TV: Or like the question, "explain God and give two examples".

---

1. God is love.

John
3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

2. God knows the end from the beginning.

Isaiah
46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Romans
4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Revelation
4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter.

No, the problem is neither of these things. The problem is ontological, not epistemological, and the ontological question involves the future, not God.



Again, the problem is an ontological one regarding the future, not an epistemological question regarding God.

I'm saying this:

a)If we make certain assumptions about God's foreknowledge, that leads to certain conclusions regarding the future.
b)Certain conclusions regarding the future have implications regarding free will.

When you write something like:



this seems to indicate you're not understanding the question I'm raising.

Until you understand the question I am raising, there's no way we can intelligently discuss it.

TE: No, the problem is neither of these things. The problem is ontological, not epistemological, and the ontological question involves the future, not God.

MM: We cannot divorce God from the future. We would know nothing of the future were it not for the fact our future is happening now for God.

---

TE: a) If we make certain assumptions about God's foreknowledge, that leads to certain conclusions regarding the future. b) Certain conclusions regarding the future have implications regarding free will.

MM: This equation ignores the fact God is not bound by time or space. He is everywhere at the same time. Are we forced by this fact to rethink the laws of time and space because they do not apply to God in the same way they do to us? Of course not. Yet this is exactly what you seem to think.

TE: No, the problem is neither of these things. The problem is ontological, not epistemological, and the ontological question involves the future, not God.

MM: We cannot divorce God from the future. We would know nothing of the future were it not for the fact our future is happening now for God.

This is simply not true. There's a lot we know about the future which has nothing at all do with God's telling us something about it.

You throw in a lot of false premises in your posts, MM, (often questions, although not here) which make them tricky to respond to. For example, here you could have written something like "We would know nothing of the future were it not for the fact that God tells us about it." which would be acceptable way of putting things from either your position or mine. In order to respond to you, I have to both strip away your assumptions, and also deal with the issue at hand, which makes for extra work. You can facilitate our discussion be refraining from putting things in a needlessly provocative way.

I understand sometimes it's necessary to say things I will disagree with in order to make your point, but often it's not. In those times it's not, our discussions will flow more smoothly if you refrain from so doing.

The other point regarding divorcing God from the future is off base. The reason you give for not being able to divorce God from the future is an epistemological one, not an ontological one, which once more gets to the point that you are simply not discussing the same subject I am.

I am pointing out that if the future is ontologically a certain way, that has implications regarding our free will. *How* we know that the future is a certain way is not relevant. *That* we know it is a certain way is the salient point.


---

TE: a) If we make certain assumptions about God's foreknowledge, that leads to certain conclusions regarding the future. b) Certain conclusions regarding the future have implications regarding free will.

MM: This equation ignores the fact God is not bound by time or space. He is everywhere at the same time.

This isn't relevant, except as to how it ties ontologically to the future. That is, what is the future like, given whatever assumption you wish to take regarding God's knowledge or experience of the future?

Are we forced by this fact to rethink the laws of time and space because they do not apply to God in the same way they do to us? Of course not. Yet this is exactly what you seem to think.

Not "rethink," just "think." How time applies to God is irrelevant. What is relevant is ontological. What is the future like? Specifically, can only one thing happen in the future, or can more than one thing happen in the future? Is it possible for something to happen different than what God knows will happen? If not, there's only one possible future, and we have an ontological issue to deal with.

I'm not getting a sense that you're understanding what I'm saying. Are you?

Tom, the fact our future is happening now for God is an integral part of it. The future is what it is because it involves God in an intimate way. You do not believe our future is happening now for God, consequently, you are unable to understand how it fits into the picture. From your perspective it means our freedom to choose is limited to one outcome. From this you conclude free will is nonexistent. But this conclusion is no truer than saying free will doesn't exist since God knows today the choices we are going to make.

I understand what you are saying. It's just that I don't agree with it. Again, just because God experiences our future before we do, it doesn't mean the future is tainted or ruined or whatever. Nothing about the future has been changed. The future is what it is. The future will play out like any other block of time. We are free to choose as we please. Nothing hinders us or prevents us from choosing as we please.

If all understand eachother but choose to disagree, what more is there to talk about?

Ok, what am I saying?

When I need a good chuckle I read some of your posts. Thanks for the serious entertainment - which is very serious. And important!

Johann, do you find theological discussions in general amusing or just these ones that only move very slowly if they ever move at all?

Tom, you are saying if God is experiencing our future now it means free will is nonexistent because we cannot do anything different when that time arrives than what God sees us doing now.