Does God know the future?

[Johnny]

If you cannot have B without A then the presence of B proves the existence of A.

But you're (he is) making implicit assumptions. You're assuming God exists by saying that you can't have logic without God.

For example:

You can't have logic without aliens who created us. Logic exists, thus aliens created us.
You can't have logic without the chicken god. logic exists, thus the chicken god exists.
You can't have logic without a black hole that spawned our universe. Logic exists, thus a black hole spawned our universe.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

I don't want to be offensive but that's not good logic. Here's why:

First, you assumed "2) Logic does not arise from natural things". This is an assumption I'm not sure everyone would agree with. Logic can usually be reduced to a mathematical operation, which is arguably natural (or arises naturally in our brains). You may counter that God created nature, but that is assuming His existence when you're trying to prove it in the first place. Remember that computers can use logic (usually better than we can), and they rely completely on natural laws.

Again, you're assuming the existence of God. One could substitute God with purple spacetimewarping flying monkeys, which are clearly beyond natural, and your argument would apply. But we cannot conclude that purple spacetimewarping flying monkeys exist.

so the form is fine (not-circular), but you believe saying "logic is not natural" is an unjustified assumption?

by the way, i have not read C.S. Lewis's book 'Miracles' which develops this argument. i was only trying to show why i didn't think the argument was circular. i for one do not know the argument of why logic is defined as not natural. i do believe, however, that God is a logical being who instilled us with the ability to reason. i don't know how to formally argue it in depth though.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

You say that because we have logic, it proves God exists, and yet, also turn around and say that because God exists, we have logic.

so was my sunlight argument incorrect? if the form was correct on that one, then you must agree that it's right on the logic one, because it's the same argument form.

 

[DFT_Dave]

C. S. Lewis and Time

C. S. Lewis in his chapter on time makes a clear distinction between how we experiences time in contrast to how God experiences it.

“Our life comes to us moment by moment. One moment disappears before the next comes along: and there is room for very little in each. That is what Time is like. And of course you and I tend to take it for granted that this Time series—this arrangement of past, present and future—is not simply the way life comes to us but the way all things really exist. We tend to assume that the whole universe and God Himself are always moving on from past to future just as we do.”

“God, I believe, does not live in a Time-series at all. His life is not dribbled out moment by
moment like ours: with Him it is, so to speak, still 1920 and already 1960.”

God has no history. He is too completely and utterly real to have one. For, of course, to have a history means losing part of your reality (because it had already slipped away into the past) and not yet having another part (because it is still in the future): in fact having nothing but the tiny little present, which has gone before you can speak about it. God forbid we should think God was like that.”

Lewis clearly echoes Augustine’s discourse on time and eternity.

“In the Eternal...nothing passes away, but the whole is simultaneously present. But no temporal process is wholly simultaneous...all time past is forced to move on by the incoming future...all the future follows from the past; and that all, past and future, is created and issues out of that which is forever present. Who will hold the heart of man that it may stand still and see how the eternity which always stands still is itself neither future nor past but expresses itself in the times that are future and past?” (Augustine’s Confessions, Book XI, cnhapter 11)

Augustine's understanding of time comes, not from Scripture, but, from Plato.

“For there were no days and nights and months and years before the heaven was created, but when he constructed the heaven he created them also. They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species of time, which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal essence; for we say that he "was," he "is," he "will be," but the truth is that "is" alone is properly attributed to him, and that "was" and "will be" only to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions” but that which is immovably the same, “is eternal”. (Timaeus chapter 3 and 7)

Lewis addresses the problem of freedom and God's foreknowledge

"Another difficulty we get if we believe God to be in time is this. Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow. But if He knows I am going to do so-and-so, how can I be free to do otherwise?

But this is not the next logical question.

The classic argument against Augustine is not how can we be free if God can see our future, it is, how can God see our future if we exist only in time? If God can see our future then the logical conclusion is that we are also eternal. In the Confessions it is put this way, “if it was the eternal will of God that the creation should come to be, why, then, is not the creation itself also from eternity?" (Confessions, Book XI, chapter 10)

To believe that we exist only “moment by moment” and that God sees, for all eternity, our entire existence is irrational to us.

Lewis explains how we can rationalize this, “Well, here once again, the difficulty comes from thinking that God is progressing along the Time-line like us: the only difference being that He can see ahead and we cannot. Well, if that were true, if God foresaw our acts, it would be very hard to understand how we could be free not to do them. But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call "tomorrow" is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call "today." All the days are "Now" for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday; He simply sees you doing them...He does not "foresee"you doing things tomorrow; He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him.

Here we see Lewis making the error of substituting the subject of his argument.

Lewis says, “Lets imagine that God is outside and above the Time-line;” the next logical step is to say that all God’s days are “Now” for him to see. Instead, Lewis says, “All of our days are “Now” for him to see. In order for our past and future, to be seen as an "eternal present", we would have to imagine that we are outside and above the Time-line; if we are in the time-line, God can only see us "moment by moment."

If we put this as a simple equation it would look like this:

time-line = events are moment by moment
no time-line = all events are now
God + time-line = God’s events are moment by moment
God + no time-line = all God’s events are now
man + time-line = man’s events are moment by moment
man + no time-line = all man’s events are now

Lewis creates a fallacy by substituting “man” for “God” as the subject in his equation:

God + no time-line = all man’s events are now

It’s irrational to believe that we can exist in a future that only God can see and still be considered finite or temporal. If it is true that our entire future is knowable then human rationality cannot help us understand God nor eternal reality.

Lewis, though violating the rules of logic in Mere Christianity, affirms the importance of proper reasoning in his book, Miracles when he stated, “All possible knowledge depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside our own minds really "must" be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into realities beyond them—if it merely represents the way our minds happens to work—then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true." I would add that no theology can be true, either.

In defeating the arguments of "naturalism" Lewis wrote in Miracles, “It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound—a proof that there are no such things as proofs—which is nonsense."

Open theism in logically consistent; God does not see the future of man who he created to be finite. What God reveals to us about the future is through other means.

P. S. I will say more about this in my website.
--Dave

 

[godrulz]

God does have a history. History is His Story. Nicholas Wolterstorff argues that God is personal and not timeless because He does have a history. The distinctions between past, present, and future are real for God (Rev. 1:4, 8; Ps. 90:2). Lewis was wrong on this point.

 

[Z Man]

This is not circular Z Man. You need to slow down and think this through.

If you cannot have B without A then the presence of B proves the existence of A.

Thus if you cannot have logic without God (which you cannot) then the presence of logic proves the existence of God. The argument is that the existence of God is a necessary condition for the existence of logic and therefore if logic exists so must God. That's what it means to be a necessary condition.

Yeah, but it becomes circular when you turn around and say that A proves B, or in this case, if God exists, so must logic.

 

[lee_merrill]

But you're (he is) making implicit assumptions. You're assuming God exists by saying that you can't have logic without God.

For example:

You can't have logic without aliens who created us. Logic exists, thus aliens created us.
You can't have logic without the chicken god. logic exists, thus the chicken god exists.
You can't have logic without a black hole that spawned our universe. Logic exists, thus a black hole spawned our universe.

But the bone of contention here is only with the last statement, the argument from reason is against naturalism. As long as reason comes from reason, we can see how this reasoning could be independent in a crucial way from natural causes, and thus could be real.

But if our arguments are in a chain stretching all the way back to a bang, if all we say and do is some combination of quantum mechanical randomness and determinism, we have no way to claim real insight.

A word or two from Mr. Lewis...

"The whole disruptive power of Marxism and Freudianism against traditional beliefs has lain in their claim to expose irrational causes for them. If any Marxist is reading these lines at this moment he is murmuring to himself, 'All this argument really results from the fact that the author is a bourgeois'--in fact he is applying the rule I have just stated. Because he thinks that my thoughts result from an irrational cause he therefore discounts them. All thoughts which are so caused are valueless. We never, in our ordinary thinking, admit any exceptions to this rule."

"Now it would clearly be preposterous to apply this rule to each particular thought as we come to it and yet not apply it to all thoughts taken collectively, that is, to human reason as a whole. Each particular thought is valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Obviously, then, the whole process of human thought, what we call Reason, is equally valueless if it is the result of irrational causes." (Miracles, first edition)

And Chesterton has a word or two on this, as well, in his book, "Orthodoxy"...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Yeah, but it becomes circular when you turn around and say that A proves B, or in this case, if God exists, so must logic.

but turning it around makes it a seperate argument, one that (to my knowledge) no one is arguing. so the original argument (that really is beging argued) is not circular in and of itself.

 

[Z Man]

but turning it around makes it a seperate argument, one that (to my knowledge) no one is arguing. so the original argument (that really is beging argued) is not circular in and of itself.

If you are arguing that logic proves God exist, it automatically assumes God exists.

A) Logic proves God exists.

Where did logic come from?

B) God.

You are stating that logic proves God, and God proves logic. It's circular.

 

[Clete]

Yeah, but it becomes circular when you turn around and say that A proves B, or in this case, if God exists, so must logic.

Hello Z Man!

Please slow down and THINK. Stop reacting and simply think. I presented the entire argument in my last post. I will do so again here.

If you cannot have B without A then the presence of A proves the existence of B.

If you cannot have logic if God does not exist (which you cannot) then since we have logic then God must exist.

No one is saying that God proves logic only that He is a necessary condition for the existence of logic. We as Christians understand that God is the very source of logic and that no other source is possible and that therefore Christianity is true because of the rational impossibility of the contrary. But that's a whole different issue.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[God_Is_Truth]

If you are arguing that logic proves God exist, it automatically assumes God exists.

A) Logic proves God exists.

Where did logic come from?

B) God.

You are stating that logic proves God, and God proves logic. It's circular.

A) sunlight proves the sun exists

where did sunlight come from?

B) the sun

now how is that circular? it follows the form "if A, then B", "A, thus B" argument. if logic, than God. logic, thus God. you seem to be saying that the statement "if logic, than God" assumes the existence of God, which would make it circular. but the statement "IF logic, than God" doesn't do that. it assumes that logic is an aspect of the supernatural, but not that the supernatural exists.

 

[Z Man]

Clete and GIT,

You can't prove God exists by the evidence of logic, because you assert that God created logic. It's like saying I believe God exists because the Bible says He does. And when asked who wrote the Bible, the answer would be God. It's got cirular reasoning written all over it. :duh:

 

[God_Is_Truth]

because you assert that God created logic.

neither of us has asserted that God created logic.

It's like saying I believe God exists because the Bible says He does. And when asked who wrote the Bible, the answer would be God. It's got cirular reasoning written all over it. :duh:

that is not the same thing.

 

[Clete]

GIT is right. God did not create logic any more than He created personality.

If God did not exist neither would personality. Personality exists therefore God exists. Not because God created it but because He is a person Himself, He is the original person and therefore the source of all personality.

Further, your logic is flawed anyway. GIT example is a good one and there are hundreds more like it.

The presence of a river bed proves the existence of some sort of liquid (presumably liquid water if the river bed is on the Earth). Why? Because the liquid is what made the river bed. Now is that circular? NO! It's just straight forward logical common sense.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[bling]

I don't Know were to post these questions, but Jonah,Peter, Judah and Moses keeps coming up:
I need some help with the Jonah story:

1. Has there been a posting explaining this story?
2. Why did Jonah run away? Did Jonah, the Jew hate, the gentiles of Nineveh?
3. Did Jonah run away because he did not want to be party to the saving of Nineveh?
4. Do you feel the entire sermon over the at least three days Jonah was in Nineveh consisted of the one line we have recorded in Jonah?
5. What would have Jonah said in the three + days to the people of Nineveh, when asked, “What can we do? Is there any way to stop this? What if we repent?”
6. Even if Jonah said nothing about repenting, would his silence, expressions, and attitude not tell Nineveh something?
7. Could Jonah have expressed God’s message in his own words, suggesting his own feelings? Is the Bible dictated by God to men?
8. Why did the people of Nineveh not run like Jonah ran? Did Nineveh have a better understanding of God then Jonah?
9. How much can we say about God’s interaction with Nineveh, since the story is really about Jonah with only a few lines about Nineveh?
10. OV would like me to think God was completely surprised by the reaction of Nineveh, while psychologists I talk with say they can pretty much tell you the reactions of their patience to news. Are we saying God could not know the reaction of at least some of the people in Nineveh? This is not a prediction of reaction years from now, but that day!! God would have saved Sodom and Gomorrah for 10 repenting people, so how many people would He have to think just might repent to save Nineveh and change the message?
11. OV suggest God was giving a false message through Jonah, so when did God figure out that this message could possible be wrong? The reaction of the people of Nineveh was immediate and by the second day the King was ordering fasting, sack cloth and repentance, yet there is no indication God told Jonah to change his message. Jonah and the people of Nineveh either have to know God better then He knows Himself or repentance was always part of the message, even though Jonah may not have verbalized it.
12. Was Nineveh not overturned? Can God overturn the hearts of people, so they become, “new creatures” with the same name and living in the same place?

 

[Z Man]

Fine. Logic may not of been 'created' by God, but you guys are still proving His existence by saying we have logic.

1) Logic exists, thus God must exist.

2) We know God exists because we have logic.

This is so basic and simple and the most perfect example of circular reasoning that a 5 year old could understand this. Clete, of all people you put so much emphasis on reasoning, surely you must be playing dumb. You know this is circular reasoning, but because you are 'never wrong', you try to explain the fallacy away. It can't be done.

Stating that since we have logic, God exists, and that we know God exists because we have logic is circular. There is no argument in that.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Fine. Logic may not of been 'created' by God, but you guys are still proving His existence by saying we have logic.

yes, we are saying that logic is proof of his existence, just as sunlight is proof of the sun.

1) Logic exists, thus God must exist.

2) We know God exists because we have logic.

those two lines are saying the exact same thing. that is not the argument. the argument is this:

logic is an aspect of the supernatural. (Premise)

since logic exists, God (by definition--supernatural) therefore exists.(Conclusion)

nothing circular here. what people would question is the premise in this argument, not the form.

Stating that since we have logic, God exists, and that we know God exists because we have logic is circular. There is no argument in that.

and that is a straw man arugment of what we have stated. no wonder you think it's circular.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Post #1724 C. S. Lewis and Time

time-line = events are moment by moment
no time-line = all events are now
God + time-line = God’s events are moment by moment
God + no time-line = all God’s events are now
man + time-line = man’s events are moment by moment
man + no time-line = all man’s events are now

To everyone in this thread,

Did anyone see my last post, 1724???

How can some of you write so many posts in one day
Don't you have jobs???

Just kidding--Dave

 

[Clete]

Fine. Logic may not of been 'created' by God, but you guys are still proving His existence by saying we have logic.

1) Logic exists, thus God must exist.

2) We know God exists because we have logic.

This is so basic and simple and the most perfect example of circular reasoning that a 5 year old could understand this. Clete, of all people you put so much emphasis on reasoning, surely you must be playing dumb. You know this is circular reasoning, but because you are 'never wrong', you try to explain the fallacy away. It can't be done.

Your statements 1 and 2 are saying the exact same thing Z Man! If it were circular it would read like this instead...

1) Logic exists, thus God must exist.
2) God exists, thus logic must exist.

If this were your 1 & 2 then you would be right, it would be circular,

BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT WE ARE SAYING!!!

We are saying that we can know that God exists because logic could not exist without Him. God could exist without logic (or at least, theoretically speaking, a god could exist) but logic could not exist without the existence of a logical God. Or put in a more formal way, God is a necessary condition for the existence of logic but logic is not a necessary condition for the existence of a god.

Stating that since we have logic, God exists, and that we know God exists because we have logic is circular. There is no argument in that.

No it would simply be stating the exact same point in two different ways. That's not what circular reasoning is. Circular reasoning is using a conclusion as evidence for, or proof of one or more of the premises that the conclusion is based upon.

Now this is the last time I intend to repeat this. If you don't get it then I give up. If you want to be stupid, be stupid.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Lewis, though violating the rules of logic in Mere Christianity, affirms the importance of proper reasoning in his book, Miracles when he stated, “All possible knowledge depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside our own minds really "must" be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into realities beyond them—if it merely represents the way our minds happens to work—then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true." I would add that no theology can be true, either.

In defeating the arguments of "naturalism" Lewis wrote in Miracles, “It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound—a proof that there are no such things as proofs—which is nonsense."

Brilliant! :up: