A Way to Think About Free Will and God: Open Theism

In this topic, I wish to discuss the hypothetical and actual ideas brought forth through believers and non-believers with an open mind alike as to the character of the Christian God of literature and oral tradition throughout History. In particular, I wish to discuss the ideas around free will, foreknowledge, human attempts to understand the plan, meaning of stories and legends and also what the apologists and popular preachers and teachers have added throughout the years. Believers, feel free to contribute anything you get from commentaries on the Bible, Calvinism, Philosophy, even your own freethought opinions. Yes, Tangle...in this topic we are freely making it all up...that's the guidelines....what sense can we make out of the idea of a Creator of all seen and unseen who chose to relate to humanity through a divine human character which we are charged to emulate? Lets start with a few quotes:

GDR writes: I don't believe that God knows the future specifically. What I will have for lunch next Sunday is an unknown even to God. The future is open.

Faith writes: Talking about God as "exercising" control makes him too much like us. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, which means He can't NOT be in control of everything, and everything He does is precisely calibrated as the perfect response to everything that happens. By His very nature, He has power over all things down to the comma at the end of this phrase and all the atoms involved in its existence has foreknowledge of everything without exception, and is everywhere at all times, including surrounding you completely. The Bible presents God in human terms to make Him more understandable, but those terms are a concession to our inability to grasp such a Being as He really is.

Next, can everybody read this article defining Open Theism? A brief quote:

quote:

---

Open theism, also called free will theism and openness theology, is the belief that God does not exercise meticulous control of the universe but leaves it "open" for humans to make significant choices (free will) that impact their relationships with God and others. A corollary of this is that God has not predetermined the future. Open Theists further believe that this would imply that God does not know the future exhaustively. Proponents affirm that God is omniscient, but deny that this means that God knows everything that will happen.

---

In other words, for the guidelines in this discussion, God transcends time...but His Son allegedly was and is human...thus God also represents humanity at our level and within our times.

Next, for the sake of this particular argument, let's assume that we all are essentially making up God. This allows for participants such as Tangle to skip the task of proving that to us and to join the conversation as if we are arriving at a consensus on what God would be like in regards to humans. Participants can feel free to either use the Bible to state their case that God exists apart from human imagination and has a plan or vision of some sort concerning the fate of humanity. Or they can ascribe to Open Theism or they can simply go along for the ride, pointing out flaws in Theological Assertions and Arguments and why they disagree with God as defined in the conversation.

Percy Addressing GDR writes: If Christianity is based upon a real person, there is no evidence it was a 1st-century person. Jesus could have been a BC person.

Also for the purpose of this discussion, let's assume that Jesus was and is Gods character yet was bound by the limits of time as we are. He was a product of His culture and times upon the earth.

If Jesus exists today,(or is defined as living and existing by participants) we can further argue that we are attempting to define Him and our responsibility and role with Him as believers by defining the character of God--as imagined/believed today. Unbelievers can also argue why they avoid Him. (keep in mind this is all based on a hypothetical)

Faith & Belief, please.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Edited by Phat, : clarification

Could I suggest a title change to "A Way to Think About Free Will and God: Open Theism".

Sure. Sounds good... I think my editing is finished on the topic starter.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Thread copied here from the A Way to Think About Free Will and God: Open Theism thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Phat writes: Yes, Tangle...in this topic we are freely making it all up...that's the guidelines

What possible result are you hoping for?

If you're looking for what happens when we make beliefs up I offer you every religion in the world plus the Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Force, Eywa and Galdalf the White amonst many, may others.

tangle writes: If you're looking for what happens when we make beliefs up I offer you every religion in the world plus the Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Force, Eywa and Galdalf the White amongst many, many others.

To start with, many of these "gods" were purposely foreknown to be creations of literary fiction. For the purpose of this discussion, We are starting by defining the characteristics of a hypothetical Creator...superior intelligence.

I offer you every religion in the world plus ...

Stick to One example. I realize that you believe in none of them, but don't simply provide me with all of them in order to refute my example as simply one of many. Counter my chosen example with one other character from either literature or your own imagination...and assign the character some basic attributes. Don't use the excuse that you--and many---have outgrown the need for such a character.

This is a common argument employed by skeptics. They use catch phrases such as "you believe in the nonexistence of every God but One...we just go One God further."

Lets nail down the basic idea:
1) God is the initial Creator of all things seen and unseen.
2) Humans have sought to explain such a belief through many religions and in many ways. Critics may claim that Christianity(the angle which I will attempt to defend/represent/define in this discussion) is nothing more than another story among many stories through known literature and oral traditions defined as Anthropomorphism.

Jesus, as a character in literature, is either described as God Incarnate or as fully God and fully man. Others have described him as human while on earth and as more of a messenger or Messiah..(some claim failed Messiah.)

In this topic, I want to get to the hypothetical idea that a Creator of all seen and unseen exists, that such a Creator is capable of communing with and relating to humans, and that this is done in some way, shape, or form through specific human(s) to other humans. You can drag us ridiculously off topic with hypothetical spaghetti monsters, historical ghosts and apparitions, or characters invented through literature if you must. I warn you, however, that this will be dragging us through ridiculous off-topic nonsense.

Allow me to break the hypothetical down to your level and real-life experience. Note ringos quote: You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

When you go fishing and meditate, you also get answers and perhaps many more questions through your own imagination and consciousness. Why is it so bothersome for you to simply imagine a Creator of all seen and unseen with an ability to impress upon human philosophies and thoughts? You always go back to primitive superstitions and about how much science has learned about how and why we think and believe the way that we do. Don't be afraid. Make God up, and then answer the question of how such a hypothetical timeless concept would relate to humanity within time.

tangle writes: What possible result are you hoping for?

As I said in the opening post,

quote:

---

, for the sake of this particular argument, let's assume that we all are essentially making up God. This allows for participants such as Tangle to skip the task of proving that to us and to join the conversation as if we are arriving at a consensus on what God would be like in regards to humans.

---

Perhaps I should clarify and add that you don't have to make up a God per se...perhaps you could utilize concepts such as fate, destiny, and the philosophical meaning of what hypothetically happens when a human fights for relevance, purpose, and legacy...either through their own personal accomplishments or vicariously through their offspring and fate intervenes...one way or another. Or perhaps you could also criticize the concept of fate itself.

Either way, the thrust of this topic is in discussing our usual presupposition of free will vs omnipotence in the light of the added philosophical (theological?) concept of Open Theism. The reason that I added the corollary that God is essentially made up is to skip the usual arguments with you and others attempting to prove this.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Replying to you as Percy, rather than Admin.....

Percy writes: I'm not an atheist. I believe in God, but I also believe that no religion has the correct story.

Which is why in this topic I want to focus more on the philosophy of free will vs Omnipotence with the added twist of the idea of Open Theism. Of course, this depends on whether you believe that God interacts in some way with humanity or is more of a Deistic concept that created through natural processes and has no interaction with humanity in any measurable way.(which, of course, the evidence suggests...or rather lack of evidence. Hypothetically, however, I want you to imagine an interactive God for the purpose of the topic.

Add by edit:

Percy writes: If there really were any such thing as the Rapture it would be based upon the type of person you were on Earth, not on what you believed.

To a Deistic God, would behavior be the only thing that matters? Would it be hypothetically possible for such a Creator to initially "light the fuze" through a Big Bang, withdraw from active involvement while we each individually lived out our lives, the establish a judgment whereby some would pass the character test and move on while others would be discarded at that point?

Remember the Prime Directive in Star Trek?

Percy writes: Goodness is what should be rewarded, not believing the "right" things.

So based on Open Theism, such a God would allow humans to be fully responsible for their final grade in this life. Drawbacks to such a belief are the unfairness of those who died prematurely or suddenly without an opportunity to complete their "race".

Percy writes: Since I'm not a Christian I most certainly have my own ideas about the Bible, including that Jesus wasn't a real person, that heaven is not a real place, that the rapture is never going to happen, and that goodness is far more deserving of reward than believing the "right" things.

What are your ideas about God? What is His/Her/Its role in all of this? Is God the eventual "rewarder"?

Percy writes: Why should this hypothetical be taken more seriously than, "How would you react if you were sent back to the time of the dinosaurs," or "What if you suddenly found you had all the powers of Superman," or "What if the Matrix turned out to be real"?

It shouldn't. The uniqueness of this hypothetical, however, is in our agreeing on a consensus of God as "rewarder" if that may be the case. If it is based on what we do, does it really matter whether God knows the future or whether the future is open, pending our choices along the corridor of time?

Percy, addressing Faith writes: The question you (and Phat) are really asking is how would I react if presented with incontrovertible evidence of the truth of Christian belief. I would examine it, process it, and try to incorporate it compatibly into the fabric of evidence I already know.

Would it cause you to have any different feeling about God and you or would you continue living/believing/behaving as you have always done? As an aside, I don't believe that God cares if we think about Him and/or pray to Him every day...He is more concerned with how we get along with the other fish in the fishbowl. Perhaps to Him, we are a giant social experiment.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Phat writes: In this topic, I want to get to the hypothetical idea that a Creator of all seen and unseen exists, that such a Creator is capable of communing with and relating to humans, and that this is done in some way, shape, or form through specific human(s) to other humans.

But this is simply your position that you and others here have argued for years. I don't accept this belief and I don't see how pretending that I do helps anything.

When you go fishing and meditate, you also get answers and perhaps many more questions through your own imagination and consciousness.

Why do you assume all this mysticism? When I go fishing I spend most of my time trying to work out how to catch fish and the rest admiring the scenery and thinking how lucky I am to be doing it.

Why is it so bothersome for you to simply imagine a Creator of all seen and unseen with an ability to impress upon human philosophies and thoughts?

Ringo spends roughly one post per week explaining to you that he once believed the stuff you believe and you routinely let that statement pass right over you as though it's not an important point.

What you're essentially asking us to do is go back to our childhood and imagine Father Christmas is real and discuss him as though he was. To us that is just bloody silly. We've grown up.

You always go back to primitive superstitions and about how much science has learned about how and why we think and believe the way that we do.

That's because it's true! Why would I go back to fiction?

Don't be afraid. Make God up, and then answer the question of how such a hypothetical timeless concept would relate to humanity within time.

Why? That's your position not mine. The way it works here is that you do all that and we tell you why it's nonsence.

Perhaps I should clarify and add that you don't have to make up a God per se...perhaps you could utilize concepts such as fate, destiny, and the philosophical meaning of what hypothetically happens when a human fights for relevance, purpose, and legacy...either through their own personal accomplishments or vicariously through their offspring and fate intervenes...one way or another. Or perhaps you could also criticize the concept of fate itself.

None of this makes any sense to me. It's all mystical bunkum that I once believed but rejected decades ago.

I think you might make more progress in understanding those ideas if YOU could begin to imagine not having them. Unlike me trying to imagine your world which I don't have to do because I've been there and done that, why don't you try to imagine mine? I know it's something you guys find impossible but maybe it's worth a try.

What you're essentially asking us to do is go back to our childhood and imagine Father Christmas is real and discuss him as though he was. To us that is just bloody silly. We've grown up.

Not necessarily. You still believe in luck and chance. You even use the words a lot. I'll never be able to convince you that its all a myth, and you will forever be pointing me to examples in science where it is real, but you don't see the bigger picture...the foreknown predetermination of the value of the probability.

Why do you assume all this mysticism? When I go fishing I spend most of my time trying to work out how to catch fish and the rest admiring the scenery and thinking how lucky I am to be doing it.

Lucky? Explain how luck even enters into the equation.

Phat writes: Not necessarily. You still believe in luck and chance.

Nothing we say ever touches the sides does it? You can't escape your bubble and just accept what we tell you.

I DON'T BELIEVE IN LUCK AND CHANCE.

You even use the words a lot. I'll never be able to convince you that its all a myth,

Of course you can; I'm a rationalist, you can easily change my mind about anything, all you have to do is produce the evidence. There's a science of chance and probability it's called statistics. It relies of the FACT that there is such a thingas chance so it'll be an up hill struggle for you but if you have the facts you can do it.

and you will forever be pointing me to examples in science where it is real, but you don't see the bigger picture...the foreknown predetermination of the value of the probability.

There you go again, talking bollox. Show this thing that you call foreknowledge and I'll change my mind.

Well, can we just move on with the topic? I don't feel like tangling with you right now...I want to discuss the concept of Open Theism.

https://www.gotquestions.org/open-theism.html

Ultimately, open theism fails in that it attempts to explain the unexplainable—the relationship between God's foreknowledge and mankind's free will. Just as extreme forms of Calvinism fail in that they make human beings nothing more than pre-programmed robots, so open theism fails in that it rejects God's true omniscience and sovereignty. God must be understood through faith, for “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6a). Open theism is, therefore, not scriptural. It is simply another way for finite man to try to understand an infinite God. Open theism should be rejected by followers of Christ. While open theism is an explanation for the relationship between God's foreknowledge and human free will, it is not the biblical explanation.

https://www.premierchristianradio.com/...ite-vs-John-Sanders

John E Sanders is one among a number of evangelical theologians such as Greg Boyd who have embraced Open Theism – the view that God does not necessarily have foreknowledge of all future events and that the future is open. Many evangelicals believe Open Theism is a heresy – denying the omniscience of God and going against Biblical teaching. James White of Alpha and Omega ministries believes Open Theism is a serious heresy and defends a Calvinist view of God’s sovereignty – that God has predestined all future events for his glory. They debate the issues.

Phat writes: Well, can we just move on with the topic? I don't feel like tangling with you right now...I want to discuss the concept of Open Theism.

Wiz.....straight over your head again with hardly an upward glance.

But regardless, what's different about this than all the other freewill vs foreknowledge threads there's been here?

Phat writes: 1) God is the initial Creator of all things seen and unseen.

I've never understood why believers conflate the builder with the landlord.

Phat writes: What are your ideas about God? What is His/Her/Its role in all of this? Is God the eventual "rewarder"?

My faith in God comes from within and not from any evidence. Since there *is* no evidence, I know nothing about him. My internal unevidenced feeling is that He gives purpose to the universe and is not a personal God. He may not even know or care about us on this tiny planet orbiting an average sun in a sparse portion of an arm of an unremarkable galaxy.

I do believe in free will. I think Open Theism is just a renaming of an existing concept.

--Percy