ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Lon]

Let's make a list of stupid Einstein things. We can get him:banned:

I guess he did not have an IQ greater than Lon's 150?

Einstein's is estimated between 160 and 180.

My score ranges between 148-151. I'm pretty well stuck in that range (quit making fun of me )

 

[Lon]

Is it lower?

Also, your IQ doesn't stop you from being a moron, or an idiot. There are plenty of people with high IQs, even higher than yours, who have believed, and done, some extraordinarily stupid things. Even Einstein is guilty of assuming too much. He thought that some things must be very complicated, and so he came up with theories to explain them. But he had no basis for the hypotheses to begin with. At least evolution had a basis. The existence of animals not found in early fossil records, the non-existence of animals that were found, etc. The theory of relativity, at least as it relates to time, had no basis. No reason to believe that time was a dimension. It was merely an assumption based on the idea that it must be complicated.

Wow, you are trying to rip apart Einstein's intellect here? Really?
I'm not even that assumptive.

I know where He heard. it says in the text, nitwit. This is your fatal flaw, Lon. You assume that we haven't done the research, without even asking.

Chuckle: "nitwit."
Your proof denies perfect present knowledge. I know OV must readily come to this as it is the only alternative. GodRulz doesn't like to admit the OV also carries compatible marks. You assess it rightly, God couldn't have perfect present knowledge in the OV but yes, I do assume you haven't researched enough yet.

Do you even know what the immediate ramifications of God not knowing if what He had heard was true are? Do you know what that means about God's relationship with His people, at that time?

Let me give you a lesson:
God's people were crying out to Him about Sodom and Gomorrah. God did not know if their cries were the truth. Now, we've talked about how this means that God had not looked upon Sodom and Gomorrah. But it als means that He had not looked into the hearts and minds of His people, to see if they were telling the truth.:think:

Again, I believe it has, OV is pressed to this logical end. I totally disagree but know why you believe this.

:doh:

Just because I don't like reading your arrogant posts doesn't mean I can't read posts that long. Sometimes I don't have time to read them, but that's another issue. And to illustrate my point, Granite's posts are usually shorter than yours. At least the ones I have actually read. And yet they are far more arrogant, much of the time. He is on my ignore list because of this. You are not. Post length has nothing to do with it.

I'm always disappointed that you tend to not read me, but the 'arrogance' comment makes sense. I assumed a different answer and stand corrected.
Thank you. I don't like that you feel that way, but I do thank you again for making it clear.

I never said otherwise. Also, your ignornace is showing, again. Predestination would be the problem. If God had predestined it, then I would not be culpable. Just having the foreknowledge doesn't make Him culpable. So, in other words, I agree with you. The purpose of my use of the term, "and," was to say, "so what."


No, it isn't. There is nothing impossible about it. And whatever happened to your pet verse about nothing being impossible with God?


It is not logical that God cannot have reached this point if He has always existed [infinitely into the past].


:e4e:

I agree, it should be your verse also? My point is it isn't God who is constrained in this, it is our ability to grasp. I'm saying according to OV logic, if God is constrained to time, duration, sequence; he couldn't escape an eternity past. It'd be ongoing and ongoing and ongoing. It is impossible 'for us' to see God constrained by time as we know it. He isn't whether you understand the argument or not. It is a solid argument that I grant some may never understand but it is true none-the-less (this is NOT intended as a slight on your intelligence or anybody else's, I'm just trying to say it is true whether it is understood or not).

 

[nicholsmom]

You are correct with Lighthouse, it wasn't Einstein.

I've said this to you before and you've forgotten. Lucas and Zeno dealt within time infrastructures for their proofs. In other words, they are stuck in time for analyzing what is outside of it. Your arguments from them are dealing with time. You mistakenly apply those truths and proofs to something outside of the consideration. In other words, you are using a finite proof (a time segment consideration) and trying to apply it to the infinite (eternal non-segment).

This is a bit like CS Lewis's "looking at versus looking along" a ray of light. When we look at the beam, we see one thing, and when we look along it, we see quite another.

You said it best when you said "Again, I assume that God's existence is very much different than our own both for the logical reasoning and because He conveys Himself as beyond us and our imaginings." :king:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Lon,

"Both and, not either or. Again, I assume that God's existence is very much different than our own both for the logical reasoning and because He conveys Himself as beyond us and our imaginings. Like I said, an atom is both static and active depending on which part we are looking at. God is both."

There is no way to convince an irrationalist like yourself with reason and scripture. The rules of reason: law of identity, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle, are as meaningless to you as they were to those you follow, Augustine, Calvin, etc. Those of us who debate you, do so in the hope that those who are open to truth and rationality will see the foolishness of your position.

What could be more foolish then you saying anything about God at all if you believe that, "He conveys himself as beyond us and our imaginings", which includes "logical reasoning".

Your only hope is realizing how irrational you have become.

---Dave

 

[Lon]

Lon,

"Both and, not either or. Again, I assume that God's existence is very much different than our own both for the logical reasoning and because He conveys Himself as beyond us and our imaginings. Like I said, an atom is both static and active depending on which part we are looking at. God is both."

There is no way to convince an irrationalist like yourself with reason and scripture. The rules of reason: law of identity, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle, are as meaningless to you as they were to those you follow, Augustine, Calvin, etc. Those of us who debate you, do so in the hope that those who are open to truth and rationality will see the foolishness of your position.



Your only hope is realizing how irrational you have become.

---Dave

er, because it is you being irrational?

For crying out loud Dave, admit there are things about God you don't know. I've had this conversation long enough with you, Clete, Patman, and others to have gotten this point which is pure assertion and a lot of hot air.

What could be more foolish then you saying anything about God at all if you believe that, "He conveys himself as beyond us and our imaginings", which includes "logical reasoning".

That last bit is your add on to a scriptural truth Ephesians 3:20. Recant it or rewrite scripture, your choice but either way, who is really being irrational between us?

You guys are so quick to assert ridiculous things like this. I think it an OV retort that means nothing. I'm giving you very clear proofs and you are nay-saying like it makes them go away. Stop this nonsense. Frustrated or not, address the concerns instead of this. We are talking about eternal things.

Here is a truth no OVer wants to admit but cannot escape:

Rationality is truth but we are NOT 100% rational beings. Proof? When was the last time you sinned? Proof? When was the last time you were mistaken about something? When did you last make a mathematical error? Am I really the bigger man here in admitting I don't know some things about God? Am I really the bigger man here to say that my intellect can handle that there are still mysteries to my God that I not only acquiesce, but appreciate? Why are you guys so quick to latch onto something like this like you have something over on me? My answer is that you are asserting because you are in the same boat as I am before an incredible Maker that is still quite big enough not only to have mysteries, but exponentially that you'd die if He showed you His face. Your brain would explode before even 1% filled it.

Eph 3:17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, so that, because you have been rooted and grounded in love,
Eph 3:18 you may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth,
Eph 3:19 and thus to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.
Eph 3:20 Now to him who by the power that is working within us is able to do far beyond all that we ask or think,
Eph 3:21 to him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

I'm not being anti-intellectual. I'm being much moreso and assessing my limitations exponentially more correctly than you are here. I can't even get you guys to understand a simple truth about time. God must be unconstrained by what we know, experience, and undertstand about time or we couldn't exist.

 

[DFT_Dave]

er, because it is you being irrational?

For crying out loud Dave, admit there are things about God you don't know. I've had this conversation long enough with you, Clete, Patman, and others to have gotten this point which is pure assertion and a lot of hot air.



That last bit is your add on to a scriptural truth Ephesians 3:20. Recant it or rewrite scripture, your choice but either way, who is really being irrational between us?

You guys are so quick to assert ridiculous things like this. I think it an OV retort that means nothing. I'm giving you very clear proofs and you are nay-saying like it makes them go away. Stop this nonsense. Frustrated or not, address the concerns instead of this. We are talking about eternal things.

Here is a truth no OVer wants to admit but cannot escape:

Rationality is truth but we are NOT 100% rational beings. Proof? When was the last time you sinned? Proof? When was the last time you were mistaken about something? When did you last make a mathematical error? Am I really the bigger man here in admitting I don't know some things about God? Am I really the bigger man here to say that my intellect can handle that there are still mysteries to my God that I not only acquiesce, but appreciate? Why are you guys so quick to latch onto something like this like you have something over on me? My answer is that you are asserting because you are in the same boat as I am before an incredible Maker that is still quite big enough not only to have mysteries, but exponentially that you'd die if He showed you His face. Your brain would explode before even 1% filled it.



I'm not being anti-intellectual. I'm being much moreso and assessing my limitations exponentially more correctly than you are here. I can't even get you guys to understand a simple truth about time. God must be unconstrained by what we know, experience, and undertstand about time or we couldn't exist.

You don't even know the difference between a car engine and the car, between static and dynamic.

Augustine said he could not define time. If he could not define it then how could he know that eternity does not have it when he does not know what it is.

We only know what rationality is by it's the rules. To say God is both and, timeless and in time, in relationship to the creation of the world is irrational.

If you agree that God existed before he created the world, and that having finished it, the creation of it is in his past, then there is hope for you.

--Dave

 

[Lon]

You don't even know the difference between a car engine and the car, between static and dynamic.

Augustine said he could not define time. If he could not define it then how could he know that eternity does not have it when he does not know what it is.

We only know what rationality is by it's the rules. To say God is both and, timeless and in time, in relationship to the creation of the world is irrational.

If you agree that God existed before he created the world, and that having finished it, the creation of it is in his past, then there is hope for you.

--Dave

See, this is what I thought Dave. I assert that most of this you either don't really mean or you are just falling back to standard retort.

Do you really believe I don't know the difference between a car and engine?

They were examples, get off the examples and back on the truth they were supposed to be alluding to.

I'll ask you straight up. I'm not sure if you can really grasp this as it is metaphysical truth but I'm going to try. God's past is totally different than ours. It is a very difficult concept: His past goes on forever. This is so important for directional thinking. His past 'is' going on forever. Think about this a minute. It isn't 'went' on forever. If this doesn't get you thinking, I'll stop for now. I just wish I could get you guys to see an inkling of this truth. It totally denies what you guys believe about time.
I may never be able to get you to understand this, but honestly, I'm trying.

 

[Lighthouse]

You don't know, do you? That's my point.

Wow, you are trying to rip apart Einstein's intellect here? Really?
I'm not even that assumptive.

Actually I'm saying he was too smart for his own good. He made assumptions that everything was extremely complicated when that is not the case at all. And it led to theories that have no root in any evidence whatsoever.

Chuckle: "nitwit."
Your proof denies perfect present knowledge. I know OV must readily come to this as it is the only alternative. GodRulz doesn't like to admit the OV also carries compatible marks. You assess it rightly, God couldn't have perfect present knowledge in the OV but yes, I do assume you haven't researched enough yet.

You're an idiot.

God could have all the perfect present knowledge He wanted. The only reason we have come to the conclusion that he does not is that the Bible gives us various examples of Him saying that He doesn't.

Again, I believe it has, OV is pressed to this logical end. I totally disagree but know why you believe this.

Let's hear an explanation of why God said this, then...[cue Jeopardy music]

I'm always disappointed that you tend to not read me, but the 'arrogance' comment makes sense. I assumed a different answer and stand corrected.
Thank you. I don't like that you feel that way, but I do thank you again for making it clear.

:e4e:

I agree, it should be your verse also? My point is it isn't God who is constrained in this, it is our ability to grasp. I'm saying according to OV logic, if God is constrained to time, duration, sequence; he couldn't escape an eternity past. It'd be ongoing and ongoing and ongoing. It is impossible 'for us' to see God constrained by time as we know it. He isn't whether you understand the argument or not. It is a solid argument that I grant some may never understand but it is true none-the-less (this is NOT intended as a slight on your intelligence or anybody else's, I'm just trying to say it is true whether it is understood or not).

I love that verse. It shows me that it is not impossible for God to choose to not know certain things, if He does not want to.

If time is progressive for God, He would eventually have gotten to this point, no matter what.

 

[tetelestai]

That's what we do. We read the entire context. And, just so you know, the Hebrew also uses the same word in all three verses.

First off who is "we"?

Repent means to change one’s mind.

The Hebrew verb "nacham" is equivalent to the Greek "metanoeo" in the New Testament; both are translated “repent or sorry,” but they mean simply “to change one’s mind.” Neither word has anything whatever to do with emotions or with feeling sorry.

The translator’s problem is laid to rest, but another problem rears up in its place. God cannot change His Mind. He is omniscient and immutable (Psalms102:25-27; Mal 3:6; Heb 6:17-18). There is no variation or instability in Him, not even a “shadow of turning” (Jas1:17).

He knows perfectly and eternally all that is knowable; there is never a circumstance personal, historic, or of any other kind that comes as a surprise to Him or that could possibly require Him to change His Mind. God may appear to change, but He does not. When He seems to change, He is actually preserving His changeless integrity.

He is simply expressing His character differently as called for by differences and changes in man or in history. He treats each person as an individual and every historical situation according to the facts of the case. (Psalms 33:10-15; Psalms139:1-18; Psalms147:4-5)

In verse 10 it specifically says “word of the LORD”. God’s “repentance” is an anthropopathism and nothing more. The same for verse 35.

However, if we look at verse 29 it specifically says “Samuel said unto…..” Here we have Samuel telling another human being that God cannot change His mind. No anthropopathism.

 

[DFT_Dave]

See, this is what I thought Dave. I assert that most of this you either don't really mean or you are just falling back to standard retort.

Do you really believe I don't know the difference between a car and engine?

They were examples, get off the examples and back on the truth they were supposed to be alluding to.

I'll ask you straight up. I'm not sure if you can really grasp this as it is metaphysical truth but I'm going to try. God's past is totally different than ours. It is a very difficult concept: His past goes on forever. This is so important for directional thinking. His past 'is' going on forever. Think about this a minute. It isn't 'went' on forever. If this doesn't get you thinking, I'll stop for now. I just wish I could get you guys to see an inkling of this truth. It totally denies what you guys believe about time.
I may never be able to get you to understand this, but honestly, I'm trying.

Yes, God has always existed and he has no beginning. I have no problem with that. But the world he created has not always existed and has a beginning, right? And so there was a time in God when there was no universe, or we could say before he created it. The creation, at this time in eternity past, was in God's future, right?

This is scriptural and rational, do you agree?

Timelessness comes from Greek philosophy not Biblical theology.

http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/Augustine.html

--Dave

 

[dreadknought]

Sounds like finite minds asking questions and making assumptions that aren't ours to ask or make. lain:

"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever...

 

[Lon]

You don't know, do you? That's my point.

Yeah, I actually would be within 10 to nailing it. Do you happen to know your own? My guess: 99 (not a bad IQ).

Actually I'm saying he was too smart for his own good. He made assumptions that everything was extremely complicated when that is not the case at all. And it led to theories that have no root in any evidence whatsoever.

Because it is. There are people in this world who never get to an ability to think beyond concrete. I believe you are one of them. It isn't a slam.

You're an idiot.

Yep, and 'so was Einstein.' You're a hoot.

God could have all the perfect present knowledge He wanted. The only reason we have come to the conclusion that he does not is that the Bible gives us various examples of Him saying that He doesn't.

ONLY because you think it only capable by determining outcomes.
That is NOT my definition and understanding of foreknowledge.
Let's take the argument for a second that "God is very smart" from the OV.

I suggest that very smart could be one way to understand EDF and can easily come close to the definition by OV standards if you guys would just admit it. Suppose God knows you so well, that He can actually predict what you are going to do in any given situation. GodRulz doesn't like this because He thinks God is limited only to trillions and trillions and could not extrapolate into eternity. He really really really messes up here. God is from eternity to eternity already. I don't blame you guys too much, because you really do not understand this concept at all. I wish for the life of me I could prove it to you because it is true regardless if it can be grasped or not. It is very frustrating trying to explain Calculus to a person that only finished basic math. This again is not a slam, it is a reality that we are stuck dealing with in Theology between us. I'll simply state the truth again. Like Einstein, it is nowhere as simple as you imagine: "God has never had a beginning."

Let's hear an explanation of why God said this, then...[cue Jeopardy music]
:e4e:

Anthropomorphism? This has been explained.

I love that verse. It shows me that it is not impossible for God to choose to not know certain things, if He does not want to.

If time is progressive for God, He would eventually have gotten to this point, no matter what.

Not possible. I don't know how to explain it to you but it is a truth is a truth is a truth is a truth. Omnipotence is a sign of either doing something or not doing something depending on the question we are asking. In this particular, He is omnipotent because He eternally exists. Dang I wish I could get you to understand this. Once you could, my argument would stand on its own.

 

[Lon]

Yes, God has always existed and he has no beginning. I have no problem with that. But the world he created has not always existed and has a beginning, right? And so there was a time in God when there was no universe, or we could say before he created it. The creation, at this time in eternity past, was in God's future, right?

This is scriptural and rational, do you agree?

Timelessness comes from Greek philosophy not Biblical theology.

http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/Augustine.html

--Dave

It doesn't matter who said it, it is true.
Part of what you say is scripture but you are coming to a wrong conclusion.
I really wish I could explain the complication of an eternal past to you guys.
What I've posted so far is proof enough for some, but it isn't easy explaining why it is true if you haven't grasped it yet. The only thing I have left at the moment is asserting the truth I see clearly.

There are Doctorates who do not think in metaphysical truth, so it is no lack of intelligence, it is just a frustration for those of us that do. This is a frustration of mine. If I could just find one OVer who thinks metaphysically he/she could attest to this truth.

I told GR this and so I'm repeating it to you: You are using time, segment, duration (concrete) to understand a truth that is beyond its scope of analysis.

 

[DFT_Dave]

tetelestai

"He knows perfectly and eternally all that is knowable; there is never a circumstance personal, historic, or of any other kind that comes as a surprise to Him or that could possibly require Him to change His Mind. God may appear to change, but He does not."

"When He seems to change, He is actually preserving His changeless integrity. He is simply expressing His character differently as called for by differences and changes in man or in history."

In other words, God says he is changing his mind, but he really isn't. That would be God telling a lie, wouldn't it?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

It doesn't matter who said it, it is true.
Part of what you say is scripture but you are coming to a wrong conclusion.
I really wish I could explain the complication of an eternal past to you guys.
What I've posted so far is proof enough for some, but it isn't easy explaining why it is true if you haven't grasped it yet. The only thing I have left at the moment is asserting the truth I see clearly.

There are Doctorates who do not think in metaphysical truth, so it is no lack of intelligence, it is just a frustration for those of us that do. This is a frustration of mine. If I could just find one OVer who thinks metaphysically he/she could attest to this truth.

I told GR this and so I'm repeating it to you: You are using time, segment, duration (concrete) to understand a truth that is beyond its scope of analysis.

Gee Lon, I understand eternal time, eternal timelessness, and the theological attempt to synthesis the two since Augustine.

Just take a look at my website and let me help you with what you don't understand. You under estimate me.

http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/Theism.html

--Dave

 

[Nang]

Gee Lon, I understand eternal time, eternal timelessness, and the theological attempt to synthesis the two since Augustine.

Just take a look at my website and let me help you with what you don't understand. You under estimate me.

http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/Theism.html

--Dave

Dave,

You underestimate God.

Sincerely,
Nang

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave,

You underestimate God.

Sincerely,
Nang

Why don't you critique my website and explain exactly how I under estimate God and share with me your insights.

--Dave

 

[Nang]

Why don't you critique my website and explain exactly how I under estimate God and share with me your insights.

--Dave

I am critiquing your website. I am sharing my insights, accordingly.

You underestimate God, Dave.

Sincerely,
Nang

 

[DFT_Dave]

I am critiquing your website. I am sharing my insights, accordingly.

You underestimate God, Dave.

Sincerely,
Nang

You under estimate what a critique is. It's OK, I know this is way over your head. Your funny little quips add refreshing humor to the debates.

--Dave

 

[Nang]

You under estimate what a critique is.

You do know what sophistry is, Dave?

Your website is a display of nothing but sophistry.

My saying so, is a legitimate critique of your simplistic "strawman" efforts that result in nothing more than a pitiful (and quite abbreviated) attempt to underestimate your Maker.

It's OK, I know this is way over your head. Your funny little quips add refreshing humor to the debates.

Don't try that tactic, Dave . . .lest you make the mistake of underestimating Nang, too.