Let me try to make my description more rigorous.

Let's say that all cause/effect relationships are 1 second long (for simplicity). At t=0, we have a definite set of inputs. At t=1, we get our definite set of outputs from the cause/effect relationships. At t=1, another set of cause/effect relationships is about to start.

In my view, the inputs for t=1, to be used by the 2nd set of cause/effect relationships, are the outputs of the 1st set of cause/effect relationships that started at t=0 and ended at t=1. There are no outside sources of random inputs that will come into the system.

IOW, the bed I have now came about because of how I prepared it prior to now, and will be the bed I will lie on subsequent to now. Nobody else will touch my bed.

Do you agree with that?

Or do you believe that free will introduces factors which are inherently unpredictable, giving rise to random inputs that may or may not be inserted in the middle of the system?

What you're describing, Arnold, it sounds to me, is pure determinism. I don't agree with determinism. Even my knowing all about you, and the effect of the cause started at time t=0 will now allow me to definitively state what you will do at t=1, when you have another decision to make, because you have free will to choose between different alternatives. I can know all the alternatives you have available to pick from, but you choose which of the alternatives you will pick, and this choice is not (necessarily) determined. I say not necessarily because certain choices you make may be 100% sure things.

Okay. Here it is again cleaned up:

I appreciate your taking the effort to do this!

TE: MM, why do you think God's ability to predict the future is limited to there being only one possible outcome?

MM: Because we’re not talking about God “predicting” the future. We’re talking about God jumping ahead in time and looking back on what has already happened. He simply reports to us what happened. As such, we’re talking about the past.

Do you believe God can jump ahead in time and look back on what has already happened?

No. I believe God sees the future through the same process we do, except that He sees with perfect clarity and is infinitely intelligent. By the same process, I mean that God uses His reason, His understanding of His creation, His understanding of cause and effect and so forth.

TE: I'll give two examples to show that your logic doesn't follow. First of all, consider a chess game. The world champion has achieved a winning position. He can calculate that no matter what route his opponent takes, he will be checkmated. Now he doesn't know exactly what moves the opponent will make, but he is 100% certain that he, the world champion, will win.

MM: There is no way your world champion chess player can be 100% certain he will.

You often assert things too strongly. I can give you a simple case which demonstrates your assertion here is false. Imagine a position where the next move is checkmate. The opponent has one of two choices. The master will deliver checkmate. He is 100% certain he will win.

Besides, what does it have to with God jumping ahead in time and looking back on what has already happened?

The context of my statement was to show that the future can be seen with clarity even though more than one possibility exists.

TE: Here's another example. Let's say I create a computer program to do some specific thing. Now there are all sorts of possibilities as to inputs, etc., but I know what the end of my program will be. I know every possible outcome because I built the program. My program can do that which it was designed to do, even without the specific inputs being known.

MM: Again, what does it have to with God jumping ahead in time and looking back on what has already happened?

I gave the chess master example in response to this question:



TE: God's ability to know the future is not limited to there only being one possibility of how things might happen.

MM: Not so.

Not so? Then His ability to know the future is limited to there only being one possibility of how things might happen. I disagree with this assertion. God is not limited in this way. Even human beings aren't, as the example of the chess master and the computer programmer bear out.

He knows exactly how things will play out because He has already watched it happened. It is true, however, that when relating to us He might give us options and explain the various outcomes, but such communication does not imply God does not know exactly how things will play out.

MM: What about the case of William Miller? God laid him to rest to prevent him from rejecting the Sabbath and losing his salvation and causing others to lose their salvation.

I didn't see anything in what you quoted that would support the claim you made. Could you be more specific, please, in regards to which part of the quote you cites you think supports your assertion?

But if God knows the person's character so well that He knows the future of that person, then the future for you is also single-threaded and the person's character cannot change (remember, nothing that God knows will happen will fail to happen). In the past you stated that God can be surprised by His creatures. Can He or can't He? If He can be surprised, He can't know what someone will do in the future on the basis of His knowledge of that person's character.

But if God knows the person's character so well that He knows the future of that person, then the future for you is also single-threaded and the person's character cannot change (remember, nothing that God knows will happen will fail to happen).

In the past you stated that God can be surprised by His creatures. Can He or can't He? If He can be surprised, He can't know what someone will do in the future on the basis of His knowledge of that person's character.

Are you talking about a person who's character is fixed, or one who's character is in flux? There are times in person's life where one can make a choice, and the result of that choice has a great impact on one's character. God knows the result of the different choices.

This is just what happened with Israel. God could see perfectly what would happen if Israel chose to be faithful, and what would happen if Israel chose not to be. Israel's character was being developed. God laid out the results of both choices.

Also not every choice one makes has to do with character. A person with a fixed character, say one of the 144,000, will make predicatable moral choices. But not every choice is moral. For example, suppose one is deciding on whether to eat one of two berries first. This isn't a moral choice. One might choose one berry over another for a whimsical reason.

Regarding being surprised, I do not think I wrote what you said I wrote. I try to be careful when writing on subjects which require preciseness, and I don't believe I wrote that. I'm not infallible, of course, so my memory could be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure that's not what I wrote.

Daryl, What does "heaven itself was imperiled" mean? Under the perspective you are suggesting, which is, I understand it, that there is only one possible future which God knows see like a T.V. rerun, how could heaven be in any danger?

A: Therefore, given that there is only one set of DEFINITE, ACTUAL inputs right now, there is a DEFINITE, ACTUAL future that can be accurately predicted by extrapolating the countless cause/effect relationships involved. There may have been many possible inputs, and God may have known about all of them, but based on what's going on now, He knows what will result tomorrow. Do you agree?

MM: This cycle would have begun with Adam and Eve, correct?

This is why we’ll never be able to see eye to eye on this topic. We premises are incompatible.


No human being can be 100% he will win a chess game before the first move. In those cases where no matter what a person does the next move will place him in checkmate it does not take foreknowledge to know the future with clarity and certainty.


If you believed, as I do, that God can jump ahead and look back on what we call the future then you wouldn’t disagree with me. There are no alternative outcomes when reporting on what has already happened. The past is what it is. Nevertheless, for theoretical purposes we could discuss what might have happened if different choices had been made, but it wouldn’t change what did happen.

I believe so. Maybe even before.