The act creation is logically impossible

[mytruepower2]

To me time is not a real thing. The only reality that we cannot deny is that we experience events. We attach a time to new events so called now, past in my opinion is dead and future does not exist. What we feel about time is illusory thing related to rate at which we comprehend events.

There’s another reality we can’t deny; that past events actually occurred, and are therefore real. I know I woke up this morning, because here I am; awake. Therefore, the tensed theory is not true.

To me time cannot be created since it is not real. Once creation is performed events occurs which means there is a concept of time. Can you imagine the creation of only time and nothing else?

Yes, in an abstract way. It means that moments still would pass forward. There simply wouldn’t be anyone or anything to measure them, except God. However, on the tensed theory, the measuring of moments is little more than a fiction, since only the present moment exists. Yet, I know that my watch is right when it counts three seconds in a row. Therefore, the tensed theory is not true.

I meant that God knowledge of our action leads to determinism. The argument is in fact very simple: Creation is made of things (moves based on laws of nature) and beings (who decide but God knows their decisions). This means state of creation can be know in a latter time given state creation in earlier time which leads to determinism.

God doesn’t literally -know individual actions- as though they were propositions in his mind. Rather, the truth of all actions is present to him -as the whole of truth.- However, on the tensed theory, nothing would be true on a permanent basis, since the present would be in a state of continual change, and therefore God’s knowledge of truth could not be non-propositional or eternal, -even before (in a causal sense)- time came to exist. Therefore, the tensed theory is not true.

God performed creation in timeless state and then get involved with the changes namely entered into time.

Yes; that’s the view of William Lane Craig, which I’ve just responded to by drawing attention to its many intrinsic contradictions. It also punts to meta-time, in order to explain how a “timeless” being can “change,” without being in some form of time, which is an unparsimonious extrapolation, which can’t work, because it would lead to an infinite regress. Therefore, the tensed theory is not true.

State of creation is subject to change. Future does not exist which means that the knowledge related to it should be updated which means that omniscience is subject to change.

Yet the bible clearly states that God is well aware of future happenings; particularly in his dealings with the prophets, where he reveals one prophecy after another to the people, all but one of which came true (and that one was because the people repented in time.) As you say, God can’t know the future unless it has some truth content, and it can’t have truth content unless it is, in some sense, real. Yet, the tensed theory implies that the future is not real. Therefore, the tense theory is not true.

This is against free will, at least in my opinion God could not know our decisions hence cannot know the truth.

God’s having a non-propositional knowledge of all truth does not violate free will, in the same sense that my having a non-propositional knowledge of baseball wouldn’t violate the free will of the baseball players. Knowledge is not a causal force. You’re right about one thing, however. Unless the future is real, human beings have no free will, because unless your choices have effects, at least within your mind, you have no freedom to make choices at all. Yet, the effects of our current choices don’t exist until the choices themselves no longer do. Therefore, one can’t claim that the choice and its effect are related in any sense. Therefore, on the tensed theory, human choices are ultimately temporary and unrelated to their effects. Therefore, the tensed theory is not true.

In summary, guess you can see that I find the tensed theory highly dubious at best, and if you’ll notice, I have many good reasons for thinking that.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Accepting that God does not know our decisions there is large proportion of truth that has to come true otherwise everything is known and we fall in trap of determinism.

Continuing from the creative perspective. I could say that I know all decisions I could make, I also know all decisions I will make. But its not predetermined because from my perspective outside of time there was never a time I did not know this. There was never a time in which I determined what was going to happen. I simply always know as part of my being.

 

[Theophorus]

To complete the argument one need the definition omniscience and omnipotent:

Omniscience is the capacity to know everything that there is to know.
Omnipotent is having unlimited power to perform any act which is logically possible.

1. Creation is the state of existence but created, in another it was not existed before the act creation hence its knowledge didn’t exist
2. The act creation needs omnipotent, this act changes state of omniscience since it requires the extra knowledge of creation
3. Omniscience cannot be changed hence nothing can be created
4. The act creation is logically impossible

I’m afraid your logic doesn’t hold up.
Omniscience as “the capacity to know everything that there is to know” includes knowing that which is possible, probably, unlikely and ‘never going to happen(even though it is logically possible)’, not simply that which exists in this present moment.

Knowledge of the possible can and does exist in the mind before the thing in reality. (The concept of a picture existing in the mind of a painter before it exists in reality is a useful analogy here.)

In addition the jump from point 2 to point 3 does not follow.

To continue with this useful analogy. The artist has knowledge of what he will paint before he paints it. That is the image exists in his mind before he paints it. Assuming he has the skills to do so(which he would if he were omnipotent) the act of painting the picture adds nothing to the artists knowledge of the image he is painting.

In fact, one could go so far as to say, the existence of said picture strongly implies the existence of the painter who painted it.

 

[Ryuji_Yamazaki]

To continue with this useful analogy. The artist has knowledge of what he will paint before he paints it. That is the image exists in his mind before he paints it. Assuming he has the skills to do so(which he would if he were omnipotent) the act of painting the picture adds nothing to the artists knowledge of the image he is painting.

No thing is logically anterior to its concept except God. God is logically anterior to His concept: the introspection of God caused His concept, who is quite literally His Son. The Son is not = the Father. Proof:

en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos

In the beginning was the Word [ho logos], and the Word [ho logos] was with the God [ton theon], and God [theos] was the Word [ho logos]. (John 1.1)

It is not written “the God was the Word” but “theos en ho logos” i.e., “God was the Word”, “God” was that Word. This means that the original meaning of the word “God” is the one eternally begotten of God by introspection in His wisdom.

Houtos en en arche pros ton theon

The same was in the beginning with the God [ton theon]. (John 1.2)

It is written “…with the God” i.e., the concept of God, the Word, the temple of God, was in the beginning with the God, with Him to whom the concept of God applies.

panta [di’] autou egeneto kai choris autou egeneto oude hen ho gegonen

All things were made through [di’] him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1.3)

For in [en] him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created through [di’] him, and for him (Colossians 1.16)

Through him not by him. Only the Father can create, bestow existence for He is existence itself. Through him because properties, concepts are the cause of difference, variety.

The Son of God is the Logos, the mathematical & conceptual paradise, The self-knowledge of God. It is a contradiction for God not to exist because “God doesn’t exist” is a proposition that does exist: God is its existence.

 

[Ryuji_Yamazaki]

Note that “if the Son exists not then neither does the Father” exists i.e., implies existence, the Father.

The Trinity is the heresy of Athanasius the Egyptian. But is it perhaps consistent with Scriptures? By no means:

Surely the princes of Zoan are fools, the counsel of the wise counsellers of Pharaoh is become brutish: how say ye unto Pharaoh, I am the son of the wise, the son of ancient kings? (Isaiah 19.11)

Jesus is the eternal son of the wise God & son of the ancient king David. Son of God & Son of Man, the root & offspring of David. The prophecy above teaches us that God considers it foolishness His being equated with His Son.

But at least could it not be said that Egypt has nothing to do whatsoever with Rome? No:

And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. (Revelation 11.8)

Is it not the case that Palestine was a Roman province?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No thing is logically anterior to its concept except God. God is logically anterior to His concept: the introspection of God caused His concept, who is quite literally His Son. The Son is not = the Father. Proof:

It is not written “the God was the Word” but “theos en ho logos” i.e., “God was the Word”, “God” was that Word. This means that the original meaning of the word “God” is the one eternally begotten of God by introspection in His wisdom.

It is written “…with the God” i.e., the concept of God, the Word, the temple of God, was in the beginning with the God, with Him to whom the concept of God applies.

Through him not by him. Only the Father can create, bestow existence for He is existence itself. Through him because properties, concepts are the cause of difference, variety.

The Son of God is the Logos, the mathematical & conceptual paradise, The self-knowledge of God. It is a contradiction for God not to exist because “God doesn’t exist” is a proposition that does exist: God is its existence.

The Catholic teaching and defined Dogma is that all three Persons created the universe and all that is in it. The Father eternally begets the Son and the Holy Spirit flows eternally from them both. And while there are three Persons in God, each is God, each is the essence of God, there is One God but three Persons. As much as you would like to tie us up in " logic " it won’t work. Our knowledge does not depend on human logic, it depends on Divine Revelation.

I think you and Bhaman are getting cought up in an esoteric logic which restricts your thinking. You are closed in on yourselves. Just like Kant, you can’t know any thing, not even what is in your own mind, because what is in your mind is an illusion. If what is external to your mind is an illusion, so is what is in your mind.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Note that “if the Son exists not then neither does the Father” exists i.e., implies existence, the Father.

The Trinity is the heresy of Athanasius the Egyptian. But is it perhaps consistent with Scriptures? By no means:

Jesus is the eternal son of the wise God & son of the ancient king David. Son of God & Son of Man, the root & offspring of David. The prophecy above teaches us that God considers it foolishness His being equated with His Son.

But at least could it not be said that Egypt has nothing to do whatsoever with Rome? No:

Is it not the case that Palestine was a Roman province?

Are you Orthodox or Coptic?: Anyway, you are dead wrong, The Trinity may be heresy to you but not to Catholics. And, as I said, it is not a matter of logic or of some private revelation but Divine Revelation.

Linus2nd

 

[Theophorus]

I’m sorry Ryuji Yamazaki, but you’ve lost me. What has this to do with the thread?

If you wish to debate this point start a new thread in either apologetics(Sacred Scripture) or in non-catholic religions.

To describe God as ‘logically anterior to his concept’ doesn’t even make sense! To describe God in terms of before and after implies time and change, which, since you want to bring revelation to the philosophy forum, is impossible cf. Jas 1:17(Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change).

en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos It is not written “the God was the Word” but “theos en ho logos” i.e., “God was the Word”, “God” was that Word. This means that the original meaning of the word “God” is the one eternally begotten of God by introspection in His wisdom.

If you look at the Greek grammar for a moment what you will see than Jn 1:1 is a subject-predicative nominative relationship. The Fact that (h)o logos has the definite article( is articular) while Theos does not (is anarthrous) indicates that this is a grammatical construct distinguishing the aforementioned subject and predicative nominative. It indicates that John is telling us that the word is God, not a god or some other god-thing, but the God referred to in the previous bit passage of Jn 1:1.

The Son of God is the Logos, the mathematical & conceptual paradise, The self-knowledge of God. It is a contradiction for God not to exist because “God doesn’t exist” is a proposition that does exist: God is its existence.

 

[Ryuji_Yamazaki]

Just like Kant, you can’t know any thing, not even what is in your own mind, because what is in your mind is an illusion. If what is external to your mind is an illusion, so is what is in your mind.

Thanks to the books of Ezekiel & Revelation I know that this age is a dream, an illusion.

And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months (Revelation 11.1, 2)

And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof. And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal (Revelation 21.15, 16)

The cube is the eternal 7th day, the temple of God. The 6 faces are the 6 days, the court which is without the temple. And the holy city shall the gentiles quite literally tread under foot: they dream the 6 days again & again, never waking up in the 7th.

The Fact that (h)o logos has the definite article( is articular) while Theos does not (is anarthrous) indicates that this is a grammatical construct distinguishing the aforementioned subject and predicative nominative.

Theos means what we would mean by “the concept of God”. Ton theon means what we usually understand when we say “God” or “the God” i.e., He to whom the concept of God applies. Is it not striking that both in Greek, Hebrew & Latin “to know” is the synthesis of 2 antithetical meanings? To know as intercourse / to know as understanding. Conceiving a child / conceiving a concept.

Hence the Son = the concept of God, the self-knowledge of God begotten of His eternal introspection.
Unto those who live on earth the above is detestable filth because they know only how to know each other. Unto those who live in heaven it makes perfect sense.
Now one could object that the Son, being a concept, lives not. This is very poor for neither do we believe that truth or existence live but emphatically insist on the time’s not being a mere illusion. We dream the 6 days now.

To describe God in terms of before and after implies time and change, which, since you want to bring revelation to the philosophy forum, is impossible

I am talking logical precedence, not chronological.

To describe God as ‘logically anterior to his concept’ doesn’t even make sense!

Cannot concepts exist without there being objects to which they apply? Cannot the Son exist without there being creation? Of course he can for the plan of creation is in him. Likewise cannot God most high exist without there being His begotten concept? Of course He can for He is beyond understanding. He is existence itself.
We think that existence lives not. We are thoroughly blind in the darkness of this our dream.

 

[Ryuji_Yamazaki]

The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18.15-22)

The Father & the Son have different characters.
Have they the same essence? The essence of a thing is its concept. All properties of that thing should be derivable from its essence.

Is it not worthy of God to know Himself so perfectly that this self-knowledge is in fact His essence? But then you have to confess that this essence is begotten of Him for He did not create it, seeing that to build a house, one needs first a plan.

But then that essence is not its own essence. Why? because it has a property not derivable from itself, namely its consistency.

All things are delivered unto me of my Father:

The Son is the Logos, the essence of God. All properties, glories of God are derivable from the Son.

and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father;

Only the Father recognizes Himself in His essence. He knows that His essence is consistent.

neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. (Matthew 11.27)

All the glories of God are in the Logos, the Son. No knowledge of God is possible except in the Son.

 

[Bahman]

There’s another reality we can’t deny; that past events actually occurred, and are therefore real. I know I woke up this morning, because here I am; awake. Therefore, the tensed theory is not true.

That is your sole memory that could be retrieved to consciousness mind, so you in fact experiencing your memory of past. If past was real we could remember all details of our actions which we could not.

Yes, in an abstract way. It means that moments still would pass forward. There simply wouldn’t be anyone or anything to measure them, except God.

But God in state of timeless cannot measure time, so God created nothingness.

However, on the tensed theory, the measuring of moments is little more than a fiction, since only the present moment exists. Yet, I know that my watch is right when it counts three seconds in a row. Therefore, the tensed theory is not true.

Measuring time? We just measure/experience instantaneous events in nature then for example call a period in which a pendulum reach the same location as a second. That is all, there is not such a thing like second. The fact that we experience pendulum at the same location does not mean that we experience the same quality hence it is logically impossible to experience the pendulum in the same location as it was in the past, since past is dead.

God doesn’t literally -know individual actions- as though they were propositions in his mind. Rather, the truth of all actions is present to him -as the whole of truth.- However, on the tensed theory, nothing would be true on a permanent basis, since the present would be in a state of continual change, and therefore God’s knowledge of truth could not be non-propositional or eternal, -even before (in a causal sense)- time came to exist. Therefore, the tensed theory is not true.

You assume that God knowledge of truth as an axiom which I don’t agree with it. In fact my focal attack point is God omniscience rather than act creation.

Yes; that’s the view of William Lane Craig, which I’ve just responded to by drawing attention to its many intrinsic contradictions. It also punts to meta-time, in order to explain how a “timeless” being can “change,” without being in some form of time, which is an unparsimonious extrapolation, which can’t work, because it would lead to an infinite regress. Therefore, the tensed theory is not true.

God in state of timeless has its own restriction, namely God can only perform one action which is creation since performing the second action define a sequence of events/actions in another word time in state of timeless. Such a God is causally separated from creation.

Yet the bible clearly states that God is well aware of future happenings; particularly in his dealings with the prophets, where he reveals one prophecy after another to the people, all but one of which came true (and that one was because the people repented in time.) As you say, God can’t know the future unless it has some truth content, and it can’t have truth content unless it is, in some sense, real. Yet, the tensed theory implies that the future is not real. Therefore, the tense theory is not true.

You again assume God omniscience as an axiom which of course lead to the fact that future is true. Accepting the future is real however lead to determinism meaning that we solely experience the events and the process of decision making or free will is a delusion.

God’s having a non-propositional knowledge of all truth does not violate free will, in the same sense that my having a non-propositional knowledge of baseball wouldn’t violate the free will of the baseball players.

What type of knowledge is that? What is truth for a game is how players exactly play and what is the final score! How you or God could know that?

Knowledge is not a causal force.

Knowledge is not causal force but it leads to determinism since it reduce us to agents with actions solely depend on situations.

You’re right about one thing, however. Unless the future is real, human beings have no free will, because unless your choices have effects, at least within your mind, you have no freedom to make choices at all. Yet, the effects of our current choices don’t exist until the choices themselves no longer do. Therefore, one can’t claim that the choice and its effect are related in any sense. Therefore, on the tensed theory, human choices are ultimately temporary and unrelated to their effects. Therefore, the tensed theory is not true.

We have liberty to perform our action at the spot and the effect appears at the spot. We don’t need the future to perform our action or make choices.

 

[Bahman]

Continuing from the creative perspective. I could say that I know all decisions I could make, I also know all decisions I will make. But its not predetermined because from my perspective outside of time there was never a time I did not know this. There was never a time in which I determined what was going to happen. I simply always know as part of my being.

I cannot follow your logic and what you trying to say. You cannot know all decisions you will make. You cannot be outside time since time does not exist.

 

[Ryuji_Yamazaki]

Ego eimi to Alpha kai to O legei Kyrios ho theos ho on kai ho en kai ho erchomenos ho pantokratōr

I am Alpha and Omega, saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Revelation 1.8)

Ho theos, the concept of God, the Son, the Lord Jesus says “I am Alpha and Omega which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty”. But about what does the essence of something speaks? About that to which it applies of course.
We have, again, a confirmation that the Son is the essence of the Father. This essence is begotten of the introspection of the Father. Here is one vindicated in holding with J. P. Sartre, who correctly hates fags see below, that existence precedes essence.

Let us take an example: A homosexual frequently has an intolerable feeling of guilt, and his whole existence is determined in relation to this feeling. One will readily foresee that he is in bad faith. In fact it frequently happens th.at this man, while recognizing his homosexual inclination, while avowing each and every particular misdeed which he has committed, refuses with all his strength to consider himself “a paederast.” His case is always “different,” peculiar; there enters into it something of a game, of chance, of bad luck; the mistakes are all in the past; they are explained by a certain conception of the beautiful which women can not satisfy; we should see in them the results of a restless search, rather than the manifestations of a deeply rooted tendency, etc., etc. Here is assuredly a man in bad faith who borders on the comic since, acknowledging all the facts which are imputed to him, he refuses to draw from them the conclusion which they impose. His friend, who is his most severe critic, becomes irritated with this duplicity. The critic asks only one thing—and perhaps then he will show himself indulgent: that the guilty one recognize himself as guilty, that the homosexual declare frankly—whether humbly or boastfully matters little—“I am a paederast.” We ask here: Who is in bad faith? The homosexual or the champion of sincerity? (J. P. Sartre, Being and Nothingness)

 

[Paddy_Walker]

I cannot follow your logic and what you trying to say. You cannot know all decisions you will make. You cannot be outside time since time does not exist.

I can be outside the material world. I can be in the Spiritual realm. From here I can see the changing world and the unchanging Spiritual realm. The Spirit is infinite and is the same everywhere; at the beginning of Bahman’s life I am there the same, at the end of Bahmans life I am there still the same. And all through Bashmans life I am there the same. I am always there unchanging while Bahmans entire life is unfolded in my presence. I see your life from beginning to end because I do not change, I am not material. I am outside of change. Change is something that has, that will, and that is happening in my presence to material I have created. As I have created, and as I do not change, I am the beginning and the end. I see the beginning and the end as if they are now. I know all things.

 

[Bahman]

I slightly change the argument as following:

1. Creation is the state of existence but created
2. The act creation needs omnipotent, this act changes state of omniscience since it requires the extra knowledge of creation
3. Omniscience cannot be changed and act creation requires omniscience change
4. The act creation is logically impossible

I’m afraid your logic doesn’t hold up.
Omniscience as “the capacity to know everything that there is to know” includes knowing that which is possible, probably, unlikely and ‘never going to happen(even though it is logically possible)’, not simply that which exists in this present moment.

There is only one reality which depends on our actions. You are broadening the omniscience such that everything can fit in it and that is not knowledge since it is not true.

Knowledge of the possible can and does exist in the mind before the thing in reality. (The concept of a picture existing in the mind of a painter before it exists in reality is a useful analogy here.)

Knowledge of possible could not exist before hand since it depends on our actions. In another word the knowledge is available on the spot when we perform our decisions.

In addition the jump from point 2 to point 3 does not follow.

That is already corrected in the new version.

 

[Bahman]

I can be outside the material world. I can be in the Spiritual realm. From here I can see the changing world and the unchanging Spiritual realm. The Spirit is infinite and is the same everywhere; at the beginning of Bahman’s life I am there the same, at the end of Bahmans life I am there still the same. And all through Bashmans life I am there the same. I am always there unchanging while Bahmans entire life is unfolded in my presence. I see your life from beginning to end because I do not change, I am not material. I am outside of change. Change is something that has, that will, and that is happening in my presence to material I have created. As I have created, and as I do not change, I am the beginning and the end. I see the beginning and the end as if they are now. I know all things.

Spiritual realm, in another word timeless state? You cannot possibly experience anything related to this world from there, such as my life, since that define an arrow of time in timeless state which is impossible. I personally don’t like to be in such realm since everything is freezed there, namely no change, no time, no events hence no experience…

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Spiritual realm, in another word timeless state? You cannot possibly experience anything related to this world from there, such as my life, since that define an arrow of time in timeless state which is impossible. I personally don’t like to be in such realm since everything is freezed there, namely no change, no time, no events hence no experience…

you’ve forgotten that you don’t believe in time…

 

[Bahman]

you’ve forgotten that you don’t believe in time…

“No time” , I meant no changes.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In the letter to the Ephesians, Paul has this to say:

And [Christ] gave some as Apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers, to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, for building up the Body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood to the extent of the full stature of Christ, so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming. Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ(Eph 4:11-15)

From Fr. Charles Pope

Linus2nd

 

[Theophorus]

I slightly change the argument as following:

1. Creation is the state of existence but created
2. The act creation needs omnipotent, this act changes state of omniscience since it requires the extra knowledge of creation
3. Omniscience cannot be changed and act creation requires omniscience change
4. The act creation is logically impossible

There is only one reality which depends on our actions. You are broadening the omniscience such that everything can fit in it and that is not knowledge since it is not true.

Reality does not depend on our actions, it is objective not subjective. [Knowledge equals conformity of the human intellect with the thing in reality, not the other way around] It is real whether we choose to believe it is or not.

In addition and following on from that, I’m afraid you artificially restrict omniscience and the concept of knowledge to fit your model(which by definition excludes speculative or theoretical knowledge.) Even on a human level knowledge of the possible/the potential can exist before the actual. Your exclusion of the possible from omniscience is still logically flawed.

Especially if God exists outside of time(ie doesn’t change, has ‘no before and after’), and does not require to come to know by abstraction as finite human beings do, [indeed to speak of ‘foreknowledge’ on such a view does not really make sense]. Human knowledge however can and does err, because it cannot directly know the essence of a thing, however that does not change the fact that reality does not depend on our actions.