Search results

Appreciate that and agree.

It wasn't me that made the quote, it was an astrophysicist. I'll watch 🍿 as you and another that certainly knows science 'box' it out. When posturing, I've seen enough of both sides to ignore the preemptive strikes. They don't work. Yep. Yep. Er, no. Wasn't true with Newton, you are proof...

Gave you the link.

Appreciate that, but for me, an eternal non-beginning. God, His past, for lack of better verb "is still going eternally." Such needed factoring in physics means at least Einstein took that into account. Newtonian ideas don't. The last big one I remember. See Why Einstein will/can never be...

Not for "full-fledged" atomic clocks: Gravity is cancelled.

Opposite As I'd said, it is similar to the equation for pi. Newton's law is part of Special Relativity, you are simply arguing about lightspeed needing to be in the equation. In the same way we account for differences in decimals and American standard, we might argue which is better, but...

I've linked to a couple. Gps satellites rely completely on Einistein's mathematics and Relativity to navigate space with one another and to project time correctly to each individual on the planet. It isn't just the time zones, but the seconds of difference as their clocks, all of them aren't...

That's my line. It is simply a construct and there aren't that many open theists. It isn't even important to the rest of us. Nope. Quite wrong. A car and a house: same gravity. Not to date, no. You don't like horses? While you are correct, Einstein's ideas were theory, the...

Haven't seen any Open Theist deal at all with Einstein to date, so it surprises me 'so what' and 'yawn' are viable responses to anybody who isn't indoctrinated. You jumped in. I didn't/don't mind. When you actually engage, I enjoy your points (this sometimes too, I think your a good guy...

"Priest" The term means 'pillar' and certainly the Lord Jesus Christ is our Solid Ground. Most who contest, are doing so over the 'sacrificial' aspect and are saying "I'm not Jewish, I'm a gentile" and as gentiles, look through Paul's writings for 'priest' or indication and don't see it...

In point of fact both do: "Pro" (before) "Chronos" (time and you know it!) "aeonios" (began, ensued, started, perpetuated). Both are JUST this clear. Try to prove it wrong. No Open Theist to date is capable: It says literally what it says and nice try! Col 1:16 For by him all things...

Nope. Your theology is incomplete. Listen to the scriptures: Joh 17:10 All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. It forces you to surmise...

Disagree, 'needs.' It is literally the only reason they got involved in this experiment. Contrivance, of course not. He was there and talked to real people. Read the book. "Well no" he also used a verb that didn't agree, and here is the thing: Obfuscation, I literally posted more than...

2 Points: Only an Open Theist NEEDS the future not to exist. It literally isn't any other theology or observational-time paradigm. It means, necessarily "thin ice." Moreover, John interacted with the future that "hasn't happened yet" (temporal terms need extra expression to try and...

Scripture. It is "His throne." He is 'in' His creation, but the whole of Him is Spirit. It was Gack's assertion. He is an Open Theist. What I assert is well beyond the eternal now. God is relational to, and fully unrestricted by time. Incorrect, it is a platitude. I don't care if...

Well two things: 1) His IQ is higher than yours and mine. 2) NOBODY to date has 'been able' to disprove him. Nobody. Nice answer to 'so what?' no? You choose to be Open true enough but is it assailable with facts? If not, you are correct: "So what?" would be the response and nobody...

Except John went to heaven, in the future... Such walks all over assertions and I'd much rather err taking God at His word without some theology "I" prefer (or not) getting in my way of Him. It is essentially that. Disagree here too: "Freedom" super sloppy to start with, most mean...

Yep Depends if time is a observation,construct,property of the physical universe. I believe it necessarily has to be. While Open Theists would talk about 'time' in heaven, they {may} forget that heaven is created. Time is a matter of parsing: it chops what already exists into segments...

Concerning time? Einstein disagrees with you. Concerning kilometers or miles? You have to remeasure in Canada. Sure I have: it literally has to do with a preconceived paradigm from Open Theism (and a smattering of physicists, not many). There is a need, an agenda for time to be...