Thanks for clarifying. My thoughts are more along the lines that if God wants to achieve a purpose via/through a human agent, then God can control circumstances/events that will bring about his greater plans/purpose
without actually putting compelling motives into their heart. [ie] Apostle Paul was on the road to Damascus with his heart content on persecuting Christians, then events caused by Christ occur outside that of Paul’s control [ie] suddenly a light surrounded him and he fell to the ground and heard Christ’s voice became blind etc. Paul then goes on to become a very influential Apostle to the gentiles, which falls neatly into Gods foreknown plans. The question is, did Christ put motives into Paul’s heart Controlling him to make change or did Christ bring about circumstances to bring about a change, in accordance with Paul’s own free will. I would suggest the latter, therefore God
must have foreknown that Paul’s heart would change Under certain circumstances, without actually violating Paul’s free will [ie] Gods greater will fulfilled using Paul’s own free will.
[quote=“lancia, post:145, topic:5287, full:true”]
Thanks. So stating our choices are unknowable and retain contrarian choice "until" we make them, but they are knowable long before we existed or contemplated present choices, when are you assuming ‘we’ cause and make those choices, such that "Until" then God cannot know them? Or are you using “until” in a non-temporal sense?
I see no convincing reason to assume that time and sequence are irrelevant for a deity, nor that it’s logical that choices can be observed before they have taken place temporally.
I’m so happy reading everyone’s insights into how God thinks and knows. I hope God is also reading this forum thread. 
I would guess that God can know us and our free choices whenever He wants to in the history of the universe. Maybe He knows these things even from the moment of creation. This assumes God’s relation to time is very different from ours. Perhaps He can move in time as easily as we can move in space.
Wrong! If God knows that you will eat an apple tomorrow, then it is logically impossible for you to refrain from eating an apple tomorrow. And if that is the case, where is your free will?
Love your posts, but that’s not true. Contingent events, such as free choices, are not necessary events. Choosing to eat an apple is a textbook example of a contingent event.
That’s akin to saying this.
Premise 1 Necessarily, if God foreknows you will eat an apple tomorrow, you will eat an apple tomorrow.
Premise 2 God foreknows you will an apple tomorrow.
Conclusion: Necessarily, you will eat an apple tomorrow (or in your words, it is logically impossible for you to refrain from eating an apple tomorrow.)
That is an example of the modal fallacy. The argument is invalid; the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
The point is, God, if He is indeed omniscient, as indicated in the Bible, would never know that you would eat something that you actually didn’t eat.
So the conclusion is invalid, is it?
If so, then God can know that you will eat an apple tomorrow, and yet you are able to refrain from eating and apple tomorrow. Wow! If that’s not a logical contradiction, I don’t know what is.
However, we sometimes use the word “know” in other than the absolute sense of “know.”
For example, someone might say, “I know I will go to town tomorrow.” But he doesn’t know that in the absolute sense of “know”. What he means is “I intend to go to town tomorrow.” For he cannot know that he will go to town tomorrow, for something may occur that will prevent him from doing so.
So God could “know” you will eat an apple tomorrow in that sense. That is he has the ability to read your mind and to know (in the absolute sense) your intentions.
No, that is not what the modal fallacy means. What it means is the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises. But the negation of the conclusion doesn’t follow either.
Why would you think that if a conclusion does not follow logically from the premises, then the negation of the conclusion would?
There is no “necessarily” involved either way.
Thanks. But why limit knowing all our future choices “have been made” to after creation? You can posit any such thing, including time travel or contradictions of what we recognize as logical. But as I said, “I see no convincing reason to assume that time and sequence are irrelevant for a deity, nor that it’s logical that choices can be observed before they have taken place temporally.”
I listed a bunch of biblical verses that attest to the ability of God to know what’s in the hearts, thoughts, and intentions of people. Surely that counts as some evidence that choices can be known before they have taken place temporally. If a supreme being knows what persons" hearts, thoughts, and intentions are, He can surely know what choices persons will make with great certitude.
But more than that, the hypothesis I raised was that God can move through time as we move through other dimensions like space. If that’s the case, then there would be no problem with His directly observing a choice long before it happens in our sense of time by moving ahead in His sense of time to observe the choice directly, you know, by keying in to the causal mode.
Once again, there is no problem with God “observing a choice” before it is made, by reading one’s mind, and thus seeing the decision of one’s heart. But that is NOT tantamount to knowing what that person will DO in the future. It’s simply that God can know the person’s intention prior to his carrying out that intention. Indeed, he may not carry out the intention that God saw within him. He may change his mind.
But changing one’s mind is a thought and intention. And these thoughts and intentions just before the choice is actually made will usually be right on target. As well, all possible extenuating circumstances that may affect a choice, given those thoughts and intentions, will also be known by God.
But as I said above, more than that, the hypothesis I raised was that God can move through time as we move through other dimensions like space. If that’s the case, then there would be no problem with His directly observing a choice long before it happens in our sense of time by moving ahead in His sense of time to observe the choice directly, you know, by keying in to the causal mode.
Exactly! And following logically to knowing that Person P will perform Act A tomorrow, is that Person P WILL perform act A tomorrow. That means that his performing Act A tomorrow is a FACT now!
And if performing Act A is a Fact now, it follows logically that Person P cannot refrain from performing Act A tomorrow. Thus he does not have the free will to perform Act A tomorrow.
I know. But we mostly talk past each other. And such a guess that one person finds makes believable sense, another sees with skepticism 
I incline more toward the Bible’s way of seeing God in ways analogous to human experience, surprised at events and choices, modifying plans after seeing what transpires, and being like Jesus and confessing ignorance even of the timing of events he foresees.
I have no idea how what you are saying relates to what I said.
That’s fine. It’s just that I see no problem in hypothesizing that the creator of the universe, and thus of time, does not have the same relationship and limitations with respect to time that we do. In fact, I would be very surprised to learn that he does have the same relationship to time as we do.
The Bible’s way of seeing God is all over the place. I find little comfort in the diversity of views–sometimes apparently contradictory–expressed about God there.
One more attempt to make the logic of the case clear, and then I’m through.
Suppose that God knows on Monday that you will eat an apple the next day. If so you’re eating an apple on Tuesday is a FACT now. So tomorrow, Tuesday comes about, and because of your having free will, you decide not to eat an apple on Tuesday and you carry out that decision, and do not eat an apple at any time on Tuesday. That would logically imply that God did not know on Monday that you would eat an apple on Tuesday. But that contradicts the supposition that He did know on Monday that you would eat an apple on Tuesday.
But that wouldn’t happen. If God knows you will freely choose to eat an apple on Tuesday, you will freely eat an apple on Tuesday. That’s a very straightforward interpretation that can be summarized in the syllogism below.
Premise 1 Necessarily, if God foreknows you will eat an apple on Tuesday, you will eat an apple on Tuesday.
Premise 2 God foreknows you will eat an apple on Tuesday.
Conclusion: You will eat an apple on Tuesday.
But saying you will eat an apple on Tuesday is stating a contingent truth, in that you freely chose to do it, meaning you could have done otherwise. But if you had done otherwise, God would have known that contingent truth instead. So, the conclusion is properly stating a contingent truth, not a necessary truth. That’s why the conclusion is “You will eat an apple on Tuesday,” not “You must eat an apple on Tuesday” or not “Necessarily, you will eat an apple on Tuesday.” The latter two are necessary truths, and they, as conclusions, would make the syllogism invalid for they do not logically follow from the premises.
Well, we have talked about what God knows and how he knows. Let’s talk about what human beings know and how they know.
Now a few things upfront.
-
My Protestant mother “allegedly” (now deceased) had the gift of prophecy. This was passed through the generations.
-
In Native American Lakota teachings, they talk about the four aspects of the soul. One is the intuitive side.
So let me relate a story, hypothetically speaking:
Suppose during the lock down, from the last week of March through Easter…I developed symptoms of COVID-19. Now it could be flu or my imagination. Now the intuitive side of me, says I can treat it better via ancient healing modalities. And my chances are much better than, going to a hospital.
-
Well, the symptoms let’s say are mild to medium. And I am guided in picking the right homeopathic remedies. Supplemented by Traditional Chinese Medicine and Native American Medicine.
-
And I was guided to build a Native American healing lodge, in my mind. And I invited certain Christian saints and holy people, from the Native American and Eastern traditions. So I visualized this at night and even during the day.
So let’s say I’m feeling completely better Easter weekend.
-
Did I really have COVID-19 and survive?
-
Do I now have natural immunity?
-
Was I healed by genetics?
-
Did the ancient healing modalities heal me?
-
Did spiritual visualization heal me?
-
Do I have an intuitive side, due to a gift passed down through the generations…and / or participating in Native American ceremonies for decades?
-
Etc?
Only when they roll out a traditional test for the virus and antibodies, to all the pharmacies - would I really know.
Let’s farther complicate this story, hypothetically speaking.
-
Suppose at some time in my life, I received the touch of the Holy Spirit. And I was told I would receive something I always wanted. When I asked my mom what it was, she thought the gift of healing.
-
Suppose that at another time I was at a Native American ceremony. And I was given a gift of healing. We will call this Eagle medicine.
Now maybe I’m a conduit to healing people. Maybe not. But I would only try:
-
If asked
-
People are seeing traditional medical doctors and specialists. In addition, they can see ancient healing modality practitioners and other healers.
-
They give all credit to God for any results.
Nice story, hypothetically speaking. But it invokes more questions than answers.
Now officially, I respond like this guy. As any ‘aspiring’ Holy Fool would. 
Yes! I totally agree. Anyone can hypothesize… and trying to proof text such questions from the Bible offers little assurance. I am actually quite open to your traditional view of what makes sense about God (as I am about Paidion’s, etc). It’s far above my pay grade. We actually agree on most of your points, and I mainly reacted against your language that seemed to assert that semantics and logic allows us to “know” what views make sense, and what views are excluded. Like most classic philosophical debates, there are bright people on opposite sides who differ on what makes the most sense.
Thank you for indulging my love of debating contentions. You are a thoughtful thinker and quite patient with challenges to your own inclinations . It helps pass time during this quarantine in a stimulating way.