What would be your reaction?

[Bagheera]

1. What is the correct definition of free will?
2. What is the right definition of omniscience?
3. What is the right definition of God will?

1. The usual definition is composed of 3 parts:

• There is someone who wishes to achieve some goal.
• There are at least two ways to achieve that goal.
• The locus of decision is with the person, whose decision is not determined by outside forces. (The decision might be influenced, but not determined)

1. The naïve definition would be: “to know everything”. A preliminary definition: “to know everything that can be known”. This is an empty definition until it is settled: “what can be known”? Therefore:

• To know everything that exists. (present)
• To know everything that existed. (past)
• To know everything that can be deduced under the deterministic laws of the universe. (part of the future).

I keep asking (and not surprisingly receive no answer to the question: “what does it mean to know something that does not exist?”. What kind of information can one gather about a non-existent object, or an even that has never happened.
3) You got me there. God is notoriously ill-defined. To add insult to injury, seventh dogma explicitly states that "God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men. (De fide.) ". So what kind of “definition” can one expect about someone, whose “nature” is incomprehensible?

 

[polytropos]

No, I did not say that. I say that God’s knowledge of our actions is **contingent **upon what we do. To say that God has some “innate” knowledge, which “somehow” happens to correspond to our actions is nonsense. There are two basic scenarios: “God’s knowledge somehow causes our actions” - which would take away our free will, and “our actions are the source of God’s knowledge” - which means that God’s knowledge is contingent upon what we do. Theoretically there could be some other cases, but those are totally irrational.

I don’t think what you’re claiming is as remarkable as you think it is. God knows what we will do. Your two options (“God’s knowledge somehow causes our actions” and “our actions are the source of God’s knowledge”) are a false dichotomy. God knows what we will do, and there will only be one future, whether or not there are different possibilities for what the future could be like. That does not mean that our actions are the source of God’s knowledge.

Knowing that one future is not problematic, even if there are free agents, because God is not fixed in our own time frame. God is not “fixed” at time t[sub]0[/sub] making predictions about what will happen at t[sub]1[/sub]. There is only one set of events that will happen at t[sub]1[/sub], which God knows, even if at t[sub]0[/sub], in which we are fixed but God is not, there seem to be multiple possibilities.

If an event is simply a possibility from our perspective, it cannot be an actuality from God’s perspective. It cannot be denied that the future is only a possibility from our perspective. Therefore it assert that it is already an actuality from God’s perspective would be a contradiction.

The first premise is false. Say I put a quarter in one of my hands and hold them out to you. You need to pick where the quarter is. It certainly seems possible, from your perspective, that the quarter is in either hand. But it is only in one of my hands.

This analogy is not meant to argue that God deterministically predicts what we will do (because he doesn’t). What is meant is that, even though the person looking for the quarter can choose one course of action or another, an observer outside of his subjectivity knows where the quarter is. An “observer” outside of time knows which course of action we will take (given that we only do take one course of action).

 

[tonyrey]

1. What is the correct definition of free will?

The power to choose what to believe or how to act, thereby transcending the laws of nature and making us capable of self-determination, responsible for our conclusions and innocent or guilty of an alleged crime in a court of law.

N.B. Free will has never been explained scientifically even though it is the basis of rationality.

1. What is the right definition of omniscience?

Omniscience is knowledge of everything that is knowable.

N.B. It is impossible for anyone with limited insight and intelligence to know what constitutes everything that is knowable. Therefore any argument based on omniscience is unsubstantiated.

1. What is the right definition of God’s will?

God wills everything that is good, permits moral evil because it is a lesser evil than not creating us with free will and permits natural evil because it is a lesser evil than not creating the laws of nature. In other words if we demand a total absence of evil we are asking to be spiritual robots! Freedom is our greatest gift followed closely by physical existence.

Those who base conclusions on the implications of omniscience are revealing their ignorance because they cannot even understand the basis of human knowledge, let alone knowledge of** everything**. If they could explain **how **they exist they might have a point. Until then they are spouting nonsense…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Grand? There is nothing grand or special about a contradiction. Of course it is rather futile to try to conduct a rational conversation with people who deny the most obvious contradictions and call them “mysteries”.

A game is a game. A premise based on a game ( especially with the cards " marked " ) cannot conclued to any thing true about the real world.

We call them mysteries because they are Revealed and cannot be either proven nor disproved by either reason or science. Although they can be shown not to be opposed to reason or science. For example, once Revelation is accepted it is perfectly reasonable to believe what God has revealed. It is certainly just as resonable as your universe of illusion or your " Self " and little self. .

No one talks about “God” per se. The conversation was all about the “catholic concept of God”, which is proven to be faulty especially when it comes to this “omniscience”.

Nonsense. We speak of God, your God too, whether or not you like it. Again, neither your game, nor any Satan can devise, can disprove God’s Omniscience. Games reveal nothing about reality except how foolish and irrational some people can be.

God could not participate in the game (even if he existed) because he would lose. Whatever omniscience might be, it cannot include the knowledge of something that is nonexistent, be it a never-written book, or a free action in the future. And that is what has been thoroughly ***proven ***in this thread.

You know, you are proving to everyone except those of your own cult that you are quite irrational.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I already define what do I mean with device. A being/Gods device in your opinion (not my opinion) is something that his/hers action is known from God point of view in every possible situation. That is what you define as being then ask me to define it. Imagine a creation with only two beings, one God and second a being lets say an angel. Form God point of view, the action of angel is known for every situation (infinite possibilities). The main question is how God could possibly be unaware of outcome of a decision made by angel if he does know his angle since the quality of knowledge of angel action based on your faith means that God knows the action of his angel in every possible situation. Angel is reduced to a device in this picture, so complex that angel could not know his/her action in a situation. I am terribly sorry for this angel but the concept of free will is an illusion from God point of view so it is from angel point of view once the angel is told that all his action is known from God point of view.

There are a few question that should be the focus of one person to resolves all these paradox:

There is no paradox. Human logic and knowledge are different from God’s. We proceed step by step and with many errors. God Knows eternally and Wills eternally what He knows as good and true. We can never understand how this can be, It just is. We are His creatures, we owe Him everything, we are totally dependent upon Him for our good, for our moment by moment existence. He owes us nothing. He does not owe us an explanation for anything. We owe Him Worship, Adoration, and Love for all that we are and for all that He is.

1. What is the correct definition of free will?

1. What is the right definition of omniscience?

1. What is the right definition of God will?

I suggest you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( It won’t bite you ).
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

P.S. We are not " devices. " Where did you dig that up at? We are God’s creatures, created by Him. We are not some kind of machine.

Linus2nd

 

[tonyrey]

Whatever omniscience might be, it cannot include the knowledge of something that is nonexistent, be it a never-written book, or a free action in the future.

The absurdity of this assertion is evident in its assumption that a free action in the future is non-existent. If the future doesn’t “exist” then it too is an illusion!

Moreover a never-written book is not necessarily non-existent. It may exist in the mind of the author. Only materialists believe existence is restricted to time and space: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love transcend such limitations…

 

[Bagheera]

I don’t think what you’re claiming is as remarkable as you think it is. God knows what we will do. Your two options (“God’s knowledge somehow causes our actions” and “our actions are the source of God’s knowledge”) are a false dichotomy.

There are actually 4 possibilities, though I only mentioned the two rational ones for the sake of brevity. We have an almost infinite amount of free human actions, and their corresponding counterparts in God’s “knowledge”. This one-to-one correspondence can happen exactly 4 different ways:

• God’s knowledge causes our actions
• Our actions are the source of God’s knowledge.
• Some external agent causes both our actions and God’s knowledge.
• There is an incredible, colossal coincidence that our actions and God’s knowledge of them happen to coincide by sheer chance.

The last 2 are ridiculous, though they are not hypothetically impossible. There are only the two first one which can be rationally contemplated. If you assert that there is a false dichotomy, you need to argue for that, and tell us, just “how” is that precise correspondence possible for zillions of events. And empty assertion like: “well that is how God’s knowledge works” is not acceptable.

God knows what we will do, and there will only be one future, whether or not there are different possibilities for what the future could be like. That does not mean that our actions are the source of God’s knowledge.

What else is there? Precisely, please…

Knowing that one future is not problematic, even if there are free agents, because God is not fixed in our own time frame. God is not “fixed” at time t[sub]0[/sub] making predictions about what will happen at t[sub]1[/sub]. There is only one set of events that will happen at t[sub]1[/sub], which God knows, even if at t[sub]0[/sub], in which we are fixed but God is not, there seem to be multiple possibilities.

Reality in not contingent upon the observer, there is only one reality. If an event has not happened yet, it has not happened from God’s point of view either.

The first premise is false. Say I put a quarter in one of my hands and hold them out to you. You need to pick where the quarter is. It certainly seems possible, from your perspective, that the quarter is in either hand. But it is only in one of my hands.

Bad analogy. I may not know where that coin is hidden, but it is either in your right hand or in your left hand. It is impossible that it is hidden in your right hand when you look at it, but it is in your left hand when I look at it. The coin can only be in one hand, regardless of the observer.

Let’s stop this dancing: can God know the number of pages of a book, which has never been written since the author was never born? Can the “nonexistent” be known? Because that is what the dogmas say. What is the difference between a nonexistent ball and a nonexistent steak, neither one of which resides on my imaginary night-stand? Answer: there is no difference. Nonexistent objects do not have identity and do not have attributes, so they cannot be told apart. Physical reality exists in space and time. An event has already occurred, or is occurring now, or it “MIGHT” occur in the future. God’s “position” notwithstanding.

 

[Bagheera]

Moreover a never-written book is not necessarily non-existent. It may exist in the mind of the author.

Even if that author was never born, since his parents never met… Yeah, right!! Is it possible for the “omniscient” God to “know” the contents of this book, the number of pages in this book, the language this book was NOT written? Somehow none of you are inclined to answer this simple question… why?

Only materialists believe existence is restricted to time and space: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love transcend such limitations…

Physical objects and events are most definitely restricted to space and time.

 

[polytropos]

There are actually 4 possibilities, though I only mentioned the two rational ones for the sake of brevity. We have an almost infinite amount of free human actions, and their corresponding counterparts in God’s “knowledge”. This one-to-one correspondence can happen exactly 4 different ways:

• God’s knowledge causes our actions
• Our actions are the source of God’s knowledge.
• Some external agent causes both our actions and God’s knowledge.
• There is an incredible, colossal coincidence that our actions and God’s knowledge of them happen to coincide by sheer chance.

The last 2 are ridiculous, though they are not hypothetically impossible. There are only the two first one which can be rationally contemplated. If you assert that there is a false dichotomy, you need to argue for that, and tell us, just “how” is that precise correspondence possible for zillions of events. And empty assertion like: “well that is how God’s knowledge works” is not acceptable.

What else is there? Precisely, please…

God is omniscient because He actively sustains the world in existence at every moment. Space and time are ontologically dependent on Him, which is why He is omnipresent and eternal. It is not a matter of actions being the “source” of God’s knowledge. God’s knowledge does not change because He “is aware” of everything that has happened and will happen. It is not about God’s knowledge causing actions but His being present to all times and places as the creator and sustainer of all times and places. This account is exclusive of all of your “4 possibilities.”

Reality in not contingent upon the observer, there is only one reality. If an event has not happened yet, it has not happened from God’s point of view either.

Exactly, reality is not contingent on the observer. Whether it seems to us that there are multiple possibilities is irrelevant, because there will only be 1 actuality, which God knows because He is present to it as much as He is present to whatever time your thought experiment occurs during.

The bolded portion is confounding. Does your argument require the assumption that God is not eternal, is not present to all times, or something similar?

Bad analogy. I may not know where that coin is hidden, but it is either in your right hand or in your left hand. It is impossible that it is hidden in your right hand when you look at it, but it is in your left hand when I look at it. The coin can only be in one hand, regardless of the observer.

Yes, the bolded portion is the point that I am making. There may be two possibilities, but there will be one actuality. Such is the case of God as present to all times. We cannot see the future from t[sub]0[/sub]. But there is only one set of things that will happen (much like the coin is in one hand), to which God, by His nature, is equally present. What will happen might be determined by the decisions of free agents. God is still present to the future, though, and knows what those free agents will do.

What might be problematic is the revelation of what those free agents will do, i.e. if the revelation of X leads to not-X. But that is, as I’ve noted, unremarkable.

Let’s stop this dancing: can God know the number of pages of a book, which has never been written since the author was never born? Can the “nonexistent” be known? Because that is what the dogmas say. What is the difference between a nonexistent ball and a nonexistent steak, neither one of which resides on my imaginary night-stand? Answer: there is no difference. Nonexistent objects do not have identity and do not have attributes, so they cannot be told apart. Physical reality exists in space and time. An event has already occurred, or is occurring now, or it “MIGHT” occur in the future. God’s “position” notwithstanding.

If the book will someday be written, then yes, God knows how many pages it will have, when its author will be born (if he has not been yet), etc. If the book will not someday be written, then God would not have knowledge of it. What is important to note here is that I’m not claiming that God is this entity living in t[sub]0[/sub] making predictions about whether a person is going to be born or not. The fact that we can imagine that the author might not be born is irrelevant, since he will either be born or not be born. God is present to his writing the book (supposing that he does) as much as he is at t[sub]0[/sub].

If an object does not exist at t[sub]0[/sub], then God knows that it does not exist at t[sub]0[/sub]. If the object will exist at t[sub]1[/sub], then God knows that it will exist at t[sub]1[/sub]. No one is claiming that nonexistent objects have identity or attributes. No one is claiming that non-steak and non-ball are different, since they aren’t objects. But if there will someday be a steak and a ball on your nightstand, then they will then be objects with identities and attributes (if they won’t be there, then there’s nothing to speak of). God, having created time and depending on time in no way, knows the nature of any steak that has been or will be on your nightstand.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

1. The usual definition is composed of 3 parts:

• There is someone who wishes to achieve some goal.
• There are at least two ways to achieve that goal.
• The locus of decision is with the person, whose decision is not determined by outside forces. (The decision might be influenced, but not determined)

1. The naïve definition would be: “to know everything”. A preliminary definition: “to know everything that can be known”. This is an empty definition until it is settled: “what can be known”? Therefore:

• To know everything that exists. (present)
• To know everything that existed. (past)
• To know everything that can be deduced under the deterministic laws of the universe. (part of the future).

I keep asking (and not surprisingly receive no answer to the question: “what does it mean to know something that does not exist?”. What kind of information can one gather about a non-existent object, or an even that has never happened.
3) You got me there. God is notoriously ill-defined. To add insult to injury, seventh dogma explicitly states that "God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men. (De fide.) ". So what kind of “definition” can one expect about someone, whose “nature” is incomprehensible?

Unless you have been raised ( or converted to ) in the Christian, Judaic, or Islamic faiths you cannot comprehend our notion of God. But stop and think a moment. If God is perfect in every way as we contend, then there is nothing he could not know. If there were, he would not be perfect, and, thus, would not be God. When we say that we cannot comprehend God, that does not mean we know nothing about him. He has revealed enough that we can say positively what we have said about him. But that does not mean we understand how it is possible for Him to have such a Nature, that we understand how he can do this things. We will never understand that, even in the next life.

Linus2nd

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Grand? There is nothing grand or special about a contradiction. Of course it is rather futile to try to conduct a rational conversation with people who deny the most obvious contradictions and call them “mysteries”.

No one talks about “God” per se. The conversation was all about the “catholic concept of God”, which is proven to be faulty especially when it comes to this “omniscience”. God could not participate in the game (even if he existed) because he would lose. Whatever omniscience might be, it cannot include the knowledge of something that is nonexistent, be it a never-written book, or a free action in the future. And that is what has been thoroughly ***proven ***in this thread.

I once thought about free will like this, I don’t know why tho. I saw a centipede walking across a sheet of paper. I saw the sheet of paper in full, maybe it represents time, and the centipede represents freewill. The centipede was free to walk or do anything it wanted within the sheet of paper. And by a simple glance at the paper I knew every possibility it could possibly do while on the paper. It was easy, there was an infinite number of things and directions it could take, but I could see them all in one glance.
With freewill in the centipede I could see that as it walked one direction the probabilities and possibilities changed. They were expanded or decreased. And I could see at a glance all of those possibilities and probabilities as they changed.
So what ever free direction the centipede chose to take I could see all possible outcomes. But I have a thing about centipedes, I wish them no ill. I nudge it now and again in a certain direction I think it would be beneficial for it to take at the time. I wish in the end my centipede will survive and prosper, but despite my best efforts to guide it it may be stubborn.

 

[Bagheera]

God is omniscient because He actively sustains the world in existence at every moment. Space and time are ontologically dependent on Him, which is why He is omnipresent and eternal. It is not a matter of actions being the “source” of God’s knowledge. God’s knowledge does not change because He “is aware” of everything that has happened and will happen. It is not about God’s knowledge causing actions but His being present to all times and places as the creator and sustainer of all times and places. This account is exclusive of all of your “4 possibilities.”

It would be nice if you did not try to argue two, mutually exclusive possibilities.

On one hand you argue that God is totally separate of our space and time, and he is ever unchanging and eternal - an outside observer, so to speak, who, once in a while (very rarely) actively interferes in our existence via some “miracles”.

On the other hand you also argue that God is “present” in this forever changing space-time continuum, moreover he **actively **participates and maintains whatever happens here. So, when I ask, which one is “true”, then what is your answer? It is a “mystery”? No, my friend, these are two logically contradictory propositions.

Also, if our actions are not caused by God’s knowledge, then every time we perform an action which God allegedly does not like (for example a murder) God is **forced **to actively arrange the atoms and the molecules of the bullet and maintain it on its course to penetrate through the body of the victim - one would suppose - against his better judgment or desire. How unchanging or sovereign God is?

As a matter of fact even these two, incompatible options do not eliminate those 4 possibilities. In order to maintain the actions of free agents, God needs to be aware of those intents and actions (all of which are imbedded in the physical reality). As such God’s knowledge is definitely contingent upon our free actions.

Exactly, reality is not contingent on the observer. Whether it seems to us that there are multiple possibilities is irrelevant, because there will only be 1 actuality, which God knows because He is present to it as much as He is present to whatever time your thought experiment occurs during.

But we are talking about the properties of this physical world. And physical objects and events are constrained by space and time. What has not happened YET, does not have a spatial or temporal placement, it simply does not exist as an actuality, only as a possibility. God cannot be “present” in the never-never land of could be-s and could-have-been-s, because there is no such physical “place”.

The bolded portion is confounding. Does your argument require the assumption that God is not eternal, is not present to all times, or something similar?

Cannot be present at “all” times, since the future part of those “all” times is - as of YET - nonexistent.

Yes, the bolded portion is the point that I am making. There may be two possibilities, but there will be one actuality. Such is the case of God as present to all times. We cannot see the future from t[sub]0[/sub]. But there is only one set of things that will happen (much like the coin is in one hand), to which God, by His nature, is equally present. What will happen might be determined by the decisions of free agents. God is still present to the future, though, and knows what those free agents will do.

“By his nature” is not an argument. Read dogma #7 below.

What might be problematic is the revelation of what those free agents will do, i.e. if the revelation of X leads to not-X. But that is, as I’ve noted, unremarkable.

Well, that is one way to deal with a problem. Declare it “unremarkable”. Or maybe “false dichotomy”. The trouble is that those who imagined their “God” wanted to create a being of such incredible nature, that they shot themselves in the foot. On one hand they created these ridiculous attributes (like the omnimax attributes), but they also declared that “7. God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men. (De fide.)”. Funny that they claim knowledge about the “incomprehensible”.

If an object does not exist at t[sub]0[/sub], then God knows that it does not exist at t[sub]0[/sub]. If the object will exist at t[sub]1[/sub], then God knows that it will exist at t[sub]1[/sub]. No one is claiming that nonexistent objects have identity or attributes. No one is claiming that non-steak and non-ball are different, since they aren’t objects. But if there will someday be a steak and a ball on your nightstand, then they will then be objects with identities and attributes (if they won’t be there, then there’s nothing to speak of). God, having created time and depending on time in no way, knows the nature of any steak that has been or will be on your nightstand.

Not according to dogma #35. It explicitly says that “**God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.) **”. There is no stipulation about that “merely possible” to become “actual”, ever. So, yes, the dogma definitely talks about the non-existent, but possible, however never-will-be-actual objects and events. Yup, the apologists definitely grabbed too much, and it is slipping through their fingers. Of course, they deny it.

 

[Bahman]

There is no paradox. Human logic and knowledge are different from God’s. We proceed step by step and with many errors. God Knows eternally and Wills eternally what He knows as good and true. We can never understand how this can be, It just is. We are His creatures, we owe Him everything, we are totally dependent upon Him for our good, for our moment by moment existence. He owes us nothing. He does not owe us an explanation for anything. We owe Him Worship, Adoration, and Love for all that we are and for all that He is.

I suggest you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( It won’t bite you ).
[vatican.va/archive/situatiion ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM](http://www.vatican.va/archive/situatiion ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM)

P.S. We are not " devices. " Where did you dig that up at? We are God’s creatures, created by Him. We are not some kind of machine.

Linus2nd

We cannot possibly do something that confer God’s knowledge based on your definition. How you could possibly prove that we are not devices of God based on your definition of God and us? What would be your position if I define free will as an ability that even God does not know its outcome?

You also didn’t explain why we should stay in state of suffering if God already knows our final destiny. Our action based on our free will doesn’t have any value since God does already know it. Simple, what is God purpose? Why we should wait for end of time when every thing is already known?

 

[Bagheera]

Unless you have been raised ( or converted to ) in the Christian, Judaic, or Islamic faiths you cannot comprehend our notion of God.

A doctor does not need to suffer from a mental disorder in order to diagnose it. Of course I was raised christian, but I did not swallow the “teachings” unconditionally, and when I applied my critical skills, the whole thing just fell apart.

If God is perfect in every way as we contend, then there is nothing he could not know.

This “perfection” is exactly as empty as all the other attributes. “In **every **respect?” God is perfectly good and perfectly vicious, then. Perfectly smart and perfectly dumb, too. Perfectly bloodthirsty and perfectly cowardly… continue at your own pace. There is no such thing as an abstract “perfection”, without stipulating “perfect in what respect”? And that “respect” is simply a subjective opinion. You guys simply select those human attributes which you find “positive” and blow them up until that balloon bursts.

 

[tonyrey]

Even if that author was never born, since his parents never met… Yeah, right!! Is it possible for the “omniscient” God to “know” the contents of this book, the number of pages in this book, the language this book was NOT written? Somehow none of you are inclined to answer this simple question… why?

Omniscience signifies knowledge of all events and possibilities - which is obviously a power which is beyond our understanding.

Physical objects and events are most definitely restricted to space and time.

Your argument is based on the unverified and unverifiable assumption that** all **objects and events are restricted to space and time.

Your fundamental error is that knowledge implies causation. It overlooks the distinction between efficient and final causation

 

[Bagheera]

Omniscience signifies knowledge of all events and possibilities - which is obviously a power which is beyond our understanding.

So, whoever coined that word wished to talk about something which was beyond his comprehension… No *&^%, Sherlock.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

So, whoever coined that word wished to talk about something which was beyond his comprehension… No *&^%, Sherlock.

that expression is coin a phrase. Everything is, at a fundamental level, beyond our comprehension, yet here it all is. And here are we in the thick of it. And just as everything obviously is, so too, the comprehensive answer to everything also is, somewhere. But mostly, as yet, beyond our comprehension…

 

[tonyrey]

that expression is coin a phrase. Everything is, at a fundamental level, beyond our comprehension, yet here it all is. And here are we in the thick of it. And just as everything obviously is, so too, the comprehensive answer to everything also is, somewhere. But mostly, as yet, beyond our comprehension…

“mostly” is the key word.

 

[tonyrey]

So, whoever coined that word wished to talk about something which was beyond his comprehension… No *&^%, Sherlock.

You are going from one extreme to the other. There are aspects of science which are incomprehensible but no one accuses scientists of obscurity…

Your argument is based on the unverified and unverifiable assumption that** all **objects and events are restricted to space and time.

No response…

Your fundamental error is that knowledge implies causation. It overlooks the distinction between efficient and final causation

No response…

 

[polytropos]

It would be nice if you did not try to argue two, mutually exclusive possibilities.

On one hand you argue that God is totally separate of our space and time, and he is ever unchanging and eternal - an outside observer, so to speak, who, once in a while (very rarely) actively interferes in our existence via some “miracles”.

On the other hand you also argue that God is “present” in this forever changing space-time continuum, moreover he **actively **participates and maintains whatever happens here. So, when I ask, which one is “true”, then what is your answer? It is a “mystery”? No, my friend, these are two logically contradictory propositions.

To speak of God as separate from the spatio-temporal order is just to speak of the spatio-temporal order as wholly ontologically dependent on him. He is present to it as its cause and sustainer. Because He is causing and sustaining it - and it could not exist without Him - it does not make sense to say that He is contingent on it, ie. that He depends on what it is. That would be like saying that you are contingent upon your actions.

Also, if our actions are not caused by God’s knowledge, then every time we perform an action which God allegedly does not like (for example a murder) God is **forced **to actively arrange the atoms and the molecules of the bullet and maintain it on its course to penetrate through the body of the victim - one would suppose - against his better judgment or desire. How unchanging or sovereign God is?

We have been over this before in another topic. God is the first cause of pulling the trigger, sustains the bullet in existence, etc. He has decided to sustain a reality in which free agents choose to sin. We don’t know why, but He has.

But we are talking about the properties of this physical world. And physical objects and events are constrained by space and time. What has not happened YET, does not have a spatial or temporal placement, it simply does not exist as an actuality, only as a possibility. God cannot be “present” in the never-never land of could be-s and could-have-been-s, because there is no such physical “place”.

Cannot be present at “all” times, since the future part of those “all” times is - as of YET - nonexistent.

So yes, your thought experiment requires begging the question against divine timelessness.

I am not claiming that things that will exist in the future exist now. I’m not claiming that “[w]hat has not happened YET…[has] a spatial or temporal placement” or “exist as an actuality.” I agree that right now, what has not happened but cannot happen only exists as a possibility. But that is only in reference to the present. There is only one future, regardless of however many possible futures there are. God is not dependent on time; time is dependent on Him. So He is not an agent “moving through time,” “currently” existing “with us” in the “present.”

Obviously you and I, as agents existing in the present, only have access to what exists in the present. But to assert that the being who created time itself cannot know definitively what will happen at every time because other times are a “never-never land of could be-s and could-have-been-s” seems like little more than question begging.

“By his nature” is not an argument. Read dogma #7 below.

Well, that is one way to deal with a problem. Declare it “unremarkable”. Or maybe “false dichotomy”. The trouble is that those who imagined their “God” wanted to create a being of such incredible nature, that they shot themselves in the foot. On one hand they created these ridiculous attributes (like the omnimax attributes), but they also declared that “7. God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men. (De fide.)”. Funny that they claim knowledge about the “incomprehensible”.

Such is the nature of negative theology. For God’s nature to be comprehensible, we would have to interact with it directly in some way (for humans gain knowledge through the senses). But we cannot do that. What we can do is affirm true propositions about God through negative theology. For instance, because we can tell that, whatever God’s nature is, He is purely actual, we can conclude that He cannot change, that He cannot have flaws, is metaphysically simple, etc. This is not to say that we comprehend a changeless or flawless being, since we have not directly experienced anything like it. But we can know some things by knowing what it could not be.

We know that God is not dependent on the world that He created because He created it and is purely actual. Since God always sustains it and exists independently of time, we know that He is as much present to one moment as to another. This does not require supposing that God’s nature is comprehensible, just that we can affirm some true propositions about it.