Good post.
With all the nonsense surrounding the use of "omnipotent" and "omniscient," I don't know whether it's best to seek agreement on a proper definition of them or just eschew use of them altogether.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Theology Club: Does Open Theism Question/dispute the Omniscience of God
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Good post.
With all the nonsense surrounding the use of "omnipotent" and "omniscient," I don't know whether it's best to seek agreement on a proper definition of them or just eschew use of them altogether.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Time is relative to mass and space.
Suppose a farmer has a low pressure water well pump and needs a water tank it irrigate his field. To build the right size of tank we need to find the "delta T", with respect to pressure, or dx (dp). We know as the tank empties, as the water level goes down, the pressure decreases, so, we need to build the tank high enough to have the farmer's field irrigated fully, before the pressure is too low to move water though the piping system.
To do this we find a differential equation, which solves the time-pressure problem, then we can build the tank.
My point is time is as much a property as mass, ( the water) and space (the size of the tank)
One means all knowing and the other, all powerful. We could use these words?
Except "all powerful" can't apply to God, because he has delegated power and authority to certain entities other than Himself.
Omniscient could be, but only in that God can know everything that is knowable.
I think it does because one thing I strongly agree with OV is God is not immutable; He can and does make changes, such as when the Jews did not accept Christ, the Body of Christ, those being us who accept Jesus as our saviour will grant us salvation before the time when the Jews get a second chance.
God, in all his aspects, is all powerful, even if He does not choose to use it.
I would say God has infinite power, not that He has all power.
He does not use all His power, or Satin would be dead! There is much in God's plan no one knows.
Rosenritter
New member
Revelation 19:6 KJV
(6) And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
Scripture uses the word omnipotent (once) and as such I don't worry about that term, but I do try to avoid "omniscient" because the context of that specific word has so much philosophical baggage.
Rosenritter
New member
If I think one thought, and then later change my mind about that thought, those two events are related to each other by an abstract quality that we know of as time. One thought is before the other, one thought is after, therefore time exists. Time is not merely a physical measurement.
Rosenritter
New member
Could we say that Jesus is all powerful?
Matthew 28:18 KJV
(18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Rosenritter
New member
If I have the power to paint my chair green, and the power to paint my chair blue, and the power to paint my chair purple, am I "not using all my power" if I choose to paint it yellow and only yellow? Or if I paint it yellow today, and green tomorrow, and plan to paint it every color of the rainbow in turn the day after that?
God has said he will destroy the devil, but in the judgment (not today, at that future time).
No. Time is relative to mass and space, this is physics.
You are using your will to act. You think, then act, as we see because you know, or pondered the colour beforehand.
I think you're confusing the movement of clocks with time.
Rosenritter
New member
So spirit beings cannot think?
Isaiah 14:13 KJV
(13) For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
There is both a before and an after of these thoughts of his heart, therefore time.
Derf
Well-known member
I really like the idea of all-capable. It allows for the comparative idea of power (more so than any other) as well as the absolute idea of ability, both to accomplish what He wants to do.
Lon
Well-known member
I believe I agree. It is merely a conceptualization of movement and change of physical things.
Lon
Well-known member
I'm not sure such is excluded, just not in our parameters of or for discussion. Some people conceive things in ways that are true, but different, than we experience or understand them. Many metaphysical concepts come to us this way. Quantum mechanics is this way.
It was actually Hawking that said 'philosophy is dead.' It wasn't said by those thinking outside the box (another way of grasping these concepts).
Lon
Well-known member
Good thought BUT Genesis 17:1 etc. :think:
Lon
Well-known member
I agree. I think Stripe's point was that time is a conceptualization, like an 'inch' and a 'millimeter.' The measurements are accurate enough, but they are made up concepts, normalized or agreed upon by society thus they are a bit better set in our minds and thoughts as 'physical' measures. We then associate things like rulers and watches to these arbitrary but agreed upon measures. The measures themselves are not absolute, nor are the things being measured. Rather we think more concrete sequentially about them because we are all very familiar with them but they are naught but contrived concepts that are used only to be more consistent in our daily lives. Even our watches are off. They don't really keep track of 'time,' just help us get through our day according to schedules.