Showing posts with label epistemology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label epistemology. Show all posts

Monday, January 27, 2014

The God of Open Theism Can't Know Anything

Greg Boyd states here that the position of Open Theism is the following:
...the open view of the future holds that God chose to create a cosmos that is populated with free agents – at least humans and angels (though some hold that there is a degree of freedom, however small, in all sentient beings). To have free will means that one has the ability to transition several possible courses of action into one actual course of action. This is precisely why Open Theists hold that the future is partly comprised of possibilities. While God can decide to pre-settle whatever aspects of the future he wishes, to the degree that he has given agents freedom, God has chosen to leave the future open, as a domain of possibilities, for agents to resolve with their free choices. This view obviously conflicts with the understanding of the future that has been espoused by classical theologians, for the traditional view is that God foreknows from all eternity the future exclusively as a domain of exhaustively definite facts.
Here I'll delve into a couple of reasons why this view is epistemologically impossible.

On Open Theism, as opposed to a more mainstream Arminian view, God does not actually know the future because the future does not exist yet, and He cannot know for sure what "truly free agents" will do.

No matter how powerful God is, if He doesn't know the future, God can't say anything is true for sure. God is subject to the problem of induction, and given that fact, the god of Open Theism is open to the same crippling foundational problems as the atheist. Here's why.

The world is now ~8000 years old. During that time, God has discovered trillions and trillions of new facts that He did not previously know.  Every moment that passes, God gains in knowledge that He did not possess before. Obviously this storehouse of knowledge that God has gained up to this point is far beyond any possible human comprehension, but we might choose to represent the number of facts that the god of Open Theism knows as, say, one sextillion (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). Just because it's easier to pick a number than not to.
That's 125,000,000,000,000,000,000 facts He has learned per year.
The exact number is not important. What is important is that He is learning, and though what He will learn at any given second, let alone year, is vast, it is also finite.


God does not know that the future will be like the past in terms of who runs the universe, physical laws, and human agents having truly free will. The Open Theist may hypothesise that God thinks it will be and intends to do what He can to keep it that way, but since God doesn't know the future, He could be mistaken. And if He could be mistaken, He doesn't know it. To assert that the future will be like the past because "it has always been like that" is to beg the question.

Perhaps the universe will exist another 5 billion years beyond the year 2014 AD.
Perhaps a whole bunch of fundamental things about the universe will change in the next five seconds.
Perhaps they'll stay that way the further 5 billion years.
If that were the case, whatever God thinks He knows at this moment could plausibly be contradicted by the 5 billion years' worth of contrary evidence that He has yet to learn. He might learn many octillions of more data that lead inexorably to a different conclusion than the mere sextillion of data He learned between Creation and 2014 AD.

So God can't actually know anything at all. He can't know that these changes won't take place. He can't know whether He'll be in a position to resist any possible changes in the future. He may intend not to allow those changes to occur, but He can't know that He will be able to overturn them.


Appealing to an eschaton that comes sooner rather than later does the Open Theist no good here, for it only pushes the problem back one step. Further, the god of Open Theism cannot guarantee that the eschaton will arrive when He is planning. Perhaps something will happen that takes the issue out of His hands. God can't know whether He will lose His power. He can't know that someone else won't beat Him. He can't know that He can keep His promises. He couldn't know that He'd be able to pull off the resurrection of Jesus. He can't know whether the laws of physics will be the same in 10 seconds from now. He can't know whether He'll indeed be able to preserve His people from falling away. Can't know whether He will win in the end. Those prophecies in the Bible are just educated guesses.

Yea, that violates the idea of sovereignty pretty bad.


Of course, this statement from Boyd:
While God can decide to pre-settle whatever aspects of the future he wishes...
serves to shoot his position in the cranium anyhow, since if God can decide to pre-settle whatever He wishes, there is no problem in contending that He decided to pre-settle everything. Since pre-settling stuff is fine with God, what's the problem?
Of course, that brings the the argument back to the Scripture, to find whether God did set up the universe that way. Ad fontes, indeed. On those grounds the Open Theism position loses as well. So it loses everywhere.

Friday, June 29, 2012

Absolutely not


  • John M Thank you Karen. Hitler carrying out "Gods will" has no relevance to what you believe. That was kind of what I was getting at in terms of irrelevance. Hitler is not relevant to this issue. Neither is MLK honestly.
  • Rhology John,

    Why would anyone be bothered by the fact that Adolf Hitler had a false belief (that false belief being that his conduct was in accordance with the will of the Creator)?
  • Rhology Pagans like Hitler have a lot of false beliefs, incidentally. http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2007/10/hitler-christian.html2 hours ago 
  • John M You couldn't prove his actions weren't in accordance with the creator any more than he could prove your actions aren't in accordance with the creator. Thats because youre both using the same unaccounted for god concept to justify your beliefs.
  • Rhology Yes, I can.
    What does "unaccounted-for God concept" mean?
  • Rhology And if he can't prove it, then why isn't the Christians' complete disavowal of Hitler as a Christian completely valid?
  • John M God, the way your religion describes him, cannot be demonstrated. Only asserted.

    It's valid, but hypocritical, because youre doing the same thing as he is (claiming you know the will of a god that can't be demonstrated).
  • Rhology ‎\\God, the way your religion describes him, cannot be demonstrated. Only asserted. \\

    As a matter of fact, this is completely wrong.
    www.proofthatgodexists.org

    \\It's valid, but hypocritical, because youre doing the same thing as he is (claiming you know the will of a god that can't be demonstrated).\\

    I don't see how it's hypocritical. If both of us make statements that can't be verified (just for the sake of your argument), don't Christians get to define our own position and what it means to be a member of our group?
    Can I say "I'm an atheist and I believe that there are millions of gods and that science is bunk"? Would that be consistent and rational?

  • John M I don't know if absolute truth exists ---> Absolutely true/false? I don't know if not knowing if absolute truth exists is absolute. I wonder if the next question would be is not knowing whether you don't know if absolute truth exists absolute? Probably, but that would ruin the whole false dichotomy. Fun word game though.
  • Rhology ‎\\I don't know if not knowing if absolute truth exists is absolute.\\

    Then you are not getting it, and that's sad.
    Is it absolutely true that you don't know if not knowing if absolute truth exists is absolute?

    Think hard.
  • John M I don't know if it's absolute that I don't know. I already said that. We can't account for absolutes with our current capabilities, and probably will never be able to. You can say they exist, but it's merely an assertion.
  • Rhology is it absolutely true that you don't know if it's absolute that you don't know?

    is it absolutely true that we can't account for absolutes with our current capabilities?

    Is it absolutely true that it's merely an assertion?
  • John M I don't know. I'll let you know when I have absolute knowledge.
  • Rhology Is it absolutely true that you don't know?
  • John M  And thats the hole in your argument. You can't get anywhere unless you get me to concede that I know things absolutely. How can I verify whether or not what I know is absolute?

    Fun game though.
  • Rhology ‎\\And thats the hole in your argument\\

    Is that absolutely true?
    If you don't, why did you say it?

    \\You can't get anywhere unless you get me to concede that I know things absolutely\\

    Is that absolutely true?
    If you don't, why did you say it?

    \\How can I verify whether or not what I know is absolute? \\

    You can't. Unless Jesus is Lord, there is no way to do so. That's the point of the website, actually.
    All these foolish things you keep saying - they are more and more demonstration of the utter absurdity of your worldview.
  • John M  We can account for absolutes only through the unverified divinity of a man named Jesus from 2000 years ago. Got it.
  • Rhology You think that mocking dismissals count as substantive argumentation. Got it.

Friday, September 23, 2011

Some comments on the brain in the vat

Are we just talking about the "brain in a vat" problem here? That seems to be what Rhology is hammering and that somehow Christianity solves this? I'd like to understand how this is the case. It seems to me that everyone must start with "I exist" and move forward from there. (Source)

And:

You're the one claiming a hotline to absolute truth- let's see some evidence for it. All I'm claiming is the way things seem to me to be, and you are in no position to doubt that- or are you a mind reader?
Er, again, you're using a word in a "special" sense. Trusting my cognitive faculties to be more or less accurate is hardly a "religion"- or would you say that cockroaches also have religion? And I'm only asking for you to provide proof (or let's say any evidence whatsoever) for your beliefs, because you have been saying over and over that you have a hotline to absolute truth which I do not have. (Source)

Are we just talking about the "brain in a vat" problem here? That seems to be what Rhology is hammering and that somehow Christianity solves this? 

That is merely one of the problems I've been citing. But it's a good one!

The point is not that "Christianity solves it". Rather, it's that the "I believe what I see evidence for" epistemology has no way around the problem. There can be no evidence that we're not brains in vats.

If that is one's fundamental axiom, there are all sorts of problems and questions one can't answer.

However, if one's fundamental axiom is that the God of the Bible is and speaks, then none of that is true. My fundamental axiom DOES give me a reason not to believe in the brain in a vat. zilch's does not; he has to sneak in other axioms and pretty soon we realise that all he has is just a messy mesh of subjective preferences that he happens to be saying now. Though they could change tomorrow, because after all, all his thoughts are determined by the chemicals that compose his brain.


zilch said:
we're not getting anywhere.

Au contraire, I disagree strongly. We've seen quite clearly that all you have is your blind faith, and that faith doesn't match what you're getting out of it.


You're the one claiming a hotline to absolute truth- let's see some evidence for it.

Evidence?
How do you know evidence is a good way to discover truth? What evidence of that assertion have you seen? How do you know you properly saw it? How do you know you properly processed what you saw? How do you know you're communicating relevant information to that experience you had?
How would you know if you did NOT see evidence, since experiencing evidence is a sensation? What does NOT experiencing evidence feel like? Is it also a sensation? How did you learn it?

See, one can just go on and on with these questions. It always comes back to "well, I think so", as if zilch has some sort of ability to pronounce on absolute truth from where he stands.


Trusting my cognitive faculties to be more or less accurate is hardly a "religion"

Oh? It's a metaphysical claim.
It's centered on one charismatic personality, namely you.
You have a single authority - what you think your brain is doing.
You can't adduce any evidence for this belief.
Sounds a lot like what you accuse religion of being to me.


would you say that cockroaches also have religion?

As if you have any idea whether cockroaches actually exist, for one thing.
Or what sensations they have.

Yes, I have a "hotline" that is available to anyone who is willing to repent of one's sinful self-deceptive self-sufficiency. Hardly a hotline, really. It's just listening to the One Who is in a position to know what I can't know, and believing Him.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

zilch's faith

zilch demonstrates that he has not yet grasped the problem with which I've been presenting him.


No, I'm not certain, and I don't know for sure, as I've said many times.

Are you certain that you're uncertain? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


Based on my experiences and cogitation

Are you certain of your experiences and cogitation? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


The same, of course, is true of you and everyone else.

Are you certain that the same is true of me and everyone else? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


I just said that I don't know anything with certainty.

Are you certain that you just said that? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


Your question here is incoherent

Are you certain it is incoherent? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


there's no infinite regress

Are you certain there's no infinite regress? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


because everything is uncertain

Are you certain that everything is uncertain? How do you know?
Why, if EVERYTHING is uncertain, did you say that everything is uncertain? Is the statement "everything is uncertain" part of the "everything" that is uncertain?


I live, breathe, chat online, solve math problems, and pay my taxes

Are you certain that you live, breathe, chat online, solve math problems, and pay your taxes? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


I don't see much difference here

Are you certain you don't see much difference here? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


you've (as I've also said) simply papered over the fact that you have no more certainty than I do

Are you certain I've papered over that fact? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


But you're mistaken if you believe that I'm somehow encumbered by my admission that I have no ultimate certainty

Are you certain that I'm mistaken? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


I can live with not believing I've got a hotline to absolute truth

Are you certain you can live without it? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


this impasse is a good example of what happens when one regards the Word as more important than the World

Are you certain that this is an impasse? How do you know?
Are you certain that it's what happens? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?


they are indispensable

Are you certain words are indispensable? How do you know?
If "probably" certain, probably based on what? How do you know of that probability? Do you know it with certainty? If only probably certain of that, please answer the same questions of your probable certainty, then continue until you realise that you're engaging in an infinite regress.
If uncertain, why should I care about the question?

Friday, December 17, 2010

Questioning all communication. Except for mine.

In the very large combox of a recent post, Paul C has been advancing an 'argument' that has become one of my biggest pet peeves.  Its history and usage is inclusive among liberals, Emergents (but I repeat myself), Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, atheists, other skeptics, and now Paul C (who doesn't really divulge his own position).  It's a pet peeve of mine because it casts doubt on all communication.  It is self-defeating.  It is absurd.  And it's an obvious smokescreen to conceal when someone is out of substantive arguments on a given topic.
In this case, Paul C unwisely decided to question Coram Deo and me on biblical doctrine.  Sidenote - it's never advisable for a skeptic to challenge a Calvinist like Coram Deo on such grounds, and I don't recommend doing so with me either.

So, let's get on with it.
Paul C said:
"God said you do" = "your specific interpretation of the Bible". There are many, many Christians who don't share your specific interpretation of your Bible, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.

Your only defense at this point is to claim that they are wrong, and you are right, because your understanding of the bible is accurate and theirs is not. Unfortunately that isn't actually a reason to accept your interpretation over theirs; it's just your opinion.

But feeeeeeeeeeeeeel free to try.



Rhology said...

Let's say Jimmy were to come along and ask, "Hmm, what does Paul C's last comment mean?"
And Chris said, "It means he is eating tortillas and guacamole."

Paul C might later object and say "No, I was discussing whether I'm a sinner a la Christian theology."
But that = "your specific interpretation of your comment". There are many, many readers who don't share your specific interpretation of your comment, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.

Your only defense at this point is to claim that they are wrong, and you are right, because your understanding of your comment is accurate and theirs is not. Unfortunately that isn't actually a reason to accept your interpretation over theirs; it's just your opinion.


Paul C said...

Tragically your argument (once again) fails. Your appeal to meaning is rooted in the text under dispute, which is of course viciously circular reasoning. How do you know your reading of the Bible is right? Because your reading of the Bible tells you so. Nice try; epic fail.


Coram Deo said...

Tragically your argument (once again) fails. Your appeal to meaning is rooted in the text under dispute, which is of course viciously circular reasoning. How do you know your reading of the Bible is right? Because your reading of the Bible tells you so. Nice try; epic fail.

But that's just your opinion, and there are readers who don't share your specific interpretation of Rho's comment, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.

In Him,
CD

Paul C said...

But that's just your opinion, and there are readers who don't share your specific interpretation of Rho's comment, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.

Well, this is pretty easy to resolve - you can ask Rho to clarify, and he can post a comment for both of us to see right here, in this very comments box. This gives us *additional* information to clarify the *original* information, and is therefore not circular.

So now perhaps you'd like to claim that you can get *additional* information from God to clarify the *original* information he provided in the Bible? Unfortunately that additional information doesn't appear to be forthcoming - and if it is, isn't it strange that different Christians claim to have different additional information?


Now, let's stop for a moment and see how Paul C has already lost the argument.  Why, if the text of the Bible is unclear, is more communication going to help?  Adding more unclear information that requires interpretation, where necessity of interpretation = necessary lack of clarity in Paul C's view as expressed here, is not going to help.  It's going to hinder.  When you want to clear smoke, do you add more smoke?
He thinks that another comment from me will help, but will he allow the Bible that same thing?  Isn't the Bible pretty long, and doesn't it comment on the same topic in multiple passages on most topics?  Does Paul C want a Pope?
And why is his comment exempt from this "problem" as he has set it out?  If I have a different interpretation of:
-His comment
-His clarification
-The clarification of his clarification
-Etc
to the effect that I'm still convinced he's discussing tortillas, will Paul C simply throw up his hands, as he is pretending to with respect to the Bible?  Yeah, probably not.

Coram Deo picks up on this:
Coram Deo said...

So now perhaps you'd like to claim that you can get *additional* information from God to clarify the *original* information he provided in the Bible? Unfortunately that additional information doesn't appear to be forthcoming - and if it is, isn't it strange that different Christians claim to have different additional information?

Why should I believe Rho's additional information? After all he might be lying or confused.

I like my interpretation just fine, and since Rho might be lying or confused can you think of any non-circular reason why I should give more credence or weight to an external authority over my own personal autonomous authority?

What if I think I know best?

In Him,
CD


Paul C said...

What if I think I know best?

You mean, what if you view your interpretation of Rho's statement in the same way as you view your interpretation of the Bible?

If you viewed your interpretation of Rho's statement in that way, I guess you could claim whatever you wanted about his statement *and* claim that only your view was correct.

Which was, of course, my point about your interpretation of the Bible. And here was me thinking that we disagreed!

Coram Deo said...

You mean, what if you view your interpretation of Rho's statement in the same way as you view your interpretation of the Bible?

If you viewed your interpretation of Rho's statement in that way, I guess you could claim whatever you wanted about his statement *and* claim that only your view was correct.

Which was, of course, my point about your interpretation of the Bible. And here was me thinking that we disagreed!


Close, but you missed.

The point is that I was inserting myself into your worldview. If the One true and living God is not the ultimate authority, and if His truth has not been revealed in the 66 books of the Holy Bible, then you and I and Rho are truly autonomous, and we are each our own ultimate authorities.

This gets back to my prior point that you are your own god. You dismissed the suggestion pretending not to know what I meant, but hopefully now you can understand.

The irony is that your worldview is self-defeating because you have no grounds from which to make an objection about anyone else's interpretation of anything, because everything is ultimately just a matter of each individual's subjective interpretation, which is ultimate for each individual.

In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. - Judges 17:6; 21:5

Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart. - Proverbs 21:2

Although not not entirely on subject, you might find this article to be of interest.

In Him,
CD

Rhology said...

Paul C said earlier: There are many, many Christians who don't share your specific interpretation of your Bible, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.

Your only defense at this point is to claim that they are wrong, and you are right, because your understanding of the bible is accurate and theirs is not. Unfortunately that isn't actually a reason to accept your interpretation over theirs; it's just your opinion.

But feeeeeeeeeeeeeel free to try. 



Paul C says now: I don't believe that “everything is ulimately just a matter of each individual's subjective interpretation”, so this argument has no purchase with me whatsoever.

Now, Paul C has many times shown himself to be willingly, intentionally obtuse, so I don't expect him to accept the obvious here, but it should be obvious to anyone else reading.


Paul C later circles back around on himself, as if he forgot, never read, or just didn't comprehend what has gone before:
Paul C said...

Answers to all your questions:

Are you equally interested in my metric to support the accuracy of my personal interpretation that chocolate ice cream is superior to vanilla ice cream, or why I believe my chosen brand of chocolate ice cream is superior to the brand of chocolate ice cream selected by others?

No, I'm only interested in what metric you use to discern the accuracy of your personal interpretation of the Bible over that presented by other Christians.

Why or why not?

Because this discussion is about what metric you use to discern the accuracy of your personal interpretation of the Bible over that presented by other Christians.

Are my religious metrics more important or meaningful to you than my ice cream metrics?

Yes, I'm only interested in what metric you use to discern the accuracy of your personal interpretation of the Bible over that presented by other Christians.

If so, why?

Because this discussion is about what metric you use to discern the accuracy of your personal interpretation of the Bible over that presented by other Christians.

Anyway, why should I answer your questions?

I can offer you no reason why you should answer my single simple question, other than to demonstrate what metric you use to discern the accuracy of your personal interpretation of the Bible over that presented by other Christians.

Why would you care? What difference does it make to you?

Why I care and what difference it will make to me is irrelevant to the question of what metric you use to discern the accuracy of your personal interpretation of the Bible over that presented by other Christians.

So, now that I've answered all of your questions in full, perhaps you'll do me the courtesy of answering the single question that I posed to you before you started throwing irrelevant questions at me. What metric do you use to discern the accuracy of your personal interpretation of the Bible over that presented by other Christians?


Rhology said...

One last time, then: what metric do you use to decide that your interpretation of your own comment is more accurate than another skeptic who doesn't share your specific beliefs?

Either you have one, or you don't. If you do have one, I'd have thought that you want to share it both with other skeptics and non-skeptics alike, in order to help them come to truth.

But perhaps you don't have any metric at all. That would be funny, wouldn't it? So very, very funny.


Finally, David, having totally missed the point, chimes in with a completely unhelpful aside:

David said...

Paul C,

The problem is that Alan and CD do not have an answer to your question. Hence, the need to evade and digress.

Let's just answer him here so as to get it out in the open.
David,

My interpretation of your comment is that you're inviting Paul C for coffee on Mars.  
Please give me a good reason to think that my interpretation of your comment is wrong, whereas your preference of interpretation is correct.  Then make sure to let me know why I should prefer your interpretation of your answer to that question over mine, b/c my guess is that I'll continue to think you're discussing coffee on Mars.  Answer that question as many times as you can, and let me know when you're done, so I can just say, with Paul C: "That's just your interpretation" one more time, so I can distract and divert you, so that you won't have to deal with the actual topic at hand.