Rob,Rob said:I never said they were logically impossible. In fact, my point is the opposite. The expressions 'thought to be impossible' and 'are impossible' are different expressions and the focus of my post.
Why do you pretend like I'm stupid? I finally engage the discussion again and the first thing you do is act as though I have no short term memory whatsoever. If you wonder why I can't hardly stand to have a conversation with you - well, that's why!
Patman's argument (and certainly mine as well) has nothing to do with suggesting that something couldn't be true because we don't see how God would be able to do it, which is precisely the argument you are suggesting we are using by comparing what we are saying to things like going to the moon and breaking the sound barrier.
And saying that something is logically possible is not at all the same thing as admitting that it is actually possible, which you seem to also be suggesting. Is it logically possible for God to time travel? Well given just that simply question you cannot even answer it with a "yes" or "no" because the terms are not sufficiently defined. One person (you for example) might say "yes" because he believes time to be a thing which can be entered and exited from, whereas someone else (me for example) would answer "no" because time is simply the passage of events and thus "time travel" contains an internal contradiction in that it is itself and event and when the time travel trip is over is it a past event, even if one where to have travel into the past. See how it makes no sense? It's contradictory and therefore LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Please read again the last line that I quoted in my previous post...
"An important thing to keep in mind here is that whether a self-contradiction is present will depend on how the relevant concepts are defined."
This is the part that you seem incapable of keeping track of for more than one post at a time. The idea of exhaustive foreknowledge does not exist in a vacuum. This discussion about exhaustive foreknowledge is happening within the confines of a Christian worldview and as such there is a whole plethora of Christian concepts with which it must coexist without contradiction in order to be true. Issues like love, free will, and moral responsibility cannot survive the logical implications of exhaustive foreknowledge and since Christianity cannot survive the falsification of either love or moral responsibility and the falsification of Christianity would render the whole discussion moot then exhaustive foreknowledge must be rejected as false because of the logical impossibility of the contrary. Thus, to state it simply, in a Christian worldview, exhaustive foreknowledge is logically impossible.
Now that's the argument (or a version of it) which you are responding too with that "just because we think something is logically impossible doesn't mean that God can't do it" comment which you made above and which you have made a dozen times by comparing foreknowledge to walking on water or creating the universe, which, in turn, gives me darn good reason to think that you don't know what the term "logical impossibility" means. In fact, there are really only three possibilities.
1. You don't know what "logically impossiblity" means.
2. You don't understand the argument.
3. You are being intellectually dishonest and presenting an argument which you know to be fallacious.
Resting in Him,
Clete