Libertarian Free Will, question

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Whatever. Despite great differences there are points of agreement
Middle Knowledge can't be true because we ALWAYS follow our strongest Desire. In Quantum Physics, the 'Many Worlds' Theory says that when an alternate choice is made, an alternate reality is spawned. But since we always follow our strongest Desire, it's impossible for any other Reality to diverge due to our actions, because we will always take the same road even if we were given a hundred chances to go the other way at the fork in the road...
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Middle Knowledge can't be true because we ALWAYS follow our strongest Desire. In Quantum Physics, the 'Many Worlds' Theory says that when an alternate choice is made, an alternate reality is spawned. But since we always follow our strongest Desire, it's impossible for any other Reality to emerge because of us, because we will always take the same road even if we were given a hundred times to go the other way at the fork in the road...
I have no idea how a belief that we always follow our greatest desire precludes middle knowledge. If anything it seems to me it makes middle knowledge more possible
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
I have no idea how a belief that we always follow our greatest desire precludes middle knowledge. If anything it seems to me it makes middle knowledge more possible
How? Having only one path in life means the greatest material reality is a Universe instead of a Multiverse...
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
???????

Depending on circumstances that path can easily be changed
But taking another path would be the strongest desire of the Will. It's not about choosing your path, it's about not being able to choose against your strongest desire. If today you didn't want to go to Atlanta, but tomorrow you wanted to go to Atlanta; both days were about your strongest Desire 'at the time'. If you were given a hundred chances to change you Mind and go to Atlanta today, you'd never change your Mind about that because every time it would be your Strongest desire to not go. This depends on all scenarios in the day being the same as well; it wouldn't unfold like the movie "Groundhog Day". When the day started over, you wouldn't know it was the same day as yesterday, and it would unfold exactly like yesterday. It would be more like the movie '50 first dates". Drew Barrymore would have had the same day the rest of her life if it weren't for Adam Sandler making a difference; she had the same day every day after her accident before he interfered; because she followed her strongest Desire for that one day every day...
 
G

guest1

Guest
And the differences I see on this forum are not so much about the nature of God as it is Gods method of saving and how that happens from our perspectives. Is it 100 % God and 0% man, 90/10, 80/20, 50/50 etc.........

I'm obviously in the 100% God camp yet I do not deny human responsibility. I'm not sure any calvinist does that I'm aware of but maybe Reverend can help me out here.

The difficulty comes from both camps if I'm being completely honest when we isolate certain verses that support our views and then build from there. ( I completely understand the Arminian view and can agree with them but I also understand the Calvinist view as well.) The C just holds more weight and tips the scales in my book.

And I do not think saying "I don't know or I do not have an answer " is something we should be afraid to admit. The problem of sin and Gods culpability comes to mind as we try to defend God(as if He needs our defense) when we say His foreknowledge/ predestination/election come into play with Jacob I loved and Esau I hated as examples.

We like to say God indeed loved but on the other hand as humans we rebel against the God hated side of the coin and seem to want to make excuses for Gods hatred of Esau and make it sound like something much different than hate but we do not do the same thing with love. And to say why we know why God loved one and hated the other is overstepping IMHO as Gods answer is Romans 9 about His fairness is who are you oh man to answer back to God ?

Does not the Potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay vessels for honor and others for destruction ?

Does the thing made say to the Maker why did you make me this way ?

So when I read things like this in Scripture and there are many of them its rather humbling and I realize He is God and I am not and as the heavens are above the earth so are His ways above our ways, His thoughts above our thoughts. Studying them indeed stretches our minds and causes us to reason through them but if we are being honest with ourselves we do not know certain things about Gods ways and I believe this includes salvation( those He planned to saved from the beginning while others were not His elect/predestined/ chosen for salvation). I know that is a hard pill to swallow but the fact is scripture says those things whether or not we like them.

And another things about me- I don't like reading them either, my flesh, human mind is repulsed by it but on the other hand its right there in scripture so I must believe them and know and trust God is Sovereign and in complete control over His creation and works everything after His purpose/will as we read in many places in both testaments.

In my flesh I'm Arminian and in my Spirit I'm Calvinist. ( Don't you love a dichotomy) :)

hope this helps !!!
 
T

TomFL

Guest
But taking another path would be the strongest desire of the Will. It's not about choosing your path, it's about not being able to choose against your strongest desire. If today you didn't want to go to Atlanta, but tomorrow you wanted to go to Atlanta; both days were about your strongest Desire 'at the time'. If you were given a hundred chances to change you Mind and go to Atlanta today, you'd never change your Mind about that because every time it would be your Strongest desire to not go. This depends on all scenarios in the day being the same as well; it wouldn't unfold like the movie "Groundhog Day". When the day started over, you wouldn't know it was the same day as yesterday, and it would unfold exactly like yesterday. It would be more like the movie '50 first dates". Drew Barrymore would have had the same day the rest of her life if it weren't for Adam Sandler making a difference; she had the same day every day after her accident before he interfered; because she followed her strongest Desire for that one day every day...
I do not see how that negates the possibility of middle knowledge
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Are we back to this

Because God knows everything

How does one explain God ?

God is greater than any possible explanation we could provide
Well you track well without me, so let's see. God knows everything, but Nothing Isn't a part of everything. It would depend on if Middle Knowledge Is something, for God to be able to even know it. Why is Middle Knowledge something real/true Ontologically?
 
Last edited:
T

TomFL

Guest
Well you track well without me, so let's see. God knows everything, but Nothing Isn't a part of everything. It would depend on if Middle Knowledge Is something, for God to be able to even know it. Why is Middle Knowledge something real?
Middle knowledge is knowledge of the possible

When David went down to Keilah and inquired of God if the men of Keilah would turn him over to Saul and would Saul kill him

God informed that David would indeed be handed over and killed if he should remain there

As a result he did not

His remaining was a counterfactual it did not transpire but God knew what the men of keilah would do and he knew what Saul would do
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Middle knowledge is knowledge of the possible

When David went down to Keilah and inquired of God if the men of Keilah would turn him over to Saul and would Saul kill him

God informed that David would indeed be handed over and killed if he should remain there

As a result he did not

His remaining was a counterfactual it did not transpire but God knew what the men of keilah would do and he knew what Saul would do
If it did not transpire, even in another reality, God couldn't know it through Foresight since it didn't transpire.. It didn't transpire because it was David's strongest Desire to live...
 
T

TomFL

Guest
If it did not transpire, even in another reality, God couldn't know it through Foresight since it didn't transpire.. It didn't transpire because it was David's strongest Desire to live...
The bible clearly shows he did know

1 Sam. 23:6–14 —KJV
“And it came to pass, when Abiathar the son of Ahimelech fled to David to Keilah, that he came down with an ephod in his hand.
¶ And it was told Saul that David was come to Keilah. And Saul said, God hath delivered him into mine hand; for he is shut in, by entering into a town that hath gates and bars.
And Saul called all the people together to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men.
And David knew that Saul secretly practised mischief against him; and he said to Abiathar the priest, Bring hither the ephod.
Then said David, O LORD God of Israel, thy servant hath certainly heard that Saul seeketh to come to Keilah, to destroy the city for my sake.
Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? O LORD God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. And the LORD said, He will come down.
Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the LORD said, They will deliver thee up.
Then David and his men, which were about six hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah, and went whithersoever they could go. And it was told Saul that David was escaped from Keilah; and he forbare to go forth.
¶ And David abode in the wilderness in strong holds, and remained in a mountain in the wilderness of Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but God delivered him not into his hand.”
 

His clay

Well-known member
The chooser is the cause of the choice
Given the law of identity, that the chooser is only himself and not another self at the moment of choice, then the ability to do otherwise is negated. The chooser cannot do otherwise at the moment of choice, for he cannot "be" otherwise than himself at the moment of choice.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Given the law of identity, that the chooser is only himself and not another self at the moment of choice, then the ability to do otherwise is negated. The chooser cannot do otherwise at the moment of choice, for he cannot "be" otherwise than himself at the moment of choice.
That does not appear to makes any sense

There is no requirement to be other than self to make a choice
 

His clay

Well-known member
That does not appear to makes any sense

There is no requirement to be other than self to make a choice
Quite the contrary, it makes perfect sense; you just don't like the ramifications. If there is only one self (law of identity at one moment in time), with only one set of characteristics, and not another self, then a self at the moment of choice can only choose in accord with those characteristics. Therefore, the choice cannot be otherwise. Unless you wish to jettison your own idea of the chooser being the cause of the choice.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Quite the contrary, it makes perfect sense; you just don't like the ramifications. If there is only one self (law of identity at one moment in time), with only one set of characteristics, and not another self, then a self at the moment of choice can only choose in accord with those characteristics. Therefore, the choice cannot be otherwise. Unless you wish to jettison your own idea of the chooser being the cause of the choice.
So what is wrong with choosing according to those characteristics ?

Your statement still appears to make no sense
 

His clay

Well-known member
So what is wrong with choosing according to those characteristics ?

Your statement still appears to make no sense
Quite the contrary, it makes perfect sense; you just don't like it. Nothing is wrong with choosing according to those characteristics. Your question is presupposing a straw man. No one ever suggested that there was something "wrong with choosing according to those characteristics." I stated that those characteristics are those characteristics, and not other characteristics at the moment of choice (law of identity, remember?). Therefore, if the chooser is the cause of the choice, then the choice cannot be otherwise. Your own statement is at war with your own idea of freedom (ability to do otherwise).
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Quite the contrary, it makes perfect sense; you just don't like it. Nothing is wrong with choosing according to those characteristics. Your question is presupposing a straw man. No one ever suggested that there was something "wrong with choosing according to those characteristics." I stated that those characteristics are those characteristics, and not other characteristics at the moment of choice (law of identity, remember?). Therefore, if the chooser is the cause of the choice, then the choice cannot be otherwise. Your own statement is at war with your own idea of freedom (ability to do otherwise).


You have established no need for other than self in a free choice

You seem to be laboring under some assumption

Otherwise than what ?

Are you assuming there existed but one possible choice ?

what ?
 
Top