OV4: one down, four to go

TRP begins to respond:

You ask:

There are three possibilities here. Either (1)God was lying to the man about not knowing where he was, (2) He was asking rhetorical questions to which He already knew the answer, or (3) He did not know where the man was and did not know – as opposed to correctly deduced – that the man had eaten from the tree that He had commended him not to eat from. I ask TRP, which he believes to be the correct answer?

I Choose 2 – God knew where Adam was.

That’s a perfectly reasonable answer, and I’ll respond to it in full once TRP finishes responding to the rest of my questions. As for TRP’s belief that it is normal to believe that those they disagree with are making use of the four-step process I described, that may be so, and yet I specifically deny that the charge can be credibly made in all cases. As I will demonstrate throughout the course of this debate, it cannot be reasonably applied to my particular expression of the aprevistan view. Note that I did not have to rely on those specific five verses in order to support the aprevistan case, there are literally hundreds that are equally relevant. I do, however, I also must point out for clarity’s sake that unlike many omniderigistes and atheists, TRP does not deny the existence of Man’s free will.