First, I would like to say thank you to my opponent; this has been a very interesting debate!
Let's go back to the beginning as I feel we have slightly strayed from the perimeters of this debate. The question at hand is, "Debate as to whether or not Christian God has or is characterized by foreknowledge." In the middle of this debate, my opponent began to ask the question, "does God experience foreknowledge". One's experiences and one's definition is completely different. The main question at hand begs subsequent question, "what is the basis of what something has or how something is described."
The first critical point is, description comes from observation--we describe things based on how we see them. We see a color, and give it a name; we understand that other beings may observe it differently, but we choose to describe it based on how we see it because that is the only description that we can truly understand.
Second, description comes from comparative thinking--we describe words is comparison to others. We have words like good, happy, and love; these words are truly meaningless without bad, sad, and hate.
Third, descriptions must be consistent--part of this is having a consistent point of observation for all of our descriptions, not just one.
So, should we describe God as having foreknowledge?
First, how do we see it? it is clear that from our point of view, God has foreknowledge; even my opponent agrees with this. However, my opponent believes that our definition of God and His character should come from God's point of view. But if our definition of God should come entirely from God's point of view, then we should not stop at foreknowledge, we must then completely re-describe God's every attribute.
Is this even possible? Does the Bible give us what we need in order to completely fulfill this task?
Is this good for our relationship with God? Does it leave use praising and relating to God in the way that we truly should?
It is my conclusion that basing our definition of God and His character on God's point of view is not only truly impossible, but also a dangerous task to take on. Thus, it is far better to base our description from our own point of view as it is the only way that we can derive an understandable and flawless view of who God is, especially in relation to us. This idea is demonstrated in the Bible as even God is always defined in the Bible from our viewpoint. Therefore, we should describe God as having foreknowledge.
"In this analogy, we are Ted and God's knowledge is Bill's hair. We do not know exactly how God experiences knowledge, but can rule out foreknowledge the same way we would rule out Bill's hair is not black."
Yes, but the reason we can rule out that Bill's hair is not black is because of our own observation; not because we try to define Bill from Bill's point of view.
" We know what black hair is. But Bill's hair is not black. We know foreknowledge applies to a being that has a future. We know future and time in general does not apply to God because God is described as eternal."
First off, people are defined as eternal as well, so the fact that God is eternal is not what indicates that He doesn't have a future.
Second, relative to us, God does have a future, so He can have foreknowledge; once again circling back to my believe that our definitions should be relative to us.
"Can you provide another example or explain how we would base things on an inexperience knowledge? I never seen someone get crucified. There are many parts in the bible I never seen or experienced. That is my inexperienced knowledge. At the same time I can understand what being crucified must have looked like. "
When I say "our", I'm talking about mankind, not specifically you and me; I should have made this more clear. Mankind's definition are derived from experience or from ideas based on experience. Our understanding of what something we haven't experienced may look or feel like, comes from previous experiences. If one has never experienced pain at all, then the pain of crucifixion is something they cannot comprehend. It is my belief that our experience does not provide us with enough understanding to completely define God from His own viewpoint.
"For your example, there is a hitch. A wench in the gears. You say God is normal in His own eyes, but we learn about "God is good" from others or from the bible. Relative to us, some say god is evil. This is known as "problem of evil," and is used in debates that question god's existence. This takes us to the problem of relativity. Everything is subjective. "
This is entirely based on one's definition of good and evil, which is quite the separate debate.
"How is that small when we do not know how long timeline is?"
It doesn't matter how long the timeline is; if God experiences it all at once, then it would all be experienced in a moment infinitely small.
"Would God then know in 1955 what happens in 1985? Yes because he is experiencing it at the same time.
He always knows what is happening because God does not experience a future - he is always present. He always knows."
First, how does being infinite mean you don't have a future? Just because your future doesn't end doesn't mean you don't have one. Second, if He experiences it at the same time, then He doesn't know in 1955 what will happen in 1985 because it is at the same time. But, if He knows as He experiences 1955 what will happen in 1985 then He must have already experienced 1985 and is know reexperiencing 1955. My belief is that God is entirely disconnected from the timeline which means He has already experienced everything, and is still experiencing it at the same time.
"What contradiction exists if God experiences all things at once for eternity?"
The contradiction is that He experiences all things at ONCE for ETERNITY. This either indicates repetition of every moment for eternity or it means that every moment lasts an eternity for God, in which case, He hasn't experienced anything. Once again, it is far better to say that God has experienced every moment already and uses that experience in how He interacts with our timeline.
"We should not use our viewpoint to describe God's viewpoint. Foreknowledge is our viewpoint. We should not use it to describe God's knowledge. "
Why should we describe God based on His own viewpoint?
In closing, it is my belief that we should describe God as having foreknowledge. Although He may not personally experience it, through our definition and our experiences, which should shape our definitions, God does have foreknowledge.