Hey Rosalee. :) I was wondering if you ever followed the link. It's good to see that you did and have your own take on things.

I try to be infinity patient with people who show sincerity and civility. The other person seems to fit that. I am always open to discussions and enjoy seeing solid counter arguments.

The reading you provided is quite intriguing. I'm familiar with some of it, having heard it in deliberations, at some point.

It is an interesting take on the notion of free will in the context of a god with omniscience.

My one real issue with that perspective is that it creates an elaborate rationalization of the incongruity between an omniscient god with free will.

It reminds me of human limitations and the need to create an ever so complex web of "logic" that it ultimately ignores the basics.

The religious are not the only ones that do this. I see science putting artificial limitations or freedoms unnecessarily, that end up creating a muddy and finite picture. For example, when I was in high school, we were taught that a Neutron has no mass. I responded to the teacher and said, everything has to have mass, if it exists, whether we can measure it or not. She responded by saying that the Neutron has such a small mass that it is essentially nothing. Well, there's an infinite number of points from ANY number to zero. Just because the mass is so inconceivably small, it still does not qualify as nothing.

Then there's the Planck Scale. The Planck Scale is supposed to be so far below the scale of human perception of length and space that length and space cease to exist. Well, that's just nonsense. You can take any length or volume (space) and divide it in half. No matter how many times you divide those divisions in half, there is still an infinite amount of divisions possible. So, for humans to basically say "Well, it is so small, it is virtually nothing.", is like throwing our hands up and saying "Nope, TL/DR (too long didn't read)".

The human has one universal flaw. It uses itself as the meter for the universe. Until the human can stop doing that, then our understanding of what is will ALWAYS be limited by us, even if the information was gathered with our naked senses.

I make these points because, to me, they are similar to waxing philosophically about god and its mysteries. When in fact (to me), it was the human that gave god the "omni-" labels. And in the context of an omni-god, nothing is beyond its abilities. Those abilities include knowing everything, including every possible outcome of our choices, before even creating us. If the "omni" is dropped, then that is a whole different discussion. :)