On the omniscience of God
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
Lon
Well-known member
Honestly? You do a better job than this guy. When one says, for instance "Philosophical nonsense," they are the ones with fingers in ears. While I don't mind Open Theism persay, those who become arrogant are unwatchable. He claims of himself he is well-known. How well known 'can' he be when there are so open theists in the first place? Next, he slows the video for himself, speeds up his opponents so badly that this is a 'no' video for me on quite a few levels. I've watched and appreciated your others.
I can explain the concept of a timeless God and it is far from 'philosophical nonsense.' Those kinds of rebuttals show their lack, not another's. He is poorer for it. Every posit needs a strong defense else Open Theism will never be more than a few thousand adherents. It has to prove itself and this guy isn't it.
Distraction. Focus on what is said, not the one saying it.
Take the step back.
If Isaiah 40-48 is talking about God being so powerful, yet completely powerless to change His own people's hearts, and Isaiah 41:21-24 is within that section of scripture, then maybe, just maybe, it's not the prooftext for classical "omniscience" that you (and Calvinists in general) think it is.
Lon
Well-known member
I don't buy the premise (and this particular video is unwatchable). It is wholly Open conjecture that I don't see supported by the scripture. It literally (word for word) discussed the vast difference between God and man and addresses exactly the difference that arrogant man thought he was on par with God, hence:
Present your case,” says the Lord.
(the challenge between what God can know and man cannot, if 'cannot' then the difference is given in stark contrast, no?)
“Bring forth your strong reasons,”
(could be to an Open Theist but is to others who are arguing with God and the contrast of ability)
says the King of Jacob. “Let them bring forth and show us what will happen;
(can be simply what God determines, at this venture, but let's keep reading)
Let them show the former things,
(again, no problem for Open Theists nor me --> God knows all things knowable)
what they were, that we may consider them, And know the latter end of them; Or declare to us things to come. Show the things that are to come hereafter,
(note this is a passive verb Open Theists intimate is impossible to know 'other' than active verbs would allow. It is here it stretches beyond Open theories to account for).
That we may know that you are gods.
(This is the mark of God and men don't have it. God holds up their 'strong reasoning skills' in a show of contempt against His ability)
While I am arguing for Credo, in his stead, as he wishes to not engage as much until he reworks some of this, I wanted to uphold what is sound from his given scripture. I posted here, to give my own argument.
In very short: God is infinite. He isn't becoming infinite. All Open Theists have to give a really hard look at what their limitations for relationship mean against a God, who has never had a beginning and is infinitely all that has ever been and then, necessarily beyond that to infinity with no possible limitation. A 'new song' is a finite limitation. Often, the Open View, inadvertently I believe, gets stuck in limited notions of His existence, forgetting or not rightly calculating what infinite means, what 'Source of all things' means.
So what?
----
Instead of complaining about how unwatchable it is, you could, in good faith, watch it and address what was said.
Appeal to incredulity is a logical fallacy.
Are you talking about the video? Or Isaiah 41?
You still aren't seeing it. Blinded by your own paradigm.
If God is omniscient, knows everything, why does He need them to present their case? Why does He need them to bring forth their strong reasons?
Wouldn't He already know their case? Wouldn't He already know their strong reasons?
The passage is not consistent with the view that God is "Omniscient."
Say bye bye to your strongest prooftext for it!
And again, you're missing the point.
Again, this passage doesn't make sense in light of the doctrine of omniscience.
Yes, God can know all things knowable. That does not include knowledge that doesn't exist. Including a person's thoughts.
If a person doesn't have a thought about something, God cannot know what that thought is.
It also includes things God willingly ignores.
For example, God does not need to know every gruesome detail about child rape, or murder, or other heinous sin. He can (iow, is free to) turn away from such things.
And again, missing the point.
Once again, this misses the bigger picture provided by the context, which at this point I'm having a hard time thinking you're not intentionally ignoring.
No! It has nothing to do with them being or not being gods!
It's not some great contest of skills God is having, trying to show How great He is!
Go back and watch both of the videos here.
----
Yes, and this discussion is about that post.
Do try to keep up, Lon.
The author of Isaiah 40-48 didn't stop near the end of chapter 41 to give a lesson on how much knowledge God has.
What is the narrative talking about? What is the purpose for God saying all these things?
God is infinite, yes, we agree.
This is rooted in Platonic thought, not scripture.
Try starting from Scripture, rather than pagan Greek philosophers.
The entire passage of Isaiah 40-48 shows one such limitation. You'd know that if you stopped forcing your a priori assumption of "Omniscience" onto the text!
Only within the paradigm that holds that God is Omniscient.
God is infinitely creative. He can create a new butterfly, write a new song, and think a new thought. That's part of His being "infinite!"
Says the one who claims "God is infinite" but forgets that that includes God's creativity.
Again! Missing the point!
Right Divider
Body part
Don't get your hopes too high.
Lon
Well-known member
.
.________.
._________>
<----------------------------->
The first is an easy concept. One point in history. It isn't durative. It is a point. A beginning or an end with no action. We conceive of it, yet it has no duration. The end of a book, last period. It simply means 'end' and isn't durative, but it is involved in time, yet is timeless.
The second is a segment. It marks the difference between two points and is considered durative. Time, as a concept must have both a beginning and an end. You'd say 'that's a clock, not time" at least that is what Enyart, I believe said, when I dialogued with him. Those two aren't unalike, they are both dealing with the same thing. It doesn't matter if the clock is able to keep up with duration or coincide, because the concept we are talking about is exactly the same as the measurement, the same duration.
The third, a ray is partly durative and partly infinite. We had a 'starting date but have no way to measure, grasp duration, as believers from there. Sure, you can count the days in between, but you can never, ever, ever count the days that add up to your eternal existence. As many days as you can think of, there is no # you can meaningfully place on infinite. In every real sense, this is part of imago deo (image of God). That that we look like Him physically (He has no body, except as we are, when He became flesh). Rather, Moses couldn't look upon Him and live.
One reason: Finite cannot contain infinite without breaking. If I fill up a balloon too full of water, it breaks. There is no way I can put 'infinite' let alone just the earth's water into any container. 1 Kings 8:27 “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!
Why? Because infinite cannot be contained, it is, for all practical purposes of this conversation, the container (but awkward because infinite is beyond such ideas).
The last is a concept that is infinite, a line. Each end of the line 'is going on forever in both directions.' Having no beginning means 'His past is still going on forever, necessarily. Why? Because we cannot relegate a nonbeginning to the 'past.' The very concept busts time as an ability to apply to it. Infinite thus, means 'timeless.' If like others: then How is God able to relate in time?' The same way a line intersects a segment. While it, itself has some constraint as it intersects the line between two segments (beginning and end), it first is the beginning and end of the segment, it creates it by doing something (creation) and then marks where it will end, if it does. We know we are rays, but heaven and earth are segments of time.
If one can understand how lines and time are the same, it applies evenly, as a good physical metaphor for how we relate to God and He to us.
Lon
Well-known member
I tried. It was painful. I've given good faith on many other of your videos.
I rarely use it, see it very often from Open Theists. "You idiot!" or something like. "That's ridiculous" or dare I say " Philosophical nonsense," from his own lips. In most schools of debate it is relegated quickly to school yard banter and childishness. I Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
However, unlike the above, I simply said "conjecture." I've been on TOL 25 years. It is a value statement, not the fallacy you believe.
Let me be very quick on this, however: I appreciate you much much more. At times I think you take jabs, but rarely with me, and when they are eschewed, you have a mind that is very good. Your education was first rate, and you do think well. In fact, you are one of the people who have helped me grasp that Open Theists aren't shallow. ▲ Whenever I've seen Open Theists excited about winning debates or at least perceive themselves to, and then call another an idiot, etc. ▲ I arrogantly thought I was an adult among children. The sincerity of those who look at arguments and come up with thoughtful rebuttal or alternative has shown me the maturity of deeper thought and wrestling with God, that must occur with any one sincere about their faith and walk with the Savior and I appreciate seeing the image of God in another.
Isaiah
I don't see the bible as relationally as most Open Theists likely do. It is a one-direction book, God to man. Nobody in Isaiah 'wrote back.' He didn't need them to present their case, 'they' needed to present their case, but because of the stark difference, there, He already blocked that off. It was rhetorical.
Yes!
"Do you love me?" "Lord you know all things, you know I love you." There are Open Theists that strongly disagree with you. You know this, right?
This is your queasy imposed on God, because specifically, you (and I)cannot handle such. I can appreciate it, but I've been through so much atrocity in my young life. Remember the knife? At eight I had pushed it in about a quarter inch and it hurt so bad. I like you, thought God couldn't watch or for me, didn't watch. I was wrong, as are you. God is not queasy. His intense love for us will not leave us alone. He is with us at all times. He doesn't put His hands over His eyes when we are going through a tough time because love is stronger than horror.
Sometimes you have to spell it out. Unlike God, I cannot read minds. I have a good mind and love puzzles, but time doesn't always allow. We've both got a life. I heard that the chapter and verse divisions of the Bible came from a circuit preacher and that they thought perhaps he did it on the back of his horse between churches. Being a truck driver, you might appreciate that, but I know you don't do TOL when you are in the truck.
It does. Realize He is lifting Himself up as Author at that point. There is implied contention with God and the simple intimation is "You aren't me but you need me!"
Yes, it is. It isn't that a few men are saying "I am God" or "Better than God" but it is a contrast, done purposefully to show them the need for relationship. James says something similar:
James 4:13 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”—
James 4:14 yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes.
James 4:15 Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.”
One idea in Open Theism is that we are 'independent' of God. In I get strong pushback on my thoughts concerning Colossians 1:16-20 and John 15:5 Without Me, you can do nothing. Yet these scriptures are very clear that we cannot even breath without God. It makes the most sense, since God 'spoke' and creation came into existence and 'breathed' life into the first man. Literally, not just to the disciples as I've seen it relegated, literally none of us can do even one little thing (nothing) 'without Him.'
Are these the first two again? I watched them, or are these different?
There are several hours to keep up with. I much prefer your synopsis, but will walk a mile or two.
It is ALSO scripture. "There is no other god beside me." "Without Him 'nothing' exists that exists (anywhere, any time)."
Even the heavens (creation) Paul tells us, reveals God Romans 1:20. It means if it is true, it is God's no matter where it lay. I'll even go a step further, While I don't agree with everything a Greek says, I appreciate their contribution to society and believe they got quite a lot right, demonstrably. Perfect? By no means, but I'd rather be Greek than Roman, if I lived back then.
It isn't forced. He knows, by the last line, the outcome of all actions given in passive form. It is the marked difference there.
Another is John 8:58 Before Abraham was, I Am. Jesus is a better grammarian than you or I will ever be. It means as much as He is involved with us, inside of time, He is infinitely away from it, by necessity. There are very many scriptures that say God is infinite, without restraint. While I acquiesce qualifications with Open Theism, I do not acquiesce imposition. I'm not sure Open Theists grasp what infinite means, or whether they understand it as a logical necessity and scriptural given
Then it is worth pondering if so dramatically different (I agree, it is).
Ah, so no new song if you know what infinite means.
It is, but with me: God is 'already' infinite, not 'becoming infinite.'
Supra
I appreciate this but sometimes think of it as a plea for help and doing just a teensy bit of extra mile for me
Appreciate you too! -Lon
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
Lon
Well-known member
It doesn't make them not real. 10 minutes is pretty solid, I see the change on the clock which accurately measures duration.
I have to have 3:19 and 3:29 to mark ten minutes. What you are describing, and I applaud, is timelessness, at least as the likely alternative.
Insomuch as any 'limitation' is an abstraction. Hours an abstraction. Yards as an abstraction, but this is true: Whatever has a beginning and end, is the measurement. As intimated prior, you cannot 'count' your days into infinity. Because the 'concept' time is durative, abstract or concrete in mind, it is applicable only to durative consideration, however contrived (a 'creation' word). God is not part of His creation, it is from Him in His infinite being and expression. He 'spoke' and all came into existence. It means all that is made, is from Him, His being, which is infinite (not an abstraction merely but to finite beings trying to comprehend, hence Moses unable, infinite), and a scriptural given:
Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
1 Timothy 6:16
who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.
Genesis 21:33
Abraham planted a tamarisk tree at Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the Lord, the Everlasting God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Psalm 102:25-27
“Of old You founded the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
“Even they will perish, but You endure;
And all of them will wear out like a garment;
Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed.
“But You are the same,
And Your years will not come to an end.
1 Corinthians 2:9-11 But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”— these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.Jeremiah 23:24
“Can a man hide himself in hiding places
So I do not see him?” declares the Lord.
“Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?” declares the Lord.
2 Chronicles 6:18
“But will God indeed dwell with mankind on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You; how much less this house which I have built.
Psalm 147:5
Great is our Lord and abundant in strength;
His understanding is infinite.
Job 11:7 “Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty?
Acts 17:24
The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands
You'll logically jump to something like 'cars' perhaps, but it reminds me of the story of God vs. the scientists:
"We are now like god, we can make life, anything."
God took the challenge and started with dirt. The scientists likewise began gathering dirt...
"Oh no, this is mine, get your own dirt."
Psalm 24:1 A Psalm of David. The earth is the LORD's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein,
Psalm 24:2 for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers.
Psalm 24:3 Who shall ascend the hill of the LORD? And who shall stand in his holy place?
Psalm 24:4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false and does not swear deceitfully.
Psalm 24:5 He will receive blessing from the LORD and righteousness from the God of his salvation.
Psalm 24:6 Such is the generation of those who seek him, who seek the face of the God of Jacob. Selah
Psalm 24:7 Lift up your heads, O gates! And be lifted up, O ancient doors, that the King of glory may come in.
Psalm 24:8 Who is this King of glory? The LORD, strong and mighty, the LORD, mighty in battle!
Psalm 24:9 Lift up your heads, O gates! And lift them up, O ancient doors, that the King of glory may come in.
Psalm 24:10 Who is this King of glory? The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory! Selah
Right Divider
Body part
This FALSE accusation comes up EVERY time we explain this.
So what?
You are either confused or lying (or both).
10 minutes is NOT "timelessness". Time is a CONCEPT and it does not allow for "timelessness".
DUH!!! That's what we have been saying!
DUH!! That's what we have been saying!
Last edited:
Bladerunner
Active member
thank you both (JudgeRightly) for the conversation (1411). InterestingI tried. It was painful. I've given good faith on many other of your videos.
I rarely use it, see it very often from Open Theists. "You idiot!" or something like. "That's ridiculous" or dare I say " Philosophical nonsense," from his own lips. In most schools of debate it is relegated quickly to school yard banter and childishness. I Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
However, unlike the above, I simply said "conjecture." I've been on TOL 25 years. It is a value statement, not the fallacy you believe.
Let me be very quick on this, however: I appreciate you much much more. At times I think you take jabs, but rarely with me, and when they are eschewed, you have a mind that is very good. Your education was first rate, and you do think well. In fact, you are one of the people who have helped me grasp that Open Theists aren't shallow. ▲ Whenever I've seen Open Theists excited about winning debates or at least perceive themselves to, and then call another an idiot, etc. ▲ I arrogantly thought I was an adult among children. The sincerity of those who look at arguments and come up with thoughtful rebuttal or alternative has shown me the maturity of deeper thought and wrestling with God, that must occur with any one sincere about their faith and walk with the Savior and I appreciate seeing the image of God in another.
Isaiah
I don't see the bible as relationally as most Open Theists likely do. It is a one-direction book, God to man. Nobody in Isaiah 'wrote back.' He didn't need them to present their case, 'they' needed to present their case, but because of the stark difference, there, He already blocked that off. It was rhetorical.
Yes!
"Do you love me?" "Lord you know all things, you know I love you." There are Open Theists that strongly disagree with you. You know this, right?
This is your queasy imposed on God, because specifically, you (and I)cannot handle such. I can appreciate it, but I've been through so much atrocity in my young life. Remember the knife? At eight I had pushed it in about a quarter inch and it hurt so bad. I like you, thought God couldn't watch or for me, didn't watch. I was wrong, as are you. God is not queasy. His intense love for us will not leave us alone. He is with us at all times. He doesn't put His hands over His eyes when we are going through a tough time because love is stronger than horror.
Sometimes you have to spell it out. Unlike God, I cannot read minds. I have a good mind and love puzzles, but time doesn't always allow. We've both got a life. I heard that the chapter and verse divisions of the Bible came from a circuit preacher and that they thought perhaps he did it on the back of his horse between churches. Being a truck driver, you might appreciate that, but I know you don't do TOL when you are in the truck.
It does. Realize He is lifting Himself up as Author at that point. There is implied contention with God and the simple intimation is "You aren't me but you need me!"
Yes, it is. It isn't that a few men are saying "I am God" or "Better than God" but it is a contrast, done purposefully to show them the need for relationship. James says something similar:
James 4:13 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”—
James 4:14 yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes.
James 4:15 Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.”
One idea in Open Theism is that we are 'independent' of God. In I get strong pushback on my thoughts concerning Colossians 1:16-20 and John 15:5 Without Me, you can do nothing. Yet these scriptures are very clear that we cannot even breath without God. It makes the most sense, since God 'spoke' and creation came into existence and 'breathed' life into the first man. Literally, not just to the disciples as I've seen it relegated, literally none of us can do even one little thing (nothing) 'without Him.'
Are these the first two again? I watched them, or are these different?
There are several hours to keep up with. I much prefer your synopsis, but will walk a mile or two.
It is ALSO scripture. "There is no other god beside me." "Without Him 'nothing' exists that exists (anywhere, any time)."
Even the heavens (creation) Paul tells us, reveals God Romans 1:20. It means if it is true, it is God's no matter where it lay. I'll even go a step further, While I don't agree with everything a Greek says, I appreciate their contribution to society and believe they got quite a lot right, demonstrably. Perfect? By no means, but I'd rather be Greek than Roman, if I lived back then.
It isn't forced. He knows, by the last line, the outcome of all actions given in passive form. It is the marked difference there.
Another is John 8:58 Before Abraham was, I Am. Jesus is a better grammarian than you or I will ever be. It means as much as He is involved with us, inside of time, He is infinitely away from it, by necessity. There are very many scriptures that say God is infinite, without restraint. While I acquiesce qualifications with Open Theism, I do not acquiesce imposition. I'm not sure Open Theists grasp what infinite means, or whether they understand it as a logical necessity and scriptural given
Then it is worth pondering if so dramatically different (I agree, it is).
Ah, so no new song if you know what infinite means.
It is, but with me: God is 'already' infinite, not 'becoming infinite.'
Supra
I appreciate this but sometimes think of it as a plea for help and doing just a teensy bit of extra mile for me
Appreciate you too! -Lon
What could you possibly mean by this?
Time exists AS AN IDEA, but not in an ontological sense.
There are many such things....
- Justice
- Authority
- Liberty
- Mathematics
- Space
- Unicorns
- Wakanda
- Zeus
I predict stubborn intransigence on your part. You will repeat yourself and ignore the entire point being made here as though it does not exist.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Unicorns and Zeus do not obtain in the same way that justice and authority and mathematics obtain. The former only obtain in fiction.
This is at least partially self-contradictory and I'm not sure that it really holds true at all.
First of all there is no such thing as one non-'durative' (not a real word) point in history. History is just the past occurrence of events. Events have duration, by definition. Just as a square with no sides is an oxymoron, so also is an event with no duration, a contradiction.
You should look up the term "Specious". Sheesh.
No. This is not correct.
Time is the conversion of language used to convey information related to the duration and sequences of events relative to other events. There is no requirement for an event to have a beginning for it to fit within this framework.
Don't believe me? Watch this....
God has no beginning nor will He end but has always existed. He has endured for an infinite amount of time and will continue to endure forever!
See! That was easy!
It could be used as a clock so long as this segment of which you speak is of a consistently repeating duration and is available for comparison to the duration of other events.
Specious!
So, if it is being used as a clock then the duration of the compared event is 1 unit of the other. Not that complicated!
Our existence!
Your wording (thinking) is sloppy here. It isn't partly one and partly the other, it is fully both. That is, both descriptor are fully applicable. An event such as our existence, has a beginning and will endured for an unending duration.
We do have a way!
What is it that you think the terms "infinite" and "unending" and "continuous" mean?
Are these fully sufficient to totally comprehend these large quantities of time, no but that doesn't mean they are completely outside our ability to grasp.
That is irrelevant. The fact that your wrote this sentence is proof that your contention here is false.
∞
You flatly do not know what you are talking about.
What sort of infinity are you speaking of? Some infinities are larger than others and fit very nicely within others. Did you know that?
NO! You definitely did not know that because you're talking out of your hat (I really wanted to use a different three letter word there!)! You seem very much to me like you're just making this stuff up as you go.
Balloon have a capacity. Time does not.
The Earth is a container, Lon.
It isn't "awkward"! The word you're looking for here is "irrational". You're just inventing reasons to contradict yourself.
The "ray" is also infinite, by definition.
That's time! By definition!
"Still"? That is a contradiction.
"Past" and "still" cannot coexist. One is past tense the other is present tense. It is a flagrant contradiction.
It seems impossible that you could have missed such an obvious point!
Of course we can!
See! I can make unsupported claims too! This is fun! Whatever we want to say, the other must except on the basis of our having made the claim!
I can't imagine what possible profit there is in this activity but, hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander!
No, Lon, it does not. You just used the concept of time to say it!
"The last is a concept that is infinite, a line."
Infinite what?
Infinite duration! That's time!
Stupidity! Literal, abject, ridiculous, nonsensical stupidity!
Infinite does not equal zero, Lon! If anything, it is the opposite of zero!
In other words, only God Himself has existed (endured) forever.
How is that supposed to argument for any of your thesis here? It seems to me that you are contradicting your own thesis! We will endure for an infinite amount of time. God has already done so. God's infinite existence is larger than ours but they are both infinite.
More sloppy thinking here. You use one abstraction, mathematics (specifically geometry)), to discuss another abstraction, time, and then talk about it being a "physical metaphor".
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure that you aren't using the word "obtain" in the correct way here. It certainly is not a normal way of using that word.
Both Unicorns and Zeus exist as ideas. Fictional characters are a different sort of idea than the concepts of justice and authority, etc but that isn't the point. The point is that some things exist within a thinking mind but do not have any ontological existence, including fictional things like the Greek gods and the Starship Enterprise.
Thank you.
So? Did you understand the point that was being made?
Can you articulate it?
I wasn't talking about the "conjecture" claim, which isn't an appeal to incredulity anyways. It wasn't even conjecture, either, not that there's anything wrong with conjecture! I was an "if - then" argument.
I was talking about "I don't see..." claim, which includes the "conjecture" statement.
You said, quote: "It is wholly Open conjecture that I don't see supported by the scripture."
The problem is that I'm literally talking about the narrative presented by scripture!
And at the end of that "If" statement, I'm pointing out that ripping a few verses out of context to support the idea that God is omniscient is not supported by the context of those 9 chapters! NINE!
You're looking at four verses and claiming "it means God is omniscient" when I'm looking at the nine chapters those four verses are a part of and telling you "no, it's not about omniscience at all, it's about Israel being a rebellious nation, and how God is unable to change their hearts in spite of His capability!" Have you heard of missing the forest for the trees, Lon? You're missing the narrative for a few verses! Rather, you're IGNORING the narrative, for those verses!
Flattery isn't going to win you this argument.
WRONG.
It has nothing to do with men!!!
This is why I'm talking about the context of Isaiah 40-48!
Isaiah 41:21-29 IS NOT TALKING ABOUT MEN!
It's talking about IDOLS!
This is why I told you to go watch those two videos again, why I said that I'm starting to wonder if you're deliberately ignoring the context!
Here they are again.
WATCH THEM. TWICE MORE, if you have to! Watch them until you understand the context of the narrative that Isaiah is presenting!
Better yet!
Just go read Isaiah 40-48! Don't take my word or Chris's word for it. Take God's word for it!
Read. Try to get the big picture!
That doesn't mean it isn't a relational book, Lon. In other words, this was another argument from incredulity!
Saying it doesn't make it so, Lon!
God gave us His word SO THAT WE WOULD TALK TO HIM DIRECTLY!
Again, Isaiah 41:21-29 is God comparing Himself to false idols.
It's rhetorical because THEY DON'T EXIST!
NO! It was a trick question!
There would be absolutely NO reason to ask the question in the first place because false gods (such as idols) don't ontologically exist! They can't do the things God is asking because they don't exist to begin with!
God, on the other hand, does exist, and CAN see what happened in the past (because He was THERE!) and can tell the reason things happened the way they did, and He can see what's going on currently, and make predictions about the future! He can do that, BECAUSE HE EXISTS AND IS ALIVE AND INTERACTS WITH HIS CREATION!
Category error.
Knowing what someone is like is not the same as knowing a thought that has not been had yet, Lon.
Again, GOD CANNOT KNOW SOMETHING IF IT DOES NOT EXIST!
Peter existed, therefore God can know him, and HAD GOTTEN TO KNOW HIM AS A HUMAN BEING during His earthly ministry, just like He got to know Abraham from before He called him out of his father's house until He died!
In other words, PRESENT KNOWLEDGE!
That's an entirely different category than a thought that doesn't exist.
Neither can God!
I'll let Scripture speak for itself here:
“When you come to appear before Me,Who has required this from your hand,To trample My courts? Bring no more futile sacrifices;Incense is an abomination to Me.The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies—I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting. Your New Moons and your appointed feastsMy soul hates;They are a trouble to Me,I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands,I will hide My eyes from you;Even though you make many prayers,I will not hear.Your hands are full of blood.
Bible Gateway passage: Isaiah 1:12-15 - New King James Version
“When you come to appear before Me, Who has required this from your hand, To trample My courts? Bring no more futile sacrifices; Incense is an abomination to Me. The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies— I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting. Your New Moons and your...
Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened,That it cannot save;Nor His ear heavy,That it cannot hear. But your iniquities have separated you from your God;And your sins have hidden His face from you,So that He will not hear. For your hands are defiled with blood,And your fingers with iniquity;Your lips have spoken lies,Your tongue has muttered perversity.
Bible Gateway passage: Isaiah 59:1-3 - New King James Version
Separated from God - Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, That it cannot save; Nor His ear heavy, That it cannot hear. But your iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you, So that He will not hear. For your hands are defiled with blood, And your...
“Then the Babylonians came to her, into the bed of love,And they defiled her with their immorality;So she was defiled by them, and alienated herself from them. She revealed her harlotry and uncovered her nakedness.Then I alienated Myself from her,As I had alienated Myself from her sister.
Bible Gateway passage: Ezekiel 23:17-18 - New King James Version
“Then the Babylonians came to her, into the bed of love, And they defiled her with their immorality; So she was defiled by them, and alienated herself from them. She revealed her harlotry and uncovered her nakedness. Then I alienated Myself from her, As I had alienated Myself from her sister.
God is disgusted by sin!
If sacrifices can become wearisome to God, so much that He hides His eyes from those that perform them, and so much that he refuses to hear the calling of assemblies, how much more so will He turn away from the harm brought upon a child by an abuser?
Then you clearly don't know the God of the Bible!
You're actually defending the position that God actively watches child rape? Not only that He does so, but is REQUIRED to do so?!
CEASE YOUR BLASPHEMY!
What do you think I've been doing, Lon!
How much clearer do I have to get!?
Saying it doesn't make it so!
He's comparing Himself to idols!
JUST READ THE PASSAGE!
This shows you haven't read the chapters.
No, Lon, it is not.
Yes, God is describing how great He is. But that's not the point of what He's saying!
Again, he's not having a contest of attributes!
JUST READ THE PASSAGE! Get out your Bible, open it to Isaiah 40, and read to the end of chapter 48!
He's talking about how Israel has rebelled against Him, in spite of how great He is, because they can't get it through their thick skulls that the things that are happening are happening because He is bringing them about! It's about how wicked they have become, and so He will respond in judgement!
No, it simply is not, Lon. If you had read the passage, you would know it!
AMEN!
But this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
But you can't help but think it is, because of your paradigm that asserts "God is omni-____".
[ URL='https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians 1%3A16-20&version=NIV' ]
Well there's you're problem. You're using the NIV.
Stop using that terrible translation, and the problem goes away, whatever it might be.
Who is the "you" in that passage?
Hint: It's not "man."
No, God is not somehow controlling our breathing.
The point being made is that without God, we wouldn't exist TO breathe, let alone live.
None of this has anything to do with Isaiah 40-48.
Go back and watch them. Again, if you have to.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Yes, it is, Lon!
You wanna know how I know?
BECAUSE I READ THE CHAPTERS!
It has nothing to do with "omniscience"!
Repeating your claim doesn't magically make it come true, and scripture disagrees with your claim anyways.
You have completely ripped the passage out of scripture and thrown the rest away just to defend your position.
Once again, you have completely missed the point Jesus was making, by ripping a verse out of its context, just so you can support your paradigm of beliefs.
John 8:58 is not about God being outside of time. That's not what He's saying.
He's intentionally angering the Jews, by claiming to have existed SINCE BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS!
That's DURATION! NOT TIMELESSNESS!
He was claiming to be God, not timeless!
And not only that, your claim completely ignores the context of the rest of scripture!
Now you're just lying.
There are exactly, and I mean EXACTLY ZERO verses that say God is infinite.
Lon, when you present a verse that you think shows your position, and I refute the claim that it shows your position, and then you jump to a different verse that you think shows your position, and I refute that claim, and we go back and forth on this until you've exhausted all your verses, and then you point back to the first verse that you think upholds your position, as though we didn't just show all those verses to be saying something else, don't you think that's intellectually dishonest?
Because that's what you're doing here, Lon.
You're jumping around to different verses, trying to claim that they support your position, when in reality they have nothing to do with your position, and I'm showing you that they do not!
While I acquiesce qualifications with Open Theism, I do not acquiesce imposition. I'm not sure Open Theists grasp what infinite means, or whether they understand it as a logical necessity and scriptural given
Might I suggest that you just have an incorrect definition of infinite?
How does the saying go?
"If everyone else is always the problem, maybe the problem isn't everyone else." - Hugo Bradford
Because I understand just fine what "infinite" means. You, however, do not.
Not if it's inherently wrong/false.
Ah, so no new song if you know what infinite means.
This is why I say you don't understand what infinite means.
Infinitely creative doesn't mean "no creative ability."
Creation implies something is brought into existence that did not previously exist.
Being infinitely creative means a being or Being can always bring new things into existence that have never existed before.
In other words, the exact opposite of "no new song."
Again, you don't understand what "infinite" means.
I appreciate this but sometimes think of it as a plea for help and doing just a teensy bit of extra mile for me
Appreciate you too! -Lon
Supra.