Does God know the future?

[eccl3_6]

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.

But 2010 may be five years away for us, but with a different time rate its just 5 seconds. In another time rate altogether which I entered five minutes ago, 2010 was centuries ago for you, but minutes for me.

:thumb:​

P.S. We've already showed you how Ps. 90:2 and Rev. 1:8 can be accepted earlier in this thread (post #1307), without disrupting the argument

 

[godrulz]

But 2010 may be five years away for us, but with a different time rate its just 5 seconds. In another time rate altogether which I entered five minutes ago, 2010 was centuries ago for you, but minutes for me.

:thumb:​

I think you are extrapolating your limited evidence beyond what is defensible. Are you confusing subjective perception with objective reality? Creation does not come after the Second Coming of Christ in any reference point. Creation is at least thousands of years before is not-yet Second Coming in God's time and ours. I doubt your experiments could or would compress millions of years for us into seconds for God. The future is not there yet to see, know, or experience. The experiments do not make the non-existent future existent billions of years before the actual event. If God knew I would exist and type today from forever, would that not make me actually eternal with Him? Now that I exist, when I die, my earthly life will be a fixed memory for God, not an actual event unfolding in another dimension. When God saw Adam in the Garden, He did not see me typing at the computer. Actual centuries passed before I existed and became an object of knowledge.

 

[eccl3_6]

I think you are extrapolating your limited evidence beyond what is defensible. Are you confusing subjective perception with objective reality? Creation does not come after the Second Coming of Christ in any reference point. Creation is at least thousands of years before is not-yet Second Coming in God's time and ours. I doubt your experiments could or would compress millions of years for us into seconds for God. The future is not there yet to see, know, or experience. The experiments do not make the non-existent future existent billions of years before the actual event. If God knew I would exist and type today from forever, would that not make me actually eternal with Him? Now that I exist, when I die, my earthly life will be a fixed memory for God, not an actual event unfolding in another dimension. When God saw Adam in the Garden, He did not see me typing at the computer. Actual centuries passed before I existed and became an object of knowledge.

Yes centuries have passed and how long would you have to wait....well if you were in a different rate of time a century as defined as the earth going around the sun 100 times could happen in an instant.....its just a question of travelling fast enough. Is God capable of travelling fast enough? I hope we agree that He is. It may be the future for us but its the past for Him in a different time reference.

Think about what I'm saying, its not that you have already acted out the future, but to someone else in a different time frame, the future as we see it has become the past to them because our time as flown by in comparison to theirs.

Open Theism, if you want to believe in it, is at odds with God being omnipresent.

:think:​

 

[eccl3_6]

I find it strange that those that understand science, the scientists are arguing the case of an all powerful God, not only one who is omniscient and omnipotent, omnipresent but one that knows our future too. Meanwhile those that are religious and the righteous and who freely admit they don't understand the science, argue and are opposed.

Bizarre

Time: Its like we're stuck in slow moving traffic,
but God's got a motorbike​

 

[godrulz]

Yes centuries have passed and how long would you have to wait....well if you were in a different rate of time a century as defined as the earth going around the sun 100 times could happen in an instant.....its just a question of travelling fast enough. Is God capable of travelling fast enough? I hope we agree that He is. It may be the future for us but its the past for Him in a different time reference.

Think about what I'm saying, its not that you have already acted out the future, but to someone else in a different time frame, the future as we see it has become the past to them because our time as flown by in comparison to theirs.

Open Theism, if you want to believe in it, is at odds with God being omnipresent.

:think:​

God's omnipresence is not identical to His experience of duration. Time or the future is not a thing or place. He is not IN the past or future. He is NOW experiencing the present. God observes the Superbowl when it actually happens, not trillions of years before it is manifest in reality.

God is not the USS Enterprise flying through the universe at warp speeds approaching the speed of light. God is infinite spirit. His spirit is not located in a place in the past or future since the past and future are not spatial places.

It seems to me some of your fundamental assumptions relating to God and His experience are flawed. If you want to apply them to objects, remember, nothing logically could approach the speed of light to experience your phenomenon. God is an infinite spirit, not an object that can be reduced to your principles of travel.

We agree to disagree
:mrt:

 

[godrulz]

I find it strange that those that understand science, the scientists are arguing the case of an all powerful God, not only one who is omniscient and omnipotent, omnipresent but one that knows our future too. Meanwhile those that are religious and the righteous and who freely admit they don't understand the science, argue and are opposed.

Bizarre

Time: Its like we're stuck in slow moving traffic,
but God's got a motorbike​

Most theists and scholars agree with your view on omniscience. This view came out of Platonic thought adopted by Augustine and perpetuated uncritically in the church. It is problematic. An alternate view, Open Theism, has merit worth considering. It does not compromise God's omniscience, but recognizes the future is open vs closed/settled. He correctly knows it as such. Science is only one discipline. You need logic and philosophy to temper it to come up with the correct understanding.

Much of theoretical physics is speculative with contradictory ideas that are being refined over the years. You have adopted one theory and are trying to use it to resolve issues relating to an infinite God. The biblical revelation of God and His ways is truthful. It presents God as experiencing an endless duration of time rather than a timeless eternal now (Greek philosophy, not Bible). Either you reject God's Word, or you fine tune the science. You could also make the Bible figurative/anthropomorphic, but this is risky. Creation scientists interpret the data and come to different scientific conclusions (e.g. new research on radioisotopes and carbon dating support a recent creation vs uniformitarianism/old universe). Let God be true and every man a liar.

 

[eccl3_6]

Most theists and scholars agree with your view on omniscience. This view came out of Platonic thought adopted by Augustine and perpetuated uncritically in the church. It is problematic. An alternate view, Open Theism, has merit worth considering. It does not compromise God's omniscience, but recognizes the future is open vs closed/settled. He correctly knows it as such. Science is only one discipline. You need logic and philosophy to temper it to come up with the correct understanding.

Ok so I've learnt the science, logged onto TOL, philosophised, applied logic (eternity-past is contradictory Clete!) and the big three present the conclusion that:

Open Theism is contradictory to the concept of an omnipresent God.

If you believe God is not omnipresent then fair enough thats your opinion and your right.

​

BUT​

If you believe God is omnipresent then this is contradictory to Open Theism.​

Much of theoretical physics is speculative with contradictory ideas that are being refined over the years.

We've applied science that is no longer speculative or theoretical. The science we've used exists outside the labs and outside the classrooms. We use aspects of time dilation,GR and SR in our everyday lives, many of us without realising it.

You have adopted one theory

No I applied logic and science to your philosophy and found it contradictory- sorry but there it is.

Either you reject God's Word, or you fine tune the science.

On the contrary the finely tuned science and an the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient God have been argued by myself and by people agreeing with me (many of whom are Christian) to go hand in hand. It is your view of open theism that has cornered God into not knowing the future.

Creation scientists interpret the data and come to different scientific conclusions (e.g. new research on radioisotopes and carbon dating support a recent creation vs uniformitarianism/old universe).

Nobody has been arguing creationist arguments on this thread. We've purposely not done so. This isn't a creationist thread. Its a "Can God see the future? Open theist thread. Please, lets keep it relevant.

Let God be true and every man a liar

Thats why I'm agnostic.

​

 

[godrulz]

This issue is not God's omniscience. We both affirm that God knows all that is knowable. The issue is about the nature of the future and whether it is actual/certain or possible/probable before it comes into existence. Is the future open/unsettled (contingencies/freedom) or is is totally closed/settled? Either way, God knows it as it actually is. Both our views affirm God's omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience. I think it is begging the question/circular reasoning/caricature to think an open future denies omnipresence or omniscience. The future is not a place that now exists that God is in. Confusing omnipresence and knowledge leads to a wrong conclusion. They are related, but also distinct. Omnipresence is why God knows the past and present exhaustively. Contingency/freedom is why God does not know the future as settled while it is unsettled.

Two ships passing in the night....


The more important thing is not relativity, but your relationship with God. Unless you know and love Him, your philosophies and science are in vain.

Einstein is in heaven or hell based on receiving or rejecting Christ, not by searching for a unifying theory of the universe.

Col. 1:17 "He/Christ is before all things (uncreated Creator), and in Him all things (creation) hold together."

 

[eccl3_6]

This issue is not God's omniscience. We both affirm that God knows all that is knowable. The issue is about the nature of the future and whether it is actual/certain or possible/probable before it comes into existence. Is the future open/unsettled (contingencies/freedom) or is is totally closed/settled? Either way, God knows it as it actually is. Both our views affirm God's omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience. I think it is begging the question/circular reasoning/caricature to think an open future denies omnipresence or omniscience. The future is not a place that now exists that God is in. Confusing omnipresence and knowledge leads to a wrong conclusion. They are related, but also distinct. Omnipresence is why God knows the past and present exhaustively. Contingency/freedom is why God does not know the future as settled while it is unsettled.

Two ships passing in the night....


The more important thing is not relativity, but your relationship with God. Unless you know and love Him, your philosophies and science are in vain.

Einstein is in heaven or hell based on receiving or rejecting Christ, not by searching for a unifying theory of the universe.

Col. 1:17 "He/Christ is before all things (uncreated Creator), and in Him all things (creation) hold together."

I realise that open theism is generally argued against using an omniscient angle but I haven't, this is an omni-present approach.

If He is omnipresent like you say He is then He exists in many time frames. He is in the space shuttle, the near-lightspeed particles, He is everywhere, in all things; moving and at rest. If He exists in a dilated time frame in relation to ours here on earth then that which is a hundred years away to us is but seconds to Him. If He is in another time frame which is much more dilated in reference to ourselves then that which is millenia away from us happens in an instant. Meanwhile he experiences our time when in our time reference. Simply put God has seen the future because by being in a different time reference He has been there. There is no need to argue free-will.

The more important thing is not relativity, but your relationship with God. Unless you know and love Him, your philosophies and science are in vain.

Agreed but that's not the title of the thread.

Col. 1:17 "He/Christ is before all things (uncreated Creator), and in Him all things (creation) hold together

Sounds like He's omnipresent doesn't it.....

If you accept:-
(i) omnipresence and
(ii) time dilation

then logically it follows that you must accept

(a) different time frames

which implies:-

(b) that God knows the future.


If you deny time-dilation we can show you how it works, we can show you the technology we have, we can show you the experiments and the observations we've made. Of course you can still deny it if you so wish...but yours would be similiar position to that which the Church took against Gallileo.

Gallileo won.

 

[godrulz]

Maybe the problem is time frames. It still sounds like you are confusing spatial issues with simple duration/sequence/succession measurements. It sounds like you are assuming God is in different time frames or that He is analagous to an astronaut (which He is not). I smell circular reasoning...wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions. God is not limited by physics or the universe.

 

[eccl3_6]

Maybe the problem is time frames. It still sounds like you are confusing spatial issues with simple duration/sequence/succession measurements. It sounds like you are assuming God is in different time frames or that He is analagous to an astronaut (which He is not). I smell circular reasoning...wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions. God is not limited by physics or the universe.

Which translates to "I dispute time dilation"

First of all nobody is saying God is limited to the physics of the universe. But even the physics of the universe point to God being able to know the future. God is not limited by physics but He is limited by Open Theism.


Secondly I'm not confusing sequence/succession. There is no need to go near cause and effect.
If we assume perfect cause and effect that makes no difference whatsoever so if it prevents it from arising as a possible problem we'll accept cause and effect as you understand it.


Take another scenario....

If you go away on a space rocket and travel at near lightspeed velocities and then return back to earth. You may only believe that you have been away for a few hours due to time dilation but to everybody else that was left on the Earth you've been away for years. They have carried on living their lives with the usual cause and effect. When you get back the year is 2025 and the Cubs are baseball champions.

God is omnipresent so when you were flying in your space rocket He is with you and He is on the Earth at the same moment. He experiences both time frames. God left on the earth knows that the Cubs will win in 2025 because He is seeing it from the spacerocket because He is omnipresent. The Cubs in the year 2005 still have cause and effect, they have not done it yet, they are free to make whatever choices they want to. To them nothing is different.

But the Cubs in the future which is 2025 have done it never the less and God left on the earth where its still 2005 knows this as He is the same deity as God on the rocket.


Thats the scenario.

If God is omnipresent then He can see our future. If He can see our future then Open Theism is wrong.

If you actually dispute time dilation as a theory check out Justchristian's Link on post #1186 for a practical observation of time dilation. The maths on the same link is sound to.

 

[godrulz]

Remove space ships and impossible travel at the speed of light and two observers see 2025 at the same time. Our beliefs should not rely on theoretical space travel that is impossible for man and irrelevant to God's existence.

Cause-effect applies to inanimate creation. Moral free agents introduce contingencies which are unknowable as a certainty from ages ago. If they were a truth proposition before they happened, they could not be free choices since there is no ability for an alternative choice at a future moment.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Open Theism is a falsehood that denies the true and plain meaning of Omnipresence, Omnipotence and Omniscience. While they use these ideals to prop up their theories, they deny the very simple meaning of those words.

You will not reach them. You will not change their minds, they have changed them already in order to embrace what they want to be true. Instead, they truly make God their co-pilot so that they can think that they are the pilot and exercise what they think is control over their own lives. They call it free will. It's self driven and places man's "soverignty" over God's.

 

[justchristian]

Moral free agents introduce contingencies which are unknowable as a certainty from ages ago

Wouldnt you then have to say that free agents introduce contingencies unknowable as a certainty seconds from now?

 

[eccl3_6]

Remove space ships and impossible travel at the speed of light and two observers see 2025 at the same time. Our beliefs should not rely on theoretical space travel that is impossible for man and irrelevant to God's existence.

Cause-effect applies to inanimate creation. Moral free agents introduce contingencies which are unknowable as a certainty from ages ago. If they were a truth proposition before they happened, they could not be free choices since there is no ability for an alternative choice at a future moment.

Two things

1) Forget cause and effect for now, its not relevant, its a red herring and I'm not going to bite.

2)You don't have to be travelling at the speed of light (in fact I said near lightspeed because the argument swings even further in my favour at c. but the mental math acrobats gets silly) its just showing an extreme to explain a point. A different time reference appears by you sitting still and me jogging down the road. Minisculely small but still present. God doesn't need a rocket ship, he's omnipresent. Not just where you and I are, everywhere. On a comet travelling at 75km per second, He is where the electron is around an atom, at the top of amountain, at the bottom of an ocean. Omnipresent means everywhere. If He is everywhere then He exists in many time references and in some of these time references Time is so diluted in comparison to our own every millenia to ourselves is just a fraction of a second.

God does experience time as we do 2005 and in 2025 but so much more.....and He can do it simultaneously!

The problem is your belief of open-theism is not compatible with the world we live in. That in itself is fine...your choice. But it places you in similiar position to that which the Church found itself regarding Gallileo.

Open-Theism is contradictory to the God's omnipresence by the nature of the world as God created it​

 

[drbrumley]

Open Theism is a falsehood that denies the true and plain meaning of Omnipresence, Omnipotence and Omniscience. While they use these ideals to prop up their theories, they deny the very simple meaning of those words.

You will not reach them. You will not change their minds, they have changed them already in order to embrace what they want to be true. Instead, they truly make God their co-pilot so that they can think that they are the pilot and exercise what they think is control over their own lives. They call it free will. It's self driven and places man's "soverignty" over God's.

Right!!!!! :hammer:

 

[drbrumley]

God is my "co-pilot?"

:darwinsm:

 

[godrulz]

Wouldnt you then have to say that free agents introduce contingencies unknowable as a certainty seconds from now?

Yes and no. The more proximal to the choice, the more knowable. God sees the thoughts and motives formulating almost sooner than we do. He knows us better than we know ourselves. If I get hungry and state I am going to order pizza, it is likely I will eat the pizza within a certain time frame. I am predictable. God still sees the actual eating as it unfolds in real time. It is still possible I could change my mind at the last second or something weird could happen like the pizza delivery guy get in a bizarre accident. Possibilities/probabilities only become certain/actual at the point of choice. What I would say is that there is no basis for God to know what kind of pizza I would eat on this day from eternity past. Try to stretch your brain. Can you see a reason why this event would be a possible object of knowledge for an omniscient God from trillions of years ago? Is it really a lack or limitation of omniscience to not know the unknowable?

 

[godrulz]

Open Theism is a falsehood that denies the true and plain meaning of Omnipresence, Omnipotence and Omniscience. While they use these ideals to prop up their theories, they deny the very simple meaning of those words.

You will not reach them. You will not change their minds, they have changed them already in order to embrace what they want to be true. Instead, they truly make God their co-pilot so that they can think that they are the pilot and exercise what they think is control over their own lives. They call it free will. It's self driven and places man's "soverignty" over God's.

You probably feel the same way about Arminianism :yawn:

 

[Freak]

Open Theism is a falsehood that denies the true and plain meaning of Omnipresence, Omnipotence and Omniscience. While they use these ideals to prop up their theories, they deny the very simple meaning of those words.

You will not reach them. You will not change their minds, they have changed them already in order to embrace what they want to be true. Instead, they truly make God their co-pilot so that they can think that they are the pilot and exercise what they think is control over their own lives. They call it free will. It's self driven and places man's "soverignty" over God's.

:thumb: