ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[ApologeticJedi]

It does unless your contention is Judas could save himself.

No ... Jesus could have saved Judas. Jesus was willing to save Judas. As you admitted yourself - God desires all men to come to him - including Judas. That all men do not, is due to human free will (even you have admitted that). If I’m wrong point that out to me. Even if you are just changing your argument, I don’t mind, but if you do, please set me straight on which parts changed and which still hold true.

Perhaps you should consider the line of thinking which would occur if God knew, based on perfect present knowledge, what would happen in all of creation during the next nanosecond.

Do you mean consider how it relates to the open view?

I’d suggest that the closer to current times the more accurate God’s predictions could get. However every nanosecond between now and the event could see more and more complete randomness or unpredictable acts. The further out the prediction gets, the more God must weed His guesses through the myriad range of human choices. In the God does not worry about whether or not he has to resend a prophecy but acts rightly always. Love is more important that prophecy - per the Scriptures.

Sure you are. If God doesn't make the Universe's best guess in all situations then a man might; where God failed. This might occur accidentally as an outcome of blind luck; but you are unable to deny that this is one possibility.

That’s not what you asked RobE.

You said which one had the “best guess” and then you defined it. And your definition was …. “The more information the better the guess.” (post # 6111). Those are YOUR words..

Why are you trying to be deceptive? If that is your definition (and for once you were using the correct definition), of course, no one is arguing that man’s guesses are better. Now you are saying “blind luck”, which would indicate less information – which didn’t even fit your original supposition. :bang: Do you not have it in you to be consistent -- or is this on purpose?

You are dancing from one stance to another, less interested in truth than in saving face somehow. I realize you had hoped to try and twist my words, but unfortunately I was a bit too wiry for you this time. I’ve caught you yet again switching back and forth from one definition to another. Hopefully we can continue with more honesty from each other.

If you wish to base your theology on a science created by men then you might want to review a few scientific theories from the past which didn't turn out that well(i.e. spontaneous generation which was debated for over 100 years). Quantum mechanics isn't defined enough to prove anything.

For someone who's entire argument is based on Newtonian physics that's a bit hypocritical.

And just like the earth was never truly a sphere, it was a great scientific leap over the classical view to call it one. Likewise, quantum mechanics has been a giant leap over the common view of the atom (comparing the charge cloud model with the Rutherford or even Bohr model).

One can't live in the 1920s forever. Once again I search for the truth, and do not readily deny the works of Plank and Heisenberg and the improvement on the model of the atom that they gave to us. I desire the truth, not convenience. And Quantum physics even in it's well formed state is coming up on about 100 years old.

 

[godrulz]

Dispite how incoherent you imagine it: future visions refute God locked into progression. Even "Before Abraham was, I AM" is a statement that refutes a progressive sequence constraint. Even if I do not understand it completely (not being a line, but a segment/ray and only able to comprehend what I experience and can rationalize) it is very clear in scripture that no such constraint exists for God. He is relational to, but not constrained by sequence. That is very clear from scripture to me.

Jn. 8:58 is an affirmation of Christ's preexistence and Deity, which we both accept. It does not resolve timelessness vs endless time issues (you are reading a preconceived idea back into it). We both agree that Jesus is eternal, uncreated with no beginning or end. We disagree as to whether He experiences sequence or simultaneity, neither of which compromises His Jehovahistic identity as I AM, Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End, First and Last, the eternal One. Eternal does not have to mean timelessness, but can mean endless time/duration. The latter is more biblically and philosophically coherent in my mind.

 

[Lon]

Unbelievable!!! This is how the settled view responds?

Shall we bet on it? I'll mail you my mathematics degree if I'm wrong. But let's say that if you are wrong, you reimburse me the amount of money it takes to get that degree (I'm willing to let you pick any university's tuition you want that offers a master's level mathematics degree -- just because I was foolish enough to attend somewhere perhaps more expensive shouldn't be your problem.) How does that sound?

I taught algebra. To do so I have to have 1) the education to back it 2) the demonstrable resources to do so.

A line always crosses at least one point or it isn't a line. A number line is a line.
What I'm saying is that God has no point of reference for your time consideration. If that doesn't make sense, I'd encourage you to get a refund on your college costs. Sue if necessary.

Lon, you said that something that has no beginning or end cannot have a sequence. You were proven wrong. A real number set
a) has no beginning (it is a line, and by definition has no beginning).
b) has no end (again, as a line, it has no end).
c) yet still has sequence (using a point of origin we can measure anything on that line - something not possible unless it had sequence).

I'm not trying to be tricky. This is basic math Lon.

I did not, I said it isn't constrained by that sequence. Time is wholly subjective to us alone. We are the finite creatures experiencing forward sequence because we are 'rays.' You are trying to make God a segment or ray as well, and I'm saying He is not. There is no point to start the clock for God.

So now you are changing your argument to say that a person that doesn't have a beginning or ending can't have sequence (earlier you were saying it was Time that had this limitation)... very well then.

Since we know that other things that have no beginning or end (real numbers) have sequence, by what justification are you saying that something else couldn't have that property?

I'm using scripture to show God isn't constrained.

So now God can’t even make a vision where people speak? Your great proof that the Book of the Apocalypse is not a vision is that people spoke in it?

Your arguments are getting worse, not better.

How do any of those speak of God outside of time? I mean, if taken woodly literal, none of these speak of God as being outside of time. Not one. You’d have to read something into these passage to get that God is outside of time. No one has to read something into “God waits” to get that God is inside of time.

Get your money back! Revelation is a travel into the future no matter how you slice it and you know it. The obfuscation is ridiculous. John talked with somebody and that person was not in his present. They were future events and he saw them. How in the world can you not see that so clearly? Get your money back!
A thousand years is as a day? What in the world is going through your mind???
Seriously, you aren't taking that at face value, you are saying it is a figure of speech. It you take it literally as I do, it describes exactly what I've been saying.

300 years from now a young king named Josiah will be born and he will destroy the prophets of Baal. Wow! Is that a great guess or what? Or let's talk about invasive determinism, which I am not opposed to, but it makes you much more Calvinistic than you'd like to be for comfort (ultimately and necessarily agreeing with me) that God determines future paths of man and little LFW left for consideration. I believe EDF actually preserves man's will and accountability, not eradicates it.

Come now, let us reason together.

 

[Lon]

Jn. 8:58 is an affirmation of Christ's preexistence and Deity, which we both accept. It does not resolve timelessness vs endless time issues (you are reading a preconceived idea back into it). We both agree that Jesus is eternal, uncreated with no beginning or end. We disagree as to whether He experiences sequence or simultaneity, neither of which compromises His Jehovahistic identity as I AM, Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End, First and Last, the eternal One. Eternal does not have to mean timelessness, but can mean endless time/duration. The latter is more biblically and philosophically coherent in my mind.

Thank you, I appreciate that for its concessions, and of course I see the former as more biblically and philosophically true. Jesus could have used the Hebrew name for I AM at that point in the conversation and they'd still have taken up stones to kill Him, but I believe the Greek use of the term is dually significant regardless of logical conundrums. Jesus speaks truth. I believe it must signify a lack of time constraint in the specific way it is said, but I appreciate your thoughtful argument against it. And thank you for not calling it scifi star trek convention belief. I see this strongly from scripture and any coincidence is just that.

 

[lee_merrill]

Seems rather unlikely that not one Jewish believer would exist. I think it is a fairly safe bet, that even a man could make and have a fairly easily probability of success.

However, the problem as always is if God says this is sure, and knows that it's not.

If you mean that there is a possibility that God could be disappointed, then we both agree on that, and only need to look to scriptures where God predicted Judah or Israel would repent, and yet they did not, to see other examples where God's predictions go awry.

And no, I do not agree that God could be disappointed...

Deuteronomy 18:22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Time travel is Star Trekkish. Even sci fi does not try to argue for incoherent:shut: 'eternal now' simultaneity like traditional theology does.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I taught algebra. To do so I have to have 1) the education to back it 2) the demonstrable resources to do so.

I’m having a hard time believing you taught algebra and you think a real number line would have a beginning point.
I’ll remind you again…..

“On your numberline analogy, there is [emphasis = yours] a beginning point, and I'll leave it up to you to figure that out (but don't hesitate to ask if you need help).”​

What were you thinking when you said that? You said not to hesitant if I need help. So what did you think was the beginning point on the real number line? (I know that you've changed arguments a bit; but I'm curious what you were thinking originally --- you were so adamant that a number line had an endpoint.)

A line always crosses at least one point or it isn't a line. A number line is a line. What I'm saying is that God has no point of reference for your time consideration. If that doesn't make sense, I'd encourage you to get a refund on your college costs. Sue if necessary.

A line crosses all points on at least one axis. A timeline fits this by covering all the points of time throughout.

Often we give to lines points of origin for measurement. So is a timeline. It is given a point of origin whenever we speak about it. We can alter or randomly pick our point of origin on a line, and so do we also variously pick our point of origin on a timeline. It varies where we set the point of origin depending on what we are measuring. Examples include the traditional year of Christ’s birth (where AD and BC are measured), midnight of a particular day (as a clock might measure), or even just looking at the present as the point origin and calculating backwards as the past and forward as the future.

Now you are trying to say that God doesn’t have a point of reference on the time line. I assume by “point of reference” you mean “point of origin” (I would think an Algebra teacher would know that, but hey, maybe it’s a regional thing like “rock, paper scissors” being called “roshanbo”). However unless you are begging the question and starting with the assumption that God is outside of time, God could make any significant point in His existence a point of origin and construct his timeline backwards or forwards just as we do. And no, our existence would not be a “point” on the timeline, but a line segment. God’s existence would be the entirety of the timeline itself --- thus it is His attribute.

I'm using scripture to show God isn't constrained.

I’m just pointing out that you are continually changing your argument --- perhaps not so coincidentally every time a strong argument is made against what you originally said.

Get your money back! Revelation is a travel into the future no matter how you slice it and you know it. The obfuscation is ridiculous.

If I obfuscated, please tell me how. The book of the Apocalypse is not definitively a travel into the future. That’s your own position being put into it. All we do know is that it was a vision given by God. Did Peter really see a blanket come down from heaven, or was that not a vision put into His head?

If it so obvious you should have had no problem providing proof rather than just stating your original position more loudly.

A thousand years is as a day? What in the world is going through your mind??? Seriously, you aren't taking that at face value, you are saying it is a figure of speech.

Firstly, what is going through my mind is to try to use a verse that clearly speaks of “days” and “years" and claim that it says God is outside of time is a bit laughable a priori.

Do I take it as a figure of speech to mean that God is not as impatient as we are? Sure. But even if taken woodenly literal, it would mean that God’s existence is measured in thousands of years where as ours is in days. In what reality do you live in where “years” is outside of time? Of course you have added something into this verse to try to get God outside of time, you just don't want to recognize that you did so.

300 years from now a young king named Josiah will be born and he will destroy the prophets of Baal. Wow! Is that a great guess or what?

Oddly enough God is very persuasive when it comes to naming people as John the Baptist’s father found out. Isn’t it a weird picture for the settled view to claim God knows the future, but then has to send angels to Mary and Zacharias to force the situation to happen? What it tells us is that God takes a hand to get people named as He desires from time to time. If God had future knowledge, He wouldn’t be seen needing to do these things.

Or let's talk about invasive determinism, which I am not opposed to…

God was fairly persuasive with Zachariah, there is no doubting that. However, there was not necessarily a suspension of free will that I see. Perhaps one could try somehow to make the argument of manipulation, but I do not see free will suspension necessary.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

However, the problem as always is if God says this is sure, and knows that it's not.

God also spoke of it assuredly that He would not lead Israel through the wilderness. You are trying to conjurer up an argument from silence, but I don't think it will get you anywhere.

Deuteronomy 18:22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.

And yet we see examples of this where God really did speak the message (Samuel told Hezekiah that he would die, but then amended the message that He would add years to his lifespan.) If there is change in God's prophecy, I'm confident He'll amend it.

 

[Lon]

I’m having a hard time believing you taught algebra and you think a real number line would have a beginning point.
I’ll remind you again…..

“On your numberline analogy, there is [emphasis = yours] a beginning point, and I'll leave it up to you to figure that out (but don't hesitate to ask if you need help).”​

I'll say it again, you have to plot at least one point to make a line. This is bi-directional in contemplation but God exceeds that. First of all, you'd have to prove progression before creation and you cannot. Second, God (Almighty) can do anything and jumping past time hoops is not only possible, it is logically necessary for concession. This doesn't mean He has to, but you cannot cannot will not logically be able to constrain God to time by logic itself. Logic tells you He is beyond time constraints if He can change any past event without us even realizing it (and certainly He can, you cannot deny this at all and I can prove the point beyond any reasonable doubt). Even if God subjects willing to a time continum, He is not limited to a time continum by logical default.

What were you thinking when you said that? You said not to hesitant if I need help. So what did you think was the beginning point on the real number line? (I know that you've changed arguments a bit; but I'm curious what you were thinking originally --- you were so adamant that a number line had an endpoint.)

Again, to recognize a line, you have to plot at least one point, and know the angle, or two points, don't you agree? We both recognize that a number line is without limit and 'linear.' I don't see God as 2D according to time as we are.

A line crosses all points on at least one axis. A timeline fits this by covering all the points of time throughout.

Often we give to lines points of origin for measurement. So is a timeline. It is given a point of origin whenever we speak about it. We can alter or randomly pick our point of origin on a line, and so do we also variously pick our point of origin on a timeline. It varies where we set the point of origin depending on what we are measuring. Examples include the traditional year of Christ’s birth (where AD and BC are measured), midnight of a particular day (as a clock might measure), or even just looking at the present as the point origin and calculating backwards as the past and forward as the future.

But that places God in our parameter, not recognizing His own. I believe scripture clearly points to God being unconstrained to our time-line and also believe it is logically necessary as well.

Now you are trying to say that God doesn’t have a point of reference on the time line. I assume by “point of reference” you mean “point of origin” (I would think an Algebra teacher would know that, but hey, maybe it’s a regional thing like “rock, paper scissors” being called “roshanbo”). However unless you are begging the question and starting with the assumption that God is outside of time, God could make any significant point in His existence a point of origin and construct his timeline backwards or forwards just as we do. And no, our existence would not be a “point” on the timeline, but a line segment. God’s existence would be the entirety of the timeline itself --- thus it is His attribute.

I agree with the math, I disagree with us being able to reference a point. I believe God relational to our timeline, but not constrained by it in anyway.

I’m just pointing out that you are continually changing your argument --- perhaps not so coincidentally every time a strong argument is made against what you originally said.

I've stayed consistent, perhaps not in explanation, but I haven't changed my position purposefully at all.

If I obfuscated, please tell me how. The book of the Apocalypse is not definitively a travel into the future. That’s your own position being put into it. All we do know is that it was a vision given by God. Did Peter really see a blanket come down from heaven, or was that not a vision put into His head?

If it so obvious you should have had no problem providing proof rather than just stating your original position more loudly.

Peter saw a vision. It was a blanket with food and we are told quite plainly the vision was symbolic of gentiles. No such symbolism is express in Revelation.
How come you are not recognizing the difference here? I believe John literally talked with an elder because that is what the text says he did. Correct me if I am wrong, but be very clear and convincing for we totally disagree.

Firstly, what is going through my mind is to try to use a verse that clearly speaks of “days” and “years" and claim that it says God is outside of time is a bit laughable a priori.

Do I take it as a figure of speech to mean that God is not as impatient as we are? Sure. But even if taken woodenly literal, it would mean that God’s existence is measured in thousands of years where as ours is in days. In what reality do you live in where “years” is outside of time? Of course you have added something into this verse to try to get God outside of time, you just don't want to recognize that you did so.

The reality that yesterday for me wasn't a thousand years. What reality are you living in? This shows unequivocally that God isn't constrained by our time-line and it is nonlimiting to Him. As I said before, logically, God is not constrained by time.

Oddly enough God is very persuasive when it comes to naming people as John the Baptist’s father found out. Isn’t it a weird picture for the settled view to claim God knows the future, but then has to send angels to Mary and Zacharias to force the situation to happen? What it tells us is that God takes a hand to get people named as He desires from time to time. If God had future knowledge, He wouldn’t be seen needing to do these things.

With John, we are told how God accomplished what He desired. With Manasseh and his grandson Josiah we see no such thing and we see no indication God needed to intervene at all. He foreknew. Foreknowledge isn't determinism and it isn't a guess, it is a Divine attribute we do not possess.

God was fairly persuasive with Zachariah, there is no doubting that. However, there was not necessarily a suspension of free will that I see. Perhaps one could try somehow to make the argument of manipulation, but I do not see free will suspension necessary.

I don't agree. If man can infringe upon another free-will, God certainly can and also does. He has every right as Creator to interfere as He sees fit.Rom 9:18-29

 

[RobE]

Secondly if we were to look at Christ “giving up” on Judas, we have nothing to suggest that this ever occurs. In fact, we see quite often in the Bible that God never gives up on people, but all we would have to your viewpoint is your supposition that it occurs. I see you have provided no evidence or facts to back up this supposition. Why should one go that far outside of scripture and evidence?

John 17

1After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

6"I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. 13"I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.

20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. 25"Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."

Except His prayer. Does this answer your post?

Based on Jesus words, even including the ones you've underlined, I feel Judas was not one of the one Jesus was mentioning about "keeping them". After all, he later says "none were lost - save him".

Which is exactly my point. It renders your following statement false.

Secondly if we were to look at Christ “giving up” on Judas, we have nothing to suggest that this ever occurs. In fact, we see quite often in the Bible that God never gives up on people, but all we would have to your viewpoint is your supposition that it occurs. I see you have provided no evidence or facts to back up this supposition. Why should one go that far outside of scripture and evidence?

No, RobE it doesn't. There is no evidence that Christ had given up on Judas just because He didn't save him. Those are disjointed ideas. It is still a statement by you without any evidence.

It does unless your contention is Judas could save himself.

No ... Jesus could have saved Judas. Jesus was willing to save Judas. As you admitted yourself - God desires all men to come to him - including Judas. That all men do not, is due to human free will (even you have admitted that).

Well it seems to me that we are able to deduce that either:

1. Jesus foreknew Judas' outcome because He caused it.
....Jesus witheld protection('keep them safe') from Judas which caused it.

6"I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world.
9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.
12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
​

2. Jesus foreknew Judas' would reject God's grace through Judas' own free actions.

The first expresses Calvinism and the second destroys libertarian free will as you define it.

If I’m wrong point that out to me. Even if you are just changing your argument, I don’t mind, but if you do, please set me straight on which parts changed and which still hold true.

As a matter of discussion we might consider both your point of view and mine. I'm not changing my argument. It remains: Jesus foreknew Judas' actions and Judas remained free to commit them.

My question towards your argument is: If Jesus had not given up on Judas Iscariot then WHY did Jesus not pray for Judas Iscariot? WHY did Jesus pray for the continuing protection of the other disciples with the exclusion of Judas Iscariot?

John 6:70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)​

HOW did Jesus foretell of Judas' future free disposition?

 

[RobE]

Do you mean consider how it relates to the open view?

I’d suggest that the closer to current times the more accurate God’s predictions could get. However every nanosecond between now and the event could see more and more complete randomness or unpredictable acts. The further out the prediction gets, the more God must weed His guesses through the myriad range of human choices. In the God does not worry about whether or not he has to resend a prophecy but acts rightly always. Love is more important that prophecy - per the Scriptures.

That’s not what you asked RobE.

You said which one had the “best guess” and then you defined it. And your definition was …. “The more information the better the guess.” (post # 6111). Those are YOUR words..

Why are you trying to be deceptive? If that is your definition (and for once you were using the correct definition), of course, no one is arguing that man’s guesses are better. Now you are saying “blind luck”, which would indicate less information – which didn’t even fit your original supposition. :bang: Do you not have it in you to be consistent -- or is this on purpose?

I think maybe short memories might be a problem as we continue. Post #6039....

So like a “lucky guess” might be better than an educated and informed one in your new usage of the phrase “best guess”? If I understand correctly, even if all the evidence points away from what you guess, while I would call it a "silly guess", if it happens to be right, then you would say it was a "best guess".

So which do you think God is doing? Making informed guesses? Or is He just lucky? I think that God is making informed guesses. You seem to be flip-flopping on that point.

You are dancing from one stance to another, less interested in truth than in saving face somehow. I realize you had hoped to try and twist my words, but unfortunately I was a bit too wiry for you this time. I’ve caught you yet again switching back and forth from one definition to another. Hopefully we can continue with more honesty from each other.

I've explained this to you many times and yet you seem to be able to blindly continue to ignore the point.

If one guess is wrong and the other is correct which guess is better? IF a clinical idiot makes the correct guess and God makes the wrong guess, then did God make the 'Universe's best guess'; or, was He shown up by the clinical idiot despite God having all knowledge and the idiot having no knowledge?

What is so hard about understanding the underlying question in these ideas?

For someone who's entire argument is based on Newtonian physics that's a bit hypocritical.

And just like the earth was never truly a sphere, it was a great scientific leap over the classical view to call it one. Likewise, quantum mechanics has been a giant leap over the common view of the atom (comparing the charge cloud model with the Rutherford or even Bohr model).

One can't live in the 1920s forever. Once again I search for the truth, and do not readily deny the works of Plank and Heisenberg and the improvement on the model of the atom that they gave to us. I desire the truth, not convenience. And Quantum physics even in it's well formed state is coming up on about 100 years old.

If I remember correctly Pasteur finally disproved 'spontaneous generation' after science had debated it for well over 100 years. The problem with quantum physics is that many scientists argue that there are other unknown determining factors present. Antibiotics were unknown just 85 years ago. We take them for granted now. 100 years is nothing. Let's give quantum physics a few hundred more years before we start proclaiming it as truth.

 

[RobE]

Originally Posted by RobE
Perhaps you should consider the line of thinking which would occur if God knew, based on perfect present knowledge, what would happen in all of creation during the next nanosecond.

Do you mean consider how it relates to the open view?

I’d suggest that the closer to current times the more accurate God’s predictions could get. However every nanosecond between now and the event could see more and more complete randomness or unpredictable acts. The further out the prediction gets, the more God must weed His guesses through the myriad range of human choices. In the God does not worry about whether or not he has to resend a prophecy but acts rightly always. Love is more important that prophecy - per the Scriptures.

It seems that if God is able to perfectly guess the next instant; then with a perfect view of the next instant He would be able to perfectly guess the next, and so on.

So each succeeding event would be almost as likely to be guessed as the first. In other words if the next instant is infinitely probable because all available knowledge is present, then each succeeding instant would remain infinitely probable(-1) as well. It would take an infinite series of events to destabilize or make the following instant become less probable.

Now if we consider an entity who is able to 'reset' or re-establish all variables in the equation any time He wishes to, then there is no reason to conclude that even if free agents are existent(which I believe); that any act would be outside of His knowledge(especially within a short time period such as 30,000 years).

So, if I were to accept your idea that God does NOT exist without time constraints; then I would still reject the idea that God doesn't know what you'll do in the next five minutes. In fact I would find it silly to do so. A being who could know the outcomes of every atom in the universe and how to assemble the fabric of all creation isn't as obtuse as this view would make Him.

My conclusion would be that even if God was limited by time, that at any point He would have the inability to foresee all events unfolding in eternity(as you claim), but would have more than enough ability to foresee events which unfold in a short period of time such as let's say 5 million years (which is a relatively short amount of time within infinity).

 

[lee_merrill]

God also spoke of it assuredly that He would not lead Israel through the wilderness.

I'm not sure which verse you are referring to, though. The problem remains, if God says "this is sure," knowing it's not. You did not address the difficulty here.

And yet we see examples of this where God really did speak the message (Samuel told Hezekiah that he would die, but then amended the message that He would add years to his lifespan.)

Such questions I have commented on, at this page, for example...

If there is change in God's prophecy, I'm confident He'll amend it.

Confident? It is God I think--the One being confident.

Deuteronomy 18:22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[lee_merrill]

If one guess is wrong and the other is correct which guess is better? If a clinical idiot makes the correct guess and God makes the wrong guess, then did God make the 'Universe's best guess'; or, was He shown up by the clinical idiot despite God having all knowledge and the idiot having no knowledge?

As Jonah thought the Ninevites would repent, and God apparently, did not?

What is so hard about understanding the underlying question in these ideas?

The problem I would say is not so much with the question--but rather with the conclusion.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I'll say it again, you have to plot at least one point to make a line.

Say it again? Everytime you post you say something different. What you originally said was a line had a beginning point. And yes, a timeline would have points in it as I've already shown. You don't have to plot it (that's discovery), but it has to contain the points.

This is bi-directional in contemplation but God exceeds that. First of all, you'd have to prove progression before creation and you cannot.

Actually you said that time could not have existed forever because everything that has sequence has a beginning and an end point. I proved that wrong by providing real numbers.

Second, God (Almighty) can do anything and jumping past time hoops is not only possible, it is logically necessary for concession.

Then you should have no problem proving it.

This doesn't mean He has to, but you cannot cannot will not logically be able to constrain God to time by logic itself.

I never said that. Leave the strawman arguments behind. What I said was that if God is outside of time, then that tells us something about him. I tells us that he doesn't make decisions. He didn't decide His fate, or ours. There are things we can logically concluse if God were outside of time.

However there is no evidence that God is outside of time, and no verse in the Bible that you have been able to point to. So the burden of proof remains in your court as I see it.

Logic tells you He is beyond time constraints if He can change any past event without us even realizing it (and certainly He can, you cannot deny this at all and I can prove the point beyond any reasonable doubt).

I do no think He can change the past, but I am anxious to be proven wrong. Let's hear your argument.

Again, to recognize a line, you have to plot at least one point, and know the angle, or two points, don't you agree?

Relevance? Are you suggesting we don't know the points along a timeline, or along a real number line?

But that places God in our parameter, not recognizing His own. I believe scripture clearly points to God being unconstrained to our time-line and also believe it is logically necessary as well.

Scripture never points to God outside of our timeline. Perhaps you'll do better with logic?

No such symbolism is express in Revelation.

:rotfl:

So is it really a Lamb? It is really a book? Of course there are symbols in Revelation -- all over it. Notwithstanding - a vision doesn't have to have symbols either.

How come you are not recognizing the difference here? I believe John literally talked with an elder because that is what the text says he did.

People talk in visions. I'm not sure what your hanging point is here.

The reality that yesterday for me wasn't a thousand years. What reality are you living in? This shows unequivocally that God isn't constrained by our time-line and it is nonlimiting to Him. As I said before, logically, God is not constrained by time.

It literally says that God experiences years (taking it woodenly literal). There is a way to read into this verse that God is not inside of time, but it doesn't flow naturally from this verse.

Woodenly literal this verse speaks of "days" and "years" in relation to God. In what reality do you live in where "years" means outside of time? :chuckle:

Taken figurative, this means that God has a broader timetable (there's that word "time" again) than man due to the length of His existence and patience.

 

[godrulz]

John Sanders said that God does not fake history. The Bible shows God acting sequentially in history. It takes bizarre mental gymnastics to try to make timelessness, eternally knowing prayers to answer them in real time, etc., fit Scripture and common sense. God and man, together, are making history, by His free/sovereign choice. All things were not settled in advance (except what God chose to settle)

 

[lee_merrill]

It takes bizarre mental gymnastics to try to make timelessness, eternally knowing prayers to answer them in real time, etc., fit Scripture and common sense.

Well, it makes no (common) sense to say that nothing can travel faster than light. And God knowing future free requests is astonishing, but not logically contradictory.

The gymnastics come when we read that God is not wrong about the future, and then we try to find a way to deny this.

Deuteronomy 18:22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[themuzicman]

(Apparently Lee missed the parts where we repeatedly demonstrated that knowing the exact course of the future was logically incompatible with Free Will.)

Muz

 

[RobE]

(Apparently Lee missed the parts where we repeatedly demonstrated that knowing the exact course of the future was logically incompatible with Free Will.)

Muz

Perhaps you have missed my refutation of those proofs based on Modal Logic.

Perhaps you have rebutted AMR's refutation of those proofs.

Perhaps you have rebutted the scriptural proof that future free acts were foreknown.

Perhaps you have an answer as to how God knew future free acts of a remnant for Lee.

Or is it your contention that God coerced those acts; as you claim Judas Iscariot was a victim of positive reprobation(i.e. John 6:44)?

 

[themuzicman]

Perhaps you have missed my refutation of those proofs based on Modal Logic.

LOL.. you don't even understand modal logic.

Perhaps you have rebutted AMR's refutation of those proofs.

LOL... Mr. Religion? Surely you're kidding.

Perhaps you have rebutted the scriptural proof that future free acts were foreknown.

Not seen any.

Perhaps you have an answer as to how God knew future free acts of a remnant for Lee.

He didn't. This is based upon Lee's presuppositions, which are not supported in Scripture.

Or is it your contention that God coerced those acts; as you claim Judas Iscariot was a victim of positive reprobation(i.e. John 6:44)?

I think think you're just deliberately obtuse, although complete stupidity hasn't been ruled out, yet.

Muz