On the omniscience of God

[Lon]

That is the fattest straw man I've ever seen. Here's a quote from the Roman Catholic Church in the year A.D. 431

“Mother of God, not that the nature of the Word or his divinity
received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that,
since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of
God united to himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her,
the Word is said to be born according to the flesh.”

Catholics believe the following things about Mary....

• Mother of God: Mary is honored as the mother of Jesus, who is both God and man.
• Immaculate Conception: Mary was conceived without original sin to be a pure vessel for the birth of Jesus.
• Perpetual Virginity: Catholics believe Mary remained a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus.
• Assumption: Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven at the end of her earthly life.
• Intercessor: Mary is considered a powerful intercessor, meaning Catholics believe she prays for them to God.
• Queen of Heaven: Mary is honored as the queen of heaven and earth, a title given due to her role as the mother of the King (Jesus).
• Co-Redemptrix (debated): Some Catholics believe Mary played a unique role in the redemption of humanity, though this is not an official doctrine.

And so you'll forgive me if I don't strongly suspect that you've packed extra meaning into the idea that Mary mothered the baby Jesus and made it into something more than the words by themselves would suggest. I'm no expert on Catholicism and so maybe I'm wrong but it'll take more than your saying so to convince me.

It'd seem Clete and I are concerned with Mariology problems in the RC (rosary beads by example). I have several, refused to do "Hail Mary's." I also, had a hard time doing a lot of repeated "Our Father's" not because we don't need to memorize scriptures, but I didn't want to get in the habit of 'repetitious prayers' Our Lord warns about. Many practices in Catholicism, without lots of explanation, can do the opposite of the prescription after confession "go do 10 Our Fathers and 20 Hail Mary's." It isn't "Mother of Jesus" issues, but the veneration issues and sainthood issues. Most Mariology problems in the RC began from the congregation. It is one, odd, instance where the congregation affected the theology rather than the priests downward.

 

[Clete]

MOTHER mother. Not 'earthly' mother, as if there's something like an Outer Space mother Clete! Why are you so intent on smuggling in strange and irregular meanings into this very simple and innocuous word!



That's all you need to know. Who cares about the other things? They don't matter and they have nothing to do with whether 'mother' means mother. The word is extremely simple and uncomplicated.



The queen of Heaven part is pretty straight forward from logic. Mother of the king is the queen mother. That's just dictionary definition. I don't understand the hangup. But regardless ... .



I quoted JP2's Catechism, which quoted the Roman Catholic Church from A.D. 431 for you Clete, to allay your concern. Mother means mother plain and simple, no games.

I notice you ignore the primary reason I gave for distrusting you on this.

It simply cannot be what you are pretending it is because if it were that simple there'd be no controversy and asking who the mother of Jesus was would be akin to asking what color the sky is and making a big deal out of the fact that the correct answer is "blue".

There's very clearly more to it than you are trying to make us believe.

 

[Clete]

It'd seem Clete and I are concerned with Mariology problems in the RC (rosary beads by example). I have several, refused to do "Hail Mary's." I also, had a hard time doing a lot of repeated "Our Father's" not because we don't need to memorize scriptures, but I didn't want to get in the habit of 'repetitious prayers' Our Lord warns about. Many practices in Catholicism, without lots of explanation, can do the opposite of the prescription after confession "go do 10 Our Fathers and 20 Hail Mary's." It isn't "Mother of Jesus" issues, but the veneration issues and sainthood issues. Most Mariology problems in the RC began from the congregation. It is one, odd, instance where the congregation affected the theology rather than the priests downward.

Catholics would have to concern themselves with being biblical if anything you said here had any effect on their doctrine. They don't care what the bible teaches unless and until it happens to be theologically convenient for them.

 

[Clete]

I did. It's literally in the post.

Liar.

 

[Clete]

Here's the deal. Either "(our future choices are not known to Him)" or not.

That's my line.

If (our future choices are not known to Him), then that makes Him less knowledgeable than us.

This is your idiotic contention that has been refuted multiple times without any substantive response from you. Repeating your claims don't count as rebuttals.

If that's the case then it makes Him impotent, non-existent, or Deistic—no other options, at least that I can think of.

Well, first of all "what you can think of" isn't exactly a reasuring caveat.

More importantly, it isn't the case and so your objection is moot.

And as you and JR have said, nobody here believes God knows less than us.

And yet you keep arguing as though someone on this thread believes that He does know less than us.

So (our future choices are not known to Him) is not true, on your own words.

That doesn't follow. You are an idiot.

But then you turn around and say (our future choices are not known to Him) is true.

They aren't! They are known to Him in a way adjacent to the way we know them, which is almost never in the "infallible foreknowledge" sense of the word "known". Expectation is not certainty, even when it comes to our own actions.

Of course, God knows us better than we know ourselves and so in some respects God probably knows our future actions better than even we do but it still does not mean that His knowledge is infallible. Indeed, there isn't any real reason to believe that God cares about trying to know every one of our future actions. Why would God care to know when my next trip to the bathroom will be or whether I wipe twice or three times? He wouldn't! I wouldn't!

You just seem confused.

It's an illusion, Idolater. It's caused you're lack of clear thinking.

Are you "legitimately stupid"? "idiotic"? not "got the brains to comprehend it"? (These are all your words to me.) I doubt it. I just think you're confused.

You don't have to remind me of my own words. I meant what I said. You're either stupid or dishonest or both.

idk why you throw around such insults recklessly like this. Glass houses and all. But whatever.

Reckless? NO!

On the contrary. It's quite on purpose and intentional. If you don't like it, you're aren't supposed to. An honest person wouldn't be asking my why I insulted them, they'd be asking whether they deserve it.

 

[Derf]

You never got around to post 1538, I'm just reposting word-for-word here:

Thanks!

We know all sorts of things about future choices, you're exaggerating.

Did I say we know absolutely nothing about our future choices? I gave an option of fruitloops vs raisin bran, which is a major narrowing down from all possible cereals. Any narrowing of options is positive information about the final choices.

You know you're going to eat today. You know you'll answer nature's call a few times. You'll retire to bed tonight. You'll get out of bed tomorrow. All kinds of stuff.

Yes, and none of it is more than God knows .

That wasn't a new breed, that was a breed I saw on TOL over 20 years ago. That's why I answered the way I did.



Yeah. Remember we don't know the future, I'm not claiming otherwise, and by future here I mean conditions, circumstances and situations. We don't know the weather for instance, or whether there'll be a viral pandemic. And if the situations which obtain are just out of our common experience, like a World War breaks out, then ofc nobody really knows what they're going to do in the future, but it's not because we don't know ourselves, it's because we're taken by surprise by the circumstances which obtain. If things settle down and there's nothing surprising in the future, then we do have excellent certainty about the future choices that we will make.

Not between fruit loops and raisin bran. The choice between two mundane cereal brands is exactly the kind of choice that is made less certain if things are settled.

And that choice you're going to make is going to depend on your situation.

Only if the situation eliminates fruitloops and forces raisin bran, some other thing that eliminates an option.

Sometimes you wake up and you just have a hankering for syrup, and if you were to study this biochemically and take daily blood tests perhaps you'll see that when your blood sugar is on the low side, which only occurs once every 30 days or so, then it's associated with the hankering for syrup. Who knows. Point is, you don't know the future, in this case, your future blood sugar, or some other biomarker in your bloodwork. It affects how you feel, which affects your choice, but it remains true that when your blood or your central nervous system or some other physical condition that's beyond your ability to control, is a certain status, that you will choose syrup that day. And if it's not that status, you will choose just butter. If A then X, if B then Y.

And certainly God can know more about such things than we...and can control such things in order to force one option over another. But unless you propose that God knows all future choices because He has decided what we will choose in every instance (aka Calvinism), there's no reason to look beyond open theism for these kinds of answers, is there?

 

[Lon]

Catholics would have to concern themselves with being biblical if anything you said here had any effect on their doctrine. They don't care what the bible teaches unless and until it happens to be theologically convenient for them.

Catholics have a three-legged stool: Tradition, Authority, Scripture All equally supporting. We have a stool where Scriptures are the top of the stool, top-down in our faith. We scripturally question tradition and authority by it (we believe rightly so). On TOL, we do subject our views to one another, in service, love, and accountability, but more so in our respective church bodies, and we do look at councils and theological statements as well, but our truth structure has scripture as the necessary seat of our theological conceptions. Many of us who came under Catholic teaching know of those three legs, but we've taken over those authorities and some 10-30% of those traditions to weigh for ourselves, through the lens of scripture, what is from God and what is not, hence to a Catholic "brothers in error."

 

[Clete]

Catholics have a three-legged stool: Tradition, Authority, Scripture All equally supporting.

This is their stated position but it definitely not their practice. If it were the socialist fool they have as a Pope wouldn't even be allowed to call himself a Catholic.

We have a stool where Scriptures are the top of the stool, top-down in our faith.

If you want a three legged stool....

1. God is Reason (Logos, John 1:1). Sound reason is therefore the foundation of all truth and, being made in His image, we can trust our reasoning when used rightly and humbly, enabling us to rightly interpret Scripture and test all things for consistency and truth.

2. Scripture, plainly read, is God's direct revelation, it is book written by the Logos of God. It is, therefore, the foundation of all doctrinal truth.

3. Creation testifies to its Maker, again the Logos of God, revealing His eternal power and divine nature (Romans 1:20) and because God is Reason, His creation reflects order and design, confirming both Scripture and reason and by extension the principles of proper living which are righteousness and justice.

We scripturally question tradition and authority by it (we believe rightly so).

Our belief has nothing to do with right and wrong. It is either rightly so, or it isn't. You really should not speak of right and wrong in terms of personal opinion.

On TOL, we do subject our views to one another, in service, love, and accountability, but more so in our respective church bodies, and we do look at councils and theological statements as well, but our truth structure has scripture as the necessary seat of our theological conceptions. Many of us who came under Catholic teaching know of those three legs, but we've taken over those authorities and some 10-30% of those traditions to weigh for ourselves, through the lens of scripture, what is from God and what is not, hence to a Catholic "brothers in error."

Catholics only give lip service to both scripture and plain reason. They will twist either into whatever knot is necessary to preserve their traditions. Thus, the existence of the current Pope, who, if either scripture or reason was of any importance to them at all, would be run out of the Vatican on a rail.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Fact is there's a genus of people out there who identify as Roman Catholics, but there are different species in that genus. The vast majority of people who identify as Roman Catholics are in one species, well over 90% probably in the World, and that species is what I'm calling regular or vanilla Roman Catholics simpliciter. But there are a variety of species who are irregular, exemplified by people such as Taylor Marshall, such as Timothy J. Gordon, such as Mel Gibson, that are in the public eye, but who are not regular old Roman Catholics simpliciter, and so they don't represent the vast majority of us. They are more nuanced in their views, and I'm forewarning anybody who's unaware, that just because someone identifies as Roman Catholic is not enough to prove that they are any kind of reliable source for what regular Roman Catholicism simpliciter is, especially on the margins, but even just generally sometimes.

You used a lot of words for what should have been a simple request.

What does "vanilla Roman Catholicism simpliciter" mean?

I asked for a definition, not a bunch of waffle.

That applies to the Old Testament only, is that what you mean? I mean, in context, where that passage is found, there's no reason to apply it to the New Testament Scriptures, because there Paul is only talking about the Old Testament. Agreed?

It applies to the entirety of scripture.

Or do you think that Paul's writings are not "the oracles of God"? I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't.

I WOULD be VERY surprised if you thought that Peter's, James's, John's, writings, etc, are not "the oracles of God."

Peter calls Paul's writings scripture.

Remember what I said?

Scripture was scripture the moment it was written, not when it was compiled into a book.

That doesn't apply to the New Testament though.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Who decided which books would be included as Scripture in the New Testament?

Do you not think God had a hand in deciding which would be considered scripture?

Your argument only substantiates the Old Testament.

False.

He doesn't know if a hurricane or an earthquake

Last I checked, humans can't very well affect natural phenomena. God can, though. Which means even those are not much of an argument for your side.

or a global pandemic is coming?

I'll let you think about that one for a moment, within the context of my argument.

Come on.

No, YOU come on!

You're being intentionally obtuse here.

A "will" is the ability to choose otherwise.

Wills are, by definition, free. In other words, if it's not free, it's not a will.

If God infallibly knows that someone will do something, such as answering a phone at a specific time, then they will not do otherwise, by definition, thus they will not do it freely, because they do not have the ability to choose otherwise.

He does because it's entirely dependent on whether the President WANTS to post on social media, and we ALL know that he does, so the only situation, circumstance, or condition that's going to render him incapable of posting on social media is something God's going to KNOW about.

So Trump could not, on a whim, change his mind at the very last second, and refrain from pushing the send button?

If not, then He does not have a will.

Because it's definitely NOT going to be because suddenly President Trump doesn't WANT to post on social media! That's not going to be the reason why, that is positively ruled out.

This is called begging the question.

How do you know it's ruled out?

Do you have more knowledge than God?

People are what they are.

People can do things they don't normally do. Like changing their mind.

I'm not saying they can't change,

That's EXACTLY what you're saying.

I'm saying they don't change,

Don't, can't, what difference does it make on your view?

The future is settled, and their decision is set in stone. They don't change because they cannot change.

and so therefore it's possible to have infallible foreknowledge of what they're going to do in the future, as long as they're able.

No, Idolater, it's not possible. It is logically impossible for God to have infallible foreknowledge of something, and for there to be any possibility of it not happening.

Why?

Because of the very definition of infallible.

God alone would know situations, circumstances and conditions that would render them unable, whether they come to pass or not.

If something does not come to pass, when it should have, or it does, when it should not have, then it cannnot have been infallibly foreknown either way.

That's the entire point, Idolater!

What you're describing is not infallible foreknowledge!

If God knew, infallibly, that you would answer the phone tomorrow at 9 a.m., and then you died (God forbid) tonight at 7 p.m., that would contradict the infallibility of God's knowledge!

So He would have additional knowledge beyond what we know,

1 + 1 = 2

1 + 1 does not equal "all knowledge."

It doesn't even mean "infallible knowledge."

It just means there's more knowledge than what you had originally.

but even so we have Biblically provable infallibility

No, you don't.

You're making a claim, "all cars are red."

When you make such a claim, "all cars are red," it's easy to point to a single red car and say, "see, this demonstrates my claim.

But all it takes is for me to point to a single blue car for your claim to be completely and utterly refuted.

Likewise, you can claim "we have Biblically provable infallibility," and point to a few passages that affirm your claim.

But all it takes is for me to point to a single passage in scripture that contradicts you for your claim to be completely and utterly refuted.

Would you like for me to demonstrate? Go on, point to a passage that affirms your claim, "we have Biblically provable infallibility."

in predicting what other people are going to do in the future,

Predicting, not infallibly knowing.

HUGE difference!

and we certainly have that about ourselves, as long as we're not exaggerating or being obtuse about it.

What we do not have is infallible foreknowledge of our future actions.

That's right. So you should all be agreeing with EVERYTHING I'm saying. Because it all falls out of the fact He knows at least what we know. That He knows more than we know doesn't even enter into it.

No.

Because:

God knowing at least what we know does not mean God knows everything infallibly.

That would be a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow.

In other words, you still haven't established anything remotely showing that what I posted earlier is wrong, that infallible foreknowledge means no free will.

Why do you think this?

Because I agree with scripture, which shows that He had no idea about some situations, circumstances and conditions that came to pass!

Don't you think He infallibly knows whether a tornado, hurricane, earthquake, sinkhole, tsunami, asteroid impact, heart attack, stroke, a cable snapping, a bridge collapsing, are going to happen or not? I assume you do, so I'm legitimately puzzled.

Not a single one of those things fall into the category of what we're talking about right now.

And even if they did, it STILL wouldn't prove your position.

Why?

Because God can intervene! He has the ability to do so! He can CHANGE THE OUTCOME!

Meaning that whatever happens is NOT INFALLIBLY FOREKNOWN!

If the future is settled, then there's no free will, right?

Yes.

Conversely, if God has a will, then the future is not settled.

According to the only Biblical test we have for infallible foreknowledge, this is roundly false. I know I'm about to draw a breath. There, I did it. Biblically, I've passed the only test given to us by God, for determining whether a prophet is legit or not.

You clearly do not understand what the context of that "test" is, nor do you correctly perform it.

The test is NOT about things that will happen shortly.

It's about things that will happen in the future, and specifically, by those who claim to speak for God.

It ALSO completely ignores, and even goes against, the passage that says "our every breath is from the Lord," which means that we are NOT guaranteed our next breath, despite it being such a sure thing!

In other words, it's just more confirmation bias on your part.

Like, when Our Lord infallibly foreknew Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crowed?

Again, confirmation bias.

Two points:

1) Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 - New King James Version

The Greatest Gift - Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains...

www.biblegateway.com

2) Do you think Peter could not have realized what he was about to do, and not done it? And if so, do you not think that Jesus would have been overjoyed by Peter not doing what Jesus said Peter would do? If the answer to the former is no, then at least, even though you're wrong, you're being consistent! But if the former is "yes" and the latter is "no, I don't think Jesus would have been happy Peter didn't do what Jesus said Peter would do," then you've got some MAJOR theological issues to work out between you and God. If BOTH are yes, then you have conceded the argument in its entirety!

There's no in-between!

Either God infallibly knows the future, or He does not!

Or like how I infallibly foreknew RD here would respond to me right itt?

Now you're just lying. You do not have infallible knowledge of anything.

You are human. You are fallible.

To claim otherwise is putting yourself on the level of God.

We know people, we know them well. God knows them, certainly at least as well as we do. He also knows upcoming circumstances and events, and so combining together His knowledges, plural, He makes a more complete foreknowledge of the future than we have access to,

1 + 1 + 1 = 3

It does not equal "all knowledge."

God is far better at making predictions than we are, sure.

It doesn't mean those predictions always come to pass, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean He cannot intervene to make those predictions come true, or to prevent them from coming to pass!

but it doesn't mean our own foreknowledge of the future free choices that people are going to make isn't solid, certain, infallible even—except for very specific circumstances—like you say.

But that's entirely the point.

We DON'T have 100% certainty.

Those "specific circumstances" being possible are what prevent us from being "100% certain."

Not how the word is used in the literature.

No idea what you're talking about.

I addressed it.

No, you didn't.

You may think you have, but you have not.

The reason God or anybody can know you'll answer the phone is because they know YOU.

So what? Am I unable to choose otherwise? If so, then that establishes my argument. If not, that establishes my argument.

Are you the type who answers their ringing phone regardless?

Joke's on you, I have a call screener on my phone that answers it for me.

If not, then what circumstance, condition, situation, or event might prompt you to change your default?

Why does there need to be any of those things?

What prevents me from doing something completely out of character?

Thanks for proving my point!

There is NO MIDDLE GROUND.

Either the future is 100% settled (infallibly foreknown), or it is not and men have the ability to choose otherwise.

God's going to know that, even though we aren't.

Because you say so?

So the only thing separating your argument about God's foreknowledge, from our own foreknowledge, is an irregular event, circumstance, situation and condition, coming to pass. That's the "very specific circumstances" exception you mentioned above. Without "very specific circumstances", God's foreknowledge and our foreknowledge are the same, because it depends on how well we know the person in question, and both God and us know people very well.

This has nothing to do with my argument.

Again, the argument is:

T = You answer the phone tomorrow at 9 am. (1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge] (2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past] (3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2] (4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”] (5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle] (6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5] (7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”] (8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7] (9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities] (10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

This is addressed,

False.

and it does prove more than you want it to prove.

See Clete's response, above.

It proves that we don't have free will, or that the future is settled, however you want to skin that cat, it doesn't matter to me.

It only proves that IF the future is settled, then men are not free. It makes no claim to whether the future IS settled.

 

[Bladerunner]

You used a lot of words for what should have been a simple request.

What does "vanilla Roman Catholicism simpliciter" mean?

I asked for a definition, not a bunch of waffle.



It applies to the entirety of scripture.

Or do you think that Paul's writings are not "the oracles of God"? I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't.

I WOULD be VERY surprised if you thought that Peter's, James's, John's, writings, etc, are not "the oracles of God."

Peter calls Paul's writings scripture.

Remember what I said?

Scripture was scripture the moment it was written, not when it was compiled into a book.



Saying it doesn't make it so.



Do you not think God had a hand in deciding which would be considered scripture?



False.



Last I checked, humans can't very well affect natural phenomena. God can, though. Which means even those are not much of an argument for your side.



I'll let you think about that one for a moment, within the context of my argument.



No, YOU come on!

You're being intentionally obtuse here.

A "will" is the ability to choose otherwise.

Wills are, by definition, free. In other words, if it's not free, it's not a will.

If God infallibly knows that someone will do something, such as answering a phone at a specific time, then they will not do otherwise, by definition, thus they will not do it freely, because they do not have the ability to choose otherwise.



So Trump could not, on a whim, change his mind at the very last second, and refrain from pushing the send button?

If not, then He does not have a will.



This is called begging the question.

How do you know it's ruled out?

Do you have more knowledge than God?



People can do things they don't normally do. Like changing their mind.



That's EXACTLY what you're saying.



Don't, can't, what difference does it make on your view?

The future is settled, and their decision is set in stone. They don't change because they cannot change.



No, Idolater, it's not possible. It is logically impossible for God to have infallible foreknowledge of something, and for there to be any possibility of it not happening.

Why?

Because of the very definition of infallible.



If something does not come to pass, when it should have, or it does, when it should not have, then it cannnot have been infallibly foreknown either way.

That's the entire point, Idolater!

What you're describing is not infallible foreknowledge!

If God knew, infallibly, that you would answer the phone tomorrow at 9 a.m., and then you died (God forbid) tonight at 7 p.m., that would contradict the infallibility of God's knowledge!



1 + 1 = 2

1 + 1 does not equal "all knowledge."

It doesn't even mean "infallible knowledge."

It just means there's more knowledge than what you had originally.



No, you don't.

You're making a claim, "all cars are red."

When you make such a claim, "all cars are red," it's easy to point to a single red car and say, "see, this demonstrates my claim.

But all it takes is for me to point to a single blue car for your claim to be completely and utterly refuted.

Likewise, you can claim "we have Biblically provable infallibility," and point to a few passages that affirm your claim.

But all it takes is for me to point to a single passage in scripture that contradicts you for your claim to be completely and utterly refuted.

Would you like for me to demonstrate? Go on, point to a passage that affirms your claim, "we have Biblically provable infallibility."



Predicting, not infallibly knowing.

HUGE difference!



What we do not have is infallible foreknowledge of our future actions.



No.

Because:

God knowing at least what we know does not mean God knows everything infallibly.

That would be a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow.

In other words, you still haven't established anything remotely showing that what I posted earlier is wrong, that infallible foreknowledge means no free will.



Because I agree with scripture, which shows that He had no idea about some situations, circumstances and conditions that came to pass!



Not a single one of those things fall into the category of what we're talking about right now.

And even if they did, it STILL wouldn't prove your position.

Why?

Because God can intervene! He has the ability to do so! He can CHANGE THE OUTCOME!

Meaning that whatever happens is NOT INFALLIBLY FOREKNOWN!



Yes.

Conversely, if God has a will, then the future is not settled.



You clearly do not understand what the context of that "test" is, nor do you correctly perform it.

The test is NOT about things that will happen shortly.

It's about things that will happen in the future, and specifically, by those who claim to speak for God.

It ALSO completely ignores, and even goes against, the passage that says "our every breath is from the Lord," which means that we are NOT guaranteed our next breath, despite it being such a sure thing!

In other words, it's just more confirmation bias on your part.



Again, confirmation bias.

Two points:

1) Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 - New King James Version

The Greatest Gift - Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains...

www.biblegateway.com

2) Do you think Peter could not have realized what he was about to do, and not done it? And if so, do you not think that Jesus would have been overjoyed by Peter not doing what Jesus said Peter would do? If the answer to the former is no, then at least, even though you're wrong, you're being consistent! But if the former is "yes" and the latter is "no, I don't think Jesus would have been happy Peter didn't do what Jesus said Peter would do," then you've got some MAJOR theological issues to work out between you and God. If BOTH are yes, then you have conceded the argument in its entirety!

There's no in-between!

Either God infallibly knows the future, or He does not!



Now you're just lying. You do not have infallible knowledge of anything.

You are human. You are fallible.

To claim otherwise is putting yourself on the level of God.



1 + 1 + 1 = 3

It does not equal "all knowledge."

God is far better at making predictions than we are, sure.

It doesn't mean those predictions always come to pass, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean He cannot intervene to make those predictions come true, or to prevent them from coming to pass!



But that's entirely the point.

We DON'T have 100% certainty.

Those "specific circumstances" being possible are what prevent us from being "100% certain."



No idea what you're talking about.



No, you didn't.

You may think you have, but you have not.



So what? Am I unable to choose otherwise? If so, then that establishes my argument. If not, that establishes my argument.



Joke's on you, I have a call screener on my phone that answers it for me.



Why does there need to be any of those things?

What prevents me from doing something completely out of character?

Thanks for proving my point!

There is NO MIDDLE GROUND.

Either the future is 100% settled (infallibly foreknown), or it is not and men have the ability to choose otherwise.



Because you say so?



This has nothing to do with my argument.

Again, the argument is:

T = You answer the phone tomorrow at 9 am. (1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge] (2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past] (3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2] (4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”] (5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle] (6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5] (7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”] (8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7] (9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities] (10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

False.



See Clete's response, above.



It only proves that IF the future is settled, then men are not free. It makes no claim to whether the future IS settled.

JudgeRightly, Based on the post above: God knows 'Infallibly' that a person (lets name him Leo) is going to do something (Answer the Phone at 9 AM. )in the future long before Leo is born. Your assumption is that because GOD knows what Leo will do at this specific time, Leo therefore has NO Free-Will? Please take GOD out of the equation (evolution birthed LEO, lol), Does Leo still NO Free Will?

thanks in advance, God Bless

 

[JudgeRightly]

JudgeRightly, Based on the post above: God knows 'Infallibly' that a person (lets name him Leo) is going to do something (Answer the Phone at 9 AM. )in the future long before Leo is born.

See the "supposition of infallible foreknowledge" bit.

Your assumption is that because GOD knows what Leo will do at this specific time, Leo therefore has NO Free-Will?

No. It's not an assumption. There is no "assumption" in what I posted above.

The supposition is "infallible foreknowledge." This is what we're testing, to see what the logical conclusion of it is.

The logical conclusion is, based on the above premises, that IF God infallible knowledge of future event T, then T is necessary, and thus, the person WILL answer their phone at 9 am tomorrow.

Please take GOD out of the equation (evolution birthed LEO, lol), Does Leo still NO Free Will?

If God does not exist, then there is no reason for anything to exist, period.

 

[Bladerunner]

See the "supposition of infallible foreknowledge" bit.



No. It's not an assumption. There is no "assumption" in what I posted above.

The supposition is "infallible foreknowledge." This is what we're testing, to see what the logical conclusion of it is.

The logical conclusion is, based on the above premises, that IF God infallible knowledge of future event T, then T is necessary, and thus, the person WILL answer their phone at 9 am tomorrow.



If God does not exist, then there is no reason for anything to exist, period.

So, GOD is the hinch pin that removes man's free will based upon God's foreknowledge and not predestination. Or are they the considered the same?

Will have to study up on it, seems there are several parts to this "infallible foreknowledge."

Thank you and God Bless

 

[JudgeRightly]

So, GOD is the hinch pin

I presume you mean "linchpin"?

that removes man's free will based upon God's foreknowledge and not predestination. Or are they the considered the same?

It's not so much as "removes" as "was never there to begin with."

Question:

Was God ever free to choose?

Will have to study up on it, seems there are several parts to this "infallible foreknowledge."

Read the article I posted earlier.

Here's the link again:

Foreknowledge and Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Clete]

See the "supposition of infallible foreknowledge" bit.



No. It's not an assumption. There is no "assumption" in what I posted above.

The supposition is "infallible foreknowledge." This is what we're testing, to see what the logical conclusion of it is.

The logical conclusion is, based on the above premises, that IF God infallible knowledge of future event T, then T is necessary, and thus, the person WILL answer their phone at 9 am tomorrow.



If God does not exist, then there is no reason for anything to exist, period.

People seem to be just completely ignorant of the "Principle of Alternate Possibilities"!

You cannot choose if there are no alternatives. How is it that people don't get that?

 

[Lon]

See the "supposition of infallible foreknowledge" bit.



No. It's not an assumption. There is no "assumption" in what I posted above.

The supposition is "infallible foreknowledge." This is what we're testing, to see what the logical conclusion of it is.

The logical conclusion is, based on the above premises, that IF God infallible knowledge of future event T, then T is necessary, and thus, the person WILL answer their phone at 9 am tomorrow.

True, but 'who' made it necessary? This is a bit rough, but I'm trying to collate my thoughts into a working theory: I appreciate Open View in this: a consideration of omnipotence. Almighty means all power. Let me float this: When God created, 'power' went out, if such can be true for consideration. "Out" is a difficulty if I'm correct, that it is still His. Adam and Eve were still His, thus power would be spread/diffused, but not out of His hands, if you follow.

This then is the freewill consideration for if His, there is no Fall.

Somehow the serpent is autonomous, an oddity that yin/yang ideology comes from because of observing our world where evil is present, apparently or truthfully, because power is taken from God to do what aught not be done.

Realize it was Open Theism that have presented these ideas to me, caused me to think about omnipotence and ramifications, and I've entertained them (maybe not to the same conclusions?).

Freewill theism and Calvinism are coming from ultimately suppositions, in some great force, from how we see omnipotence. If you follow, it is also why if one omni, all omnis. Everything under His power is of course known, because it is connected* Anything not under His power may not be, which is also the problem of good and evil and also about omniscience. If you follow, I think our 'independence' stolen from God, at least the part that is separated from Him. It'd mean we have two powers unjustly where all things will eventually be placed back under Jesus' feet in Revelation.

In a sense, you could label me Open, on point, at least in what I contemplate about the way power is used, apart from God (sin). My every desire as a believer is to be plugged back in.

*If analogy serves, we are batteries with expiration date, if all this is true upon supposition, that we are 'free will' theists and were born separated from a cord. We aren't supposed to be unplugged and not a gift, a stolen power if theory holds weight and proves out. There was a sense of independence, self (entity free identity) prior to the Fall. It has to be true else prohibition of the Tree of knowledge would have simply been under God's power and authority. Such would intimate that we were created with a certain amount of battery life as well as a need to monitor our own need to plug back in. I think I'd have to acquiesce, upon this perception, that we were created with authority independent of God's direct control.

So, how did God create man, with cord attached or free but having to plug back in to recharge? Relationship, as you intimate, needs the battery, but has to have the connection to recharge. It seems to me, we were always supposed to be plugged in, which is less autonomous but for the purpose of our creation, to be one with God, individuals, but also part of Him in connected unity, which is the uniqueness of relationship: that we 'become one as He is.'

Not sure if it serves, but I wanted to express why I still consider Open Theology concerns. It is of mutual benefit whether my speculation is mutual, because it may help flesh-out what is involved in free will theism. If not, I'll go back to the bench and keep working on it. It is a theology project.

 

[Derf]

True, but 'who' made it necessary? This is a bit rough, but I'm trying to collate my thoughts into a working theory: I appreciate Open View in this: a consideration of omnipotence. Almighty means all power. Let me float this: When God created, 'power' went out, if such can be true for consideration. "Out" is a difficulty if I'm correct, that it is still His. Adam and Eve were still His, thus power would be spread/diffused, but not out of His hands, if you follow.

This then is the freewill consideration for if His, there is no Fall.

Somehow the serpent is autonomous, an oddity that yin/yang ideology comes from because of observing our world where evil is present, apparently or truthfully, because power is taken from God to do what aught not be done.

Realize it was Open Theism that have presented these ideas to me, caused me to think about omnipotence and ramifications, and I've entertained them (maybe not to the same conclusions?).

Freewill theism and Calvinism are coming from ultimately suppositions, in some great force, from how we see omnipotence. If you follow, it is also why if one omni, all omnis. Everything under His power is of course known, because it is connected* Anything not under His power may not be, which is also the problem of good and evil and also about omniscience. If you follow, I think our 'independence' stolen from God, at least the part that is separated from Him. It'd mean we have two powers unjustly where all things will eventually be placed back under Jesus' feet in Revelation.

In a sense, you could label me Open, on point, at least in what I contemplate about the way power is used, apart from God (sin). My every desire as a believer is to be plugged back in.

*If analogy serves, we are batteries with expiration date, if all this is true upon supposition, that we are 'free will' theists and were born separated from a cord. We aren't supposed to be unplugged and not a gift, a stolen power if theory holds weight and proves out. There was a sense of independence, self (entity free identity) prior to the Fall. It has to be true else prohibition of the Tree of knowledge would have simply been under God's power and authority. Such would intimate that we were created with a certain amount of battery life as well as a need to monitor our own need to plug back in. I think I'd have to acquiesce, upon this perception, that we were created with authority independent of God's direct control.

So, how did God create man, with cord attached or free but having to plug back in to recharge? Relationship, as you intimate, needs the battery, but has to have the connection to recharge. It seems to me, we were always supposed to be plugged in, which is less autonomous but for the purpose of our creation, to be one with God, individuals, but also part of Him in connected unity, which is the uniqueness of relationship: that we 'become one as He is.'

Not sure if it serves, but I wanted to express why I still consider Open Theology concerns. It is of mutual benefit whether my speculation is mutual, because it may help flesh-out what is involved in free will theism. If not, I'll go back to the bench and keep working on it. It is a theology project.

On what way do you think we are made in the image of God? Do you think the battery is a temporary infusion of God's characteristic(s) that express His image? Was that a good or a bad thing? If God has freewill, isn't it a good thing?

 

[Bladerunner]

I presume you mean "linchpin"?

No, I meant hitchpin and spelled it wrong. I am an old an farmer and use hitchpins for connecting equipment. Thanks for not making a big deal about my mistake.

It's not so much as "removes" as "was never there to begin with."

Question:

Was God ever free to choose?

Are you saying the because God had foreknowledge, He also had no free will either?

Read the article I posted earlier.

Here's the link again:

Foreknowledge and Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I had already found some articles on this subject but will add your suggestion to it.
Thanks

 

[JudgeRightly]

Are you saying the because God had foreknowledge, He also had no free will either?

No.

I'm saying that IF the future is settled (and/or infallibly foreknown exhaustively), then neither God nor man has free will.

 

[Lon]

On what way do you think we are made in the image of God?

Not physically. He is Spirit, which is how we are made in His image. We were created with goodness, justice, mercy, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, and self control. We were created with eternity in our hearts Ecclesiastes 3:11

Do you think the battery is a temporary infusion of God's characteristic(s) that express His image? Was that a good or a bad thing? If God has freewill, isn't it a good thing?

If analogy yet serves, we certainly had responsibility (autonomy of a bit, not quite because we were to stay connected) to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In that sense, perhaps crudely like an automatic vacuum robot, that has to go back to its station to stay charged.

It is a bit off for analogy, but hopefully serves but let me go to Genesis 3 for discussion: "Adam, where art thou?" is a separation. Sin caused Adam to try and hide. In relationship, I believe God is never apart from us knowing the number of hairs on our head. But there is a responsibility for Adam to keep connected and sin broke it. I'd intimate that God knew the moment of, because He is omnipresent. "Adam, where art thou?" is specifically because Adam broke connection. Battery life, but he and she did surely die that day. The connection was broken, they were expelled from the Garden, from that connection lest they 'eat of the tree of life and live.' It'd be as if there was nothing wrong and that was the damage of sin. It is also why I hold loosely to Total Depravity: we have no access to the tree of life but through Jesus. Something had to happen to fix what was broken and all mankind is dead in trespasses and sin until coming to the Savior.

Appreciate your examination. Thank you -Lon

 

[Bladerunner]

No.

I'm saying that IF the future is settled (and/or infallibly foreknown exhaustively), then neither God nor man has free will.

IF God's ability to change events at anytime He wants to actually happens.

God could look through the eons, change one event per view and we could have thousands upon thousands of views where something was changed.

In your opinion, would God and Man have Free Will then.

Is it not amazing just how large His BANDWIDTH could be!