ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[patman]

RobE

RobE

Why not? Couldn't I have put $1,000,000 by the same meanst that I put $500 into it? Your analogy is meaningless unless there is more to it.

Rob,

I have never encountered someone who tried to completely miss the point as hard as you do. This isn't some debate class, your "lets point out flaws in a simple analogy to make it meaningless," doesn't work. There was a loaded point to the analogy! And instead you just make it sound like it's nothing to upgrade a bank to the Nth degree...

Apply the analogy to the subject!

There is $500 in the bank. But you assume there to be a million because you can. No one told you there was a million, no clue other than knowing $500 was there can lead you to believe there is a million there, you just do.

It is simple math really.... $500 is Not equal to $1,000,000. I thought you'd see that and address the accusation, not the stupid analogy.

It doesn't matter "that there could be." Yes, there could be (a 1 in 999,500 chance), but I told you, in my analogy, straight up, "there is $500", and you again show a tendency to do the very thing I accuse you of, assume more for no reason.

I wanted you to see a point, to address the issue, not criticize an analogy and expect it to hold water. And it can't hold water when you prove that you do imagine more what is plainly stated. I am sorry, you can't hide it anymore, you simply assume what you don't know.

The point is that we can't say what we don't know and proclaim it as truth!

Who cares what is potentially in the bank, all we know is there is $500. And you still make it out to be OK to say there is more with no evidence? And the worst thing is we aren't talking about dollars and cents, we are talking about God's Word!

I asked for proof that you were not assuming powers on God. Do you have any? It has been a year since we met, and you have never answered...

 

[RobE]

It doesn't matter "that there could be." Yes, there could be (a 1 in 999,500 chance), but I told you, in my analogy, straight up, "there is $500", and you again show a tendency to do the very thing I accuse you of, assume more for no reason.

It does matter "that there could be." If it's possible then since God is all powerful/capable then it is. In your analogy you stated that there is $500. How does this apply to God who you aren't able to get a balance for? You have no proof that He has only $500, you assume it! I assume He has it all. You assume He only has as much as you do. Who's assumption is correct? That's what is really being debated here and you don't even realize it. Your assumptions are clouding your judgement. You have discovered a presumed 'limiting factor' for God and apply it towards everything. By the same logic which you espouse that 'if we are able to find one thing which God doesn't know' then He isn't able to know many other things; I say, 'if we are able to find one thing which God does know then He is able to know many other things'.

The point is that we can't say what we don't know and proclaim it as truth!

Then quit doing it. You have no way to know what God is capable of, do you really?

Who cares what is potentially in the bank, all we know is there is $500. And you still make it out to be OK to say there is more with no evidence? And the worst thing is we aren't talking about dollars and cents, we are talking about God's Word!

God's word doesn't say that He's limited as you and I agree.

I asked for proof that you were not assuming powers on God. Do you have any? It has been a year since we met, and you have never answered...

I provided it and you said that I must provide more, even and up to, provide proof for every act within creation. You haven't answered my questions of which the first is below:

1) Name an event outside of God's existence without a cause.

Do this and we'll be getting somewhere.

Rob

 

[RobE]

I do not think the modal fallacy is the same as the discipline of modal logic, a type of established logic. This is like saying the logical fallacy of begging the question negates sound logic. A misapplication of modal logic is not the same thing as saying there is no truth to the discipline.

Did you read the article or just skim it and produce this response. Do you understand it? It says that contingencies in their nature are either proven true or false, but remain valid contingencies anyway. In other words, contingencies are still valid once an outcome is settled. In other words, possibilities exist once an outcome is settled. In other words, free will exists, whether foreknowledge is present or not.

In you last post you said your proof lied within your years of study. Well take 20 minutes and tell me where the article is flawed.

Rob

 

[godrulz]

Did you read the article or just skim it and produce this response. Do you understand it? It says that contingencies in their nature are either proven true or false, but remain valid contingencies anyway. In other words, contingencies are still valid once an outcome is settled. In other words, possibilities exist once an outcome is settled. In other words, free will exists, whether foreknowledge is present or not.

In you last post you said your proof lied within your years of study. Well take 20 minutes and tell me where the article is flawed.

Rob

I am not qualified to dissect the article since I do not know all the modal logic symbols, etc. I skimmed vs read it. Contingencies will be proven true or false (may or may not vs will/will not) after they choice is made. They are no longer contingencies, but actualities/certainties. They become part of the fixed past and are known as such. While they are in the potential future, they may be probable, but are not certain. Exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is still an impossibility based on modal logic. Either you misunderstand the article or it is flawed in its assumptions.

OK. I printed the article. Curiosity killed the cat.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I don't see it as supposition, only as perspective. I don't communicate with my two year old the same way I communicate with you. God in turn communicates with us where our understanding is; not where His understanding is.

Perhaps because you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the word“supposition” just as you have demonstrated that you are unfamiliar with the meaning of “prediction” and “prophecy”? (You erroneously stated that a “prediction” is not actually a “prediction” if it didn’t come true – a statement every dictionary in America, in fact, disagrees with. But I chose to edit out that thread as it is a semantical debate.)

I agree that we do not know what God is like, and God probably can’t fully explain it to us and therefore has to speak in ways that we do understand. What I find incredible is that the Settled side speaks out of both sides of their mouth on this issue:

1. On the one side of their face the Settled side says we can’t understand it
2. On the other side of their face, the Settled view says they do understand it and proceeds to “correct” the Bible.

1. On the one side of their face, the Settled side says God explains it in the best way that we could understand it.
2. On the other side of their face, the Settled side says God did a horrible job of explaining it and that we should ignore it for their explaination.

Clearly only one side of your face can be right at a time Rob.

I believe you are right in saying that we cannot fathom what God is like with our mortal minds. However, unlike you I don’t believe that is an indicator that we should therefore ignore what God does say about himself. On the contrary, I believe therefore we should heed even more closely to precisely how God portrays himself in the Bible and not think that we can improve upon it. That is the main difference I see between the Open view and the Settled View. The open view is more closely reliant upon God’s word.

Yet Jonah believed they might repent and didn't want to go there. Why wouldn't God who is much more intelligent than Jonah know the same thing with much greater accuracy.

Jonah believed they might repent. I’m sure God believed they might repent. To go from that to certainty is unfounded and unproven. It is more supposition. Give me something factual, not just what you’ve chosen to read into the Bible.

Foreknowledge isn't based upon Greek influenced thinking anymore than western logic is. It is common sense.

“Common sense” is often the cry of people who can’t provide any proof or evidence.

 

[patman]

It does matter "that there could be." If it's possible then since God is all powerful/capable then it is. In your analogy you stated that there is $500. How does this apply to God who you aren't able to get a balance for? You have no proof that He has only $500, you assume it! I assume He has it all. .....

1) Name an event outside of God's existence without a cause.

With evidence, we can conclude the extent of his future knowledge.

Please present your evidence, I require scripture.

I assume nothing, I re-presented my post showing beyond any doubt that God did not accurately predict future events. ( http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=901117&postcount=398 ) How is that an assumption?

On the other hand, when the bible presents God's future knowledge as A.B.C. , and D., you go on to ADD ON that he knows that and X.,Y.,Z., and infinity numbers too.

Then you offer proof.

You say "God predicted Peters denial". But that only means he knew the denial, why would you go on to say he knows the winner of next years super bowl because he knew another event?

You say "He predicted a lot of things," but that is meaningless unless he always accurately predicts the future, and he doesn't. In fact he changes his mind in the mist of some predictions,...

You say "He can do anything," Does that include sin? Oh, everything BUT that... there are a lot of sins rob..... That's a lot of things. So he can't do everything. So we should say "He can do almost anything," So how do we know what he can and can't do? His word tells us. Does it say "God can see the future?" Who does then?

You say "God can change the future after he made a prediction," but he would be able to foresee his change as he was making the prediction. Thus he would committing a paradox. Hiding the future from himself as he changes it on himself without knowing beforehand he would need to change it. He really can't know the entire future, by your own explanation....

None of your evidence is biblical, uses faulty logic, and conjures ideas from nothingness.

Rob, you stand revealed to us, open like a book. You have this belief, You have no scripture to back it, so you must make up stuff to validate it. You want so bad to be right that when someone presents a good opposition to you all you can do is cry foul to good points.

Call me a hypocrite if you like... you seem to like it, btw. I stand true to the word, using it as my map. It is your only way to tell yourself not to listen to me because you try to make me out to be invalid by unrelated means.

Point #1 is there is no evidence to support 100% future knowledge. The accusation is that you only have imagination as your proof.

You then validate that accusation and show how you have an active imagination, because you took a bank account with $500 in it and went on to say there was $1,000,000.

If I gave you a bank card and said "There is some money for you to spend, we do not know exactly. We have verified $500," what would you do? Would you spend more than $500? Would you still assume a million was there? What if I told you that you had to pay back what you overspent? Would you spend $1,000,000 based on your assumptions?

Why would you treat Gods word differently. If God said "I know this," why would you say "He knows this too," when you know he didn't that? Are you able to afford the price for the misleading of souls as you assumed more was there than was there?


P.S.
You asked for a causeless event... Satan's rebellion would be a good example. Unless you imply causes implemented by a Future-knowing God caused him to rebel (Making God responsible by your logic on causality). But that's another debate.....

 

[godrulz]

The Modal Fallacy


Some observations. I made notes as I read the article. I have read better articles by Christian philosophers who deal with modal logic and its application to the issue.

- The article took way longer than 20 minutes to read. I read some in church during the sermon (shhh). It prints in a poor format (26 pages) with the ends of the right side cut off, so I had to make up things (adding my own views, of course).

- The article is secular, not Christian. It does mention God issues, but does not attempt to interact with biblical data.

- The article refutes determinism and supports free will, so it really does not undermine Open Theism.

I'll be back...got an ambulance call.

 

[RobE]

Perhaps because you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the word“supposition” just as you have demonstrated that you are unfamiliar with the meaning of “prediction” and “prophecy”? (You erroneously stated that a “prediction” is not actually a “prediction” if it didn’t come true – a statement every dictionary in America, in fact, disagrees with. But I chose to edit out that thread as it is a semantical debate.)

Let's pick some.....

Encarta: say what will happen: to say what is going to happen in the future, often on the basis of present indications or past experience

Oxford: • verb state that (a specified event) will happen in the future

Webster: : to declare or indicate in advance; especially : foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason

Cambridge: to say that an event or action will happen in the future, especially as a result of knowledge or experience:

Wiki: to state, or make something known in advance, especially using inference or special knowledge
to foretell or prophesy

American Heritage: TRANSITIVE VERB: To state, tell about, or make known in advance, especially on the basis of special knowledge.
INTRANSITIVE VERB: To foretell something; prophesy

Webster 1913: Pre*dict" (?), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Predicted; p. pr. & vb. n. Predicting.] [L. praedictus, p. p. of praedicere to predict; prae before + dicere to say, tell. See Diction, and cf. Preach.] To tell or declare beforehand; to foretell; to prophesy; to presage; as, to predict misfortune; to predict the return of a comet. Syn. -- To foretell; prophesy; prognosticate; presage; forebode; foreshow; bode.

Webster 1828: PREDICT', v.t. [L. proedictus, proedico; proe, before, and dico, to tell.] To foretell; to tell beforehand something that is to happen. Moses predicted the dispersion of the Israelites. Christ predicted the destruction of Jerusalem.

Wordnet: 1. (29) predict, foretell, prognosticate, call, forebode, anticipate, promise -- (make a prediction about; tell in advance; ``Call the outcome of an election'' )
2. (2) bode, portend, auspicate, prognosticate, omen, presage, betoken, foreshadow, augur, foretell, prefigure, forecast, predict -- (indicate by signs; ``These signs bode bad news'' )​

Your definition of predict is "guess". It's slang and goes in opposition to what the bible tells us is a prophecy .vs false prophecy.(see Deut.)

I agree that we do not know what God is like, and God probably can’t fully explain it to us and therefore has to speak in ways that we do understand. What I find incredible is that the Settled side speaks out of both sides of their mouth on this issue:

1. On the one side of their face the Settled side says we can’t understand it
2. On the other side of their face, the Settled view says they do understand it and proceeds to “correct” the Bible.

Saying that we can't understand God doesn't say that we can't understand the Bible.

1. On the one side of their face, the Settled side says God explains it in the best way that we could understand it.
2. On the other side of their face, the Settled side says God did a horrible job of explaining it and that we should ignore it for their explaination.

Not really. I'm saying that perspective plays a role in our understanding. I'm also saying that it would do no good to show Abraham an image of a helicopter and have Abraham identify it as a helicopter since it was outside of his personal knowledge. You see this where Christ was concerned. Christ the king .vs Christ the sacrifice. This is easy for us to know, but wouldn't have been for King David.

Clearly only one side of your face can be right at a time Rob.

Clearly the truth is the truth despite my understanding.

I believe you are right in saying that we cannot fathom what God is like with our mortal minds. However, unlike you I don’t believe that is an indicator that we should therefore ignore what God does say about himself. On the contrary, I believe therefore we should heed even more closely to precisely how God portrays himself in the Bible and not think that we can improve upon it. That is the main difference I see between the Open view and the Settled View. The open view is more closely reliant upon God’s word.

Not really. Open Theism must limit God where the Bible says He has no limits, the Open View must see God as fallible in His decisions, the Open View must simply make God a powerful human in the end result, etc., etc., etc.,.....

This isn't to say that it is the O.V.'s desire - it's simply an extension of their logic to its conclusion about foreknowledge.

Jonah believed they might repent. I’m sure God believed they might repent. To go from that to certainty is unfounded and unproven. It is more supposition. Give me something factual, not just what you’ve chosen to read into the Bible.

Maybe read about the Christ and situations where there were no extenuating conditions instead of focusing on situations which had extenuating conditions such as Tyre, Nineveh, and the others which support your ideas.

“Common sense” is often the cry of people who can’t provide any proof or evidence.

I used the term common sense referring to such things as:

1) all events have causes
2) you must have an expected outcome to be morally responsible
3) willingness and ableness aren't the same things
4) possiblity and probability aren't the same things
5) 'can' is different then 'won't'
6) Your knowledge doesn't incapacitate another

You know. Common sense. Square Circles, heavy rocks, and the such. I explained my use of the word 'common sense' and you chose to make a personal attack instead of substantively responding. I appreciate you replies for the most part, but feel that you took my post as a personal affront. It wasn't intended as such. My apologies for this effect. I simply wanted to lay my position out to you completely.

Thanks,
Rob

 

[RobE]

With evidence, we can conclude the extent of his future knowledge.

Ok. Present the evidence which isn't able to be explained away as being a figure of speech, etc.......

Please present your evidence, I require scripture.

I gave you scriptures and you said they weren't sufficient since they weren't addressing all events in eternity. Aren't you able to see that the proof you requires is so immense that I would have to be God to provide it? You even reject the definition given by God as to what a prophecy is; and then stand by and say that I'm unbibilical after you reject the Bible's definition.

I assume nothing, I re-presented my post showing beyond any doubt that God did not accurately predict future events. ( http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=901117&postcount=398 ) How is that an assumption?

It's an assumption because of Deut.'s definition of prophecy. We both agree that prophecy is conditional. Being conditional doesn't mean that it was wrong. Was Tyre to be destroyed or not when the prophecy was given. If you say it was then God was able to foreknow Tyre's future; otherwise He was lying about its impending destruction. Period. Don't consider the outcome because it didn't exist when God spoke. God averted the foreknown outcome. How hard is this.

On the other hand, when the bible presents God's future knowledge as A.B.C. , and D., you go on to ADD ON that he knows that and X.,Y.,Z., and infinity numbers too.

Then you offer proof.

I say that God is more intelligent than Zeus, Baal, or any other humanized God. You admit God is more than you are able to understand, so why do you squeeze Him into a box?

You say "God predicted Peters denial". But that only means he knew the denial, why would you go on to say he knows the winner of next years super bowl because he knew another event?

I would say that because Peter was a free will agent. God has the ability to predict the actions of free will agents because He has already done so. What does it matter what free will agent; just that it was a free will agent.

You say "He predicted a lot of things," but that is meaningless unless he always accurately predicts the future, and he doesn't. In fact he changes his mind in the mist of some predictions,...

I know, you require absolute proof of every event from me. Yet you are able to only prove one thing(which you haven't). This debate is awfully lopsided from you perspective. It's too bad that Augustine, Aquinas, and every other major theologian in history disagrees with your position based upon biblical exegis.

You say "He can do anything," Does that include sin? Oh, everything BUT that... there are a lot of sins rob..... That's a lot of things. So he can't do everything. So we should say "He can do almost anything," So how do we know what he can and can't do? His word tells us. Does it say "God can see the future?" Who does then?

You are able to know the future, or will you be saved in the end? If you are able then certainly He is more able.

You say "God can change the future after he made a prediction," but he would be able to foresee his change as he was making the prediction. Thus he would committing a paradox. Hiding the future from himself as he changes it on himself without knowing beforehand he would need to change it. He really can't know the entire future, by your own explanation....

There's the rub. I didn't say He knows His future, only yours. He's in control.

None of your evidence is biblical, uses faulty logic, and conjures ideas from nothingness.

Where as you making God ignorant is completely biblical.

Rob, you stand revealed to us, open like a book. You have this belief, You have no scripture to back it, so you must make up stuff to validate it. You want so bad to be right that when someone presents a good opposition to you all you can do is cry foul to good points.

Why do you continue to personally attack me with you weak arguments. Did you read Hilston's reply to you post. You should.

Call me a hypocrite if you like... you seem to like it, btw. I stand true to the word, using it as my map. It is your only way to tell yourself not to listen to me because you try to make me out to be invalid by unrelated means.

How so?

Point #1 is there is no evidence to support 100% future knowledge. The accusation is that you only have imagination as your proof.

And there is no proof that God doesn't know what you will do. Are you really so complex as to thwart the mind of God Almighty?

You asked for a causeless event... Satan's rebellion would be a good example. Unless you imply causes implemented by a Future-knowing God caused him to rebel (Making God responsible by your logic on causality). But that's another debate.....

So, you believe that Satan didn't have reasons for rebelling. He must be insane.

Rob

 

[zapp]

I am a newbie and ....

I am a newbie and ....

Well i wasn't born in this forum but got here as quick as I could.
Just slid in the door and it seems there is at least a LITTLE freedom of thought here, as this thread illustrates.

I'm concerned that a lot of those espousing Open Theism are just plain rebels who want to be their own judge and ruler.... in short, just conventional heathen with a religious interest. HOWEVER, there are those, including me but not limited to me...., who see in the scriptures that the character of God includes his creating man GOOD in the origin, and granted his offspring the god-like ability to Create, for real, not just play-acting. So, what I see in scripture is a basically benevolent God who was disgusted with the turn events which He did not plan out .... He did not plan on Adam failing the acid-test [that is, did not intend nor "believe" that Adam would fail]. In the pivotal, and seminal recollection of the Israel's deliverance from Egyptian bondage, unless one is prone to allegorize extensively [i am not], the plain text says that YHWH fully intended for the same generation that left Egypt to be the generation that entered Canaan, across the river. That was HIs explicit promise. It didn't work out that way which has caused more consternation for Christian theologues than for Jewish, apparently.

The prophecy was not fulfilled the way it was stated. Something "creative" happened along the way. YHWH responded and adjusted.... an adjustment to the demise of a crowd of peeps.

There are a number of lesser events in scripture that illustrate the same thing: man's 'creating' of an idea contrary to the plan results in an adjustment of the plan, if not an abandonment.

I truly think a lot of the confusion on this subject got traction with St. Augustine.... admirable as he was he introduced a new way of thinking about 'sovereignty' which had more to do with his pagan roots than with Christian.

please don't kick me out now.... .just thinking. can I stay?
z

"Open theists proclaim that God cannot know future contingent events. That is the fancy way of referring to events in the future, which result from human beings making free choices. Now that claim sounds innocent enough, but let me show you some of the consequences of that. Think back to the moment when Jesus Christ was dying on the cross. Incidentally, let me tell you what John Sanders, one open theist, says about the cross. He says that God the Father had no knowledge that His Son would end up being crucified. And at that particular moment, when God the Father looks down from heaven and sees His Son hanging on the cross, John Sanders put it in language somewhat like this, "Oops, I guess we have to switch to plan B." Because, you see, to these open theists, God is completely surprised by any large number of events that happened in the world. But this poor, impotent deity, who is described by the open theists, this finite God of open theism, had no way of knowing at the time that Jesus was dying if even one human being would accept His Son as Savior. This poor, impotent deity faced the possibility that the suffering of His Son on the cross would bring about the salvation of no one. Another open theist, who happens to be a friend of mine, Bill Hasker, teaches at a college in Indiana, says that the very fact that there is a church of God is a matter of God's dumb blind luck because God had no way of controlling whatever outcome might follow the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross. Now I believe all of these consequences are absurd."--Ron Nash

Trustees of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention, passed a resolution saying, "Open theism's denial of God's exhaustive definitive foreknowledge constitutes an egregious biblical and theological departure from orthodoxy and poses a serious threat to evangelical integrity."

The Evangelical Theological Society approved a resolution rejecting open theism and supporting the position that "God has complete, accurate and infallible knowledge of all events past, present and future, including all future decisions and actions of free moral agents."

I agree with Ron Nash, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the Evangelical Theological Society. What do you think?

 

[Jefferson]

please don't kick me out now.... .just thinking. can I stay?
z

Are you kidding? Your acknowledging that man's free will decisions cause God to alter His original plans makes you sound like one of us open theists! You are absolutely correct in your understanding of these passsages of scripture. You may not consider yourself to be an open theist but, from what I glean from your first post, you have already come more than half way over to our side.

So I'm curious, in what way do you see us as "just plain rebels who want to be their own judge and ruler.... in short, just conventional heathen with a religious interest."?

BTW: Welcome to TOL. :wave:

 

[ApologeticJedi]

It's slang and goes in opposition to what the bible tells us is a prophecy .vs false prophecy.(see Deut.)

According to you there is not such thing as false prophecy …. If it is false then it was never a prophecy to begin with ….

Rob, all of the dictionaries you gave agreed with me. To "make a prediction" is indicate something in advance. It is synonymous with the “forecasting" (according to Merriam-Webster's) which means "to indicate as likely to occur".

http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=prediction&query=prediction
http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=forecast

So now that you've completely wasted my time trying to argue something that I chose to let your error slide on, let us continue with more substantive issues.

Saying that we can't understand God doesn't say that we can't understand the Bible.

Which is the Open position. However your position is that the Bible leads us astray and we must correct the way God reveals Himself for your special revelation. That’s the other face that you speak with, that it is convenient for you to forget at times.

That you can’t keep your arguments straight is not my chief concern that I must correct you all the time.

Not really. I'm saying that perspective plays a role in our understanding. I'm also saying that it would do no good to show Abraham an image of a helicopter and have Abraham identify it as a helicopter since it was outside of his personal knowledge. You see this where Christ was concerned. Christ the king .vs Christ the sacrifice. This is easy for us to know, but wouldn't have been for King David.

That’s a false analogy. We aren’t talking about something we would have any easier time understanding than King David. Abraham is not as stupid as you make him out to be. I see no valid reason for believing Abraham couldn’t have understood exhaustive foreknowledge. Some of the least bright people on the face of the planet accept it blindly.

But even if he couldn’t have said it to Abraham – wouldn’t he have said to someone at all? Yet the Bible is vacant of any statement. So then the only place that we get such a claim is extra-biblical.
So I am more than tempted to ask, why should we dismiss what the Bible say for something the Bible doesn’t say? Seems to be the wrong road.

Not really. Open Theism must limit God where the Bible says He has no limits, the Open View must see God as fallible in His decisions, the Open View must simply make God a powerful human in the end result, etc., etc., etc.,.....

That’s a strawman. There is no verse in the Bible that you can point to where God says he never makes a prediction that doesn’t come to pass, or that He knows the future exhaustively. What you are really saying is that Open Theists deny your supposition on what God is really like. But none of that is in the Bible.

Maybe read about the Christ and situations where there were no extenuating conditions instead of focusing on situations which had extenuating conditions such as Tyre, Nineveh, and the others which support your ideas.

I don’t know that I’ve heard a lot of new arguments on this subject that I didn’t use in order to argue against Open Theists before I became one. Again, please provide evidence instead of wild conjecture that “read something besides what you are sticking to”. Please be more specific.

You know. Common sense. Square Circles, heavy rocks, and the such. I explained my use of the word 'common sense' and you chose to make a personal attack instead of substantively responding.

No, you didn’t explain it – you conjectured it without evidence.

I appreciate you replies for the most part, but feel that you took my post as a personal affront. It wasn't intended as such. My apologies for this effect. I simply wanted to lay my position out to you completely.

Do not worry. I didn’t take it as a personal affront, there was just very little to respond to since it was all opinion by you that you cannot prove or disprove.

1) Name an event outside of God's existence without a cause.

Sophie's choice.

 

[Bob Hill]

There are many strong statements about the deity of Christ.

One of the strongest isJohn 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

Isa 48:11-13 For My own sake, for My own sake, I will do it; For how should My name be profaned? And I will not give My glory to another. 12 “Listen to Me, O Jacob, And Israel, My called: I am He, I am the First, I am also the Last. 13 Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand up together.

Certain phrases such as “The Alpha and the Omega, The Beginning and the End, The First and the Last”, are used of the Father and the Son.

John quoted Christ:
Rev 22:12-16 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”

This is used of God the Father as well as God the Son. Notice the following:
Rev 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
Rev 1:17-19 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death. 19 Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this.”
Rev 2:8 And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write, “These things says the First and the Last [Christ], who was dead, and came to life.”
Isa 44:6-8,24 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the First and I am the Last; besides Me there is no God. 8 Do not fear, nor be afraid; Have I not told you from that time, and declared it? You are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one.” 24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself.”

When we look at the details of creative acts: first, who spread the heavens? I believe the answer is God the Son.
John 1:3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
Col 1:15-18 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.”

Who is the Savior? Christ! Yet, the Father seems to be all of these, too.

Isa 45:5,6,18,21,22 I am the LORD, and there is no other; There is no God besides Me. I will gird you, though you have not known Me, 6 That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting that there is none besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other; 18 For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD, and there is no other. 21 Tell and bring forth your case; Yes, let them take counsel together. Who has declared this from ancient time? Who has told it from that time? Have not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A just God and a Savior; There is none besides Me. 22 Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

When we consider God’s complete knowledge, we know that God knows things completely. God alone knows everything. When the Son says, “As the Father knows Me,” how does the Father know the Son? In a complete way. Then He says,
John 10:15 “even so I know the Father”

Christ knows the Father in the same way, completely, because He is God.

When we read John 14, we either have total confusion or the Trinity.
John 14. Christ is speaking. In verse 7 He says,
John 14 If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.

How can man see God and still live? It was only as He manifested Himself as the Son
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
Heb 1:1-8 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”? 6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.” 7 And of the angels He says: “Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire.” 8 But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.”

Then He said something almost incomprehensible. He said in
John 14:10 “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.”

He not only has the Father in Him, but He is in the Father! There is either a great confusion on John’s part or a blurring of the persons of the Godhead in the unity of God. Notice John 14:16-26.
John 14:16-26 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.” (According to this, the Holy Spirit will come to them.) 18 “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.” But, according to this, the Son will come. 23 “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him,’ According to this verse, the Father is coming. ‘and We will come to him and make Our home with him.’ At least two of the trinity will come. 26 ‘But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.’”

Who dwelled with them (17)? Christ, but He says the Spirit. Who will come? The Spirit, but Christ says He will come (18). Who is coming? The Father, and the Son (23), and the Spirit (26). God is coming (came)! The trinity came in every way – Father, Son, and Spirit. This is why Christ said in John 10:30, “I and My Father are one.” So from this, we must say again, the Son is God. That’s why the Father says in Hebrews 1:8, “But to the Son He says: ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom.”

Next, God is the only one who is rightfully worshipped. But, I believe the Father is highest and is the one who is mainly worshipped. But the Son is worshipped also, for the Father tells all the angels to worship Him. Heb 1:6, “But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: ‘Let all the angels of God worship Him.’” Every knee shall bow to Him. Phil 2:9-10, “Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth.” This was prophesied in Isa 45:21-23 “Who has declared this from ancient time? . . . Have not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, a just God and a Savior. There is none besides Me. 22 “Look to Me, and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. 23 I have sworn by Myself; The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall take an oath.” Here we see again that Jehovah is equated to Christ. God the Father raised Christ from the dead (Acts 2:24,32; 3:15,26; Rom 4:24; 6:4; 8:11; Col 2;12). But we find Christ saying that He would raise Himself (John 10:17,18), “I will raise it up . . . But He was speaking of the temple of His body” (John 2:19,21). But it also says He was made alive by the Spirit. Therefore, we see the trinity in action in His resurrection.

The Son is always shone to be subservient to the Father. That’s what 1 Co 15:24-28 shows: Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

Therefore, I believe we can see that the Father, Son & Holy Spirit are equal in deity but not in function. I also believe that the trinity existed in eternity past, but there is no biblical proof that satisfies me in making that statement. Therefore, my belief in that area is confessional rather than biblical.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[godrulz]

The Modal Fallacy


Some observations. I made notes as I read the article. I have read better articles by Christian philosophers who deal with modal logic and its application to the issue.

- The article took way longer than 20 minutes to read. I read some in church during the sermon (shhh). It prints in a poor format (26 pages) with the ends of the right side cut off, so I had to make up things (adding my own views, of course).

- The article is secular, not Christian. It does mention God issues, but does not attempt to interact with biblical data.

- The article refutes determinism and supports free will, so it really does not undermine Open Theism.

I'll be back...got an ambulance call.

- The article affirms free will. It also seems to lean to compatibilism vs incompatibilism, but I think it makes a rookie mistake by assuming a few examples of almost certain foreknowledge and free will prove exhaustive foreknowledge of all future free will contingencies (actually, Rob e makes this assumption...the article does not seem to extrapolate that far because it is not primarily concerned about God, but deals with man's perspective).

- When it theoretically talks about God, for academic vs spiritual interest, it holds up the classical view and assumes that God is timeless. They look for a secular solution and hint that timelessness is problematic (to their credit).

- They refute determinism primarily (as do Rob and myself). Simple foreknowledge, or direct knowledge vs causal knowledge, is admitted to be problematic by the authors (I concur). The intricacies of the nature of the future are not fully dealt with (tend to circular reasoning when discussing classic Christian theories...do not seem overly aware of Open view alternatives).

- Some of their examples to refute Aristotle or determinism are based on simple proximal knowledge, not exhaustive, remote knowledge. They are lame examples that we would not quibble with (but do not prove EDF). They also do not emphasize the difference between predictable/probable/cause-effect issues vs free moral agency/uncertainties/'contingencies (Rob also seems to emphasize causal issues without considering the spectrum of probability vs certainty).

- They seem to confuse past vs future in some examples. The fixed past is not identical to the open future. A secular approach also precludes the possibility of God messing supernaturally with things to create even more uncertainty/unpredictability about the future. Modal logic has limitations.

- Using our daily behavior as evidence of free will and foreknowledge is a far cry from exhaustive foreknowledge of all future actualities before they happen. Just because we can know some things to a high degree about the future does not mean we can know all things.

- Another call...later....

 

[RobE]

According to you there is not such thing as false prophecy …. If it is false then it was never a prophecy to begin with ….

According to Deut. it wasn't a valid prophecy to begin with or should I say a prophecy from God. This is a theology site after all. Maybe I needed to qualify my statement by saying when God makes a prophecy. Of course there are false prophecies where men are concerned since they are unable to know the future. We are talking about God's prophecies which are never false.

Rob, all of the dictionaries you gave agreed with me. To "make a prediction" is indicate something in advance. It is synonymous with the “forecasting" (according to Merriam-Webster's) which means "to indicate as likely to occur".

Yes it is synonymous with forecasting. It's not used in the sense of guessing when speaking of foreknowledge though; especially when speaking of God's prophecy. Here's the complete listing.....

Main Entry: pre·dict
Pronunciation: pri-'dikt
Function: verb
Etymology: Latin praedictus, past participle of praedicere, from prae- pre- + dicere to say -- more at DICTION
transitive verb : to declare or indicate in advance; especially : foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason
intransitive verb : to make a prediction
synonym see FORETELL​

The Thesaurus.....
Synonyms augur, forecast, predict, presage, prognosticate, prophesy

Forecast as a noun such as the forecast of Tyre.

Main Entry: 2fore·cast
Pronunciation: 'for-"kast
Function: noun
1 archaic : foresight of consequences and provision against them : FORETHOUGHT
2 : a prophecy, estimate, or prediction of a future happening or condition​

Do you see how the dictionary separates the terms 'estimate', 'prophecy', and 'prediction'? Is it an error to do so in your estimation or do they truly have different meanings. When speaking of prophecy and prediction things are not an estimate as you have concluded. The 'likely' to occur have to do with man's best guess which is far inferior to God's. Are we speaking of man's foretelling or God's foretelling just for the record.

So now that you've completely wasted my time trying to argue something that I chose to let your error slide on, let us continue with more substantive issues.

Sorry to have wasted your time and thanks for your graciousness. I hope to be more substantive in the future.

Which is the Open position. However your position is that the Bible leads us astray and we must correct the way God reveals Himself for your special revelation. That’s the other face that you speak with, that it is convenient for you to forget at times.

As others do. We lead ourselves astray by coloring what we read with our own thinking. What did I forget?

That you can’t keep your arguments straight is not my chief concern that I must correct you all the time.

Well, accepting correction is the basis for wisdom. So please continue.

That’s a false analogy. We aren’t talking about something we would have any easier time understanding than King David. Abraham is not as stupid as you make him out to be. I see no valid reason for believing Abraham couldn’t have understood exhaustive foreknowledge. Some of the least bright people on the face of the planet accept it blindly.

But even if he couldn’t have said it to Abraham – wouldn’t he have said to someone at all? Yet the Bible is vacant of any statement. So then the only place that we get such a claim is extra-biblical.
So I am more than tempted to ask, why should we dismiss what the Bible say for something the Bible doesn’t say? Seems to be the wrong road.

Perfect. Why don't you give me a verse which says God is NEVER able to predict what a free will agent will do? I'm sure you wish me to produce the same type of absolute verse myself counterwise to this question. Jesus said, 'you will deny me'; 'it is as you said.', 'I saved all except the one doomed to destructions....', etc., etc., etc.,. These are far more powerful than the 'limiting' factor arguments presented against foreknowledge such as Tyre, Nineveh, 'grapes', and all of the 'repented' verses. Jesus spoke specific facts about future actions of free will agents; not what God would do Himself. Are you still with me?

That’s a strawman. There is no verse in the Bible that you can point to where God says he never makes a prediction that doesn’t come to pass, or that He knows the future exhaustively. What you are really saying is that Open Theists deny your supposition on what God is really like. But none of that is in the Bible.

Deut. 18:21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.​

Eccl. 8:16 When I applied my mind to know wisdom and to observe man's labor on earth—his eyes not seeing sleep day or night- 17 then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it.

I don’t know that I’ve heard a lot of new arguments on this subject that I didn’t use in order to argue against Open Theists before I became one. Again, please provide evidence instead of wild conjecture that “read something besides what you are sticking to”. Please be more specific.

No, you didn’t explain it – you conjectured it without evidence.

1) all events have causes
2) you must have an expected outcome to be morally responsible
3) willingness and ableness aren't the same things
4) possiblity and probability aren't the same things
5) 'can' is different then 'won't'
6) Your knowledge doesn't incapacitate another

I guess you are right about this.
1) What events don't have causes?
2) Are infants morally responsible for their actions?
3) Are 'willing' and 'able' the same term?
4) Are you able to say that something is possible and improbable at the same time?
5) Does 'can' speak of possibility while 'won't' speaks of eventuality?
6) How does another's knowledge incapacitate your ability?

Instead of providing long winded evidence, I'll allow you to do so. I've presented these arguments a multitude of times and eventually am told that knowledge(not given to the actor) incapacitates a free will agent. I have yet to be given evidence of such an occurance.

Do not worry. I didn’t take it as a personal affront, there was just very little to respond to since it was all opinion by you that you cannot prove or disprove.

Thanks for your continued patience.

Rob

 

[godrulz]

- They talk about being mistaken about things in the past. This does not apply to God since He knows the past and present perfectly. Again, their examples are lame at times.

- As they continue, they wrongly confuse predictions about the future with certainties. Just because we can predict things (limited) does not mean that all of the future is foreknown as a certainty. Saying that God just 'knows' does not make a logical contradiction true. Either compromise free will or exhaustive foreknowledge.

- The section on modal logic is rightly used to refute free-will denying determinism. Rob e seems to want to use the article to refute free will theisms and open theism. Modal logic supports free will and Open Theism. The Modal Fallacy is applicable in undermining determinism, not Open Theism (I told you the symbols/formulas get confusing). Contingencies are the reason exhaustive foreknowledge is NOT possible, even for God (to say there are no contingencies is to commit the modal fallacy, according to the article).

- The paragraph before point 7 (residual concerns) may be of interest to Clete and what Robe is trying to argue (if a future event is known it does not necessarily remove free will). The point is to refute determinism, but cannot be used to argue for exhaustive foreknowledge (all vs some) nor to blur the distinction between the fixed, knowable past and the potential, uncertain future.

- The past is fixed (the article is correct). Not even an omnipotent God can undo the past. This would be a logical contradiction. Some continue to insist that God can do or know logically impossible things. Modal logic will side with limitations on God's power and knowledge (self-contradictory things, etc.).

- They have an interesting section on prayer, but are arguing as secular dudes, not theologians. There ideas could be used to support the idea of a partially open future, as Open Theism affirms (hence known as possible vs actual).

- The illustration about car washing before point 8 might speak to Rob e's wrong ideas about causality (washing the car makes it clean, but this does not mean the act or intention of washing was caused or foreknown). Uncertain future events may or may not happen. The possible only becomes actual at the choice, not trillions of years before. Omniscience correctly knows this.

- In conclusion, they restate that the arguments/fallacies relate to refuting determinism. Rob is premature to think Open Theists are an applicable target, especiallly since modal logic, chaos theory, quantum mechanics, etc. favor the view. They talk about us knowing a great deal about the future without affecting free will. Clete could benefit from this focus. Rob could benefit from the rest of the paper by not trying to make it support exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies (which it does not).

- There are better papers by great Christian thinkers that also need to be considered. They reference Pike and Platinga and their debates. Other thinkers with more pertinent issues to the debate need to be interacted with.

 

[patman]

I gave you scriptures and you said they weren't sufficient since they weren't addressing all events in eternity. Aren't you able to see that the proof you requires is so immense that I would have to be God to provide it? You even reject the definition given by God as to what a prophecy is; and then stand by and say that I'm unbibilical after you reject the Bible's definition.

Rob,

This is the very essence of my problem with the S.V.. Admittedly you know there is no evidence yet you believe anyway and teach it to non-believers.

It should be nothing to provide proof if it were there.

 

[zapp]

as a newcomer to this forum but not a novice to the topic, i'm unhappy with the tone of the recent posts. Guys, we are fallible humans with varying language skills [widely varying], varying levels of reading comprehension, varying experiences, and way, way short of the divine level of IQ. Even IF the perfect case for one side or another could be articulated, we would struggle to grasp it. These facts alone do not argue for an ostrich approach to serious issues, but rather remind us that we need to demonstrate to the newborns and young believers that we charitably discuss in-house issues in the atmosphere of family harmony. Give the enemy no occasion.

One of the key reasons why I trust the Bible as we have it, as UTTERLY reliable [Uber-reliable] and worthy of my complete confidence is that the writers did not seek to harmonize seemingly incongruous passages!! If they were trying to "put one over" on the ancient world, the worthy scribes of the day would have tampered with the text in order to minimize seeming conflicts. I am at peace with "faith versus works", and have adjusted to the idea that I must "contend" daily for the faith, and must "work out" my salvation with fear and trembling, and must "fear... lest you too be broken off", but at the same time I know my Saviour holds me in the palm of His hand, and nothing and no one can pluck me out of His hand. [unless, of course, I was predestined before conception to be condemned from that moment for all eternity....., glorifying God through my certain never-relenting torment]

z

 

[zapp]

Are you kidding? Your acknowledging that man's free will decisions cause God to alter His original plans makes you sound like one of us open theists! You are absolutely correct in your understanding of these passsages of scripture. You may not consider yourself to be an open theist but, from what I glean from your first post, you have already come more than half way over to our side.

So I'm curious, in what way do you see us as "just plain rebels who want to be their own judge and ruler.... in short, just conventional heathen with a religious interest."?

BTW: Welcome to TOL. :wave:

Jefferson thank you for a gracious response and welcome!
I must have typed too quickly... the comment about "plain rebels" was in reference to those book-authors and intellectuals who use the moniker of "Open Theism" as a seemingly legitimate platform to call into question everything that we can know about God from scripture. In short... they are unbelievers who do not respect the divinity of Jesus and have no intention of repenting. Setting them aside for the discussion, then, I want to learn from you all, from all sides of this issue, because I find it encouraging, stimulating, and not in the least challenging to my fundamental faith. "Though He slay me", I plan to bow the knee to King Jesus from here to all eternity.

There are some side issues of this discussion which I am unafraid to delve into... such as unfulfilled or partially-fulfilled prophecies, explicit expressions of God's will which seem to have been thwarted, indeed the very essence and "surety" of salvation..... I better shut up and get some sleep.
This is just my second day here and I am carefully reading through the "Battle Royale" thread on this Open/Settled issue.... and frankly find it very refreshing. I hope to finish wading through it and the forum dialogue in the morning [Tuesday].

God bless Y'all
z

 

[ApologeticJedi]

We are talking about God's prophecies which are never false.

If you mean that God never says something that doesn’t come to pass, then that is not true. If you are saying that God never says something that isn’t, at that time, truthful, then you are correct.

Yes it is synonymous with forecasting.

Why are you wasting my time with this? … I gave the definition of forecasting. You agreed that it is synonymous with forecasting and earlier you agreed it was synonymous with prediction. Now you are trying to get out of this by splitting hairs. Let’s move on as this is only drifting further away from any real issue.

Perfect. Why don't you give me a verse which says God is NEVER able to predict what a free will agent will do?

How about this …. Since my actual position is that God is OFTEN not able to predict what a free will agent will do, how about I give a verse for that instead? In other words, can I give a verse that supports my position, instead of responding to your strawman?

I’ll give two, and I’ll hold it down to two for now so that you are not overwhelmed. In both of these, they show that God was not confident on what would happen.

1. Jeremiah 26:3 is “Do not diminish a word. Perhaps everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may relent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings.”

2. Exodus 3:17 is “Then it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, “Lest perhaps the people change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt.”

Deut. 18:21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

To clarify I had made a statement prior that there was no passage in the Bible that said either;
1)God has exhaustive foreknowledge
2)God never makes a prediction that doesn’t come to pass

I assume that you believe this disproves #2, however you missed that this verse only holds up with prophets, not with all prophecies from God. God could make a prophecy without a prophet and it would not have bearing on this verse.

Deuteronomy 18 deals with executing someone who says he speaks for God but never really heard from God. So God answers the question, “how can we tell?”. Basically God commits that if God made the prophecy through the prophet, he will bring it to pass. Now he didn’t always bring it to pass (like with Jonah) but Jonah wasn’t a false prophet because he really did hear from God and speak for God – so had someone tried to stone Jonah, they would be wrong, even though that prophecy didn’t come to pass.

But what you missed is that this verse doesn’t cover all prophecies by God. For instance it doesn’t cover when God told Moses that he would wipe out all the Israelites – because there was no “false prophet” for Moses to stone (and further, Moses knew that itreally was God speaking - since what you missed was that the point of Deut. 18 was how to tell if someone was making up what God said or not - not about whether or not prohpecies would come to pass).

Deuteronomy only covers false prophets, not al prophecies from God, and further it doesn’t even cover them exhaustively, but only when the issue, of whether a prophet was speaking for God or not, was in doubt.

Eccl. 8:16 When I applied my mind to know wisdom and to observe man's labor on earth—his eyes not seeing sleep day or night- 17 then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it.

I assume that you are trying to say that this verse disproves #1 (that no verse exists saying God has absolute foreknowledge). And this is a much weaker verse than the Deuteronomy 18 verse. Clearly God has done amazing things to create the world and the universe, and man will never be able to know everything that God has done … but this does not in any way say that God knows the future at all (even to have general foreknowledge, let alone exhaustive) so this verse falls far short of proving anything.

1) What events don't have causes?
2) Are infants morally responsible for their actions?
3) Are 'willing' and 'able' the same term?
4) Are you able to say that something is possible and improbable at the same time?
5) Does 'can' speak of possibility while 'won't' speaks of eventuality?
6) How does another's knowledge incapacitate your ability?

Let me respond to these with numbers for simplicity.

1. Scientists recongize random events and even events of acausality such as Sophie’s choice. These a decisions that could have gone either way, there was no cause behind the choice.
2. Generally no.
3. Generally no.
4. Yes, that is possible.
5. Generally no.
6. You should have left the word “how” out. That implies falsely that I have made such an argument. Whether compatibilism is possible or not would not prove exhaustive foreknowledge - it only has the ability to disprove it.