Honest struggles on God’s omniscience.

[JudgeRightly]

Are you kidding? Did you not read his last 2 posts at all?

No, all he can do is repeat himself, and maybe bring up a new favorite-prooftext or two when he remembers it. He is incapable of responding to anything beyond what he's been brainwashed indoctrinated into believing, and will stubbornly cling to it probably until the day he dies. He will never move an inch off his position.

See, I know the future too! I'm clearly not God. I clearly don't have exhaustive divine foreknowledge, so how do I know these things? Because way 2 go has done nothing but repeat himself for the last however many pages. What little that's new that he's brought up is hardly worth responding to, except to catalogue in a reference post so that I don't have to respond to it again, due to how simple of an argument it is.

But here's hoping, as God did for the Israelites, that he changes his ways.

 

[Clete]

No, all he can do is repeat himself, and maybe bring up a new favorite-prooftext or two when he remembers it. He is incapable of responding to anything beyond what he's been brainwashed indoctrinated into believing, and will stubbornly cling to it probably until the day he dies. He will never move an inch off his position.

See, I know the future too! I'm clearly not God. I clearly don't have exhaustive divine foreknowledge, so how do I know these things? Because way 2 go has done nothing but repeat himself for the last however many pages. What little that's new that he's brought up is hardly worth responding to, except to catalogue in a reference post so that I don't have to respond to it again, due to how simple of an argument it is.

But here's hoping, as God did for the Israelites, that he changes his ways.

Perfect!

 

[Idolater]

... I clearly don't have exhaustive divine foreknowledge, so how do I know these things? Because way 2 go has done nothing but repeat himself for the last however many pages. ...

I don't understand. This is the same logic that I have used since I started at TOL in no later then 1999 to defend God's foreknowledge of human free choices. I brought up the movie The Game right away, back in 1999, when I first encountered one of the first manifestations of Sozo here, I brought up the movie to him, he approved of the movie, but didn't see the point I was making.

obv @way 2 go is free to choose whatever argument he wishes, you obv have no control over what he's going to choose, but you do know what he's going to do, and this doesn't make him not free by virtue of you knowing what he's going to do, but somehow Open theists always want to say that God's foreknowledge does conflict with human freedom.

I do not understand how you can say the above with a straight face.

 

[Derf]

I don't understand. This is the same logic that I have used since I started at TOL in no later then 1999 to defend God's foreknowledge of human free choices. I brought up the movie The Game right away, back in 1999, when I first encountered one of the first manifestations of Sozo here, I brought up the movie to him, he approved of the movie, but didn't see the point I was making.

obv @way 2 go is free to choose whatever argument he wishes, you obv have no control over what he's going to choose, but you do know what he's going to do, and this doesn't make him not free by virtue of you knowing what he's going to do, but somehow Open theists always want to say that God's foreknowledge does conflict with human freedom.

It is unlikely that he will change his mind, but he could. Repentance (change of direction, not turning from sin) is possible, but based on a few factors, it is unlikely in @way 2 go’s case. He isn’t currently addressing even the arguments presented, so how would he be convinced by them? Repentance (turning from sin) is possible for those in his Revelation passage, but unlikely based on a few factors, like previous, continual rejection of the gospel. That’s essentially how these people are defined, having already resisted the truth to this point, so a little more hardship is unlikely to change anything.

 

[way 2 go]

I don't understand. This is the same logic that I have used since I started at TOL in no later then 1999 to defend God's foreknowledge of human free choices. I brought up the movie The Game right away, back in 1999, when I first encountered one of the first manifestations of Sozo here, I brought up the movie to him, he approved of the movie, but didn't see the point I was making.

obv @way 2 go is free to choose whatever argument he wishes, you obv have no control over what he's going to choose, but you do know what he's going to do, and this doesn't make him not free by virtue of you knowing what he's going to do, but somehow Open theists always want to say that God's foreknowledge does conflict with human freedom.

I do not understand how you can say the above with a straight face.

"Open theists always want to say that God's foreknowledge does conflict with human freedom" if he had it ,
with the "Rev 9:20-21 they did not repent" which is clearly foreknowledge the open theist applies their presupposition of God has no foreknowledge and viola no proof text for you therefore no conflict with open theism

 

[JudgeRightly]

"Open theists always want to say that God's foreknowledge does conflict with human freedom" if he had it ,

with the "Rev 9:20-21 they did not repent" which is clearly foreknowledge the open theist applies their presupposition of God has no foreknowledge and viola no proof text for you therefore no conflict with open theism

And there it is.

I predicted that you would repeat Revelation 9:20-21 instead of addressing the answers already given, and you immediately did exactly that.

Yet you could have done otherwise. You could have addressed Arguments 15-20 in #278. You could have answered Derf’s distinction between what is unlikely and what is impossible. You simply chose not to.

That is why my prediction was not infallible foreknowledge. It was a well-founded expectation based upon your established behavior.

As for Revelation:

“Clearly foreknowledge” is an assertion, not an argument.

I have already explained that the men literally did not repent within the vision. What you have not demonstrated is that every event portrayed within the vision was already an immutable fact of actual future history.

Calling my conclusion a “presupposition” does not answer the reasoning that produced it.

You are assuming:

1. Everything portrayed in the vision is an immutable transcript of actual future history.
2. Therefore, the men’s failure to repent was already an immutable future fact.
3. Therefore, Revelation proves exhaustive infallible foreknowledge.

Premise 1 is the very point in dispute.

See #278, Arguments 15-20.

Thank you for proving my prediction correct while simultaneously demonstrating that a correct prediction does not eliminate the possibility of doing otherwise.

 

[way 2 go]

And there it is.

I predicted that you would repeat Revelation 9:20-21 instead of addressing the answers already given, and you immediately did exactly that.

Yet you could have done otherwise. You could have addressed Arguments 15-20 in #278. You could have answered Derf’s distinction between what is unlikely and what is impossible. You simply chose not to.

That is why my prediction was not infallible foreknowledge. It was a well-founded expectation based upon your established behavior.

15
this would be presupposition :The vision itself portrays what might happen in actual history if the relevant circumstances do not change.
16
this would be presupposition : the vision was not intended as an infallible recording of unalterable future history ( i added "not" as that is the open theist view )
so Hezekiah to a classic theist is used as a story as to why God might not heal , what do open theist use it for , God makes mistakes
Jonah knew Nineveh would not be destroyed which is why he didn't want to go 4:2 I assert God must have known too
17
this would be presupposition : He may know
and you don't even acknowledge he knows all current things

(John 21:17) He said to him the third time, Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me? Peter was grieved because He said to him a third time , Do you love Me? And he said to Him, Lord, You know all things, You know that I love You. Jesus said to him, Feed My sheep.

(I John 3:20) For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things

18&19&20
if God infallibly knows their choice of "they did not repent" who is responsible for "they did not repent" God or the unrepentant
open theist don't believe in foreknowledge , so open theist deny a mechanism ,they say it is necessary but not who is responsible thus avoiding the modal fallacy .

As for Revelation:

“Clearly foreknowledge” is an assertion, not an argument.

I have already explained that the men literally did not repent within the vision. What you have not demonstrated is that every event portrayed within the vision was already an immutable fact of actual future history.

Calling my conclusion a “presupposition” does not answer the reasoning that produced it.

but it is by the open theism presupposition that Revelation 9:20-21 is waved away

You are assuming:

1. Everything portrayed in the vision is an immutable transcript of actual future history.
2. Therefore, the men’s failure to repent was already an immutable future fact.
3. Therefore, Revelation proves exhaustive infallible foreknowledge.

Premise 1 is the very point in dispute.

See #278, Arguments 15-20.

Thank you for proving my prediction correct while simultaneously demonstrating that a correct prediction does not eliminate the possibility of doing otherwise.

1 you are assuming its not
2 who is responsible
3 (Revelation of John 22:13) I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last

 

[Clete]

"Open theists always want to say that God's foreknowledge does conflict with human freedom" if he had it ,
with the "Rev 9:20-21 they did not repent" which is clearly foreknowledge the open theist applies their presupposition of God has no foreknowledge and viola no proof text for you therefore no conflict with open theism

Classical theists always want to say that God's knowledge is exhaustive and immutable. But when they come to Genesis 18:21, 'I will go down now and see....and if not, I will know', which is clearly a statement that God does not already possess sort of omniscience that Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine attributed to Him, the classical theist simply applies his presupposition that God already knows everything exhaustively and voilà! No proof text for you, and therefore no conflict with classical theism.

Classical theists always want to say God possesses exhaustive, settled knowledge of every fact. But when they read Jeremiah 3:7, 'I thought, After she has done all this she will return to Me, but she did not return', which plainly depicts God expecting one outcome but another occurring, they simply apply their presupposition that God does have exhaustive foreknowledge and that therefore the passage couldn't possibly mean what He says. Voilà! No proof text for you, and therefore no conflict with classical theism.

Classical theists always want to say that God cannot change His mind. But when they come to Exodus 32:14, 'So the LORD repented from the disaster which He said He would bring upon His people,' which is clearly teaches that God does change His mind, the classical theist simply applies his presupposition that God never actually changes His mind. Voilà! No proof text for you, and therefore no conflict with classical theism.