No, we're talking about the future. That's the issue. Not God, but the future.



This isn't the issue either.



The future is what it is. There are two possibilities:

1)The future is single-threaded.
2)The future is not single-threaded.

If 1) is the case, then God knows the future as single-threaded. If 2) is the case, then God does not know the future as single-threaded.



It's based on principles that are spelled out. That is, God has told us the principles that are working, and given these principles, and given human nature, I think it makes perfect sense that things would play out the way described.

This is worth discussing in some more detail.

We're told, through the SOP, that Christ could have come at many different times. I believe that what was written in "The Great Controversy" would have occurred regardless of which time Christ had come in the past, or will come in the future. This is because these prophecies aren't dependent upon time, but upon the character of those involved.

The bible also has prophecies which never came to be. This suggests that the future is not written in stone (or knowable in the same sense as history is knowable).

Mike, I get the impression that you do not understand what "single-threaded" or "multi-threaded" mean in relation to time and the future. Do you?

I don't know why you asked me that. I thought it was clear that I disagree. Rather than asking you, do you think his conclusion was the only conclusion one could make from believing that way, I will assume that you think there's another conclusion. Why? Why could the atheist not see things as you do since you both agree God knows exactly how the future plays out? What is it with the atheist, believing the same as you do about God knowing the future, causes him to reject God with repulsiveness and abhorrence?

I'm surprised you think we can talk about prophecy and the future without talking about God.


In my mind, it is the issue. I'm talking about God knowing the future like history.


Unfortunately your definitions divorce God's supernatural ability to know the future like history. Again, the point is God can, and does, know the future like history without making it single-threaded. I realize you believe God is incapable of knowing the future like history, but I believe it is true.


But according to you God cannot know with absolute certainty which one of the millions of ways the future can play out. Why is this different? Also, if the future is certain to play out according to the minute details described in prophecy doesn't that mean, using your logic, the future is single-threaded?

Are you suggesting Jesus hasn't returned because people with the right set of character traits haven't existed yet? If so, how do you reconcile this insight with the fact Jesus said through the SOP He could have come shortly after 1844 had the message been faithfully and fearlessly proclaimed? Sounds to me people with the right set of character traits were in position on both sides of the issue (for and against the mark of the beast and the seal of God).

Nevertheless, none of this detracts from the fact Jesus also said the Father knows the precise day and hour Jesus will return.

I realize you believe the future can play out differently than the way it is described in the GC.


Actually, I am perfectly aware of the differences. However, I also believe God can supernaturally know the future like history without making it single-threaded. God is unique and special in this way.

The atheist doesn't understand why God hasn't fully explained to us why He chose to create FMAs even though He knew which ones would sin and rebel and die in the lake of fire. He mistakenly concludes such a God must be cruel and uncaring. I can't imagine what the atheist would conclude about a god who created FMAs knowing some of them might sin and rebel and die in the lake of fire but hoping they wouldn't. I know what I think about such a god.

Why?



Why would you think that somebody knowing something would violate a natural law? How would that be possible? Why do you think this is an issue?



These aren't definitions. These are statements. This is simple logic.



No, this isn't the point. A person's knowledge of a fact does not change the fact. That's the point.



Do you believe God is capable of knowing that He doesn't exist?



It's not different.



They're not minute details. They are normal details that one would expect given an understanding of the principles involved and the characters of the individuals involved.

You're saying if someone else, besides God, knew the future like history that would make it single-threaded? But because is unique and special, His knowing it like history doesn't? Or was your point something else?