Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Clete,
Look, first of all, a lack of falsification of a claim doesn't equate to an affirmative proof of that claim.
It is rather the case that your conflation of "the future" with the question as to whether such currently exists, is a straw man in that the future, by definition, does not exist in the temporal realm anyway: that is why it is called "future". Requesting therefore that we prove to you that the future currently exists, is like asking us to show you a round square.
Thank you for conceding the debate!
Debates are never one by straw men, so it is likely the other way around. Let's read on....
The fact that you cannot prove the future exists without contradicting yourself just as you would if you tried to prove the existence of spherical cubes is precisely the point! The idea that the future exists is every bit as contradictory as spherical cubes and self-contradictory concepts are false, by definition.
Rather, your idea consists of a category error.
Mankind's coining of the term "the future" provides no utility for you claim such does not exist, for although the events of the future do not exist as primary parameters, the future as an irresistible concept does, which then allows us to backward-derive that the events associated therewith, also exist.
The number of events is not certain, but the existence of at least one is certain as long as the corporeal realm exists. Read on for amplification.
Moreover, your idea is scientifically silly, for without a future, there can be no physicality.
Prove it!
No future > no time. No time > no physicality. Proved.
Read up on relativity.
nothing in any of Einstein's theories requires the future to exist nor even that anything ever leave the present moment.
Only because you don't understand it at the conceptual level.
Time is not static, and cannot be 'snap-shotted', there being no definable point in a continuum. "The present" is therefore undefined and cannot be said to exist extraneous to its own perpetual transition to a point further along than itself: that is, the present irresistibly consists only of succession.
And so we see that you have little grasp of concepts relative to infinity, relativity, and mathematical induction.
you trip yourself up on your terminologically-based argument anyway, for there is at least one future that currently exists: the future of the past, which goes under the alias "the present".
Changing the definitions of words doesn't help your position.
Misusing and misappropriating the definitions of words (as we have shown above) helps your position even less.
As to your statement: God only knows that which is knowable, I have pointed out in the OP that this is circular: ("That which is knowable, does not include the future, therefore God's knowing only that which is knowable, necessarily entails His not knowing the future"). .....
If "God only knows that which is knowable." is circular, so is the Law of (Non)Contradiction!
Rather, the point is that you are deriving unjustified utility from such law.
Tautologies do not contribute to argument. Declaring that an orange is not [not an orange], says nothing with regard to whether or not I can eat it.
"God only know that which is knowable." doesn't even state a syllable about the future. You are adding that to it.
Rather, I am stating what your doctrine tacitly states, and we both know it.
My doctrine does not tacitly state that God does not know the future, it plainly and boldly states it without hesitation nor qualification.
Then your "doesn't even state a syllable about the future" was indeed mischeivous, as I implied. And therefore you lack integrity, being a game player. Would you like me to start playing games with you over semantics? I can if you want me to.
Summary
Overall your idea precludes the very grammatical notion that is "verb", for that which 'does' something, is unable to unless progression is entailed. Progression, entails future.
If there were no future, nothing could occur. I also allude to this in the 3rd point above.
Thus in Acts 17:28's "in Him we live and move..", in which is manifested progression, we understand by implication that those events which are yet future to us, are contained in Him, and that they therefore occur as part of the outplaying of Himself "in part", what shall one day be consummately outplayed and therefore "perfect" and without reference to time. Thus: "But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." 1 Cor 13:10.
Your most central error therefore is that you are trying to unnaturally force that which is in part in to the mold of the perfect, thus denying the very realm of the partial which God has instituted.
And so we see that your ideas constitute denial rather than explanation, and semantics rather than substance. Too bad then that you have built your spiritual paradigm around it, for one only hurts oneself with Tomfoolery.
Simply outstanding. Study it carefully.
AMR
