WL Craig on God's foreknowledge

[Mindlab Expositor]

I fully agree that it is worthless to quibble about semantics, but; if God sees space/time as "a 3d object" from the outside, is he then still not the creator of said "object"? I don't see how he is now any more excused from accusations of being "the author of sin" than he was before.

I think you're correct. That is why I think Christian anti-apologetics should be focused on showing the faults of the Reformed perspectives out there (if the goal is to hit Christianity between the eyes).

In other words, you hack at the branches when dealing with guys like Craig. When you hack away at Reformed Christianity, you're hacking away at the roots.

 

[Mindlab Expositor]

...I don't see how he is now any more excused from accusations of being "the author of sin" than he was before.

https://presupp101.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/van-til-evil-and-theodicy.pdf

This article, written by Van Til, was the last article I read from Christianity before I gave it up. It directly addresses the comment above. However, instead of offering an intellectually satisfying explanation, you'll be left with the conclusion: We don't know why God caused evil to happen. We just have to trust that God is bigger, wiser, and stronger.

BTW, this article also discusses the theology of Augustine and Calvin. Calvin's response was especially entertaining. He was afraid of a magisterial use of the knowledge he gained on this subject because he was afraid of hell.

 

[Underseer]

The timeless thing is bizarre.

I'm guessing he started the "timeless, changeless" thing in order to explain away some other problem, but WLC doesn't seem to notice it creates a whole new one. Being sentient means having thoughts. Having thoughts involves some kind of change in time in the state of your mind. So by saying that his invisible friend is "timeless" and "changeless," he is suggesting that his invisible friend isn't sentient, but rather is some kind of brainless natural force that exists outside the universe and acts on it.

But that's still not as stupid as trying to disprove special relativity with a syllogism.

 

[Mindlab Expositor]

The timeless thing is bizarre.

I'm guessing he started the "timeless, changeless" thing in order to explain away some other problem, but WLC doesn't seem to notice it creates a whole new one. Being sentient means having thoughts. Having thoughts involves some kind of change in time in the state of your mind. So by saying that his invisible friend is "timeless" and "changeless," he is suggesting that his invisible friend isn't sentient, but rather is some kind of brainless natural force that exists outside the universe and acts on it.

But that's still not as stupid as trying to disprove special relativity with a syllogism.

The omnitemporality and immutability of God were not made up by Craig.

Guys like Craig are not stupid. They're just wrong. I don't think he is doing on purpose the mental gymnastics we know we see him doing.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The idea that God is not bound by time and created time goes back to Plato and was taken up by Augustine. Its one of those delightful ideas that creates a problem for the concept of God no matter how you answer the question, what is God's relationship with time.
IF time is in fact outside and beyond God's control, what else is also outside and beyond God and where does all of that come from? Could it be all comes from physics and there is no God?

 

[bilby]

The timeless thing is bizarre.

I'm guessing he started the "timeless, changeless" thing in order to explain away some other problem, but WLC doesn't seem to notice it creates a whole new one. Being sentient means having thoughts. Having thoughts involves some kind of change in time in the state of your mind. So by saying that his invisible friend is "timeless" and "changeless," he is suggesting that his invisible friend isn't sentient, but rather is some kind of brainless natural force that exists outside the universe and acts on it.

But that's still not as stupid as trying to disprove special relativity with a syllogism.

The omnitemporality and immutability of God were not made up by Craig.

Guys like Craig are not stupid. They're just wrong. I don't think he is doing on purpose the mental gymnastics we know we see him doing.

Performing mental gymnastics on this scale simply to avoid admitting that you are wrong is very definitely stupid.

That said, I get the feeling that he knows he is wrong, and that he thinks that he can fool others by hiding the facts from them behind a wall of needless complexity. In which case he is not stupid, so much as he is vile.

I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he is stupid. But that's only me being kind to him.

 

[Mindlab Expositor]

The omnitemporality and immutability of God were not made up by Craig.

Guys like Craig are not stupid. They're just wrong. I don't think he is doing on purpose the mental gymnastics we know we see him doing.

Performing mental gymnastics on this scale simply to avoid admitting that you are wrong is very definitely stupid.

That said, I get the feeling that he knows he is wrong, and that he thinks that he can fool others by hiding the facts from them behind a wall of needless complexity. In which case he is not stupid, so much as he is vile.

I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he is stupid. But that's only me being kind to him.

Are you saying that Craig is either vile or stupid because you feel like you know what he is thinking?

 

[bilby]

Performing mental gymnastics on this scale simply to avoid admitting that you are wrong is very definitely stupid.

That said, I get the feeling that he knows he is wrong, and that he thinks that he can fool others by hiding the facts from them behind a wall of needless complexity. In which case he is not stupid, so much as he is vile.

I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he is stupid. But that's only me being kind to him.

Are you saying that Craig is either vile or stupid because you feel like you know what he is thinking?

No, I am saying that he is either vile or stupid, and that while it is kinder to imagine him to be stupid, I am tempted to think he is vile because I feel like I know what he is thinking. I admit that I could be wrong, and that he might be stupid, rather than vile.

 

[Wiploc]

... while it is kinder to imagine him to be stupid ...

When his argument is bad enough, one gives the benefit of the doubt by assume he's lying. And he is anyway far from stupid.

 

[Mindlab Expositor]

Are you saying that Craig is either vile or stupid because you feel like you know what he is thinking?

No, I am saying that he is either vile or stupid, and that while it is kinder to imagine him to be stupid, I am tempted to think he is vile because I feel like I know what he is thinking. I admit that I could be wrong, and that he might be stupid, rather than vile.

...

 

[bilby]

No, I am saying that he is either vile or stupid, and that while it is kinder to imagine him to be stupid, I am tempted to think he is vile because I feel like I know what he is thinking. I admit that I could be wrong, and that he might be stupid, rather than vile.

...

That's easy for you to say.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The omnitemporality and immutability of God were not made up by Craig.

Guys like Craig are not stupid. They're just wrong. I don't think he is doing on purpose the mental gymnastics we know we see him doing.

Performing mental gymnastics on this scale simply to avoid admitting that you are wrong is very definitely stupid.

That said, I get the feeling that he knows he is wrong, and that he thinks that he can fool others by hiding the facts from them behind a wall of needless complexity. In which case he is not stupid, so much as he is vile.

One can be intelligent and deluded, which I think some of these apologists are. They have convinced themselves that they can parse away issues with theology via the English Language and slight of tongue. So instead of vile, they are just overly impressed with themselves and the arguments they have crafted.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Y ou know, all things considered, i think i'd rather have Yvonne Craig's position on God's foreknowledge. At least something on screen might attract my interest....

 

[Mindlab Expositor]

Y ou know, all things considered, i think i'd rather have Yvonne Craig's position on God's foreknowledge. At least something on screen might attract my interest....

Here you go.

 

[Malintent]

Y ou know, all things considered, i think i'd rather have Yvonne Craig's position on God's foreknowledge. At least something on screen might attract my interest....

Here you go.

View attachment 2680

you owe me 2 eyeballs!

 

[jab]

(emphasis added)

Except Craig is not just saying "if" God is in time or not. He is saying both that God actually does exist in and out of time.

In the parts I quoted earlier, he says as a response to the letter writer:

Your question presupposes that God exists in time, as we do. But if God exists timelessly, He does not have literal foreknowledge.

Admittedly, I am reading into that statement that Craig is asserting that God exists timelessly. His whole point in making that statement does not make sense unless he were saying so. He asserts that the letter writer presupposes a certain point (which people usually do when they are about to dispute that presupposition), and he also starts his next sentence with a "But" and then goes on to defend that conflicting claim that disputes the letter-writer.


Later on he states his other point explicitly instead:

But suppose we think, as I do, that God does exist at every time that there is and so does literally foreknow the future.

He is not just saying "if" he believes that, but is saying bluntly that that is what he believes.



So admittedly I am inferring a certain position of Craig, but I think it is a reasonable inference in this case, as there really is no point in him making those statements if he was not defending them. Also, the way he phrased it, made it sound like he was describing his position that he actually holds, not just describing an alternative (that he happens to not hold anyway).

Brian

The "if" in the first statement is equivocal. does it mean, If (as I believe). . . then God does have foreknowledge. Or does it mean: one way to answer the question is to take the position, which some take, but not I, . . . then God would not have foreknowledge."
It is interesting to speculate that "God", supposedly omniscient, can not, by some definition of It (aka as "Him"), can not experience a certain form of knowledge--"foreknowledge."

 

[apeman]

I can't see why God's foreknowledge is incompatible with my free will. God's knowledge of my future acts is based on His being there when/after it happens ( assuming He exists in all time /He also exists outside of time). So , in other words , He knows what I will do from the perspective of the future but that in no way implies that I have to make a particular choice, only that He knows what it will be because He has seen it then.

I suppose for a timeless being "foreknowledge" is the wrong word, every moment in time exists as "now" for Him.

 

[Wiploc]

I can't see why God's foreknowledge is incompatible with my free will. God's knowledge of my future acts is based on His being there when/after it happens ( assuming He exists in all time /He also exists outside of time). So , in other words , He knows what I will do from the perspective of the future but that in no way implies that I have to make a particular choice, only that He knows what it will be because He has seen it then.

I suppose for a timeless being "foreknowledge" is the wrong word, every moment in time exists as "now" for Him.

If we're talking about Craig's theories, god isn't timeless now. When time exists, god is timely; but "before" time, god was timeless. He never yet existed in our future. He doesn't remember the future, he knows it magically.

 

[Underseer]

Craig is an idiot.

Anyone who stops and thinks about it knows that God is not outside time, but outside logic. That is how he was able to cause the existence of the universe before time existed! By existing outside of logic, he could completely bypass the rules regarding how the law of cause and effect works, which is why it was possible for him to have a before before time itself existed!

You stupid atheists don't understand because you're so illogical.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Anyone who stops and thinks about it knows that God is not outside time, but outside logic.
....
You stupid atheists don't understand because you're so illogical.

Illogical -- in other words, god-like.