Recently, Chris Fisher has chosen to “respond” to my article. The video starts with a dance video and like most things about this video he disappoints us with a lesser quality one than in his first response to me. He starts with the So-called substance of his video complaining about the title of the article I wrote. I think that’s a moment where those that live in glass houses shouldn’t throw boulders. I didn’t know we were dealing with creative titles with the “God is open” folks. This sounds as if your website is dedicated to the issue of a bi-curious deity. He states that my title isn’t welcoming to those of his perspective. He thinks it is a bit too polemical(while his website isn’t?).
He wisely notes that I’m a fanatic. I’m obsessed with the subject of Open Theism. I have written two and soon to be three articles about open theism. Of course, this man like most can’t see his blatant hypocrisy. Fisher only spends hours of his time to write hundreds of articles on his one topic website dedicated to his pet peeve issue.
Chris shows that he doesn’t think about what he states on his shows before he does them. He has two criticisms of me that contradict one another. On the one hand, I’m doubling down on these passages and standing in my defeat. On the other hand, I’m going back and changing what I’ve stated. So, either I’m doubling down on my position or I’m changing out my position. Chris sinks his own boat. Don’t expect him to have the self-reflection to think that.
Chris is still trying to catch up with the reason-giving game. He thinks that I intended or actually thought that passages about God knowing what David will say meant that God has from eternity past know every event that will happen before it happens. He is a foreigner to the land of charity. He originates from the land of the Flower patch and is not aware of these concepts. I don’t think those passages entail that understanding. That doesn’t mean those texts are irrelevant or unimportant. That means they are apart of the evidence in another way. Chris should watch more police shows. Not all pieces of evidence for a thesis are the murder weapon. You usually have different strands of evidence. A man may take a large life insurance policy on his wife. Does that mean he murdered her? No. But suppose she was found murdered. Would that issue of the life insurance policy not matter for the investigation? Of course, it’s relevant if you’re looking for a murderer. Analogous to that is my case for omniscience. If Chris was correct then the only evidence is really the murder weapon. Anything less is irrelevant. That’s because he’s presenting the Deedat challenge of Open Theism.
Chris Fisher exercises his ability to be deceptive with his handling of what I’ve said. He complains that I quoted Joe Sabo stating that God can know the psalmist will say and I’m stating he said the opposite of what he actually said. The issue that Chris is having is that Sabo’s position is inconsistent and so he’s committed to contradictory things. Sabo stated in the original podcast that God can’t know what an agent “will do” but what an agent “might” do. So, he whines about this quote from the article:
“Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD” (Psalm 139:4).
Again, how this is a prooftext for God knowing anything other than what the Psalmist is going to say before he says it, I don’t know. However, I will address the thinking that God knowing what we will say before we say it somehow conflicts with the Open View. God has perfect present knowledge, and this includes chemical levels in the brain, firing of neurons, all past events in the chain of events that led to this present, as well as any number of factors that go into a word before it is said. Given a complete knowledge of an individual’s brain state, and the events leading up to the current brain state, it would not be difficult for God, as powerful and wise as He is, to know what someone will say before they say it.
According to Joe Sabo, God can’t actually know what the psalmist is going to say. God can know every fact prior to his words but the psalmist according to Joe determines what he says and not any of those fact(given no coercive force). God may know what he might say or might not say but in no way on open theism could he know what the psalmist will say.
Chris only quotes the sentence in bold in his second response. It is a bit deceptive because in the following sentences I explain why Joe Sabo must maintain that God cannot know what the psalmist will say. The issue with the “Will Duffy Defense” is that it fails as I spoke about in the article. God or any other agent could know every fact about an agent and it would tell them nothing about an agent’s future actions. So, once again, Fisher fails to interact with what I’ve stated. Mind you the position that Joe himself endorsed in the video was this:
Involuntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because truths about future contingents are in principle unknowable. William Hasker, Peter Van Inwagen, and Richard Swinburne espouse this position.
I was said to not have interacted with Joe’s position and I clearly did or he is unaware of his own position. This position was stated by Richard Swinburne:
I never stated that Joe Sabo stated that the verse was incorrect. I rather demonstrated that he has to maintain that is an entailment of his position and if a reader simply continued reading they would see that.
Chris the non-philosopher decided that I’m just focused on a philosophy and not these various texts. I will let the reader decide that for themselves but I will show the mistakes in Fisher’s incoherent ramblings. He states that all I’ve stated is the Moralistic fallacy. I simply don’t like the consequences of Open Theism. That is at least how he phrases things in his own deceptive and fanciful ways. In a way, he is completely right. I don’t like the consequences of Open Theism and he simply said supposing my arguments are right then his worldview may have implications that any rational individual may not like. If my arguments are correct, then God isn’t the grounds for our ethical judgments. In fact, we couldn’t distinguish God from an omnipotent deceiver and therefore have no reason to trust what he has said to us. If Chris is correct, then you can’t even trust the Bible. Chris acts as if he is presenting a coherent alternative and I simply don’t like it. It actually the case that his views would be untenable if my arguments are correct. Of course, he only takes his own philosophical arguments and rejects others. Of course, everyone else are the dirty Neoplatonist. Calvinist are merely pagan. Don’t ask where Libertarian freedom comes from but the Calvinist are the firstborn sons of the devil. Does Chris even know what Neoplatonism is? He complains that we are stealing from pagan thought but I wonder if he knows where Libertarian Freedom is from. Chris later goes on to state that philosophical arguments are typically bad. Is Chris not aware that all arguments are philosophical?