open theism says if God has exhaustive infallible knowledge it is a noun that acts as a verb in taking away "free choice" but can't define how , the mechanics
There are no "mechanics," because nobody is claiming that knowledge somehow exerts a physical or causal force upon your will.
You keep trying to turn a logical contradiction into a mechanical one.
The issue is necessity, not causation.
If God infallibly knows that I will choose A, then not-A cannot occur.
Nothing has to "force" me to choose A for not-A to be impossible.
but it is the free choice that God knows, choice then knowledge,
Exactly.
Choice, then knowledge.
You've just conceded the logical order we've been arguing for.
If the choice is logically prior to the knowledge of that choice, then there must first be a definite choice to know.
If A and not-A are both genuinely available alternatives before the choice is made, then there is not yet one settled choice that can be infallibly known as the choice that will occur.
so can you do otherwise than choose what God knows you chose freely? no
There you go.
No.
You cannot do otherwise.
That's exactly the point.
If you cannot choose not-A, then not-A is not a genuine alternative.
who chooses the choice God knows? we do
That isn't the issue.
Nobody is claiming that God physically reaches into your mind and makes the choice for you.
The question is whether you genuinely could have chosen otherwise.
You just admitted that you could not.
when where & how do we lose freedom to choose?
The moment you define the future choice as already infallibly settled.
Again, there is no physical mechanism involved.
If God's knowledge that I will choose A cannot possibly be wrong, then not-A cannot possibly occur.
That's a logical consequence of your premises.
it does not follow that we are forced, restrained , determined, or robbed of the power of alternative choice
But you just said:
"can you do otherwise ... ? no"
So what "power of alternative choice" are you talking about?
If I cannot choose not-A, then I do not possess the power to choose not-A.
You cannot simultaneously say:
I cannot do otherwise
and
I retain the power to do otherwise.
Those statements contradict each other.
Calling the outcome a "free choice" doesn't resolve the contradiction.
did God decide to bring about their non repentance and worship of the dragon and beast
they did not repent, they worshiped the beast, the rest of mankind… did not repent ,
And they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast. And they worshiped the beast
also written past tense
fits : exhaustive infallible foreknowledge ✔
open theism X
False dichotomy.
God does not have to cause their sin in order to predict what a group of people will do under circumstances He Himself intends to bring about.
And once again, you're dealing with descriptions of groups of people under particular circumstances, not establishing that every individual free choice of every creature throughout history is eternally settled.
As for it being "written past tense":
John is describing what he saw in a prophetic vision.
The grammatical tense used to narrate a prophetic vision does not establish that the events already exist as ontologically settled history.
You're reading your theology into the grammar.
we are talking about Revelation written 2000 years ago , so that fits better with exhaustive infallible foreknowledge
these people didn't exist 2000 years ago
And they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast. And they worshiped the beast
And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us
fits : exhaustive infallible foreknowledge ✔
open theism X
So what if they didn't exist yet?
A prophecy concerning the behavior of a future group does not require exhaustive infallible knowledge of every individual who will eventually belong to that group.
You're making the same invalid extrapolation again:
God can accurately describe particular future events.
Therefore:
God exhaustively and infallibly knows every future free choice.
That conclusion does not follow.
we are talking about Revelation written 2000 years ago . He is talking about his second coming & what precedes it , what will happen , not using language for might happen
fits : exhaustive infallible foreknowledge ✔
open theism X
Again, God can determine that particular future events will happen.
We've been over this repeatedly.
Certain future events being settled does not mean the entire future is exhaustively settled.
You keep presenting evidence for the former and pretending you've thereby proved the latter.
You haven't.
God responsible for this?
(Revelation 9:21) And they did not repent of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.
fits : exhaustive infallible foreknowledge ✔
open theism X
No.
Why would God have to be responsible for their refusal to repent merely because He predicts that they won't?
Again, you're presenting a false dichotomy:
Either God causes their non-repentance,
or God must possess exhaustive infallible foreknowledge of every future free choice.
Those are not the only possibilities.
(Revelation of John 14:6-7) [6] And I saw another angel flying in mid-heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those dwelling on the earth, even to every nation and kindred and tongue and people, [7] saying with a great voice, Fear God and give glory to Him! For the hour of His judgment has come. And worship Him who made the heaven and the earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
Rev 16:9 did not repent
Answered already.
And notice that Revelation itself portrays God sending the everlasting gospel and commanding people to fear Him, give Him glory, and worship Him.
That certainly does not establish that their response was an eternally settled free choice with no genuine alternative.
revelation is 100% exhaustive infallible foreknowledge
Saying it doesn't make it so.
then God posses exhaustive infallible foreknowledge 100%
False.
You're also conflating two completely different concepts:
accuracy
and
scope.
A prophecy can be 100% accurate without being an exhaustive description of every future fact.
"100% accurate" does not mean "100% exhaustive."
how is it something God can have a little of ?
Because "infallible" and "exhaustive" mean different things.
Infallibility concerns whether a particular thing God knows can be wrong.
Exhaustiveness concerns the scope of what He knows.
God can infallibly know that a particular future event will occur without thereby infallibly knowing every future event and every future free choice.
There's nothing contradictory about that.
If God determines that Christ will return, He infallibly knows that Christ will return.
That does not magically entail that every free choice made by every human being between now and then is likewise infallibly settled.
God gave 56 individual prophecies in the book of revelation,
So what?
Even if I grant that all 56 are infallibly known future events, you've established exactly 56 examples of future events God knows.
You have not thereby established that
every future fact and
every future free choice is infallibly known.
Fifty-six examples are still not "exhaustive."
You're trying to move from:
God infallibly knows these future events.
to:
Therefore God infallibly knows all future events and all future free choices.
That conclusion does not follow.
I remember open theist saying , God lost track of where Adam& Eve were LOL
So what?
Even if some Open Theist somewhere said that, it wouldn't establish that Open Theism is false.
And attributing someone else's argument to me doesn't answer anything I've said.
the God that open theism portrays can't remember where the only 2 people on the earth are
Straw man.
And one you've already been corrected on repeatedly.
forgets that sodom was evil
Explained before.
See
Post #278, especially Arguments 6-8.
If you think the answer is wrong, address the answer.
Repeating your caricature doesn't make it true.
where does it use language that indicates not settled fact,
Where does it use language saying that every event described is an eternally settled fact that God has exhaustively and infallibly known from eternity past?
It doesn't.
That's your theological interpretation of the passage.
You're trying to shift the burden of proof.
You are the one claiming that these verses establish exhaustive infallible foreknowledge.
So demonstrate it.
Showing that Revelation describes particular future events does not establish that every future free choice is eternally settled.
it is only your theology that makes it unsettled
No.
And the reverse accusation would be just as easy:
It is only your theology that makes every future free choice exhaustively settled.
But merely trading assertions gets us nowhere.
The question is what actually follows from the text.
Revelation tells us that God knows, predicts, determines, and brings about particular future events.
It does not say:
"Every future free choice of every creature has always been an exhaustively settled truth value infallibly known by God."
That's the additional proposition you keep importing into the text.
"And they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast. And they worshiped the beast"
Answered previously.
Quoting it again still doesn't turn:
God knows or predicts this particular future event
into:
God exhaustively and infallibly knows every future free choice.
You keep making the exact same invalid inference.
