Does God know the future?

[eccl3_6]

No actually I do not think that was it, in fact I'm nearly certain of it. You won't believe me because I flat out cannot find the damn magazine to quote it directly but that article I'm refering to was being featured because the physicist whom they were talking about had a mathematically rigorous theory that only had three dimentions (i.e. no time)*. It has been a couple of years ago and I haven't heard anything more about it and so I will readily admit that it probably has it's problems but that isn't the point. I don't bring these things up so that we can debate the merrits of a half dozen altrernatives to Einstien's theories. I bring them up to piont out that they exists and that they continue to be brought forward by serious scientist and get published by serious publications. Even if everyone of them are wrong, which they may well be, the fact that they exist as genuine theories is proof that Einstien's theories HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN as yet. It is rediculous for you to insist that they have been.

Concerning your buddy eccl3_6, I responded to this post of yours because you posted it before being aware of my writing him off and because I had overlooked it in the first place, but if you want to debate me further you'll have to start another thread and keep him off of it, I will not participate with that jackass any more.

Resting in Him,
Clete

* Or at least the dimention of time was taken out in some fashion (in other words it wasn't merely a figure of speech in the title of the article, the point of it was really about the idea that time was not an aspect of space as Einstein proposed. As I think about it I could be getting more than one article mixed together. One theory had only three dimentions but I don't remember wether it was the article in S. A. or not.

So to sum up Clete's argument...."Open Theism is true. I know you won't believe me but the world changing theory which nobody has ever heard of was once printed in a magazine and it argued my argument perfectly, only nobody else read he magazine that I know of, I'm not even sure which magaizine it was. And then this magazine which explains everything.....I lost it. But you have to believe me because I read it."

I think I'll stick to Einstein if its all the same.

:chuckle:​

see post #1473​

 

[Nathon Detroit]

So to sum up Clete's argument...."Open Theism is true. I know you won't believe me but the world changing theory which nobody has ever heard of was once printed in a magazine and it argued my argument perfectly, only nobody else read he magazine that I know of, I'm not even sure which magaizine it was. And then this magazine which explains everything.....I lost it. But you have to believe me because I read it."

:think:

:juggle:

:think:​

I think I'll stick to Einstein if its all the same.

:chuckle:​

Lame! Totally lame! :down:

That isn't Clete's argument at all and you know it.

You're a first class idiot that would rather lie about the progress of the conversation and proclaim "victory" then accurately characterize the debate and possibly learn from it.

Clete's post #1484 neutralizes your so called "victory", it's your own problem if you refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[eccl3_6]

You have got to be joking....every physicist over 16 is laughing at Clete's argument here!
I told Clete not to present information which he couldn't back up and he did it anyway.....its laughable!


This was Clete's post that refuted Relativity supposedly...

Let say we have our three parties again. One is traveling away from another and a third is watching the whole thing happen while perhaps being observed himself by the other two. Is there ever a point at which any one of the three is no longer capable of observing either or neither of the other two?

To which I said,

Depends on how fast they're travelling and other stuff but I see where you are going and for the sake of arguments (i.e. nobody is travelling at 'c', assuming we have 180 degree vision, we have perfect telescopes etc, blah, blah,blah) no they can keep seeing one another indefinitely.

I love this....I know where you're going and I already know the answer
:chuckle:​

Don't worry I'll keep playing along! ​

To which Clete said....

Thank you.
Next debate!

To which I said,

When I look at the sun....I don't see the sun present. The light takes 10 seconds to get to me so I actually see the sun's past. So we have different 'nows'!

and to which Johnny also added,

No it's not, because even though they can see each other they won't agree on "now". That's the entire point. Go back and reread 1473

And to which I finished in accordance with...

There you have it if....God created time why then should He be goverened by the nature of time, He already exists outside it. The open theists are arguing that time 'just is' and has always been just as God 'is'. We, yourself included Justchristian, have highlighted that time is a real thing in the same sense as gravity is real and behaves differently depending on your relation to it.

Time is not set but relative and this goes againts open theism. It is why they reluctantly answered the question 'do you believe in relativity' and why they cannot allow themselves to accept it. Because it, the way God made the universe, is contradictory to open theism.

And if you think that was a refutal of Relativity then you are much mistaken. This isn't a huge academic leap here. This stuff is basic introductionary relativity. It shows both you and Clete have no grasp on it what so ever.

Fact, and it is a fact because it has been proved, is that time is relative. Open Theism, Clete and yourself see it as absolute. Its not,

Clete admitted that Open Theism could not deal with Relative time and he is unable to prove otherwise, if he could he'd be worth millions overnight because the science world would pay him handsomely....he'd literally get a Nobel award for it.


Open Theism cannot exist in the physical world...science had already disproved it at the time it was conceived. To accept Open Theism as being in harmony with the world is like saying the sky is green and the grass is blue. It is time to think of a new theory to adopt.

As a scientist if I though Open Theism was valid I would say so........its not.
It just simply isn't ​

 

[eccl3_6]

Lame! Totally lame! :down:

That isn't Clete's argument at all and you know it


You're a first class idiot that would rather lie about the progress of the conversation and proclaim "victory" then accurately characterize the debate and possibly learn from it.

But it was Clete's argument wsn't it.....I told him if you are going to present something make sure you can back it up. He presented it, he couldn't back it up....he still hasn't'

FIND THE ARTICLE CLETE SO WE CAN REFUTE IT

If I'm a first class idiot pick up on the thread.....justify absolute time theology in a universe of relative time. That or disprove special and general relativity.

 

[Freak]

But it was Clete's argument wsn't it.....I told him if you are going to present something make sure you can back it up. He presented it, he couldn't back it up....he still hasn't'

FIND THE ARTICLE CLETE SO WE CAN REFUTE IT

If I'm a first class idiot pick up on the thread.....justify absolute time theology in a universe of relative time. That or disprove special and general relativity.

Knight, have the courtsey to respond to this or admit you don't have an answer to it.

 

[Johnny]

That isn't Clete's argument at all and you know it.

It's clearly a parody of what took place. Clete's article of mystery will never be found, and it's the closest to a source that he's provided. And even so, it's not even what I asked for. I asked for an alternate theory to special relativity, not some scientist's theory about the existence of time. Clete claimed there were "multiple theories that account for the same phenomena." He still hasn't provided one.

You're a first class idiot that would rather lie about the progress of the conversation and proclaim "victory" then accurately characterize the debate and possibly learn from it

Clete was forced into a position in which he had to deny an observable truth in order to maintain his belief system. I consider that victory, because after that he can't be taken seriously. And please note that Clete falsely claimed victory in 1486 and 1489.

Clete's post #1484 neutralizes your so called "victory", it's your own problem if you refuse to acknowledge it.

1484 didn't neutralize anything. So what if they can see each other? Is that supposed to be some sort of grand refutation? The point stands regardless of whether or not they can see each other.

Even if everyone of them are wrong, which they may well be, the fact that they exist as genuine theories is proof that Einstien's theories HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN as yet. It is rediculous for you to insist that they have been.

As I said before, head on over to the bookstore and pick up any physics book you can find that addresses the subject. The information is readily available, along with all the derivations, experiments, objections, clarifications, and implications. It's all available to you if you're so inclined. As such, your ignorance on the matter remains self-imposed.

And finally, it's quite comical that you continue to argue that time doesn't exist, not because you are wrong, but because the nonexistence of time implies that the past and future are as real as the present. I challenge you to find me an article that argues that time does not exist and still maintains that the past OR the future is inaccessible. I'm not even asking for a valid argument. Throw me a hunk of balogna, it doesn't matter. I'd just like to see you produce an argument that still maintains a concept of past and future.

 

[godrulz]

Set up a different thread that asks these questions and I may appear on it. Its got nothing to do with the topic again has it? You can run around and hide behind questions but you won't address the topic.

Set up an alternative thread, PM me, and I'll answer them for you.

Meanwhile has Open Theism accepted relative time yet? Or is your head still in the sand?

The megalomanic is the man that teaches open theism whilst believing it to be truthful.
The man that listens to him and accepts what he say is just gullible. ​

:doh:​

Open Theists in academic circles would have insights on OT and Relativity. I do not think it is problematic for them. The point about Christ is that all these academic speculations are vain if we have not settled the issue about Christ and His claims on our lives. If you accept Him, you would accept His Word. If you accept the Bible, you would see it as truth and relevant to these discussions. Science is not the definitive discipline to resolve issues about God, freewill, omniscience, time/eternity.

I have said that I am not conversant with the relevance of relativity, etc. to Open Theism. That does not mean that I have not presented any arguments or that I am putting my head in the sand. I have limitations and find you are calling the kettle black and do the same thing.

If there is merit to relative time, it is about perception, not the inherent nature of time. The distinction between past, present, and future is clear. This should not be contradicted by relativity. The issues about the physical universe do not change God's experience of duration/sequence/succession before creation. His experience does not become confined to our perceptions of time just because He created. He still experiences duration after creation. It is incoherent to think He sees the distant future from before He created just because you are arguing about supposed phenomenon after creation (relativity is not eternal and would it make sense in the absence of a material world?). Relatitivity is not hard science like anatomy. I think you are over-extrapolating its legitimate applications, while ignoring fundamental truths about free will and time/eternity.

 

[eccl3_6]

Open Theists in academic circles would have insights on OT and Relativity. I do not think it is problematic for them.

So what do they say then? Tell us, provide us with the argument. You can't just say there is a defence and not say what it is! Thats what Clete did. Confront the argument.....what is your defence? If you don't know it go and find your OT physicist friends and ask them.....I doubt if you'd find an OT physicist anywhere. Find him or her and present their explanation.

The point about Christ is that all these academic speculations are vain if we have not settled the issue about Christ and His claims on our lives. If you accept Him, you would accept His Word. If you accept the Bible, you would see it as truth and relevant to these discussions. Science is not the definitive discipline to resolve issues about God, freewill, omniscience, time/eternity.

I have said that I am not conversant with the relevance of relativity, etc. to Open Theism. That does not mean that I have not presented any arguments or that I am putting my head in the sand.

Christ and the Bible is nothing to do with it. Open Theisim as a theology relies on absolute time. Time in our universe is relative. Either prove that time is not relative (disprove relativity -GOOD LUCK on that...you'll need it) Or state how OT absolute time perspective is applicable to a time relative universe. Address the argument that has been put forward....you are ignoring it again. You keep saying I don't understand properly but I disagree but I won't produce a reason why. Debate!!!! Produce a defence of the argument we have put forward.

I have limitations and find you are calling the kettle black and do the same thing

But I answer all your questions regarding the thread and you don't answer mine. My relationship with God or Jesus is irrelevant to the thread but I have said if you want to set up another thread I'll answer them.

Confront the argument.....

Meanwhile...

The theory of relativity has been proved.
The evidence that substantiates this is considerable and available.
This when considered regarding the arguments posted (in summary post #1455) means that time does not behave in a manner with which open-theism is in accordance.

"If the open-theist concept of absolute time is supplanted into the
​

consequences of relativity (multiple time frames) then open theism becomes self contradictory in the presence of an omnipresent God."​

An open theist therefore cannot accept relativity:-
Ideally what you need to do is come up with an alternate theory to Relativity.
Good Luck....nobody's done it yet.

Open Theism.......Why the Vatican employs physicists. ​

:BRAVO:​

 

[godrulz]

So what do they say then? Tell us, provide us with the argument. You can't just say there is a defence and not say what it is! Thats what Clete did. Confront the argument.....what is your defence? If you don't know it go and find your OT physicist friends and ask them.....I doubt if you'd find an OT physicist anywhere. Find him or her and present their explanation.


Christ and the Bible is nothing to do with it. Open Theisim as a theology relies on absolute time. Time in our universe is relative. Either prove that time is not relative (disprove relativity -GOOD LUCK on that...you'll need it) Or state how OT absolute time perspective is applicable to a time relative universe. Address the argument that has been put forward....you are ignoring it again. You keep saying I don't understand properly but I disagree but I won't produce a reason why. Debate!!!! Produce a defence of the argument we have put forward.

Somewhere in academic literature (probably not even an open theist) is an answer for your concerns about relativity and A time (vs B time). I know it is out there, but do not have my fingers on it. If and when I find the research, I will let you know.


You are putting much weight on your one-string scientific point of view. I do not use physiology to explain gravity. You cannot resolve the issues of God, free will, eternity with theoretical physics alone. I cannot dismiss the implications of relativity any more than you should be dismissing the relevance of modal logic, philosophy, and theology. Your arguments about science are not applicable to the nature and experience of the eternal God before creation. Did He experience a timeless, eternal now modality, OR did/does He experience an endless duration of time/sequence/succession? Relativity is not relevant before creation nor a limitation to the everlasting God.

Just as creationists recognize microevolution despite evolutionists lies to the contrary, so Open Theists will accept what is relevant from relativity theory without adopting macroevolution nor negating sound logic about free will and foreknowledge to misapply relativity.

 

[eccl3_6]

Somewhere in academic literature (probably not even an open theist) is an answer for your concerns about relativity and A time (vs B time). I know it is out there, but do not have my fingers on it. If and when I find the research, I will let you know.

There is nothing in science that disproves Relativity. You may wish there were but that does not change the fact that there is not. Its one of the reasons why Clete is still sulking.

You are putting much weight on your one-string scientific point of view.

Its not one string....science doesn't work that way. Relativity has been supported and supported again by new discoveries. The amount of proof that stands behind it after a hundred years of studying is staggering. It is not a single stringed instrument by any means!

You cannot resolve the issues of God, free will, eternity with theoretical physics alone.

No but we can refute man's Open Theist's theology....with proven physics...We have in this thread. UNLESS YOU CAN ADDRESS THE ARGUMENT WHICH YOU STILL ARE NOT!

I cannot dismiss the implications of relativity any more than you should be dismissing the relevance of modal logic, philosophy, and theology.

I can dismiss them as not being part of my argument. I have. My argument still stands and you cannot refute it. ADDRESS THE ARGUMENT.

Your arguments about science are not applicable to the nature and experience of the eternal God before creation.

Thats not the thread is it. Its not the argument we're putting forward is it. You are pretending our argument is something else. Address our argument please.

Did He experience a timeless, eternal now modality, OR did/does He experience an endless duration of time/sequence/succession? Relativity is not relevant before creation nor a limitation to the everlasting God.

Time as we understand it is a product of creation. Time is a thing. Time/sequence/succession is a product of time. OT limits an 'everlasting God' this is exactly what it does by saying He doesn't know the future. Science is the study of his handwriting.

Just as creationists recognize microevolution despite evolutionists lies to the contrary, so Open Theists will accept what is relevant from relativity theory without adopting macroevolution nor negating sound logic about free will and foreknowledge to misapply relativity.

If this means that you will accept what is in front of your eyes so the physical world can conform to your theology be my guest.....but it is planting your head in the sand if you do not wish to this then CONFRONT THE ARGUMENT.

Meanwhile...

The theory of relativity has been proved.
The evidence that substantiates this is considerable and available.
This when considered regarding the arguments posted (in summary post #1455) means that time does not behave in a manner with which open-theism is in accordance.


"If the open-theist concept of absolute time is supplanted into the

consequences of relativity (multiple time frames) then open theism becomes self contradictory in the presence of an omnipresent God."


An open theist therefore cannot accept relativity:-
Ideally what you need to do is come up with an alternate theory to Relativity.
Good Luck....nobody's done it yet.

 

[godrulz]

The nature of God and His experiences before creation IS the whole point of the debate. God and man are both personal beings. Duration/sequence/succession are necessary for action, thought, and feelings. God experienced these things in the relations of His triune being before and after creation. If relativity applies in some sense to the created order, it will not answer the fundamental questions about God's existence before He created.

What is the mechanism for God knowing every moral and mundane choice from trillions of years ago before anything or anyone existed? Simple foreknowledge may be assumed, but cannot be defended. Relativity adds nothing to explaining how the uncreated triune Creator, alone in the universe, would know the outcome of a yet future chess game and all its contingencies! The knowing of a nothing is a bald contradiction.

 

[eccl3_6]

The nature of God and His experiences before creation IS the whole point of the debate. God and man are both personal beings. Duration/sequence/succession are necessary for action, thought, and feelings. God experienced these things in the relations of His triune being before and after creation. If relativity applies in some sense to the created order, it will not answer the fundamental questions about God's existence before He created.

What is the mechanism for God knowing every moral and mundane choice from trillions of years ago before anything or anyone existed? Simple foreknowledge may be assumed, but cannot be defended. Relativity adds nothing to explaining how the uncreated triune Creator, alone in the universe, would know the outcome of a yet future chess game and all its contingencies! The knowing of a nothing is a bald contradiction.

You are assuming that time existed prior to the creation/big bang/the start/genesis whatever you want to call it. Time is a thing and what you know as 'time' is relative to certain states. For what seems the hundredth time if you start talking precreation then this is metaphysical. And whatever you are talking about is not 'time'. If you want to talk about duration/sequence/succession then taht is a product of a physical universe. The time in our universe is relative....the scientists have opened their ears and their eyes and their minds and have studied without prejudice to anyone belief other than finding what holds true. And relativity was found true....and then it was found true again in other respects....and then again...and again. We began to use it to predict things....and it worked agan and again and again. No OT in the world, no physicist has come up with an alternative. Such a thing would be soooo big we would still betalking about it in a hundred years time. Everyone's heard of E=mc2....this would be sooo much bigger. Good Luck in finding it because it doesn't exist.
The thread was 'does God know the future?'....OT applied their doctrine and the scientifically minded spotted that your assumption of how time behaved was wrong...proven wrong.

You are doing exactly what religion shouldn't by saying that we, that understand science, have made a mistake when you admit yourself you know little about the science at hand.​

You say we have made a mistake in our study of the 'God-made' universe because it does not fit in with your man-made doctrine.​

We accept that we can make mistakes interpretting the God made world so a theory isn't a theory, until it has been proven, but a hypothesis, like Johnny stated. We then don't take said theory for granted, but retest and reprove. And then more people will retest it with a desire to prove it false because that would be worth money to them. Everything that exists to test Relativity has come back supporting it.

If you want to deny relaive time then fine, go ahead but to say that time is not this way is to say 'that which is black is white, and white is black'. And General Relativity is against your concept of duration/sequence/succession because what you hold to be now is different to mine and so simultaneous events in one frame are not so in others. If you don't understand this then fine....read up on it....start with Sir Stephen Hawking's 'a brief history of time' and Bill Bryson's 'A short History of Nearly Everything'. which do wonders in introducing the complexities of science without ever becoming complex themselves.

You put much to much weight on the false assumption that time is merely a created, physical thing, rather than a simple measure of duration inherent in the very being of the everlasting God and His creation.

Its not just a measure of duration.....thats why its called RELATIVITY. And its been proved. Want to see some evidence???



I did notice that your post states your position but is not backed up with anything. I also noticed you did not address the argument again....I'll post it again for you so you don't lose it.

Meanwhile...

The theory of relativity has been proved.
The evidence that substantiates this is considerable and available.
This when considered regarding the arguments posted (in summary post #1455) means that time does not behave in a manner with which open-theism is in accordance.


"If the open-theist concept of absolute time is supplanted into the

consequences of relativity (multiple time frames) then open theism becomes self contradictory in the presence of an omnipresent God."


An open theist therefore cannot accept relativity:-
Ideally what you need to do is come up with an alternate theory to Relativity.
Good Luck....nobody's done it yet.

 

[godrulz]

I have read Hawking's book on time/history. Most people will get very little out of it and put it on their coffee table to collect dust. They bought it because it was a best seller. Hawking is a godless theoretical physicist who looks for explanations that will exclude the living God. He has been wrong on some things and will continue to be wrong on many things. He is brilliant, not infallible.

Since you do not think the reality of the pre-creation God is important to the discussion, we have a stalemate. I categorically disagree that time is a merely created 'thing' any more than love is a thing.

If we need metaphysics in addition to your pet hobby horse of science/relativity, so be it. I believe Open Theism will stand up to relativity. If you think they are mutually exclusive, then rethink your understanding of relativity. You do not seem to be able to engage metaphysical arguments. Do not apply anatomy to the study of morals or free will.

If you think Einstein has the final word on the matter and not God, we are done.
:yawn:

God is shown to exist and experience an endless duration of time in Scripture. Timelessness/eternal now is a platonic concept that is incoherent. Do you believe God is timeless? Time as a created thing misses the boat. Settle this issue and you will understand why I cannot agree that God sees creation, incarnation, WW II, Superbowl 2010, Second Coming, July 30/2005 all at once (fool) or exhaustively before it happens.

Remember my J.R. Lucas quote from "A treatise on time and space"? He clearly shows why time/duration is concomitant with personality, before and after creation. You did not like the metaphysical implications wrongly thinking they contradict your understanding of relativity.

I think we are done. I am not persuaded by your reiterations of circular reasoning/begging the question.

 

[eccl3_6]

I have read Hawking's book on time/history. Most people will get very little out of it and put it on their coffee table to collect dust. They bought it because it was a best seller. Hawking is a godless theoretical physicist who looks for explanations that will exclude the living God. He has been wrong on some things and will continue to be wrong on many things. He is brilliant, not infallible.

Since you do not think the reality of the pre-creation God is important to the discussion, we have a stalemate. I categorically disagree that time is a merely created 'thing' any more than love is a thing.

If we need metaphysics in addition to your pet hobby horse of science/relativity, so be it. I believe Open Theism will stand up to relativity. If you think they are mutually exclusive, then rethink your understanding of relativity. You do not seem to be able to engage metaphysical arguments. Do not apply anatomy to the study of morals or free will.

If you think Einstein has the final word on the matter and not God, we are done.
:yawn:

God is shown to exist and experience an endless duration of time in Scripture. Timelessness/eternal now is a platonic concept that is incoherent. Do you believe God is timeless? Time as a created thing misses the boat. Settle this issue and you will understand why I cannot agree that God sees creation, incarnation, WW II, Superbowl 2010, Second Coming, July 30/2005 all at once (fool) or exhaustively before it happens.

Remember my J.R. Lucas quote from "A treatise on time and space"? He clearly shows why time/duration is concomitant with personality, before and after creation. You did not like the metaphysical implications wrongly thinking they contradict your understanding of relativity.

I think we are done. I am not persuaded by your reiterations of circular reasoning/begging the question.

Its not stalemate.....you are denying relativity because it does not support Open Theism.
You wish to carry on your life following Open Theism in the way the church wanted to carry on before Galileo looked to the stars. Fine but appreciate the way time is described in Open Theism is not the way it behaves in the real world it has been proven otherwise.

Your Professor Lucas was a professor of Philosophy, not science. His was a metaphysical argument and has no relevance to absolute time as opposed to relative. We don't have a problem with metaphysics....its Greek, it means meta: outside/out of/ physic:nature. Your theory describes man and is choices/freewill and the nature of God because of it. This is definitely post creation. Or are you suggesting man was around before creation? Physics is definitely relative to Open Theism. Your Theology was written in our ball park. Your Professor Lucas would agree with me.



Einstein does not have a final word on God...but he was adept at reading his handwriting....creation and that in it.


The dilemma you find yourself in is this.....

Open Theism is at odds with created time, it needs time to be absolute.

Either​

God made water wet, grass green, snow cold and time relative....you disagree with His choice. You take it up with Him.

OR

You disprove the Theory of Relativity.​

OR

You concede that Open Theism is fatally flawed.​

Your choice.

 

[godrulz]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0830815511/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-8000661-8224818#reader-link

(click next page for views/content)

Once again, the issues are not as simplistic as you think.

You may find Craig's view somewhat in line with yours. I find Wolterstorff had the strongest arguments.

I would not accuse me of rejecting all of relativity or your arguments if I do not understand them.

I still maintain OT will stand with or without relativity. The nature of God before creation is not influenced by relativity. What is His nature after creation (it has not changed)? The nature of free moral creation has introduced other factors. Relativity will not resolve the free will/foreknowledge dilemma. Is this your mechanism of simple foreknowledge. Few thinkers would say so. Most relativity followers do not believe in God or care about free will/foreknowledge.

We should also be talking quantum mechanics/chaos theory which has some relevance to OT.

 

[eccl3_6]

IT'S A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT AGAIN ISN'T IT!
The argument is;
OT needs time to be absolute.
You believe it to be absolute.
The universe has relative time......Relativity. There is a diffeence between a physical theory and a philosophical theory. Its not a word that gets banded about easily in science, as Johnny pointed out in one of his posts. It has to be proved. Relativity has been proved. PROVED. It is accepted.


There is no point going off a different angles if this one avenue of exploration leads to a fatal episode for OT. You must deal with this. There is no point myself going off onto anything else if you can't shake this. Time has to be absolute for you guys....its been proven not to be so but relative. Fight your way out of this dilemma before you take on anything else.

If you want to talk about something else start another thread. If you want to prove OT isn't fatally flawed then deal with the following statement.

"Time is relative"​

........prove it otherwise or concede.​

 

[Turbo]

If we don't leave the present then relativity is irrelavent to Open Theism.

 

[eccl3_6]

If we don't leave the present then relativity is irrelavent to Open Theism.

But Clete believes in one present for everybodyand doesn't understand relativity - its beyond him, all the same present for everyone isn't so. What you perceive as now is different to others....we've been through this twice before, once with Clete and once when you quoted him.

Clete is describing absolute time.....time is proven relative.

So Clete saying it is irrelevant is either a mistake or a lie...one which he conceded because he tried to say there was an alternate theory to relativity...Remember in the magazine that he lost, which you bad repped me for making a parody of it.


The dilemma you find yourself in is this.....

Open Theism is at odds with created time, it needs time to be absolute.

Either


God made water wet, grass green, snow cold and time relative....you disagree with His choice. You take it up with Him.

OR

You disprove the Theory of Relativity.

OR

You concede that Open Theism is fatally flawed.

Your choice.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight, have the courtsey to respond to this or admit you don't have an answer to it.

The argument has been proven to be totally irrelevant 50 times!

- If we don't leave the present then relativity is irrelavent to Open Theism. - Clete

That sentence refutes the argument plain and simple. eccl3_6 lives in a dream world where he thinks the dilemma he keeps repeating is a valid one. It isn't.

If eccl3_6 continues to ignore the refutation and continues to merely re-post the material over and over he will only be hollowing his own argument out even deeper.

Either

God made water wet, grass green, snow cold and time relative....you disagree with His choice. You take it up with Him.

OR

You disprove the Theory of Relativity.

OR

You concede that Open Theism is fatally flawed.

It's a false dilemma!

 

[Turbo]

If eccl3_6 continues to ignore the refutation and continues to merely re-post the material over and over he will only be hollowing his own argument out even deeper.

It has become a pattern for him. :loser:


That M.O. reminds me of someone... :think: