ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Philetus]

seekinganswers,
Ive got PC trouble. I so much appreciate you last post in our discussion. Ill get back to it here ASAP. I hope you guys get the time thing working so I can save some days. Thanks,
Philetus

 

[Clete]

I have actually been reviewing the theory and articulating it in my own words (as one who has also been taught by others on the subject matter). I haven't been cutting and pasting snipets of the theory for others to read so that they can get a really warped view of Relativity, nor have I referred the people on this cite to a person who admits he doesn't have any true grasp of the theory (namely Bob), and despite the fact that he admits his ineptitude with regards to the theory he procedes to give extensive commentary on the matter and to suggest ludacris experiements that can never be performed to test the theory. And he even has the audacity to dismiss a theory he doesn't understand based on the hypothetical test he gives that can't be performed and you say I'm the one who, let's see how you say it, "doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground concerning it."

Please instead of saying I don't know what I'm talking about, why don't you poke holes in my summaries if you are the almighty and wise one with regards to Einstein's theories. I have pointed out the tests that have actually been done to see if Einstein's theories of relativity actually works. I have referred to the givens of Einstein's theory that must be assumed in order for the theory to work (namely that the laws of physics apply to any non-accelerated inertial frame [the second postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity]), and yet you continue to astound me, because without demonstrating any mastery of the subject greater than my own, you have arrogantly raised yourself above me as by some defacto reasoning of your own you just know more about the theory than I do and don't actually have to demonstrate that mastery. I would love to see you try to pull the same crap on a Black belt in the martial arts, because you would come out of it :hockey: .

Peace,
Michael

Michael,

You are your own worst enemy. You could have done nothing more than watch one 60 minute episode of Nova on PBS and known more about Relativity than you seem to. You clearly misunderstand some major portion of the theory because in one sentence you talk about how satellites are sending us coordinates of where they are going to be instead of where they actually are because of the effects of relativity and then in the next sentence you say that time dilation doesn't really happen. Well make up your mind already. It either happens or it doesn't and I can assure you that according to Relativity is does actually happen.
There are in fact three things that, according to Relativity, happen as your travel in a direction relative to another object. 1. You lose volume (you become shorter along the vector of travel. So if you stick your finger out in front of you as you're traveling your finger is shorter the faster you go and so is your arm, your ship and you and everything moving with you). 2. Your mass increases. And this also is a real effect not an illusion or only true within a certain frame of reference. Your mass really does increase the faster you go and so therefore does you gavitational field and your inertia and everything else associated with mass. 3. Your time slows down.
Theses effects are the reason why the speed of light is the cosmic speed limit. At the speed of light three things happen all at once. 1. You volume become zero. You in fact become two dimensional or what some think is that you become a singularity. 2. Your mass become infinite. (Is this starting to sound like a black hole to anyone?) 3. Your time stops completely.

Now, if you deny that these effects actually happen then you have no basis for declaring the speed of light as the vastest possible speed in the universe and you in effect are saying that time is in fact absolute and not relative which is Bob Enyart's position. So even if Bob's argument is completely wrong (which it is not - Einstein himself used very similar mental experiments to come up with Relativity in the first place and Bob has asked physicists similar questions for years and years and never once has he gotten an answer, not one time.), your argument would do anything but disprove Bob's position.

Bottom line is that if you think that Relativity says anything other than that these effects really do happen then you are simply wrong. I've been piddling around with this theory for something like 20 years and I think you're the only person I've ever come across that ever suggested anything to the contrary. You are very simply wrong. And I will not waste my time debating you as though you aren't.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[seekinganswers]

Michael,

You are your own worst enemy. You could have done nothing more than watch one 60 minute episode of Nova on PBS and known more about Relativity than you seem to. You clearly misunderstand some major portion of the theory because in one sentence you talk about how satellites are sending us coordinates of where they are going to be instead of where they actually are because of the effects of relativity and then in the next sentence you say that time dilation doesn't really happen. Well make up your mind already. It either happens or it doesn't and I can assure you that according to Relativity is does actually happen.
There are in fact three things that, according to Relativity, happen as your travel in a direction relative to another object. 1. You lose volume (you become shorter along the vector of travel. So if you stick your finger out in front of you as you're traveling your finger is shorter the faster you go and so is your arm, your ship and you and everything moving with you). 2. Your mass increases. And this also is a real effect not an illusion or only true within a certain frame of reference. Your mass really does increase the faster you go and so therefore does you gavitational field and your inertia and everything else associated with mass. 3. Your time slows down.
Theses effects are the reason why the speed of light is the cosmic speed limit. At the speed of light three things happen all at once. 1. You volume become zero. You in fact become two dimensional or what some think is that you become a singularity. 2. Your mass become infinite. (Is this starting to sound like a black hole to anyone?) 3. Your time stops completely.

Now, if you deny that these effects actually happen then you have no basis for declaring the speed of light as the vastest possible speed in the universe and you in effect are saying that time is in fact absolute and not relative which is Bob Enyart's position. So even if Bob's argument is completely wrong (which it is not - Einstein himself used very similar mental experiments to come up with Relativity in the first place and Bob has asked physicists similar questions for years and years and never once has he gotten an answer, not one time.), your argument would do anything but disprove Bob's position.

Bottom line is that if you think that Relativity says anything other than that these effects really do happen then you are simply wrong. I've been piddling around with this theory for something like 20 years and I think you're the only person I've ever come across that ever suggested anything to the contrary. You are very simply wrong. And I will not waste my time debating you as though you aren't.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Try I went to a website that offered the text of Einstein's Theories of Relativity and reviewed it for myself. My knowledge of relativity does not come from PBS but comes from advanced courses in the physical sciences in my High School as well as the Physics course I took in College. I did not take mathematically heavy physics (not because I didn't have the math skills to do so [I passed out of Calculus III coming into college], nor was it because I didn't have a great desire to do so [because I did], but because I was majoring in Religion and Spanish at the same time and could not afford to take any more electives). Though I could not engage Physics in a very practical way (because I have not devoted the time to the math), on the theoretical level, you had better believe I have the mind for it.

You missunderstanding of what I am saying is only do to your ineptitude not mine. The conflicting data is the very essense of what the theory deals with. Why would our satelites be sending us data that is off? They don't have the ability to drive themselves to distinct orbits or to accelerate themselves, and yet the data we receive tells us something is happening. Newton can't tell us what it is. His equations can't fix or explain the problem. So Einstein comes along, explains the fabric of the Universe (physics) using a different set of postulates, and suddenly everything works.

The reason you continue to fail in your understanding of what I am saying is that you have continued to ignore the important language of the Theories of Relativity that talks about inertial frames. Within any non-accelerated inertial frame the Laws of Physics must apply. Just look up Einstein's second postulate for the Special Theory of Relativity. I'm not making this up. Thus, Einstein himself makes it very clear that time within any inertial frame will progress normally. If we are travelling with a sub-atomic particle that has a known half-life of 1.8sec., even if we are travelling with it at nearly the speed of light, that particle will still decay within its own inertial frame after 1.8sec. Those who find themselves within a particular inertial frame will experience time normally. Time dilation and length contraction cannot be applied for those who are within the same inertial frame.

Time dilation and length contraction do become an issue when those involved in an experiment find themselves within two distinct inertial frames that are accelerated with reference to one another. So a man very near to the gravitational influence of a black hole will not experience time in the same way as a man who is very near the gravitational influence of earth. But this has nothing to do with time being slowed down or sped up. If we were asking the question of time one could just as easily come to the conclusion that on earth time actually sped up; time progressed normally for the man who went to the Black Hole (and he has the experimental data to prove it), but everything went haywire on earth. And the person on earth could just as easily prove that time was progressing normally on earth through experimentation and that the man near the Black Hole had slowed down. They both can't be right. Time can't be slowed down and sped up simultaneously. Time is not the variable in this experiement (as we tests physics in our distinct enviorns, physics remains constant, including the progession of time). The variable is the difference in gravitation (acceleration) that is influencing the observers. And this can only occur if time is a dimention of space that can be warped by massive objects or objects in motion in the same way as the traditional three dimentions can be warped.

Bob's suggestion that time travel is occuring if Einstein's theories are correct only demonstrates his complete ignorance with regards to the theory, for time travel is a disjunction of time where one can jump from one point in time to another without having to progress through all the times in between. Einstein's theories of relativity make it very clear that one undergoing time dilation is still progressing through all the times between, just at a different rate than the other. When a person of a different inertial frame goes to another inertial frame, that person does not begin jumping through time, but moves across time in the same way as before (as the laws of Physics would require). But now space has been warped by the massive object that person has neared, so though they continue to progress normally, that progression is distorted with reference to others. Time still progresses as it always has progressed, but our experience of that progression now will differ from others that lie in a distinct inertial frame. Time within any non-accelerated inertial frame is not going to appear any different than if you were in another inertial frame. If you would say otherwise than you have not taken to heart Einstein's second postulate of the special theory of relativity.

Just because you know the language of the theory does not mean you have a mastery of it. You have to use the language carefully and correctly, otherwise you are just a fool playing with tools he doesn't understand. Your language and Bob's language with regards to the theory demonstrate a severe ignorance. Bob can admit that in his post (though I think he is still very unwise as he continues to press on in his ignorance, like a blind man leading blind men); you, on the other hand, have no excuse, because you claim to have been taught and yet you continue to swing your hammer wildly to hit that nail on the head.

Peace,
Michael

 

[Clete]

The reason you continue to fail in your understanding of what I am saying is that you have continued to ignore the important language of the Theories of Relativity that talks about inertial frames. Within any non-accelerated inertial frame the Laws of Physics must apply. Just look up Einstein's second postulate for the Special Theory of Relativity. I'm not making this up. Thus, Einstein himself makes it very clear that time within any inertial frame will progress normally. If we are travelling with a sub-atomic particle that has a known half-life of 1.8sec., even if we are travelling with it at nearly the speed of light, that particle will still decay within its own inertial frame after 1.8sec. Those who find themselves within a particular inertial frame will experience time normally. Time dilation and length contraction cannot be applied for those who are within the same inertial frame.

Time dilation and length contraction do become an issue when those involved in an experiment find themselves within two distinct inertial frames that are accelerated with reference to one another.

I understand that a person who travels at near the speed of light doesn't feel like time has slowed down. A second to him is just as a second has always been but to others who are observing him, his time is going slower RELATIVE to their own. Thus the name of the theory. But the point is that this effect is real (according to the theory) it isn't an illusion or in any way canceled out by some other effect. Someone who is moving is moving through time more slowly relative to one who is not moving.

Further Bob's experiment included two inertial frames and so your whole point here is moot anyway. That is to say that the two people and the two clocks are in different inertial frames relative to one another. The clock at the top of the mountain is in a less powerful gravitational field than the one at the base thus time for the one at the base would flow slower relative to the one at the top because (according to Einstien) gravity is nothing more than an accelaration. So both people in our mental experiment exist within separate accelerated inertial frames.

Get it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[hermes]

Examples?

Is free will compatible with decrees or determinism/predestination? Usually it is redefined to allow God full control while given us supposed freedom/responsibility which is not really true freedom.

Examples?? Pick any day of the week. Early in the morning, write down what your will is for that day; that is, what you are going to do, what you intend to accomplish, and the means by which you intend to do so. Announce to family members that today, you will do what you please and accomplish all your purpose. Take a legal pad with you to record the deviations.At the end of the day, compare your morning notes with what really happened.

Then go to your naughty boy room. Write verses 9-11 of Isa. 46 on the blackboard eight times. Then turn to Psalms 135:6 and write that eight times. Then, turn to Lam. 3:37 and write that eight times. Finally, Turn to Ps. 33:10,11 and write that eight times. Report back here with the results of your lab assignment, stating any conclusions to which you have come. Or, if you would rather save yourself the time, just read each verse carefully eight times and then imagine yourself being able to fulfill those verses yourself. Then just let us know if you could say those things of yourself.

 

[seekinganswers]

I understand that a person who travels at near the speed of light doesn't feel like time has slowed down. A second to him is just as a second has always been but to others who are observing him, his time is going slower RELATIVE to their own. Thus the name of the theory. But the point is that this effect is real (according to the theory) it isn't an illusion or in any way canceled out by some other effect. Someone who is moving is moving through time more slowly relative to one who is not moving.

Further Bob's experiment included two inertial frames and so your whole point here is moot anyway. That is to say that the two people and the two clocks are in different inertial frames relative to one another. The clock at the top of the mountain is in a less powerful gravitational field than the one at the base thus time for the one at the base would flow slower relative to the one at the top because (according to Einstien) gravity is nothing more than an accelaration. So both people in our mental experiment exist within separate accelerated inertial frames.

Get it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

And Clete, I never denied the reality of time dilation. What I denied was your description of it. Time dilation in the Theories of relativity cannot be described as "the slowing of time" because time isn't slowing. Gravity is distorting space/time in such a way that our experience of time with reference to others is being altered, but time is progressing normally. This is no different than saying that when a ray of light "bends" due to the influence of gravity it is actually continuing on the same path, but that path is merely following the contours of space. In the same way, time continues to progress normally, and only appears to "bend" (slow or speed up) as that progression follows the contours of space/time. What is changing is not time but gravity.

That is not to say that the effects of this are not real. They are very real and must be compensated for (that is why Einstein's theories must be taken into account in space travel and in the GPS satelite system, by which we arrive at our destination in airplanes and ships, and we are able to use our personal GPS systems). But just because the affects are real that does not signify that your description of the them is correct. The distortion is gravity based, not time based.

This is why Bob's hypothetical analysis of the theory is quite insane. He bases his entire understanding of the theory on a distortion based in time (hence he sees temporal imposibilities). However, time is not the question that Einstein's theories are tackling. It isn't even the focus of them. What is at stake in these theories is the nature of gravity. Newton declared that gravity was a force produced by massive bodies that would draw them together (like magnets at their opposite poles). This theory of gravitation just would not work, for Newton's theory on gravity could not explain certain mishaps in orbits and when we arrive at particle physics, Newton's theories go right out the window. Einstein rules the day when it comes to gravity and particle physics. And Einstein's Theories of Relativity are grounded on a space/time fabric for the universe, which then is distorted in the pressence of massive bodies. Three dimentional space alone cannot produce these kind of distortions. At the very least there are four dimentions (time being that fourth dimention) and that means time can also be distorted in the presence of a massive object.

Peace,
Michael

 

[godrulz]

Examples?? Pick any day of the week. Early in the morning, write down what your will is for that day; that is, what you are going to do, what you intend to accomplish, and the means by which you intend to do so. Announce to family members that today, you will do what you please and accomplish all your purpose. Take a legal pad with you to record the deviations.At the end of the day, compare your morning notes with what really happened.

Then go to your naughty boy room. Write verses 9-11 of Isa. 46 on the blackboard eight times. Then turn to Psalms 135:6 and write that eight times. Then, turn to Lam. 3:37 and write that eight times. Finally, Turn to Ps. 33:10,11 and write that eight times. Report back here with the results of your lab assignment, stating any conclusions to which you have come. Or, if you would rather save yourself the time, just read each verse carefully eight times and then imagine yourself being able to fulfill those verses yourself. Then just let us know if you could say those things of yourself.

The Lord does whatever pleases Him including giving significant freedom to others allowing Himself to be affected by them (including not always getting His way in every detail). God's purposes will stand in the end. He can intervene when He wants, but this does not mean He always intervenes (e.g. fall of Lucifer and Adam; Hitler; etc.). His project will be brought to completion, but not without warfare and loss along the way, especially in individual lives who reject His purposes for themselves (Lk. 7:30).

Just because the Lord decrees somethings, does not mean He decrees all things (unless you want to make Him responsible for heinous evil).

Is. 46 shows one motif that God is able to bring about His purposes by His ability. This refers to specific things in this context. It cannot be extrapolated as a proof text that God micromanages every thing. Surely I have the freedom to eat toast or cereal without God decreeing it trillions of years ago.

My intentions may change during the day. Other factors may derail my plans. This is no different than we see of God's interaction with man. The other motif in Scripture is that there are other free agents, there are contingencies, God changes His mind at times, etc.

 

[Clete]

I have full confidence in my theology, Clete. You place so much value on your thought processes that I am just trying to give you my thought processes in return. Concerning my statement that our own minds are often not a sufficient means to

determine the extent to which our actions are the result of free will--I answer yes, according to our perceptions. For example, have you ever left the house intending to make a personal purchase, perhaps for the shop, and ended up not buying anything for the shop, but along the way something your wife needed came to mind, or you saw it "by chance," purchased it, and went back home. In everything you did, you were acting according to your own volition--the way you backed out of the drive, the route you took--to all the circumstances you faced you reacted according to your will; but the outcome of your actions was not always according to your will. That doesn't change the fact, however, that throughout the trip, all your actions were volitional. Do you believe that an unsuccessful attempt of a volitional action means that your will was therefore not free? I believe that freedom of will does not necessitate ability to perform that which is willed.

You're wrong, of course. If, as you said, in everything I did, I acted according to my own volition then my action were according to my will. The ability to change one's mind for some unexpected reason doesn't mean that we do not have free will but actually the reverse, it's proof that we do have free will.

Now, I will ask you again and will continue to ask you or else continue to point out your obfuscations. The fact that you are unwilling to give a straight answer is speaking more eloquently against your theology than I ever could anyway, so I don't care which it is.

Do we or do we not have the genuine ability to choose our own actions, YES or NO?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

And Clete, I never denied the reality of time dilation.

Oh yes you did!

These are not correct assumptions with regard to the theory of relativity. Gravity does not influence time. Time does not slow down according to the theory of relativity.

This is flat out wrong and you have now admitted it.

[snip all the meaningless irrelivent nonsense]...
That is not to say that the effects of this are not real. They are very real and must be compensated for (that is why Einstein's theories must be taken into account in space travel and in the GPS satelite system, by which we arrive at our destination in airplanes and ships, and we are able to use our personal GPS systems).

You then in the very next sentence deny that these effects are real...

But just because the affects are real that does not signify that your description of the them is correct. The distortion is gravity based, not time based.

Yes it is time based you silly goof! How do you think that those effects found with the GPS satellites that you're so fond of are accounted for if not by adjusting the clocks? Is there some top secret gravity adjustment that Nasa and the military make to figure out the true position of the satellites? NO! They just bumb the clock up a hundreth of a nanosecond or so and everything comes out right. That sounds like a time based solution to a time based problem to me! :duh:

This is why Bob's hypothetical analysis of the theory is quite insane. He bases his entire understanding of the theory on a distortion based in time (hence he sees temporal imposibilities). However, time is not the question that Einstein's theories are tackling. It isn't even the focus of them. What is at stake in these theories is the nature of gravity. Newton declared that gravity was a force produced by massive bodies that would draw them together (like magnets at their opposite poles). This theory of gravitation just would not work, for Newton's theory on gravity could not explain certain mishaps in orbits and when we arrive at particle physics, Newton's theories go right out the window. Einstein rules the day when it comes to gravity and particle physics. And Einstein's Theories of Relativity are grounded on a space/time fabric for the universe, which then is distorted in the pressence of massive bodies. Three dimentional space alone cannot produce these kind of distortions. At the very least there are four dimentions (time being that fourth dimention) and that means time can also be distorted in the presence of a massive object.

Peace,
Michael

Don't you get it? None of this matters! The fact is that according to Relatively the two people in Bob's experiment would not be experiencing time the same way. It doesn't matter if it feels to them like time is any different, the point is that it is different RELATIVE to the other guy. Relativity really does predict that the guy at the top of the mountain would be getting further and further ahead of the guy at the base because relative to him, the guy at the base of the mountain is moving through time more slowly.
Now if you want to say that this is happening because of the increased gravity field and that it is therefore a gravity based situation then I'll agree with you there but that doesn't change the fact that (according to the therory) one is going through time at a different rate than the other guy is (even though neither can tell from within their own frame of reference that anything has changed).

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[RobE]

In order for Open Theism's hands to remain clean, using Open Theism's own logic , God would have had to destroy Adam when Adam fell. Why? Because God at that moment knew(beforehand) the kind of destruction sin would cause in mankind and pre-determined to continue with Adam. So is Adam responsible for sin in the world since God allowed Adam to live and procreate? Using OV's logic this is a fair question. Another one would be: Is it better for 2 to be thrown into the lake of fire or 2 billion? 2 billion is closer to reality because of God's decision. In this sense, your logic to attack foreknowledge becomes a terrible thing since it can be asked of 'open' theism with equal force.

Why didn't God destroy Adam and continue His plan for mankind with a different creation? By not doing this didn't He condemn untold millions to eternal suffering. Why not make one man at a time. If the man turns out OK; then move that man to a different location. Do you see? Am I wasting my thoughts?

Jesus was God's response to the Fall. God created with certain parameters. He would not be just to His intentions if He stamped out Satan, Adam, or every sinner at the moment of sin. We would never get a world going. His plan of redemption was implemented when it became necessary. I have considered your thinking, but it does not seem to be a necessary conclusion from the evidence.

If God didn't know the future then why not stop the progress when things went terribly(according to Open Theists) wrong? Does the O.V. God know what He's doing or not?

Friends,
Rob

 

[RobE]

Originally Posted by RobE

Philetus,

Why does it matter WHEN God finds out about wrongdoing if He's going to allow it anyway?

Rob

God never intended sin or evil. He did everything reasonable to prevent it. God finds out about it immediately. He knows of the possibility before, but the certainty only when it comes into existence.

Yet, God being very smart knew the possibility man would sin. In fact, He knew the odds were inifinity to 1 against, so why won't you accept the possibility that God began creation with Jesus Christ in mind? Wouldn't it be reasonable to put the Tree of Knowledge outside the garden? Maybe a guard?

Rob

 

[Clete]

Rob,

Don't you get it? The Tree of Knowledge being IN the garden is proof of free will not evidence against it. It is the choice that God gave to Adam and Eve. How much meaning would there have been for Adam and Eve never to have sinned if there was never the option to sin? It would have been a hollow and meaningless "devotion" to God. As I've said a thousand times before love is a choice and without options choice is impossible. God put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden because He loved them and He wanted Adam and Eve to really love Him back.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[RobE]

RobE,
Would Adam have lived forever if he had not sinned? I was under the impression that had he not eaten the forbiden fruit he would not have died.

If Adam had not sinned Adam would have lived forever. However, the possibility of Adam not sinning is the same as me becoming a fish overnight.

I have been reading a lot of work by open theist and I haven't found that in their view. It is only within the total framework of a closed view that the above logic must be worked out. What I am finding is that the Open View of the future requires God to be much smarter and far more competent than either a hyper or even a moderate view of a closed future.

Absolutely not. In order for God to know the future He must be able to figure out and identify all available outcomes. What kind of intelligence would this require? Open Theism simply has Our Lord running around putting out fires that He's surpised happen. He's a good guesser at best; whereas, settled opinions accept that He's in complete control over the universe.

I can get my mind around both views and see how their logic requires them to conclude on matters such as foreknowledge in very different ways. I'm still looking for evidence from either side that strengthens or weakens either argument.

Why is the O.V. God so blind in some areas, but omniscient in others? Omnipresence is a logical impossibility, yet they accept it as a matter of faith. Foreknowledge, which is more reasonable than omnipresence, is rejected because their 'Freedom of Choice'(sounds modernistic, huh?) might be impinged.

I am aware of your position on the TULIP. And I say, go for it! You have a lot to share. But, so far in this thread you have failed to do any more than just dismiss OVT on the basis of what appears to be a lack of understanding on your part of the Open View.

I would suggest that most Open Theists haven't taken their beliefs to rational conclusions. It sounds good, but what happens when we stretch the logic to its end.

To suggest that the OV is just ‘dumbing’ God down and that Open Theists aren’t thinking is ... well ... not nice and not accurate. The roots of dumbing God down go back to the Greeks who thought themselves to be wise and convinced other they had it all figured out.

You should look at the 'father' of openess thinking if you think Calvinism is Greek influenced.

It is Open View Theism that is paveing the way for reconsideration of what God has said about himself in Scripture, all of what he said. They are doing some of the most honest thinking we are likely to encounter in a while; whether time proves them to be right or not.

Modernist thinking, Star-Trekkian logic, and such pervade Open Theism. Holiness, Grace, and foreordination pervade Calvinism. The truth as always is found between the two extremes since both positions are supported by scripture.

Thanks,

Rob

 

[RobE]

1) What would the world be like if Adam had not sinned?
Phil: Not even God can answer that.

Answer: Animals do cruel acts without culpability. Why? No knowledge of Good and Evil.

Clete:Impossible to answer except to say that it would vastly better than it is today.

Answer to Clete: How do you know that? What is the probability(no foreknowledge) that Man would NOT have fallen? Is it close to zero in your estimation?​

2) Why didn't God guard the Tree of Life before Adam fell?
Phil: He had no reason to before the choice Adam made concerning the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Because he create Adam with a capacity to choose and didn’t then remove all choices that put himself at risk.

Answer: God knew Adam wouldn't eat of it.

Clete:How do you know He didn't?
It is my belief that Lucifer tempted Adam and thus fell himself. When we want to go and discover any information at all about when sin entered into the universe, the only place we have to go is Genesis chapter 3. If Lucifer hadn't yet fallen it would explain his access to God's perfect garden.

Answer to Clete: Because Adam didn't live forever.​

3) Why does God allow the rape and murder of children when He could stop it?
Phil: The trees are not the only choices in the universe. That’s the question Open Theism is asking you to answer.

Answer: God allows men free will. Whether He foresees(c.v.) that outcome or discovers it(o.v.) He has no culpability.

Clete:Why does God allow the human race to exist when He could wipe out the whole thing? Mercy. That is the only answer. If God wanted to stop all the evil in the world He would have to end the world, which He will do in time, of course, but mercy stays His hand for the time being.

Answer to Clete: Why wouldn't this be a reason to start creation even if He foreknew man would fall?​

4) Why would God's culpability be changed by 'when' He foreknew the outcome?
Phil: I have said that is a good question that deserves an answer. I’m not sure the OTV has answered it satisfactorily for either of us. I’m open to your answer. If the answer is simply that it does not, why not.

Answer: It doesn't because #1 He's God. #2 is intent. His reason to create us to begin with is unknown; however, God so loved the world that He....... Why did He continue even knowing of the fall? You, Me, Peter, The Wheat despite the weeds.

Clete:Because if a decision is known it has been made. If a decision is made before I make it then I didn't make it. If God punishes me for a decision I did not make then God is unjust.

Response to Clete: Knowledge is not a cause!​

5) How can a prediction not come true. If it didn't happen then I didn't predict it.
Phil: I’m not sure I even grasp the meaning or relevance of this question or comment.

Answer: Prediction, foretelling, prophecy, etc....are all forms of foreknowledge and mean essentially the same thing. For Open Theism to say God can accurately predict some things is a logical fallacy. A prediction MUST come true in order to be a prediction; otherwise, it's a guess.

Clete:In a manner of speaking this is true but words have a range of meaning and this takes the word predict in a too woodenly literal way. The weather man makes predictions about the weather every day, some times he's right and some times he's not. If you want to insist that he didn't predict it when he got it wrong then I suppose you could but it would be missing the point and I believe intentionally so.

Answer to Clete: If God doesn't predict it did God get it wrong in your opinion? The weather man attempts to make predictions, which sometimes he predicts and sometimes not.​

6) Can you be held accountable for an evil act unless you know the difference between good and evil?
Phil: Have an apple.

Answer: Again, Open Theism's insistence that Adam could not have eaten even though the Tree, Satan, Adam, Serpent were present at just the right moment with Our Lord watching(omnipresence). The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Did God make Adam sin? No. Have an apple.

Clete:Our God is a just God. This is a primary pillar and premise of open theism.

Response to Clete: I'm not sure you answered this. My answer: Animals do cruel acts without culpability. Why? No knowledge of Good and Evil. Therefore, knowledge of Good and Evil is the difference between you and an animal which just acts on their own natural impulse. Genesis 3:22. Have an apple.​

The Cure is more powerful than the disease,

Rob

 

[hermes]

The Lord does whatever pleases Him including giving significant freedom to others allowing Himself to be affected by them (including not always getting His way in every detail). God's purposes will stand in the end. He can intervene when He wants, but this does not mean He always intervenes (e.g. fall of Lucifer and Adam; Hitler; etc.). His project will be brought to completion, but not without warfare and loss along the way, especially in individual lives who reject His purposes for themselves (Lk. 7:30).

Just because the Lord decrees somethings, does not mean He decrees all things (unless you want to make Him responsible for heinous evil).

Is. 46 shows one motif that God is able to bring about His purposes by His ability. This refers to specific things in this context. It cannot be extrapolated as a proof text that God micromanages every thing. Surely I have the freedom to eat toast or cereal without God decreeing it trillions of years ago.

My intentions may change during the day. Other factors may derail my plans. This is no different than we see of God's interaction with man. The other motif in Scripture is that there are other free agents, there are contingencies, God changes His mind at times, etc.

Godrulz, you didn't do your assignment. You just made some uninformed assertions. So do your assignment.

 

[RobE]

Rob,

Don't you get it? The Tree of Knowledge being IN the garden is proof of free will not evidence against it. It is the choice that God gave to Adam and Eve. How much meaning would there have been for Adam and Eve never to have sinned if there was never the option to sin? It would have been a hollow and meaningless "devotion" to God. As I've said a thousand times before love is a choice and without options choice is impossible. God put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden because He loved them and He wanted Adam and Eve to really love Him back.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Agreed. How many times do I have to tell you that I believe free will exists. What I'm not getting is how the environment was conducive to Open Theism's alternate Adam Theory?

Rob

 

[Clete]

Agreed. How many times do I have to tell you that I believe free will exists. What I'm not getting is how the environment was conducive to Open Theism's alternate Adam Theory?

Rob

How can you hold to free will if you believe that "the possibility of Adam not sinning is the same as me becoming a fish overnight."

And what alternate Adam theory?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[RobE]

How can you hold to free will if you believe that "the possibility of Adam not sinning is the same as me becoming a fish overnight."

And what alternate Adam theory?

Resting in Him,
Clete

The theory where Adam would have saved himself, from himself. The possibility of Adam not sinning was remote, at best. Given that situation we have to ask ourselves---why did God set things up the way He did?

Which would lead straight into the alternate Adam theory of Open Theism.

Friends,
Rob

 

[seekinganswers]

Oh yes you did!

Clete, when I denied that time slowed down, I was denying your explanation of time-dilation. No where in my posts have I ever deny that time-dilation is a real affect. I have just been appalled by your very wild treatment of it, because you are not being careful with your language.

This is flat out wrong and you have now admitted it.

My statement still holds, Clete. Time dilation is not a slowing down of time.

You then in the very next sentence deny that these effects are real...

Yes, because I explain it keeping in mind the very premise of the Theories of Relativity (especially Einstein's second postulate for the Special Theory of Relativity). If the laws of physics hold true within any given inertial frame that is not being accelerated with respect to itself, then time cannot slow down. This also means that when a ray of light travels through space, it continues in it's path as a ray. The laws of momentum state that something with momentum will preserve that momentum (momentum is conserved) unless acted upon by another force. Since gravity is not a force, the light remains a ray; it is not truly "bent" by gravity.

Yes it is time based you silly goof! How do you think that those effects found with the GPS satellites that you're so fond of are accounted for if not by adjusting the clocks? Is there some top secret gravity adjustment that Nasa and the military make to figure out the true position of the satellites? NO! They just bumb the clock up a hundreth of a nanosecond or so and everything comes out right. That sounds like a time based solution to a time based problem to me! :duh:

They don't adjust the clocks!!!! They compensate using Einstein's equations that take into account gravity and acceleration!!!!!!! And then they find there is no discrepency!!!! Why, you ask? Because that is the nature of gravitation and acceleration. If we are not within the influence of an inertial frame than we must compensate for that if we are to rightly observe what is occuring within that inertial frame. We don't have the right eyes to see what is happening!!! It's kind of like what happens when our brain tries to interpret light passing through the surface of water. We have to adjust ourselves to the difference caused by refraction. The refraction is a "real" affect, but does not change the way in which we catch the fish that we see below the surface of the water. So though what we are seeing is real, how we respond to that is very different.

Don't you get it? None of this matters! The fact is that according to Relatively the two people in Bob's experiment would not be experiencing time the same way. It doesn't matter if it feels to them like time is any different, the point is that it is different RELATIVE to the other guy. Relativity really does predict that the guy at the top of the mountain would be getting further and further ahead of the guy at the base because relative to him, the guy at the base of the mountain is moving through time more slowly.
Now if you want to say that this is happening because of the increased gravity field and that it is therefore a gravity based situation then I'll agree with you there but that doesn't change the fact that (according to the therory) one is going through time at a different rate than the other guy is (even though neither can tell from within their own frame of reference that anything has changed).

No, you fool, who listens to another fool, one who knows next to nothing about Einstein's Theories of Relativity, and admits as much!!! One does not progress ahead of the other through time. If Bob's statements were acurate, than Einstein's Theories of relativity would predict a break in time. So if one returns from another inertial frame, one must "catch up" to the present frame or else we risk a temporal paradox. This never happens. One still progresses through time in a continuous fashion in any inertial frame (because time remains continuous). There are no jumps in time (unless you go beyond Einstein and predict a Black Hole that is so powerful it can rip through space). There is no true time travel (because it calls for a break in the fabric of space/time and jumps to another point in that fabric not in continuity with the contours of space/time). For Einstein's relativistic affects, the one who ages before the eyes of the other can still be observed by the other. The one who accelerates to nearly the speed of light, can watch every moment of those that were left behind on earth and can see time progress continuously, and thus normally (even if it seems that it is progressing very quickly for those who are on earth [it really isn't]), but they see every moment in between. They aren't skipping over stuff. And the one who remains on earth will see the person at near light speeds go through every moment (it just seems time is progressing really slowly for them, it isn't) They can both perform experiments testing the progression of time (half-lives of subatomic particles are a good test) and they will both obtain the same results, even though from the perspective of the other it would seem those results would conflict and be quite impossible. A muon within the relativistic inertial frame of nearly the spead of light will have the same half life within that frame as the one that is within the inertial frame of earth, even though it does not seem that it could.

Relativity only predicts that to properly observe a different inertial frame, one must take into account the acceleration of that frame to get true results for it. Think of it this way: if a ball is dropped by a person moving in a train car, they see the ball fall from their hand to the floor of the car. The person from outside the train (who is standing still with reference to the train) can see the ball fall along a curve from the hand to the floor, and sees the ball travel a greater distance than the one within the train sees. Let's take this even further. If there is an observer standing still with reference to the earth, they see the experiment and witness the ball traveling a few hundred miles within the time frame of the experiment. And if we go even further to an observer standing still with reference to the sun, that one will witness the ball travel thousands of miles within the time frame. And there are an infinite number of possible frames from which to observe the experiement, which will all yield different results. Does this mean that any one experiment has an infinite number of solutions? No!! It only means that one must stay within the frame to get proper results, and if one is outside of the frame, they must compensate for that difference to get accurate results.

Stop getting advice from Bob. He's really not the one to go to for understanding the nature of physics (because he really doesn't know his stuff).

Peace,
Michael

 

[seekinganswers]

Oh yes you did!

Clete, when I denied that time slowed down, I was denying your explanation of time-dilation. No where in my posts have I ever deny that time-dilation is a real affect. I have just been appalled by your very wild treatment of it, because you are not being careful with your language.

This is flat out wrong and you have now admitted it.

My statement still holds, Clete. Time dilation is not a slowing down of time.

You then in the very next sentence deny that these effects are real...

Yes, because I explain it keeping in mind the very premise of the Theories of Relativity (especially Einstein's second postulate for the Special Theory of Relativity). If the laws of physics hold true within any given inertial frame that is not being accelerated with respect to itself, then time cannot slow down. This also means that when a ray of light travels through space, it continues in it's path as a ray. The laws of momentum state that something with momentum will preserve that momentum (momentum is conserved) unless acted upon by another force. Since gravity is not a force, the light remains a ray; it is not truly "bent" by gravity.

Yes it is time based you silly goof! How do you think that those effects found with the GPS satellites that you're so fond of are accounted for if not by adjusting the clocks? Is there some top secret gravity adjustment that Nasa and the military make to figure out the true position of the satellites? NO! They just bumb the clock up a hundreth of a nanosecond or so and everything comes out right. That sounds like a time based solution to a time based problem to me! :duh:

They don't adjust the clocks!!!! They compensate using Einstein's equations that take into account gravity and acceleration!!!!!!! And then they find there is no discrepency!!!! Why, you ask? Because that is the nature of gravitation and acceleration. If we are not within the influence of an inertial frame than we must compensate for that if we are to rightly observe what is occuring within that inertial frame. We don't have the right eyes to see what is happening!!! It's kind of like what happens when our brain tries to interpret light passing through the surface of water. We have to adjust ourselves to the difference caused by refraction. The refraction is a "real" affect, but does not change the way in which we catch the fish that we see below the surface of the water. So though what we are seeing is real, how we respond to that is very different.

Don't you get it? None of this matters! The fact is that according to Relatively the two people in Bob's experiment would not be experiencing time the same way. It doesn't matter if it feels to them like time is any different, the point is that it is different RELATIVE to the other guy. Relativity really does predict that the guy at the top of the mountain would be getting further and further ahead of the guy at the base because relative to him, the guy at the base of the mountain is moving through time more slowly.
Now if you want to say that this is happening because of the increased gravity field and that it is therefore a gravity based situation then I'll agree with you there but that doesn't change the fact that (according to the therory) one is going through time at a different rate than the other guy is (even though neither can tell from within their own frame of reference that anything has changed).

No, you fool, who listens to another fool, one who knows next to nothing about Einstein's Theories of Relativity, and admits as much!!! One does not progress ahead of the other through time. If Bob's statements were acurate, than Einstein's Theories of relativity would predict a break in time. So if one returns from another inertial frame, one must "catch up" to the present frame or else we risk a temporal paradox. This never happens. One still progresses through time in a continuous fashion in any inertial frame (because time remains continuous). There are no jumps in time (unless you go beyond Einstein and predict a Black Hole that is so powerful it can rip through space). There is no true time travel (because it calls for a break in the fabric of space/time and jumps to another point in that fabric not in continuity with the contours of space/time). For Einstein's relativistic affects, the one who ages before the eyes of the other can still be observed by the other. The one who accelerates to nearly the speed of light, can watch every moment of those that were left behind on earth and can see time progress continuously, and thus normally (even if it seems that it is progressing very quickly for those who are on earth [it really isn't]), but they see every moment in between. They aren't skipping over stuff. And the one who remains on earth will see the person at near light speeds go through every moment (it just seems time is progressing really slowly for them, it isn't) They can both perform experiments testing the progression of time (half-lives of subatomic particles are a good test) and they will both obtain the same results, even though from the perspective of the other it would seem those results would conflict and be quite impossible. A muon within the relativistic inertial frame of nearly the spead of light will have the same half life within that frame as the one that is within the inertial frame of earth, even though it does not seem that it could.

Relativity only predicts that to properly observe a different inertial frame, one must take into account the acceleration of that frame to get true results for it. Think of it this way: if a ball is dropped by a person moving in a train car, they see the ball fall from their hand to the floor of the car. The person from outside the train (who is standing still with reference to the train) can see the ball fall along a curve from the hand to the floor, and sees the ball travel a greater distance than the one within the train sees. Let's take this even further. If there is an observer standing still with reference to the earth, they see the experiment and witness the ball traveling a few hundred miles within the time frame of the experiment. And if we go even further to an observer standing still with reference to the sun, that one will witness the ball travel thousands of miles within the time frame. And there are an infinite number of possible frames from which to observe the experiement, which will all yield different results. Does this mean that any one experiment has an infinite number of solutions? No!! It only means that one must stay within the frame to get proper results, and if one is outside of the frame, they must compensate for that difference to get accurate results.

Stop getting advice from Bob. He's really not the one to go to for understanding the nature of physics (because he really doesn't know his stuff).

Peace,
Michael