Does God know the future?

[drbrumley]

Shouldn't Clete apologize to SOTK?

Why don't you butt out of it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Shouldn't Clete apologize to SOTK?

Freak, when you start your own web forum I promise not to tell you how to run it.

 

[Freak]

Freak, when you start your own web forum I promise not to tell you how to run it.

It's pretty clear that SOTK was an offended party. Why should not a fellow brother in Christ (me) say so?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It's pretty clear that SOTK was an offended party. Why should not a fellow brother in Christ (me) say so?

I am not asking SOTK to apologize to Clete for creating his sig, and I am not asking Clete to apologize to SOTK.

They are big boys and can handle that themselves.

 

[drbrumley]

I am now a proud member of P.O.O.P. People Offended by Offended People.

 

[Clete]

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.

I understand now. I missed your point earlier.

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

I will concede that he is an idiot.

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.

Now it is you who have missed my point. I was saying that neither of us are qualified to debate this aspect of the issue and so I am unwilling to do so.

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.

"Very comfortable" is very subjective but I'll give you an opportunity to prove it.

E=mc2

If m is measured in grams what unit is E measured in and why?

If I can will you concede Clete?

No. I would not have the needed background to make the necessary evaluation nor the time to even investigate whatever obscure crack pot you come up with.

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.

Perhaps but neither of us are qualified to dive into it without breaking both our noses.

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

This is true mathematically but the relationship between the mathematical and the physical must be proven.

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

The theory doesn't say that. Einstein did but the math does not. It is the contradiction predicted by the math that makes this assumption intuitive but mathematically there is not cosmic speed limit. You can just keep right on going off the deep end of wacko irrationalism if you like. It is a major problem for the theory (not for the math but for the theory).

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?

That's right, Einstein's theories HAVE NOT been even close to proven. They are useful for predicting what subatomic particles will do and several other things and so I would never say that his theories are irrational, quite the contrary. However, the predictions it makes concerning objects what happens to traveling objects are irrational because they are contradictory. All this means is that there is something important missing. Einstein knew this, if you were as familiar with it as you claim, so would you be.

Where'd you graduate from? If they heard you saying this they'd revoke your physics degree out of sheer embarrassment that you came from their institution.

I'm going to assume that this statement was born out of a misunderstanding of my comments which I hopefully just cleared up. And I do not have a physics degree, I decided I was more interested in philosophy.

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.

I did. It was boring. :yawn:
String theory was barely even heard of when I was in college. All I know of it is what I've read in several magazines and seen on Nova. All of which have said the same thing. If the theory does not predict anything testable, it should be discarded. I agree, don't you?

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.

I am not making sweeping statements about physics I am saying that neither of us are qualified to do so. I am making some important statements about Einstein and what he thought about his own theories but that isn't the same thing. My point is that if Einstein wasn't convinced that his own theories proved anything about the nature of time, how do you propose to convince me that you know more about it than he did?

And you are correct; we probably are about equal in our qualifications on this issue which is exactly why it will be totally fruitless avenue to pursue which was my entire point. It was not my intention to insult your intelligence. I'm sure you know more than an average guy as I know I do but on such an issue it just takes a hell of a lot more than that to be considered an authority on Relativity or its implications about the nature of time. 99% of what anyone's heard about it is PR hype designed to get research dollars into the physics departments of large universities and has nothing to do with the real science or mathematics of Relativity. Simply the single fact that Einstein questioned the conclusions of his own theory is sufficient for the purposes of this novice debate to show that Relativity isn't the proof you think it is. And as it is the only thing you might possibly have that would even begin to suggest that the future or the past, either one, actually exists then my premise B stands for the time being.

Now, do you have anything else besides theories that prove nothing to show us as evidence that the past independently exists?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[derek8570]

uh read revelation. he sure knows whats going to happen but not the exact time.

 

[godrulz]

uh read revelation. he sure knows whats going to happen but not the exact time.

General themes are revealed. Every minute detail leading up to them is not revealed because they are irrelevant and not knowable. Specific prophecies about things God is going to do in the future does not mean He knows the future exhaustively (down to what I will eat for supper June 1, 2008...even before I was born...from eternity past).

 

[Z Man]

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.

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

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.
If I can will you concede Clete?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

:chuckle:

You're good Johnny... you're good... Keep it up man. :thumb:

 

[godrulz]

:chuckle:

You're good Johnny... you're good... Keep it up man. :thumb:

Go, Johnny Go!

 

[intro2faith]

uh read revelation. he sure knows whats going to happen but not the exact time.

Is the "he" you're talking about God? If it is God, then yes, He does know the exact time everything will happen in the book of revelations. If you're not talking about God, then who are you talking about?

 

[godrulz]

Is the "he" you're talking about God? If it is God, then yes, He does know the exact time everything will happen in the book of revelations. If you're not talking about God, then who are you talking about?

The prophecies can all be fulfilled as written without assuming the exact millisecond is known for each chronology. You are going beyond the text which gives sweeping themes and events in order without specifying the exact minute of fulfillment= date setting (do not forget the cyclical nature of Johannine writing, so some of the book is not chronological like Paul's linear writing).

 

[intro2faith]

The prophecies can all be fulfilled as written without assuming the exact millisecond is known for each chronology. You are going beyond the text which gives sweeping themes and events in order without specifying the exact minute of fulfillment= date setting (do not forget the cyclical nature of Johannine writing, so some of the book is not chronological like Paul's linear writing).

Okay, but in some instances at least, does God not say that only He, and not even the angels, know the exact hour that some of the judgements will occur? I'm not really trying to prove anything here, I'm just trying to make sense out of everything.

 

[godrulz]

Okay, but in some instances at least, does God not say that only He, and not even the angels, know the exact hour that some of the judgements will occur? I'm not really trying to prove anything here, I'm just trying to make sense out of everything.

When the events are unfolding, God knows things that the angels do not. This does not mean He knew them billions of years ago (unless He arbitrarily picked an exact time for everything, which is unlikely due to vast contingencies leading up to these events). Which verse are you referring to so we can look at the context? The Second Coming involves times and seasons, not necessarily predestined milliseconds. The Father may have already set the hour of Christ's return, but this was not necessarily done trillions of years ago. The Son did not know on earth due to His veiled Deity or the fact that the Father had not set the date in stone. Paul believed in the immanent return of Christ in his lifetime. It is possible that the Second Coming was intended for earlier than now, but the Jewish rejection led to a delay since God is not wanting anyone to perish.

 

[Johnny]

Listen, Clete, I owe you an apology. I went a bit overboard earlier calling you an embarassment to your university. I still disagree with you on several points (as I will outline).

Now it is you who have missed my point. I was saying that neither of us are qualified to debate this aspect of the issue and so I am unwilling to do so.

I understand, though I disagree that "qualifications" are necessary to discuss the topic. I feel that if one can demonstrate an understanding of the principles and applications of a theory then they are qualified to discuss it.

E=mc2

If m is measured in grams what unit is E measured in and why?

For SI energy is measured Joules (1 J = 1kg (m/s)^2). Thus, if mass was measured in grams it would be mJ.

No. I would not have the needed background to make the necessary evaluation nor the time to even investigate whatever obscure crack pot you come up with.

How about I come up with a prominent scientist? I have three or four books sitting on my shelves dealing with the subject that I need only to consult. It's only a matter of time before I come up with a physicist who has a recognizable name and quite a reputation.

The theory doesn't say that. Einstein did but the math does not. It is the contradiction predicted by the math that makes this assumption intuitive but mathematically there is not cosmic speed limit. You can just keep right on going off the deep end of wacko irrationalism if you like. It is a major problem for the theory (not for the math but for the theory).

The cosmic speed limit was arrived at mathematically, and later confirmed by observation.. Einstein didn't just make that claim out of no where. In order for something to reach the speed of light, it must have an infinite energy. One of the places this assertion comes from the relativistic mass equation, which is shown here. If you'd like the derivation, I can post that as well. Note that as v approaches the speed of light, mass approaches infinite. Remember that E=mc^2 (which isn't actually the full equation, but it will suffice), Thus, as mass approaches infinite, energy approaches infinite. Notice the domain of f(v) in the relativistic mass equation is (0, c), because when v=c the equation is undefined. Thus, all the possible values of v are between 0 and c. That's a simple mathematical demonstration of the speed limit. This is confirmed by an astounding volume of observation. The Stanford Linear Accelerator has pushed electrons up to 0.99999999995c, which required an asounting 51.1 GeV (for one electron!). No matter how much energy is added, the particles in the accelerator will never reach C. This is a simple proof of Einstein's special relativity. Not only does the mass of the particle increase, but the particle's lifespan increases as time dialates. One could verify the equation Einstein gave quite easily by plotting the energy vs. velocity in the particle accelerator.

Although you can dispute Einstein's claims all you want, I stand on the shoulders of over a century of brilliant physicists and hundreds of thousands of graduate students who have hoped to make it big by finding some glimmer of an observational or theoretical flaw within Einstein's theories.

I did. It was boring.
String theory was barely even heard of when I was in college. All I know of it is what I've read in several magazines and seen on Nova. All of which have said the same thing. If the theory does not predict anything testable, it should be discarded. I agree, don't you?

I liked the special, just for the thought-provoking value. String theory is not science yet, it's conjectures. We don't have any way of testing any of it's predictions yet. And if you can't test it, it needs to be put on the shelf until it can be tested.

My point is that if Einstein wasn't convinced that his own theories proved anything about the nature of time, how do you propose to convince me that you know more about it than he did?

Einstein was convinced of the validity of his theories. Just read his papers and notes. They were his theories, afterall. I don't think you can support the assertion that he wasn't convinced by either SR or GR. Einstein's big flub came with the cosmological constant he tried to incorporate (unsuccessfully) and trying to unify the forces (which he could not), not with either of the relativities. Even if Einstein remained unconvinced (which he did not), mathematics and observation have confirmed his theories time and time again.

Simply the single fact that Einstein questioned the conclusions of his own theory is sufficient for the purposes of this novice debate to show that Relativity isn't the proof you think it is.

Questioning your own conclusions is good science. You would question your math too if you derived an equation that would overhall modern physics. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter if Einstein thought he was wrong (and he didn't about SR or GR after observation confirmed it), We have volumes and volumes of empirical, repeatable, observational evidence that both special and general relativity actually describe the universe as it is. This is readily available to you at any library and online. If you chose to ignore it in favor of your own interpretations, then you are free to do so. However, the information is there.

Now, do you have anything else besides theories that prove nothing to show us as evidence that the past independently exists?

I wasn't trying to show that the past exists. I was questioning whether or not God could exist in two time frames at once. This would mean part of God is lagging behind other parts of him in terms of time.

 

[Delmar]

Well, if God doesn't know them, then they can't be known, which would mean that they are nonexistant.

Nonexistant like the future? which does not exist yet !

 

[Clete]

I wasn't trying to show that the past exists. I was questioning whether or not God could exist in two time frames at once. This would mean part of God is lagging behind other parts of him in terms of time.

If the past doesn't exist then God could not be there nor could it be traveled too.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I've done a super duper poor job of communicating what I was trying to get at with Einstien and his theories. You and I agree more than we disagree, let's just leave it at that shall we? And you might be interested to know that you are the ONLY person I have ever asked about the units used in E=mc2 that ever got the answer correct, no one else even understood the question. I'm very impressed.

 

[intro2faith]

When the events are unfolding, God knows things that the angels do not. This does not mean He knew them billions of years ago (unless He arbitrarily picked an exact time for everything, which is unlikely due to vast contingencies leading up to these events). Which verse are you referring to so we can look at the context? The Second Coming involves times and seasons, not necessarily predestined milliseconds. The Father may have already set the hour of Christ's return, but this was not necessarily done trillions of years ago. The Son did not know on earth due to His veiled Deity or the fact that the Father had not set the date in stone. Paul believed in the immanent return of Christ in his lifetime. It is possible that the Second Coming was intended for earlier than now, but the Jewish rejection led to a delay since God is not wanting anyone to perish.

Well, this is the only verse I could find that had anything to do with it(please let me know if anyone finds more)
"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matthew 24:36)

This was written in about 32 A.D.
Sure, it wasn't billions of years ago, but it was a long time ago. Does that verse mean God had a set time that nothing would change?

 

[JCAtheist]

Well, this is the only verse I could find that had anything to do with it(please let me know if anyone finds more)
"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matthew 24:36)

This was written in about 32 A.D.
Sure, it wasn't billions of years ago, but it was a long time ago. Does that verse mean God had a set time that nothing would change?

I tend to think quite the opposite.. that no set time is given because of the specific reason that God could give none.. Not even to Christ. When the time is right, for whatever reason.. when God is ready..

Now I'm not saying God doesn't have a time limit that He may of set for Himself, but this verse doesn't indicate to me that it is not an action that can happen anytime before the overall time expiration. Sort of like, I have until 3pm to get something done.. I can do it at 2:49pm, or 1:17pm etc.. if the circumstances are right, maybe in the next 30 seconds. Whatever happesn though, by 3pm, it WILL happen.

I think


Love and Peace

JCAtheist

 

[godrulz]

Well, this is the only verse I could find that had anything to do with it(please let me know if anyone finds more)
"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matthew 24:36)

This was written in about 32 A.D.
Sure, it wasn't billions of years ago, but it was a long time ago. Does that verse mean God had a set time that nothing would change?

I do not think the exact minute was set from all eternity. The Father could sovereignly decide at any point in history when the Second Coming will happen. Paul believed it would be in his lifetime, as do most generations of Christians. There seems to be some contingency as to the Gospel being preached to all nations (this does not mean every individual will hear). If the Church does or does not do its job, the Second Coming could vary by a year or two? Jesus was also speaking during the incarnation when His Deity was veiled (Phil. 2). As a man, He did not know everything from His preexistence. Secondly, perhaps the Father alone will decide and know the exact moment. Jesus will not be kept in the dark. Perhaps the date is not fixed, but somewhat contingent, so at the time neither Jesus nor the Father may have known as a certainty.

This is what we know:

1) Jesus will return.

2) We are to occupy until He does return.

There is no reason for God to have set the exact millisecond of the Second Coming in eternity past. Whether it is at noon or midnite, it does not matter (date setters be warned). We know the times and seasons. There is enough openness in prophecy to speculate that God will return in the fulness of His time in response to what is unfolding on earth (cf. Gal. 4:4 His first coming may not have been predestined to the millisecond, but God incarnated as things unfolded on earth and became ideal for the Messiah's appearance...nothing necessitates that the minute was fixed in eternity past).

I have not read this reasoning before (not in Open Theist writings that I know of). Perhaps I should copyright it? Shoot away :sinapisN: