Does God know the future?

[godrulz]

No it's not, because even though they can see each other they won't agree on "now". That's the entire point. Go back and reread 1473

Who cares whether they agree or not. Different time zones in the world are relative measures that do not change the distinction of past/present/future for every person in the universe, including God.

 

[godrulz]

Yea I buy that time dilation has to do with the same moment in time experienced at different rates not different moments in time experienced simultaneously.

So are you saying that IF time is a thing it proves Open Thiesm wrong as God would have created it? That's just an if. I just want to be clear.

Open Theism could still stand if time is created. Some open theists believe God is eternal/timeless until creation, when a temporal aspect is introduced.

 

[Clete]

Of course this problem extends to other areas as well:

The only thing that Open Theism doesn't have is the respect of the Christian theological community but that is not even evidence that it is not Biblical and correct. The problem the theological community has at this point is that thousands of theologeans, pastors, etc. would have to throw out their entire careers' worth of work if they found out that time is not a thing and what they've believed all this time has been incorrect. And don't be fooled, that is a very real possibility and so there is a built-in conflict of interest in the theological community.​

Yes! An excellent point! :thumb:

An ideas popularity has nothing to do with whether or not it is correct. In fact, generally speaking popularity is a bad sign.

 

[Clete]

Yea I buy that time dilation has to do with the same moment in time experienced at different rates not different moments in time experienced simultaneously.

You got it! That's been the point I've been trying to get across. Thank you for acknowledging it, whether you agree with it or not.

So are you saying that IF time is a thing it proves Open Thiesm wrong as God would have created it? That's just an if. I just want to be clear.

I don't know. Intuitively I would say that a created time would not be a good thing for Open Theism as it would indicate that God exists outside of time but I have not thought it through sufficiently to say that this would be fatal to Open Theism. It might be, I don't know.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[justchristian]

Open Theism could still stand if time is created. Some open theists believe God is eternal/timeless until creation, when a temporal aspect is introduced.

So they would hold that time is an unfolding event growing with the universe? That God has choosen to give man a say it how that universe, along with time (writing the past), unfolds? And ultimately whether during man's journey through the universe he will choose God? I have a better time buying that.

 

[justchristian]

You got it! That's been the point I've been trying to get across. Thank you for acknowledging it, whether you agree with it or not.



I don't know. Intuitively I would say that a created time would not be a good thing for Open Theism as it would indicate that God exists outside of time but I have not thought it through sufficiently to say that this would be fatal to Open Theism. It might be, I don't know.

Resting in Him,
Clete

That's the most rational thought I've read from you yet (I exaggerate) but I finally feel as if we are finally discussing instead of arguing. I admit at times I have been less than rational, sorry. Hopefully we can move forward and discuss more than we argue.

 

[eccl3_6]

But God and a sun creature see it in real time. Perception with our earthly eyes does not change the objectivity of real time on the sun.

So are you now saying God doesn't experience, and isn't subject to, time as we do and are?

If this is the case its a hell of a U turn Godrulz.

Can you address my inquiry on the other thread please.

Thankyou.

​

 

[eccl3_6]

I don't know. Intuitively I would say that a created time would not be a good thing for Open Theism as it would indicate that God exists outside of time but I have not thought it through sufficiently to say that this would be fatal to Open Theism. It might be, I don't know.

Which is why you cannot accept Relativity!!! Time being a product of the universe would be disasterous for your argument.....

the very thing I have been saying.​

:angel:​

The scientific community all agrees that time is a product of physicallity.
Time frames exist and what you perceive as now is a perception. We are fantastic processors processing all the information from our ears, our eyes, our senses. Whatever is now to you is not now to me. Whats more we perceive time and time is a product of our surroundings. And our surroundings are change, more so than just by noise and light, but by mass and characteristic. Gravity and time. It was Einstein that taught us to to think of things this way.....and we've proved him right time and time again.

Time is a thing and it is relative, not absolute as open theism requires it to be.

Sorry....but there it is.

 

[Johnny]

They all experience, in one way or another, 12:01:14.00002345pm central time on the 13th of July (to use a clock standard that we are all familiar with), and at that precise moment or any other moment you want to pick they can all observe eachother.

They will all experience that time, but at different moments. If they all decide to send a signal at 12:01:14.00002345pm central time on the 13th of July to a central stationary observer, none of the signals will be received at the same time (even accounting for distance from observer). This is because there is no agreement between them when 12:01:14 occured. It occured at different moments in spacetime for each of them. There is no "now" except what you are experiencing. Your experience is completely relative. You're still not grasping the point: if the present is relative, then there are multiple presents in the universe. That is, my present may be in your future, or my past may be in your present. According to SR, there is no "present" that everyone will agree upon.

The THEORY of Relativity

Ick, I feel I need to respond to your constant rants against relativity. First, please understand that scientific theories are different than hypothesis, which is the lay use for the term "theory". So by using the term "THEORY" and emphasizing that it's a theory, you are doing your side of the argument a disservice.

there are multiple theories that account for the same observed phenomina that Relativity accounts for but without requiring the existence of time or even a fourth dimention in one particular case.

No, there aren't multiple theories. There aren't even good ideas. Don't mention Lorentz, because he was discredited with the publishing of Einstein's 1905 paper (and many other subsequent publishings).

And these are real theories that have the same amount of mathematical and observational support as Relativity does.

Really? Can you name some? Can I find them in an encyclopedia? Or in a science text book? Can I find them in a peer-reviewed journal somewhere? Probably not. You're going to point to some obscure online reference run by Joe Crackpot who throws a bunch of numbers around and writes convincingly. Trust me, we see them all the time at another forum. They come and go like the wind. Their arguments are usually based on a fundamental misunderstanding.

The only thing that most of these theories don't have is the respect of the scientific community but that is not even evidence that they are not correct.

There's a reason for this. Think about it. (It probably has to do with a lack of evidence that they ARE correct.)

The problem the scientific community has at this point is that thousands of physisist would have to throw out their entire carreers worth of work if they found out that time is not a thing and what they've believed all this time has been incorrect.

Do you realize how important of a discovery that would be? Do you realize how many hundreds of thousands of graduate students would give their left leg to be "the one"? Do you realize that the scientist who discovered this would be heralded as the next Big Thing in physics? Don't tell me there's not incentive, because in the scientific world proving someone else wrong is money.

The point being that as long as there is multiple viable theories then none of those theories can be said to have been proven. For any theory of science to be proven, all other competing theories must be falsified, until that happens Relativity will remain a theory.

Stop saying that. There aren't other viable theories. Please, tell me another viable theory that hasn't been discredited? Just one or two will do. Because there are "multiple viable theories" it shouldn't be hard to find one that has empirical support.

 

[Clete]

Stop saying that. There aren't other viable theories. Please, tell me another viable theory that hasn't been discredited? Just one or two will do. Because there are "multiple viable theories" it shouldn't be hard to find one that has empirical support.

I have already done so on this thread. I have several articles somewhere in my house (like I mentioned before, I hate moving for this very reason) but I cannot find them. Some of which (I’m thinking of one in particular) that I believe was in Scientific American magazine which was the cover article of the magazine which was all about a prominent physicist who claims that time does not exist. I am not making this up, I will try again to find the box that all this stuff is in so that I can provide specific references but for now all I can tell you it that the actual existence of time is still and open question in the physics community even if it is a minority view. It will be quite impossible for you to convince me otherwise, I have read the articles with my own eyes and know better.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[eccl3_6]

I have already done so on this thread. I have several articles somewhere in my house (like I mentioned before, I hate moving for this very reason) but I cannot find them. Some of which (I’m thinking of one in particular) that I believe was in Scientific American magazine which was the cover article of the magazine which was all about a prominent physicist who claims that time does not exist. I am not making this up, I will try again to find the box that all this stuff is in so that I can provide specific references but for now all I can tell you it that the actual existence of time is still and open question in the physics community even if it is a minority view. It will be quite impossible for you to convince me otherwise, I have read the articles with my own eyes and know better.

Unfortunately you shouldn't present it if you can't support it. Find the article or tell us the post number on the thread so we can go and read it (I have looked but the thread is huge and I can't find anything that could relate to this).

Otherwise your point shouldn't be made, as I'm sure you understand.

Meanwhile...

The theory of relativity has been proved.
The evidence that substantiates this is considerable and available.

This when considered regarding the arguments posted (in summary post #1455) means that time does not behave in a manner with which open-theism is in accordance.

"If the open-theist concept of absolute time is supplanted into the
​

consequences of relativity (multiple time frames) then open theism becomes
self contradictory in the presence of an omnipresent God."​

An open theist therefore cannot accept relativity:-

Intuitively I would say that a created time would not be a good thing for Open Theism as it would indicate that God exists outside of time but I have not thought it through sufficiently to say that this would be fatal to Open Theism. It might be, I don't know.

Ideally what you need to do is come up with an alternate theory to Relativity.

Good Luck....nobody's done it yet.

Open Theism.......Why the Vatican employs physicists. ​

 

[Freak]

There you have it if....God created time why then should He be goverened by the nature of time, He already exists outside it.

Exactly. :up:

 

[godrulz]

So are you now saying God doesn't experience, and isn't subject to, time as we do and are?

If this is the case its a hell of a U turn Godrulz.

Can you address my inquiry on the other thread please.

Thankyou.

​

Putting words in my mouth? Misunderstanding me? Maybe I was tired and need to reword statements?

God sees the sun first hand. We see it relatively later due to its distance. If Jesus saw the sun on while on earth, or if God transported us with Him to the sun, the subjective perception would be gone. If we were sitting on God's knee, we would see as He does. If He was limited to our human perspective, He would see it as we do. All in all, the sun would objectively be existing in the same time frame as God or us, regardless of our distance. Our subjective perception differs, but not the objective reality if we were God or He was a man (like He was as Jesus).

God and us experience time, duration, sequence, succession. He or us are not subject to it. It is an aspect of personal existence.

 

[Johnny]

Some of which (I’m thinking of one in particular) that I believe was in Scientific American magazine which was the cover article of the magazine which was all about a prominent physicist who claims that time does not exist. I am not making this up, I will try again to find the box that all this stuff is in so that I can provide specific references but for now all I can tell you it that the actual existence of time is still and open question in the physics community even if it is a minority view. It will be quite impossible for you to convince me otherwise, I have read the articles with my own eyes and know better.

I asked you for alternate theories to special relativity. You said there were "multiple, viable theories". Then, when pressed, you proceed to tell me about a Scientific American article you read a long time ago which stated that time does not exist. That's not an alternate theory to special relativity. I'm not knocking on scientific american, but not everything they write about is accepted science. For example, they have featured many articles on time travel, but you contend that it's impossible. So quoting something out of Scientific American isn't doing much for your argument, especially when I can turn around and quote something from the same issue that you disagree with.

I have the Scientific American issue you're talking about. It's from September 2002 and the cover says, "A Matter of TIME". The whole issue is devoted to current scientific trends and thinking regarding time. The article that suggests that time is only an illusion is by Paul Davies and is titled, "That Mysterious Flow".

Unfortunately for you, by the fourth paragraph the author is already quoting Einstein and relating Einstein's discoveries to the reader. And even more unfortunate for your argument is this quote, taken directly from the article overview: "Our senses tell us that time flows: namely, that the past is fixed, the future is undetermined, and reality lived in the present. Yet various physical and philosophical arguments suggest otherwise. The passage of time is probably an illusion. Consciousness may involve thermodynamic or quantum processes that lend the impression of living moment by moment." Later in the article the author says, "Objectively, past, present and future must be equally real."

So you see, it's probably better that you argue that time does exist.

 

[godrulz]

Theoretical physicists are out of their league to be trying to speculate about philosophical/theological issues. Science is not the only relevant discipline to ascertain the nature of time, especially when God and moral agents are involved. Science wrongly reduces love to a chemical reaction. It has its limitations.

 

[Johnny]

Theoretical physicists are out of their league to be trying to speculate about philosophical/theological issues.

Science is the only relevant discipline that has had any measurable impact on our thinking of time. Theology is pure speculation and philosophy isn't as concrete as we'd all like it to be.

Nonetheless, philosophers and scientists usually collaborate on issues such as time.

Science wrongly reduces love to a chemical reaction.

How do you know that's wrong? All thoughts, feelings, and actions are the result of or rely upon a physical reaction taking place in the brain. Why then, do you assume that love, of all things, is more than a physical process?

 

[godrulz]

Science is the only relevant discipline that has had any measurable impact on our thinking of time. Theology is pure speculation and philosophy isn't as concrete as we'd all like it to be.

Nonetheless, philosophers and scientists usually collaborate on issues such as time.
How do you know that's wrong? All thoughts, feelings, and actions are the result of or rely upon a physical reaction taking place in the brain. Why then, do you assume that love, of all things, is more than a physical process?

"God is love". God is a personal spirit, not physical. Love is volitional, not chemical. It may be expressed through our physical/emotional being, but it is more than that.

 

[eccl3_6]

Theoretical physicists are out of their league to be trying to speculate about philosophical/theological issues.

Unfortunately its the other way around. Science has come on in such leaps and bounds in the last century that it is the philosophers that have been slow to understand the ramifications.

I can remember (I think it was yourself Godrulz....I apologise if it was not) somebody talking about "bad science"(I remember I was annoyed at the time saying what exactly is 'bad science'?!?). My own answer was that it is not the scientists that are to blame when science is wrongly applied (cloning was put forward as an example...although I agree with it)but people that held/did not hold the philsophical argument afterwards. The 'Just because we can do something does not mean that we should' argument.

Science has become so diverse it is difficult for a philosopher to understand all its facets, to keep up with the level of understanding. As a physicist I only need to understand physics and maths. A philosopher needs to understand physics, maths & philosophy. If they then wish to consider 'evolution' then they need to understand Biology too...all to a postgrad level or beyond. They have to learn more with the same resources i.e. 1 brain and 1 pair of hands.

Simply put Philosophers don't have enough time....Physicists do.


We told you time was relative

 

[godrulz]

I concur that we need to draw from many disciplines to understand many issues. I disagree that science is the end all and be all in every situation.

If I want to understand the nature of love, freedom, and morals, I do not look to math or physics for the definitive answer. If I want to understand the nature, character, attributes, and ways of the Living God, I do not look to biology for the conclusive answer.

I believe the issues surrounding God's eternity, time, relations, etc. require logic and reasoning, but they ultimately require revelation of truth from Himself. Once it is established that the Word of God is an accurate, authoritative revelation of God, then we need theologians, textual criticism, hermeneutics, original language studies, etc. to accurately understand the revelation. The Holy Spirit ultimately illuminates truth to our minds and spirits. The physicist is not the one to look to for discerning spiritual truth, unless he has mastered Hebrew, Greek, manuscript evidence, etc.

Perhaps the issue is whether science or spiritual leaders are the gate keepers for spiritual knowledge. Science studies God's creation and His handiwork. We can know somethings about God from this (Rom. 1). Theology studies God. We cannot know who Jesus is and how God is triune from raw science.

Theology, philosophy, science, etc. do not have to be in conflict, but we have to recognize the limitations/applications of each. Origins (evolution vs creationism) requires biblical and geological understanding. This is an example of a theory being elevated to fact while ignoring an alternate understanding of cosmology, fossil record, etc.

 

[eccl3_6]

I concur that we need to draw from many disciplines to understand many issues. I disagree that science is the end all and be all in every situation.

I would never suggest for a moment that it were. To say so would be to disregard the Arts. I have never argued about God's nature. I have argued with the nature of your philosophy.....with the greatest of respect Open Theism does go against science and Open Theism isn't the word of God, its the word of man trying to explain God's nature.

If I want to understand the nature of love, freedom, and morals, I do not look to math or physics for the definitive answer. If I want to understand the nature, character, attributes, and ways of the Living God, I do not look to biology for the conclusive answer.

I agree 100%.

A physicist is not the one to look to for discerning spiritual truth, unless he has mastered Hebrew, Greek, manuscript evidence, etc.

I completely agree again. We can make sure there's theological logic though.

Science studies God's creation and His handiwork.

I agree which is why if Open Theoism flies in the face of it then the physicist must say something.

Theology, philosophy, science, etc. do not have to be in conflict, but we have to recognize the limitations/applications of each.

I concur once more.

Origins (evolution vs creationism) requires biblical and geological understanding. This is an example of a theory being elevated to fact while ignoring an alternate understanding of cosmology, fossil record, etc.

We'll leave it there....we were on a roll


Lady Science will never supplant religion....but when she notices that a theologian has dropped a clanger...she has to say something. Thats all we've done.