Trintarian Warfare theodicy

[The Joey-O]

Ok, I'm not going to try to come close to discussing everything that I want to. But, I'll give it the ol' college try.

Let me see if I can sumarize the issues (I'll probably end up being redundant to what others have said, but I'm afraid it's unavoidable):

1) The name: Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy (I'll start with the easiest).

2) The issue of Transcendance (also known as the Immutability argument).

3) The issue of the nature of time.


Well, #1: The name Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy comes from a series of works done by Gregory A. Boyd in which Dr. Boyd articulates a Theodicy based in a Warfare Worldview and the concept of God as Love and Love as Risk. It's far more complicated than what I just said, but that's a sort of summary. Dr. Boyd was not attempting to reinvent the wheele. His goal was to articulate why there is evil and why God is not responsible for the evil. He didn't want to contradict with orthodoxy, ie, he firmly believes that God is good, immutable, perfect, transcendant, holy, sovereign, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. In no way does he ever desire to contradict orthodoxy. The system that he develops necessitates a different understanding the nature of time, not a different understanding of the nature of God. The term "Trinitarian" comes from the love emphasis. If God is love, then God must be relational. If God is relational He requires more than one person to be perfect. Thus, God must be more than one person, yet still be one God. The Trinity. "Warfare" is essential to his theodicy, because if evil did not come from God it would either have to come from Man or some other being(s). Well, it does. Evil comes from fallen angelic beings and Man. The fallen angelic beings seek to do battle with God. Man is often involved, and so on. I don't think there'll be any issues from this, so I'll just stop explaining it. I hope this gives you a brief understanding of why Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy was developed and why it was named what it was.

#2: As I said before, Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy does not contradict with God's Transcendant or Immutable nature. God's essence, God's nature doesn't change (I think there was a comment made by revprodeji that said God requires more than one essence or something like that. I think he meant to say attribute (or something along those lines). Essence shouldn't have been the word he was looking for.), rather God's actions change. For example God became angry with Israel and His anger burned against them countless times in the Old Testament. Yet there were times when He showed them love and compassion. There were times where He was reasonably happy with them. Well, this is because God can change what He does and when He does things. This means on some levels God changes. Now, this doesn't mean that God isn't perfect at times. Christians don't and haven't held the view of perfection as a static thing. Gregory of Nyssa said that perfection isn't static, rather it is infinate, constantly expanding. He was showing how God could be 3 and 1. 3 infinate persons would be forced to comingle to the point where they'd become 1 in there very nature. Also, what does it matter if God changes his emotions? If I become angry at a misjustice, I am not sinning or becoming worse. If I become joyous at an act of grace, I am not sinning or become worse. Those are the proper emotions for those acts. They in and of themselves do not bring someone closer or further from perfection. Therefore, we know that there are things that can change and do not make a person less perfect. This is true for God as well. It is appropriate for God to become angry at sin and happy at faith.

#3: Ultimately, this is a discussion of time, because if time were a force or an energy or a thing or a dimension, then God would have to be outside of it in order to not be influenced/overpowered by it. However, Open View Theism and Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy both say that time is not a thing nor an energy nor a force nor a dimension. Time is simply a human construction. A word that our brains have developed to understand the continuity between events and yet the fact that events progress and change. If that is all time is, then we do not have to worry about God being subject to time, because it is just a mental construct to help humans cope with reality. You see, most people imagine God looking down onto a giant timeline. He sees the whole thing. In Open View Theism, there is no timeline. It simply doesn't exact. Our idea of a "past" is simply a mental construction. Our idea of a "future" is simply a mental construction. There is no incramental nature to time (chronons) (read Peter Lynds he does a great job of overthrowing General and Special Relativity). God can know things about the future, because He knows all the variables. He can determine that a certain set of variables are unacceptable. He can determine that new variables need to be inserted (this is usually referred to as a miracle). He can set a path that says variables "a-t" will all eventually lead to conclusion x, which is vital and must be reached. However "t-w" won't get us there, so "t-w" will not be allowed. Free Will is important, vital to our dignity, but it isn't an end all.

To Thomists: It may be that you don't like Open View Theism or Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy, because you are a Thomist and you view Thomistic approaches as superior. I will remind you, however, that the Church allows for opinions other than Thomistic ones. I'm not saying Thomism is bad. It's just not my first option.

In Christ's Love,
JoeyO.

Edited December 2, 2005 by The Joey-O

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 2 2005, 02:49 AM']hey...I disclaimed and showed why it isnt processed theology on my original post...oyoy..
[right][snapback]808027[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'll look again, but all I remember you saying about it is that open theism affirms God's self-sufficient aseity and therefore is not process theology. While I can accept that it may not be process theology in the proper sense, I still perceive a similar problematic with the approach.

If I may ask a simple question in reference to Myles' position and your responses (and I apologize if I've just totally missed something basic):

Since God transcends the dimensional order, or to adopt Myles' approach, since God is pure act and perfect self subsistent being, how does the idea of God "knowing" all of history in an eternal "now", contradict free will? I guess I fail to see why it is necessary to posit open theism at all. Where is the tension between Divine foreknowledge and our free will that makes it necessary to posit a relationship of passive potency between God and our free will (referring to God's "knowing" temporality in possibility and a sequence of actuality)?

The impression I have at this point almost seems to be that you assume the only alternative to open theism is some kind of occassionalism.
But as I see it, open theism threatens God's transcendence because God seems rather to be less like God, and more like simply the greatest being in the diastema. If God doesn't see all of history in an eternal now, He does not really transcend history, but is rather simply the biggest player in history. Sitting in heaven calculating outcomes and guessing the future, perhaps essentially continuous with the temporal and dimensional reality of created being.

I'm not trying to criticize unfairly. Consider this post a question raised, rather than an accusation thrown.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='The Joey-O' date='Dec 2 2005, 04:12 AM']On a more personal not to Laudate: It may be that you don't like Open View Theism or Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy, because you are a Thomist and you view Thomistic approaches as superior. I will remind you, however, that the Church allows for opinions other than Thomistic ones. I'm not saying Thomism is bad. It's just not my first option.

In Christ's Love,
JoeyO.
[right][snapback]808043[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


disclaimer, Dr. Joey is a good guy and means this with a fluffy good heart. I have had some problems in the past with egotistical thomists that attacked in a way similar to a calvinist with this debate. they literally wouldnt allow anything other than their view and it was a stressful time. But I trust from what I can see it wont happen here.

[The Joey-O]

P.S. Please explain the "diastema" a little simpler. I understand that it comes from dentistry, but I have no idea what the heck it means or why it matters.

Thanx.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='The Joey-O' date='Dec 2 2005, 03:12 AM']To Thomists: It may be that you don't like Open View Theism or Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy, because you are a Thomist and you view Thomistic approaches as superior. I will remind you, however, that the Church allows for opinions other than Thomistic ones. I'm not saying Thomism is bad. It's just not my first option.

In Christ's Love,
JoeyO.
[right][snapback]808043[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Joey,

Although I was fed mostly Thomism is college, I am actually not a Thomist at all. I often find myself using Thomistic categories simply for convenience since many people are familiar with this system and its terminology.
It's funny because I was recently in a discussion with some fellows of Thomistic leanings who insisted that my views were more in line with Eastern Orthodox Theology than Roman Catholic, but personally I consider my views to be an eclectic hodge-podge of East and West.

And I certainly don't mean to insult your views. I quite respect them in fact. I am simply ardent and critical in theological discussions because I consider it to be the most important subject in existence and feel I must approach any theory (it’s not personal I assure you) with suspicion. Please do not take offense if I appear cold or antagonistic. This is not my intention. I hope to learn from this discussion and perhaps reach a deeper grasp of the mysteries of God, but I have no mind to assent to anything uncritically.

God bless.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 2 2005, 04:15 AM']Since God transcends the dimensional order, or to adopt Myles' approach, since God is pure act and perfect self subsistent being, how does the idea of God "knowing" all of history in an eternal "now", contradict free will? I guess I fail to see why it is necessary to posit open theism at all. Where is the tension between Divine foreknowledge and our free will that makes it necessary to posit a relationship of passive potency between God and our free will (referring to God's "knowing" temporality in possibility and a sequence of actuality)?
[right][snapback]808048[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


sir, the issue is time, Not God..it isnt the God "doesnt know" its that the simple existence of that knowledge is against free will. if you are looking at a linear time than in "the future" if something is determined than something needs to determine it. There are only 4 options. 1.)God does it, 2.) outside influences set us so strong, 3.) we are pre-disposed to choose something or programed 4.) or randomness
now none of these allow a free will, also we admit to not knowng all the factors. Thus to have the decision, the future action settled and our free will not doing it means that we are not making the decision and we have no free will

its late, sorry if this makes no sense...i go to bed now

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 2 2005, 04:23 AM']And I certainly don't mean to insult your views. I quite respect them in fact. I am simply ardent and critical in theological discussions because I consider it to be the most important subject in existence and feel I must approach any theory (it’s not personal I assure you) with suspicion. Please do not take offense if I appear cold or antagonistic. This is not my intention. I hope to learn from this discussion and perhaps reach a deeper grasp of the mysteries of God, but I have no mind to assent to anything uncritically.

God bless.
[right][snapback]808056[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

from what you have shown...your good people, no worries...read my uber posts and go to bed we will talk more monday.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 2 2005, 04:23 AM']Joey,

Although I was fed mostly Thomism is college, I am actually not a Thomist at all. I often find myself using Thomistic categories simply for convenience since many people are familiar with this system and its terminology.
It's funny because I was recently in a discussion with some fellows of Thomistic leanings who insisted that my views were more in line with Eastern Orthodox Theology than Roman Catholic, but personally I consider my views to be an eclectic hodge-podge of East and West.

And I certainly don't mean to insult your views. I quite respect them in fact. I am simply ardent and critical in theological discussions because I consider it to be the most important subject in existence and feel I must approach any theory (it’s not personal I assure you) with suspicion. Please do not take offense if I appear cold or antagonistic. This is not my intention. I hope to learn from this discussion and perhaps reach a deeper grasp of the mysteries of God, but I have no mind to assent to anything uncritically.

God bless.
[right][snapback]808056[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I wish I could convey tone and inflection in my writing. I hope I didn't come accross harsh. Admittedly, I am used to being on the offensive, but I always try to be charitable with my speach and writings. I'm glad to hear that you do the same.

In Christ's Love,
JoeyO.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='The Joey-O' date='Dec 2 2005, 03:18 AM']P.S. Please explain the "diastema" a little simpler. I understand that it comes from dentistry, but I have no idea what the heck it means or why it matters.

Thanx.
[right][snapback]808050[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[i]diastasis[/i] ([i]diastema[/i]; [i]diastemic[/i]), in very ancient Greek, means separation, divorce, difference. In the context of the Christian Greek Theological tradition the meaning is expanded and nuanced. I'd say it can mean that which is caused, the created order, that which is composite , that which is dimensional, etc..
I use it in this sense. That which is other than God essentially. Contingent being, being as such, creation, non-God, etc.. but with the idea of dimensionality in mind.

[The Joey-O]

Ah. I see. Well, Open View Theism doesn't saying God is the greatest in the diastema. You still think that Open View Theism subjegates God to time. Open View Theism says that time doesn't exist as a dimension or as an energy or as anything other than an idea, much like the Easter Bunny.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='The Joey-O' date='Dec 2 2005, 03:39 AM']Ah. I see. Well, Open View Theism doesn't saying God is the greatest in the diastema. You still think that Open View Theism subjegates God to time. Open View Theism says that time doesn't exist as a dimension or as an energy or as anything other than an idea, much like the Easter Bunny.
[right][snapback]808076[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
who says the Easter Bunny is just an idea?

then our experience of time is an illusion? we are in an eternal now? how is our mode of being different from that of the Eternal God? Can you speak of time having a beginning? If not, what do you make of creation ex nihilo, the "end of time", the structure of contingent existents (meaning was there a "time" when I did not exist or am I coeternal with God?), etc..
And how does open theism explain the nature of contingent essences and contingent being? If time is an illusion, or a non-reality, then I suppose accidental change is an illusion? Just curious to know more of the metaphysical substrate of this theological theory. Thank you and God bless.

p.s. That's an interesting approach, new ideas are cool... I like this conversation

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 2 2005, 04:42 AM']then our experience of time is an illusion? we are in an eternal now? how is our mode of being different from that of the Eternal God?

that's an interesting approach... I like this conversation
[right][snapback]808078[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


interesting approach? sir, that IS open theism..

"eternal now" its hard to use time talk to talk about how there is no time. Think of it this way, there is no time. time is not a dimension with front and back. there is "what has happened" and "the possible outcomes of what can happen based on what is going to happen and what could happen" the reason we see time is because we are fallen and in being fallen everything is naturally falling apart, so we record the falling apart. Yet in our restored states this isnt an issue anymore. Being that God isnt fallen the effects that we "put time into" dont apply to him. time is a man-made unit of measurment to record how our world is going to carp. As all units of measurments it is applicable in certain things, but it isnt a dimension. like i enjoy making Joey bake me things and he uses man-made measurments, but I would never claim we all live in a pint. heck, a "pint" is more realistic because we can touch and see it.

im babbling, but does it help?

[Laudate_Dominum]

Hmm... you mentioned before a support for the denial of time as a dimension in modern science. Could you elaborate on that?

My understanding is that the relativity of time, rather than grounding a denial of time as a dimensional reality, in fact is in some ways the basis of situating it within the dimensional paradigm. Precisely because of the inseparability between phenomenon in three dimensional space and the flow of time, we must recognize the universe as a four dimensional space-time continuum.

I'd even suggest that modern experiments which have sought to "prove" the appropriateness of Einstein's model, precisely validate the dimensional status of time.


Perhaps in light of the "falling apart" idea, one might allude to the second law of thermodynamics as a scientific support for this theory. In anticipation of such a suggestion I must say that putting aside the dispute within physics itself as to the range of the application of such a concept, making an observed [i]a posteriori [/i]"law" an assumed ontological [i]a priori [/i]truth is dubious to say the least. I'll say nothing more for now because I don't even know if this comes into play in open theism.

[The Joey-O]

Yes, revprodeji. Let me add more babble. I really like the phrase "eternal now". You see, the "now" is all there is. 2 hours ago was now, but it no longer is. There is no way to make 2 hours ago now again. Existance itself is forever changing, because change does not necessitate a change in the level of perfection (although it can). Thus, God can change. Otherwise God would forever be Creating the world and destroying Saddam and Gamorah and speaking through a burning bush, etc. And, existance can change. Cause and effect still works, we just say there is no way to go back and retreive the cause. Theoretically, God could force reality to do the exact opposite of whatever it just did and rewind itself, but that wouldn't move us into the past. It would change our perception, but it wouldn't move us into the past. Because, there is no past. Just the eternal now. Revprodeji is right that, because we are fallen and our world is fallen entropy is a significant dictator in the variable selection (read my big post). However, perfect things can change.

[The Joey-O]

Before I was a Christian, I was on the path to being a theoretical astrophysicist. Admittedly, I was a bit young to fully grasp the concepts then, and I only follow it on a hobby level now, I do still have some knowledge in the field. The latest (and by latest, I mean 10 years at the oldest and up through 2004 in the most recent article I can think of) science is actually undermining the theory of relativity. I refer you to Peter Lynds's work. I'm very rusty and cannot, at the moment, give you much more than his name. I've been focusing my studies on becoming Catholic, lately; it's really owned my time. With that excuse asside, Stephen Hawking's retraction of his theories and the reasoning for them would be another place to look. (I wish I could give you links our more specific sources, sorry). I'll do some research, but it'll be a while before I can get back to you on that.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='The Joey-O' date='Dec 2 2005, 04:06 AM']Before I was a Christian, I was on the path to being a theoretical astrophysicist. Admittedly, I was a bit young to fully grasp the concepts then, and I only follow it on a hobby level now, I do still have some knowledge in the field. The latest (and by latest, I mean 10 years at the oldest and up through 2004 in the most recent article I can think of) science is actually undermining the theory of relativity. I refer you to Peter Lynds's work. I'm very rusty and cannot, at the moment, give you much more than his name. I've been focusing my studies on becoming Catholic, lately; it's really owned my time. With that excuse asside, Stephen Hawking's retraction of his theories and the reasoning for them would be another place to look. (I wish I could give you links our more specific sources, sorry). I'll do some research, but it'll be a while before I can get back to you on that.
[right][snapback]808087[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I would greatly appreciate that. My own study of physics falls short of the more contemporary developments and I am quite interested in the current state of theoretical physics. Take your time (or should I say take your eternal now? hehe). Thank you sir.

[Paphnutius]

So I am a late comer to this thread since you all sooo rudely had this discussion while I was sleeping!

Anyway... I was curious if anyone has brought up the point in Scripture where is speaks of God knowing us before he created us in the womb. He knows a word before it is ever on our lips and the like.

Edited December 2, 2005 by Paphnutius

[rkwright]

well I'm not going to even try the physics stuff posted above...

Working through the long list of articles, again some more questions that are raised in my mind.

1- On the prophets, Judas, or the life of Jesus. The answer I keep seeing is God determines some actions, he settles them. But how many actions would have to be settled at the time of Jesus to ensure it goes as planned? Take the life of any of his apostles, God would have to determine that Peter would be in place to deny Jesus, thus Peter would have to be in place to follow Jesus, thus Peter's life would have to be determined to put him as a fisherman that day, Peter's childhood would be inclined to fishing, Peter's parents would have been the only two that could have come together to make sure that he was raised that way, and it infinitely goes backward for every person that has any sort of contact with Jesus. Again this is looking more and more like the God looking at a timeline than God having possibilities.

2- The scriptural references. A lot of these are references to stories where God said if they do this they will be spared or if they do that they will not be. Is this really 2 possibilities? Or could one say that God knew by saying this some action would have followed. He knew that saying such and such would entail such actions, so he said it.

3-
[quote]In their view, God knows what every agent would do in every possible world and then creates that world which best achieves his creational objectives.
[/quote]
I could be missing who the their is in this statement, is it refering to the molinists alone? or does this apply to the open theist also? Obviously this leads to a similar problem of determinism, there was a possibility of many options, but God chose one and thats the world we live in.

Anyways, I'm not that good at all of this, so I hope some one more educated will jump on this. One of my problems in dealing with this theory is that it wants to prove that the classic view is flawed, not that the 2 are acceptable.

PS - wasn't there a huge debate similar this in the Church between the Thomists and Molinists? And the Pope had to cool em all off before they killed each over it?

And rev? how in the world did you get sooo many posts in like 3 days... hahaha and I thought I was addicted :

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Dec 2 2005, 12:39 PM']well I'm not going to even try the physics stuff posted above...

Working through the long list of articles, again some more questions that are raised in my mind.

1- On the prophets, Judas, or the life of Jesus.  The answer I keep seeing is God determines some actions, he settles them.  But how many actions would have to be settled at the time of Jesus to ensure it goes as planned? 
[right][snapback]808445[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Umm...we would have to be God to know that. There is probably 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999...(well you get the point) possible actions every second. The point is God knows. It's part of his omniscience thing.

[quote name='rkwright' date='Dec 2 2005, 12:39 PM']Take the life of any of his apostles, God would have to determine that Peter would be in place to deny Jesus, thus Peter would have to be in place to follow Jesus, thus Peter's life would have to be determined to put him as a fisherman that day, Peter's childhood would be inclined to fishing, Peter's parents would have been the only two that could have come together to make sure that he was raised that way, and it infinitely goes backward for every person that has any sort of contact with Jesus.
[right][snapback]808445[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You are assuming that one action requires a precise formula of causes in order to make that action happen. That's not necessarily true. I haven't eaten breakfast yet this morning, but I will soon. My choice of what I shall eat isn't necessarily determined by a causal chain going all the way back to the other side of eternity. That's a form of determinism. Free Will has to be free. There are multiple paths to the same action. Some actions, however, only have one path. It sounds like you are also assuming that God determined that Peter would deny Christ 3 times. Prophecy could be a set causal chain that was set by the person. Given their own series of actions they forced themselves down a path that leads to a distant specific action. I like to think that's what happened to Peter, but I could be wrong.

[quote name='rkwright' date='Dec 2 2005, 12:39 PM']Again this is looking more and more like the God looking at a timeline than God having possibilities.
[right][snapback]808445[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You are correct, because you dealing with a form of determinism.

[quote name='rkwright' date='Dec 2 2005, 12:39 PM']2- The scriptural references.  A lot of these are references to stories where God said if they do this they will be spared or if they do that they will not be.  Is this really 2 possibilities?  Or could one say that God knew by saying this some action would have followed.  He knew that saying such and such would entail such actions, so he said it.
[right][snapback]808445[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Both are possible in Open View Theism.

[quote name='rkwright' date='Dec 2 2005, 12:39 PM']3-I could be missing who the their is in this statement, is it refering to the molinists alone? or does this apply to the open theist also?  Obviously this leads to a similar problem of determinism, there was a possibility of many options, but God chose one and thats the world we live in.
[right][snapback]808445[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Revprodeji would know more about the relationship between molinism and Open View Theism. I used to know, but didn't care enough to remember. We're similar, often referred to as neo-molinism, but we're different in some key ways. We don't ultimately end up in a form of determinism.

[quote name='rkwright' date='Dec 2 2005, 12:39 PM']Anyways, I'm not that good at all of this, so I hope some one more educated will jump on this.  One of my problems in dealing with this theory is that it wants to prove that the classic view is flawed, not that the 2 are acceptable.
[right][snapback]808445[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The goal of Open View Theism and Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy is to intelligently create a system where God is still the God of orthodoxy and Man actually has Free Will. It attempts to leave orthodoxy. I don't believe it ever does. Only Calvinists think it does, but Calvinism has been declaired a heresy.

[quote name='rkwright' date='Dec 2 2005, 12:39 PM']PS - wasn't there a huge debate similar this in the Church between the Thomists and Molinists?  And the Pope had to cool em all off before they killed
each over it? 
[right][snapback]808445[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yep. That debate said that it's a-ok to be a molinist or a Thomist. That's why I made the Thomist comment earlier. Thomists don't like molinism or Open View Theism. Why? Because they're Thomists. I don't like some aspects of Thomism. Why? Because I'm an Open View Theist. The point is: neither of us are heretics!

[rkwright]

I'm not going to lie... I'm opening up more and more to this idea. I used to lay in bed when I was in highschool because I really struggled with the ideas behind free will, and different random thoughts would come into my mind. Strangely I had one that was very similar to this.


What exactly is the thomist view? How does a thomist resolve the following..
[quote]So, for example, I obviously can’t alter the fact that (say) a young Jewish girl named Zosia was tortured by Nazi soldiers on August 15, 1943, and hence I am not free to save her from this tragedy. Equally obvious is the fact that all determinate facts that constitute reality on August 15, 1943, are beyond the scope of my freedom. Since the past can no longer be other than it is, I am not free to alter it and thus cannot be held responsible to alter it.

But, assuming God possesses EDF, among all the unalterable determinate facts that comprised reality on August 15, 1943 is the determinate fact that (say) I shall marry my wife on August 18, 1979. The unimprovable definiteness of this truth was “there”—in God’s ever-contemporary EDF—among all the other determinate facts that constituted reality on August 15, 1943. In other words, if God were to catalog the contents of his omniscient mind in a volume entitled All the Unalterable Facts Known by the Omniscient Mind on August 15, 1943, my marriage on August 18, 1979 would be among them.

Thus it follows that I could be no more free to determine who I’d marry or when I’d marry her, than I was to determine the fate of Zosia. Both were part of the totality of reality of August 15, 1943, a reality I had nothing to do with even though it seemed like I did in 1979. Indeed, since I can change nothing about the past, and the book of All the Unalterable Facts Known by the Omniscient Mind is in the unalterable past, and on the EDF view this book contains the my entire future, it seems that I can be no more free with regard to any of my future than I am with regard to anything in the past because if EDF is true then my whole future is actually in the past![/quote]