We get hung up thinking about the nature of time. Does it ontologically exist, or is it simply a mental construct.
Camps seem to be divided among those who believe in the ontological reality of time, and those who do not.
These groups can be further divided into classical theists (who believe), and open theists (and process theologians), who do not.
Those who believe in the ontological existence of time believe in a future that exists, and can be revealed - by the Omniscient God - to people in the present.
Those who do not believe in the existence of time, believe only the present exists, and therefore the future which does not yet exist, is unknowable, even to the Omniscient God.
Those who believe the future exists, believe that it is settled, because, if God knows it already, it must be true - and if it is true, it cannot change.
To imply that God could know the state of the future, might change making his
What if the future is both real and unsettled. What if time were less like a frozen river, and more like a snake (whose middle being poked, provokes a reaction in the head). This, I think, would necessarily imply that the past is equally unsettled. The problem with consciousness being that, while changes anywhere along the length of the timeline affect the whole timeline, those changes do not register as changes, but as history - or future prophecy.
The arrow of time dictates that we can imagine changes in the present affecting the future. But we cannot perceive any other changes taking place - or what effects they might have on us. This is only perceived from God's perspective.
