Comments on: The Faith-Crippling Doctrine of Absolute Foreknowledge

By: Jeff G

Jeff G — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:46:16 +0000

Hey guys, I picked up this thread of thought in a recent post if any one still cares.

By: Matt W.

Matt W. — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:18:11 +0000

BHodges: What drives me nuts is when I feel like we were on the brink of really figuring things out, and then, *poof* the thread died. That’s why I appreciate your resurrecting some of these lines of thought so much.

By: BrianJ

BrianJ — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 05:04:20 +0000

BHodges: I admire your fortitude. My brain still hurts from the last time I backtracked a thread here (and on Splendid Sun).

By: BHodges

BHodges — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 21:49:43 +0000

I made it!

By: BHodges

BHodges — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 19:45:44 +0000

Regarding Geoff’s 428:

(And yes I realize that this stuff is getting off the foreknowledge topic but since weâ€™re in the 400s now I doubt anybody but us will read this anyway)

WRONG! Now get back on topic for the love of Pete.

Jacob: The most irritating part is the quick “go read this post, we already talked about that aspect” comments, when I am linked to something else with a hundred or so comments. Yeesh! Still, they are very interesting. It is something like leaving the bag of food open and available to the hungry dog. He’ll eat himself sick.

By: Jacob J

Jacob J — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 00:03:01 +0000

BHodges, I’m just impressed at your fortitude so far in plowing through old posts. Reading the exchange with Heli reminds me why discussing this often makes me want to tear my hair out (and other people’s).

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:41:00 +0000

Hehe. This argument has generated thousands of comments at various thread BHodges. Thankfully the side I’m on wins.

By: BHodges

BHodges — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:17:03 +0000

dammit I get all the way to comment 300 and there is a pingback to a thread on T&S with 200+ more comments on the subject.

By: Blake

Blake — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:59:56 +0000

Mark: I’m merely pushing your notion of natural law. I don’t think it is clearly articulated. Until you have a notion of what a natural law beyond mere regularity, the discussion of whether God can contravene natural law has no meaning.

As I said previously, given my quasi-Aristotelian view of law and my agape view of ethics, it is clear why wickedness isn’t happiness: it is contrary to the nature of our flourishing and growth to be as God is. As eternal entities, we have the capacity to be as God and we have a nature that fixes what we must do to realize that nature. However, it also requires God’s intervention and active involvement. The problem that your view has is that it doesn’t seem to require God’s action at all. It is all a matter of natural law and I suppose natural evolution?

By: Mark D.

Mark D. — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:17:45 +0000

Blake,

I think the whole argument you summarized in #475 is an epistemological fallacy. The fact that we do not know whether our knowledge is complete enough to know whether what we believe to be a natural law admits of exceptions does not imply that there are no exception free laws.

The same sort of fallacy lead Karl Popper to conclude that it was not rational to believe that the sun would come up again in the morning – on the basis that it was impossible to confirm any theory through empirical evidence.

Do you believe that there may be cases where wickedness really might be happiness? Or where God might vanish from existence? Or where we could be saved without a suffering atonement?