Jeremiah 18: "The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it."
@@bruhmingo Contingent prophecy is only possible with open theism. There are no contingencies with a settled future, and only open theism has an open future.
A lot if the difficulty in these sorts of discussions is to accurately represent what is being proposed, and what the actual issue is. The fundamental issue has not to do with God’s knowledge, but with the nature of the future. In other words, it’s an ontological issues, not an epistemological one. If God is omniscient, He knows everything that is true. Both sides agree to that. What Craig is asserting is that OT denies God’s being a perfect being because He does know the truth of future contingencies. Now no Open Theist would use this language, because to an Open Theist, this is utter nonsense. This means that Craig’s assertion is tantamount to asserting that God is an imperfect being because He does know utter nonsense. The entire issue consists of whether or not the future is settled. If it is settled, then Craig would be correct in what He is asserting, at least to the extent of what he believes (he’d still be wrong about what Open Theists believe), but if the future is not settled, then God can be omniscient without knowing the future as settled. This really should be obvious. It’s not correct to assert that Open Theists think God doesn’t know the future if by “knowing the future” one means knowing the future as unsettled, which is what Open Theists believe. To state an analogy, it would be inaccurate to assert that Calvinists do not believe in free will. They do, but it’s a different sort of free will than what Arminianists believe, compatible vs incompatible (or libertarian). Similarly, Open Theists believe God knows the future, but it’s an unsettled future, not a settled one.
That's it, the rooftop of this theological debate. Is the whole march of time determined? Or are there infinite timelines conditioned on our choices? It is delightful to see we're partaking in one of God's most intriguing mysteries: what makes us free?
@@thiagoulart Everyone feels in their bones that the decisions they make are real decisions (they could have chosen differently) and these decisions impact the future. Open Theism has the advantage that what we all conceive of intuitively as being reality actually is reality.
Open theism is crucial for administering divine judgment and punishment in a way that is both reasonable and logical. Without it, the process risks being reduced to a mere mechanical sorting of attributes, lacking any genuine judgment. It is surprising that this isn't the default doctrine within Christianity, as numerous biblical narratives become inexplicable without it. Consider Abraham's negotiation over the fate of Sodom's inhabitants, the creation of Adam in God's image, or the fundamental question of why God would create anything at all. These episodes and theological inquiries presume a dynamic interaction between God and His creation, which only open theism can adequately support by affirming that human actions can influence divine decisions.
Openism is rebellion against God and God will deal with you like how he deals with the false prophets. You are just like Satan who whisper did God really says???? You wont die.
I think wlc has great grasp of logic subject. He is master of it. Many people though intelligent cannot apply logic as wlc does. Noam Chomsky said he had learnt and taught logic but he never use them consciously but he only apply his mind to the content in front of him.
The Bible often describes God as learning, changing His mind, being surprised, changing plans, etc. No one denies this. But the response often given to open theists is that the Bible is just explaining God in terms that we can understand. To which I ask: Ok, well what's wrong with me understanding Him in that way then?
@@fernandoformeloza4107 Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure. How does this equate to knowing every possibility?
@@ABC123jd the translation you have is "beyond measure". The majority of the other translations has "infinite" when it comes to knowledge. Yet others have "beyond comprehension", "cannot grasp", "beyond understanding", and more of the like. When in conjunction with the other scriptures given, either helps to establish or confirm the cumulative whole in regards to your question
I don't think you understand Open Theism Dr. Craig. Open Theism denies that God foreknows the future as a single certainty. Some argue he knows every possible future (Neo-Molinism), others argue he is presently omniscient, and some would deny omniscience. Nobody is arguing against foreknowledge. They're arguing against an exhaustive foreknowledge of a single, certain event. And nobody thinks God is just "guessing." He can do stuff. God doesn't guess at what he'll do in the future-he actually does what he'll say he'll do. And, for the record, your timeless God does not posses any foreknowledge and does not predestine anything. He cannot. To foreknow if to know beforehand, and to predestine is to destine beforehand. These are time statements. God does not literally foreknow nor predestine, because he is timeless. Just something to think about.
Yes, Dr. Craig recognizes that open theists affirm that God knows all possible outcomes. This is not in dispute. What's disputed is whether God has knowledge of the truth values of future propositions regarding human free choices. Many open theists, like Dale Tuggy, say no, God does not know these truth values, insisting that until the actual time of the event, there is no truth value. Other's, like Alan Rhoda, say no, insisting that propositions about future free choices are uniformly false, and God doesn't know any false propositions. Dr. Craig says yes, there is a truth value and God knows true propositions regarding creaturely free choices before the time of the choice, which contradicts both of the open theist positions described above. So, the difference is not in whether God has exhaustive foreknowledge simpliciter. Rather, it's in whether the truth values of future free choices are included in the content of that exhaustive foreknowledge and whether any propositions regarding creaturely free choices are true. You can read a Dr. Craig's critique of Tuggy and Rhoda's positions here: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/divine-omniscience/perils-of-the-open-road. Also, Dr. Craig affirms that God *was* timeless and then entered into temporal relations at the moment of creation, so he would deny that God is *now* timeless. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos Even I can know truth values of the future free choices of creatures. The difference is whether we're using the normal definition of knowledge that we use in our day to day life or whether we're talking about a special type of knowledge that is unfalsifiable such that it is metaphysically impossible for God's knowledge to not come about, and whether this knowledge is exhaustive and includes every future free choice without exception. But Craig doesn't want to get into that and instead strawmans his opponents by saying they think God just guesses at the future and doesn't foreknow anything, which no open theist affirms.
Future “contingents”? That’s because they aren’t true or false until they happen.. so an OT actually doesn’t deny them.. just leaves them as contingent- as possibles, not settled. That doesn’t deny Gods omniscience. As for foreknown- some things God does foreknow- because He is determining to do them. Just not everything.
No, there's no problem about God knowing truths regarding a future that does not yet exist, for the same reason that it's no problem for God to know that he could create a universe when a universe did not yet exist. - RF Admin
i think it boils down to how you view prophesy ultimately given that that's primarily where our perceptions of God's knowledge come into play outside of poetic passages like psalm 139. if you view things like prophesy as foreknowledge, these conclusions are inevitable. if you view prophesy as an extension of an isaiah 46:10 concept (to frame my mindset not to prove it), you'd view prophesy as things which God is telling you He will *bring to pass* or *do* despite the free will actions of men. He would be declaring what He has the right to accomplish as the Creator and is telling you in advance so you know it's Him working when it happens. i think this is how Potter and the clay works. the clay is allowed to be, but once it begins resisting the Potters formations into a glorious vessel, He has the right to turn it into a vessel He so chooses by bringing it to pass, not as an extension of foreknowledge. just my two cents. i can't find any passage that hints at the kind of foreknowledge of perfect being theology in the sense people use it popularly when all passages are fully in context without eisegeting the concept into the text. (i know that's a pejorative feeling statement but we all do it so it shouldn't feel that way. it hurts but we all know it's true of us sometimes)
God being omniscient means He knows reality as it is. So if time is tensed in reality, that’s what He knows. His omniscience wouldn’t be limited by any ontological truth. Analogously His omnipotence is also not limited if we assert He cannot make a square circle, since square are ontologically different than circles.
@@ABC123jd Well, if we're talking about a being with only limited knowledge of the future, then we're simply not talking about a perfect being, which is what we mean by "God." - RF Admin
WLC is one of the greatest of all time. Luv the man! But it seems to me that in order to assert that a lack of foreknowledge would represent some sort of violation of God’s omniscience, one would also have to hold the position that the future is metaphysically knowable. However, if the nature of time were such that the future can only be known as probabilities, then this would not represent any sort of violation of God’s omniscience. This does not mean that Open Theism is true, rather that I don’t think that this specific critique by WLC is legitimate.
That’s a charitable way of putting it. One way of knowing if a representation of an idea is legitimate is if you can find someone who holds the position you’re describing that would agree with your representation of it. No Open Theist would agree with what was attributed to them in this video.
@@ewallt many times I find the truth of a position is flushed out more by the misrepresentations of it than even by the arguments in favor of it. If the truth is really on someone’s side, why would he/she have to use illegitimate arguments? Right?
It doesn't seem that to me. It seems to me that if God is omniscient, then He knows all things. This can also be supposed: "if the nature of time were NOT such that the future can only be known as probabilities...", etc. So it seems to me that our suppositions are irrelevant. Who knows what the nature of time is. Only God knows, as far as I can tell. I think Craig's argument about truth values is valid because he is arguing for what it means within the framework of classical logic. The Bible says that God knows all things (1 John 3:20), and with the rest of what the Bible says about God, His eternality, His omnipresence, His unbounded greatness, His infinite understanding, His perfection, it seems to me that His omniscience would necessarily accompany His other attributes.
Now I'm not a philosopher, but it seems to me that if we have a perfect God, with perfect foreknowledge, then the end result of this world he created will also be perfect, in spite of our imperfections, because God is endlessly drawing us closer to himself and therefore we will always be approximating closer to God's image.
Open theism is built on a bizarre misunderstanding of science, not just scripture. God created the universe. That means God has the capacity to exist both outside and inside the universe. The universe is made up of time, space, matter, and energy. Because we exist inside the universe and have no concept of a dimension beyond the universe, it is almost impossible for us to imagine the idea of timelessness. But the Timeless God sees what we call the future perfectly, and precisely, because he is the I AM, inbounded by time. So we the facts that we have COMPLETE free and the fact that God sees our "future" are perfectly compatible truths.
It’s not based on a bizarre misunderstanding of science, nor on science at all, which is “the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.” This has nothing to do with Open Theism, or any type of theism.
Open theism is based on a biblical understanding of God. Everything that you just said is antithetical to what any of the biblical authors believed about God.
@@bruhmingo To the contrary, open theism is the only system in which God is not a liar. Isaiah prophesied that Hezekiah was going to die and would not recover. Hezekiah then prayed, God gave him fifteen more years, and he recovered. If God knew that Hezekiah was going to recover and live another fifteen years, then he's a liar.
Another blindspot. The perspective one needs to assume for Dr. William Lane Craig's explanation is that 'God has unity of being.' What does this mean? It begs the question if one is weighing the perspectives of the early Jews that originated the Septuagint and Masoretic translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls against what Dr. Craig is saying. Why should we accept that the believers in Yahweh, describe the same character, as the believers in Jehovah, or that of El, or that of Baal (depending on how Canaanite you would like to source your jewish beliefs) when describing a singular God. Especially if we know that God as a concept evolved into a monotheistic conception after years of polytheistic practice and interpretation Furthermore. The views of many who observed the problem of knowledge throughout anthropological history in relation to theological matters are even more sophisticated than Dr. William Lane Craig cares to admit, or adopt in his response. Scientia as we know today, was in it's infancy for these aforementioned peoples. There was no separation between Material Science and Theology. Therefore, the approach one took in investigating things to be known was that of a religious adherent, which has major implication as to how believers conceptualized "How God Knows." For the Theist that believes that God is the ground of being (Not sure if Open Theist is the appropriate label for them[I would believe they're panentheist]), and is indistinguishable from the Space Time Continuum. The knowledge God has is not reserved in Memory, as it is for human, instead, Memory is a by-product of the totality of God's carnal form coming to know itself as a separate body part. This is to say, when one is discovering something about the Universe relevant to their survival or existence that they are indeed exploring the mind of God, by learning the body in which they have their being. This is extrapolated from one's physical body, to the earth, to the cosmos ad infinitum. Therefore, God knows in the same way we know our bodies. Not from memory per se, but from recognition, measurement, and celebration of corporeal forms of Matter.
About Prognostication. God in the Bible has an interesting way of conceding to creation. When the knowledge of events to come are shared by God with prophets interpreting dreams, and shared with rebellious predestined sons that require "unnatural speech from Nature's creatures" they are never foresight into events to come. Instead, they are true propositions about consequences for moral decisions. For example, 'the day you eat of the tree thou shalt surely die' Adam did not die on the day he ate the fruit. Instead, what occurred is that his hand became forbidden from partaking in eating from the Tree of Life. This is just one example, of how God never prognosticates future events, but merely discusses true propositions about the consequence. Another example. Jonah is to go to Ninevah. Having refused. Nature spoke to him by a course of events that would ultimately bring him there any way. Another example. Daniel interprets the dream for Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel did not divine the future demise of the Babylonian King. Rather, he took the substance of the dream and interpreted based on his understanding of the character of the King. How to understand, and thus make use of the wisdom behind the dream. This is more so how the "God" though not singular, demonstrates prognosis in the bible.
One last consideration. The Quantum Indeterminacy of God's Being. When God speaks to Moses. He refers to himself as "The self existent one SENT from The Self Existent One" This suggests that God uses man to inquire into Self Reference when recognizing the totality of being. It also suggests. The means by which God never returns his word to Self as void, also does not inhibit his ability through Omniscient Interpretation from defying the rules of our cosmos, and using Quantum States to decide past, present, and future outcomes. This is to suggest. So what if God took the Council of Nicea, and subsumed the mistranslations, misinterpretations, and outright mistakes of how to understand these topics into itself for the Deity we have today. God is totally capable of reinterpreting his character, persona(s), and even outright fabrications about Him to draw men unto himself. This has much to do with Spooky Action at a Distance, and Quantum Tunneling. So God need not hold true propositions, suspended in time, because in the blink of an eye, He can decide otherwise.
While you may think that your response is intellectually sophisticated, it seems to overlook Craig's fundamental argument. Your extensive and somewhat tedious comment just attempts to construct a model for God's knowledge, aligning it with your particular interpretation of biblical texts. However, the crux of the matter lies in the misalignment with Craig's actual argument. According to Craig, the attribute of a Perfect Being is the knowledge of all truths and the absence of belief in falsehoods. It follows that the Open Theism God, lacking knowledge of future propositions, falls short of embodying the greatest conceivable being as posited by Craig. Hence, the core of the debate remains unaddressed by your analysis.
@@prime_time_youtube I comment so much on his videos and never get any substantive responses. I have honestly stopped attempting to deconstruct the overall premises of his arguments as they're presented in the clips because quite frankly. There is so much bias ans presumption that occurs when approaching the topic.. that one barely gets to attack his argument on its own.. the historical context in which these ideas emerge are quite important to consider before one can deconstruct his claims precisely. I will say this. if you care about intellectual honesty on this matter. Use ChatGPT to have Anselm, Spinoza, and Leibniz debate the hubristic idea of the "Greatest Conceivable Being." First off the phrase suggests that God sees itself as maximal instead of infinitesimally humbled by the Creative Process.
God not having set the future in stone ≠ gambling. God does not require to know a specific outcome to know every outcome nor to be omniscient, if so then that's is a limiting view of God. An infinite being creating an infinitely large universe with infinite amounts of outcomes sounds consistent to me.
I used to have respect for WLC but here he's either too lazy to listen to what open theists actually believe or he's just lying. No open theist believes God "can only guess" about the future and lacks foreknowledge.
To God be the glory.
Jeremiah 18: "The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it."
Contingent prophesy has nothing to do with open theism.
@@bruhmingo Contingent prophecy is only possible with open theism. There are no contingencies with a settled future, and only open theism has an open future.
A lot if the difficulty in these sorts of discussions is to accurately represent what is being proposed, and what the actual issue is. The fundamental issue has not to do with God’s knowledge, but with the nature of the future. In other words, it’s an ontological issues, not an epistemological one. If God is omniscient, He knows everything that is true. Both sides agree to that. What Craig is asserting is that OT denies God’s being a perfect being because He does know the truth of future contingencies. Now no Open Theist would use this language, because to an Open Theist, this is utter nonsense. This means that Craig’s assertion is tantamount to asserting that God is an imperfect being because He does know utter nonsense.
The entire issue consists of whether or not the future is settled. If it is settled, then Craig would be correct in what He is asserting, at least to the extent of what he believes (he’d still be wrong about what Open Theists believe), but if the future is not settled, then God can be omniscient without knowing the future as settled. This really should be obvious.
It’s not correct to assert that Open Theists think God doesn’t know the future if by “knowing the future” one means knowing the future as unsettled, which is what Open Theists believe.
To state an analogy, it would be inaccurate to assert that Calvinists do not believe in free will. They do, but it’s a different sort of free will than what Arminianists believe, compatible vs incompatible (or libertarian). Similarly, Open Theists believe God knows the future, but it’s an unsettled future, not a settled one.
Excellently said! Presentism vs eternalism is a big part of the underlying issue here.
That's it, the rooftop of this theological debate. Is the whole march of time determined? Or are there infinite timelines conditioned on our choices? It is delightful to see we're partaking in one of God's most intriguing mysteries: what makes us free?
@@thiagoulart Everyone feels in their bones that the decisions they make are real decisions (they could have chosen differently) and these decisions impact the future. Open Theism has the advantage that what we all conceive of intuitively as being reality actually is reality.
Open theism is crucial for administering divine judgment and punishment in a way that is both reasonable and logical. Without it, the process risks being reduced to a mere mechanical sorting of attributes, lacking any genuine judgment. It is surprising that this isn't the default doctrine within Christianity, as numerous biblical narratives become inexplicable without it. Consider Abraham's negotiation over the fate of Sodom's inhabitants, the creation of Adam in God's image, or the fundamental question of why God would create anything at all. These episodes and theological inquiries presume a dynamic interaction between God and His creation, which only open theism can adequately support by affirming that human actions can influence divine decisions.
Openism is rebellion against God and God will deal with you like how he deals with the false prophets.
You are just like Satan who whisper did God really says???? You wont die.
If we don’t understand why God did something that doesn’t mean he also didn’t understand it.
I think wlc has great grasp of logic subject. He is master of it. Many people though intelligent cannot apply logic as wlc does. Noam Chomsky said he had learnt and taught logic but he never use them consciously but he only apply his mind to the content in front of him.
If so, he should be able to accurately represent the ideas he’s talking about.
The Bible often describes God as learning, changing His mind, being surprised, changing plans, etc. No one denies this. But the response often given to open theists is that the Bible is just explaining God in terms that we can understand. To which I ask: Ok, well what's wrong with me understanding Him in that way then?
To limit God in turn exalts man, and by extension, Satan. How can he call himself the only God if he doesn’t know everything.
Because by taking those description too far you turn God into something that is not God
God knows every possibility
Chapter and verse?
@@ABC123jd Psalms 147:5, Romans 11:33-36, Proverbs 15:3, Psalms 33:13-15
@@fernandoformeloza4107
Psalm 147:5
Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.
How does this equate to knowing every possibility?
@@ABC123jd the translation you have is "beyond measure". The majority of the other translations has "infinite" when it comes to knowledge. Yet others have "beyond comprehension", "cannot grasp", "beyond understanding", and more of the like. When in conjunction with the other scriptures given, either helps to establish or confirm the cumulative whole in regards to your question
@@fernandoformeloza4107 No, saying God's knowledge is beyond understanding, therefore he knows every possibility is a non sequitur.
I don't think you understand Open Theism Dr. Craig. Open Theism denies that God foreknows the future as a single certainty. Some argue he knows every possible future (Neo-Molinism), others argue he is presently omniscient, and some would deny omniscience.
Nobody is arguing against foreknowledge. They're arguing against an exhaustive foreknowledge of a single, certain event. And nobody thinks God is just "guessing." He can do stuff. God doesn't guess at what he'll do in the future-he actually does what he'll say he'll do.
And, for the record, your timeless God does not posses any foreknowledge and does not predestine anything. He cannot. To foreknow if to know beforehand, and to predestine is to destine beforehand. These are time statements. God does not literally foreknow nor predestine, because he is timeless. Just something to think about.
Yes, Dr. Craig recognizes that open theists affirm that God knows all possible outcomes. This is not in dispute. What's disputed is whether God has knowledge of the truth values of future propositions regarding human free choices. Many open theists, like Dale Tuggy, say no, God does not know these truth values, insisting that until the actual time of the event, there is no truth value. Other's, like Alan Rhoda, say no, insisting that propositions about future free choices are uniformly false, and God doesn't know any false propositions. Dr. Craig says yes, there is a truth value and God knows true propositions regarding creaturely free choices before the time of the choice, which contradicts both of the open theist positions described above. So, the difference is not in whether God has exhaustive foreknowledge simpliciter. Rather, it's in whether the truth values of future free choices are included in the content of that exhaustive foreknowledge and whether any propositions regarding creaturely free choices are true. You can read a Dr. Craig's critique of Tuggy and Rhoda's positions here: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/divine-omniscience/perils-of-the-open-road.
Also, Dr. Craig affirms that God *was* timeless and then entered into temporal relations at the moment of creation, so he would deny that God is *now* timeless. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos Even I can know truth values of the future free choices of creatures. The difference is whether we're using the normal definition of knowledge that we use in our day to day life or whether we're talking about a special type of knowledge that is unfalsifiable such that it is metaphysically impossible for God's knowledge to not come about, and whether this knowledge is exhaustive and includes every future free choice without exception. But Craig doesn't want to get into that and instead strawmans his opponents by saying they think God just guesses at the future and doesn't foreknow anything, which no open theist affirms.
Future “contingents”? That’s because they aren’t true or false until they happen.. so an OT actually doesn’t deny them..
just leaves them as contingent- as possibles, not settled.
That doesn’t deny Gods omniscience.
As for foreknown- some things God does foreknow- because He is determining to do them. Just not everything.
Isn't there a problem holding to the tense theory of time (meaning that the future *does not exist* ) and GOD being omniscient?
No, there's no problem about God knowing truths regarding a future that does not yet exist, for the same reason that it's no problem for God to know that he could create a universe when a universe did not yet exist. - RF Admin
i think it boils down to how you view prophesy ultimately given that that's primarily where our perceptions of God's knowledge come into play outside of poetic passages like psalm 139.
if you view things like prophesy as foreknowledge, these conclusions are inevitable. if you view prophesy as an extension of an isaiah 46:10 concept (to frame my mindset not to prove it), you'd view prophesy as things which God is telling you He will *bring to pass* or *do* despite the free will actions of men. He would be declaring what He has the right to accomplish as the Creator and is telling you in advance so you know it's Him working when it happens. i think this is how Potter and the clay works. the clay is allowed to be, but once it begins resisting the Potters formations into a glorious vessel, He has the right to turn it into a vessel He so chooses by bringing it to pass, not as an extension of foreknowledge.
just my two cents. i can't find any passage that hints at the kind of foreknowledge of perfect being theology in the sense people use it popularly when all passages are fully in context without eisegeting the concept into the text. (i know that's a pejorative feeling statement but we all do it so it shouldn't feel that way. it hurts but we all know it's true of us sometimes)
God being omniscient means He knows reality as it is. So if time is tensed in reality, that’s what He knows. His omniscience wouldn’t be limited by any ontological truth. Analogously His omnipotence is also not limited if we assert He cannot make a square circle, since square are ontologically different than circles.
@@drcraigvideosExactly, God doesn't have to have classical omniscience in order to know things about the future.
@@ABC123jd Well, if we're talking about a being with only limited knowledge of the future, then we're simply not talking about a perfect being, which is what we mean by "God." - RF Admin
WLC is one of the greatest of all time. Luv the man!
But it seems to me that in order to assert that a lack of foreknowledge would represent some sort of violation of God’s omniscience, one would also have to hold the position that the future is metaphysically knowable. However, if the nature of time were such that the future can only be known as probabilities, then this would not represent any sort of violation of God’s omniscience.
This does not mean that Open Theism is true, rather that I don’t think that this specific critique by WLC is legitimate.
That’s a charitable way of putting it. One way of knowing if a representation of an idea is legitimate is if you can find someone who holds the position you’re describing that would agree with your representation of it. No Open Theist would agree with what was attributed to them in this video.
@@ewallt many times I find the truth of a position is flushed out more by the misrepresentations of it than even by the arguments in favor of it.
If the truth is really on someone’s side, why would he/she have to use illegitimate arguments? Right?
@@aforderhase A good point. I’ve found going through these things is a good way to build one’s own understanding as well.
It doesn't seem that to me. It seems to me that if God is omniscient, then He knows all things. This can also be supposed: "if the nature of time were NOT such that the future can only be known as probabilities...", etc. So it seems to me that our suppositions are irrelevant. Who knows what the nature of time is. Only God knows, as far as I can tell. I think Craig's argument about truth values is valid because he is arguing for what it means within the framework of classical logic. The Bible says that God knows all things (1 John 3:20), and with the rest of what the Bible says about God, His eternality, His omnipresence, His unbounded greatness, His infinite understanding, His perfection, it seems to me that His omniscience would necessarily accompany His other attributes.
Can anyone tell me what music is being played In the background pls???
Then why did “God” didn’t know where Adam and Eve were in the garden after they sinned and called out: Where are you?
Could’ve been a rhetorical question, like when the cop asks Jimmy for the 3rd time “why were you speeding” which is to get Jimmy to dig deeper.
An open theist would never make this argument. You’re arguing against omniscience, which open theists would not do.
Boy, this is like politics. Just make up whatever crap you want and accuse those who disagree with of believing whatever you want.
Now I'm not a philosopher, but it seems to me that if we have a perfect God, with perfect foreknowledge, then the end result of this world he created will also be perfect, in spite of our imperfections, because God is endlessly drawing us closer to himself and therefore we will always be approximating closer to God's image.
Yes and will be in due time when new heavens and new earth
I agree Neanderthals were human, and thereby disagree with Hugh Ross's "Reasons to Believe" on this issue.
Open theism is built on a bizarre misunderstanding of science, not just scripture. God created the universe. That means God has the capacity to exist both outside and inside the universe. The universe is made up of time, space, matter, and energy. Because we exist inside the universe and have no concept of a dimension beyond the universe, it is almost impossible for us to imagine the idea of timelessness. But the Timeless God sees what we call the future perfectly, and precisely, because he is the I AM, inbounded by time. So we the facts that we have COMPLETE free and the fact that God sees our "future" are perfectly compatible truths.
It’s not based on a bizarre misunderstanding of science, nor on science at all, which is “the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.” This has nothing to do with Open Theism, or any type of theism.
Open theism is based on a biblical understanding of God. Everything that you just said is antithetical to what any of the biblical authors believed about God.
@@ABC123jdopen theism calls God a liar
@@bruhmingo To the contrary, open theism is the only system in which God is not a liar. Isaiah prophesied that Hezekiah was going to die and would not recover. Hezekiah then prayed, God gave him fifteen more years, and he recovered. If God knew that Hezekiah was going to recover and live another fifteen years, then he's a liar.
Another blindspot.
The perspective one needs to assume for Dr. William Lane Craig's explanation is that 'God has unity of being.' What does this mean? It begs the question if one is weighing the perspectives of the early Jews that originated the Septuagint and Masoretic translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls against what Dr. Craig is saying. Why should we accept that the believers in Yahweh, describe the same character, as the believers in Jehovah, or that of El, or that of Baal (depending on how Canaanite you would like to source your jewish beliefs) when describing a singular God. Especially if we know that God as a concept evolved into a monotheistic conception after years of polytheistic practice and interpretation
Furthermore. The views of many who observed the problem of knowledge throughout anthropological history in relation to theological matters are even more sophisticated than Dr. William Lane Craig cares to admit, or adopt in his response.
Scientia as we know today, was in it's infancy for these aforementioned peoples. There was no separation between Material Science and Theology. Therefore, the approach one took in investigating things to be known was that of a religious adherent, which has major implication as to how believers conceptualized "How God Knows."
For the Theist that believes that God is the ground of being (Not sure if Open Theist is the appropriate label for them[I would believe they're panentheist]), and is indistinguishable from the Space Time Continuum. The knowledge God has is not reserved in Memory, as it is for human, instead, Memory is a by-product of the totality of God's carnal form coming to know itself as a separate body part. This is to say, when one is discovering something about the Universe relevant to their survival or existence that they are indeed exploring the mind of God, by learning the body in which they have their being. This is extrapolated from one's physical body, to the earth, to the cosmos ad infinitum. Therefore, God knows in the same way we know our bodies. Not from memory per se, but from recognition, measurement, and celebration of corporeal forms of Matter.
About Prognostication. God in the Bible has an interesting way of conceding to creation. When the knowledge of events to come are shared by God with prophets interpreting dreams, and shared with rebellious predestined sons that require "unnatural speech from Nature's creatures" they are never foresight into events to come. Instead, they are true propositions about consequences for moral decisions.
For example, 'the day you eat of the tree thou shalt surely die'
Adam did not die on the day he ate the fruit. Instead, what occurred is that his hand became forbidden from partaking in eating from the Tree of Life. This is just one example, of how God never prognosticates future events, but merely discusses true propositions about the consequence.
Another example. Jonah is to go to Ninevah. Having refused. Nature spoke to him by a course of events that would ultimately bring him there any way.
Another example. Daniel interprets the dream for Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel did not divine the future demise of the Babylonian King. Rather, he took the substance of the dream and interpreted based on his understanding of the character of the King. How to understand, and thus make use of the wisdom behind the dream.
This is more so how the "God" though not singular, demonstrates prognosis in the bible.
One last consideration.
The Quantum Indeterminacy of God's Being.
When God speaks to Moses. He refers to himself as "The self existent one SENT from The Self Existent One"
This suggests that God uses man to inquire into Self Reference when recognizing the totality of being. It also suggests. The means by which God never returns his word to Self as void, also does not inhibit his ability through Omniscient Interpretation from defying the rules of our cosmos, and using Quantum States to decide past, present, and future outcomes.
This is to suggest. So what if God took the Council of Nicea, and subsumed the mistranslations, misinterpretations, and outright mistakes of how to understand these topics into itself for the Deity we have today. God is totally capable of reinterpreting his character, persona(s), and even outright fabrications about Him to draw men unto himself. This has much to do with Spooky Action at a Distance, and Quantum Tunneling. So God need not hold true propositions, suspended in time, because in the blink of an eye, He can decide otherwise.
While you may think that your response is intellectually sophisticated, it seems to overlook Craig's fundamental argument. Your extensive and somewhat tedious comment just attempts to construct a model for God's knowledge, aligning it with your particular interpretation of biblical texts.
However, the crux of the matter lies in the misalignment with Craig's actual argument. According to Craig, the attribute of a Perfect Being is the knowledge of all truths and the absence of belief in falsehoods. It follows that the Open Theism God, lacking knowledge of future propositions, falls short of embodying the greatest conceivable being as posited by Craig. Hence, the core of the debate remains unaddressed by your analysis.
@@prime_time_youtube Couldn't have said it better myself.
@@prime_time_youtube I comment so much on his videos and never get any substantive responses. I have honestly stopped attempting to deconstruct the overall premises of his arguments as they're presented in the clips because quite frankly. There is so much bias ans presumption that occurs when approaching the topic.. that one barely gets to attack his argument on its own.. the historical context in which these ideas emerge are quite important to consider before one can deconstruct his claims precisely.
I will say this. if you care about intellectual honesty on this matter. Use ChatGPT to have Anselm, Spinoza, and Leibniz debate the hubristic idea of the "Greatest Conceivable Being." First off the phrase suggests that God sees itself as maximal instead of infinitesimally humbled by the Creative Process.
God not having set the future in stone ≠ gambling.
God does not require to know a specific outcome to know every outcome nor to be omniscient, if so then that's is a limiting view of God.
An infinite being creating an infinitely large universe with infinite amounts of outcomes sounds consistent to me.
Omniscience means to know absolutely all things. Open Theism is an anti intellectualist movement.
This man is drenched with scholasticism. Ick
You also have to deny the eternality of God, because he can’t be sure he will exist forever.
So it’s just wrong all over.
God knows all possible futures. In every possible future, God exists. Therefore God knows He will exist forever. Simple.
Why can't God know that he's immortal? That's present knowledge.
I used to have respect for WLC but here he's either too lazy to listen to what open theists actually believe or he's just lying. No open theist believes God "can only guess" about the future and lacks foreknowledge.
Here come the open theists in the comments! 🤣