Does God know the future?
- Thread starter intro2faith
- Start date
justchristian
New member
So are you saying God's time is different than the universe's time? Perhaps even that the universes time is a created expression of God's time?
justchristian said:
God's time is different than the universe's time in that God's duration has been from everlasting to everlasting. Our universe had a beginning, so the measurement of its history has a starting point. Time 0 for us is different than God's endless experience with time. Time is essentially the same, but our reference point had a beginning and will continue forever, just as God's journey will parallel it forever. Duration is duration whether for us or God.
justchristian
New member
Why is it (or is it) neccessary that's God's duration is the same as ours?
justchristian said:
Its not, its not even the same for me as it is for you in a plane. Godrulz can't accept this, its been proven but he can't accept it because he can't understand it. He can't understand it, not because he's stupid, I don't believe he is, but because he is unwilling to learn. When asked where he got these ideas from he said it was
The fact is he has turned away from the evidence that has been provided and refused to learn from it.
In response to my question regarding how you came to your conclusions you said,
I propose a third way,
c) Someone in the pulpit told you this is the way things are and has deprived you of the right to listen to your own reason. "This is the way it is and no matter what is provided in way of evidence to the contrary you must refuse it." is how I imagine the conversation went.
You can refuse the evidence but you are unable to refute it.
My Open Theism belief is a minority position rarely taught in the pulpit. It is my desire to think critically that made me go against the grain.
If Kennedy was shot in the 1960's, and I am typing this in 2005, how is God's experience of this interval/duration different than mine? It is not. A year for us (earth around sun) is identical to a year for God (He observes the same duration, but knows it exactly vs approximately). If there are distortions that you refer to, they are micro, not macro.
If Kennedy was shot in the 1960's, and I am typing this in 2005, how is God's experience of this interval/duration different than mine? It is not. A year for us (earth around sun) is identical to a year for God (He observes the same duration, but knows it exactly vs approximately). If there are distortions that you refer to, they are micro, not macro.
godrulz said:
One last time...
Suppose you were to time the earth going around the sun on your watch. 365 days plus a quarter taking the leap year thing into account. How many hours would you record in one year?
365.25 days per year x 24 hours per day = 8,766 hours per year
How many minutes per year?
8,766 hours x 60 minutes per hour = 525,960 minutes per year.
To conclude you time the earth going around the sun and you time it to be 525,960 minutes.
But I didn't say where you were timing it from. The result we've just worked out are as if you were timing the earth going round the sun, from the earth.
How would Captain Kirk time the event from the Starship Enterprise?
Lets assume the Starship Enterprise is travelling at 0.999c or to put it another way a fraction (1/1000) away from light speed. This is quick, really quick. (299,492,665 metres per second or just over 669 million miles per hour!)
Using Lorentz transformtion we can calculate the time dilation experienced. (I'll spare you the maths but if you want the formulae then just put 'time dilation' or 'Lorentz' into google)
Using Lorrentz states the time dilation would mean that on Captain Kirk's identical watch, watching the exact same event as you on earth i.e. watching the earth go around the sun, Captain Kirk would record the exact same event as taking 23517 minutes. Captain Kirk still needs to eat and sleep the same as we do (lets say 8 out of 24hours) but to him the entire year, as you define it, only lasts 16.33 'days' i.e. he only has to sleep 16 times in watching the earth go round the sun. We on planet earth, although we need the same amount of sleep as Captain Kirk, have to go to sleep 365 times in comparison! What we experience on earth as 1 day he records on his watch as lasting just over one hour.
If the Starship Enterprise were only to travel at 3/4 light speed, Kirk would have to sleep 243 times to see the earth go around the sun. We on earth would still be in bed 365 times to witness the same event. This is time dilation. Looking up from Earth we would observe that Kirk's watch was appearing to run slow (whilst to him yours would be running fast.)
The point being macro or micro is irrelvant. What time frame is God existing in ours, or Captain Kirk's?
And the problem gets deeper.
The 'difference' in 'time' between me running at 10mph and someone sitting down is rediculously minute. But a difference does still exist. In which time frame is God? You are arguing that He experiences time the same as we do, yet what we are telling you is that differing bodies experience time differently depending whether they are at rest or not. Whether we have a spaceship like Captain Kirk is neither here nor there, admittedly the effects become much smaller the further from light speed we are...but the effects are still there. These effects have been recorded and indeed used in our every day lives.
How then can you say that a year for us is identical to a year for God, if a 'year' takes on different rates to pass even for us.
Incidently if Kirk were to travel at light speed the year would pass instantaneously...
But at least you now accept the earth goes around the sun. Galileo would be pleased.
Last edited:
No Clete, you are wrong again. By definition it is impossible. It is like calling a circle a square--it can't happen because by definition a circle can't be a square. Look up the definition of infinite. You can't explain the contradiction other than by saying "look they both have to happen". That's the closest you have come to any sort of rationalization or explanation. And that's your proof? That's what passes as proof for you? C'mon Clete, you know that's a weak argument. Don't go around parading that I'm ignoring your argument because you haven't presented one. You've said that both conditions are necessary, when one the conditions is what we're arguing over in the first place. You've done nothing more than what you've accused others of doing--which is make a statement and call it proof. The fact of the matter is the second condition can't be necessary because it presents a logical contradiction when it is. Your argument boils down to "Well, it is necessary, and thus it can't be a contradiction." Why is it necessary? That's how this argument spawned.
Now on to your little explosion. If you would have read the whole thing before you blew up and lost all sense of rationality, you would have seen that I never claimed God was anything but loving, just, kind, merciful, etc. What I said was that we won't always perceive Him as such. You cannot deny that fact. Ask a mother who just lost her newborn to SIDS how just she feels God is at that moment. The fact of the matter is that there are always situations which defy our explanation. That doesn't mean God isn't just. That doesn't mean God isn't righteous or loving. He is.
In one single post you called me or said the following things about me and what I wrote.
- Idiot
- Fool
- Blasphemous
- Bullshit
- You'd punch me in the mouth if you saw me
- You wish you could show me what real justice was
- Stupidity
- You said that I deserve the death penalty (which you later recanted).
The ironic thing in all of that madness was that you made my point for me. "God defines for us what justice and love is." Perfect. So then why is Open Theism necessary if what God does defines love? That was my entire point Clete. Thanks. I'd like an answer to that question. The other funny part about this is that you just finished saying, "The word justice means something and if God acts in the way in which you describe He is in fact unjust." So if God doesn't act according to the dictionary definition of x, then He isn't x. Yet two breaths later you said that God defines what x is. Which is it Clete?
And the answer to all your false prophecies:
"And if thou say in thine heart, how shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shall not be afraid of him" (Deut. 18: 21, 22).
In plain black and white it says that if it doesn't come to pass then God didn't say it. You can't refute that. Put on your tap dancing shoes, I sense it's time for another act.
Hilarious. Of course you won't answer. Any answer I give will be unsatisfactory to you and thus you'll never have to answer a hard question. Nice strategy, but you've been ignoring this question for quite some time. What question do you want me to answer and I'll answer it directly.
Here's the two I want answered:
- Which time frame is God in? Yours? Mine? The space shuttles? The particle travelling at near C? All of these are experiencing the passage of time at a different rate. Either explain to me which time frame God is in, or just go ahead and tell me that you don't believe in special relativity and general relativity. If you choose the latter option, tell me why.
- You are quoted as saying "God defines for us what justice and love is." Why is Open Theism necessary, since by definition anything God does is loving and just? Even if He foreknew all the terrible things that would happen, He is still loving and just.
Last edited:
justchristian
New member
So then is duration then based for us on reference? When God created the universe his perception of duration altered as he created something extrinsic to himself with which to base duration on? Or is duration simply a ticking clock?
justchristian said:
Perception can be subjective. A trip seems shorter on the way back (there is an explanation for that...instead of needing to go 100% of the way, you only need to go 50% of the way, so it seems shorter), than on the way there. Sometimes time seems to drag on, while other times it flies. A metronome or clock will beat out the duration objectively regardless of points of reference. God knew that His thoughts, actions, and feelings required sequence and duration before and after creation. The universe just introduced new contingencies and events that God would now reference relative to time 0 of creation. It does not mean His duration started at that point (or He would not have existed from everlasting to everlasting as a conscious, sentient being). It also does not mean His time started at creation. Our history started then. Duration existed before and after the universe was spoken into existence.
eccl3_6 said:
I can not vouch for the accuracy of these speculative ideas. Regardless, can we agree that 1960 came before 2005 and that 2008 is not here yet and follows 2005? Can we agree that there is an interval between these years? Whatever dilation or changes may occur, it does not change the essential facts of duration, sequence, succession (time) for God and us. My point is that timelessness is incoherent. Regardless of the physical theories, it does not change the fact that God does not experience things in one 'eternal now' moment, nor can He go into the fixed past and alter it, nor can He 'visit' the future and 'see' all of future eternity in actuality.
Thats Ok, the whole world of science will, every man of learning does. These ideas aren't specualtive. The nature of time in this sense is understood. This is how it works. Do you want details of observations/experiments we have conducted to prove it?godrulz said:
We can argue cause and effect in a moment, that delves into Quantum theory. First of all answer the my one question, which you have side stepped yet again from both myself and Johnny, and I shall answer all of yours.
What time frame is God existing in? Ours, or Captain Kirk's, or both/all? (as from the previous post)
If you are wondering why we are so persistent on this point, you see this has rather deep ramifications to your argument. Because if God exists in both references of time He need not experience things sequentially as we do caught up in one time reference. And if he does experience time sequentially experiencing it as we do, with 'cause and effect' and all that goes with it, then He is not omnipresent. And if He is not omnipresent, at any one moment -
then God is not always with you!
Even if you close your eyes, the world keeps spinning.
Last edited:
Saying it doesn't make it so Johnny.Johnny said:
I explained this all before and yes is it as powerful an argument (as far as the argument goes) as you could hope for.
If you deny that God has existed for an eternity then you deny the Christian faith. For a Christian that makes the concept of an eternity past pretty necessary.
If you deny that the present day doesn't exist then you're idiotic beyond description. For any rational person that makes this point equally necessary.
So you have two necessary facts that present what may seem to be a contradiction but we can KNOW that they are in fact not contradictory because of their mutual necessity.
Now that's proof Johnny, like it or lump it. Two necessary facts cannot be contradictory. For you do reintroduce the concept of a contradiction you must first prove that one or the other is not a necessary fact.
I most certainly do deny that! And it is your position to the contrary that is blasphemous. If you perceive injustice on the part of God, you either misunderstand what is happening or you misunderstand justice or both.
If she feel that God is unjust then she is foolish and guilty of blasphemy, just as you are.
Oh nice. So now you’ve just rendered justice meaningless as well. Justice is word with real meaning Johnny. If you don’t understand what it means I suggest you find out but I can guarantee you that you don’t have a clue what sort of person God is based on what you’ve said in these recent posts.
Bull! You made the point that if God were just (presumable according to your own understanding of justice) that God would not have allowed Hitler to do what he did or for children to die of starvation in Africa or any number of other injustices that God permits. This is proof that you don't have a clue what God is doing, you don't know who God is and you don't know what justice is. If your understanding of justice, and your understanding of what God does, or doesn't do, and why is correct then God is, in fact, unjust. That's blasphemy Johnny. Whether you intended it or not, that is the sin of which you are guilty.
He defined it for us in the law Johnny, quote the whole comment. If God is inconsistent with a current description of His Character then He would not continue to be holy. Consistency is a litmus test for righteousness.
I've answered this question until I'm blue in the face.
Love is not possible if the future is closed, period. I cannot love God and God could not love me. And that's based on the definition of love that is derived from God's character. You cannot meaningfully say that God loves us and believe that the future is closed without contradicting yourself because love must be a choice. If one cannot do or do otherwise choice is impossible and therefore love is impossible because love is a choice.
You won't win a debate by arguing against half of what I said. You should put effort into at least understanding the point I'm making before trying to argue against it.
The definition of justice is not a dynamic one; it has in fact been defined. If, after that definition has been established, God were to act in a manner inconsistent with that definition then He would be unjust. Again consistency is a litmus test for righteousness. If God is or ever has been inconsistent with the current description of His character then He is not righteous, by definition.
No tap dancing is necessary. God Himself says clearly that He will not necessarily do every thing He says He's going to do if the circumstances require that He repent for His previously stated course. This one point alone makes a closed future utterly impossible. How could it make any sense for a God who knows the future exhaustively (never mind predestines it) to say something and then repent of it?
Jer. 18:7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.
Jonah 3:10Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.
Jonah 3:10Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.
I haven’t ignored it at all! I've gone to some pains to explain how it doesn't help you to even ask it. How does my ability or inability to answer a question that you cannot answer yourself except in the exact same manner in which I would? It doesn't! It is a moot point Johnny, not an ignored one.
What do you mean what question? The same one you've been asking me!
Fine. IF there is really any such thing as more than one time frame then God exists in all of those time frames.
Now how does that help your case at all? You cannot prove that more than one time frame even exists, you cannot even prove that time exists (Einstein or otherwise) so how is this any help to you at all? The question assumes the truth of a premise that has yet to be proven. As I pointed out long ago, that's called 'begging the question' and renderes what ever point you are trying to make with such a question, moot.
If this answer doesn't make sense read the following post, it will explain it in detail...
Is God Really Good?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Clete,
Eternity past is a contradiction. You simply say that it cannot be a contradiction because that denies Christianity. How does Christianity state that eternity past is not a contradiction?
Eternity is something that doesnt't end. Eternity past means an eternity that has ended. Contradiction.
Eternity past is a contradiction. You simply say that it cannot be a contradiction because that denies Christianity. How does Christianity state that eternity past is not a contradiction?
Eternity is something that doesnt't end. Eternity past means an eternity that has ended. Contradiction.
Clete said:
Thankyou, if He exists in all time frames, just by travelling at the speed of light time passes instantaneously in that frame. If time has passed instantaneously for him then he knows what we see as the future, but to Him it is the past.
The title of the thread....'Does God know the future?
The answer? Yes because the 'our' future to Him can be the past...and so it is for anyone that is capable of existing in a 'quick enough' time frame, and so Open Theism falls from it's pedestal. Effectively where ever we go God has been before us.
GOD KNOWS THE FUTURE
:BRAVO:
Yes we can, we have....remember the experiment with muons that 'lived' longer than they should because of time dilation earlier in the thread. Remember the 'four atomic clocks' demonstration, remember the practical uses of time dilation, SR,GR. For a mathematical example look at my previous post where I explain how different time frames work (post#1329). We can test stuff like this by just doing it on a smaller scale...we have done with space missions and planes. We can test it on a bigger scale with particle accelerators and by observing the physical world e.g. muons from space.
OPEN THEISM
R.I.P.
:grave:
Last edited:
eccl3_6 said:
Is your conclusion that God is not always with us based on your science? If so, you are wrong and your science needs tweaking.
Star Trek is not real, so I vote for God experiencing our time. He knows and sees reality as it is. A comes before B in His experience and ours. It is incoherent to think there is a parallel dimension where Kennedy was killed before he was born.
Last edited:
eccl3_6 said:
Find another phrase to describe the endless duration that precedes the present.
Ps. 90:2 "BEFORE the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting ('eternity past' or whatever better phrase we can think of) to everlasting ('eternity future' or whateve better phrase we need to describe this) YOU ARE GOD." (present tense= He simply exists, the great "I AM").
Rev. 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega (no beginning and no end= endless duration/time vs timelessness), says the Lord God, who is (present), and who was (past), and who is to come (future), the Almighty." (He does not exist in an 'eternal now' moment like most theologians believe).
Since He knows reality as it is, He knows the past as fixed, the present as actual, and the future as open/possible/not yet. Your experiments simply cannot establish that God sees the Superbowl game in 2010 as completed from eternity past. There is something wrong with your understanding of reality, God, and the speed of light.
Eccl 3 6 R.I.P.
godrulz said:
No the opposite....the exact opposite....that God is always with us. God is omnipresent( earlier in this thread I stated 4 assumptions on what I would consider 'God'. These were that He is; omnipresent,omniscient,omnipotent and good). No matter what 'time reference' we may be in, where ever, God is there and so time can pass in an instant for God just by Him being in a certain time reference. Just as it would for us if we could sit just beyond the edge of a blackhole or travel at lightspeed. If He is all present then He knows our future because the time has already passed and it is not future for Him. Open Theism doesn't work if God is omnipresent...
Star trek is just a metaphor to explain the maths behind it....a role play. But you already appreciate this. Kennedy being killed before he was born is a different argument from the one we presented. This is cause and effect (so far supported by Quantum)....but your argument was refuted with time dilation.
:doh:
Last edited: