Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
?Don't hold your breath.
I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.
I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.
I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.
The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time. And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
LOL. What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings. To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical. To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible. And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years? I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time." That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
Well I probably didn't state it clearly. But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know. In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding. That's a fact.
Is it demonstrable? Of course not because we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.
?Don't hold your breath.
I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.
I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.
I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.
The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time. And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
LOL. What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings. To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical. To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible. And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years? I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time." That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
Well I probably didn't state it clearly. But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know. In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding. That's a fact.
Is it demonstrable? Of course not because we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.
TAG's premises are naked assertions based on presupposition..It doesn't look like you understand the point. Didn't you say this is happening independently of God before and that somehow all this shows that the claim in the first premise of the TAG is false? That doesn't follow. If anything you're arguing for Deism.
[1] They don't need to be debunked, they've yet to be supported.
[2] You don't go from we have knowledge, to we'd like for some knowledge to be absolute, to therefore god in any sound/rational way shape or form. It doesn't work
?The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time. And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
LOL. What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings. To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical. To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible. And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years? I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time." That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
Well I probably didn't state it clearly. But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know. In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding. That's a fact.
Is it demonstrable? Of course not because we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.
Or quantify it, which means it pretty much cannot be a "logical absolute."
You just proved the rules of logic again.TAG's premises are naked assertions based on presupposition..It doesn't look like you understand the point. Didn't you say this is happening independently of God before and that somehow all this shows that the claim in the first premise of the TAG is false? That doesn't follow. If anything you're arguing for Deism.
[1] They don't need to be debunked, they've yet to be supported.
[2] You don't go from we have knowledge, to we'd like for some knowledge to be absolute, to therefore god in any sound/rational way shape or form. It doesn't work
The TAG is not naked. M.D.R. already proved that and you're proving it right now. So the first statement is false and you did try to debunk it before without success. The second statment is something I know.
LOL. What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings. To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical. To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible. And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years? I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time." That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
Well I probably didn't state it clearly. But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know. In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding. That's a fact.
Is it demonstrable? Of course not because we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.
Or quantify it, which means it pretty much cannot be a "logical absolute."
LOL. What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings. To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical. To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible. And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years? I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time." That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
Well I probably didn't state it clearly. But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know. In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding. That's a fact.
Is it demonstrable? Of course not because we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.
Or quantify it, which means it pretty much cannot be a "logical absolute."
Which is fine, except it doesn't mean what you think it means. Joke's on you.
TAG's premises are naked assertions based on presupposition..It doesn't look like you understand the point. Didn't you say this is happening independently of God before and that somehow all this shows that the claim in the first premise of the TAG is false? That doesn't follow. If anything you're arguing for Deism.
[1] They don't need to be debunked, they've yet to be supported.
[2] You don't go from we have knowledge, to we'd like for some knowledge to be absolute, to therefore god in any sound/rational way shape or form. It doesn't work
The TAG is not naked. M.D.R. already proved that and you're proving it right now. So the first statement is false and you did try to debunk it before without success. The second statment is something I know.
No, I don't agree with the silly canard used within the tag argument that appealing to logic means appealing to god.
Again, that is not a supported conclusion - it is a naked assertion.
No, the god's existence part is what the TAGers take liberty in inserting, but it's not supported.The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time." That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
Well I probably didn't state it clearly. But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know. In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding. That's a fact.
Is it demonstrable? Of course not because we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.
Or quantify it, which means it pretty much cannot be a "logical absolute."
Which is fine, except it doesn't mean what you think it means. Joke's on you.
You made an argument that assumed God's existence and that the rules of logic are absolute. You just don't get that. I do. Looks like you believe in a deistic god.
So Kant just presupposed something that human logic doesn't absolutely and universally support? That's what you think too? The more I get what M.D.R. showed, the funnier all these posts that don't get it are.
Yeah. And this guy trying to say the other guy is wrong doesn't get it either.
?Don't hold your breath.
I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.
I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.
I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.
The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time. And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
LOL. What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings. To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical. To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible. And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years? I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time." That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
Well I probably didn't state it clearly. But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know. In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding. That's a fact.
Is it demonstrable? Of course not because we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.
?The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time. And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
LOL. What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings. To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical. To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible. And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years? I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time." That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
Well I probably didn't state it clearly. But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know. In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding. That's a fact.
Is it demonstrable? Of course not because we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.
Of course. For all we know our solar system is just an atom in another unimaginably huge universe.
LOL. What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings. To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical. To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible. And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years? I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
Q.W.'s post doesn't make sense to me. It seemed you agreed with it.
I took his post to mean that the Bible doesn't support that everything is already determined and planned out and we are just characters in a script that is already sealed and unchangeable. If that is what he was saying, then I do agree with him. But my point wasn't focused on whether everything is already programmed and decided, but looks ahead to all the surprises that await us out there and ahead of us. Not only do I think we're all going to have a good laugh when we get to heaven and find out how much we got wrong theologically, but the scientists a hundred years from now are likely to look at this period in our history as a scientific dark age.
This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent. These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration. These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception. The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will. What do we do with this?
There are two views that I'm aware of: the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall. Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind. But the terms predestined and foreknowledge go to our perspective of time, not His. There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him. From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right now for Him. The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective. He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say. I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and intentions. He is here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me. The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.
Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.
For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind. For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom. And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.
Exodus 32:9-14:
(Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.
I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end. I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined. If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing. Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind. I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.
I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.
So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.
91 ? must be a diferent number
Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...
ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
LOL. What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings. To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical. To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible. And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years? I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
Q.W.'s post doesn't make sense to me. It seemed you agreed with it.
I took his post to mean that the Bible doesn't support that everything is already determined and planned out and we are just characters in a script that is already sealed and unchangeable. If that is what he was saying, then I do agree with him. But my point wasn't focused on whether everything is already programmed and decided, but looks ahead to all the surprises that await us out there and ahead of us. Not only do I think we're all going to have a good laugh when we get to heaven and find out how much we got wrong theologically, but the scientists a hundred years from now are likely to look at this period in our history as a scientific dark age.
This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent. These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration. These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception. The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will. What do we do with this?
There are two views that I'm aware of: the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall. Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind. But the terms predestined and foreknowledge go to our perspective of time, not His. There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him. From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right now for Him. The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective. He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say. I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and intentions. He is here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me. The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.
Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.
For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind. For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom. And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.
Exodus 32:9-14:
(Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.
I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end. I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined. If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing. Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind. I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.
I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.
So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.
I kept it simple. That's as simple as it gets. The Bible asserts the following things: (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures. The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
