Interaction with perfect foreknowledge?

[novice]

so whats the problem?

Your ability to think.

 

[godrulz]

Thats right. But the possibility that you could have chosen vanilla in the past (when it was present) is not ruled out. Thats exactly the issue with the future - if God knows that you will choose vanilla in the future, it doesnt rule out your freedom to choose some other flavor (or no ice cream at all). In both cases (past and future) the actualities are known, and we are still free.

so whats the problem?

peace,
jd

The problem is that this does not make sense. How can God know I will chose vanilla in the future if I could in fact chose chocolate, strawberry, blueberry, coffee, etc. OR not at all? Are you confusing the fixed past with the open future. They are inherently different. How can future actualities be known if they are non-existent. I could predict with high probability that I will chose vanilla tomorrow if it was the only known flavor in the world and the mafia would kill my family if I did not comply. Otherwise, contingency implies uncertainty.

Does the following make sense to anyone else?

"If an act be free, it must be contingent. If contingent, it may or may not happen, or it may be one of many possibles. And if it may be one of many possibles, it must be uncertain; and if uncertain, it must be unknowable."

I think we both need a course in critical thinking and modal logic.


Can you explain how God could know trillions of years ago the outcome and every move of 1000 chess games played over a century? The contingencies are innumerable. The Cosmic Chess Master is not dealing with chess men that He could deterministically manipulate. He is dealing with billions of free moral agents and trillions of natural, inanimate/animate issues.

The Open Theist solution is to recognize that chess players are free to respond to a vast array of opening/closing moves and contingencies. In light of this, there is no way an omniscient God can know all these possibilities as certainties before they become actual reality. One player's move is dependent on his thoughts, but also the strategy of the other player. Middle knowledge, whatever that is, cannot account for God foreknowing the non-existent future. How can God know what we will freely chose? He can know possibilities/probabilities, but not actualities while they are still merely possible. The things He can settle and know are only the things He choses to, independent of other free moral agents.

 

[docrob57]

doc, you are a proponent of exhaustive foreknowledge correct?

And you don't believe that God forgets His own foreknowledge do you? Of course not! Therefore why bother asking such a question? It will only serve to waste at least four posts.

You were making an argument that implied that knowledge of the past determined what happened in the past, and then tried to apply that logic to the future in an effort, I think, to refute foreknowledge. Since the premise was false, the conclusion would have to be also.

The possibility that I chose vanilla is now closed (not possible) because of the exhaustive nature of our knowledge of the past.

 

[insolafide]

Your ability to think.

So, is that a veiled concession that your reasoning was flawed? Or are you really that rude?

A little civility never hurt any body.

peace,
jd

 

[insolafide]

The problem is that this does not make sense. How can God know I will chose vanilla in the future if I could in fact chose chocolate, strawberry, blueberry, coffee, etc. OR not at all?

Im not sure what you are asking. As a practical matter, we dont really know how God knows anything that He knows. So maybe you are asking how it could be the case that God knows it.

Well, the states of affairs obtain before the events which describe them do. Its really not that strange if you think about it. We formulate future-tense propositions about future contingents all the time.

"I will choose vanilla ice cream at the ice cream shop tomorrow"

Such a statement, if true, is not saying that it is not possible that one COULD choose a difference flavor. Its just saying that one will, in fact choose it. That is, it is not expressing what one MUST choose, just what they will, in fact choose.

Are you confusing the fixed past with the open future.

I dont think there is such thing as an "open future". I think that is a metaphor, that has unclear meaning. The future is just as closed as the past. Neither NOW exist, but both do have a corresponding time when they are present. The future will exist, the past has already existed. So, to say that the future is unsettled is to make the illogical assertion that something that will happen, will not happen. Thats a contradiction.

They are inherently different. How can future actualities be known if they are non-existent.

Well how can past actualities be known if they are non-existent? The problem for humans that i think you are getting at is that humans dont have access to the truths about the future, like they do about the past, since they have experienced the past and remember things. But for God, who can know any true proposition, there is no such limitation of experience. Because, strictly speaking, God does not have sense organs (He is immaterial) and so does not experience the things we remember in the same way. Likewise, God has unexperienced knowledge of the future.

So consider a conceptualist approach to God's Omniscience - God has knowledge of any and all true propositions. On this model, all we need is a proposition that is true, and God has certain knowledge of it. Hard for you to understand? well, thats too bad. Theres lots of things about God that you cant understand, and I think the Molinist need not press the issue any further. Your non-understanding of all the HOWS of the situation does not equal a logical contradiction which would make Molinism impossible. So since Molinism is logically possible and preserves EDF and OT does not, we should prefer Molinism.

I could predict with high probability that I will chose vanilla tomorrow if it was the only known flavor in the world and the mafia would kill my family if I did not comply. Otherwise, contingency implies uncertainty.

but look, we had this discussion before. You are equivocating on "certain". To remain consistant, certainty and uncertainty is usually used to denote how sure a person is of a proposition, while necessity and contingency denotes a proposition.

So, suppose you utter the statement,
(1)"I will choose vanilla tomorrow". But as pressed with possible scenarios, you modify your statement to, (2)"I will probably choose vanilla tomorrow". Now, usually, the probability which you concede in (2) is epistemic in nature, and not metaphysical, which means that you have failing confidence in (1), not that you are denoting a metaphysical probability to the statement.

So, does (1) preclude free will? No, i dont think it does. Because (1) and

(3) "I could not choose vanilla". Can both be true.

So the proponent of EDF is saying that God knows statements like these.

Does the following make sense to anyone else?

"If an act be free, it must be contingent. If contingent, it may or may not happen, or it may be one of many possibles. And if it may be one of many possibles, it must be uncertain; and if uncertain, it must be unknowable."

Thats all around false. free, contingent, one of many possibles, and certain are all equally possible in descrbing a free choice, where certainty describes God's knowledge.

I think we both need a course in critical thinking and modal logic.

I would love to take one, yes, but I am not quite an amateur when it comes to these things, I have studied them.

Can you explain how God could know trillions of years ago the outcome and every move of 1000 chess games played over a century? The contingencies are innumerable.

Assuming there were trillions of years in the past (This is undeniably false), I dont see how this could be impossible. Just because the contingencies are high in number, does not mean that an Omniscient God could not know them! You are thinking that God is human-like. We cannot know these things, but God can.

Consider that God numbers the hairs on our head. Theres so many!!! How could He possibly know that? well - He's God. Now maybe you could show that theres a logical contradiction here that would prevent it being even possible, then that would be different.

The Cosmic Chess Master is not dealing with chess men that He could deterministically manipulate. He is dealing with billions of free moral agents and trillions of natural, inanimate/animate issues.

It doesnt matter - God is Omniscient. All we need, is that God would know just one future contingent proposition - like, for example "Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times" - and it is not impossible for God to know a future contingent. But then, God knows all of them, because He is Omniscient.

The Open Theist solution is to recognize that chess players are free to respond to a vast array of opening/closing moves and contingencies. In light of this, there is no way an omniscient God can know all these possibilities as certainties before they become actual reality. One player's move is dependent on his thoughts, but also the strategy of the other player.

so what. you are just drawing an analogy. On my view God knows each move the chess player AND his opponent will make, based on His middle-knowledge (His knowledge of how the players would choose in some predescribed circumstances).

Middle knowledge, whatever that is, cannot account for God foreknowing the non-existent future.

yes it can. Because while the future does not exist, the counterfactuals which are part of middle-knowledge do exist.

How can God know what we will freely chose? He can know possibilities/probabilities, but not actualities while they are still merely possible. The things He can settle and know are only the things He choses to, independent of other free moral agents.

Youre going to have to get more specific with your "how" questions. As I said above, if you are just asking How God does something, then i am afraid I dont know. If you are asking how it could be the case that God COULD know these things, then I would simply ask why you think He CANT? He's GOD.

peace,
jd

 

[godrulz]

God can know the number of hairs on your head because a human could also know them. This is present and knowable. The past and future do not exist (we agree), but they are different. To say that the past is identical in knowability is disingenuous. Any human can know the past if they have access to history. The past is an object of knowledge even though it is now only a memory. The future is blank and is not there to know. Once it becomes past, of course it is a given that God and man can know it perfectly (God even more so). God knows the hairs on our head because He can see and count them. It is another thing to say He knows and counts them before we even exist! As the number of hairs grows or decreases on our head, His knowledge changes. This is not an object of eternal knowledge.

Your 'middle knowledge' does not sound superior to 'simple foreknowledge'. They are both problematic and do not resolve the issues of contingencies/uncertainties/possibilities/actualities.

God knows all the possibilities and responses in a chess game. You miss the point of freedom and contingencies if you think He knows millions of years ago the exact moves and counter-moves of a chess game. If someone moves one piece, there is nothing to necessitate or determine which of many possible moves a player will make on any given day. Use your noodle.

Thank you for convincing me that your arguments are not persuasive and certainly not superior to Open Theism with a partially open/unsettled future.

 

[insolafide]

God can know the number of hairs on your head because a human could also know them.

That is very telling of your theological process. If you believe that God can only know what humans know, then I am afraid you have a very human view of God. God is the greatest conceivable Being! not just some demigod who is exactly like us.

The past and future do not exist (we agree), but they are different. To say that the past is identical in knowability is disingenuous. Any human can know the past if they have access to history. The past is an object of knowledge even though it is now only a memory. The future is blank and is not there to know.

youre missing the point! The point is not that humans cant know the past, its that it is possible to know the past even though it does not exist. you are requiring for the future what you do not require for the past, FOR NO APPARENT REASON!?, except that you cannot imagine someone knowing the future before it happens. Well, I am sorry to say that your lack of imagination doesnt prove your case.

Once it becomes past, of course it is a given that God and man can know it perfectly (God even more so). God knows the hairs on our head because He can see and count them. It is another thing to say He knows and counts them before we even exist! As the number of hairs grows or decreases on our head, His knowledge changes. This is not an object of eternal knowledge.

Again, you miss the point! God does not "see" the hairs on our head. God is immaterial and lacks a body, and lacks eyes. God does "KNOW" the number of hairs on our head. I think you are also unaware that propositions that are future-tensed can exist before objects about them exist. So the propositions are existing, even if what they describe does not. That is my model of Omniscience, AND ITS NOT LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. So unless you are going to confront the issues, we are done with our discussion.

Your 'middle knowledge' does not sound superior to 'simple foreknowledge'. They are both problematic and do not resolve the issues of contingencies/uncertainties/possibilities/actualities.

prove it with a real argument that confronts the issues, not some pointless "how question"? anyone can ask how questions to filibuster discussion. "How is 2+2 = 4"? "How is red a color"? "How is God not created"? But none of these questions are really meaningful, just like your "How does God know what doesnt exist", is not meaningful - because its not confronting the issue that it is possible that God DOES know them on a conceptualist rather than perceptualist view of Omniscience.

God knows all the possibilities and responses in a chess game. You miss the point of freedom and contingencies if you think He knows millions of years ago the exact moves and counter-moves of a chess game. If someone moves one piece, there is nothing to necessitate or determine which of many possible moves a player will make on any given day. Use your noodle.

Its you who needs to use your noodle. If there is a propositions "Chessplayer A makes move C at time T in game G..." and it is true, then it is impossible for an Omniscient God to not know it. Your just using "contingency" "possibility" etc to resist confronting the issues.

Thank you for convincing me that your arguments are not persuasive and certainly not superior to Open Theism with a partially open/unsettled future.

With all due respect, your failure to not UNDERSTAND what I am saying could be just as much a part of your not being convinced as your stubborness in holding to OVT. Hey, dogmatism lives in the 21st century, huh?

peace,
jd

 

[Clete]

Thats why we should reject Open Theism. Because Open Theists say that God (unknowingly, perhaps) lies to us about the future.



ROFL. That is a flat-out endorsement of theological fatalism, which you cannot prove (at least, have not proven). God knows what will happen, not what must happen.

(1) Necessarily, If God foreknows X, X will happen.
(2) God foreknows X.
(3) X will happen.

The conclusion of 3 is that X will happen, not that it will happen with some kind of necessity. You want it to say this:

(3*) X will necessarily happen.

which is a modal fallacy. Good job. Unless you want to sit there and tell me that (2) should be:
(2*) Necessarily, God foreknows X.

You will never arrive at (3*). But, God's foreknowledge is not necessary since God was free to create ANY World, or even no world at all.

So, I'm sorry, but your thinking doesnt work.

peace,
jd

I had lost this post! I just found it again though and will reply to it as soon as I can.

 

[godrulz]

That is very telling of your theological process. If you believe that God can only know what humans know, then I am afraid you have a very human view of God. God is the greatest conceivable Being! not just some demigod who is exactly like us.

RULZ: Nice caricature/straw man. I have never said anything to make you come to this absurd conclusion. Your credibility is found wanting.

INSOLE: youre missing the point! The point is not that humans cant know the past, its that it is possible to know the past even though it does not exist. you are requiring for the future what you do not require for the past, FOR NO APPARENT REASON!?, except that you cannot imagine someone knowing the future before it happens. Well, I am sorry to say that your lack of imagination doesnt prove your case.


RULZ: Wolterstorff deals with your myopia in "God and Time: 4 views" IVP


INSOLE: Again, you miss the point! God does not "see" the hairs on our head. God is immaterial and lacks a body, and lacks eyes. God does "KNOW" the number of hairs on our head. I think you are also unaware that propositions that are future-tensed can exist before objects about them exist. So the propositions are existing, even if what they describe does not. That is my model of Omniscience, AND ITS NOT LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. So unless you are going to confront the issues, we are done with our discussion.


RULZ: OK, we are done, because you do not make sense. Does non-sequitur mean anything to you?


INSOLE: prove it with a real argument that confronts the issues, not some pointless "how question"? anyone can ask how questions to filibuster discussion. "How is 2+2 = 4"? "How is red a color"? "How is God not created"? But none of these questions are really meaningful, just like your "How does God know what doesnt exist", is not meaningful - because its not confronting the issue that it is possible that God DOES know them on a conceptualist rather than perceptualist view of Omniscience.

RULZ: Nice try, but does not resolve the issues. A subjective perception of the possible future is not identical to an objective knowledge of the actual future when it becomes present and knowable.

INSOLE: Its you who needs to use your noodle. If there is a propositions "Chessplayer A makes move C at time T in game G..." and it is true, then it is impossible for an Omniscient God to not know it. Your just using "contingency" "possibility" etc to resist confronting the issues.

RULZ: You obviously do not play chess if you miss the analogy. You are looking at the future with hind sight after it becomes past (not parallel to foreknowledge issues).


INSOLE: With all due respect, your failure to not UNDERSTAND what I am saying could be just as much a part of your not being convinced as your stubborness in holding to OVT. Hey, dogmatism lives in the 21st century, huh?

peace,

RULZ: war

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

INSOLE: The point is not that humans cant know the past, its that it is possible to know the past even though it does not exist. you are requiring for the future what you do not require for the past, FOR NO APPARENT REASON!?

RULZ: Wolterstorff deals with your myopia in "God and Time: 4 views" IVP

What would this refutation be, though? The perfect counter-example when people say "The future cannot be known because it does not exist" is to mention the past! So I think Insole's point here stands, I doubt that this can be refuted convincingly.

INSOLE: I think you are also unaware that propositions that are future-tensed can exist before objects about them exist. So the propositions are existing, even if what they describe does not. That is my model of Omniscience, AND ITS NOT LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

RULZ: Does non-sequitur mean anything to you?

Doesn't the OV hold just this as part of their view, though? That God can indeed know some of the future, with certainty, "There will be a new heaven and a new earth," for instance.

And then many of the OV arguments against knowing the future fall down! The new heaven and earth do not exist yet, this future-tense proposition is a true one, and God knows it, and so forth!

INSOLE: If there is a propositions "Chessplayer A makes move C at time T in game G..." and it is true, then it is impossible for an Omniscient God to not know it. Your just using "contingency" "possibility" etc to resist confronting the issues.

RULZ: You obviously do not play chess if you miss the analogy. You are looking at the future with hind sight after it becomes past (not parallel to foreknowledge issues).

Well, the point has again, it seems, been missed, if there are true future-tense propositions (which OV agrees there are!), then "Chessplayer A makes move C at time T in game G..." might be just such a proposition.

2 Chronicles 36:22 In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah, the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Hi everyone,


Well, the point has again, it seems, been missed, if there are true future-tense propositions (which OV agrees there are!), then "Chessplayer A makes move C at time T in game G..." might be just such a proposition.

Blessings,
Lee

Possible future tense propositions only become actual/certain when the event becomes reality (an object of actual knowledge). Your ACTG sentence only becomes true when the actual move is made. A moment before the move, hundreds of other possible moves could be made. Until the move is made, it may or may not happen. This uncertainty means that it is correctly known as possible vs actual. Working backwards and stating in retrospect that a certain move was made does not mean this was obvious in advance. Foreknowledge is not hindsight. The present and past is fundamentally different than the future (hence the difference in actual knowledge; the past and present is known exhaustively, but the future is only known when it becomes actual).

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Possible future tense propositions only become actual/certain when the event becomes reality (an object of actual knowledge).

Certainly an event is not actual until it happens, but...

Then there might not be a new heavens and a new earth? This is not certain? God doesn't really know this?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Clete]

Hi everyone,



Certainly an event is not actual until it happens, but...

Then there might not be a new heavens and a new earth? This is not certain? God doesn't really know this?

Blessings,
Lee

Lee,

You really are a one note song.

How does it follow that if God does not know exhaustively what I will do that He doesn't know what He will do Himself?

How?

Please explain to me how my free will keeps God from deciding in advance that He is going to do something at some point in the future?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Hi everyone,



Certainly an event is not actual until it happens, but...

Then there might not be a new heavens and a new earth? This is not certain? God doesn't really know this?

Blessings,
Lee

This is certain, as prophesied. It is not actual yet. The reason that it will happen is that God purposes it to happen and has the ability to bring it to pass. The mistake of closed theists is to wrongly assume that because God settles some of the future that He must settle all of the future. Determinism negates free will and moral responsibility. Is. 46:10; 48:3, etc. are examples of specific things that God knows because He has the ability to make them happen apart from what we do or do not do. It is not a proof text for exhaustive foreknowledge of all future free will contingencies (a logical impossibility, even for God). God simply does not control or cause every moral and mundane choice in the universe. The risk is that we could and did mess things up. He is providential, responsive, creative and will bring His ultimate purposes to pass despite our free will and the uncertainty it creates. He does not have to control or know every detail to ensure that He will bring about a new heaven/earth.

 

[insolafide]

RULZ: Nice caricature/straw man. I have never said anything to make you come to this absurd conclusion. Your credibility is found wanting.

youre kidding? right? you have to realize that criticizing my credibility is so ridiculous that my mind is spinning. Here is exactly what you said:

--->"God can know the number of hairs on your head because a human could also know them."

You were trying to argue that God can only know something if a human could know it, which is a ridiculous statement. And now you are saying that you "never said anything..." and you insult my credibility? unbelievable.

RULZ: Wolterstorff deals with your myopia in "God and Time: 4 views" IVP

care to tell us the argument he makes, or are you just conceding that you have no clue, but you think someone else might?

RULZ: OK, we are done, because you do not make sense. Does non-sequitur mean anything to you?

ohhh my gosh. you are crazy. you have not offered a shred of credible argumentation for ANY conclusion that you have given, and you say my arguments are non sequitor? do you even know what that means? And you think i dont make sense because you dont understand the issues, we established that a long time ago.

Nice try, but does not resolve the issues. A subjective perception of the possible future is not identical to an objective knowledge of the actual future when it becomes present and knowable.

what are you talking about!?!?!?!?! where did i say anything remotely close to "a subjective perception"? I SAID i affirm a CONCEPTUALIST model of God's knowledge.

RULZ: You obviously do not play chess if you miss the analogy. You are looking at the future with hind sight after it becomes past (not parallel to foreknowledge issues).

actually, you are wrong. i do play chess (or i have before, at least). I am not looking at the future with hind sight. I am talking about future-tensed propositions - that is describing the future with foresight, obviously.

RULZ: war

i think you need to prepare for the battle before you have a chance of making war.

And is that what this about, anyway? thats not my heart in doing theology.

peace,
jd

 

[godrulz]

You were trying to argue that God can only know something if a human could know it, which is a ridiculous statement. And now you are saying that you "never said anything..." and you insult my credibility? unbelievable.


iAnd is that what this about, anyway? thats not my heart in doing theology.

peace,
jd

You THINK I was trying to argue a certain way. The fact that you misunderstand and distort my views is the credibility issue. I have a box of apples on the table. God and I both know how many apples are in the box. How do you make the leap that this observation means that God can ONLY know something a human could know?!

It is ridiculous because you turned a valid argument (hairs) into a straw man.

God knows the past and present perfectly. We know it as a drop in the bucket of the total knowledge base. God knows all future contingencies. We are very limited in our knowledge. God knows all that is knowable perfectly and as it is in reality (distinguishes possible from actual; you blur the distinction making everything certain even if it is uncertain/contingent). We know a fraction of what is knowable. He is omniscient. We are not (read my lips).

I was playing with your words as a joke (war). Your views are not as self-evident as you might think. I am satisfied that Wolterstorff, Boyd, and others have pointed out weaknesses in Molinism. I also do not find your arguments persuasive. I have not definitively refuted them. When Clete tries to show you the holes in your logic, you do not get it. I guess that is why we are stuck in our preconceived ideas.

 

[insolafide]

You THINK I was trying to argue a certain way. The fact that you misunderstand and distort my views is the credibility issue. I have a box of apples on the table. God and I both know how many apples are in the box. How do you make the leap that this observation means that God can ONLY know something a human could know?!

It is ridiculous because you turned a valid argument (hairs) into a straw man.

God knows the past and present perfectly. We know it as a drop in the bucket of the total knowledge base. God knows all future contingencies. We are very limited in our knowledge. God knows all that is knowable perfectly and as it is in reality (distinguishes possible from actual; you blur the distinction making everything certain even if it is uncertain/contingent). We know a fraction of what is knowable. He is omniscient. We are not (read my lips).

I was playing with your words as a joke (war). Your views are not as self-evident as you might think. I am satisfied that Wolterstorff, Boyd, and others have pointed out weaknesses in Molinism. I also do not find your arguments persuasive. I have not definitively refuted them. When Clete tries to show you the holes in your logic, you do not get it. I guess that is why we are stuck in our preconceived ideas.

you have once again completely disregarded all the things i said (as if you dont understand them.....) and then MERELY restated your opinion. That is not argumentation.

You say my views are not self-evident. no duh. you must not know what self-evident means. Otherwise, you would realize that your own views are not self-evident.

then you say that clete and others have shown me holes in my logic and that *I dont get it*. Where is this alleged showing of holes in my logic? post numbers? threads? i have merely argued against their reasoning - believe it or not, THATS ALLOWED. I am not surprised that you are not persuaded by the things i say, and that is because you (1) dont understand the issues, you dont understand Molinism, and you dont understand how argumentation works. (2) you think open theism is "self-evident", which again, is hilarious. (3) you WANT to believe in Open Theism, for whatever reason. you do not believe it for intellectual reasons (that is self-evident).

peace,
jd

 

[godrulz]

There are many threads and hundreds of posts that I have laid out arguments for my views. If I do not have the time or energy to exhaustively engage you, this is my right. The future only becomes actual/knowable at a present moment. I have given analogies that you do not adequately engage.

Sir, please pick your nose right now and eat it. If you are compliant, what mechanism is there in God's being for Him to have known I would challenge you to do it from trillions of years ago before you existed or I even knew you? What caused me to log on at this moment, and you to read this in a future moment to me to respond or not? How is this knowable as a certainty from eternity past? Assuming you told me to take a hike and did not pick/eat snot, do you see you have genuine freedom to do this or not? Multiply this contingency by trillions over thousands of years. Saying God has simple foreknowledge, determinism, or even middle knowledge/counterfactuals of freedom does not explain how an omniscient God would know what you and I would do over this simple snot challenge. If you ask me to pick my nose, I may or may not do it. The question and my response were not objects of divine or human knowledge in eternity past. Genuine freedom is not compatible with exhaustive foreknowledge. You have not demonstrated that they are.

God has unlimited options in His response to us. He cannot and does not know the future exhaustively. On the other thread, I asked you about immutability and time/eternity. Does God have a history in light of the incarnation? Your presuppositions on these issues will affect your understanding of tensed issues.

It is self-evident that the past, present, and future are distinct. We live as though they are and Scripture portrays this distinction for God. If we cannot agre on this, then I perceived that we will not get anywhere in our discussions. Another poster (Eccl.) tried to argue from Special Relativity that God is timeless and can know the future based on space-time 4th dimensions. He would not engage metaphysical arguments since he felt science refuted OT. Knowing that quantum mechanics and chaos theory support OT, it became frustrating dealing with him.

Knowing your Molinistic presuppositions that have been engaged by more competent people than myself, I do not feel our interactions will produce more heat than light. I trust you will respect my limited engagement without assuming I am dense or that your view is automatically right. I will do what I can, but will not waste our time unnecessarily. As you do with myself, I do not feel you respond to our arguments either.

 

[kmoney]

Clete, sorry for the delay in responding...

God said something would happen in the future. That sounds like a prophecy to me! What about it would disqualify it as a prophecy?

Is it a prophecy everytime you tell your kids you will do something?

 

[insolafide]

There are many threads and hundreds of posts that I have laid out arguments for my views. If I do not have the time or energy to exhaustively engage you, this is my right. The future only becomes actual/knowable at a present moment. I have given analogies that you do not adequately engage.

but i have engaged them. come on, man. you just didnt understand my responses, or didnt care enough to actually respond to them. very frustrating...

Sir, please pick your nose right now and eat it. If you are compliant, what mechanism is there in God's being for Him to have known I would challenge you to do it from trillions of years ago before you existed or I even knew you?

The mechanism is Omniscience. God knows all true propositions, and knows no false ones. I cant believe that you think it is some kind of deficiency in God (that He lacks some mechanism) which would prevent Him from knowing truths about your free actions.

What caused me to log on at this moment, and you to read this in a future moment to me to respond or not? How is this knowable as a certainty from eternity past?

because there are corresponding propositions about all these things which are true. If a proposition is true, then God must know it. And if a present tense statement is true, then there is a future tense statement that corresponds to the exact same state of affairs. Since there is a future tense statement that exists as such, and is true, then God knows it by definition of Omniscience.

Assuming you told me to take a hike and did not pick/eat snot, do you see you have genuine freedom to do this or not?

yes, you have genuine freedom to not do what God knows you will do. I have explained how that is true on the Molinist system several times in this thread.

Multiply this contingency by trillions over thousands of years.

it doesnt matter how many times you multiply it. God is God! you cant out-multiply God's Omniscience.

Saying God has simple foreknowledge, determinism, or even middle knowledge/counterfactuals of freedom does not explain how an omniscient God would know what you and I would do over this simple snot challenge. If you ask me to pick my nose, I may or may not do it. The question and my response were not objects of divine or human knowledge in eternity past. Genuine freedom is not compatible with exhaustive foreknowledge. You have not demonstrated that they are.

Yes I have. I have shown that an agent has the real ability, when choosing something, in that they COULD choose something or they COULD NOT choose something. And these propositions are both true. Then by Middle-knowledge knows simply what the agent WOULD choose in any situation they could be in. but WOULD and COULD and COULD NOT could all be true at the same time. Then, when God decides which world to create, God knows what the agent WILL choose. but WILL, WOULD, COULD, and COULD NOT can all be true at the same time. So this demonstrates how exhaustive foreknowledge (the WILLs) is compatible with genuine freedom (COULD and COULD NOT).

please try to understand this. please. I AM BEGGING YOU, to think about it.

God has unlimited options in His response to us. He cannot and does not know the future exhaustively.

do you see how this is merely a statement? its not a defense or an argument, its just a statement.

On the other thread, I asked you about immutability and time/eternity. Does God have a history in light of the incarnation? Your presuppositions on these issues will affect your understanding of tensed issues.

I affirm that God is essentially timeless, but that He became temporal upon His act of creation. Thus, I believe that God experiances time, has a history, knows tensed facts, etc.

I affirm presentism, that temporal becoming is real, and that the A-theory (dynamic view) of time is correct.

as an Open Theist, you shouldnt disagree with any of the above. So, now that you cant use the genetic fallacy on me, what is your next move?

It is self-evident that the past, present, and future are distinct.

This is NOT self-evident (seriously, do you know what that means?). There are many smart people who believe that past, present, and future are illusory and dependant on our subjective experience. I dont agree with them, but I am not going to sit here and say (like you do) that they are wrong because the dynamic view of time is "self-evident" because thats just not true.

We live as though they are and Scripture portrays this distinction for God.

I agree that our common intuitions are that we are really temporal beings. But I agree with you.

If we cannot agree on this, then I perceived that we will not get anywhere in our discussions.

It seems like you have already assumed that i do disagree with you about this.

Another poster (Eccl.) tried to argue from Special Relativity that God is timeless and can know the future based on space-time 4th dimensions.

And if you recall, I disagreed with him that Special Relativity could establish that.

He would not engage metaphysical arguments since he felt science refuted OT. Knowing that quantum mechanics and chaos theory support OT, it became frustrating dealing with him.

Actually, quantum mechanics and chaos theory do not support OT, but lets not get further sidetracked by that...

Knowing your Molinistic presuppositions that have been engaged by more competent people than myself, I do not feel our interactions will produce more heat than light. I trust you will respect my limited engagement without assuming I am dense or that your view is automatically right. I will do what I can, but will not waste our time unnecessarily. As you do with myself, I do not feel you respond to our arguments either.

What I have observed from your responses is that you do not understand argumentation, or other views other than OT. Thats troubling. As a Molinist, I am a student of Calvinism and Open theism and all other views that might be out there. Thats because in order to know if the view that you hold is the most plausible or correct, you have to know what the other major views hold. you should try it, it is really helpful.

peace,
jd