Can the future be changed, Scrooge asked?

[Jac3510]

If God only predicts the future (even with perfect accuracy), then God learns, even if nothing more than God "learning" that what He "knew" would happen actually happened. He would be "learning" every moment of every day that His predictions were right. But if God can learn, His knowledge is incomplete, and if God's knowledge is incomplete, then God is incomplete. He is also changing, when means He is not immutable. Since He is changing, there must be something to account for that change--something that causes the changes in God, which means the First Cause is being caused, meaning the First Cause is, by definition, not the First Cause. Moreover, it would be in this case that what is causing God to change would be us -- we would be causing Him to be this way rather than that insofar as He would know our actions as this way rather than that. But then you are saying that God is dependent on us in terms of how He exists, since we are responsible for His changes. Therefore, since God is dependent on us, He is not self-existent and, worse, His existence is a contingent existence. Still worse, His contingent existence is contingent upon us, who are contingent beings ourselves. That means that God is not the necessary being at all.

So, on your view, God is incomplete (which is to say, imperfect), mutable, not the First Cause, and a contingent being. Whatever kind of being that is, it isn't God.

[PaulSacramento]

If God only predicts the future (even with perfect accuracy), then God learns, even if nothing more than God "learning" that what He "knew" would happen actually happened. He would be "learning" every moment of every day that His predictions were right. But if God can learn, His knowledge is incomplete, and if God's knowledge is incomplete, then God is incomplete. He is also changing, when means He is not immutable. Since He is changing, there must be something to account for that change--something that causes the changes in God, which means the First Cause is being caused, meaning the First Cause is, by definition, not the First Cause. Moreover, it would be in this case that what is causing God to change would be us -- we would be causing Him to be this way rather than that insofar as He would know our actions as this way rather than that. But then you are saying that God is dependent on us in terms of how He exists, since we are responsible for His changes. Therefore, since God is dependent on us, He is not self-existent and, worse, His existence is a contingent existence. Still worse, His contingent existence is contingent upon us, who are contingent beings ourselves. That means that God is not the necessary being at all.

So, on your view, God is incomplete (which is to say, imperfect), mutable, not the First Cause, and a contingent being. Whatever kind of being that is, it isn't God.

God knowing every possible outcome is not a prediction.
Prediction is when we take into account what we THINK, not what we know.
God knows and while it may seem to us a "prediction" that is just us putting things into a "human understanding".
That is why we have descriptions of God changing His mind or being surprised in the bible.
God isn't dependent on Us to know what we will do, God knows that when we get to the stop light we will do either A, B or C and depending on that, what will happen based on that choice BUT the choice is still ours.
Of course I am simply stating my opinion on how I try to reconcile "all knowing" and "free choice/will".

[Jac3510]

God knowing every possible outcome is not a prediction.

Knowing every possible outcome is also not knowing which outcome will actually occur. The moment you say that God knows which outcome will occur out of the set of possibilities, you've left God with making predictions and all that I suggested before.

That's why I put it in the model I did. It isn't that God knows what we will do. (Again, that seems to presume a temporality in God that does not apply.) It's that God knows all potential and actual realities and that completely irrespective of any time indicators. He knows that because what God principally knows is Himself, and since God is pure being, what God principally knows is pure being and by extension all the ways in which being can be (both potentially and actually). Moreover, He brings into existence all that is, both potentially and actually, and that completely irrespective of any time indicators.

If you don't have something along those lines, you are left with God looking outside of Himself at us, knowing what we will do, and therefore His knowledge being determined by what we are doing. That makes God dependent on us and everything I said before follows. This is why we cannot think of God as temporal and why we likewise cannot think of time as an independently existing reality. That's why I said to Neo that we have to understand time in a relative sense (interesting that modern science is just proving what philosophers have been saying for centuries on this matter) -- that time is nothing more than a measure of change, and that change, in turn, is nothing more than potential being (which is real, not simply possible, being) becoming actualized being.

[PaulSacramento]

God knowing every possible outcome is not a prediction.

Knowing every possible outcome is also not knowing which outcome will actually occur. The moment you say that God knows which outcome will occur out of the set of possibilities, you've left God with making predictions and all that I suggested before.

That's why I put it in the model I did. It isn't that God knows what we will do. (Again, that seems to presume a temporality in God that does not apply.) It's that God knows all potential and actual realities and that completely irrespective of any time indicators. He knows that because what God principally knows is Himself, and since God is pure being, what God principally knows is pure being and by extension all the ways in which being can be (both potentially and actually). Moreover, He brings into existence all that is, both potentially and actually, and that completely irrespective of any time indicators.

If you don't have something along those lines, you are left with God looking outside of Himself at us, knowing what we will do, and therefore His knowledge being determined by what we are doing. That makes God dependent on us and everything I said before follows. This is why we cannot think of God as temporal and why we likewise cannot think of time as an independently existing reality. That's why I said to Neo that we have to understand time in a relative sense (interesting that modern science is just proving what philosophers have been saying for centuries on this matter) -- that time is nothing more than a measure of change, and that change, in turn, is nothing more than potential being (which is real, not simply possible, being) becoming actualized being.

I see and Yes, I agree that is a better way of putting it or trying to understand "God In Time".
BUT. isn't saying that God knows all actual AND potential realities basically saying the same thing but substituting "possibilities" with "realities"?

I often wonder if, when God comes into our "reality" that perhaps He IS limited, a self-imposed limit, But limited because He is now part of OURS.
Sort of like Christ when He was with us.

[Jac3510]

isn't saying that God knows all actual AND potential realities basically saying the same thing but substituting "possibilities" with "realities

I don't think so. The Christians and other philosophers who developed in detail the doctrines of the Trinity, immutability, omniscience, and other such ideas had a robust notion of the terms "potential" and "actual." They are just not synonymous with "possible" and "real." The word "possible" is a very useful word -- it's used to describe "possible worlds," which allows us to analyze very closely two or more situations and isolate differences between them. So we could say, "Is there a possible world in which God doesn't exist?" and by that, what mean is, "Can a world be conceived of that has all the same properties as ours, except rather than having the property 'God exists,' it has the property 'God does not exist'?"

Possibility, then, deals with modes -- it's abstract and helps us consider competing hypotheses. "Potential," on the other hand, is firmly rooted in this real world. As I said to Neo, you have the potential to laugh. I can certainly say that there is a possible world when you are laughing, but I can also say there is a possible world in which you can fly like Superman. On the other hand, while I can say you have the potential to laugh, I cannot say that you have the potential to fly like Superman. Potentiality is rooted in what you actually are. And that last sentence shows an inseparable connection between actual reality and potential reality. Actual reality is what we experience daily, and more importantly, it is the ground for potential reality. Potential reality is real, but it is not experienced; we can experience it, though, when it becomes actual. And that is precisely what change is. I have the potential to be laughing, but I am not. Now, I am laughing. I have changed--my potential for laughter became an actuality.

So, we say that God knows all actual existence. That by itself is a big deal, because all of our choices are really actual. We say He knows them without any indication of time whatsoever. But God also knows what those actual choices were born out off--that is, all of their potentialities. Thus, God not only has real knowledge of all actual reality, but He has real knowledge of all potential reality, which is to say, He has complete middle knowledge. He then equally well knows not only what IS, but also would could have been.

Lastly, it helps here to make a distinction between a tensed fact and a tenseless fact. As I've written elsewhere:

• A tensed fact is one that is true only in a certain relation to the present. A tenseless fact is always true. Thus, “Barack Obama is elected President of the United States” is a tenseless fact. The statement would be true no matter when it was said. However, “Barack Obama was elected President of the United States three years ago” would only be true during the 2011 year (and, possibly, during 2015, if he wins again in 2012).

The only way to know a tensed fact in a tensed fashion is to be a temporal being. God is not temporal, so He does not know tensed facts in a tensed fashion. He knows tensed facts in a tenseless fashion. Some (like William Lane Craig) argue that takes away from God's omniscience, but that isn't true, because omniscience is about what is known, not about the manner in which it is known. Moreover, God may know all facts in a tenseless sense, but He (even more than me) knows all tensed facts from the temporal perspective of all things! He may not be able to say, "Barack Obama won reelection last year," but He certainly can say, "Jac3510 knows on July 2, 2013 that Barack Obama won reelection in the previous year."

To say that the way in which God knows something relates to omniscience is silly for another reason. I can say, "I am typing this response to Paul." Does God know that? Well, God certainly knows that I am typing this response to you, but does God know, "I am typing this response to Paul"? No, God know, "Jac is typing this response to Paul." Does the fact that God knows the same thing I know in a different fashion mean that He isn't omniscient?

Of course not. So omniscience, properly speaking, is to be stated and understood in a strictly tenseless fashion. God knows ALL facts about ALL existence (both potential and actual) in a tenseless fashion. We cannot apply any temporal indicators to God, because if we do, all the consequences I mentioned earlier necessarily follow.

I often wonder if, when God comes into our "reality" that perhaps He IS limited, a self-imposed limit, But limited because He is now part of OURS.
Sort of like Christ when He was with us.

That's a whole new can of worms. I suggest that the question is based on a false premise--God does not come into "our reality." I know Aquinas isn't very helpful because his language is so technical, but all the same, as I'm short on time now, I'll post his take on this:

• Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ii): "There can be no touching Him," i.e. God, "nor any other union with Him by mingling part with part."
  
  Further, the first cause rules all things without commingling with them, as the Philosopher says (De Causis).
  
  I answer that, On this point there have been three errors. Some have affirmed that God is the world-soul, as is clear from Augustine (De Civ. Dei vii, 6). This is practically the same as the opinion of those who assert that God is the soul of the highest heaven. Again, others have said that God is the formal principle of all things; and this was the theory of the Almaricians. The third error is that of David of Dinant, who most absurdly taught that God was primary matter. Now all these contain manifest untruth; since it is not possible for God to enter into the composition of anything, either as a formal or a material principle.
  
  First, because God is the first efficient cause. Now the efficient cause is not identical numerically with the form of the thing caused, but only specifically: for man begets man. But primary matter can be neither numerically nor specifically identical with an efficient cause; for the former is merely potential, while the latter is actual.
  
  Secondly, because, since God is the first efficient cause, to act belongs to Him primarily and essentially. But that which enters into composition with anything does not act primarily and essentially, but rather the composite so acts; for the hand does not act, but the man by his hand; and, fire warms by its heat. Hence God cannot be part of a compound.
  
  Thirdly, because no part of a compound can be absolutely primal among beings--not even matter, nor form, though they are the primal parts of every compound. For matter is merely potential; and potentiality is absolutely posterior to actuality, as is clear from the foregoing (3, 1): while a form which is part of a compound is a participated form; and as that which participates is posterior to that which is essential, so likewise is that which is participated; as fire in ignited objects is posterior to fire that is essentially such. Now it has been proved that God is absolutely primal being (2, 3).

[PaulSacramento]

I think your view is addressing the "free will" issue by removing the "time" element from it, thus eliminating "future", in fact eliminating ANY temporal characteristic.
Yes?
There is no free will violation if God knows what we will do before we do it because, for God, there is no "before".
Yes?

As for your response to God being "limited" when in our reality:
I didn't understand your reply...sorry.

When God enters our World, as He did when speaking with Abe about Sodom or as His Son did when He become Jesus, are His powers "limited"?
We know that Christ as human WAS limited and I wonder, is The Father also?

[Jac3510]

I think your view is addressing the "free will" issue by removing the "time" element from it, thus eliminating "future", in fact eliminating ANY temporal characteristic.
Yes?
There is no free will violation if God knows what we will do before we do it because, for God, there is no "before".
Yes?

Essentially, yes!

As for your response to God being "limited" when in our reality:
I didn't understand your reply...sorry.

I know, it's the frustrating thing about that work. It's very hard to follow. Anybody who pretends it isn't is playing games.

When God enters our World, as He did when speaking with Abe about Sodom or as His Son did when He become Jesus, are His powers "limited"?
We know that Christ as human WAS limited and I wonder, is The Father also?

No, God's powers are not limited in those instances. When God was talking to Abraham in a human form, He was still omnipresent, omniscient, etc. The issue of Jesus being limited is more difficult, because Jesus has two natures. His divine nature was still completely unlimited and remained unchanged by the incarnation. His human nature was limited. A lot of the biblical and theological debate here especially revolves around Phil 2:5-11, the so-called "kenosis" passage. There, we're told Jesus "emptied" Himself and thereby took on human limitations. But I don't think that's a very good understanding of the passage. The phrase "he emptied himself" should probably be better understood as something like, "He poured himself out." I don't think Paul was trying to make a theological statement about an unlimited God being so humble as to take on human limitations; I think (in context) Paul was trying to make a Christological statement about a highly exalted Savior being willing to serve others--in context, if Jesus would be willing to "pour Himself out" for us, how much more should we "pour ourselves out" for one another?

[PaulSacramento]

I agree that most passages that state that God was "surprised" or that He "changed" His mind are not LITERAL but that Christ Himself stated that there are things he didn't know at the time, that was a clear and explicit passage.
I wonder if, perhaps, there is a "self imposed" limitation that God places on Himself when He comes into our reality, sort of a "obey the rules I made for all," thing.

[Jac3510]

Like I said, Christ has two natures. His limitations come from His human nature, but His divine nature is still completely divine in every way. As far as God limiting Himself, I guess I'm just not following you. If you agree that things like God being surprised or God changing His mind are just metaphors, I don't get where the issue is. What makes you think that God would be limited at all, or that He would limit Himself in this world?

[B. W.]

In Dicken's "Christmas Carol", which I really, really like, near the end we have,

"Men's courses will foreshadow certain ends, to which, if persevered in, they must lead," said Scrooge. "But if the courses be departed from, the ends will change. Say it is thus with what you show me."

The Spirit was immovable as ever.


The Spirit may have been immovable but the rest of the book said in effect "if the courses be departed from, the ends will change."

You don't have to remind me that this is fiction, though

In real life can the future be changed?

Might you want to say Scrooge was talking about something else altogether?

What?

Can the future be changed?

Yes

Evidence: Romans 1:18 and Romans 5:9, 10, 11

Jesus changed my future - how about yours?
-
-
-

[neo-x]

Jac3510 on Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:42 pm

neo-x wrote:
Actually, that is the same objection I have against molinism, that given enough variables to calculate one can ultimately become omniscient.

Yup. But I also have to say that I'm told by some people who have studied the issue more than me that there are other versions of Molinism that don't have this problem. I don't know what they are, as I've not looked into them in any detail (yet). "Molinism" is something of a nebulous term, anyway. But I digress. Just saying that I don't think it's all it's being argued it's cracked up to be.

I seldom listen to lectures by WLC, and I don't think we have many molinists here, I am therefore not very much aware of different types of molinism.

Look at the words I just put in bold. Whether you mean it or not, you are applying temporality to God. To say that God knows something that does not exist yet is to say that God somehow knows things that are future to Him. But nothing is future to God (if we take classical theism seriously, anyway). For those here who believe--wrongly, I think--that God is temporal, I think you have a good and important question. But for those of us who believe what theists of all stripes, and by that I specifically mean Christians, Muslims, and Jews, have been saying about God for at least eighteen hundred years, then your objection just doesn't apply.

I am not sure Jac. Look at it this way. Do have a gold teeth? Lets say you don't have one, You could though tommorow but that is technically only a possibility, but if no gold teeth exists in your mouth right now then how can it be in God's knowledge? It can't, because it does not exist in reality right now. That is what I meant to say, if the future does not exist in reality right now then how can God knows it since forever?

I certainly think we are temporal and everything that is connected to us is infact temporal. That is why God must not see past our choices, or else his atemporal nature will override our temporal.

The key to your problem lies in your second question. Don't make the mistake of equating potential existence with possible existence. Possible existence is just a theoretical construct. Potential existence has a deeper meaning associated with it (for classical theists). Potential existence is real existence. It goes back to the Greek word dunamis, which means "capacity" or "power." You, right now, as we speak, have the capacity to laugh. You probably aren't laughing now, but you have that capacity. It's a real thing that you have. That you are not laughing does not mean the potential is only a possibility. Part of what it means to be human is to really be able to laugh, and sometimes, you actualize that potential by really laughing!

Just so with potential existence. You, as a human, have the potential to exist in myriads of ways (you could be laughing, for instance). What gets actualized depends on many factors, one of which is certainly your own free will. The point is that God knows ALL existence absolutely, and He knows it for what it is. He knows potential existence as potential and He knows actual existence as actual. He knows free choices as free choices and determined events as determined events. More below.

Okay, but there are possible existences just the same. Its possible to be hit by a car and die, it is a theoretical construct and yet that can be made potential by just stepping on the road blindly. But it is my free will that made this possibility, a potential reality. The potential for me to die exists. But it was not possible in this case unless I willed it or stepped on the road.

Knowledge exists in God in an analogous sense to a way it exists in us. We cannot say that God knows the same way we do. God doesn't look down the infinite corridors of time, see what we will choose, know it, and therefore have this existence within Himself that we call knowledge about what we will do. That are LOTS of reasons we can't and shouldn't adopt that view. One of the most important is that, in God, knowledge is not a thing that He goes and "checks"--as if there is God and then there is what He knows (within Himself).

So, again, when God knows Himself, He immediately knows every way in which being can be, both potential and actual. Moreover, since He is the cause of everything that is--that is, nothing can be without Him being its Prime Mover--then there is nothing that is that He has not made to be. That is not to say He determines everything, for He moves everything according to its own nature.

The bottom line is that when you take God's eternality seriously (that is, His atemporality) and thereby remove all temporal indicators from God's essence, when you see that God's knowledge is identical with Himself, and when you see that what God is is pure being, then all of that shows that when God knows in what ways I am actual and what ways I am potential, and that by my own choices, then there is no conflict between God's knowledge of our future (it isn't His, after all) and our ability to freely actualize our own potentialities.

But the problem I see here is that now you are treating creation as atemporal too. I am not atemporal, neither are my choices. So how can knowledge of temporal beings be identical to God in himself if he is atemporal. Consider it this way, we are not atemporal so we don't fully understand God. How can God fully know temporal if he is not temporal to begin with, unless it exists within him? In other words can you think like a fish? You could if being fish was identical to yourself in you (as you say it is in God) but if that is the case then we are also identical to God in himself. But before that happens, we have to define how temporal exists in atemporal and not be the same under divine simplicity. I see no problem with it but I think I might have to step outside DS to do that.

I think we are temporal, God is atemporal but if actual and potential are identical in God as knowledge. Then that simply means the property of being temporal (and not just knowing temporal) is in God too and as you would put it, is identical to himself. So i would say God does not only knows temporal, he is being temporal. He is temporal while also being equal to being atemporal. That is the problem I see DS leading into.

Does atemporality and temporality are identical in God to himself?
But if atemporal = God, then temporal must also = God.

[Jac3510]

I am not sure Jac. Look at it this way. Do have a gold teeth? Lets say you don't have one, You could though tommorow but that is technically only a possibility, but if no gold teeth exists in your mouth right now then how can it be in God's knowledge? It can't, because it does not exist in reality right now. That is what I meant to say, if the future does not exist in reality right now then how can God knows it since forever?

I certainly think we are temporal and everything that is connected to us is infact temporal. That is why God must not see past our choices, or else his atemporal nature will override our temporal.

Again, it seems to me like you are applying temporality to God whether you mean to or not. I can certainly go get gold teeth put in my head tomorrow, I suppose. But you saying that God can't know it because it doesn't exist yet means that it doesn't exist yet for God, either. And if it doesn't exist yet for God, then God knows what is right now for Him as well as us. But then God is temporal any way you slice it.

Have you read my comments above regarding tenseless facts?

Okay, but there are possible existences just the same. Its possible to be hit by a car and die, it is a theoretical construct and yet that can be made potential by just stepping on the road blindly. But it is my free will that made this possibility, a potential reality. The potential for me to die exists. But it was not possible in this case unless I willed it or stepped on the road.

No, there are no possible existences. If you don't have the potentiality for something to be the case, then it isn't possible. Again, I can SAY that it is possible for you to fly like Superman, but I'm just using logical modes there. It isn't really possible. The moment you start talking about REAL possibilities, you get back into potentiality, and all that comes with it.

But the problem I see here is that now you are treating creation as atemporal too. I am not atemporal, neither are my choices. So how can knowledge of temporal beings be identical to God in himself if he is atemporal. Consider it this way, we are not atemporal so we don't fully understand God. How can God fully know temporal if he is not temporal to begin with, unless it exists within him? In other words can you think like a fish? You could if being fish was identical to yourself in you (as you say it is in God) but if that is the case then we are also identical to God in himself. But before that happens, we have to define how temporal exists in atemporal and not be the same under divine simplicity. I see no problem with it but I think I might have to step outside DS to do that.

I'm not saying creation is atemporal. I'm saying God knows everything in creation in an atemporal way and not in a temporal way. Again, see my comments to Paul above on tenseless facts. Any tensed (which is to say, temporal) fact can be stated and known in a tenseless manner, too.

As far as God knowing things that are within Him, again, I emphasize that I already said that what God knows principally is HIMSELF. And since He is the cause of ALL things (according to their nature), then He thereby knows all things, including how a fish thinks.

I think we are temporal, God is atemporal but if actual and potential are identical in God as knowledge. Then that simply means the property of being temporal (and not just knowing temporal) is in God too and as you would put it, is identical to himself. So i would say God does not only knows temporal, he is being temporal. He is temporal while also being equal to being atemporal. That is the problem I see DS leading into.

Does atemporality and temporality are identical in God to himself?
But if atemporal = God, then temporal must also = God.

Again, God (and humans, for that matter) can know tensed facts in a tenseless way. He knows ALL facts in a tenseless manner. He knows nothing temporally and has no property of "being temporal," and so we don't have to posit that atemporality and temporality are identical in God.

[neo-x]

Lastly, it helps here to make a distinction between a tensed fact and a tenseless fact. As I've written elsewhere:

A tensed fact is one that is true only in a certain relation to the present. A tenseless fact is always true. Thus, “Barack Obama is elected President of the United States” is a tenseless fact. The statement would be true no matter when it was said. However, “Barack Obama was elected President of the United States three years ago” would only be true during the 2011 year (and, possibly, during 2015, if he wins again in 2012).
The only way to know a tensed fact in a tensed fashion is to be a temporal being. God is not temporal, so He does not know tensed facts in a tensed fashion. He knows tensed facts in a tenseless fashion. Some (like William Lane Craig) argue that takes away from God's omniscience, but that isn't true, because omniscience is about what is known, not about the manner in which it is known. Moreover, God may know all facts in a tenseless sense, but He (even more than me) knows all tensed facts from the temporal perspective of all things! He may not be able to say, "Barack Obama won reelection last year," but He certainly can say, "Jac3510 knows on July 2, 2013 that Barack Obama won reelection in the previous year."

To say that the way in which God knows something relates to omniscience is silly for another reason. I can say, "I am typing this response to Paul." Does God know that? Well, God certainly knows that I am typing this response to you, but does God know, "I am typing this response to Paul"? No, God know, "Jac is typing this response to Paul." Does the fact that God knows the same thing I know in a different fashion mean that He isn't omniscient?

Of course not. So omniscience, properly speaking, is to be stated and understood in a strictly tenseless fashion. God knows ALL facts about ALL existence (both potential and actual) in a tenseless fashion. We cannot apply any temporal indicators to God, because if we do, all the consequences I mentioned earlier necessarily follow.

Jac, following from you can I say that God has no sense of time the same way we do? I ask this because other then that I see no reason to have tenseless knowledge.

Again, it seems to me like you are applying temporality to God whether you mean to or not. I can certainly go get gold teeth put in my head tomorrow, I suppose. But you saying that God can't know it because it doesn't exist yet means that it doesn't exist yet for God, either. And if it doesn't exist yet for God, then God knows what is right now for Him as well as us. But then God is temporal any way you slice it.

Jac, free will exists in you. For instance, the potential to put in a gold teeth is there but that does not mean it is there now because equally true is that the potential to not put the gold teeth in your mouth, and is CONTINGENT on your decision. So in a tenseless way, God can say Jac (could) want to have a gold tooth, but the other potential(grounded into reality) existence is also equally true that Jac (could) not want to have a gold tooth. Why? because Jac has not yet decided on it. I am curious how do you get rid of the "could" factor? to me it exists temporally.

the way I see it, unless you decide, God most certainly cannot say atemporally "Jac has a tooth of Gold" or "Jac doesn't have a tooth of Gold" in a tenseless way unless it corresponds to reality to us. Both are tenseless but both can't be true together in a way.

Okay, but there are possible existences just the same. Its possible to be hit by a car and die, it is a theoretical construct and yet that can be made potential by just stepping on the road blindly. But it is my free will that made this possibility, a potential reality. The potential for me to die exists. But it was not possible in this case unless I willed it or stepped on the road.

No, there are no possible existences. If you don't have the potentiality for something to be the case, then it isn't possible. Again, I can SAY that it is possible for you to fly like Superman, but I'm just using logical modes there. It isn't really possible. The moment you start talking about REAL possibilities, you get back into potentiality, and all that comes with it.

Jac, I don't get you, are you saying that REAL possibilities are = potentialities? Why is my stepping onto the road and being killed, not a real possibility or a potentiality?

Again, God (and humans, for that matter) can know tensed facts in a tenseless way. He knows ALL facts in a tenseless manner. He knows nothing temporally and has no property of "being temporal," and so we don't have to posit that atemporality and temporality are identical in God.

Then God does not know what temporal feels like the same way he can feel like a fish, because he can't know facts in a tensed way.

A. God knows ALL facts in a tenseless manner (a tenseless fact)
B. God does not know tensed facts as tensed facts (a tenseless fact)
C. God is not omniscient because he does not know anything temporally (a tenseless fact) So even if he knows the facts, he does not know their tense.

Now you touched on it before as:

He knows tensed facts in a tenseless fashion. Some (like William Lane Craig) argue that takes away from God's omniscience, but that isn't true, because omniscience is about what is known, not about the manner in which it is known.

But I think its not the manner but a state of time that God does not know, a tense. Its missing.

Moreover, God may know all facts in a tenseless sense, but He (even more than me) knows all tensed facts from the temporal perspective of all things! He may not be able to say, "Barack Obama won reelection last year," but He certainly can say, "Jac3510 knows on July 2, 2013 that Barack Obama won reelection in the previous year."

Does that mean God's knowledge of tense is contingent upon you? But this does not mean that God knows it if you didn;t exist. Further, His self is his knowledge and therefore his knowledge is not in tense, therefore when we are in tense, he can not make a distinction in the two unless YOU have a tense to define it.

For instance. God knows that you don't have a gold tooth, he knows it in a tenseless way. There is no future, no past. Now lets say you have one tomorrow since we are temporal beings. Then will God update his knowledge that you have a gold tooth tomorrow? No. So does God knows in a tenseless way that you have a gold tooth? but then that is not true today, it will only be true tomorrow. Two opposite things in a tenseless way can not both be true.

As far as God knowing things that are within Him, again, I emphasize that I already said that what God knows principally is HIMSELF. And since He is the cause of ALL things (according to their nature), then He thereby knows all things, including how a fish thinks.

Jac this means that his knowledge of a creature's feelings depends upon the creature, God can't think like a fish if no fish exists. God can have knowledge of a fish only if being fish = being God. But that is absurd.

[PaulSacramento]

Like I said, Christ has two natures. His limitations come from His human nature, but His divine nature is still completely divine in every way. As far as God limiting Himself, I guess I'm just not following you. If you agree that things like God being surprised or God changing His mind are just metaphors, I don't get where the issue is. What makes you think that God would be limited at all, or that He would limit Himself in this world?

Oh just think "out loud", it seems that "divine beings" in our realm tend to not be as powerful as we would think and while agree that Christ's "limiting factor" was his human side, that He didn't know things ( like when the end would come) that He WOULD have know before He became human, makes me wonder, that's all.

I wonder IF God does "self impose" limitations on Himself and divine beings that visit here, maybe for our own protection?
The passage where God asks Adam where he is and where He ponders telling Abe about His intentions towards Sodom, they may be just the writers "humanizing" God, BUT what if there is more to it ?

[Jac3510]

Jac, following from you can I say that God has no sense of time the same way we do? I ask this because other then that I see no reason to have tenseless knowledge.

Correct.

Jac, free will exists in you. For instance, the potential to put in a gold teeth is there but that does not mean it is there now because equally true is that the potential to not put the gold teeth in your mouth, and is CONTINGENT on your decision. So in a tenseless way, God can say Jac (could) want to have a gold tooth, but the other potential(grounded into reality) existence is also equally true that Jac (could) not want to have a gold tooth. Why? because Jac has not yet decided on it. I am curious how do you get rid of the "could" factor? to me it exists temporally.

the way I see it, unless you decide, God most certainly cannot say atemporally "Jac has a tooth of Gold" or "Jac doesn't have a tooth of Gold" in a tenseless way unless it corresponds to reality to us. Both are tenseless but both can't be true together in a way.

Sure He can. God can say, "On 7/3/2013, Jac has no gold tooth." That's true whether He said it to Moses, whether He says it to me today, or whether He says it to you next year. And if I get a gold tooth tomorrow, He can say, "On 7/4/2013, Jac has a gold tooth." Again that would be true if He said it to Moses, if he says it to me tomorrow, o to you a year from now. He knows all things in a tenseless manner.

As far as God's knowledge of what I will do being contingent on what I actually do, that's a serious problem that philosophers have debated. Jeffrey Brower, for instance, [url=http://web.ics.purdue.
edu/~brower/Papers/Simplicity%20and%20Aseity.pdf]argues that there is no way to get around what you are arguing here[/url], but the evidence for divine simplicity is far too overwhelming to deny, so he opts for compatibilism. I, however, (and, again, most classical theists) don't think we need to go that far. The answer is rather simple--God causes everything to happen according to its nature. So determined effects He brings about in a determined manner, a free effects He brings about in a free manner. Of course, we would have to dig into that, and we can a lot if you want. But that's the bottom line. God causes me to freely get the gold tooth. There's no illusion to freedom here. It's real freedom, and it has to be. The only alternative, by the way, to this is NOT to deny divine simplicity or to deny God's knowledge of the future beyond our choices. If you say that God cannot bring about our free choices in a free manner, then we have to say that we bring about effects apart from God. But if we say that, then God is no longer the First Cause, at least, not of everything. We would literally be uncaused causes. Moreover, that would mean that God's knowledge of our choices is contingent on us, meaning that God Himself is contingent on us, which means (again) that God is not the First Cause. It would also mean that God does not exist a se. It would mean that God learns, which means that His knowledge is not perfect. It would mean that He can change, but no mutable, changeable thing can, again, be the First Cause.

In short, you only have two options here: either you affirm that God can bring about free effects in a free manner and thereby preserve God as the First Cause and all the other biblical doctrines about God; or you deny that God can bring about free effects in a free manner and thereby deny that God is the First Cause and multiple other biblical doctrines about God.

But, of course, if you affirm that God can bring about free effects freely, then there's no difficulty with the question you ask above. God knows everything tenselessly, including what I will do tomorrow, and He brings those things about such that I freely cause it to happen.

Jac, I don't get you, are you saying that REAL possibilities are = potentialities? Why is my stepping onto the road and being killed, not a real possibility or a potentiality?

Your stepping on the road and getting killed IS a potentiality. Real possibilities are potentialities. I'm saying that the problem here is that the term "potentiality" has important connotations that the term "possibility" does not. In short, all potentialities have real existence; not all possibilities do. For instance, I can say, "It's possible for unicorns to exist," put there is no potential for that in our universe, because the only things with potentiality really exist. Possibility just has to do with how we think. Potentiality has to do with what could actually come about in reality because of what things ARE. When God knows all potentialities, He's not just knowing a possibility. He is knowing real existence. The question is simply whether or not that existence is actualized.

Again, to emphasize, the term "potentiality" is a MAJOR word in Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy. It is not identical to our word "possibility." It has LOTS of connotations. If you have a spare $10, but this book. Install the free kindle app on your computer and read the first chapter. It has an excellent discussion on the importance of these terms.

Then God does not know what temporal feels like the same way he can feel like a fish, because he can't know facts in a tensed way.

A. God knows ALL facts in a tenseless manner (a tenseless fact)
B. God does not know tensed facts as tensed facts (a tenseless fact)
C. God is not omniscient because he does not know anything temporally (a tenseless fact) So even if he knows the facts, he does not know their tense.

Now you touched on it before as:

He knows tensed facts in a tenseless fashion. Some (like William Lane Craig) argue that takes away from God's omniscience, but that isn't true, because omniscience is about what is known, not about the manner in which it is known.

But I think its not the manner but a state of time that God does not know, a tense. Its missing.

And that's a common argument from analytical philosophers today. WLC, who you don't listen to alot, likes it and uses it when discussing this issue. But I think it fails for the reasons I've already cited. God also can't know subjective facts in a subjective way. He knows subjective facts in an objective way. Here, let me give you a real example. My favorite comic book is Spawn. Lots of other great ones, too, but Spawn is my favorite. Therefore, I can say, "I know that my favorite comic book is Spawn." That's a subjective fact. And now that I have told you that, you can say, "I know that Jac's favorite comic book is Spawn." That's an objective fact. What you CANNOT say is, "I know that my favorite comic book is Spawn," where "my" in the sentence refers to ME (Jac). You can only say it if "my" in the sentence refers to YOU (Neo)--and if the statement is true, that is, that your favorite comic is Spawn, too.

Now what is true of you here is also true of God. God cannot know that my favorite comic is Spawn in a subjective manner. He cannot say, "I know my favorite comic is Spawn." He does know it in an objective manner. He says, "I know Jac's favorite comic is Spawn." So does the fact that He knows ALL facts in an objective manner mean that He is not omniscient because He doesn't know a great many facts in in a subjective manner? Of course not.

The important thing, then, is that the fact is known, not the manner in which it is known. And so it is with tenses. God knows ALL FACTS in a tenseless manner. He knows the tense insofar as He knows the tense from my perspective (and that in an objective manner). He can say, "I know that on 7/3/2013, Jac has no gold tooth and will get one on 7/4/2013." I would just say that in a subjective, tensed fashion as, "I know I'm getting a gold tooth tomorrow." In both cases, the content of knowledge is the same. It's only that I know the fact in one way, and God knows it in another.

Does that mean God's knowledge of tense is contingent upon you? But this does not mean that God knows it if you didn;t exist. Further, His self is his knowledge and therefore his knowledge is not in tense, therefore when we are in tense, he can not make a distinction in the two unless YOU have a tense to define it.

For instance. God knows that you don't have a gold tooth, he knows it in a tenseless way. There is no future, no past. Now lets say you have one tomorrow since we are temporal beings. Then will God update his knowledge that you have a gold tooth tomorrow? No. So does God knows in a tenseless way that you have a gold tooth? but then that is not true today, it will only be true tomorrow. Two opposite things in a tenseless way can not both be true.

See my comments above on contingency and God's knowledge.

Jac this means that his knowledge of a creature's feelings depends upon the creature, God can't think like a fish if no fish exists. God can have knowledge of a fish only if being fish = being God. But that is absurd.

As I've written elsewhere:

• What this demonstrates is that there is no reason to think of God’s properties (e.g., “being omniscient,” and “being perfect”) as abstract objects that exist independently of God. Rather, they are different ways of thinking about the same act of God. By the very act of causing everything, God can in one way be said to be all powerful, in another way said to be all loving, in another way said to be all knowing, etc. This is even true of the various ideas that God knows. Plantinga, for instance, argues that “the property of being a horse is distinct from that of being a turkey and both are distinct from God and his essence.” But if everything—including being a turkey or horse—is similar to God insofar as it exists, then God, by virtue of knowing His own nature (a single idea) would simultaneously comprehend what it would mean to be a turkey or horse. Thus, even these ideas, when considered in themselves are distinct, yet when considered as to how they are known by God are one and the same.

Fishes exist only because God willed them, and to the extent fishes exist, they are like God, because God IS existence. Fishes are just existence defined a particular way. When God knows totally and completely undefined existence, He simultaneously knows all ways that existence can be defined and limited, including that definition we call fishes. But since God also CAUSES their existence, then He is contingent on Himself alone, since if He had not chosen to cause their existence, then there would have been no fishes to know (He simply would have known that fishes could have POSSIBLY (not potentially!) existed.)