The principle of the skinned cat

[geebob]

The open view suggests that God may announce some prophecies that may have an absolute chance of occuring without fail. Now people have a hard time believing this for two reasons. If God does not have certainty about all of the events or circumstances, they may think that something will happen that may interfere with that thus bringing it about that the prophecy was false.

It is also suggested that God must know precisely how it will happen or he can't be certain that it will happen.

These two ideas may be sumed up with the following statement:

For want of the nail, the shoe was lost
For want of the shoe, the horse was lost
For want of the horse, the rider was lost
For want of the rider, the battle was lost


This describes a plausible circumstance but it does not have the logical strength to suggest that indeterminism must always result in total ignorance of the future.

To this, I submit the following counter example:

Now a man and his two children are stranded on a planet with these strange cat creatures. Being an interplanetary biologist, he knows that these cat like creatures have deadly poisonous skin. But it is the only thing edible on the planet and if he doesn't kill one of these cats, skin them and feed it to his children and himself, they will die.

So we know that the cat will be skinned. But there is more than one way to skin a cat. We don't have to know how the cat will be skinned and that doesn't change the fact that it will be skinned. The man could start at the head or the belly or the back, etc...


disclaimer: What kind of a weirdo came up with the saying "there's more than one way to skin a cat" anyway? Captain Ochre has informed me that this phrase actually has to do with catfish. However, I'm going to stick with my example the way it is. ;)

[efta777]

So you're saying that God's will has to be done, but the only thing that this entails is the end goal. The means is full of variables and can change, so long as the end goal is accomplished.
Is that an accurate representation?

[geebob]

for the most part. God can determine all sorts of things along the way as well. The point is lack of total *certainty does not in any way negate that any certainty can be had.

*and of course, inas much as we are talking about God this certainty is a metaphysical one (built into reality), not an epistemic one.

[efta777]

Okay then, I pretty much agree with you. I think the problem people have with this view is that they feel that it means God is limited, when in essence, he can have control over anything he wants, but it is a crucial element of his sovereignity and power that he is able to give us ANY control over our lives. It is a paradox to be sure, but the Bible's full of em.

[geebob]

word! :cheers:

[smilax]

I fully affirm that God does not necessarily ordain the means, and also that God does not have to control every single detail in order for His will to be accomplished. I deny, however, that God does not already know exactly what will happen, or that He takes risks, both of which I believe open theists affirm.

[geebob]

I deny, however, that God does not already know exactly what will happen, or that He takes risks, both of which I believe open theists affirm.

That's fine. This thread is merely about coherence as opposed to articulating why one position is better than the other.

[smilax]

I know. I posted that so you could smack me if I was misrepresenting the openness view.

[geebob]

:bonk:

that wasn't necessary. We smack people just for fun around here!

[GrayPilgrim]

And when has finished we can insert this to make sure you have been completely sedated!

[yxboom]

But if the skin is poisonous would you still skin the cat?

[dizzle]

Can I smack him or both of you actually just for fun?

[GrayPilgrim]

I vote...oh look an ostrich!

[Captain Ochre]

Captain Ochre has informed me that this phrase actually has to do with catfish. However, I'm going to stick with my example the way it is.

http://www.xmission.com/~emailbox/phrases.htm
http://members.aol.com/MorelandC/HaveOriginsData.htm#ToSkinACat

. . . though not uncontroversial, I find:
http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-mor1.htm

Just so's it doesn't look like hearsay.

[geebob]

chevrolaborski!

[Gavin]

What if God promises a certain means to and end, as well as the end?

[geebob]

he can do that. That doesn't mean all circumstances surrounding the means have to be determined.

And there is also the question as to how specific the means has to be.

[geebob]

Furthermore, you could take the skinned cat and get more specific with the means. The man has a scalpal, and he doesn't have any other utensil. Naturally he will use the scalpal, but there is still much up in the air.

[Gavin]

ok, so you are saying that God promises the messiah will be born of a virgin. But then Mary exercises her "open" free-will to back out on God's plan, and has an abortion. But God is not foiled because he pickc another virgin. After all, there are many ways to skin a cat.

Is that what you are saying?

[Ishmael]

02-27-2003 @ 12:50 PM
Gavin:

ok, so you are saying that God promises the messiah will be born of a virgin. But then Mary exercises her "open" free-will to back out on God's plan, and has an abortion. But God is not foiled because he pickc another virgin. After all, there are many ways to skin a cat.

Is that what you are saying?


Good question IMO.

This question illustrates the reason that both OV and the various kinds of Arminianism out there lose everytime in philosphical dialogue. If God's plans are dependent upon man's actions we are in trouble in a whole host of ways.

[Captain Ochre]

Calvinists teach that A&E had free will, yes? They did not have to sin. God made his redemptive plan contingent on the decisions of man at least once, right?

[Ishmael]

02-27-2003 @ 01:23 PM
Captain Ochre:

Calvinists teach that A&E had free will, yes? They did not have to sin. God made his redemptive plan contingent on the decisions of man at least once, right?

Calvinists believe that before he created Adam and Eve with "free will" he knew what their actions would be and ordered their rebellion for his own redeptive purposes.

On God's providence:

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

[geebob]

ok, so you are saying that God promises the messiah will be born of a virgin. But then Mary exercises her "open" free-will to back out on God's plan, and has an abortion. But God is not foiled because he pickc another virgin. After all, there are many ways to skin a cat.

That's one way to handle it, but I do not believe that God would have choosen mary if she was the type person who would do such a thing. My answer with mary would be more along the lines of libertarian free caracter developement with the hardening or maturing of hearts, something that is very biblical. The more mature or hardened a heart is, the more likely one will most certainly choose a certain way in a certain circumstance, and her heart was sufficiently mature that God knew he could count on her to carry through with the pregnancy. God couldn't know that with everyone becaus for many others, it would be a libertarian free choice. And most likely though, Mary wasn't the only one like this.

The example of the skinned cat is quite modest in it's goal. It merely shows that a determined event can quite comfortably fit with some indeterminate details. It doesn't propose to solve the issue of prophecies that involve free actions (the issue with hardening and maturing is geared towards that end, along with the statistical necessity that someone will respond sufficiently to God's grace), but it contributes to the cause pointing out that certainly, God can grasp far more complex situations that exibit similar attributes with the skinned cat situation.

Our xenobiologist is about to make quite a compatbilistic choice. We presume that he is psycologically healthy enough that he will choose to feed his children. He simply does not have libertarian freedom with regard to that choice. He cannot concieve of not choosing to feed his children. (Maybe if he took more drugs as a teenager and listened to enough grateful dead, the story would be different, but that's not the case in our example). But he nevertheless is going to make a libertarian free choice in carrying out his determined choice. And this wild card in no way shape or form threatens his resolve and his ability to carry through with it, (or at least God can know this knowing that the man has sufficient skill and his tools have sufficient strength).

[Gavin]

IMHO, the problems with this view, the skinned cat idea of prophetic fulfillments, are legion.

[Ishmael]

02-27-2003 @ 03:43 PM
geebob:
That's one way to handle it, but I do not believe that God would have choosen mary if she was the type person who would do such a thing. My answer with mary would be more along the lines of libertarian free caracter developement with the hardening or maturing of hearts, something that is very biblical. The more mature or hardened a heart is, the more likely one will most certainly choose a certain way in a certain circumstance, and her heart was sufficiently mature that God knew he could count on her to carry through with the pregnancy. God couldn't know that with everyone becaus for many others, it would be a libertarian free choice. And most likely though, Mary wasn't the only one like this.


This reminds me of the law of averages on the stock mocket. The only difference is that I can cite real data and prove that on average a good mutual fund will provide about 12% return.

To say that God is "playing the odds" like this is certainly unorthodox if not just plain heretical. Mary was part of God's sovereign plan of redemption not some cosmic growth where the odds where in his favor.

You guys will go to extremes to make God into your own image.


And this wild card in no way shape or form threatens his resolve and his ability to carry through with it, (or at least God can know this knowing that the man has sufficient skill and his tools have sufficient strength).

The only "wild card" is the one of human perspective. God knows how the cat will be skinned before we skin it.

[Jaltus]

Calvinists believe that before he created Adam and Eve with "free will" he knew what their actions would be and ordered their rebellion for his own redeptive purposes. How is God not evil then?

[geebob]

To say that God is "playing the odds" like this is certainly unorthodox if not just plain heretical.

To say that there is a statistical necessity is a far cry from what we mean by playing the odds playing the odds.

Is a chemist playing the odds when predicting how amino acids will interact? Hardly, inspite of the indeterminacy at the quantum level.

You guys will go to extremes to make God into your own image.

please, lets keep the rhetoric to a minimum.

The only "wild card" is the one of human perspective. God knows how the cat will be skinned before we skin it.

which, if true, contributes nothing to his certainty that the cat will be skinned.


Jaltus
How is God not evil then?

a most worthy question. I'm going to be a tyrant on the topic though so I'd ask that it not be dealt with here. My goal is very modest.

[Ishmael]

03-05-2003 @ 07:53 PM
Jaltus:

How is God not evil then?

God's foreknowledge and ordination of events does not negate man's free will (then pure now corrupted) and guilt before God for their rebellion.

[geebob]

God's foreknowledge and ordination of events does not negate man's free will (then pure now corrupted) and guilt before God for their rebellion.

AHEM please read my last comment to Jaltus in my post directly above yours

[Ishmael]

03-05-2003 @ 08:29 PM
geebob:



AHEM please read my last comment to Jaltus in my post directly above yours

Sorry. (at first I thought that your AHEM was AMEN... ):brow:

[Xmansmommy]

Sooooooo geebob, did the kids eat poisonous cat skin or not? :tongue: (I know this is pitiful but I've heard :yx: mention this thread a few times over the years but I just now finally read it. Shame! :blush:) Oh and if it was poisonous wouldn't it kill them anyway? :nsm:

[Sheepdog]

crud! Geebob, i meant to post a reply, and i accidently hit Edit. :doh: i managed to restore it from my Cache, but my apologies if i mangled the formatting.

[Sheepdog]

These two ideas may be sumed up with the following statement:

For want of the nail, the shoe was lost
For want of the shoe, the horse was lost
For want of the horse, the rider was lost
For want of the rider, the battle was lost

this is actually very interesting, as IMO it exemplifies what is often called Chaos theory. you may also be familiar of the example where the flapping of a butterfly's wing in South America causes a tornado in Texas.

This describes a plausible circumstance but it does not have the logical strength to suggest that indeterminism must always result in total ignorance of the future.

To this, I submit the following counter example:

Now a man and his two children are stranded on a planet with these strange cat creatures. Being an interplanetary biologist, he knows that these cat like creatures have deadly poisonous skin. But it is the only thing edible on the planet and if he doesn't kill one of these cats, skin them and feed it to his children and himself, they will die.

So we know that the cat will be skinned. But there is more than one way to skin a cat. We don't have to know how the cat will be skinned and that doesn't change the fact that it will be skinned. The man could start at the head or the belly or the back, etc...

It's possible, but unlikely, IMO. It's just that real world examples tend to be much more complicated, and the more variance involved, the more haze there is bound to be. perhaps this family chose to move into an area (unwittingly) that had high tectonic activity, and then the next day there is an earthquake that destroys them all.

to grant that sometimes an outcome is independant of given prior freewill choices is a whopper of something to concede. chaos theory alone works against it, where even the smallest deviation in a free choice can have monolithic consequances.

of course, there is a solution, but it would entail Middle Knowledge :wink:

[geebob]

this is actually very interesting, as IMO it exemplifies what is often called Chaos theory. you may also be familiar of the example where the flapping of a butterfly's wing in South America causes a tornado in Texas.

I think it is but I'm not sure.

It's possible, but unlikely, IMO. It's just that real world examples tend to be much more complicated, and the more variance involved, the more haze there is bound to be.

possibility is all I'm concerned with. and of course the world is more complex, but that doesn't negate that an open future indeterminism rules out that an omniscient knower can know some and even much of the future as settled (though of course not all of it).

the point is logical and it disproves a certain line of thinking. it doesn't disprove that chaos theory or determinism is false. it just disproves that some uncertainty leads to total uncertainty.

perhaps this family chose to move into an area (unwittingly) that had high tectonic activity, and then the next day there is an earthquake that destroys them all.

that they don't is part of the example. we're pretending to be omniscient about the family. actually, considering it is fictional family, we are omniscient concerning them... or at least we know everything that is significant with regard to their purpose in proving my point.

to grant that sometimes an outcome is independant of given prior freewill choices is a whopper of something to concede.

I didn't grant it. I proved it. I proved a possibility. whether or not that possibility holds is not the issue. the point is that it is possible.

chaos theory alone works against it, where even the smallest deviation in a free choice can have monolithic consequances.

chaos theory may not be true as surely as determinism might not be true (chaos theory is just a special brand of determinism). Or chaos theory may not describe all of reality though it would hold for some of it (which seems reasonable to me).

Furthermore, I have to wonder if even in chaos theory, some of the smallest deviations may be of no significant effect at all. In other words, even if a butterfly in japan can cause a huricane in florida, perhaps another butterfly in japan would've made no difference at all. But when we look at chaos theory, I know we've just focused on the first buterfly, because after all, it is the more interesting one and more significant one for many reasons. I could be wrong on this point. Perhaps every possible varience in any piece of minutia whatsoever would lead to major differences on the macro scale, but I intuit that that may be a logical impossibility imposed by the finitude of creation on so many levels.

[BenK]

I'm not OV myself, but I'm yet to see a decent objection brought against it except that an atemporal Arminian or Molinist model might be superior. Certainly the charge that God is not in control on an OVT model is nonsense. I God freely decides to make some things certainties and some things contingent on the choices of others then some things will be certain and other things contingent on the choices of others.

Indeed, I feel that God bringing his plans to pass while accomodating genuinely free choices of his creatures and allowing the consequences of those choices is a lot more glorious and 'sovereign' than simply predetermining everything from the get-go.

[Spokoina]

So you're saying that God's will has to be done, but the only thing that this entails is the end goal. The means is full of variables and can change, so long as the end goal is accomplished.
Is that an accurate representation?


This is an interesting proposition in light of the story of Moses.

God said to Moses that he would lead the nation into the promised land, yet we know he died in the wilderness due to failing to sanctify God in the eyes of the people, an issue that Moses struggled much with in face of the disobedience of the first generation Israelites.

And Moses was then asked to annoint Joshua to actually lead the people in afterwards.

In addition, the whole first generation, save the two faithful spies, entered Canaan due directly to their faithlessness in the wilderness. The second generation, born in the wilderness, who had no abilility to complain about what they missed in Egypt (ah..the leeks and watermelons...) were the ones who entered Egypt, not the ones who God made that promise for in particular.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

This is an interesting proposition in light of the story of Moses.

God said to Moses that he would lead the nation into the promised land, yet we know he died in the wilderness ...
I can't recall where God made such a promise to Moses, though...

The second generation, born in the wilderness ... were the ones who entered Egypt, not the ones who God made that promise for in particular.
But need we require that no one could die until they reach the promised land? And also no one could be born? Surely this means the people and their descendants, as many of them as made it to that time when God cleared the Jordan river...

Blessings,
Lee

[Arminian]

How is God not evil then?

Because anyone who skins or microwaves (or both) a cat has benefited society.

As Biblical theologian, you should know that there is a reason cats aren't mentioned in the Bible. (And, no, lions and tigers aren't included within the semantic range of "cat.")

[geebob]

as topic starter, I am going to be strict on staying on topic. please restrict comments to this very specific problem and/or my scenario and answer.

[Sheepdog]

i think in theory, it does work. however, i'm still suspicious that it generally wouldn't in reality, but that's ok. I figured OVers would traditionally say that where God said something would indubitably come about, He will actively ensure it does.

[geebob]

however, i'm still suspicious that it generally wouldn't in reality, but that's ok. I figured OVers would traditionally say that where God said something would indubitably come about, He will actively ensure it does.

two points here:

note, that the delemma here isn't with regard to God's foreknowledge based on his own decisions. his decisions may be relevent, but this is about predicting the actions of free creatures inspite of an open future. Note a subtle point here, it is predicting the actions of free creatures, but NOT the specific FREE actions of those creatures. They are not free with respect to one action, but that doesn't mean that they aren't free with respect to other actions.

Now assuming that an open future interpretation of reality is correct, I wouldn't even give it to you that this wouldn't generally apply. I would insist that it was rather common and easy to point to many examples that easily fit this description of reality. perhaps it would be a bit much to say it was generally a rule, but still it would be common.

Consider an alcoholic: will he drink tonight or won't he? Well, supposing he's on a downward spiral and having no desire at all to do anything about it, for this night, we know that he will drink, but if he has a libertarian free choice of several favorite bars, it doesn't change the outcome. and of course, that might be predictability for a night, a week, or so on in the midst of many related libertarian free choices

A whole branches of sciences, the social sciences are aimed at predicting human behavior, but of course they aren't completely successful and we'd say that's in part because of the role of free will. But they still do have some success.

[Sheepdog]

two points here:

note, that the delemma here isn't with regard to God's foreknowledge based on his own decisions. his decisions may be relevent, but this is about predicting the actions of free creatures inspite of an open future. Note a subtle point here, it is predicting the actions of free creatures, but NOT the specific FREE actions of those creatures. They are not free with respect to one action, but that doesn't mean that they aren't free with respect to other actions.

granted. i'm willing to premit such rare circumstances even in my view.

Now assuming that an open future interpretation of reality is correct, I wouldn't even give it to you that this wouldn't generally apply. I would insist that it was rather common and easy to point to many examples that easily fit this description of reality. perhaps it would be a bit much to say it was generally a rule, but still it would be common.

Consider an alcoholic: will he drink tonight or won't he? Well, supposing he's on a downward spiral and having no desire at all to do anything about it, for this night, we know that he will drink, but if he has a libertarian free choice of several favorite bars, it doesn't change the outcome. and of course, that might be predictability for a night, a week, or so on in the midst of many related libertarian free choices

ok, taht's a good real-world example. i'll withdraw the comment in my last post.

[infide]

two points here:

note, that the delemma here isn't with regard to God's foreknowledge based on his own decisions. his decisions may be relevent, but this is about predicting the actions of free creatures inspite of an open future. Note a subtle point here, it is predicting the actions of free creatures, but NOT the specific FREE actions of those creatures. They are not free with respect to one action, but that doesn't mean that they aren't free with respect to other actions.

Now assuming that an open future interpretation of reality is correct, I wouldn't even give it to you that this wouldn't generally apply. I would insist that it was rather common and easy to point to many examples that easily fit this description of reality. perhaps it would be a bit much to say it was generally a rule, but still it would be common.

Consider an alcoholic: will he drink tonight or won't he? Well, supposing he's on a downward spiral and having no desire at all to do anything about it, for this night, we know that he will drink, but if he has a libertarian free choice of several favorite bars, it doesn't change the outcome. and of course, that might be predictability for a night, a week, or so on in the midst of many related libertarian free choices

A whole branches of sciences, the social sciences are aimed at predicting human behavior, but of course they aren't completely successful and we'd say that's in part because of the role of free will. But they still do have some success.

Its amazing how quickly OVT turns to CFW to solve the problems of their theology. Isnt Molina's theory a more moderate concession than Calvin's?

otherwise, OVT just turns out to be Calvinism which denies God foreknowledge. you might as well be a Calvinist if you dont have a problem with CFW as a means for God to predict human behavior.

nor do many prophecies seem to be explainable via CFW.

peace.

[Jillyn'Toast]

My opinion on this is God knows us well enough to know our choices, so he knows the future end and all possibilites by default. Such as, if your mother takes you to an ice cream store, she'll ask you which flavor you want. She knows you will chose chocolate because its your preference and personality to chose chocolate. She offers you a choice, giving you free will to change your mind if you want, but knowing what you will chose.

Also, slightly off topic, God plays on our level. We can't know the future end and possibilites, so it's hard to really have a concept of what that means. We think chronologically. In our minds point 3 can never preceed point 1 or 2, for the obvious reason that logical this is how things work. But for God, he's not bound by time, so point 1, 2, or 3 are all the same. He knows what point 3 already is and he knows which other points will lead to it.

[geebob]

Jill,


the topic is how God can know some of the future as certain if some parts of the future are open. I know you disagree that free will implies an open futuer, and you think it's just a matter of God knowing us well enough, but that doesn't matter with regard to the topic. you can still consider whether the type of arguement suggested at the beginning of the thread is a good or bad arguement against the open view and you can consider whether my counterexamples demonstrate that the arguement is bad.

but I can't resist and I'll just say this briefly. your example simply does not apply to a really interesting mental event where we think we might choose one way and we might choose another. choices from habit and force of personality do not make the best examples for true libertarian freedom. that is all I will say in this thread along those lines.

Infide,


if God can predict a choice, then that choice is not libertarian, and it's not free either. of course you disagree, but this thread is about the open view and we are dealing with that claim.

None of what I've said could be construed otherwise.

In my examples, the father is not free with regard to feeding of his children. He is psycologically compelled to do so. but free action (and hence unpredictable action) still can play a role without interfering with the certainty of that end. How he accomplishes this end may perfectly be up in the air and open until he decides how to go about it.

the alcoholic isn't free either with regard to whether he will drink or not on that specific night of the example. now that doesn't mean that he is never free with regard to his alcoholism. If his friends and family confront him at an intervention, then he may be greeted with a true libertarian moment at that time (and of course other events may also bring about a libertarian moment with regard to his habit, such as an accident or shock at his own behavior after a particularly bad incident). but otherwise, he is not always free with his alcoholism, and hence many of his behaviors are predictable with certainty.

Now if I said the predictable events were free, then I'd be a compatibilist (as they are determined in my examples and interpretation).

off topic/ I am as of this writing halfway done with your post in the grounding objection thread