Do you believe in predestination ?

[Stripe]

Hmm, well, your sense of what's "rational" is hardly the yardstick for humans let alone an omnipotent deity so any limitations you decide to place are pretty much yours and yours alone. Yes, It's possible for God to know what Peter was doing to do in such specific detail while Peter still had a choice in the matter and wasn't programmed to do as he did before the rooster crowed. God simply knew that Peter was going to do as he did.

We know your opinion. You've asserted it at least 10 times. Now justify it. Back it up with something. How is it rational to say that people have a choice when God knows what will happen, because that is prima facie contradictory.

Take some inspiration from me. When you accuse me of holding an irrational stance — ie, you think God cannot operate in time as I do — I point to reality. We operate in time, so why can't God? Where do you get the knowledge that it must be otherwise?

You have a highly divergent set of opinions that run counter to everyday experience. It's like you're running around insisting that the sky is pink and the ocean purple while insulting those who suggest blue and blue.

 

[Stripe]

Since Peter was not predetermined to deny Jesus three times, then in order for Jesus to know Peter would deny Him three times, He would have had to have foreseen Peter's eventual circumstances that fateful night. Jesus must have known ahead of time that Peter would be subjected to at least three interrogations that night, in order for Him to know Peter well enough, that He knew Peter would deny Him three times.

As has been pointed out, no such precision would have been required. Jesus would have had to know Peter's state of mind and likely response, while relying on God or luck to time a rooster's "squawk."

 

[JudgeRightly]

God knew what Peter was going to do in unequivocal and blatant terms.

Yes, we agree. Please catch up to the rest of us here.

How you can't understand that God knew what Peter was going to do in the future is bizarre.

God knew what Peter was going to do because He knew Peter, not because He knew the future.

That you're reduced to God forcing a bird to crow on demand

Reducing?

No.

I'm simply acknowledging that He, as the Creator of the universe, can make a rooster crow when He needs one to, as in the case with Peter.

in order for the verse to tie in with what seems more rational to you is yet more bizarre.

Appeal to the stone.

It would also smack of duplicity if God was only saying as He did to wait until Peter denied Him three times before making a rooster squawk.

Why?

None of the gospel accounts hint that this was about God knowing the character of Peter, they just relay events in clear and absolute fashion without the merest allusion to such.

Where have I said otherwise.

They're flat out clear that God tells Peter He knows that he's going to deny Him three times that very same night.

Yup. And how you get that "God knows the future" out of it is definitely beyond me.

My explanation is perfectly rational. Yours demands a contradiction, and is therefore irrational.

There could well be a point to Jesus telling Peter the truth about knowing what he was going to do, Peter seemed to get it after all and wept bitterly after he'd realized what he'd done.

Which, as I said before, is just as easily explained without requiring God to know the future.

You're the one limiting God

Hypocrite.

and you're going to have to find a quote of mine that says that God needs to know the future in order to say something cos I sure don't recall ever arguing that on this or any other thread.

You're the one defending the idea that God must know the future based on what He said to Peter.

 

[Stripe]

You're the one defending the idea that God must know the future based on what He said to Peter.

There needs to be a distinction about what it means to have foreknowledge. We would say that God can see the future, but He has not set it in stone.

In the "debate" with Brain, we shouldn't give up the ground that He is in control.

Also, Brain wants to avoid declaring that everything is set in stone, but that is what he demands.

 

[Idolater]

There needs to be a distinction about what it means to have foreknowledge. We would say that God can see the future, but He has not set it in stone.

In the "debate" with Brain, we shouldn't give up the ground that He is in control.

Also, Brain wants to avoid declaring that everything is set in stone, but that is what he demands.

In the case of Peter, it was set in stone, but only by Peter himself. Peter determined to deny Jesus three times that night, and Jesus foreknew this. There isn't any loss of freedom there for Peter, and there isn't any diminishing of Christ's foreknowledge either. The only diminishing of Christ's foreknowledge that we know about, is when the Father has determined to bring about the End.

 

[JudgeRightly]

In the case of Peter, it was set in stone, but only by Peter himself. Peter determined to deny Jesus three times that night, and Jesus foreknew this. There isn't any loss of freedom there for Peter, and there isn't any diminishing of Christ's foreknowledge either. The only diminishing of Christ's foreknowledge that we know about, is when the Father has determined to bring about the End.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Either:

Peter has a will.

Or:

Jesus knew the future because it's set in stone.

The two are mutually exclusive, because a will is the ability to choose otherwise, and if there's no alternate outcome, then there is no will possible, and therefore no choice, let alone freedom.

 

[ok doser]

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

With ice cream!

 

[Idolater]

With ice cream!

"Even if everyone else eats poop ice cream, I Peter will never eat poop ice cream."

vs.

"You Peter will eat poop ice cream three times, tonight."

 

[Stripe]

In the case of Peter, it was set in stone, but only by Peter himself. Peter determined to deny Jesus three times that night, and Jesus foreknew this. There isn't any loss of freedom there for Peter, and there isn't any diminishing of Christ's foreknowledge either. The only diminishing of Christ's foreknowledge that we know about, is when the Father has determined to bring about the End.

If Peter had a choice, he might have chosen otherwise. This means it was possible that Jesus' knowledge would fail.

Infallible foreknowledge and wills are mutually exclusive.

 

[Stripe]

With ice cream!

And it's probably fruit cake.

 

[JudgeRightly]

And it's probably fruit cake.

Fruit cake?

How about in video form?

Video Fruitcake DVD or Video Download

science, philosophy, theology, morality, criminal justice, the Bible, apologetics

store.kgov.com

 

[Arthur Brain]

There needs to be a distinction about what it means to have foreknowledge. We would say that God can see the future, but He has not set it in stone.

In the "debate" with Brain, we shouldn't give up the ground that He is in control.

Also, Brain wants to avoid declaring that everything is set in stone, but that is what he demands.

Really, you believe that God can see the future? Since when? In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not arguing that God has 'set it in stone' anyway as foreknowledge of an event isn't the same as predetermining it. It's not a case of wanting to avoid making such a declaration or demanding it, that's just utterly bizarre on your part (again). My position is entirely contrary to that.

 

[Arthur Brain]

We know your opinion. You've asserted it at least 10 times. Now justify it. Back it up with something. How is it rational to say that people have a choice when God knows what will happen, because that is prima facie contradictory.

Take some inspiration from me. When you accuse me of holding an irrational stance — ie, you think God cannot operate in time as I do — I point to reality. We operate in time, so why can't God? Where do you get the knowledge that it must be otherwise?

You have a highly divergent set of opinions that run counter to everyday experience. It's like you're running around insisting that the sky is pink and the ocean purple while insulting those who suggest blue and blue.

It's rational because God hasn't influenced/forced/programmed/coerced you simply by knowing what you were/are going to do at any given point in time. Your will hasn't been infringed upon and you'll have made any number of choices today and anyone knowing about them in advance wouldn't have affected them unless they did any of the above. Pretty basic stuff. We can only operate in time as per our reference of it. We can't perceive it any other way than our limited, finite scope. You think God is bound by that?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, we agree. Please catch up to the rest of us here.



God knew what Peter was going to do because He knew Peter, not because He knew the future.



Reducing?

No.

I'm simply acknowledging that He, as the Creator of the universe, can make a rooster crow when He needs one to, as in the case with Peter.



Appeal to the stone.



Why?



Where have I said otherwise.



Yup. And how you get that "God knows the future" out of it is definitely beyond me.

My explanation is perfectly rational. Yours demands a contradiction, and is therefore irrational.



Which, as I said before, is just as easily explained without requiring God to know the future.



Hypocrite.



You're the one defending the idea that God must know the future based on what He said to Peter.

So, you haven't got a quote of mine that stipulates that God needs to know the future in order to say something then? Shoulda thought that through a bit more before leveling an unsupportable accusation like that JR. Just because folk have no issue with foreknowledge doesn't mean they think anything is of no worth without it and the same can go for your 'hypocrite' rubbish. I don't place limitations on a deity through a narrow lens of understanding, that's the remit of people like you who demand that God can only do this and that.

The verse is clear. No need for God making roosters squawk.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So, you haven't got a quote of mine that stipulates that God needs to know the future in order to say something then?

The entire thread is still here for everyone to read, Arthur.

Just because folk have no issue with foreknowledge doesn't mean they think anything is of no worth without it

I have no issue with God foreknowing things. What I have a problem with is when someone claims that God can infallibly know the future while asserting that people have wills, because the two ideas are mutually exclusive.

and the same can go for your 'hypocrite' rubbish.

Appeal to the stone.

I don't place limitations on a deity through a narrow lens of understanding,

Yes, you do.

that's the remit of people like you who demand that God can only do this and that.

How ironic.

The verse is clear.

Yes, it is. We've already agreed on that, Arthur.

No need for God making roosters squawk.

It is part of a perfectly valid alternative to your position, an alternative which you have yet to show unnecessary.

In other words.....

Saying it doesn't make it so.

 

[Stripe]

You believe that God can see the future?

I believe that even you can "see" the future.

When we use the phrase "see the future," we do so in the comprehensible, metaphorical sense. You use it to mean some apparently magic ability that only God has, but is not written about anywhere.

I'm not arguing that God has 'set it in stone' anyway as foreknowledge of an event isn't the same as predetermining it.

Then why are you arguing at all?

My position is entirely contrary to that.

Entirely contrary to what?

It's rational because God hasn't influenced/forced/programmed/coerced you simply by knowing what you were/are going to do at any given point in time.

It's necessarily so. He created everything. If He knew what we would choose, then He set it in stone.

You're insisting on something that is utterly irrational.

Your will hasn't been infringed upon and you'll have made any number of choices today and anyone knowing about them in advance wouldn't have affected them unless they did any of the above.

Nobody knows why you keep saying this stuff. It's irrelevant.

Pretty basic stuff. We can only operate in time as per our reference of it. We can't perceive it any other way than our limited, finite scope. You think God is bound by that?

As has been pointed out and as you have ignored: Even were God what you call "outside time" — a nonsense concept that you appeal to for reasons of obfuscation — the ice cream challenge shatters it. Get your "outside time" god, get it to tell us what we will choose and watch while we defy it.

There is no foreknowledge for the Creator without determinism.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The entire thread is still here for everyone to read, Arthur.



I have no issue with God foreknowing things. What I have a problem with is when someone claims that God can infallibly know the future while asserting that people have wills, because the two ideas are mutually exclusive.



Appeal to the stone.



Yes, you do.



How ironic.



Yes, it is. We've already agreed on that, Arthur.



It is part of a perfectly valid alternative to your position, an alternative which you have yet to show unnecessary.

In other words.....

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Well of course the threads still here to read, what, was it gonna go somewhere else? Got a quote of mine that says that God needs to know the future in order to say something yet? I would wish you good luck on the score but you'd need more than that.

They're only mutually exclusive to those who conflate foreknowledge with determinism. They aren't the same thing but you've had this explained enough times already.

False. You can use your plethora of tedious soundbites all you want, it sure ain't me that places limitations on what God can do, it's you. All you've done is come up with some feeble bunk that God could have made a bird chirp after Peter's third denial and that God likely knew what he was going to do. The verse is absolutely specific, no alternative "understanding" required.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I believe that even you can "see" the future.

When we use the phrase "see the future," we do so in the comprehensible, metaphorical sense. You use it to mean some apparently magic ability that only God has, but is not written about anywhere.

Then why are you arguing at all?


Entirely contrary to what?


It's necessarily so. He created everything. If He knew what we would choose, then He set it in stone.

You're insisting on something that is utterly irrational.

Nobody knows why you keep saying this stuff. It's irrelevant.

As has been pointed out and as you have ignored: Even were God what you call "outside time" — a nonsense concept that you appeal to for reasons of obfuscation — the ice cream challenge shatters it. Get your "outside time" god, get it to tell us what we will choose and watch while we defy it.

There is no foreknowledge for the Creator without determinism.

Is it "magical" to you if a thousand years is like a day to God and the same in reverse? Maybe Jesus feeding the five thousand with some bread and fish was metaphor perhaps? Changing water into wine etc? God isn't limited to a human perspective or understanding where it comes to time. Knowing what choices people have/will make is not setting 'anything in stone'. Take that up with those who actually believe in a determined universe where everything's programmed and there is no such thing as choice. Stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the difference is stupid but have at it as you will.

 

[Stripe]

There is no foreknowledge for the Creator without determinism.

Stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that fact is stupid, but have at it as you will.

 

[Arthur Brain]

There is no foreknowledge for the Creator without determinism.

Stubbornly refusing to acknowledge thar fact is stupid, but have at it as you will.

Learn to use 'spellcheck' dude...

Newsflash: You don't get to determine what is actually determined through a narrow frame of reference. Or maybe God is a magician when He does anything outside of your limited scope? Turning water into wine? Wow, that's magic and then some, right?