TE: Obviously if God is actively participating, He knows which of the ways He foresees that the future will play out.

MM: This sounds like you are agreeing with me, that God does indeed know in advance which one of the many ways He foresees will play out.

TE: Regarding C. S. Lewis, I like him a lot.

MM: Do you agree with his view of God's foreknowledge (quoted above)? The reason I ask is because his view reflects what I believe.


Here's the whole context:


Tom, your argument against this view assumes God's omnipresence robs us of our ability and freedom to choose. The fact He is not bound by our time and space, that He can watch us do things tomorrow as if we did it yesterday, that He can watch us do things yesterday as if we are doing them now, in no way robs us our ability and freedom to choose. Please consider C.S. Lewis' explanation. Do you disagree with him?

1. God made both. He made FMAs He knew in advance would not sin, and FMAs He knew would sin. I realize you do not think the answer to your question is valid or positive, but to me it is. I can live with it. I suspect, however, that when we get to heaven He will provide a more satisfying answer. I could not live with your answer, that is, that God was pretty sure FMAs wouldn't sin, that the chance of them sinning was so small that it made the risk worth it.

2. I don't think creating a different being in place of Lucifer was an option. However, I do believe He could have chosen not to create Lucifer (and the angels who rebelled with him).

3. I do not believe God had to choose between Lucifer and some other being who would not sin.

That's why I said it is not so simple as you were saying. The link I provided does an excellent job of explaining the concept. Did you take a look at it?



Actually his view is a different than yours. C. S. Lewis believed in an eternal soul, and other ideas left over from Catholicism. This colored his view of foreknowledge, which is more Catholic than yours is.

I don't agree with either yours or his.

Tom, your argument against this view assumes God's omnipresence robs us of our ability and freedom to choose.

I assume you mean omniscience? No, it doesn't. Many make this mistake. I've explained this to you many times.

What God knows does not impact our choices. The nature of the future logically has an impact on our choices. If there is only one future, then logically (not because someone or some thing forces us, but logically; "logically" is the key word here) it is not possible to choose some other option than what will happen in that one future.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, what God knows about the future is irrelevant to this point. What is relevant is the nature of the future.

I've explained this several dozen times to you, MM. I'm curious, do you feel like you're understanding what I've been trying to explain any better through our discussions?

Maybe this is just something you can't understand, or maybe it's something I can't explain to you in a way that you can understand. (I'm saying the shortcoming here may be mine, not yours).


The fact He is not bound by our time and space, that He can watch us do things tomorrow as if we did it yesterday, that He can watch us do things yesterday as if we are doing them now, in no way robs us our ability and freedom to choose. Please consider C.S. Lewis' explanation. Do you disagree with him?

Again, I've never claimed that God's omniscience robs us of our ability and freedom to choose. The fact that you are pointing this out to me is a bit concerning, since I've explained this to you so many times.

MM, it seems impossible to discuss this rationally with Tom since he keeps moving the target. You tire yourself out running from target to target as he gives contradicting statements as to his views of God's foreknowledge. You run back and forth: Does Tom believe that God knows what will happen in the future? No he does not. ... Wait! Yes he does ... No, wait! he doesn't. It wears you out!

DenBorg, you're dealing with a view that you are unfamiliar with. Rather than assume I'm doing something irrational, why not take the position that you may not be understanding what's being communicated? Also, I'm right here. Addressing me in the third person in a public forum in a thread I'm actively participating in is a bit odd.

He'll tell you that God does not know what will happen in the future ... how can He since it does not exist to know! And furthermore, if He knew the future, then free will is out the window, because if someone chose to do something different than what He foresees happening, then God would be a liar.

I think it would be better if you quoted things that were said, and asked clarifying questions about them.

But it isn't God or His foreknowledge that fixes the future if this were true, and since (according to Tom) free will would be out the window, neither is it us FMA's that fix the future; so what else is there other than us FMA's and God which can affect what will happen in the future?!!!!!!!!! He won't say.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. I'll repeat what I've said.

Our basic disagreement does not involve God's knowledge of the future. We both agree that God knows and sees the future perfectly, just as it is. Where we differ has to do with the context of the future. You perceive the future to be a single thing, the one thing that will actually happen. So when you speak of "the future," this is what you have in mind. At times, I have used your meaning to communicate to you, and at times I have used mine. That is why my comments regarding the future have been confusing to you.

I have tried to clarify when I'm am presenting an argument from your perspective and when I've been presenting one from mine. The reason you see me as being contradictory is you are taking my statements, from two different perspectives, as if they were from the same perspective. But my statements are not contradictory, because sometimes I take your perspective in order to present an argument, to show the conclusions that perspective would lead to.

The reason for free will being out the window, so to speak, has to do with the idea of future that only has one possibility. If an event A is certain to happen (e.g., the event that you will do this, as opposed to that, an event B) then, logically, you cannot do event B.

The logical problem with free will has to do with the nature of the future. If one takes the position that God has a certain knowledge of the future, and that position leads logically to the conclusion that the future is settled, then that indirectly leads to a logical argument that God's knowledge of the future implies certain problems with free will. But this is a logical argument. The argument is not that there is a direct cause between God's knowing the future and a person's being forced to do a certain thing. As I've pointed out, that God knows the future isn't relevant to this argument. Some other being could know the future, and the argument would logically follow just as well. It's the fact that the future is exhaustively settled, and knowable as such, that causes the logical problem.

Regarding the question as to if the future is settled, then who settled it, it doesn't seem to me we have really gotten into that. My view is that creatures with free will, to some degree, settle the future, and that it is not exhaustively settled before these creatures act. If the future is exhaustively settled, there are arguments that have been made that it must have been God who settled it. This is the Calvinist position, and if you do some research on the web, you can find these arguments. The argument by Jonathan Edwards is particularly well known.

(There isn't anything else besides FMA's and God that determine what will happen in the future ... I believe Tom does not want to acknowledge this fact because it would shoot down his "must-be-fixed-and-free-will-is-out-the-window" argument)

I don't know what you're thinking here. Please present a well formed argument, and we can discuss it.

Yet, despite that Tom's point that the real future does not exist for Him to see, somehow all of these possible futures that will not actually happen actually do exist (according to Tom), and God can see all of these candidate futures that will not happen (He just cannot see the real one that will happen.)

Clearly the future that will actually happen is one of the candidate futures, so obviously God does see the real one that will happen.

Then he turns 180 degrees, denies that he ever said any such thing (as he has recently done with me), and then say as he did to you, "Obviously if God is actively participating, He knows which of the ways He foresees that the future will play out."

This is considering a specific class of events, in answer to a specific question. For example, if God prophesies about something He Himself will do, clearly He can foresee what the result of that will be.

See? First Tom says that God does not know, and cannot know, because the future does not exist to know.

Cannot know as settled.

Now Tom moves the target and says that since God is actively participating, He does know which future will play out.

In certain circumstances.

And he does not even seem to realize that "God knows the future" and "God does not know the future 'cuz it doesn't exist to know" are two irreconcilable conflicting statements.

Not taken in the context I provided, they aren't.

Either God knows what will happen, or He does not ... it cannot be both, except according to Tom.

Again, you're mixing statements made from different perspectives to create a contradiction that doesn't exist.

If you have some question about something I've said, why not quote it, and ask your question?

It is impossible to discuss or debate anything like this when the other person is constantly moving the target. You argue against the one position, and he later denies that position. Then when you mention that you then agree, he switches yet again and reverts back to his first position.

Actually what I'm doing is asking you to quote something I've actually said, and ask questions about that.

In this kind of situation, you could not win if the objective was to lose (you can't win for losing).

At any rate, this is what I see happening in this thread.

Again, I'd suggest actually quoting things you have questions about, and then asking questions, and making points, about those things. This is what MM and I do with each other, and we've been able to carry on successfully conversations for years like this. Sometimes we agree (e.g. on Christ's human nature), sometimes we disagree, but we have been able to dialog at great length using this technique on a wide variety of subjects.

Yes, I did read the article. But are you saying you believe God knew which way the future would play out because He foresaw His active participation?


Based on what he wrote (in the quote I posted above), how does his view differ from mine?

I meant omnipresence, not omniscience. God is omnipresent, therefore, for God, the future does not exist. Yesterday and tomorrow are, for God, now and always. As such, it doesn't affect our freedom or ability to choose. Nor does it affect the nature of our future. The future is what it is - a thing that belongs to our time and space continuum. The fact God is omnipresent does not destroy or alter our future, our time line.

Den: MM, it seems impossible to discuss this rationally with Tom since he keeps moving the target. You tire yourself out running from target to target as he gives contradicting statements as to his views of God's foreknowledge. You run back and forth: Does Tom believe that God knows what will happen in the future? No he does not. ... Wait! Yes he does ... No, wait! he doesn't. It wears you out!

MM: Elsewhere Tom has admitted that his views are not yet set in concrete. I'm not certain he has been waffling back and forth. That's why I try to ask clarifying questions. Thank you for trying to help me understand these things.