Thibodaux refuses to accept the fact that he is wrong. So, he has another attempt to show us why he is wrong again:
Our dearest n00b objector shows amazing endurance in shoveling out more silliness. It’s just as easily dismissed.
He means he ignores it because he doesn’t have any meaningful response to it.
@So, you have to further explain where the fault is with my argument.
Already done in showing that God is the Arbiter of what is correct (see above). Any variance from the Arbiter’s definition, by definition, would be incorrect.
God isn’t the ultimate arbiter of what is correct on your view. It is the case that other things have that power(our ability to make it true if we choose one way or another).
@Those are men that all agreed with the points I provided from them. So, Thibodaux is a doofus to think I’m redefining something.
So, no specifics, no argument for his redefinition of terms, just appeal to the opinions of a small set of scholars culminating in an ad hominem. *Sigh.* That’s about the level of n00bish nonsense we’ve come to expect.
I never redefined aseity and I quoted sources that agreed with what I’ve stated about aseity. Those quotations were provided here:
http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2019/09/11/innate-vs-self-imposed-dependencies/
Now, Thibodaux was reminded that I quoted these things in previous articles:
http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2019/09/24/self-imposed-illusions/
He has chosen willful ignorance because he chooses not to actually understand anything I’ve presented through these articles.
@Doesn’t everything ultimately result because God chose to create? That is, that God ultimately came up with this possible world and instantiated it knowing that every evil that would occur in it would come to pass. So, reductio, Arminianism core tenents entail God is the author of sin.
Creating a world knowing that people will of themselves choose evil isn’t authoring sin, because the choice to commit iniquity originates in man, not God. It’s a flat-out error to conflate creation of free agents with those agents making their own choices.
Well, determinists think people make their own choices. So, that doesn’t actually distinguish your position from any other position. But I think it still applies because God instantiated a world in which he knew that the agents would act in such a way that they would do massive amounts of evil. In other words, every idea originates with God because man can only think God’s thoughts after him. Every action God does he intends to do. The action to create the world and it contain every evil that would befall this world was God’s choice. God, therefore, intended a world in which man does evil.
@There is no difference between your view of Libertarian Freedom and that of an Open Theist. You are both libertarians holding probably the principle of alternative possibilities or ultimate sourcehood versions of LFW.
The Open Theist view of freedom ALSO entails that God can’t know the result of our freedom in choice-making until they occur in time (which runs contrary to Christ predicting Peter’s denial, etc), hence the name *OPEN THEIST.* This is why “you sound kinda of sorta maybe like [insert some heresy]!” is nothing more than an association fallacy.
I’ve heard no significant metaphysical difference between your view of freedom and an Open Theist. You may assert that God knows the future but only inconsistently.
@He criticizes me for a made-up definition of aseity but you can pour through all my books containing the topic of aseity and notice that none of them have the made-up distinction of self-imposed dependencies and it’s a distinction from innate independence.
Because apparently, lack of evidence (in one set of books, no less) is somehow evidence. Cue the facepalms.
The validity of my distinction is already proven by sound argument in this post: God cannot unmake Abraham due to His faithful nature; God now requires that Abraham exist and is therefore dependent upon Abraham in some sense (albeit, by His own will). QED
I just pointed out the irony and hypocrisy of your constant claim that I’ve made up a definition of aseity and that you have your own made-up distinctions. But I’ve never stated the distinction was invalid because you made it up but rather it is irrelevant. But that also means my definition of aseity(which is ideas from Dutch reformed thinkers) shouldn’t be dismissed either.
@P1. Either Self-Imposed Dependacies deal with the ontology of God or they do not.
P2. If they don’t, then they are irrelevant to conversations about the onology of God.
…Okay, dude, you either think it is relevant to a conversation about the ontology of God or you don’t.
God is who He is whether He takes any such dependencies or not, so such dependencies as I describe do not alter His quality of existence, nature, etc (ontology).
Ah, so they are irrelevant as I’ve pointed out several times. That means you should stop talking about them and move to other ideas.
@This is like arguing with someone that believes that God is omniscience but has self-imposed ignorance upon himself(like many JW’s believe) but still is completely omniscient.
I said nothing about self-imposed ignorance, knowing and not-knowing the same things, etc. Yet another obvious association fallacy. I’m starting to think this guy just writes whatever goes through his head without bothering to check if it makes any sense.
It’s called an analogy. I may need to learn how to write but this man needs to learn how to read. The keyword is “like”.
@How can God’s nature not change and him be temporal?
Because He’s both transcendent and immanent. Also, Christ as a man was inarguably temporal in some respects in that He went through all the changes that normal men do, but His divine existence and nature were fundamentally unaltered.
Notice that Christ changed via his human nature and his divine nature was unaffected. Basically, this just means that each person of the Trinity on your view has an incarnate form. Another nature in which they take to interact with the world. That was what I was stating. So, God has two natures. A divine and a created. That was all I was trying to get across. But think God changes and is unchanging in the same nature is contradictory.
@So, as someone once said it to me, “Divine Wisdom” and “God” are co-referential. To speak about God’s omniscience is just to speak about God.
Just as who God is faithful to isn’t the attribute of faithfulness itself, knowing specifics about us isn’t the attribute of omniscience. The idea that God innately knows everything about us has already perished on the rocks of my deductive proof:
This is a flat out rejection of aseity because God’s knowledge is derivative from some external reality. That makes God dependent upon that external reality to possess all the knowledge he does(foreknowledge isn’t identical to omniscience but it is apart of it). So you just have to give up either aseity or Arminian theories of foreknowledge.
@where in this article have you done that that I’ve not already responded to and shown that you were wrong?
Pretty much all of it. Showing that I’m incorrect would require some sort of actual evidence or sound argument, not the sputtering torrent of n00bish fallacies and sophistry he’s presented thus far (see the NAME THAT FALLACY above for a hilarious sampling).
You’ve been refuted multiple times.
The Council 