God's Exhaustive Foreknowledge

[way 2 go]

Quite simply: He does not have either.

quite simply God has exhaustive infallible knowledge of today and tomorrow

Saying it doesn't make it so.

and you saying God does not ... doesn't make it so.

so did God foreknow this or did he make people sin against him ?

(Psalms 22:14-18) [14] I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. [15] My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. [16] For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. [17] I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. [18] They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

 

[Right Divider]

quite simply God has exhaustive infallible knowledge of today and tomorrow

Because you say so?

PROVE IT... make an ARGUMENT.

Repeating your FALSE claims is NOT going to cut it here.

and you saying God does not ... doesn't make it so.

Why? He can't just make an unsupported claim like you?

so did God foreknow this or did he make people sin against him ?

(Psalms 22:14-18) [14] I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. [15] My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. [16] For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. [17] I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. [18] They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

Again... YOUR CLAIM that God has EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge of EVERY SINGLE CHOICE OF EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT WILL EVER LIVE WILL MAKE BEFORE THEY ARE EVEN BORN.

That is NOT what that passage CAN EVEN remotely claim to prove.

Yes, there are some things that God knows will happen because He has the power to make them come to pass!

 

[way 2 go]

Because you say so?

PROVE IT... make an ARGUMENT.

Repeating your FALSE claims is NOT going to cut it here.

i have this:
(Revelation of John 4:1) After these things I looked, and behold, a door was opened in Heaven. And the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me, saying, Come up here, and I will show you what must occur after these things

where in revelation do you have God's second coming and judgement as a maybe ?

Why? He can't just make an unsupported claim like you?

open theism is unproven , so prove it.

Again... YOUR CLAIM that God has EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge of EVERY SINGLE CHOICE OF EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT WILL EVER LIVE WILL MAKE BEFORE THEY ARE EVEN BORN.

That is NOT what that passage CAN EVEN remotely claim to prove.

Yes, there are some things that God knows will happen because He has the power to make them come to pass!

accusing God of making people sin to hold on to open theism

so not foreknowledge , God makes people sin ,
how is this better than what you accuse God of if he has exhaustive infallible foreknowledge (◔_◔)

(Psalms 22:14-18) [14] I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. [15] My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. [16] For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. [17] I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. [18] They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.



revelation is about Jesus second coming & it must take place ,not something mankind can stop
so Jeremiah 18 is not relevant to something they could not repent their way out of .

and some did repent
(Revelation of John 7:14) And I said to him, Sir, you know. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb

and some
did not repent
Revelation 9:20
Revelation 9:22
Revelation 16:9
Revelation 16:11

what have you got besides denial of the truth ?

(Revelation of John 22:19) And if anyone takes away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, God will take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which have been written in this Book.

 

[Right Divider]

i have this:
(Revelation of John 4:1) After these things I looked, and behold, a door was opened in Heaven. And the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me, saying, Come up here, and I will show you what must occur after these things

where in revelation do you have God's second coming and judgement as a maybe ?

Where does it say that God knows EVERY SINGLE CHOICE that EVERY PERSON WHO EVERY LIVED will make even before they are born?

open theism is unproven , so prove it.

You've not listened to a single word that you've already been given.

accusing God of making people sin to hold on to open theism

Repeating FALSE ACCUSATIONS will not win you any prizes.

Open theists agree with every God given prophesy. But we know FROM SCRIPTURE that not every choice that every person makes is foreknown even before they are born.

It is YOU that makes God out to be a con artist by telling people to make choices that were already settled even before they were born!

God frequently TELLS PEOPLE TO CHOOSE... but you claim that their choices WERE ALREADY MADE (before they even came into existence).

According to YOU, God foreknew that you would come to TOL and make a fool out of yourself.

 

[Idolater]

For the sake of this thread, we'll assume that God has perfect knowledge of everything in the present. Now ... try to prove infallible foreknowledge.

I think this is a constructive addition to the thread RD.

 

[Right Divider]

I think this is a constructive addition to the thread RD.

Thanks... would you care to add something constructive to the thread?

 

[Idolater]

Thanks... would you care to add something constructive to the thread?

I'll try. Below is Way 2 Go's post containing an argument Open Theists use to refute the coexistence of foreknowledge and free will:

T = You answer the telephone 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]

Source

This thread is about exhaustive foreknowledge, but if you endorse the above argument, you would reject any foreknowledge at all, as being mutually exclusive with human free will. Do you endorse this argument?

 

[Right Divider]

This thread is about exhaustive foreknowledge, but if you endorse the above argument, you would reject any foreknowledge at all, as being mutually exclusive with human free will.

That logic does NOT preclude some knowledge of the future.

God is able to bring things to pass because He has great power and knowledge.

Are you of the mind that God knows EVERY SINGLE CHOICE that EVERY PERSON WHO EVERY LIVED will make even before they are born?

If so, go ahead and MAKE AN ARGUMENT!

 

[Idolater]

That logic does NOT preclude some knowledge of the future.

If that argument succeeds, then yes it certainly does, it would prove that any foreknowledge is incompatible with free will.

God is able to bring things to pass because He has great power and knowledge.

ofc, no argument.

Are you of the mind that God knows EVERY SINGLE CHOICE that EVERY PERSON WHO EVERY LIVED will make even before they are born?

Yes.

If so, go ahead and MAKE AN ARGUMENT!

The beginning of my argument is to focus on the argument @way 2 go quoted and that some Open Viewers here have endorsed. If that argument fails, then that's the beginning of my argument, so that's why I'm focusing on that for now.

 

[Right Divider]

If that argument succeeds, then yes it certainly does, it would prove that any foreknowledge is incompatible with free will.

You can discuss that argument with @Clete, as he is the one that introduced it in another thread.

Yes.

Then by all means, make an ARGUMENT to support the claim that God knows EVERY SINGLE CHOICE that EVERY PERSON WHO EVERY LIVED will make even before they are born?

The beginning of my argument is to focus on the argument @way 2 go quoted and that some Open Viewers here have endorsed.

Again, take that up with the originator.

If you are unable to make an argument HERE, as is the case with W2G, then just say so.

P.S. The argument must be Biblical and must be far more than just pointing out a few prophecies. The CLAIM is 100% knowledge of EVERY choice that EVERYONE will ever make (even from BEFORE their existence). That claim cannot be proven from scripture, because it's just not there.

 

[JudgeRightly]

This thread is about exhaustive foreknowledge, but if you endorse the above argument, you would reject any foreknowledge at all, as being mutually exclusive with human free will.

You seem to have misunderstood the point of the argument, then.

If, and emphasis on the IF, God's knowledge contains exhaustive infallible knowledge of everything in the future, then God does not have free will, let alone men.

If you argue that men have free will, then God's knowledge of the future cannot be infallible.

The argument logically presents why two ideas, "free will" and "exhaustive infallible foreknowledge of the future, cannot be reconciled logically, because to reconcile them would go against the laws of logic.

That means that only one of them can be true. Either men have free will, or the future is infallibly foreknown.

There is no in-between.

Both Clete and I have used that argument before (and myself at least multiple times) in DEFENSE of Open Theism.

That should make you (and way 2 go) question why w2g is even using it to begin with. It's a complete and utter defeater for his haphazardly constructed attempt at an argument for what I can only assume is meant to be some sort of compatibilism.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If that argument succeeds, then yes it certainly does, it would prove that any foreknowledge is incompatible with free will.

No, the argument is SPECIFICALLY about INFALLIBLE foreknowledge.

I don't remember if w2g posted the link to the article the argument comes from, but in case he didn't, you may read it here at your earliest convenience:

Foreknowledge and Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

From section 1:

A precise version of the argument can be formulated as follows: Choose some proposition about a future act that you think you will do freely, if any act is free. Suppose, for example, that the telephone will ring at 9 am tomorrow and you will either answer it or you will not. So it is either true that you will answer the phone at 9 am tomorrow or it is true that you will not answer the phone at 9 am tomorrow. The Law of Excluded Middle rules out any other alternative. Let T abbreviate the proposition that you will answer the phone tomorrow morning at 9, and let us suppose that T is true. (If not-T is true instead, simply substitute not-T in the argument below). Let “now-necessary” designate temporal necessity, the type of necessity that the past is supposed to have just because it is past. This type of necessity plays a central role in the argument and we’ll have more to say about it in sections 2.4, 2.5, 2.7, and 5, but we can begin with the intuitive idea that there is a kind of necessity that a proposition has now when the content of the proposition is about something that occurred in the past. To say that it is now-necessary that milk has been spilled is to say (among other things) that nobody can do anything now about the fact that the milk has been spilled. Let “God” designate a being who has infallible beliefs about the future, where to say that God believes p infallibly is to say that God believes p and it is not possible that God believes p and p is false. It is not important for the logic of the argument that God is the being worshiped by any particular religion, but the motive to maintain that there is a being with infallible beliefs is usually a religious one. One more preliminary point is in order. The dilemma of infallible foreknowledge and human free will does not rest on the particular assumption of foreknowledge and does not require an analysis of knowledge. Most contemporary accounts of knowledge are fallibilist, which means they do not require that a person believe in a way that cannot be mistaken in order to have knowledge. She has knowledge just in case what she believes is true and she satisfies the other conditions for knowledge, such as having sufficiently strong evidence. Ordinary knowledge does not require that the belief cannot be false. For example, if I believe on strong evidence that classes begin at my university on a certain date, and when the day arrives, classes do begin, we would normally say I knew in advance that classes would begin on that date. I had foreknowledge about the date classes begin. But there is nothing problematic about that kind of foreknowledge, because events could have proven me wrong even though, as events actually turned out, they didn’t prove me wrong. Ordinary foreknowledge does not threaten to necessitate the future because it does not require that when I know p it is not possible that my belief is false. The key problem, then, is the infallibility of the belief about the future, and this is a problem whether or not the epistemic agent with an infallible belief satisfies the other conditions required by some account of knowledge, such as sufficient evidence. So long as an agent has an infallible belief about the future, the problem arises. Using the example of the proposition T, the argument that infallible foreknowledge of T entails that you do not answer the telephone freely can be formulated as follows: Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism (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 argument is formulated in a way that makes its logical form as perspicuous as possible, and there is a consensus that this argument or something close to it is valid. That is, if the premises are all true, the conclusion follows.

 

[JudgeRightly]

ofc, no argument.

You believe that God is not able to bring things to pass because He has great power and knowledge?

Good grief!

And you say you believe the Bible!

 

[JudgeRightly]

If that argument fails, then that's the beginning of my argument, so that's why I'm focusing on that for now.

The argument succeeds because every premise is true.

If God infallibly knows X, then X.

Not-X is not possible.

If men can act freely, then God cannot know their future choices infallibly, because to do so would be a contradiction.

Contradictions are false!

 

[Right Divider]

You believe that God is not able to bring things to pass because He has great power and knowledge?

Good grief!

And you say you believe the Bible!

I think that Idolator was simply agreeing that God is able to bring things to pass because He has great power and knowledge.