In my opinion, the idea that God can know the future and that all aspects of the future are predetermined means we would really be nothing more than mindless zombies following Gods outcomes. That we are not actually free to choose what we do or how we act.

With that being the case, I think there have to be some aspects of the future that defy Gods nature for him to know. I think God can still be omniscient, and not know what cannot be known but know everything that CAN be known.

I think calvinism presents huge problem with the idea of love, and evil. If God has already written everything that will happen it would make him responsible for Evil.

If humans however, have free will and God leaves choices up to us without complete knowledge of the outcome than an inevitable consequence of Free will would be Evil. So I think open theism answers the question "why doesn't God stop all Evil" it would remove all free will.

Thoughts?

My thoughts are people who try to make sense of things don't get very far in this game, but people who focus on solving problems will not only be successful with that but will ironically gain overall clarity as well.

Can you clarify?

Personalize all the problems you see. Do you have the capacity for evil? Do you experience pain and suffering? Put the responsibility on yourself to solve these problems. In doing so, over time you will become more aware of the bigger picture.

People (atheists included) who focus externally, on their beliefs about God, are going in circles. Avoid people who encourage you to consider God in any way. These people don't want to take on the burden that I'm telling you to and will get nothing for their efforts.

I understand what you are saying. Thank you for your reply. For the most part I agree with you. I am not however, asking this question to not hold myself accountable for my own actions. I fully agree I can make a difference as can anyone and that I should be held accountable if I do "bad" or "evil" things, or even don't try and assist with the problem.

I know, my point is this is all set up in a way that we can only see truth in proportion to where we are on our personal journey of solving our own pain and suffering.

This is a classic challenge to the idea of choice and prediction. You can also see this in the philosophical literature by looking at Newcomb's Paradox.

There's a difference between something being "written" and something being "known." I can know that a student will fail a test because I know enough about the student. That doesn't mean that I caused the student fail the test or bear responsibility for the student failing.

Calvinists would reject your description as being an inaccurate representation of their belief.

The following is probably more how they would choose to describe their beliefs.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wc...fs/ch_III.html

Calvinists do not deny free will.

Do calvinists not think everything happens according to the will of the father? I would think with that being the case, "written" is a more accurate description. While open theists think the will of humans is free, and in some respects, God only knows all possible outcomes, not the precise outcome. I think open theism is the only accurate way to describe being "free" at least in the libertarian (I think that is the right word) sense.

How can I be free if everything has already been determined? I am aware that calvanists do not view free will in this exact way but I think viewing it any other way is not really the kind of free will that would make the fall and sin compatible with the resurrection. Does that make sense?

Also, I quickly skimmed newcombs paradox. Can you tell me how that applies here? I kind of get it but not sure if I understand completely.

Thanks!

It depends on what you mean by that phrase. There are multiple levels of God's will.

It depends on what you mean by free.

You should be clear in your mind whether you are making sense using the language and concepts that Calvinists use, or whether you're rejecting their statements based on the language and concepts that you are using.

Do you think that the predictor causes the player's choice?

If not, then why do you think God's ability to predict what people will do denies free will?

Lets start here,

I am not sure how to answer that question unless I use an analogy. If I am presented with a fork in the road and I have two paths I can take

Path A leads to my death

Path B leads to 1 milion dollars

My choice has already been determined according to calvinists. I just haven't made that choice yet. That means there is no reality in which I will choose Path B. Therefore, the choice is not truly mine, I am just following the script. God is just watching the Movie.

Oh ok, I understand now. Yes, in a sense I do. But I do better understand what you are saying now.

If the predictor knew what the player would choose and also knew there was no world that existed in which the player would make a different choice. Does that change things?

What do you mean by "no reality"? How many realities are there?

In a world of choices, there should be several imo. I could have taken the scenic route to work today, I instead chose the highway. In a world where I am actually free to choose, me taking the highway would have yielded different results.

I do not mean there are several active realities. I just mean there are several occurrences which would change the current one. In a universe that is already determined there is only 1 result to everything.

Since there is only one "active" reality (notice how you are starting to need extra language to hedge your thoughts), could it be that God simply knows which reality would be the "active" one and that the others still exist but are simply "inactive"?

That is an interesting thought that I would have to chew on for a bit I suppose.

Sorry but its required that i ask when i see this. If God is not responsible for any of the evil because of free will would that mean he is not responsible for any good/love either?

It depends on whether God acts to create good or to express love. Going back to the predictor concept, there's no reason that the predictor cannot also be an actor.

Buzzes like a fridge. Was asking op.

I think we can say God is not responsible for evil because evil is a lack of good/love but God is responsible for good/love because good love is a positive attribute while evil/bad is simply just a lack of good/love. So unless we say "God is evil" there is no reason to say he is responsbile for evil but if we say "god is good" then we can say he is responsible for goodness.

I do however, think that based on this model, humans individually can be responsible for love as well. We can be held accountable if we show someone else love or care.

Ok Thanks for the answer.

For me God, if there is one, is partly responsible since without his creation free will or not there is no evil. He would be the first cause. Think he would agree and at least take some accountability. I know if i had the power to create a universe of free willed beings where i knew the possibility of evil could be a part of it id take some responsibility for the evil in it.

I get what you're saying but consider he doesn't create us. Then there is nothing. Or, even worse he creates without free will and we are essentially robots. I think both of those realities are more evil than the one we currently have.