Opps! That was silly (the last two emails now…),Hello Dr. Reid,

Hope all is well.

After a great deal of pondering, re-reading email and dictionary definitions, I have concluded that I am in the dark as to this fallacy of confusing truth and epistemology. This is nearly the worst kind of ignorance, for although I believe you when you say I am confusing the two, I know neither what portion of my thinking does this nor how I am doing it. If you would be so kind as to alleviate my confusion I would be very appreciative.

In case you don't recall the argument I tested in class I will restate it as best I can. Unfortunately I can't see where the problem lies and in thinking about it I might have furthered it some, considering that I am now more convinced than ever...

I was saying that since God is All-Knowing and Eternal, the entire past-present-future are all known to God without God being subject to time. i.e.: He does not know the past-present-future now, or in the past, or in the future but eternally. God does not change. By the example in class I was trying to show this is logically consistent.

'Tom will choose to buy a marble tomorrow'. This speaks of the future, which hasn't happened yet. It is a statement about something that literally doesn't exist right now. Because Tom could choose to buy or not buy that marble when tomorrow arrives, right now we do not know and cannot say. When tomorrow arrives then it will become true or not.

'God knows right now Tom will choose to buy a marble tomorrow'. Again, by subjecting God to time, it is still impossible to call this statement true or false because right now Tom has not chosen tomorrow whether or not to buy the marble. Not only is it denying God's Eternal existence but it makes no sense because tomorrow doesn't exist today.

'God knows Tom chooses to buy a marble tomorrow'. This makes sense since tomorrow, yesterday and today are the same to God who is Eternal. It will not make sense if one assumes God knows it today, because that is putting God in time, taking time out of the statement for God allows it to be sensible. When tomorrow arrives, Tom may still choose to buy the marble or not because until it happens he still has the choice. If Tom chooses not to buy the marble when tomorrow arrives then God never knew that he would buy it.

It is the same with the past, which we know of in the present, yet which no longer exists right now just like the future doesn't exist right now. To know that Tom chose to buy a marble yesterday doesn't negate Tom's choice that he had yesterday despite us knowing now what he chose. Today there is no choice for Tom to have or have not bought the marble yesterday, since it has already occurred and the choice no longer exists. Today Tom has the choice to buy a marble or not but tomorrow his choice will not longer exist.

If we put God in our position of time then the future doesn't exist to God right now just like it doesn't exist to us right now because we only exist in the present. God is not in a position of time, He is Eternal.

Knowing what happens in all time and not being subject to time God knows that yesterday, today and tomorrow Tom chooses to buy marbles each of those days. Yet similar to how we know Tom chose to buy a marble yesterday without negating the choice Tom had yesterday, God knowing that Tom will buy a marble tomorrow doesn't negate the choice Tom will have tomorrow. For temporally, as we are now, tomorrow and yesterday don't exist right now. Yet eternally, as God is Eternal, tomorrow is as yesterday is as today.

In conclusion it is only when we deny the Eternal aspect of God's divine nature that we face a contradiction between His divine complete knowledge and our free will to choose. This is the fallacy of confusing the temporal with the eternal, which is what I believe I was doing in the previous argument I had sent you. This argument is making far too much sense to me now but I am open and wish to see my confusion in confusing truth and epistemology.

-John