Does God know the future?
- Thread starter intro2faith
- Start date
Believing in a God who has experienced time eternally in the past before creation is also logically incoherent.
It is no more a contradiction that the paradox I have presented you. It's logically incoherent because it's a conflict in definitions. The two ideas I presented cannot coexist any more than free will and sovereign omniscience. You can't write one off as a "puzzle of logic" and the other as a "outright contradiction". They are both contradictions, period.
Truly.
Open theism doesn't solve any of those problems. Are you telling me that God can't send rain to save the millions of children dying of starvation and dehydration in Africa? That would be the "loving" thing to do. Is it loving that He sat back and watched Hitler exterminate millions of Jews? He could have seen it coming, even if He didn't know the future. Is it just that God commanded the Israelites to wipe out an entire race of people, including children? The children didn't do anything to deserve death other than being born at the wrong place and at the wrong time. Is it just that God hated Esau before he was even born? Is it just for God to harden Pharoahs heart and then condemn him for it? Paul says "Who are you, oh man?" The fact of the matter is that God is just, loving, merciful, just because the Bible tells us so. Even if we don't understand how, He is still all of these things. You cannot try to fit God in your idea of what love and justice is. Who are we to ask that God conform to our rules and our definitions? That's absurd. In another thread the general argument that if God is love and God called names, then calling names must be, in some situations, the loving thing to do. You see how you defined love based on what God does, even if it seemed unloving? That argument applies here. God is just, even if He doesn't seem just. God is righteous, even if He doesn't seem righteous.
No, I addressed it, I just didn't quote it. If you'd like me to clarify, I'll do so again later. I'm running out of time here quickly.
On a final note, I think the Bible is extremely clear about God knowing the future. Look at all the prophecies. Look at Jesus' predictions. Look at revelation. Look at where God says that He knows you even before you were formed in the womb. He knew you before you were even conceived. The Bible itself says that if anyone prophecies and it does not come to pass then he a false prophet. Which prophecies in the Bible didn't come to past? Where has God been wrong?
You see, in order to accept open theism you have to be a good tap dancer. You have to be able to dance around all of these issues, writing them off as "well God knew that specific thing, "it was obvious", etc. Predictions aren't just some nuance in the Bible that can be written off and explained as special circumstances. They are a very real demonstration of God's foreknowledge.
I'd still like an answer to:
This is a lie and I think you know it. Why do you cling to such a ridiculous thing. It cannot be a contradiction; it is impossible for it to be, by definition or in any other sense. As I proved before by stating that it is factually true that God has in fact always existed from eternity past to the present day. The eternal past is a fact of life as is the fact that we exist in the present. There CANNOT be a contradiction because we know both are necessary facts. Two necessary facts cannot be contradictory or else they would not both be necessary.Johnny said:
No it isn't! I just proved a second time that you are flatly wrong. They are not both contradictions.
Of course it does solve them all. Love is possible if and only if Open Theism is true as are all concepts that are based on willful action.
No. It wouldn't be. You are a fool. You don't even know what love is if you believe this idiotic and blasphemous statement.
Again, foolish blasphemy. You don't have a clue the grievous sin you are committing by even thinking these things, never mind stating them in public. You deserve to be executed on the basis of this one statement alone.
Yes! Completely! You do not understand justice or love. Is there anything about the Christian faith you do understand? You've got blasphemy down to a science!
That's has nothing to do with why God commanded what He did. You are truly foolish if you think it did.
He didn't. Don't bother quoting the verse. It's one of my favorites and argues against your foolish blasphemous theology not for it.
Yes! Completely! You do not understand at all what happened there or why.
Talk about BS! The word justice means something and if God acts in the way in which you describe He is in fact unjust. If God acted the way you accuse Him of acting the objection that Paul addresses would have had real merit. The point is that He does not which is the very point that Paul makes in Rom. 9, which obviously has flown right over your head thanks to your preference for Calvin over the plain reading of Scripture.
My idea of what love and justice is has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with it. Love and justice would retain their meaning even if Clete Pfeiffer didn't exist.
AHHH! Oh my God I would totally punch you in the mouth for saying this blasphemous crap! Who is telling God to conform to anything you idiotic blasphemous fool. God defines for us what justice and love is. That's one of the main purposes of the law and yet according to you God disregards the principles of justice every single day. Oh! How I wish the laws were such that I could participate in teaching you the real meaning of justice.
Being Godly is always the loving thing to do, always. If you don't like God's actions or the actions of godly men then that's your problem.
This is stupidity as well. The definition of love doesn't change just because you happen to be God. If God acts in the manner you accuse Him of acting then He is not loving at all, by any definition.
Don't bother.
Which ones? The ones that came to pass or the ones that did not?
Which ones? The ones that came to pass or the ones that did not?
Many of the prophecies in the Book of Revelation may very well not come to pass.
There is a lot one can know about a person in the womb before they are born, especially if One can read the DNA code and read the thoughts and emotions that the child is experiencing.
The Bible does not say this.
There are lots of prophecies in the Bible which did not come to pass, lots of them. Here's just three...
Jonah 3:4
Joshua 3:10
Matt. 16:28
Liar. I tap dance around nothing. The Bible means what it says and your theology cannot survive it's plain reading.
I agree! Predictions of the future do indeed show the power of God. This is the very reason He does such things. (Isaiah 46:9-10) But being able to predict the future and to bring things to pass does not require that the future be closed nor does it require that God exist outside of time nor does it even require that God have foreknowledge in the Arminian sense of the word.
You first. When you can show me that you can give a satisfactory answer (which I know for a fact that you cannot do) then I will concede the need for me to answer it. Until then, it will remain a moot point and a waste of time.
Resting in Him,
Clete
justchristian
New member
I thought about writing a full out response to Cletes ridiculous post but I get the feeling he just likes shouting from a mountain top and isnt really interested what anybody else thinks unless they agree with him.
Clete, grow up.
Clete, grow up.
After mulling it over for the last hour or so, I think I was incorrect on one point.
I believe that laws calling for the death penalty for blasphemy would have only applied to the Nation of Israel so I overstepped the bounds by saying that Johnny is deserving of death for having committed his blasphemy.
Justchristian,
You must realize already that I simply couldn't care less what you think of me or my beliefs. I have and will continue to defend my beliefs both Biblically and logically. If you cannot show me by Scripture and by sound reason why what I say is wrong then you can take you opinions about the ridiculousness of my posts and my maturity level and tell it to your Momma or someone else who you think might give a rip.
Resting in Him,
Clete
I believe that laws calling for the death penalty for blasphemy would have only applied to the Nation of Israel so I overstepped the bounds by saying that Johnny is deserving of death for having committed his blasphemy.
Justchristian,
You must realize already that I simply couldn't care less what you think of me or my beliefs. I have and will continue to defend my beliefs both Biblically and logically. If you cannot show me by Scripture and by sound reason why what I say is wrong then you can take you opinions about the ridiculousness of my posts and my maturity level and tell it to your Momma or someone else who you think might give a rip.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Clete/Godrulz :wave2:
Where do I start?
I cant't possibly pick up on all the points there! I'll tell you what I'll pick two just now and you can either summarise or pick two or three points that you feel need clarifying or that you wish to run with.
First of I would like to pick up on the Clete's 'Zeno's paradox' extravaganza. Sir Isaac Newton would have something to say about you solving this paradox. It was the integration math that he discovered that cut this down to size. And then with SR we learned to appreciate time in the bigger picture. The use of Zeno's paradox actually illustrates how our perception of time has changed when compared to that of the Ancient Greeks.
Infinity isn't a lot of time. It isn't an unbelievable, unimaginable amount of time. Infinity is an unexhaustable amount of time....never running out. If something is in the past then its time ran out.....8 year old me is in the past because 8yr old me ran out of time ie. I ceased being 8 and became 9. How much time has to run for infinity to be in the past....an infinite amount time....an unexhaustable amount of time. Infinity past is a contradiction. Forget maths, forget theology, pick up a dictionary and read the definition and then forget about what you believe for 5 seconds and think about it. Thats all it will take. Infinity past is a contradiction.
I have no issue with saying that God exists in both the physical and the non physical realms (before creation, metaphysically, however you brand it). Time is a product of our physicallity. It has characteristics. I can't give you a bucket of gravity but I know its there. Interestingly for a long time nobody else did. Of course people always knew that things fell to earth but they just didn't think about it that much. Newton did. He also realised that if I am attracted to the Earth then the Earth is attracted to me. An effect insignificant in magnitude but there never the less. We only notice ourselves falling to earth, not the earth rushing up to meet us. The reason is of course that the distance the Earth moves is negligible, near zip, minute compared to the distance we move, say in falling off a ladder. If this seems completely strange to you thinking of nature this way then that is why it took so long for us to discover gravity and provide the reasoning behind it.
When the earth was placed as going round the sun it was rejected by the Church for centuries because it wasn't 'in fitting' with the scripture.
Worse still when the planets were said later to be in elliptical orbits this was heresy too. A circular orbit represented the perfection of the heavens, but elliptical was far from perfect and the church disregarded this too as blasphemous.
But for all their opposition it didn't change a thing! The sun, not the Earth, still sat in the centre of the solar system.
The planets didn't jump to attention....they carried on orbitting in quite elliptical orbits.
And as the evidence continued to pile in slowly the church dropped their 'party line' and quietly accepted the truth instead of suppressing it. But the people they had perseceuted, stayed persecuted.
And so when you choose to ignore the findings, the discoveries, the physical inventions of the twentieth century I find myself a little disheartened to see that the church still has not learned anything from its mistakes past. But I am steeled by the fact that it will make no difference to the end game. Inevitably once more you will come round to accepting that which is true.
The nature of time can no longer be explained by the philosophy of the ancient greeks. Aristotle himself would say the same if he were alive today. He would look at the facts and agree that time was behaving most peculiarly to him. In today's world of science you must remember that we have particle accelerators and air travel. Means of detecting muons that collide with our planet mysteriously when they should not even be there according to Greek, even Newtonian, reasoning. And more proof piles in to support the concept of time. So we cannot blame the Greeks for not working out times' secrets; they couldn't see what we can now see. The true genius of Einstein was that he saw it before it could be seen. It is only as the 20th century matured did we truly begin to realise the physical proof of his foresight. Just like the way we didn't appreciate gravity for a long time until Newton pointed it out and made the calculus needed to understand it (and the physical proof there is we can put a space station or a satellite in orbit without it coming plummeting to ground- Cheers Newton). The nature of time has always been there, just like Gravity, its just now that we are beginning to appreciate it....and philosophers and church leaders yet again are going to have accept it as reality not fantasy.
"The Bible shows the way to go to Heaven, not the way the heavens go." - Gallileo Gallilei
Where do I start?
I cant't possibly pick up on all the points there! I'll tell you what I'll pick two just now and you can either summarise or pick two or three points that you feel need clarifying or that you wish to run with.
First of I would like to pick up on the Clete's 'Zeno's paradox' extravaganza. Sir Isaac Newton would have something to say about you solving this paradox. It was the integration math that he discovered that cut this down to size. And then with SR we learned to appreciate time in the bigger picture. The use of Zeno's paradox actually illustrates how our perception of time has changed when compared to that of the Ancient Greeks.
Clete said:
Infinity isn't a lot of time. It isn't an unbelievable, unimaginable amount of time. Infinity is an unexhaustable amount of time....never running out. If something is in the past then its time ran out.....8 year old me is in the past because 8yr old me ran out of time ie. I ceased being 8 and became 9. How much time has to run for infinity to be in the past....an infinite amount time....an unexhaustable amount of time. Infinity past is a contradiction. Forget maths, forget theology, pick up a dictionary and read the definition and then forget about what you believe for 5 seconds and think about it. Thats all it will take. Infinity past is a contradiction.
I have no issue with saying that God exists in both the physical and the non physical realms (before creation, metaphysically, however you brand it). Time is a product of our physicallity. It has characteristics. I can't give you a bucket of gravity but I know its there. Interestingly for a long time nobody else did. Of course people always knew that things fell to earth but they just didn't think about it that much. Newton did. He also realised that if I am attracted to the Earth then the Earth is attracted to me. An effect insignificant in magnitude but there never the less. We only notice ourselves falling to earth, not the earth rushing up to meet us. The reason is of course that the distance the Earth moves is negligible, near zip, minute compared to the distance we move, say in falling off a ladder. If this seems completely strange to you thinking of nature this way then that is why it took so long for us to discover gravity and provide the reasoning behind it.
When the earth was placed as going round the sun it was rejected by the Church for centuries because it wasn't 'in fitting' with the scripture.
Worse still when the planets were said later to be in elliptical orbits this was heresy too. A circular orbit represented the perfection of the heavens, but elliptical was far from perfect and the church disregarded this too as blasphemous.
But for all their opposition it didn't change a thing! The sun, not the Earth, still sat in the centre of the solar system.
The planets didn't jump to attention....they carried on orbitting in quite elliptical orbits.
And as the evidence continued to pile in slowly the church dropped their 'party line' and quietly accepted the truth instead of suppressing it. But the people they had perseceuted, stayed persecuted.
And so when you choose to ignore the findings, the discoveries, the physical inventions of the twentieth century I find myself a little disheartened to see that the church still has not learned anything from its mistakes past. But I am steeled by the fact that it will make no difference to the end game. Inevitably once more you will come round to accepting that which is true.
The nature of time can no longer be explained by the philosophy of the ancient greeks. Aristotle himself would say the same if he were alive today. He would look at the facts and agree that time was behaving most peculiarly to him. In today's world of science you must remember that we have particle accelerators and air travel. Means of detecting muons that collide with our planet mysteriously when they should not even be there according to Greek, even Newtonian, reasoning. And more proof piles in to support the concept of time. So we cannot blame the Greeks for not working out times' secrets; they couldn't see what we can now see. The true genius of Einstein was that he saw it before it could be seen. It is only as the 20th century matured did we truly begin to realise the physical proof of his foresight. Just like the way we didn't appreciate gravity for a long time until Newton pointed it out and made the calculus needed to understand it (and the physical proof there is we can put a space station or a satellite in orbit without it coming plummeting to ground- Cheers Newton). The nature of time has always been there, just like Gravity, its just now that we are beginning to appreciate it....and philosophers and church leaders yet again are going to have accept it as reality not fantasy.
"The Bible shows the way to go to Heaven, not the way the heavens go." - Gallileo Gallilei
Last edited:
godrulz said:
If you are saying an eternity exists between 'God' and 'Creation/man' and that time continues after 'creation/man' then yes it is to simplistic. It doesn't explain what is a contradiction. If an eternity of time existed between the first two points you would never get to the second point 'creation/man'
I don't really see how this is relevant to physics. I don't read the bible before conducting an experiment. The bible doesn't and wouldn't stop my research in any aspect. Time/physics/science is the same whether you are Christian, Muslim, whatever. I certainly would not study the bible for scientific revelation. As science books go the Bible sucks(no disrespect intended-its just not a science book). I could have written a much better one....
It would have a periodic table, an atlas with all the ore/mineral sites, schematics for engineering design, a chapter or two on maths....one on astrology....chemistry......
but here goes anyway........
I looked up the last one and the explanation will be the same I should imagine but I couldn't see the relevance of the first unless Im misreading the psalms, type out the line and I'll get back to you,
ALPHA/ OMEGA we agree I take it that we both take this to mean beginning and end.
I interpret this (as an agnostic) as the Bible implying that Jesus is there at the beginning and at the end. If time has an end then it must be finite and beginning then it must have been created. I'm actually surprised at this reading, it seems to land in our favour.
If the other quote implies God being eternal, ever was, ever is, ever will be etc. then this is fine also. I believe in God and I believe in creation. Creation brings all matter,the universe and the laws of physics and all that comes with it, time is a product of the universe, physics has proved it, so this is the creation of time too. God existed before this and so has already existed outside our time, call this what you will, but time as you know it, (I think you'd describe it as sequential) only appears with creation. What and how it was behaving beforehand if at all is beyond physics because physics/nature didn't exist. Nothing did....except God and I can't describe him either.....I'm agnostic which means I have no way of knowing for sure. I hope for your sake the scriptures are genuine, I certianly have nothing to fear from them being so, but there is no way to authenticate them as direction from God.
To conclude I believe God is both within our time, all references of time, and capable of existing outside the constraints of time.
The 4 assumptions (and it is only assumption!)I do make about the force/God/Jahova/Allah/Gnesha/whatever are:
Omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and good. Everything else I believe in is guesswork, personal experience and science. Physics is science
I have a sound understanding of physical 'time' as far as a sound understanding of time can be sound. I don't see anyway how it compromises the Bible anywhere. Just some literal readings of the book need revising, as was the case when poor Galileo spoke up......
"The Bible shows the way to go to Heaven, not the way the heavens go."-Gallileo Gallilei
Last edited:
justchristian said:
Passion sometimes creates heat and light. I have appreciated Clete's thinking in recent posts. JustChristian is not really understanding or getting it. No problem. I tried to cling to my old ideas or mix them with new ones that seemed valid. In the end, I had to change my thinking to a more coherent view as I understood the evidence.
Clete: I have tried to positive rep you many times, but it will not let me anymore.
Perhaps we could better deal with his valid concern about God not feeding people, though He could. I would not just yell blasphemy, but give a reasoned defense why man, not God is culpable for starving people (e.g. they worship cows instead of eat them in India; corrupt African governments steal shipments for the people; the Church has dropped the ball in its mandate to love and serve the poor; our society is selfish and spends billions on military and entertainment, rather than solve problems, etc.).
Is Eccl 3 6 a Bible reference in your name?
I agree that the Bible is not a scientific text book. I believe science and theology will not contradict each other. The statements in the Bible are true scientifically, but there is room for figures of speech (e.g. 'the rising of the sun' ). I believe Genesis 1 literally, yet it is not exhaustive in its descriptions.
For the Open Theists: William Lane Craig suggests that God is timeless before creation and divinely temporal after creation. It is worth considering, but I still like Wolterstorff's view that He experiences unqualified divine temporality.
(see God and Time: 4 views IVP)
I agree that the Bible is not a scientific text book. I believe science and theology will not contradict each other. The statements in the Bible are true scientifically, but there is room for figures of speech (e.g. 'the rising of the sun' ). I believe Genesis 1 literally, yet it is not exhaustive in its descriptions.
For the Open Theists: William Lane Craig suggests that God is timeless before creation and divinely temporal after creation. It is worth considering, but I still like Wolterstorff's view that He experiences unqualified divine temporality.
(see God and Time: 4 views IVP)
yes it isgodrulz said:
Then William Lane Craig is agreeing with our viewpoint! Timeless before creation as time (as we experience it) has not yet been created and divinely temporal after creation i.e. time is now existing and God exists in it divinely i.e. in all time references. God exist both within our constraints of physical time and outside it too.....metaphysically/pre creation.
It strikes me that already you are starting to bow to the pressure that 'time' is a 'thing' and a product of 'nature/creation'.
Several times you have argued against timelessness being nonsensiscal and instead God existing in 'past eternity', which is a contradiction. Unqualified divine temporality just means He still lives outside physical time but does not address His existence in physical time.
eccl3_6 said:
I disagree with Craig.
I only say that the unique MEASURE of time changes at creation. Duration/succession/sequence did not change in nature at creation. Endless duration was punctuated with creation, but it was not created at that point. The sun, moon, and stars were now there for us to measure time as days and years. This measure did not exist to be viewed before the creation of the universe. Ten minutes before creation and ten minutes after creation were equivalent durations, whether watches or stars existed. If God now wiped out the physical universe, segments of 10 minutes would be perpetuated forever.
l---------------------l Creation l------------------------l Endless duration, regardless of what units we use to describe them, is not timelessness, but endless time. Intervals and instants could be extrapolated whether God alone existed or whether any object in creation exists or not.
The measure of time at creation (starts our time history at 0, but God's time history continues unchanged...no beginning....no end...) is not the actual creation of time itself. I am not weakening.
God existing in past eternity is not non-sensical if you do not assume that eternity=timelessness. If God experiences an endless, everlasting duration/succession, then there is no contradiction between God's experience in eternity (everlasting duration) and His experience in our unique history and measure of time. He now has new experiences and relations after creation. Just like before creation, He still thinks, feels, acts, and relates sequentially/successively with measurable duration i.e. TIME (not to be confused with sticks and stones= THINGS).
eccl3_6,
Just a quick post here before I leave on my trip.
It seems that there is a sudden rash of people who don't have any idea how to debate. Simply restating your position as though your opponent hasn't said anything substantive to refute it doesn't mean it hasn't been refuted and doesn't win you any points with me on the intellectual honesty scale (not that anyone cares about that).
I said...
After which Johnny ignored my argument to the contrary and immediately said...
So I repeated the argument...
To which you now respond by simply repeating the original point as though I said nothing that needs responding too...
This is your thinking expressed in syllogistic form
There are two logically necessary facts...
1. God has always existed. His duration extends into the past eternally.
2. God exists now, as do we, in the present day.
THESE CANNOT BE CONTRADICTORY!
They are logically necessary facts! Our understanding of these (particularly #1) may be in error or incomplete which creates the appearance of a conflict but that does not mean that there is a real conflict.
If you insist that there is a contradiction then you are forced for the sake of remaining rational to reject on or the other of these two points. You will have to deny that we exist in the present, which would be superbly ridiculous, or you must deny that God has always existed (inside or outside of time whichever you want) which in direct defiance of the clear teaching of Scripture and forces you to then explain where God came from.
So which will it be? You have three rational options...
1. Concede that there cannot be a contradiction because of the necessary nature of the eternal existence of God.
2. Deny that we exist.
3. Deny that God has always existed.
And one final point I'd like to address...
I know that's bragging but I am quite proud of it even though I now disagree with much of what I came up with in my youth. It was indeed a very impressive peace of thinking even if I do say so myself.
Secondly, I don't think that Newton's math actually solves the paradox. In fact I think Einstein came a lot closer than did Newton to solving it. You should read the essay I linked to on the subject. It sounds like it would interest you. Here's the link again...
Zeno and the Paradox of Motion
Resting in Him,
Clete
P.S. I'll be back this weekend! :wave2:
Just a quick post here before I leave on my trip.
It seems that there is a sudden rash of people who don't have any idea how to debate. Simply restating your position as though your opponent hasn't said anything substantive to refute it doesn't mean it hasn't been refuted and doesn't win you any points with me on the intellectual honesty scale (not that anyone cares about that).
I said...
After which Johnny ignored my argument to the contrary and immediately said...
So I repeated the argument...
To which you now respond by simply repeating the original point as though I said nothing that needs responding too...
This just will not do! You can't just repeat the point and pretend like you've defeated my argument! That's not how this is supposed to work at all.
This is your thinking expressed in syllogistic form
There are two logically necessary facts...
1. God has always existed. His duration extends into the past eternally.
2. God exists now, as do we, in the present day.
THESE CANNOT BE CONTRADICTORY!
They are logically necessary facts! Our understanding of these (particularly #1) may be in error or incomplete which creates the appearance of a conflict but that does not mean that there is a real conflict.
If you insist that there is a contradiction then you are forced for the sake of remaining rational to reject on or the other of these two points. You will have to deny that we exist in the present, which would be superbly ridiculous, or you must deny that God has always existed (inside or outside of time whichever you want) which in direct defiance of the clear teaching of Scripture and forces you to then explain where God came from.
So which will it be? You have three rational options...
1. Concede that there cannot be a contradiction because of the necessary nature of the eternal existence of God.
2. Deny that we exist.
3. Deny that God has always existed.
And one final point I'd like to address...
First of all, I never claimed to have been the first to solve the puzzle, only that I did it independently (If in fact my solution is indeed a solution at all). The part about quantum speed and temperature (which would yield other things like quantum pressure) was impressive enough to both my Chemistry and Astronomy teachers at one of the largest high schools in Oklahoma that they both bumped my grade for the semester by more than half a full grade.
I know that's bragging but I am quite proud of it even though I now disagree with much of what I came up with in my youth. It was indeed a very impressive peace of thinking even if I do say so myself.
Secondly, I don't think that Newton's math actually solves the paradox. In fact I think Einstein came a lot closer than did Newton to solving it. You should read the essay I linked to on the subject. It sounds like it would interest you. Here's the link again...
Zeno and the Paradox of Motion
Resting in Him,
Clete
P.S. I'll be back this weekend! :wave2:
First of all have a good trip if you read this before you go...
My second post directed more Godrulz went into how infinity past is contradictory. I didn't ignore it I just went into more detail to explain it. The argument can't evolve by brushing over this as it is a keystone to your argument. If it is removed so is the argument. That is why we are tenacious in not letting it be dropped or passed over. Its an inaccuracy for reasons explained in my other post.
I accept all three 'rational' options but this does not make your argument watertight, this still does not prove eternity past. Your concept of time is wrong. Bare in mind the teacher's that bumped up your grade probably weren't physics grads, probably attended a teacher college and studied science there. Even if they were physics grads then they would still be the sort of people that I have tutored as pre grads in the past. Not to brow beat teachers of course..they do a good job...I couldn't deal with 20 kids in a classroom but the level of knowledge needed to teach is not significant to that required for research.
In your proof I assume you used calculus.....thank Newton.
Look at the post I addressed to Godrulz, the 'eternitypast' is a contradiction. You cannot spend an eternity of time (eternity past) and then start on another 'eternity current' for the simple reason that you have called an end to the 'eternity past' so it is no longer eternal. How can you argue eternity past when for it to be eternity it must be ongoing.
P.S. I have read the link, strangely its one Ive already come across before. Have a good trip :wave2:
My second post directed more Godrulz went into how infinity past is contradictory. I didn't ignore it I just went into more detail to explain it. The argument can't evolve by brushing over this as it is a keystone to your argument. If it is removed so is the argument. That is why we are tenacious in not letting it be dropped or passed over. Its an inaccuracy for reasons explained in my other post.
I accept all three 'rational' options but this does not make your argument watertight, this still does not prove eternity past. Your concept of time is wrong. Bare in mind the teacher's that bumped up your grade probably weren't physics grads, probably attended a teacher college and studied science there. Even if they were physics grads then they would still be the sort of people that I have tutored as pre grads in the past. Not to brow beat teachers of course..they do a good job...I couldn't deal with 20 kids in a classroom but the level of knowledge needed to teach is not significant to that required for research.
In your proof I assume you used calculus.....thank Newton.
Look at the post I addressed to Godrulz, the 'eternitypast' is a contradiction. You cannot spend an eternity of time (eternity past) and then start on another 'eternity current' for the simple reason that you have called an end to the 'eternity past' so it is no longer eternal. How can you argue eternity past when for it to be eternity it must be ongoing.
P.S. I have read the link, strangely its one Ive already come across before. Have a good trip :wave2:
Last edited:
godrulz said:
That is exactly what we have been trying to tell you. 10 minutes before creation didn't exist because time is brought about by creation. If you could be before creation....time wouldn't exist. It is just as real as gravity and gravity wouldn't have been around before creation either. It too is a product of physicallity. It might not be brown and twiggy but time is just as real as a stick. Time is a thing. It has been proved. The proof has been posted on the thread. It exists. You can deny this if you wish just as I can deny that penguins don't exist. But...
Penguins don't disappear just because I'm in denial.
Last edited:
eccl3_6 said:
Eternity past is an awkward way of referring to the duration preceding the present. Eternity future is all time subsequent to now. It is not precise, but a relative way of referring to the endless duration before and after this very moment.
eccl3_6 said:
God existed before creation. Before the world began, He was from everlasting to everlasting, the Eternal One. There was a moment and moments before creation. "Time is brought about by creation" is an assumption that leads to circular reasoning. Time is not a thing, another wrong assumption. Whatever properties came about after creation does not negate the duration/sequence/succession/time experienced by the everlasting God in His triune relations before creation.
Duration/sequence/succession/time is something you only perceive because you are here in the physical world. Time is a product of that real world. Sequential events happen, cause and effect happens because of the way time works. Time works because of physics, because we can change the way it works in relation to things, by changing physical properties. Time is a thing. What you are talking about is physical time and then you are taking it out of context. You are taking it out of physicallity but time does not behave like you witness it when the physicallity changes. What you are describing before creation is not time because what you understand as time (10 mintue intervals, whatever) does not exist there. You can only describe it as 'metaphysical time' and even that is not time time but something else you are just calling time.
eccl3_6 said:
Perception of time can be very subjective. A thousand years for God is like a day for us, but a day is a day for us and God. Events that occur on specific dates are pegged historically to our subjective records. It does not change the fact that God existed and experienced duration before creation, that Kennedy died before Bush became president, etc. We are on different wavelengths. I emphasize the essential nature of time, while you emphasize physical properties post-creation. I think I got a checkmate, but I guess we walk away with a draw or stalemate. I have little more to say to you except: would you like to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord, God, King, Savior of your life? Your intelligence will not free you from sin and death.