Morality

[arewethereyet]

Again, that is an illogical objection because it is basically this. If God is all powerful then he has the power to do what is not possible to do. Of course, this depends on one's theory of time. If you believe the future actually exists instead of possibly existing then you might have a point. I do not believe the future actually exists so it would be impossible to know what the actual choice would be. All future tense knowledge is about possible futures not those that have actualized. Therefore they are not subjects of knowledge. I think since you are making a positive claim, that it is possible to know the future, then your objection is only as good as your proof that certain knowledge of future choices is always possible, not just assuming they are.

Since the future doesn't exist, in your opinion, do you bother with a calendar?  Do you make plans?  Do you buy food that will go bad?

What a crock of word salad.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Again, that is an illogical objection because it is basically this. If God is all powerful then he has the power to do what is not possible to do. Of course, this depends on one's theory of time. If you believe the future actually exists instead of possibly existing then you might have a point. I do not believe the future actually exists so it would be impossible to know what the actual choice would be. All future tense knowledge is about possible futures not those that have actualized. Therefore they are not subjects of knowledge. I think since you are making a positive claim, that it is possible to know the future, then your objection is only as good as your proof that certain knowledge of future choices is always possible, not just assuming they are.

But it isn’t unreasonable or illogical that God could know which possible future(s) will be actualized. In the Bible, God is repeatedly shown to be able to do this, both as himself and via his prophets.

Boru

[Neo-Scholastic]

Again, that is an illogical objection because it is basically this. If God is all powerful then he has the power to do what is not possible to do. Of course, this depends on one's theory of time. If you believe the future actually exists instead of possibly existing then you might have a point. I do not believe the future actually exists so it would be impossible to know what the actual choice would be. All future tense knowledge is about possible futures not those that have actualized. Therefore they are not subjects of knowledge. I think since you are making a positive claim, that it is possible to know the future, then your objection is only as good as your proof that certain knowledge of future choices is always possible, not just assuming they are.

But it isn’t unreasonable or illogical that God could know which possible future(s) will be actualized. In the Bible, God is repeatedly shown to be able to do this, both as himself and via his prophets.

Boru

It is illogical and that was my point. It is a contradiction to posit an actual unactualized choice.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Again, that is an illogical objection because it is basically this. If God is all powerful then he has the power to do what is not possible to do. Of course, this depends on one's theory of time. If you believe the future actually exists instead of possibly existing then you might have a point. I do not believe the future actually exists so it would be impossible to know what the actual choice would be. All future tense knowledge is about possible futures not those that have actualized. Therefore they are not subjects of knowledge. I think since you are making a positive claim, that it is possible to know the future, then your objection is only as good as your proof that certain knowledge of future choices is always possible, not just assuming they are.

Since the future doesn't exist, in your opinion, do you bother with a calendar?  Do you make plans?  Do you buy food that will go bad?

What a crock of word salad.

The does not exist yet. It is not in act or actualized. The future is just a present hope.

[The Grand Nudger]

I wonder how we could boost your message to the other nuts, neo?. That god doesn’t have foreknowledge because foreknowledge is impossible.

[Angrboda]

I guess Jesus was just talking out of his ass when he prophesied the destruction of the temple.

[arewethereyet]

Since the future doesn't exist, in your opinion, do you bother with a calendar?  Do you make plans?  Do you buy food that will go bad?

What a crock of word salad.

The does not exist yet. It is not in act or actualized. The future is just a present hope.

Of course that is not you said.

And you didn't answer my questions.  Surprise, surprise.

Just more word play.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But it isn’t unreasonable or illogical that God could know which possible future(s) will be actualized. In the Bible, God is repeatedly shown to be able to do this, both as himself and via his prophets.

Boru

It is illogical and that was my point. It is a contradiction to posit an actual unactualized choice.

Suppose I jump off a very tall building. Two of the myriad possible futures are that I will live or I will die. What is illogical about positing that God knows beforehand which will be actualized? 

Before you answer, please reflect that there are multiple instances in the Bible showing God doing exactly that.

Boru

[GUBU]

Again, that is an illogical objection because it is basically this. If God is all powerful then he has the power to do what is not possible to do. Of course, this depends on one's theory of time. If you believe the future actually exists instead of possibly existing then you might have a point. I do not believe the future actually exists so it would be impossible to know what the actual choice would be. All future tense knowledge is about possible futures not those that have actualized. Therefore they are not subjects of knowledge. I think since you are making a positive claim, that it is possible to know the future, then your objection is only as good as your proof that certain knowledge of future choices is always possible, not just assuming they are.

Well then you don't believe in the christian god who is all knowing.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's probably more accurate to say that he doesn't believe in the all knowing god that most christians do, the all knowing god portrayed in magic book.

The difference may be minimal, ofc, as it's even more accurate to say that he believes in an all knowing god with less to know. I think that's a tough way to reconcile real or perceived issues in a gods alleged character. Even human beings appear to be capable of possessing foreknowledge. There's nothing specifically illogical about a god knowing less than we do, or lacking some specific knowledge we have or can have - but I don't think that's going to fit into whatever else neo feels compelled to shoehorn into his god concept.

The same problem can be contextualized in an explicitly moral framework. Does god (or do people, for that matter) know right and wrong, or the difference between. Is this even knowable? I think that's pretty easy to answer for subjectivist or relativist frameworks. God can certainly know how god feels about a thing. God may know how gods people feel about a thing. What about the objectivist space, though? Is a god capable of knowing something about x, rather than something about itself or something about it's people, that makes x bad?