Non-theistic Moral Realism

[seer]

I am asking you, because your belief in Arminian framework does not resolve the problem of determinism in the Theistic worldview where everything in the future is set in concrete by God's foreknowledge.



First, in this belief Free Will is first limited by 'Original Sin,' and than God's foreknowledge of the future is exhaustive and complete, therefore the assertion of libertarian free will is a mere illusion, and human future choices are already fixed by God's foreknowledge.

That is false, God's knowledge does not determine our acts. Knowledge is not causation. From your link:

Man has a freed will to respond or resist: Free will is granted and limited by God's sovereignty, but God's sovereignty allows all men the choice to accept the Gospel of Jesus through faith, simultaneously allowing all men to resist.

God's foreknowledge of the future is exhaustive and complete, and therefore the future is certain and not contingent on human action. God does not determine the future, but He does know it. God's certainty and human contingency are compatible.

[shunyadragon]

That is false, God's knowledge does not determine our acts. Knowledge is not causation. From your link:

I did not say God determines our acts. I said;

First, in this belief Free Will is first limited by 'Original Sin,' and than God's foreknowledge of the future is exhaustive and complete, therefore the assertion of libertarian free will is a mere illusion, and human future choices are already fixed by God's foreknowledge.

[Tassman]

That is false, God's knowledge does not determine our acts. Knowledge is not causation. From your link:

An omniscient deity has foreknowledge of everything therefore, by definition, all human decisions must be determined. Determinism of necessity applies, whether it is a deity that started the process or nature. All our decisions therefore have only the illusion of free-will...although they play a key role as part of the causal stream of determinism.

[shunyadragon]

An omniscient deity has foreknowledge of everything therefore, by definition, all human decisions must be determined. Determinism of necessity applies, whether it is a deity that started the process or nature. All our decisions therefore have only the illusion of free-will...although they play a key role as part of the causal stream of determinism.

Also the omniscient Deity not only has foreknowledge of everything from the point of the Creation, but is also than the determiner of everything that is Created including the intent, purpose, goals, and the ultimate destiny of all the events of history in both the Calvinist and Arminian beliefs.

In either belief systems, or any version in between or version, any concept of free will libertarian or even fatalism is an illusion of hypocritical delusions.

You might consider 'open theism' which is the more real and logical alternative to ancient mythical world views that do not have any remote rational objective vision of the reality of the world as it is.

[seer]

I did not say God determines our acts. I said;

First, in this belief Free Will is first limited by 'Original Sin,' and than God's foreknowledge of the future is exhaustive and complete, therefore the assertion of libertarian free will is a mere illusion, and human future choices are already fixed by God's foreknowledge.

Shuny your own link on Arminianism confirmed what I said, that we do believe in free will - limited yes, and in need of God's grace, yes, I never claimed otherwise. And we don't believe that God's foreknowledge is a causal factor in our choices. Knowing and causing are two different things. As a matter the Bahai belief in free will is very close to the Arminian view:

http://www.bahai.org/library/authori...s/#r=saq_en-70

Your religion does not teach that free will is an illusion, and you too believe that God's foreknowledge is exhaustive.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny your own link on Arminianism confirmed what I said, that we do believe in free will - limited yes, and in need of God's grace, yes, I never claimed otherwise. And we don't believe that God's foreknowledge is a causal factor in our choices. Knowing and causing are two different things.

As a matter the Bahai belief in free will is very close to the Arminian view:

http://www.bahai.org/library/authori...s/#r=saq_en-70

Your religion does not teach that free will is an illusion, and you too believe that God's foreknowledge is exhaustive.

As a matter of fact the above is false concerning the Baha'i view.

I never said I did not believe in 'free will,' and I describe it as 'potential free will,' in part because it is obvious for the most part humans do not exercise their 'free will,' and as Tassman correctly concluded it is difficult if not impossible for fallible humans to distinguish the degree of what is determined in terms of our decision making process. No, Baha'i scripture does not describe foreknowledge as exhaustive and complete. The Baha'i scripture describes two types; decreed and conditional or impending.

[cite=http://www.bahaiquotes.com/quotepage.php?Quotes%2FFate]

The Theological belief of 'Open Theism' is more descriptive of the Baha'i view.

[Tassman]

we do believe in free will - limited yes, and in need of God's grace, yes, I never claimed otherwise.

[seer]

That does not follow Tass, when I speak of limits I'm speaking largely of a man's relation to God. We can not approach God until He first draws us. The Arminian doctrine of Prevenient grace. I do for instance believe that a man has the ability to murder or not murder. He is therefore responsible for his actions. And I don't know of any one who holds to Libertarianism that does not believe that there are some restrictions on our will. Perhaps you do.

[seer]

The Theological belief of 'Open Theism' is more descriptive of the Baha'i view.

Actually, I read some of your writings over the weekend. It seems to be an open question - basically we do not know. But do you really believe that God does not know the future?

[shunyadragon]

Actually, I read some of your writings over the weekend. It seems to be an open question - basically we do not know.

This by far your best answer, your original assertion concerning the beliefs of the Baha'i Faith

But do you really believe that God does not know the future?

Concerning the Ariminian nor Calvinist belief in all their variations no. The Baha'i belief is very much compatible with 'Open Theism,' and compatibilism. The belief in the potential of 'Free Will' in the human decision making process is more realistic of actual 'Free Will' than the belief where God has complete and exhaustive foreknowledge.

In the Baha'i Faith the framework of Creation is predetermined largely by the constraints of Natural Law (determinism), but individual events and human decisions are not entirely known, and there is variation in the outcome of natural events (chaos variation) and the potential free will of human decisions. This is classic 'Open Theism.'

[seer]

In the Baha'i Faith the framework of Creation is predetermined largely by the constraints of Natural Law (determinism), but individual events and human decisions are not entirely known, and there is variation in the outcome of natural events (chaos variation) and the potential free will of human decisions. This is classic 'Open Theism.'

No Shuny, that is not Open Theism, which does not focus on chaos variation, but on God's foreknowledge. Open Theism takes free will as a given.

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, that is not Open Theism, which does not focus on chaos variation, but on God's foreknowledge. Open Theism takes free will as a given.

You are not reading my post and responding fully. The Baha'i view and mine consider free will a given and is compatible with open theism, and not remotely the view of Arminian beliefs.

Actually, in the Arminian concept God has complete and exhaustive knowledge of ALL natural events and human choices and destiny. The Baha'i belief and mine is compatible with the nature of events of our physical existence having a natural variation of events that show a chaos variation within the known and determined Creation framework of God, and not completely known by God's foreknowledge.

[seer]

You are not reading my post and responding fully. The Baha'i view and mine consider free will a given and is compatible with open theism, and not remotely the view of Arminian beliefs.

Actually, in the Arminian concept God has complete and exhaustive knowledge of ALL natural events and human choices and destiny. The Baha'i belief and mine is compatible with the nature of events of our physical existence having a natural variation of events that show a chaos variation within the known and determined Creation framework of God, and not completely known by God's foreknowledge.

Actually from what I read this weekend, the Bahai faith takes no certain position on God's foreknowledge. Do you have a link where they do?

[shunyadragon]

Actually from what I read this weekend, the Bahai faith takes no certain position on God's foreknowledge. Do you have a link where they do?

Gave the link in the previous citation:

Source: http://www.bahaiquotes.com/quotepage.php?Quotes%2FFate

. . . one is decreed, and the other is conditional or impending. The decreed fate is that which cannot change or be altered, and conditional fate is that which may occur.

© Copyright Original Source

It is obvious and clear from this citation, and the others in the reference that God does not have exhaustive and complete foreknowledge of all human decisions and events in the history of humanity in that there are both decreed fate that cannot be changed, and conditional fate which may or may not occur, and NOT subject to God's foreknowledge. This is by definition 'Open Theism.'

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism

. . . open theism says that since God and humans are free, God's knowledge is dynamic and God's providence flexible. While several versions of traditional theism picture God's knowledge of the future as a singular, fixed trajectory, open theism sees it as a plurality of branching possibilities, with some possibilities becoming settled as time moves forward.[5][6] Thus, the future as well as God's knowledge of it is open (hence "open" theism).

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

Gave the link in the previous citation:

Source: http://www.bahaiquotes.com/quotepage.php?Quotes%2FFate

. . . one is decreed, and the other is conditional or impending. The decreed fate is that which cannot change or be altered, and conditional fate is that which may occur.

© Copyright Original Source

It is obvious and clear from this citation, and the others in the reference that God does not have exhaustive and complete foreknowledge of all human decisions and events in the history of humanity in that there are both decreed fate that cannot be changed, and conditional fate which may or may not occur, and NOT subject to God's foreknowledge. This is by definition 'Open Theism.'

No it is not clear at all, from your link:

The foreknowledge of a thing is not the cause of its realization; for the essential knowledge of God surrounds, in the same way, the realities of things, before as well as after their existence, and it does not become the cause of their existence. It is a perfection of God. But that which was prophesied by the inspiration of God through the tongues of the Prophets, concerning the appearance of the Promised One of the Bible, was not the cause of the manifestation of Christ.
The hidden secrets of the future were revealed to the Prophets, and They thus became acquainted with the future events which They announced. This knowledge and these prophecies were not the cause of the occurrences. For example, tonight everyone knows that after seven hours the sun will rise, but this general foreknowledge does not cause the rising and appearance of the sun.
Therefore, the knowledge of God in the realm of contingency does not produce the forms of the things. On the contrary, it is purified from the past, present and future. It is identical with the reality of the things; it is not the cause of their occurrence.
In the same way, the record and the mention of a thing in the Book does not become the cause of its existence. The Prophets, through the divine inspiration, knew what would come to pass. For instance, through the divine inspiration They knew that Christ would be martyred, and They announced it. Now, was Their knowledge and information the cause of the martyrdom of Christ? No; this knowledge is a perfection of the Prophets and did not cause the martyrdom

So your own link agrees with me that God's foreknowledge does not mean causation.