ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight, no energy or matter=no time. In fact modern physics says at the point of the big bang there was no succession=no time.

You believe in the Big Bang? :shocked:

 

[elohiym]

uh,er,uh, oh! It doesn't exist.:rotfl:

If the future does not exist, then explain why in scientific experiments people reacted to provocative images that they were going to be shown prior to being shown the images? How did they know about a future that didn't exist? The experiments were done by Hartwell, duplicated by Radin and Bierman, and according to Bierman the experiments have been performed in numerous labs with the same results.

So there you have empirical data that strongly the suggests that the future exists. Further, my own experience with deja vu suggests that I saw the future, which had to exist when I saw it. Therefore, you can claim that "the future doesn't exist" all you want, and even hold your breath if you like, but the evidence is against your position.

 

[elohiym]

Walking on water is within the realm of supernatural possibility. Parting seas is doable by the omnipotent. Raising dead people, same thing.

But seeing or existing in the future is impossible for God because YOU don't believe the future exists yet. You deny supernatural possibility when it comes to time, but not when it comes to gravity. :dizzy:

 

[baloney]

Do I believe in the big bang? I have no choice there. It's what we observe.

 

[elohiym]

Now further humor me by 'proving' you are not stupid and restate your 'proof' for what ever it is you are arguing about God being light and photons seeing for God.

Apparently the example was too complicated for you. I have simplified my argument for you that the future exists, giving you the evidence proven by the experiments of Hartwell, Radin, and Bierman.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Do I believe in the big bang? I have no choice there. It's what we observe.

Yet you don't believe in a Big Bang via the naturalistic explanation do you? (i.e., no God)

 

[baloney]

naturalistic explanation? All the big bang says is that there was a singularity in space where the universe at one point was condensed into.

Let me ask you this. If our universe has no edge in space, no beginning and end in time and is self sufficent, then what would a God in time have to do?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

naturalistic explanation? All the big bang says is that there was a singularity in space where the universe at one point was condensed into.

Do you believe in God or not? It's kind of important that I know that about you.

Let me ask you this. If our universe has no edge in space, no beginning and end in time and is self sufficent, then what would a God in time have to do?

That question is mangled and convoluted, I cannot understand it nor answer it.

Earlier you stated... "I'll post an explanation how God can create a sequence of events without being chained down by the sequence."

I think I would like to here this explanation.

 

[elohiym]

It is stupid to ask someone for proof when you yourself don't have proof for the alternative.

Then why do you keep doing that? :idunno:

I have give two proofs already.

 

[patman]

Hey everyone!!

Then why do you keep doing that? :idunno:

I have give two proofs already.

Elohiym seems to have lost his understanding of what proof is, can anyone find it for him?

Check over there... Errr... Maybe in the couch cushions? That's where the remote always ends up when it is lost.

 

[elohiym]

Hey everyone!!

Who are you talking to? Who is everyone? Are you imagining a gang of tough guys standing around you? Can you argue without all the drama? Please try.

Elohiym seems to have lost his understanding of what proof is, can anyone find it for him?

I know what proof is. Here is the definition for you: Proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.

I have provided proof, as evidenced by your statement...

As for your "proof," as you call it... how does that show the future exists?

Realizing that you don't understand the ramification of no lapse in time between photons at opposite ends of the universe (proof #1), I gave Phil a proof that is easier to understand, specifically the experiments done by Hartwell which were duplicated by Radin and Bierman (proof #2).

 

[patman]

Who are you talking to? Who is everyone? Are you imagining a gang of tough guys standing around you? Can you argue without all the drama? Please try.
I know what proof is. Here is the definition for you: Proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.

I have provided proof, as evidenced by your statement...

Realizing that you don't understand the ramification of no lapse in time between photons at opposite ends of the universe (proof #1), I gave Phil a proof that is easier to understand, specifically the experiments done by Hartwell which were duplicated by Radin and Bierman (proof #2).

:rotfl:

OK. ummmmmmmm Everyone = other TOLer's and you don't know how to apply definitions.

 

[patman]

OK... Elohiym, would you answer this:

1. Did God know the future before he 'created time?'
2. Did God know he would create time before he 'created it?'
3. Did God know he would create elohiym before he 'created time?'

 

[baloney]

I'll get to my answer, but there is nothing mangled and contorted with my question. It is simple.

Is it possible that the physical universe existed for infinity and, with the law of the conservation of energy, could be self sufficient?

 

[patman]

I'll get to my answer, but there is nothing mangled and contorted with my question. It is simple.

Is it possible that the physical universe existed for infinity and, with the law of the conservation of energy, could be self sufficient?

If God created the universe, no, that's impossible. Even if you believe in BB it's impossible. It space/time (as you have it) came from somewhere, before that, what was there?

Did God know the future before time existed?

Disclaimer: I believe time is not a "thing"

 

[elohiym]

OK... Elohiym, would you answer this:

1. Did God know the future before he 'created time?'
2. Did God know he would create time before he 'created it?'
3. Did God know he would create elohiym before he 'created time?'

I don't know what God did or didn't know.

Your turn. If the future doesn't exist yet, how could Hartwell, Radin and Bierman get the results they did in their experiments?

 

[baloney]

In no wise is the will of God caused. In proof of which we must consider that, since the will follows from the intellect, there is a cause of the will in the human, in the same way as there is a cause of the understanding in the human.

The case with the understanding is this: that the premiss and its conclusion are understood separately from each other, the understanding of the premiss is the cause that the conclusion is known.

But with God the understanding perceives the conclusion in the premiss itself, apprehending both the one and the other at the same glance.

In this case the knowing of the conclusion would not be caused by understanding the premiss as it is with humans.

It would be true that God would still understand the premisses to be the cause of the conclusion. It is the same with the will, with respect to the end stands in the same relation as the means to the end.

God wills the end and the means to the end in one singe act. In the single act He simply wills the means to the end to be a series of cause and effect events.

An analogy is a human novelist concieving and willing, all at once, the entire plot of his novel, in which perfect order demands that one event take place because of and after another.

Human intellect: understanding the premiss----> understanding the conclusion
Divine Intellect: understanding---> (premise-->conclusion)

Human Will: willing the end----> willing the means
Divine Will: willing----> (end--->means)

---> represents causality.

 

[DFT_Dave]

This is a good summary of our differences. It is interesting that on almost every point of dichotomy we take the opposite view:

OV: God repents; God changes; God knows much; God is constrained by time

nonOV: God doesn't repent; God doesn't change; God knows all; God is timeless

So clearly we are taking two different approaches to understanding scriptures and our paradigms are drastically different.

I understand your problem with a nonOV. The more I'm on here, the more I appreciate your concerns. I agree it is convoluted, but the OV has an equal number of logic holes as I see them. I wouldn't say it is a coin toss, but I truly appreciate how OV makes me think and appreciate. I also appreciate you think you are correct and I'm wrong. I haven't been convinced, but I appreciate one who loves God with their minds as well as the other facilities God has given us to know and appreciate Him.

Your comparison is not quite correct. It should look like this.

OV: God repents; God changes; God knows potential future; God has time

nonOV: God doesn't repent; God doesn't change; God knows actual future; God is timeless

 

[Lon]

Your comparison is not quite correct. It should look like this.

OV: God repents; God changes; God knows potential future; God has time

nonOV: God doesn't repent; God doesn't change; God knows actual future; God is timeless

Yes, I agree. Good correction. The dichotomy is interesting. The same problematic interpretations are levelled at both, would you agree?

I.E. God repented (1Sa 15:11,1Sa 15:35), God does not repent (1Sa 15:29)

 

[Philetus]

If the future does not exist, then explain why in scientific experiments people reacted to provocative images that they were going to be shown prior to being shown the images? How did they know about a future that didn't exist? The experiments were done by Hartwell, duplicated by Radin and Bierman, and according to Bierman the experiments have been performed in numerous labs with the same results.

So there you have empirical data that strongly the suggests that the future exists. Further, my own experience with deja vu suggests that I saw the future, which had to exist when I saw it. Therefore, you can claim that "the future doesn't exist" all you want, and even hold your breath if you like, but the evidence is against your position.

OK, I give. Your were right. You did mean two photons. Wow, that is complicated. And you have given me proof, deja vu, not that the future exists but rather that stupid exists and it can't be fixed.