Theology Club: Does Open Theism Question/dispute the Omniscience of God

[Lon]

Something lacking from many (most?) discussions (attacks?) in these sorts of forums is the ability of both sides to properly listen to the other. Listening is a form of love also? When both sides know (really know) that they have been listened to and are being questioned fairly, then it might be possible to progress in discussion.

Consider this application: Let's assume that God knows (really knows) what are trials and troubles on earth are like. Did he need to be manifest in the flesh to understand this? If we say no, then consider the next question - what does it take for us to believe that God really knows what our trials and troubles on earth are like? Having an advocate and high priest that suffered in every way like we do is a rather convincing argument, is it not?

Sin is a difficult subject. The Serpent said 'like God' knowing good and evil. Hebrews presents, for me at least, a bit of difficulty with dichotomy. Some scriptural propositions, and as you have reasoned, I'm listening too:
1) Beside God, there is nothing Colossians 1:17 Isaiah 45:5
Questions: If God is not the only thing in the universe and He is subject to any of it (according to Open Theism), How does He know, for sure, that He is the Only God? Isn't this a 'physical' constraint? Is God physical and the property of the physical universe? Had Open Theism clearly understood how many of their propositions, make God the property of the physical universe, if even cognitively dissonant from such derivatives of their propositional truths?

2) Genesis 1:27 Man is created in God's image. Question: At what point is God unfamiliar with man's image, that He'd have to endure flesh to 'discover' it? John 1:14 Hebrews 4:15 God's nature is already love and concern John 3:16
Question: Is this an 'in addition' reasoning, or a change somehow? Is it a strong enough verse to suggest that God wasn't already omniscient and full of grace prior?

So if Christ was willing to be hung from a tree, we should especially strive to listen to one another.

I'm not understanding this particular, for motivation of listen 'to one another,' certainly listening to Christ, but what do you mean?

Romans 12:5 is my motivator for body life (including listening).

It's something that I'm sure we all can work on more (I admit this applies to myself.)

Agree with you but I tend to listen to those who've read their bibles more than I, and less to those who have read it less than I. Perhaps 'listen' isn't the right word Titus 2:4 Luke 6:40

1 Timothy 5:2 It isn't easy to know who is who on TOL :think: There is a mutuality in love, but there is also an important pecking order of deference. :e4e:

 

[Derf]

Something lacking from many (most?) discussions (attacks?) in these sorts of forums is the ability of both sides to properly listen to the other. Listening is a form of love also? When both sides know (really know) that they have been listened to and are being questioned fairly, then it might be possible to progress in discussion.

Consider this application: Let's assume that God knows (really knows) what are trials and troubles on earth are like. Did he need to be manifest in the flesh to understand this? If we say no, then consider the next question - what does it take for us to believe that God really knows what our trials and troubles on earth are like? Having an advocate and high priest that suffered in every way like we do is a rather convincing argument, is it not?

So if Christ was willing to be hung from a tree, we should especially strive to listen to one another. It's something that I'm sure we all can work on more (I admit this applies to myself.)

Listening, really listening, seems like it should be easier than laying down one's life. But sometimes that means we need to not just hear the words, but hear the heart. I expect the majority of people on TOL aren't just out to win an argument (though that's nice, too ), but sincerely think their point of view has an advantage that they want to offer to other people, even if such an advantage is only a slight one. And you can see this in the frustrations that come out in the responses.

I find if I hear this part of the message, though mostly unwritten, I don't fire back quite as hard in my responses.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Sin is a difficult subject. The Serpent said 'like God' knowing good and evil. Hebrews presents, for me at least, a bit of difficulty with dichotomy. Some scriptural propositions, and as you have reasoned, I'm listening too:
1) Beside God, there is nothing Colossians 1:17 Isaiah 45:5
Questions: If God is not the only thing in the universe and He is subject to any of it (according to Open Theism), How does He know, for sure, that He is the Only God? Isn't this a 'physical' constraint? Is God physical and the property of the physical universe? Had Open Theism clearly understood how many of their propositions, make God the property of the physical universe, if even cognitively dissonant from such derivatives of their propositional truths?

God is omniscient in that He can know everything that is knowable. God, being truth, is non-contradictory (because truth is non-contradictory): He can't know something that isn't knowable.

Any other being like him other than Him would be knowable, because He has had all of eternity past to "look". (This is another argument against God being outside of time, though a fairly minor one.)

If God says "by two or three witnesses a matter can be established", and on the testimony of the three Persons of the Trinity, we can know that they have never wronged each other, I think we can establish that God is telling the truth when he says that He is the only God there is.

2) Genesis 1:27 Man is created in God's image. Question: At what point is God unfamiliar with man's image, that He'd have to endure flesh to 'discover' it? John 1:14 Hebrews 4:15 God's nature is already love and concern John 3:16
Question: Is this an 'in addition' reasoning, or a change somehow? Is it a strong enough verse to suggest that God wasn't already omniscient and full of grace prior?

I'm not understanding this particular, for motivation of listen 'to one another,' certainly listening to Christ, but what do you mean?

Romans 12:5 is my motivator for body life (including listening).

Agree with you but I tend to listen to those who've read their bibles more than I, and less to those who have read it less than I. Perhaps 'listen' isn't the right word Titus 2:4 Luke 6:40

1 Timothy 5:2 It isn't easy to know who is who on TOL :think: There is a mutuality in love, but there is also an important pecking order of deference. :e4e:

 

[Rosenritter]

Sin is a difficult subject. The Serpent said 'like God' knowing good and evil. Hebrews presents, for me at least, a bit of difficulty with dichotomy. Some scriptural propositions, and as you have reasoned, I'm listening too:

1) Beside God, there is nothing Colossians 1:17 Isaiah 45:5
Questions: If God is not the only thing in the universe ....

Note: universe literally means "one word" or in layman's terms, "the creation." As God created the creation, he precedes the creation, thus while God may be within the "universe" he cannot be said to be fully contained or dependent on the universe. If he destroyed his creation he would still exist.

...and He is subject to any of it (according to Open Theism), How does He know, for sure, that He is the Only God? Isn't this a 'physical' constraint? Is God physical and the property of the physical universe? Had Open Theism clearly understood how many of their propositions, make God the property of the physical universe, if even cognitively dissonant from such derivatives of their propositional truths?

God is knows and cares about his children, thus he would be "subject" to some aspect of his creation. However, I don't understand your question about the "Only God" for we are told there are "gods many" (1 Cor 8:5) but only one God who created the heavens and the earth (John 1:3). Is God physical? He was certainly physical when he was made flesh, and he operated within the bounds of his creation as the man we called Jesus (John 1:14, 1 Tim 3:16). At this point I've lost track of your question.

2) Genesis 1:27 Man is created in God's image. Question: At what point is God unfamiliar with man's image, that He'd have to endure flesh to 'discover' it? John 1:14 Hebrews 4:15 God's nature is already love and concern John 3:16
Question: Is this an 'in addition' reasoning, or a change somehow? Is it a strong enough verse to suggest that God wasn't already omniscient and full of grace prior?

I don't see the necessity of saying God was unfamiliar with man's image, and I am unable to absolutely declare what amount of experience is required to truly "feel our infirmities." I can say from personal observation and experience that we can know for certain that our high priest has felt our infirmities because he walked the mile in our shoes. I think this is for our benefit to help our faith and understanding, rather than his. If you are asking me to evaluate someone else's interpretation that God didn't truly know what it was like before becoming flesh, I would say that it isn't a definitive argument in itself.

I'm not understanding this particular, for motivation of listen 'to one another,' certainly listening to Christ, but what do you mean?

We are to love one another. Listening to one another is a form of showing love to one another. If you are married and have a wife, you may be able to relate to this from another angle, but suffice it to say that if Christ died for us, the least we could do for each other is to seek to listen and understand each other (which in theory is easier than going to the cross.)

Agree with you but I tend to listen to those who've read their bibles more than I, and less to those who have read it less than I. Perhaps 'listen' isn't the right word Titus 2:4 Luke 6:40

Even from a pure logistics angle, it's very difficult to persuade anyone of anything if they think you aren't listening to them and have no intent to understand them. From a wisdom angle, there's a possibility that even no matter sure how right you are, you should hear and understand both sides. Someone that has no intention of attempting fairness shouldn't be trying to teach others. So even if you are right, you should listen carefully, even if for no other reason but to have a chance to fairly persuade someone otherwise.

1 Timothy 5:2 It isn't easy to know who is who on TOL :think: There is a mutuality in love, but there is also an important pecking order of deference. :e4e:

Modified by the application of 1 Timothy 4:12? I've also seen peace and wisdom in teenagers that has been lacking in old men.

 

[Stripe]

If God is not the only thing in the universe and He is subject to any of it (according to Open Theism), How does He know, for sure, that He is the Only God? Isn't this a 'physical' constraint?

Being subject to time is not a physical restraint, as time is not a physical entity.

God is subject to logic; He cannot be and not be.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Lon]

God is omniscient in that He can know everything that is knowable. God, being truth, is non-contradictory (because truth is non-contradictory): He can't know something that isn't knowable.

Knowable according to whom? I'm fairly convinced that Colossians 1:17 guarantees that nothing happens without God first knowing about it.

Any other being like him other than Him would be knowable, because He has had all of eternity past to "look". (This is another argument against God being outside of time, though a fairly minor one.)

I'm not following your proof. An eternal God means God's past 'is still going' further than you and I can EVER talk about it :think:
Huge concepts to me (I'd imagine to us all).

If God says "by two or three witnesses a matter can be established", and on the testimony of the three Persons of the Trinity, we can know that they have never wronged each other, I think we can establish that God is telling the truth when he says that He is the only God there is.

Well, you and I most often agree and I appreciate this, but you'll get no argument from me on this one but can you explain a bit further here? I believe your conclusion, but am not catching this particular avenue that takes us to that agreement. Thanks, brother. -Lon

 

[Lon]

Note: universe literally means "one word" or in layman's terms, "the creation." As God created the creation, he precedes the creation, thus while God may be within the "universe" he cannot be said to be fully contained or dependent on the universe. If he destroyed his creation he would still exist.

As with JudgeRightly, I very much agree with you here and believe it leads to orthodox understandings and stance. There are a number of firm, logical steps from here where if one proposition is true, another truthful proposition follows. Time is an assumption, and, I believe, very much a property of this physical universe alone.

God is knows and cares about his children, thus he would be "subject" to some aspect of his creation.

I'm not sure that can be true. God has to remain completely loving, so certainly cannot be subject to one creation's need over against the need of another or against His own nature. I believe this kind of speculation needs a lot of scrutiny before acceptance and must be viewed from the angles of truth before one can adopt such as a truth paradigm. I totally believe Philippians 2:6-8 Amongst that is subjection, voluntarily, but it has to be taken under consideration carefully because such is yet ruled by His own nature and character thus, He is only self-subjective in as far as it is good for us.

However, I don't understand your question about the "Only God" for we are told there are "gods many" (1 Cor 8:5) but only one God who created the heavens and the earth (John 1:3). Is God physical? He was certainly physical when he was made flesh, and he operated within the bounds of his creation as the man we called Jesus (John 1:14, 1 Tim 3:16). At this point I've lost track of your question.

Are there? Are you a god? What have you made ex nihilo? What creations of yours worship you? I don't mean this to be condescending or ridiculous, I'm asking for your qualifiers for this. Do you believe in Zeus? Do you believe Lorenzo Snow when he said "As we are, God once was; as God is, we may become"?

I don't see the necessity of saying God was unfamiliar with man's image, and I am unable to absolutely declare what amount of experience is required to truly "feel our infirmities." I can say from personal observation and experience that we can know for certain that our high priest has felt our infirmities because he walked the mile in our shoes.

I'm not sure either. These are difficult concepts, and I've tried to understand them for a long time.

I think this is for our benefit to help our faith and understanding, rather than his. If you are asking me to evaluate someone else's interpretation that God didn't truly know what it was like before becoming flesh, I would say that it isn't a definitive argument in itself.

Appreciate your thoughts here.

We are to love one another. Listening to one another is a form of showing love to one another. If you are married and have a wife, you may be able to relate to this from another angle, but suffice it to say that if Christ died for us, the least we could do for each other is to seek to listen and understand each other (which in theory is easier than going to the cross.)

Ah. I gotcha. Thank you.



[

QUOTE]Even from a pure logistics angle, it's very difficult to persuade anyone of anything if they think you aren't listening to them and have no intent to understand them. From a wisdom angle, there's a possibility that even no matter sure how right you are, you should hear and understand both sides. Someone that has no intention of attempting fairness shouldn't be trying to teach others. So even if you are right, you should listen carefully, even if for no other reason but to have a chance to fairly persuade someone otherwise.

There is some or a lot of truth, but iron can still knock a few burrs off. Best? No, I think you are correct, it is better to follow the better example and gentle approach :up:

Modified by the application of 1 Timothy 4:12? I've also seen peace and wisdom in teenagers that has been lacking in old men.

Absolutely. It tests 'us' at that point, in how we particularly respond as well. Two parents is a good model (I think), one cushioned a bit and more in the emotional caring response, the other, straightforward and perhaps with fewer reservations.

 

[Lon]

Being subject to time is not a physical restraint, as time is not a physical entity.

I think it is: I have no sense of time other than it being entirely fluid when I'm sleeping. It doesn't 'prove' the disagreement, but to me, for me, it shows that even I am not subject to time as well as believing it really is attached to the physical and not the rest.

God is subject to logic; He cannot be and not be.

:think: I don't think He is. It isn't that He isn't logical, but it is like saying God is subject to love. Rather, Love is an attribute of God and it is an odd thing to try and say God is 'constrained' by love. Rather, It is just what it is and God is just who He is. There is no 'bounds' or bonds to really discuss, imho. What did you have in mind? Thanks. -Lon

 

[Stripe]

I think it is: I have no sense of time other than it being entirely fluid when I'm sleeping. It doesn't 'prove' the disagreement, but to me, for me, it shows that even I am not subject to time as well as believing it really is attached to the physical and not the rest.

:think: I don't think He is. It isn't that He isn't logical, but it is like saying God is subject to love. Rather, Love is an attribute of God and it is an odd thing to try and say God is 'constrained' by love. Rather, It is just what it is and God is just who He is. There is no 'bounds' or bonds to really discuss, imho. What did you have in mind? Thanks. -Lon

Whichever way you phrase it, God is never going to be and not be.

And there is no physical component to time. It's just the conceptualized distance between events.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Knowable according to whom?

Knowable simply means "capable of being known."

It's not dependant on any specific intelligent being, just so long as there is a being (or Being) that can "know."

Do you follow?

I'm fairly convinced that Colossians 1:17 guarantees that nothing happens without God first knowing about it.

I agree somewhat, though I think that God is able to foresee things that are about to occur, for example: A bridge is about to collapse because of the builder's poor planning, or perhaps it's just old and needs to be rebuilt. God is capable of understanding (in the sense of "calculating") when exactly that bridge will fail, if nothing is done about it's condition. NOT that God is just some supercomputer haha!

I'm not following your proof. An eternal God means God's past 'is still going' further than you and I can EVER talk about it :think:

Since we're not capable of understanding (fully) things that are "supernatural," this is going to be hard for me to explain (and perhaps even for you (and me) to understand). But the way I picture the universe is a giant bubble, where the walls of that bubble are the boundary of the universe. And there is nothing outside that bubble. And I don't mean "vacuum of space" nothing, I mean nothing. That's "where" (if we can even use that word) I picture God has existed for eternity past. That's "where" God could have "looked."

So, one of the logical challenges about the claim "There is no one like Me" that God makes is the question of "how do you know?" Because in order to make such an absolute claim, one would have to know absolutely that there is no one beside.

I could make the claim that there is nor ever has been nor ever will be anyone on earth that could, say, juggle 200 pingpong balls while balancing on a unicycle. Now, in order for me to know that my claim is true, I would have to know the talents (no, not talking Biblical talents here, or any variation of what "talents" means, for those of you who would jump on that word) of every single one of the 7.5+ billion people on the planet to be able to verify that that statement is true, which simply isn't possible, as it would take me several lifetimes of me monitoring every single person on earth to be able to verify my claim. So, what is intended as an absolute statement turns out to be a blanket statement of reality.

However, God, who has existed for all of eternity, does not have that problem, as He could have used (as in, possibility) that time to search for any other being that would be like Him. And He wouldn't have to actively look, either.

In other words, 100% of God's existence (even though He has existed forever) testifies to the fact that He is the only God in existence. So God can say with 100% certainty "there is none like Me."

Does that make sense?

Huge concepts to me (I'd imagine to us all).

Stupidly mind-bogglingly huge, indeed!

If God says "by two or three witnesses a matter can be established", and on the testimony of the three Persons of the Trinity, we can know that they have never wronged each other, I think we can establish that God is telling the truth when he says that He is the only God there is.

Well, you and I most often agree and I appreciate this, but you'll get no argument from me on this one but can you explain a bit further here? I believe your conclusion, but am not catching this particular avenue that takes us to that agreement. Thanks, brother.

Since God is triune (one Being, three Persons), each one can testify that the other two are good, or in other words, the other two have never harmed the third. We agree on that, yes? (If necessary, see "kgov.com/euthyphro".)

Since God has existed for eternity past, and can know that none of the Persons have harmed the other two, and since one Person lying to one or both of the other two would harm them, we can know that God has never lied to Himself. So we know that truth is part of God's nature. And since God is truth, and since we know that truth is non-contradictory, we know that God has never lied, because if he had lied, it would contradict His nature. And since God has never lied, and since God is truth, and since He has existed for all eternity past (see my above reasoning on absolutes), we can trust that what He says is true, and that includes the claim of being the only God in existence.

Hopefully that made sense.

As with JudgeRightly, I very much agree with you here and believe it leads to orthodox understandings and stance. There are a number of firm, logical steps from here where if one proposition is true, another truthful proposition follows. Time is an assumption, and, I believe, very much a property of this physical universe alone.

This is where we disagree. Time is not a property of the universe, time is an aspect of God's existence (which is why previously I said that God's claim of "no other like Me" is a minor proof against God being outside of time).

Since "before" and "after" and "during" are all aspects of "time," there cannot be a "before" time, if you believe that God created "time" when (again, a time word) He created the universe.

Time is a prerequisite of creation, because in order to create something, there needs to be a "before the item was created" and an "after the item was created." It therefore follows that time is a prerequisite of time being created, which is illogical, because it already exists, so there is no need to create it. (Unless you think there are multiple timelines, in which case I can't help you, sorry. Haha)

That's why we say time is an aspect of God's existence. He has always existed. It's why the Bible says He is "of old," "Ancient of Days," etc. (see more at kgov.com/time)

I'm not sure that can be true. God has to remain completely loving, so certainly cannot be subject to one creation's need over against the need of another or against His own nature. I believe this kind of speculation needs a lot of scrutiny before acceptance and must be viewed from the angles of truth before one can adopt such as a truth paradigm. I totally believe Philippians 2:6-8 Amongst that is subjection, voluntarily, but it has to be taken under consideration carefully because such is yet ruled by His own nature and character thus, He is only self-subjective in as far as it is good for us.

Are there? Are you a god? What have you made ex nihilo? What creations of yours worship you? I don't mean this to be condescending or ridiculous, I'm asking for your qualifiers for this. Do you believe in Zeus? Do you believe Lorenzo Snow when he said "As we are, God once was; as God is, we may become"?

I'm not sure either. These are difficult concepts, and I've tried to understand them for a long time.
Appreciate your thoughts here.

Ah. I gotcha. Thank you.

There is some or a lot of truth, but iron can still knock a few burrs off. Best? No, I think you are correct, it is better to follow the better example and gentle approach :up:

Absolutely. It tests 'us' at that point, in how we particularly respond as well. Two parents is a good model (I think), one cushioned a bit and more in the emotional caring response, the other, straightforward and perhaps with fewer reservations.

I think it is: I have no sense of time other than it being entirely fluid when I'm sleeping. It doesn't 'prove' the disagreement, but to me, for me, it shows that even I am not subject to time as well as believing it really is attached to the physical and not the rest.

Again, time is an aspect of God's existence. Since God is not physical, and time is an aspect of His existence, it cannot be affected by anything physical. God (just like you and I) exists "in time" (think "in step," like in dancing).

:think: I don't think He is. It isn't that He isn't logical, but it is like saying God is subject to love. Rather, Love is an attribute of God and it is an odd thing to try and say God is 'constrained' by love. Rather, It is just what it is and God is just who He is. There is no 'bounds' or bonds to really discuss, imho. What did you have in mind? Thanks. -Lon

 

[Stripe]

It might be as impossible to know with certainty what a man will choose as it is to create a three-sided pentagon. :idunno:

Why would that be a problem for our theology?

 

[Rosenritter]

However, I don't understand your question about the "Only God" for we are told there are "gods many" (1 Cor 8:5) but only one God who created the heavens and the earth (John 1:3). Is God physical? He was certainly physical when he was made flesh, and he operated within the bounds of his creation as the man we called Jesus (John 1:14, 1 Tim 3:16). At this point I've lost track of your question.

Are there? Are you a god? What have you made ex nihilo? What creations of yours worship you? I don't mean this to be condescending or ridiculous, I'm asking for your qualifiers for this. Do you believe in Zeus? Do you believe Lorenzo Snow when he said "As we are, God once was; as God is, we may become"?

I have no wish to be a god. Have you seen what the scripture says about gods?

Psa 82:6-7 KJV
(6) I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
(7) But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

Jer 10:11 KJV
(11) Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.

There may indeed be a "god" behind such representations such as Apollo, and Zeus, and Hermes, and Aphrodite, but they are gods that have not made the heavens and the earth. I do not know who Lorenzo Snow is, but is it not written, "Thou shall have no other gods before me?" If we have one God who is chief who created the heavens and the earth, that God doesn't speak well of others who vaunt themselves as gods.

 

[Rosenritter]

Lon, I have a proposition. It is often said that "the simplest solution is often the best" and I would like to suggest that this is also the case here with respect to Biblical interpretation and theology. I propose that the simplest solution is that when God gives a command, he wants us to obey, and when we disobey, we prove that we have the capacity for obedience or disobedience.

I can (and have) read the whole scripture front to back without ever receiving an inkling of what is known as "Determinism" and indeed we live our lives every day as if we really do have the ability to choose, for good or for evil. Indeed, that is the curse God has given us, for from as early as when the first man rejected the Tree of Life and instead choose the knowledge of good and evil, we have known both good and evil to this very day. And the evil oft overcomes the good...

Where we could have had exclusive access to Good, now we get the whole ugly spectrum. Full knowledge by experience, for in our arrogance we refuse to believe something unless we see it for ourselves. "Experience is the best teacher, and a fool will know no other school." Adam and Eve lacked the faith and trust to believe that God really had their best interests at heart, and they succumbed to the temptation of the serpent to become "as gods" without obligation of obedience to their God.

If you were to apply an approach of simply starting in the beginning and moving forward as it presents itself, I don't think you will find contradiction. It will make sense. If or when it does not make sense, can you present the question / difficulty here for review, preferentially close to chronological order as it was originally presented? And if it fits together smoothly, without inherent logical or moral contradiction, perhaps the seemingly simple explanation might actually be the intended explanation.

 

[Lon]

I have no wish to be a god. Have you seen what the scripture says about gods?

Psa 82:6-7 KJV
(6) I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
(7) But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

Jer 10:11 KJV
(11) Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.

There may indeed be a "god" behind such representations such as Apollo, and Zeus, and Hermes, and Aphrodite, but they are gods that have not made the heavens and the earth. I do not know who Lorenzo Snow is, but is it not written, "Thou shall have no other gods before me?" If we have one God who is chief who created the heavens and the earth, that God doesn't speak well of others who vaunt themselves as gods.

Isaiah 44:6,8; 45:5 Colossians 1:17 Deuteronomy 32:39 1 Corinthians 8:4 Galatians 4:8

 

[Lon]

Whichever way you phrase it, God is never going to be and not be.

And there is no physical component to time. It's just the conceptualized distance between events.

"Distance" is correct and is a physical property, only. As far as dichotomy, I hear a bunch of people say God cannot make a square circle, but they aren't really thinking of other dimensions when they say such a thing. It is inaccurate. I'm not saying up is down, I'm saying we need to be careful when trying to tell God what He can and cannot do. We are very limited in our scope and understanding. We are always going to be called 'children' of God.

 

[Stripe]

"Distance" ... is a physical property.

Time is not a physical thing. It's not important how we might classify distance.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Lon]

Time is not a physical thing. It's not important how we might classify distance.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I believe time IS a physical thing, nothing physical? No time. Why? Because time is only associated with distance, as you said. Time is nothing but a measurement, the same as inches and degrees. There is no measurement that doesn't measure physical properties that we collectively know of.

 

[Stripe]

I believe time IS a physical thing, nothing physical? No time. Why? Because time is only associated with distance, as you said. Time is nothing but a measurement, the same as inches and degrees. There is no measurement that doesn't measure physical properties that we collectively know of.

Not "distance."

A "conceptualized" distance. Event A and event B are separated by time. So time is defined as the conceptualized distance between events.

It's not a real distance. That's for measuring between physical entities.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

If I may delve into grammar for a bit:

You know the difference between an intangible noun and a tangible noun?

A rough guide is if you can kick it, it's tangible — a chair, the ocean, Arthur Brain. Distance is an intangible noun. Time is also.

There are no components to either of them that can be picked up, weighed or analyzed for chemical compounds.

Time exists solely because we need to describe durations. It has no physical qualities. It is not a description of a physical reality.

In fact, distance — or space — should be a perfect example to illustrate the concept of intangible — non-physical — realities.

Unfortunately, these concepts have been co-opted by the "spacetime" nonsense of relativity.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

"Distance" is correct and is a physical property, only. As far as dichotomy, I hear a bunch of people say God cannot make a square circle, but they aren't really thinking of other dimensions when they say such a thing. It is inaccurate. I'm not saying up is down, I'm saying we need to be careful when trying to tell God what He can and cannot do. We are very limited in our scope and understanding. We are always going to be called 'children' of God.

Just puling up the results of "square definition" from Google

square
skwer/<input src="" height="14" type="image" width="14" style="font-size: small; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
noun
1.

• a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles.

Other dimensions are specifically excluded by the definition of square, as well as consisting of anything but four equal sides and four right angels. It's not heresy to admit that there are such concepts as absurdities and paradox, which are obviously not included in the phrase "with God all things are possible."

A healthy recognition and understanding of this concept will help guard against the skeptic's attacks of philosophy. God cannot lie, God cannot create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, God cannot force someone to love him of their own free will, God cannot create creatures with free will yet know what their heart will ultimately decide before they are even created, yet God remains omnipotent and knows all things.