Does God know the future?
- Thread starter intro2faith
- Start date
Clete, I have not read all your posting. I did finish reading the debate. I find this very interesting. I have not talked to someone that thought Einstein’s theory of relativity was wrong and there were other theories that were better. Is there one exception out there to Einstein’s theory? It only takes one to disprove a theory. You said “He cannot do that which is logically absurd.” I would still say it is not logically absurd to thing Einstein’s theory is logical, but I also think there could be other logical theories especially if they have no exceptions. If it is then, there are a lot of us that are logically absurd. I always like the way the theory of relativity explained the Dobler Effect. I probably took a little offence to this and let it cloud my response to you.
I do not see were it is illogical to believe God could live outside time restraints, when we already agree He can see us while we can not see him, He is in a lot of places at the same time, He created everything else spoke it into existence, he knows the hairs on everyone’s head, and He know at least some of the future.
If you believe your sins were bore by Christ on the cross, you believe in time travel. I am of the belief, my actual sins go back to the cross and are bore by Christ.
What our definition of time is does not limit what time may or may not be.
I asked: Who wrote the necessary conditions of free will and where are they written?
You did explain:
There are two problems with what you've said here.
1. It assumes without cause that there is only one "perfect thing to do"
2. That God does not choose to the perfect thing but is somehow forced to do so.
I do think there is always the best thing to do and that is what God does, each and every time.
You said concerning free will: Your ignorance of an inability to do otherwise doesn't magically make you able to do otherwise. Your knowledge or lack thereof is irrelevant.
I am saying, “Whether God knows, or not, what choices I will make does not remove my free will.” God’s foreknowledge is irrelevant and I do not see were God defines free will or man’s ability to chose, to the exclusion of foreknowledge.
You seem to have a problem with this, but it seems to be wrapped up in your definition of free will and nothing scriptural. Do you have scriptural support?
You said: I'm sorry but this is a bunch of crap. Try to develope your own ideas my backside. That's probably why you cling to every word Einstein says about the nature of time, right?
I believe strongly in the indwelling Spirit and the answer to the pray for wisdom when I study scripture. My science can be off and I really try not to use science to support my faith, but when you said that the idea of time being relative was logically absurd, that seem to go against a lot of logical people I have read and myself.
Concerning Bob Enyart in the debate: He is trying to persuade me to think it is perfectly logical to assume Christ told Peter he would deny Him three times before morning (**** crowing) without really knowing that for sure, and He made this statement by just knowing Peter mind. There are way to many things that have to come together for such a detail prediction to happen without foreknowledge. There are a lot of other factors outside of Peters control to pull this off. I just do not see Christ making such a statement without knowing it would happen. What Peter did is no surprise to me now, and if I really knew Peter and was standing next to Peter and Christ I might have thought, “Peter is going to screw up again, but who could give details without foreknowledge.”
Why do we have free will?
What is Man’s purpose?
Why do bad things happen to innocent people?
What does the indwelling Spirit do?
I do not see were it is illogical to believe God could live outside time restraints, when we already agree He can see us while we can not see him, He is in a lot of places at the same time, He created everything else spoke it into existence, he knows the hairs on everyone’s head, and He know at least some of the future.
If you believe your sins were bore by Christ on the cross, you believe in time travel. I am of the belief, my actual sins go back to the cross and are bore by Christ.
What our definition of time is does not limit what time may or may not be.
I asked: Who wrote the necessary conditions of free will and where are they written?
You did explain:
There are two problems with what you've said here.
1. It assumes without cause that there is only one "perfect thing to do"
2. That God does not choose to the perfect thing but is somehow forced to do so.
I do think there is always the best thing to do and that is what God does, each and every time.
You said concerning free will: Your ignorance of an inability to do otherwise doesn't magically make you able to do otherwise. Your knowledge or lack thereof is irrelevant.
I am saying, “Whether God knows, or not, what choices I will make does not remove my free will.” God’s foreknowledge is irrelevant and I do not see were God defines free will or man’s ability to chose, to the exclusion of foreknowledge.
You seem to have a problem with this, but it seems to be wrapped up in your definition of free will and nothing scriptural. Do you have scriptural support?
You said: I'm sorry but this is a bunch of crap. Try to develope your own ideas my backside. That's probably why you cling to every word Einstein says about the nature of time, right?
I believe strongly in the indwelling Spirit and the answer to the pray for wisdom when I study scripture. My science can be off and I really try not to use science to support my faith, but when you said that the idea of time being relative was logically absurd, that seem to go against a lot of logical people I have read and myself.
Concerning Bob Enyart in the debate: He is trying to persuade me to think it is perfectly logical to assume Christ told Peter he would deny Him three times before morning (**** crowing) without really knowing that for sure, and He made this statement by just knowing Peter mind. There are way to many things that have to come together for such a detail prediction to happen without foreknowledge. There are a lot of other factors outside of Peters control to pull this off. I just do not see Christ making such a statement without knowing it would happen. What Peter did is no surprise to me now, and if I really knew Peter and was standing next to Peter and Christ I might have thought, “Peter is going to screw up again, but who could give details without foreknowledge.”
Why do we have free will?
What is Man’s purpose?
Why do bad things happen to innocent people?
What does the indwelling Spirit do?
Sorry I haven't posted in awhile, I just finished a move and started school. I'll just pick up where I left off, and leave it to Clete to decide whether or not he wants to continue it.
The momentum of an electron.
p=mv (classical mechanics ala Newton)
The mass of an electron is 9.10938188 × 10^-31 kg
Assume a particle accelerator can accelerate an electron to 0.99 times the speed of light. Thus, the electrons momentum is p = (9.109368188 x 10^-31 kg)(299792458 m/s) (.99)
According to Newton, the electron's momentum is 2.70361068E-22 kg*m/s
But in actuality, the electron's momentum is 1.9165388E-21 kg*m/s, which is nearly 7 times larger. If you don't believe me, calculate it yourself.
Classical mechanics also fails to explain atomic energy levels and the sizes of atoms (source: wiki).
But there was both. Let's assume for a moment that it's only my "perception of time" (which you and someone else mentioned awhile back but failed to quantify any difference between the perception of time and time itself) that changes. I watch 40 seconds tick by. God watches 20 seconds tick by. You have suggested that God experiences true time and I'm in some sort of warped reality. Ok, fair enough. What if God and I are watching radioactive substance with a half-life of 20 seconds. In 20 seconds, God sees half the material decay. Because only 20 seconds really happened, and my time is only illusitory, will I see that my radioactive actually took 40 seconds to decay?Clete said:
No, the issue of instanteous change isn't a problem for me. You'll notice that I spelled it out quite clearly in my post: "Causality is violated when you combine the ability to convey information faster than the speed of light with special relativity." I should have restated it Any change in God's existence that takes place faster than the speed of light is problematic for you. So it doesn't matter whether or not it was 2 seconds or 2 hours, you still have to concede that either God's entity here on earth doesn't know what's going on over in Andromeda at this moment, or that causality is violated.Clete said:
Einstein started his paper with why you can't assume what Lorentz did, so no one is going beyond Einstein's intent. And if he hadn't fully worked through his theories, that would have come out sometime in the past century of disbelief. You think scientists immediately accepted his paper? This overhalled everything they new. It wasn't taken lightly.godrulz said:
Ask Newton about momentum of particles in particle accelerators. I'll do some simple math for you to demonstrate why Sir Newton, while brilliant in his own right, was only almost right.Clete said:
The momentum of an electron.
p=mv (classical mechanics ala Newton)
The mass of an electron is 9.10938188 × 10^-31 kg
Assume a particle accelerator can accelerate an electron to 0.99 times the speed of light. Thus, the electrons momentum is p = (9.109368188 x 10^-31 kg)(299792458 m/s) (.99)
According to Newton, the electron's momentum is 2.70361068E-22 kg*m/s
But in actuality, the electron's momentum is 1.9165388E-21 kg*m/s, which is nearly 7 times larger. If you don't believe me, calculate it yourself.
Classical mechanics also fails to explain atomic energy levels and the sizes of atoms (source: wiki).
Z Man said:
There are lots of things that aren't logical absurdities that are quite impossible for men to do which God does every single day. This verse does not teach that God can do things with are absurd.
You are dishonest and yes, probably insane. This is not what I am trying to do at all. I am trying to get you to answer a really easy question which you won't do because you know what point I am actually making and that it destroys your position. And so I ask you again,
Can God go have dinner with the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus this evening?
A simple yes or no will do.
Or you could continue to make a fool out of yourself by not answering the obvious question, I don't care which, you choose.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Z Man
New member
Clete,Clete said:
Just like God has created the law of gravity to keep planets in rotation, and our feet on the ground, He has also created the laws of logic, so that we as humans could reason and rationalize and think in ways that make sense to us. But that doesn't mean that God is contained by the 'laws of logic' anymore than He is contained by the laws of gravity, or anything else of nature. Logic governs our thoughts and actions everyday of our lives, but it doesn't govern God! You keep trying to bring God to our level by putting Him in your little 'logic box'. If it's not logical to you, then it's impossible for God to do. Please.... God is much more than you or I could ever possibly imagine or conceive.
Isaiah 55:8
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the Lord.
How does answering this question have anything to do with 'destroying my position'? For someone who puts a lot of emphasis on logic, I think your's is a little faulty. I would love to see what point you are trying to make from this, because it would be amazing to see you disprove a belief that has been held to be 'orthodox' by several Christians for thousands of years just because someone does not believe in the Tooth Fairy, or Santa Claus.
:chuckle:
The law of gravity is an aspect of matter, God did not arbitrarily create gravity, it is simply a result of the matter which He created. But that's an issue for another thread. The real point here is that God DID NOT create logic any more than He created Himself. God did not create His own attributes. Logic only exists because God is rational, logic is simply anaspect of God's character. Just as to be righteous is to be Godly and to be Godly is to be righteous, so too is rationality Godly and to be Godly, rational. Thus all truth MUST be rational and anything that can be shown to be irrational will be falsified as a result because God is truth.Z Man said:
Then answer the question Z Man! If it is so rediculous and is going to make me look so foolish, why do you hesitate to answer? Isn't it obvious what the answer is? Just answer it and stop being scared of the truth.
Can God take a vacation and go to visit with the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus?
Yes or no.
Resting in Him,
Clete
I didn't ask whether or not God could create Santa Claus. I asked if He could right now, (since you're being intentionally stupid about it) go and visit with Santa Claus.Johnny said:
Can God visit a person who does not exist? Not, can God create a person, call him Santa and then go visit him.
Now will you or Z Man, either one, answer the question I am actually asking or will you continue to play the fool?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
Did God create righteousness? Did God create love? Did God create justice?Z Man said:
No He didn't. Righteousness is defined by God's character, as is love and justice. In the same way, what is rational is defined by God's character. God cannot have created reason because He would have had to use reason in order to create it. Reason is a fundamental aspect of the nature of God, if it were not logic could not exist at all.
This is a basic concept that any Christian who considers himself an apologist of any sort should know almost intuitively. I'm not saying anything that is even the slightest bit controversial. It's ridiculous that you would even question it. I recommend you take some courses in Biblical apologetics and perhaps read up a little on the basic aspects of logic and reason because this is just embarrassing.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Z Man to Clete,
"Just like God has created the law of gravity to keep planets in rotation, and our feet on the ground, He has also created the laws of logic, so that we as humans could reason and rationalize and think in ways that make sense to us. But that doesn't mean that God is contained by the 'laws of logic' anymore than He is contained by the laws of gravity, or anything else of nature. Logic governs our thoughts and actions everyday of our lives, but it doesn't govern God! You keep trying to bring God to our level by putting Him in your little 'logic box'. If it's not logical to you, then it's impossible for God to do. Please.... God is much more than you or I could ever possibly imagine or conceive."
Isaiah 55:8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the Lord.
Denial of rationality
If rules of logic, the bases for our rationality (without which we become irrational) are invalid when we talk about God, then we cannot make any argument about God as to what he is or is not, because no point we make can be said to be wrong as opposed to any contradicting view. Z Man, you can not say Clete is wrong about God when you have denied that rules of logic nor can you say that you are right. We are rational beings because God is rational and we are made in his image.
Ignoring Biblical context
Not only have you denied the laws of rationality, you have also violated the laws of Biblical exegesis by ignoring the Biblical context, "lines in a text are to be understood in relation to it's context, which are the other lines surrounding it, to determine its exact meaning". Isaiah 55 is saying that it would be wrong for us to think that God is not merciful, forgiving, nor redemptive. To say this verse implies that God is not logical, as we understand logic, is to take it out of context. Interestingly, the context of these verses contradict total depravity.
6 “Seek the Lord while he may be found, call upon him while he is near; 7 let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return not thither but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, 11 so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.
You, as a Calvinist, have taken the context of Greek thought (that God is the absolute and immovable, changeless, and timeless Perfect Being) to interpret texts of scripture instead of using the context of scripture to explain itself.
"If it's not logical to you, then it's impossible for God to do. Please.... God is much more than you or I could ever possibly imagine or conceive." In this statement you have rendered all statements about God as valid and invalid at the same time; unless you (or anyone else) apply rules of logic you should have nothing to say about God at all. Please, I hope you can at least see that you can't say the open view is wrong if you deny the rules of logic.
By saying, "logic doesn't govern God", in contradiction to we who say, "logic does govern God", you are using the rule of logic to deny the rule of logic in God and in this debate. I pray that you, and others, see the hypocrisy and absurdity of such a belief.
--Dave
"Just like God has created the law of gravity to keep planets in rotation, and our feet on the ground, He has also created the laws of logic, so that we as humans could reason and rationalize and think in ways that make sense to us. But that doesn't mean that God is contained by the 'laws of logic' anymore than He is contained by the laws of gravity, or anything else of nature. Logic governs our thoughts and actions everyday of our lives, but it doesn't govern God! You keep trying to bring God to our level by putting Him in your little 'logic box'. If it's not logical to you, then it's impossible for God to do. Please.... God is much more than you or I could ever possibly imagine or conceive."
Isaiah 55:8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the Lord.
Denial of rationality
If rules of logic, the bases for our rationality (without which we become irrational) are invalid when we talk about God, then we cannot make any argument about God as to what he is or is not, because no point we make can be said to be wrong as opposed to any contradicting view. Z Man, you can not say Clete is wrong about God when you have denied that rules of logic nor can you say that you are right. We are rational beings because God is rational and we are made in his image.
Ignoring Biblical context
Not only have you denied the laws of rationality, you have also violated the laws of Biblical exegesis by ignoring the Biblical context, "lines in a text are to be understood in relation to it's context, which are the other lines surrounding it, to determine its exact meaning". Isaiah 55 is saying that it would be wrong for us to think that God is not merciful, forgiving, nor redemptive. To say this verse implies that God is not logical, as we understand logic, is to take it out of context. Interestingly, the context of these verses contradict total depravity.
6 “Seek the Lord while he may be found, call upon him while he is near; 7 let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return not thither but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, 11 so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.
You, as a Calvinist, have taken the context of Greek thought (that God is the absolute and immovable, changeless, and timeless Perfect Being) to interpret texts of scripture instead of using the context of scripture to explain itself.
"If it's not logical to you, then it's impossible for God to do. Please.... God is much more than you or I could ever possibly imagine or conceive." In this statement you have rendered all statements about God as valid and invalid at the same time; unless you (or anyone else) apply rules of logic you should have nothing to say about God at all. Please, I hope you can at least see that you can't say the open view is wrong if you deny the rules of logic.
By saying, "logic doesn't govern God", in contradiction to we who say, "logic does govern God", you are using the rule of logic to deny the rule of logic in God and in this debate. I pray that you, and others, see the hypocrisy and absurdity of such a belief.
--Dave
Last edited:
I feel that the most embarassing aspect of this thread is your continual denial of what is demonstrably true. To voluntarily accept such ignorance when the means of enlightenment are so widely available to you is far more treacherous and dangerous to human progress than any bad logic or reasoning has ever been. Afterall, bad logic is exposed and corrected, faulty reasoning breaks down under scrutiny, and those that argue with these are forced to reconsider their position. But the willful suppression of one's own intellect and the denial of observable truths cannot be corrected by any logic or reasoning.
Z Man
New member
Clete and Dave,
Let me clear up some things that I think you have misunderstood about my take on 'logic'. For one, I am not saying that logic does not apply to us, or that God is 'irrational', like some insane madman whose 'thoughts' (speaking in human terms here) serve no purpose. What I am merely suggesting to Clete is that to study the Bible, and discuss theology, and to learn things about God using logic is fine and dandy. But what really ticks me off and what I believe to be a dangerous road, is to take that same logic that you use to interpret things that you have learned about God, and then say that our ways of thinking about Him also apply to His way of thinking.
In other words, Clete makes the observation that we live in time. We experience a past, and we know that there is a future to come. But to take your conclusion about yourself in time and then apply it to God is, IMHO, wrong. Let me explain....
What we experience and learn about God, we do so in our timeline. We receive knowledge about God in a sequence of our own time. We experienced God in our past, are experiencing Him now, and will expect to experience Him in our future. When Abraham recieved a promise from God, it was about his future. Abraham was not at that time yet to see the full blossom of God's promise, so to Abraham, it hadn't been done yet. Abraham had to put trust and his faith in God in hopes that he wold experience God's promise when the time came.
But this is our experience with God. I don't think it is correct, or logical, to turn it around and say that God too has experiences with us on a timeline as well. I don't believe that God made a promise to Abraham without knowing that the promise was a reality, not just a future 'hope', or reality to come. To God, it was a reality. It was just a matter of Abraham and his decendents catching up to the point in OUR time that God had ordained the promise to blossom.
My point is, what may be logical to us may not be logical to God. We know that it's logical to eat, or else we'll die. We know that it's logical to have a heterosexual relationship in order to procreate, rather than having a homosexual relationship. We know that it's logical to expect the sun to rise in the morning; for us to grow old and die; and for some of our plans to become realized at a point sometime in our future, while others are not. But for us to say that God is contained by the same logic is ludicris. God does not think it logical for Him to eat. God does not think it logical for Him to have any sort of 'procreating' relationship. God does not think it logical that He will experience a passing of time in which He will grow old and die. And I do not believe that we can say that God think it is logical to expect things to happen in the future, or that He reminisces about His past.
It's simply foolish to believe that God is bound by the same logic as we find to be relevant in our lives. Again:
Isaiah 55:8
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the Lord.
Let me clear up some things that I think you have misunderstood about my take on 'logic'. For one, I am not saying that logic does not apply to us, or that God is 'irrational', like some insane madman whose 'thoughts' (speaking in human terms here) serve no purpose. What I am merely suggesting to Clete is that to study the Bible, and discuss theology, and to learn things about God using logic is fine and dandy. But what really ticks me off and what I believe to be a dangerous road, is to take that same logic that you use to interpret things that you have learned about God, and then say that our ways of thinking about Him also apply to His way of thinking.
In other words, Clete makes the observation that we live in time. We experience a past, and we know that there is a future to come. But to take your conclusion about yourself in time and then apply it to God is, IMHO, wrong. Let me explain....
What we experience and learn about God, we do so in our timeline. We receive knowledge about God in a sequence of our own time. We experienced God in our past, are experiencing Him now, and will expect to experience Him in our future. When Abraham recieved a promise from God, it was about his future. Abraham was not at that time yet to see the full blossom of God's promise, so to Abraham, it hadn't been done yet. Abraham had to put trust and his faith in God in hopes that he wold experience God's promise when the time came.
But this is our experience with God. I don't think it is correct, or logical, to turn it around and say that God too has experiences with us on a timeline as well. I don't believe that God made a promise to Abraham without knowing that the promise was a reality, not just a future 'hope', or reality to come. To God, it was a reality. It was just a matter of Abraham and his decendents catching up to the point in OUR time that God had ordained the promise to blossom.
My point is, what may be logical to us may not be logical to God. We know that it's logical to eat, or else we'll die. We know that it's logical to have a heterosexual relationship in order to procreate, rather than having a homosexual relationship. We know that it's logical to expect the sun to rise in the morning; for us to grow old and die; and for some of our plans to become realized at a point sometime in our future, while others are not. But for us to say that God is contained by the same logic is ludicris. God does not think it logical for Him to eat. God does not think it logical for Him to have any sort of 'procreating' relationship. God does not think it logical that He will experience a passing of time in which He will grow old and die. And I do not believe that we can say that God think it is logical to expect things to happen in the future, or that He reminisces about His past.
It's simply foolish to believe that God is bound by the same logic as we find to be relevant in our lives. Again:
Isaiah 55:8
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the Lord.
SOTK
New member
Z Man said:
I've stated the exact same things before in some other thread here. Basically, I was told, I believe by Clete, that if something is illogical it is illogical to both us and God. My point was that what may be completely illogical and/or fantastical to us can be completely probable and logical for God.
The OVers I was debating at the time dismissed this. They seem to want to put God on the same playing field as us, and I, for one, will never buy into that. It's a ridiculous notion.
Rediculous by what standard? You, here, are basically saying that God is perfectly capable of doing the logically absurd. Do you really believe that? Can God tell a lie and it be the truth, or vise versa? Can God be unjust and remain holy? Can God make perfect spheres with charp corners?SOTK said:
Do those three questions sound at related to you? They are! They each present a logical absurdity. They present ideas that are self-contradictory and that therefore cannot be accomplished by anyone, including God. Accepting the alternative is to amke God completely untrustworthy and the Christian faith irrational and meaningless.
Resting in Him,
Clete
SOTK
New member
Clete said:
We used to find the earth being round illogical and absurd. We used to find the notion of the earth orbiting the sun an absurdity as well. We obviously do not find these things illogical or absurd now as we have learned more. What new things may one day be revealed to us which we find highly illogical and absurd today? :think: