To a point. However, it appears to me you include things that are illogical, however. For example, don't you say things like we can do things which impact the future?



Clearly if the future has "already played out," as you put it, then it is settled. If it's settled, we can't change it.

This doesn't make sense, MM. You're conflating two mutually exclusive ideas. "Simultaneous" means "not sequential."

Tom, you seem to be overlooking the fact God exists in the past, present, and future simultaneously without it effecting how we experience time. God experiences time sequentially like we do and unlike we do.

This doesn't make sense, MM. You're conflating two mutually exclusive ideas. "Simultaneous" means "not sequential." If God experiences time simultaneously, then He doesn't experience it sequentially.

MM, the point of view you're espousing comes from Plato, who argued that God, being perfect, could not change in any way, which includes His knowledge and experience. Your stating that God experiences the past, present and future simultaneously agrees with the Platonian concept that God does not change.

However, when you assert that God experiences time sequentially, that disagrees with the Platonian concept, as well as with what you yourself just said in asserting that God exists simultaneously in the past, present and future. Since this last point has been dealt with, let's return to the other point.

If you assert that God experiences time sequentially, then God's knowledge changes over time. Time is, indeed, a measure of change. If God does not change in any way, then He cannot experience time as we do.

So you are making mutually exclusive statements from a couple of different standpoints, assuming you agree with the idea that God does not change in any way (including His knowledge or experience).

Could you contrast "simultaneously" with "sequentially"? It's obvious that Tom has a different definition of those terms than you do. Since you are using them, it would be beneficial to let the readers know what definitions you are using and in this case, how you see those terms being different.

Tom, since we're discussing the same topic on the other thread, perhaps we can address it there. Here, however, I am interested in why you believe Jesus knows sin and rebellion will never reoccur.

You've asked this before, and I think you probably remember what I said. Why don't you state what you remember I said, and I'll comment on that.

Seems like you base it on your idea that God knows everyones character so well that none of the gazillion possible outcomes includes anyone sinning.

That's one thing. Another thing is that God knows all the possibilities, so if none of them include sin, then He knows sin won't happen, right?