Does GOD know the future?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Take for example David. I no longer believe he was God's first choice. I think David was God's plan "B".
For that matter, human history is plan B!

However, plans A-Z, all are known prior to their unfolding... even those which could have unfolded but never did, He knows the actual and the possible from before He began creating in the first place.[/b]

I'm getting dizzy...😵

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I don't know how correct one can get to such a mind-boggling concept, really. Anyone on this side of experience who claims they have it figured out exactly is likely selling something.

That said, I agree that God's absolute knowledge doesn't have the impact[hidden]eliminating free will and etc.[/hidden]which those who object typically blanch at.

I a ...[text shortened]... lds away from a comprehensive theology, but I see nothing to argue with you on that one thought.

Sounds like you're just handwaving your way through this subject.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you stated the following:

Not that the future has already been played out, but---- given God's overarching knowledge of everything/all things--- the only possible conclusions to which He comes are the sureties of the future actions.

Let's suppose that you will perform action A at time T. Then God knows that you will A at T. But in what sense is this "the only possible conclusion to which He comes" on the matter or whether or not you perform A at T? That doesn't follow from the infallibility condition I outlined, or from the idea that God is a perfect knower per se. I would think that would only follow from some idea that God is a perfect knower plus some ancillary assumption(s) that may have fatalistic consequences, such as the assumption that you cannot do otherwise than perform A at T. Could you please clarify?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Sounds like you're just handwaving your way through this subject.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you stated the following:

[quote]Not that the future has already been played out, but---- given God's overarching knowledge of everything/all things--- the only possible conclusions to which He comes are the sureties of the future actions.[ ...[text shortened]... h as the assumption that you cannot do otherwise than perform A at T. Could you please clarify?

Sounds like you're just handwaving your way through this subject.
That seems like it would require some very vigorous handwaving in order to register.

But in what sense is this "the only possible conclusion to which He comes" on the matter or whether or not you perform A at T?
"82, 82, 82. Of course, 246 total."
Ray had exceptional observational skill in the movie, Rainman, but God's knowledge is not based on observation or even exceedingly quick calculation.
Instead, His knowledge is the sum total of all that can be known.
How does that work?
Hell if I know!
As I said earlier, it's a topic that boggles the mind the one gets closer to it--- and not simply because it defies the logic found in our own limitations.

No matter what concrete integers might arise from our eventual discoveries, none of them will ever change the essence of the numbers we already know, nor will the functionality of basic math ever be fundamentally changed: one plus two will always equal three.

If it were possible to calculate or have all computations available, one could theoretically know everything there is to know. We've seen super computers endeavoring this very thing in more than a few fields of study. I don't think it's too far of a stretch to consider a mind with such capability, such capacity as knowing all the math in the universe--- before that mind creates the universe--- and therefore, all possible as well as all actual outcomes.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Sounds like you're just handwaving your way through this subject.
That seems like it would require some very vigorous handwaving in order to register.

But in what sense is this "the only possible conclusion to which He comes" on the matter or whether or not you perform A at T?
"82, 82, 82. Of course, 246 total."
Ray had exception ...[text shortened]... re that mind creates the universe--- and therefore, all possible as well as all actual outcomes.[/b]

Your handwaving on this topic does seem vigorous, if not rigorous. If it's really a case where, as you say, "hell if (you) know" how it all works; then I would think you're not in a very good position to respond in much substance to the objectors you mentioned.

I don't think it's too far of a stretch to consider a mind with such capability, such capacity as knowing all the math in the universe--- before that mind creates the universe--- and therefore, all possible as well as all actual outcomes.

My infallibility condition already provides that God knows all possible as well as actual outcomes, to the extent that there are true propositions thereof. But if there are live alternative possibilities in addition to actual outcomes, then what you stated before does not seem correct. Going back to the example I gave (that of your performing A at T), if there is some alternative possibility that you will refrain from doing A at T, then there is some possible world wherein it is not the case that you will do A at T. So, there would be some possible world wherein God knows it is not the case that you will do A at T. So, there would be at least another "possible conclusion to which He comes" on the subject other than the conclusion that He actually does come to. So, if you're committed to such alternative possibilities, then I don't see how your view as you have espoused it here is coherent.

There seems to be a significant difference between saying that God, as a perfect knower, cannot possibly be mistaken about what you end up doing with respect to, say, A at T; and saying that God, as a perfect knower, cannot possibly come to any conclusion other than what will actually happen regarding your doing A at T. The former does not seem to have any fatalistic implications; whereas the latter does seem to.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Your handwaving on this topic does seem vigorous, if not rigorous. If it's really a case where, as you say, "hell if (you) know" how it all works; then I would think you're not in a very good position to respond in much substance to the objectors you mentioned.

[quote]I don't think it's too far of a stretch to consider a mind with such capability, s ...[text shortened]... The former does not seem to have any fatalistic implications; whereas the latter does seem to.

There seems to be a significant difference between saying that God, as a perfect knower, cannot possibly be mistaken about what you end up doing with respect to, say, A at T; and saying that God, as a perfect knower, cannot possibly come to any conclusion other than what will actually happen regarding your doing A at T. The former does not seem to have any fatalistic implications; whereas the latter does seem to.
There is significance in the impetus, I suppose. In the former, He simply cannot be wrong--- I don't really find that all too dynamic or interesting, since it doesn't really get too close to the source of what makes that a reality: such a state could nearly describe a rock.

The latter seems to at least attempt to describe the why of His perfect knowledge concerning events in time: He sees it all based upon His ability to know it all.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]There seems to be a significant difference between saying that God, as a perfect knower, cannot possibly be mistaken about what you end up doing with respect to, say, A at T; and saying that God, as a perfect knower, cannot possibly come to any conclusion other than what will actually happen regarding your doing A at T. The former does not seem to have ...[text shortened]... rfect knowledge concerning events in time: He sees it all based upon His ability to know it all.

Sure, a rock cannot be mistaken about what you will end up doing...but a rock does not know what you will end up doing either since it has no mentality to begin with. That irrelevant objection aside, the point is, the infallibility condition I proposed will provide that God is never mistaken in the sense that he is always right (to the extent that there are true propositions that can be known) without the possibility of epistemic error...AND there are no fatalistic implications in all this.

Your position, however, fails in at least one of two ways. By your view, God cannot possibly come to any conclusions other than those that align/accord with what actually transpires. Fine, but that in itself is fully consistent with it merely contingently being that case that God is always right. It fails as an encapsulation of infallibility since it does not ensure that there is no possibility that God is mistaken: on the contrary, it is consistent with it merely being contingently true that God is right all the time. For instance, your statement about the impossibility that God can come to other conclusions is actually consistent with there being alternative possibilities about what will transpire and God just being too dumb or dense to even possibly conceive of such conclusions. You'll reply back by saying that, no, you do not intend to allow such a possibility. But then you will run into the second horn of this dilemma: you will not be able to allow alternative possibilities about what will transpire; hence, fatalistic consequences. So, hopefully this makes it more clear why I think your position fails: it fails firstly because it does not ensure that there is no possibility that God is mistaken and hence does not make for an infallibility condition; and, secondly, even if you try to cover your base there, I think you will import in fatalistic consequences. Bottom line, you need to jettison the clause in your position where it is not possible for God to come to conclusions other than those that happen to align with what transpires in the actual world, if you want to provide for His infallibility without handcuffing yourself to the types of fatalistic consequences that your objectors blanch at (as you put it).

Originally posted by LemonJello
Sure, a rock cannot be mistaken about what you will end up doing...but a rock does not know what you will end up doing either since it has no mentality to begin with. That irrelevant objection aside, the point is, the infallibility condition I proposed will provide that God is never mistaken in the sense that he is always right (to the extent that there ...[text shortened]... yourself to the types of fatalistic consequences that your objectors blanch at (as you put it).

For instance, your statement about the impossibility that God can come to other conclusions is actually consistent with there being alternative possibilities about what will transpire and God just being too dumb or dense to even possibly conceive of such conclusions. You'll reply back by saying that, no, you do not intend to allow such a possibility.
I not only did not intend such an implication, I addressed the same earlier.
He had all the information available to Him (prior to creating), and that information contained all of the possible as well as the actual--- anything that can be known.

If something can only be known by being in possession of the information related to it, and if someone can be in possession of all information about all things--- including both possible and actual outcomes--- no fatality consequences are presented.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]For instance, your statement about the impossibility that God can come to other conclusions is actually consistent with there being alternative possibilities about what will transpire and God just being too dumb or dense to even possibly conceive of such conclusions. You'll reply back by saying that, no, you do not intend to allow such a possibility.[/ ...[text shortened]... things--- including both possible and actual outcomes--- no fatality consequences are presented.

He had all the information available to Him (prior to creating), and that information contained all of the possible as well as the actual--- anything that can be known.

Sounds a bit like Molinism. Do you consider yourself a Molinist?

Perhaps I misinterpreted your earlier claim that "the only possible conclusions to which He comes are the sureties of the future actions"? As you may recall, this is precisely the claim that confused me and for which I explicitly asked for clarification. If by "the sureties of future actions" you are talking about actual eventualities, then as far as I can tell, your position has been contradictory. If you mean something else, then perhaps not.

So now it sounds like your view is that God, prior to creating, had all information about the actual and the possible and knew everything there is to know thereof, and that this knowledge informed His creative process. Please correct me if anything there is wrong. If correct, what about that view ensures that there are no fatalistic consequences for His creatures? Absolutely nothing as far as I can tell. It would still be a further question whether or not such creatures are free (and in what sense), and it would require quite some substantial argument and quite some further describing of your view in order for you to make such a case.

If something can only be known by being in possession of the information related to it, and if someone can be in possession of all information about all things--- including both possible and actual outcomes--- no fatality consequences are presented.[/b]

No, I'm afraid not. At best, such a statement is question-begging. It all depends on the pesky details of how one presumes to cast and invoke omniscience, infallibility, etc. I am relatively confident that one can do it in such a way as to not introduce any fatalistic consequences; but I am even more confident that one can do it in any number of ways that do introduce fatalistic consequences. Basically, if you think you can just make a de jure claim like "Hell if I know how it all works, but I know that it doesn't involve any fatalistic consequences" then you are delusional. You need an actual de facto case that goes through the details of your view and is able to withstand the scrutiny of fatalistic objectors and their considered arguments. Handwaving is not up to the challenge.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If something can only be known by being in possession of the information related to it, and if someone can be in possession of all information about all things--- including both possible and actual outcomes--- no fatality consequences are presented.

If one can know which are the actual outcomes, then surely all other outcomes are no longer 'possible outcomes' and knowledge of them is irrelevant?

Originally posted by twhitehead
If one can know which are the actual outcomes, then surely all other outcomes are no longer 'possible outcomes' and knowledge of them is irrelevant?

The Holy Bible reveals to us that God can tell the end from the beginning. Any attempt to understand how is an exercise in futility.

The Instructor