Does God know the future?

[godrulz]

The astronomer Robert Jastrow in "God and the Astronomers" noted that the universe has a beginning. He said the scientists are climbing the mountain and when they get to the top, the theologians have been sitting there all the time (rough paraphrase).

Theology has nothing to fear from good science. I suppose I am questioning the validity of your conclusions in relation to Open Theism. I do not fully understand your science, and you may not fully understand all expressions of OT.

 

[justchristian]

Theology has nothing to fear from good science. I suppose I am questioning the validity of your conclusions in relation to Open Theism. I do not fully understand your science, and you may not fully understand all expressions of OT.

Of course knowledge is incomplete and our conclusions faulty being based on incomplete knowledge but making our best guess with the knowledge we have while pursuing knowledge to improve our best guess is all we can do. And, for me at least, this is as fun as anything.

 

[eccl3_6]

Of course knowledge is incomplete and our conclusions faulty being based on incomplete knowledge but making our best guess with the knowledge we have while pursuing knowledge to improve our best guess is all we can do. And, for me at least, this is as fun as anything.

:up:​

 

[eccl3_6]

The astronomer Robert Jastrow in "God and the Astronomers" noted that the universe has a beginning. He said the scientists are climbing the mountain and when they get to the top, the theologians have been sitting there all the time (rough paraphrase).

Theology has nothing to fear from good science. I suppose I am questioning the validity of your conclusions in relation to Open Theism. I do not fully understand your science, and you may not fully understand all expressions of OT.

Hey I fully appreciate the need for theology and philosphy. It should never tell science how things are but it should tell us what we shouldn't endorse. It should protect us but never inhibit. Take 'Ethics' as an example. If someone dies and science is able to hold the body in a suspended, repair it, and then reanimate it, bring it back to life - should we. I believe not but this is where our philosophers should step in. Should we have pursued nuclear technology? I believe 'yes' but once we knew how to do it should we have built the bomb...still I believe 'yes' but the waters become less clear, murkier. A philosopher or a theologian is needed.

Do I believe religion should encroach on scientific research. Absolutely not. Do I believe religion has a vital role to play in a community's well being? Emphatically yes.

Do I field serious concerns with OT? Yes, both physically and philosophically (we've argued this convincingly I feel on both platforms).

Do I defend your right to believe in it regardless? Yes. If it makes you happy.....go for it...100%.

​

 

[Johnny]

Theology has nothing to fear from good science. I

That's because theologians define good science to exclude anything that doesn't agree with their theology. If it doesn't agree, it's not good science.

 

[godrulz]

That's because theologians define good science to exclude anything that doesn't agree with their theology. If it doesn't agree, it's not good science.

Stereotyping/simplisitic...there are many qualified doctorate level creation scientists that base creationism on scientific and biblical evidence. e.g. catastrophism (Flood geology) explains the geological data better than uniformitarianism (long time periods).

 

[Johnny]

Can you give me an example of a "qualified doctorate level creation scientist" who accepts something as good science but disagrees with it theologically?

 

[godrulz]

Can you give me an example of a "qualified doctorate level creation scientist" who accepts something as good science but disagrees with it theologically?

No, but www.icr.org has doctorate scientists who disagree with humanism/evolution and do good science consistent with good theology.

 

[eccl3_6]

No, but www.icr.org has doctorate scientists who disagree with humanism/evolution and do good science consistent with good theology.

'Good science' consistent with good theology isn't science well done. Anybody that massages data to conform to a theology is not a scientist but a con artist.

If science happens to support a theolgogy....the science remains science...the theology becomes scientifically supported.

Before a scientist sits down in a lab he doesn't think, "Whats my religion today?", it shouldn't enter his work at all.

The link that you provided is exactly what I was saying when religion should not encroach on scientific learning. Be an ethical mentor by all means......don't indoctrinate biased science. I can't believe I just called it science.....its not. This place is dangerous, bordering on evil.

 

[Clete]

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.

No actually I do not think that was it, in fact I'm nearly certain of it. You won't believe me because I flat out cannot find the damn magazine to quote it directly but that article I'm refering to was being featured because the physicist whom they were talking about had a mathematically rigorous theory that only had three dimentions (i.e. no time)*. It has been a couple of years ago and I haven't heard anything more about it and so I will readily admit that it probably has it's problems but that isn't the point. I don't bring these things up so that we can debate the merrits of a half dozen altrernatives to Einstien's theories. I bring them up to piont out that they exists and that they continue to be brought forward by serious scientist and get published by serious publications. Even if everyone of them are wrong, which they may well be, the fact that they exist as genuine theories is proof that Einstien's theories HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN as yet. It is rediculous for you to insist that they have been.

Concerning your buddy eccl3_6, I responded to this post of yours because you posted it before being aware of my writing him off and because I had overlooked it in the first place, but if you want to debate me further you'll have to start another thread and keep him off of it, I will not participate with that jackass any more.

Resting in Him,
Clete

* Or at least the dimention of time was taken out in some fashion (in other words it wasn't merely a figure of speech in the title of the article, the point of it was really about the idea that time was not an aspect of space as Einstein proposed. As I think about it I could be getting more than one article mixed together. One theory had only three dimentions but I don't remember wether it was the article in S. A. or not.

 

[godrulz]

'Good science' consistent with good theology isn't science well done. Anybody that massages data to conform to a theology is not a scientist but a con artist.

If science happens to support a theolgogy....the science remains science...the theology becomes scientifically supported.

Before a scientist sits down in a lab he doesn't think, "Whats my religion today?", it shouldn't enter his work at all.

The link that you provided is exactly what I was saying when religion should not encroach on scientific learning. Be an ethical mentor by all means......don't indoctrinate biased science. I can't believe I just called it science.....its not. This place is dangerous, bordering on evil.

How is studying geology, radioisotopes, fossils, etc. an issue? These guys had to earn their degrees in a secular setting. They do not look at science through the Bible, per se, since the Bible is not a scientific text that deals with all the issues. They look at the Grand Canyon and problems with Carbon dating and propose alternate views that explain the evidence better. They happen to give the glory to God for His creation, but this does not mean they can credibly distort hard evidence to hoodwink the scientific community and general public. What is the evidence for evolution? What is the evidence for a younger universe? What is the evidence for macro vs micro evolution? etc.

 

[eccl3_6]

How is studying geology, radioisotopes, fossils, etc. an issue? These guys had to earn their degrees in a secular setting. They do not look at science through the Bible, per se, since the Bible is not a scientific text that deals with all the issues. They look at the Grand Canyon and problems with Carbon dating and propose alternate views that explain the evidence better. They happen to give the glory to God for His creation, but this does not mean they can credibly distort hard evidence to hoodwink the scientific community and general public. What is the evidence for evolution? What is the evidence for a younger universe? What is the evidence for macro vs micro evolution? etc.

They are not talking, studying, researching and teaching science.....and then reflecting on
it in a Biblical context....which would be fine.

They are looking through the microscope with a Biblical approach, not a scientific one. This is dangerous. If they are not doing so then I apologise but this is way of thread anyway. It is admittedly a potentially a good thread to start...it actually smacks of my 'Science divide' thread thats still out there somewhere.

Lets allow this to return to your's, JustChristians, Johnny's, and Clete's line of inquiry.....I'll disappear so Clete can come back! :chuckle:

From Post #1514
​

:shut:​

"These guys had to earn their degrees in a secular setting"
- And Anakin Sywalker was a good guy until he joined the Dark Side.​

 

[eccl3_6]

Hows the Anti-Relativity Party going? No breakthroughs in the last 24hrs?
Is it the Open Theist's intention to let this thread slip into obscurity...pretending it didn't happen. There are significant breaches to the OT in this thread.....can we have some acknowledgment on this please or are heads going to remain planted in the beach?

 

[godrulz]

Hows the Anti-Relativity Party going? No breakthroughs in the last 24hrs?
Is it the Open Theist's intention to let this thread slip into obscurity...pretending it didn't happen. There are significant breaches to the OT in this thread.....can we have some acknowledgment on this please or are heads going to remain planted in the beach?

I am not following your line of reasoning, nor am I an expert on relativity and its applications/limitations (it does not explain why I am losing my hair, etc.).

 

[eccl3_6]

I am not following your line of reasoning, nor am I an expert on relativity and its applications/limitations (it does not explain why I am losing my hair, etc.).

Everybody loses hair....some of us just lose it much faster than others (I too am similarly challenged) - thats Relativity.

 

[novice]

Hows the Anti-Relativity Party going? No breakthroughs in the last 24hrs?
Is it the Open Theist's intention to let this thread slip into obscurity...pretending it didn't happen. There are significant breaches to the OT in this thread.....can we have some acknowledgment on this please or are heads going to remain planted in the beach?

Are you the new TOL drama-queen?

You have got to be kidding me!!! ROTFL

Not since the days of "smaller" have I seen someone so in the dark about how the thread was actually going. :darwinsm:

 

[godrulz]

Are you the new TOL drama-queen?

You have got to be kidding me!!! ROTFL

Not since the days of "smaller" have I seen someone so in the dark about how the thread was actually going. :darwinsm:

Megalomaniac, he is?

He has avoided questions about who Jesus Christ is and what he will do with His person and work.

 

[eccl3_6]

Megalomaniac, he is?

He has avoided questions about who Jesus Christ is and what he will do with His person and work.

Set up a different thread that asks these questions and I may appear on it. Its got nothing to do with the topic again has it? You can run around and hide behind questions but you won't address the topic.

Set up an alternative thread, PM me, and I'll answer them for you.

Meanwhile has Open Theism accepted relative time yet? Or is your head still in the sand?

​

The megalomanic is the man that teaches open theism whilst believing it to be truthful.
The man that listens to him and accepts what he say is just gullible. ​

:doh:​

 

[eccl3_6]

Are you the new TOL drama-queen?

You have got to be kidding me!!! ROTFL

Not since the days of "smaller" have I seen someone so in the dark about how the thread was actually going. :darwinsm:

:king:​

 

[eccl3_6]

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:-




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. ​

:BRAVO:​