Where Free Will is involved, 100% predictability is IMPOSSIBLE!
I will add this bit of helpful information: God's knowledge is a single, undivided intuition. It is conceptual, not perceptual, in nature. Once we realize that, any problems about future contingents and the knowledge of such goes away. As to the immortal thing, we've got to ask ourselves, in what way is X immortal? Physically, or logically? If X is immortal logically, then that is no different than saying that X's nonexistence is impossible, which is to say that X is a necessary being; a positive property to be sure! If physical, what does that even mean? It surely cannot simply be the lack of a property that we do have (which is essentially what being immortal means; we lack those properties which render us mortal). Here's a good way to think of it: a negative property is to lack it; which is to say when that property is categorized in such a being, we find "nothing." It is fallacious to reify nothingness. Therefore, it is fallacious to infer a property which is itself "nothing." If we argue this, we must argue that such a property is really something rather than nothing, so that this something is really the property of which we speak. OK I'm pretty much done; I hope that helps.
jbiemans wrote: Yes, I understand what you are saying, but I think it sounds like a symantic game.Immortal = positive propertyNot immortal = negative propertyMortal = positive propertyNot immortal = mortal.This is why I say that it is semantics, because you can re-write, most if not all negative properties as positive properties. So while I lack the property of being immortal, I posses the property of being mortal.
Its all in the wording. I am not deifying nothingness by saying that I am not immortal, I am simply stating that I am mortal, I posses the qualities that make something mortal, and God posses the qualities that make something immortal.
If you want to go about the route that you are attempting to take here, there are many other things you must discard. Impossible for one, would need to be given up, as it simply means "is not possible". In this case, you are saying that it lacks the properties that make it possible, which, by your definition is reifying nothingness.
So on that note, a divine nature posses the property of knowing all things. A human nature posses the property of knowing only some things. Since you cannot know only some things, and all things at the same time, then the 2 are mutually exclusive. (you either know it all, or you don't know it all (you know some)  .
What do you mean by "you"? As far as I can tell, "you" only can mean "the person which is identified," "the human nature so identified," or "the divine nature so identified." Now if you'll re-read, you'll find we're simply rehashing. I'll leave it to you to reply and let me know which of these definitions you apply in your above sentences, and whether or not they hold consistent throughout the argument, and then what the necessary implications are (if any).
jbiemans wrote: Where Free Will is involved, 100% predictability is IMPOSSIBLE! So prophecy about any human is impossible ! Great, that means that all the prophecy's in the bible that involve people are impossible! When Jesus said that Peter would deny him three times, it was just a guess, because its impossible to predict human behavior ?
There is NO MAGIC in the way the Laws of God - the Laws of the Cosmos - work!
jbiemans wrote: Wow, I forgot how carefully I must choose my words sometimes:"There is no person, that possesses any natures, that can both know only some things, and know all things at the same time".That is the statement that I am making.
jbiemans wrote: Quote from: _CTD_Does mankind know how to launch a satellite into outer space? Yes. Does this mandate that every human being continually be performing calculations on the thrusts and trajectories involved? No.Some absurdities just aren't as funny as they should be.Yes but "Mankind" is a collective. Together we know much more then we know individually. I do not see why your statement is absurd ?Also is "mankind" was said to be omniscient, then it is impossible that there is not at least one member of mankind that did not know the information. But you cannot say with any certainty that any member of "mankind", is omniscient even if the collective is.
Does mankind know how to launch a satellite into outer space? Yes. Does this mandate that every human being continually be performing calculations on the thrusts and trajectories involved? No.Some absurdities just aren't as funny as they should be.
jbiemans wrote: I thought of a good analogy for this concept this morning:Imagine if I told you that my mini-van has 2 natures;1) The nature of being a ford windstar2) The nature of being a porche boxter.Since both natures are in the body of the ford windstar, only the properties of the windstar nature can manifest, therefore things that are essential to the boxter nature are unable to manifest (speed, aerodynamics, fuel economy, convertable, etc.). However once my windstar goes to the scrap yard, I can construct a new boxter body and place the boxter nature in that body allowing it to finally express its nature.If that sounds silly, then maybe you can understand my problem with using that argument for Jesus.
And if it was maintained that God couldn't become a man, you'd argue that He wasn't omnipotent. If one said He didn't know how, you'd argue that He wasn't omniscient. I don't see your game as terribly clever.