Does God know the future?

[Johnny]

Yea I missed it, sorry godrulz. I'll respond here in a bit. thanks

 

[godrulz]

And I answered you......quid pro quo, doc tor.

Help, Mr. Google...equivalent, one for another...cute and smart, she is (yoda would like you)

Jesus Christ is the central point in the Bible. Creation, fall, incarnation/redemption/resurrection, consummation, etc. are also part of His Story, which is our story. MId-Acts is not a better answer than Jesus Christ.

As an aside, the KJV idea that it is the Revelation of St. John the Divine is incorrect. The opening verses show that it is the Revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ, King of kings, Lord of lords, Mighty risen Savior!

 

[Agape4Robin]

:chuckle:

 

[Johnny]

One can measure time in numerous ways. Time is not space or a place to visit. You are thinking of Michael J. Fox in "Back to the Future". The past is fixed. It has already happened. It is a mere memory. It is unchangeable and unvisitable in reality. One can recall it, recreate it, ponder it, but one cannot go there and visit it.

Why not? I agree that it's entirely intuitive that we can't go back in time, but there are lots of things about nature which are counter-intuitive. Stating that it is so does not make it so. Can you name a principle, equation, formula, or law which says that going to the past is impossible? Einstein showed us that time (and distance) are entirely relative. The fact of the matter is that right now, we just don't know whether travel to the past is feasible.

It is not that He is bound in time, since time is not a little line or cubby hole. It is merely the concept of duration/succession/sequence. The past, present, and future are distinguishable by God. He is not in an 'eternal now' moment. If He was, creation, incarnation, Second Coming actually happen simultaneously. This is nonsense. His revelation was progressive over years, not timelessness (whatever that means).

Would we, being humans in time, know it if He wasn't in time? Of course his revelation and actions are "in time", because they deal with us and we exist inside of time. Thus, while you have made a true statement, it says nothing about the nature of God as an entity.

Likewise, the future is not a place to visit. It is not there yet. It is merely potential in the mind of God. This is why prayer and choices of free moral agents can change the future. The future is not fixed (except what God has settled by His intention to eventually bring it to pass e.g. First/Second Coming). God does not need to go into the future. He can project all possible futures and is able to deal with any contingencies because He is creatively omnicompetent. He can 'go' to the future in His mind, but He does not actually know or experience it since it is not there in reality. Do not confuse space with time. Only the present is actual.

Again, you've just stated it as if it is an intuitive observation, not a mathematical or scientific fact. What about special relativity (wherein I can functionally travel to the future) Also, are you saying that God knows the future? You said "He can 'go' to the future in His mind." Just trying to keep who believes what straight.

If I shoot my cat in the head, can I go back into the past and change this event? Can God?

At this point we can't. I don't think we can say conclusively that God can't. If God did, would you know it and how would you know it?

 

[Johnny]

If the Superbowl in 20 years is not played yet, can I see or know it without causing it?

No.

Can God?

Good question, I don't know.

Can we blur the distinction between past, present, and future and make any sense of it?

We can't. Who is to say God can't?

You wrongly assume that the past or future is identical to the present. They are not (this is self-evident in the Bible and real life).

I'm not making that assumtion.

 

[Clete]

What are you talking about? That's not a nonsequitor. I didn't reach any conclusions or state any premises. I was responding to someone's argument that if all events ceased, time would be the measurement from when they ceased. Stop throwing around terms.

Your question assumes a conclusion (that one can measure time without events) that does not follow from the questions premise (that there are not events). It is thus, by definition, a non-sequitor. "Does not follow" is what non-squitor means.

Wow, what a killer argument. The funny thing about it is that it passed for brilliance to Knight. Nice. If you accept the premise, then the conclusion is entirely obvious. But you failed to prove your premise. You just stated it like everyone agrees. That's the equivalent of me saying "Belief in God is irrational." to which you say "Why?" and I say "Because God doesn't exist. Thus belief in God is irrational". It's an absolutely paltry argument that crumbles upon even a cursory examination. That may pass as brilliance here, but to the rest of the world, it means nothing.

I did prove the premise. To go to a place that does not exists would be to go nowhere, thus to do it would be to not do it. That is self-contradictory and therefore self-defeating.

The question of time travel to the past is largely philosophical, but there is a scientific aspect to it.

No there is not. No scientist has ever seriously considered travel to the past to be even remotely possible.

Contrary to what you may believe, neither philosophy or science has not ruled out time travel to the past.

You are not a scientist, you are not a physicist, you are unqualified to even discuss this never mind base an theological argument on it. Time travel is at best theoretical and as far as I am concerned is complete fantacy. Nothing you can present could possibly prove that such a thing is even possible.

In fact, travel to the past and future is well within the confines of science (and mathematics). Granted, there have been and continue to be many debates about the subject, but there is not a unified conclusion that has been reached. So when you come in here and make sweeping statements like "Time travel to the past is impossible", you carry neither the unified conclusion of philosophers and scientists. How am I supposed to take you seriously when you construct arguments like the above?

The argument above was completely valid. It has nothing to do with science, (science fiction yes, science no). You cannot cite even one credible source that seriously concedes a realistic possibility of travelling to the past. Einstien's theories predict the slowing of time but certainly not its reversal. And current String Theory doesn't predict anything at all that is testable in even the slightest degree.
You don't have a leg to stand on here and you know it. Nothing in all of human experience and knowledge allows us to plausibly believe that the past exists at all. Existence is now, the past was, the future is not yet. That is the nature of existence and you simply have nothing at all to present that could ever demonstrate otherwise.

Now, let me address the notion of travelling to the future. Assume I build a time machine. I step in it, bring my watch, and in 1 minute it takes me 10 years into the future. Impossible? Not quite. Assume I'm in a space ship whirling through space at near the speed of light. I count one minute on my watch, and then I stop my ship and I find that 10 years have passed on earth. Was God in m space ship AND on earth? Time was passing at different speeds for both of us. Can God exist in a place where time is passing at two different speeds?

Why is it that this keeps getting brought up?
Look, while I was in college I majored in physics and I practically worshiped Einstein. I've read so many books about the guy it's stupid and yet I absolutely do not consider myself to be at all an expert on him or on his theories and I can absolutely guarantee that you do not understand them either. What I do know for a fact is that not even Einstien thought that his theories proved that time existed in the same way that electricity or gravity exist. The math in his theories required that a fourth dimension be added to the normal three for them to work out. He ASSUMED that this dimension must be time (which was his frequent practice when working out difficult problems). It wasn't a willy-nilly, off the top of his head sort of assumption, he had some reasons to think it was time, but the point is that he could not prove it and didn't even try to do so.
I also know that he intentionally ignored the logically contradictory things that his theories predicted when objects travel at light speed (infinite mass with no volume). It wasn't until later when people started using the contradictions in almost a salesman like fashion to "sell" his theories to the world at large that he embraced them without argument. Initially he even believed that these contradictions would spell the death of his theories but he pressed on because of the eloquence of the mathmatical explanations that the theories provided for things like how gravity works (which while eloquent mathmatically, haven't been proven either).
The point here being that Relativity and its self-contradictory predictions does not help you. Your own question (or one's like it) show how it's predictions are irrational. It is at best a theory which has not, and likely cannot be proven. String Theory is even worse! It doesn't even predict anything at all that could possibly be tested even conceptually. String Theory, if it does not overcome this problem will be discarded as complete mathmatical fantacy, as I beleive much of Relativity will be as well, in time.
Now, unless you can demonstrate that you are some sort of physics expert, I simply will not debate this any further.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Oh, please....tell me what the plot is.................

:think:

Umm, no. I don't want to. You wouldn't pay attention to it if I did.

 

[Agape4Robin]

:think:

Umm, no. I don't want to. You wouldn't pay attention to it if I did.

Whatever.........

 

[SOTK]

SOTK, Please remove your blantant offensive signature. It is neither true of Clete or any OV'er on this board. Thanks.

I changed it and made it more accurate. :up: I'll completely remove it if/when Clete ever changes his attitude and his comments regarding us.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Deal. :up:

Knight, sorry, what post did I miss responding to?

Way, way way back . . . . here.

If you responded to it I must have missed it and maybe ou could point me to your response.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

SOTK, would you like us all to make signatures about you piecing together bits of your posts?

No?

I didn't think so.

 

[nancy]

Knight, isn't that an absurd example. God is trying to get a lesson across by giving the guy an ultimatum and the guy learns the lesson and repents. Isn't that the real message of Scripture and not all this open theism nonsense?

 

[Johnny]

Your question assumes a conclusion (that one can measure time without events) that does not follow from the questions premise (that there are not events). It is thus, by definition a non-sequitor.

What are you going on about Clete? My question didn't assume anything. In fact, it was designed to point out that you can't measure time without events, as someone had stated. Let's be serious now.

I did prove the premise. To go to a place that does not exists would be to go nowhere, thus to do it would be to not do it. That is self-contradictory and therefore self defeating.

That's one of the worst applications of logic that I've seen on this forum (challenged only by Lighthouse). Don't you see?

A) Belief in God is irrational
B) God doesn't exist.
C) Believing in something that doesn't exist is irrational

That's all fine and dandy if you accept B.

A) Going to the past is irrational
B) The past doesn't exist
C) Thus, going to the past is irrational.

That's all fine and dandy if you accept B. We're arguing over B. Saying that it's irrational is assuming B, and is thus not an argument against B.

No there is not. No scientist has ever seriously consider travel to the past to be even remotely possible.

So if I can produce a scientist who has considered it possible, then will you concede?

You are not a scientist, you are not a physicist, you are unqualified to even discuss this

Are you a scientist? Are you a physicist? Then why do you discuss it? Clete, you're the one making broad, sweeping, conclusive statements as if you're some sort of authority on the matter. Then you turn around and tell me that I'm not qualified to even discuss the matter? You can't be serious. One of my majors was physics, and while I have not had the experience that a PhD would have, I am very comfortable with most physics.

You cannot cite even one credible source that seriously concedes a realistic possibility of travelling to the past.

If I can will you concede Clete?

Look, while I was in college I majored in Physics and I practically worshiped Einstein. I've read so many books about the guy it's stupid and yet I absolutely do not consider myself to be at all an expert on him or on his theories and I can absolutely guarantee that you do not understand them either.

My major was also physics. I'm not an expert on Einstein, but I'm quite comfortable with his theories. I'm a freshly minted graduate, and I assure you I remember a lot more of it than you.

He ASSUMED that this dimension must be time (which was his frequent practice when working out difficult problems). It wasn't a willy-nilly of the top of his head sort of assumption, he had some reasons to think it was time, but the point is that he could not prove it.

Clete, dimensions are defined, not proven. We've been over this. Keep up.

I also know that he intentionally ignored the logically contradictory things that his theories predicted when objects travel at light speed (infinite mass with no volume).

Which is exactly why nothing with mass can travel the speed of light Clete.

The point here being that Relativity and its self-contradictory predictions does not help you. Your own question (or one's like it) shows how it's predictions are irrational. It is at best a theory which has not and likely cannot be proven.

Here goes the word "irrational" again. Don't be silly Clete. Relativity has been demonstrated over and over and over again. Check out your nearest particle accelerator, your GPS in your car, the atomic clocks flown around the world, particles ejected from stars, etc, etc. You expect me to believe that you actually majored in Physics and yet you are sitting here with an earnest face telling me that Einstein's theory was irrational and hasn't been proven. Is this a joke? Where'd you graduate from? If they heard you saying this they'd revoke your physics degree out of sheer embarassment that you came from their institution. You clearly haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about. All that jibber about string theory was nice. You must have seen the PBS special.

Now, unless you can demonstrate that you are some sort of physics expert, I simply will not debate this any further.

Because you can't defend yourself. I am at least as qualified as you, and you apparently feel you're qualified to make sweeping statements about physics.

 

[SOTK]

Okay, sorry, I think this is the post I failed to respond to.

I think you might be missing the point.

We OV'ers would state that the future is partially settled because God has plans to do certain things at certain times of His choosing.

He is God an no one can stop Him, He can bring an event to pass.

Okay, this is partially where you guys lose me. Saying that "God is God and that nobody can stop Him" is part of the Calvinist argument in a way. Calvinists believe in the Omnipotence of God. We believe God is sovereign and all powerful. Since He can do what He wants, as you also claim, why can't you believe that He is powerful enough to know the future?

I think you might be missing the point.
Think of it like this (keep in mind this is just a example). I tell my wife that tomorrow at 3PM I will mow the lawn. In a sense I have partially closed the future in that 3PM is settled for lawn mowing time. Now I am just a man. I could get sick, or lazy or maybe my lawn mower wont start. So there is a real possibility that I might not mow the lawn tomorrow at 3PM.

God on the other hand is God.

If He determines that the rapture will happen on June 8th 2025 at 3PM who is gonna stop Him? In essense He partially closed the future.

So, in essence, you believe the future is closed and open? Right? Is this what you are saying?

Now, I am not asking that you convert to open theism but can you at least see how it is logical from the open view position to state that the future can be partially settled?

Thanks, I appreciate that. I am not convinced it's logical, no, but I am more than willing to discuss this.

 

[godrulz]

Why not? I agree that it's entirely intuitive that we can't go back in time, but there are lots of things about nature which are counter-intuitive. Stating that it is so does not make it so. Can you name a principle, equation, formula, or law which says that going to the past is impossible? Einstein showed us that time (and distance) are entirely relative. The fact of the matter is that right now, we just don't know whether travel to the past is feasible.

Would we, being humans in time, know it if He wasn't in time? Of course his revelation and actions are "in time", because they deal with us and we exist inside of time. Thus, while you have made a true statement, it says nothing about the nature of God as an entity.

Again, you've just stated it as if it is an intuitive observation, not a mathematical or scientific fact. What about special relativity (wherein I can functionally travel to the future) Also, are you saying that God knows the future? You said "He can 'go' to the future in His mind." Just trying to keep who believes what straight.

At this point we can't. I don't think we can say conclusively that God can't. If God did, would you know it and how would you know it?

This line of thinking leaves nothing knowable or proveable. I would put the weight of evidence on common sense and the straightforward biblical evidence, rather than Einstein and his speculations that are probably not relevant. I do not think special relativity will help your cause since it does not deal with the essence of time and eternity (we also will not ever travel at the speed of light since we would have infinite mass? and would die...it is a moot point and very abstract).

 

[SOTK]

SOTK, would you like us all to make signatures about you piecing together bits of your posts?

No?

I didn't think so.

If you can find a single instance where I have called a fellow brother in Christ who subscribes to the Open View as a heretic, a moron, idiotic, blasphemer, or the like, I will formally ask for forgiveness here and now.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

If you can find a single instance where I have called a fellow brother in Christ who subscribes to the Open View as a heretic, a moron, idiotic, blasphemer, or the like, I will formally ask for forgiveness here and now.

I am kindly asking that you change your signature.

 

[SOTK]

I am kindly asking that you change your signature.

Replying via PM.

 

[Freak]

I am kindly asking that you change your signature.

Shouldn't Clete apologize to SOTK?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Okay, this is partially where you guys lose me. Saying that "God is God and that nobody can stop Him" is part of the Calvinist argument in a way. Calvinists believe in the Omnipotence of God.

As do open theists.

We believe God is sovereign and all powerful.

As do open theists.

Since He can do what He wants, as you also claim, why can't you believe that He is powerful enough to know the future?

He could!

God could have created in a manner that closed all of the future. But apparently He didn't want to. It isn't that He couldn't, but that He didn't want to.

On a side note....
One thing He couldn't do is have perfect exhaustive foreknowledge of the future and also grant man a true freewill. I don't think you believe in freewill so I will skip this part.

So, in essence, you believe the future is closed and open? Right? Is this what you are saying?

When you became a Christian God sealed you into the Body of Christ and NOTHING can tear you away from under His wing correct? In essence that part of the future is closed. You will be considered holy and blameless until the day of redemption. Yet the stuff you do in between then and now is up to you! Your future is open but also closed in at least one aspect - your standing with God on the day of redemption.

Thanks, I appreciate that. I am not convinced it's logical, no, but I am more than willing to discuss this.

:up: