it.  You pick to say the later because you know it will lead to the result you want, while the former wouldn't.

This message was deleted by the player at 16:56, Mon 08 Oct 2012.

Which is my point. I'm politely saying there are some logical things that those without the Holy Spirit don't get.

Suffers from special pleading. I mean if you know everything you dont seem to require such lame approaches. Add to the oddity of it being exactly what a good fiction writer might say pretending to be a profit.

Basically if you know not only everything, but every possible everything, g_d gets more objectionable, not less.

In reply to Kathulos (msg # 11):

Your point about prophets is not sound. Prophets do not at all imply knowing the future but making predictions. No requirement they be true. I think a stronger argument is that g_d is disgusting and means it. Evidently he killed a son from the foundations of the earth. So knowing the future or not he is a murderer and child abuser

 

They wouldn't be logical things; if you need special knowledge or faith to accept something, that's not a logical argument.

If a logical argument is true, it can be shown to be true no matter what you believe.

Needing to have "The Holy Spirit" in order to accept something as true really just translates to "you need to already accept this as true in order to accept it as true."

That is a sort of logic; Circular Logic, which isn't valid.
--------------

There's an example I thought of, because I remember when I was "investigating" (I think that's the term they use) the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

One of the approved Dialogues involves asking you to take a test; pray to God and ask him to reveal the truth to you.

But is it a good test?  Does it account for false positives, or does it accept a negative result as valid?

As Heath pointed out to me, it's really only a valid test for people who already believe in God and Jesus (the intended audience was non-Mormon Christians, after all, who have accepted certain axioms already; that God Exists, and that he answers Prayers).

Likewise, if you get a negative result, you must not have tried hard enough is the usual result.  But even if you just examine the test procedure you realize that, in order to perform the test, you have to already have accepted that the outcome will be positive.

Because that's a circular reasoning fallacy, it's hardly a good test, and it doesn't provide good proof in a logical argument.
This message was last edited by the GM at 22:32, Mon 08 Oct 2012.

Since there's a Spiritual World, you can be cut off from spiritual understanding from reality.

That's a logical argument.

Case in point, Humans can't hear what dogs can sometimes. They have a sort of "knowledge" that we don't.

Humans, likewise, are cut off from spiritual reality until we become the proverbial dogs who can hear the high-pitched noises of the spirit.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:29, Mon 08 Oct 2012.

There are three things wrong with that argument; you've assumed a premise which you have yet to show; that there is a spiritual world.  The second is that you haven't proven that you can be cut off from this spiritual world.  The third is that you haven't shown how the spiritual world in any way affects the rules of Logic.

Your example is invalid because Logic is not a sense that is unavailable to certain people.  It is a tool that anyone can use to test the reasoning of somebody to figure out whether it is valid or not.

This line of argumentation is as silly as if you were suggesting that there is a mathematics that can only be understood by having the "Holy Ghost".

1+1 = 2.  Doesn't matter what you believe in.  If, say, the Bible says Pi is a round number, that means that the Bible is demonstrably wrong. It doesn't mean that the people who wrote that have some sort of spiritual, superior understanding of Mathematics.

It's special pleading, plain and simple.

In reply to Revolutionary (msg # 22):

How is this special pleading?

I want you to do X. Therefore, I tell you what you need to hear to do X.

Yeah I don't see how this is special pleading...perhaps maybe because he thought it was implied that since God threatened violence in order to get them to do what they want in this hypothetical case, that by reasoning that was the only way for God to get them to do what they did?

I can think of a lot better ways to get someone to do what I want; if I know that them doing that thing is a good thing I can attempt to explain my reasoning to them, and if my reasoning isn't flawed I can reasonably expect them to be convinced by my arguments.

Or instead of the Stick, I could use the Carrot; "If you clean your room, we'll go out for ice cream!"

In reply to Revolutionary (msg # 23):

Moderator Post:

Please refrain from posting insulting things about subjects of worship of other religions. I understand that you are making a specific argument here, which is why I am not immediately asking for the post to be edited or removed (subject to review). This forum requires all members be respectful of one another, as a condition of participation.

We're getting sidetracked.

If god cannot change his/her/its/their mind, then that implies that god lacks free will.  That in turn means god cannot be omnipotent.

Now, I have no idea where the concept of an omnipotent god came from-- the god of the Old Testament and Jesus certainly had strict limits on them-- but unless we allow for the ability to choose, then omnipotence means nothing.

@Katisara GM post

It may be insulting to suggest certain things as God being responsible for them, but then one must realize that the God of the Bible himself admits he does these things.  He does all things, good or evil

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
---

Is there any real way to show that a God is responsible for evil without insulting their followers?

Heck, if I remember correctly, somebody here who was a Greek Pantheon pagan got insulted when I pointed out that Zeus was a violent, sex-crazed psychopath.  It's not a lie, it's just that usually the stories tend to paint those actions in a positive light.
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:09, Mon 08 Oct 2012.

Which is why I didn't ask him to edit the post. However, we still have to handle these issues with respect.

Again Kat you confuse Gnosis, knowing something, with logic...  A logical argument can even be reduced to simple A B propositions without any disagreement.

What is your "argument" that is logical.  Or you are claiming special knowledge...?  And if so, I have a few Christopher hitchens videos for you :)

It is special pleading because it's stacking the deck.

It's saying that god "maybe knew" they needed a threat and that's why he did it.  he did an apparent bad in order to do a through good.

But, yes, as you point out.  If someone known not only what will happen, but what will NOT happen.  Then there's a lot more being known.  As such, and you point it out well, why not the positive.  Repent and... Rather than Repent or...

The argument suggested I was wrong to object to the or else...because it was "necessary" and this special knowing creature knew it.

The bible you read may say that, but the evil referred to actually means things like earthquakes, floods, disasters.

NIV Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness,
    I bring prosperity and create disaster;
    I, the Lord, do all these things.

NKJV Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the Lord, do all these things.’

Also, to point this out, God does allow evil to suit his purposes. God does not create evil. God does not cause evil. God allows evil acts. Reasons for it include even the simplest of reasons such as just as an example for others.

I am going to shift gears a bit here to try and find a clearer example of Open Theism that does not involve too much shifty grammar ;)

Isaiah 38:1-5

38 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, “This is what the Lord says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover.”

2 Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord, 3 “Remember, Lord, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly.

4 Then the word of the Lord came to Isaiah: 5 “Go and tell Hezekiah, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will add fifteen years to your life.

This is as clear as it gets.  Hezekiah is told he will die and will not recover.

Hezekiah prayed and wept.

In response (that's the key here) God cleearly changes his mind and Hezekiah has 15 years added to his life.

The thing is as well that if this was a one off verse then maybe you could explain it away with some biblical gymnastics, but the Bible is filled with tons of these verses that fit so well with an open view of the future.

Also, I am fine with the standard view being held in terms of it not being a divisive issue, but I personally can no longer view God within that old model both from a Biblical standpoint or a personal one.

I personally feel that the 'god knows the future' view needs to be assumed before viewing the texts in order for many of them to make sense.  When free of that constraint, so much of the OT in particular makes a great deal MORE sense to me, and to many others.

I'm glad that it's becoming more and more of a mainstream view among Christians these days as I feel it brings a great deal of clarity to difficult issues (even though it has it's own struggles, particularly in the area of Biblical prophecy)
This message was last edited by the player at 02:32, Tue 09 Oct 2012.

And a nice quote along these lines from one of my favorites, Stephen Hawking.

"I have noticed that even people who believe everything is predestined...look before crossing the road."

1 Corinthians 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

That is something that would appear to be true. Even people who are against the bible change radically when giving themselves to God. You'll see people hitting rock bottom, learning they cannot do things on their own, surrender, repent and ask for forgiveness. And then be used for God's purposes under His power, and not theirs.

Obviously plenty of people want to do things under their own power.

Trust in the Lord,

You again with these distinctions that don't make a difference followed by claims without evidence.

That an all knowing g-d makes a Tsunami is no relief.  Further, it ignores the non-natural disasters he's said to bring.  And, ultimately, you're fogetting it's much more likely that the "unpleasant" translation is "TRUER" and more authentic rather than the other.

This is a major presupposition of document/translation authenticity.

I think my evidence is written in black print on the screen, but could be read by anyone if they continued to look at the bible.

Non natural? Who's saying it?

For the record, NIV translation is a more recent translation using documents that are older than the documents used by the KJV translators.

Older documents would generally mean closer to the times the original documents were written. Which would mean likely more accurate.

This is now off topic, but "older" is only one of the tests... And nothing "means" more reliable 'for sure' only more reliable on average.

Again, this is a nice tangent, but: god must have free will, or he/she/it cannot be omnipotent.  If god has free will and can change its mind, it cannot be infallible, because to change your mind is to admit you were incorrect in the first place.

I still have no idea where the concept that god must be omnipotent and infallible came from-- certainly neither Jesus nor the old testament YHVH had those qualities.

I understand better what you're saying, although I still disagree. Some people (kids especially) don't understand or appreciate rewards as much as they fear punishment. I don't bribe my kids to get ready for school, because it wouldn't work as soon as youtube starts playing (at least, not without incredible, unmanageable bribes).

However, if your argument is 'we have all of this instances where there's a likely explanation and you're just making apologetics', I don't think either of us can prove or disprove that. Everyone tries to explain these stories according to their own mental framework, which means we suggest the answer that makes the most sense to us.

The fact is that with the "holy spirit" one can believe any "foolishness" including the "foolishness" you choose to believe.

Without reason and logic, you can believe anything, and that's not the solid basis for discovering the truth.  Simply saying something or writing it down is not evidence, it's anecdote and hearsay.  You're just using the "Holy Ghost" as an excuse to believe in things without reason.

You've shown in the past that you aren't really interested in evaluating the positions you bring forth to the table, and it's because of this "holy ghost" narrative that you probably still hold certain positions true despite them being proven demonstrably wrong in the past. (I.E the "Tyr Prophecy" and "you disagree with me because you're possessed by the Devil")

As such, since it's been a while since I've commented, I'd just like to remind you that I have a long memory, and I have no interest in beating my head against a wall arguing with someone who isn't really interested in having a genuine conversation.

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.