June 5, 2020

The Council

A modern day council!

Thibodaux has written a response to my article. So, let’s review it:



I’ve been pretty clear since the beginning of our dialogue that God doesn’t derive His attributes from creation. Quoting previous posts:

Does Thibodaux not distinguish between a person professed position and the implications of the position? Sure, he denies that that is his position but that is the implication of his position. He doesn’t do anything to dispell us of that argument.

To sum up the heretofore poorly-explained objection, the objector makes the error of conflating the attribute of omniscience with the specifics of God’s knowledge. As I’ve already pointed out to him,

He doesn’t actually explain my objection and his response to it is simply inept. Omniscience deals with the issue of foreknowledge. Isn’t omniscience just stating that God knows everything? Wouldn’t that include foreknowledge? That doesn’t mean other intricate discussions about God’s knowledge doesn’t occur(Natural and free knowledge). It simply means we are talking about God’s knowledge and I even specified it to foreknowledge in my response to him. So, it is hardly true that that is a presupposition or a premise of my argument. He has to demonstrate why it is necessary for me to conflate omniscience with foreknowledge.

He seems to be asking, “Is God temporally not omniscient?” If the same God is both transcendent and immanent (not just one or the other), then God in His immanence (within time) would know all that He does from His also-transcendent (from outside of time) perspective. Given that, our objector’s question seems to be a category mistake.

This position just suffers too many issues. If taken consistently he would maintain that all of God is incarnate. If he thinks God in immanence is omniscient, then why can he change his mind? The only consistent understanding of these passages from his perspective is to take it that God in his immanence is not omniscient.

I also made a counter-argument showing that God’s innate attributes, such as His faithfulness, are not created by people, but that some optional aspects of those attributes (such as who He is faithful to) do involve creation. The objector replies with a counter-example of his own:

The point is the same argument that he produced about Faithfulness and Omniscience can equally be made about God’s goodness. … So, either he has missed the argument I provided, or his argument about God’s attributes has zero relevance.

This is a sad attempt for him to try to redeem his failed position. The point that I brought up that these things aren’t “optional aspects” at all. They aren’t relevant to why God possesses those attributes. It isn’t like God becomes a better being by exercising these “optional aspects”. They aren’t relevant to the reason why God knows what someone would do in the future. Because God’s foreknowledge is simply an issue dealing with God’s attributes and why he is the way he is. So, my dilemma of irrelevance or absurdity stands. If these examples where relevant, then God’s acts cause him to change himself(from the timeless perspective if Thibodaux isn’t keeping up).They are simply Cambridge changes that are external to God. That’s already been stated in this “conversation” with Thibodaux.

That’s right folks, your choices are just metaphysical dice-rolls. Fallacy sighting confirmed:

This section is about the “Authorship of Evil” objection he dragging out because his doctrine of God is so bad. He is too inept to know that this is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the fact his position doesn’t allow for aseity to be the case. But his article gives no explanation for why they aren’t blips of chance. I’ve already stabbed one of his articles on this point:


Authorship of evil isn’t relevant to this conversation. He tries to make the necessitarian objection again. Now, he doesn’t grant the distinction between natural and free knowledge in this argument. Nor did he care for my recommendation for dealing with the issue. He still has completely ignored my argument that if God’s knowledge of the future is dependent upon the random choices of moral agents.


So, in terms of this, Thibodaux believes created facts cause God to know the future. Very Open Theist like.

Follow by Email