Foreknowledge, Freedom, and Randomness - trinities 080

I've long been convinced that open theism is the better option, biblically, theologically, and philosophically. In my 2007 paper "Three Roads to Open Theism," I explain my view that statements about future free actions are neither true nor false in advance, contrast it with some different open theist views, such as the view that all such statements are false.

The common accusation against open theists is that we "deny God's foreknowledge." There have been open theists who've said that God willingly declines to know some future facts, but open theists like Boyd, Hasker, Rhoda, and I affirm that at any given time, God knows all that can possibly be known - what has been, what is, and what will be. But we think that he's allowed "what will be" to be incomplete. "The future" is to a large extent a realm of possibilities and (in-between) probabilities. Of course, God know all those as well. But here's the point: the contents of God's perfect knowledge change, as the reality he created changes, as some possibilities are ruled out and others are ruled in (become actual).

In this episode, you'll hear my October, 2014 presentation at the Randomness and Foreknowledge Conference in Dallas, Texas. I had a great time at this conference getting to know (or to know better) various open-theists and anti-open-theists. In the presentation, I explain my view that arguments from truth are a greater threat to human freedom than are arguments from foreknowledge, and I argue against the all-false view about statements about future events that (as of now) may or may not occur. It's a talk by a philosopher, for philosophers... sorry about that!

Thanks is due to the sponsor of this conference, the Randomness and Divine Providence project at Calvin College, and their sponsor, the John Templeton Foundation.

You can also listen to this episode on Stitcher or iTunes (please subscribe, rate, and review us in either or both – directions here). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.

[PaulArveson]

Congratulations -- quality thinking, 200 views! As opposed to the much more common low-quality talk on YouTube that regularly gets over 1, 000, 000 views. What does this say about our society?

[bobbywolfe]

Is is not acceptable to say that although we have free will, God knows what we will choose before we choose it? I know some may say " well why does He concern Himself with those who will reject Him then" but I think that's what Paul means when he says God patently endures, and He wouldn't exactly be righteous if He didn't do all He could for all even knowing they would reject Him, just my thoughts

[RobertDryer]

Prof Tuggy doesn't William Lane Craig basically answer your criticism in footnote 27 and corresponding sections of the following article?
I probably misunderstood and am going to spend more time on this; however, this was my initial gut reaction to your statements (on Molinism) so I stand to be corrected.