ECT Is God Moral?

[Lon]

Can God write a new song?


I realize he can't answer now, but anybody else can. It directly relates to the point Clete is making. I just want to know where CR is coming from.

New to you, yes and necessarily, logically so or else: God is the product of the universe and has a god

Logical Proof:
1) "New" relates to something one has never experienced 'before'
2) Only man is finite, and only one who is finite can experience 'new'
3) 'new' can ever only apply to one who is finite
.: There necessarily, is nothing "new" to God who is infinite

He tells us things are 'new' because they are to us.

Open Theism is dangerously close to Process Theology and Mormonism at times. This is one of those where it is illogical and reduces God to having a god Himself (unwittingly, I know you guys don't do this on purpose like the Mormon and Process Theologian).

 

[Lon]

I've always found the idea that God is outside of time silly. It is clear from scripture that God interacts with us, who are in time, responding to our actions and prayers. This would be impossible if God had no sense of time. Nor could he have created everything in a sequence of 'days' - doing one thing and then another, building on top of what was previously done.

:nono: God is "relational to" but "unrestricted" by the physical universe. Time is only related to finite things, and a mathematic impossibility that it could be applied to the infinite. Rather, 'finite' is an expression from/of the infinite, but not vise versa. It makes perfect sense and is not silly that:

.__________________. (a segment)

is contained in

<__________________> (a line)

But a line is nowise contained in a segment and is impossible.


The line is immeasurable (time is a measurement, tell me "when" to start measuring a line????). A segment is a partial minute expression of a line and so you can easily measure it and time how long it takes to get from point A to point B because time is relational to finite things, but not infinite things, logically/necessarily.

 

[csuguy]

:nono: God is "relational to" but "unrestricted" by the physical universe. Time is only related to finite things, and a mathematic impossibility that it could be applied to the infinite. Rather, 'finite' is an expression from/of the infinite, but not vise versa. It makes perfect sense and is not silly that:

.__________________. (a segment)

is contained in

<__________________> (a line)

But a line is nowise contained in a segment and is impossible.


The line is immeasurable (time is a measurement, tell me "when" to start measuring a line????). A segment is a partial minute expression of a line and so you can easily measure it and time who long it takes to get from point A to point B.

Incorrect - there is no good argument or scripture that can support the idea that time only applies to finite things. For while God may not age or end, yet he does one thing and then another. This progression of action is only possible because God has a sense of time. His ability to react to our actions and prayers shows that he acts in time.

The line might not have a beginning or end - but it can be broken into an infinite sequence of finite segments.

 

[Lon]

Incorrect - there is no good argument or scripture that can support the idea that time only applies to finite things.

This is a necessity and you can't argue with it. Your 'incorrect' is beyond your mathematics ability. I fault you only with being ignorantly arrogant.
You tend to assert over your intellectual pay-grade (ability). If you are correctable, show this to one of the Mathematics professors and be corrected.

For while God may not age or end, yet he does one thing and then another. This progression of action is only possible because God has a sense of time. His ability to react to our actions and prayers shows that he acts in time.

Yes, a segment is part of a line, a line is NOT part of a segment. We correctly, mathematically, logically say that a line is relational to a segment but is not constrained to the finiteness of the segment. Rather, the line is relational to but unrestricted by (supersedes necessarily) the segment.

In the same manner, God is relational to time (He knows what it is as a physical restriction for physical beings) but unconstrained (He is not physical) by it.

The line might not have a beginning or end - but it can be broken into an infinite sequence of finite segments.

Those are finite and superficial and necessarily constrain your concept of the infinite. The infinite is not just a series of segments.

Let me explain: No matter where you 'try' to begin setting up a series of infinite segments, it is already superficially well beyond the bounds of what has eternally existed. One way we express this is to say God's past is still going on forever in the opposite direction because an eternal nonbeginning already exceeds the capacity of segments to qualify (iow, your analogy can't).

Everything I've just given you can be verified by a Mathematics professor as true and logically accurate beyond your disagreement.

 

[csuguy]

This is a necessity and you can't argue with it.

Neither scripture nor logic necessitate it.

Yes, a segment is part of a line, a line is NOT part of a segment. We correctly, mathematically, logically say that a line is relational to a segment but is not constrained to the finiteness of the segment. Rather, the line is relational to but unrestricted by (supersedes necessarily) the segment.

A line is composed of segments. The line might be infinite but it may be evaluated over a particular finite range. Furthermore, a more complex function can be infinite as well - and a function can change its value at different points. Better yet, the combination of many functions can be both infinite and hold many different values at the same point in time.

What describes better? A simple line that is fixed or something more complex that can vary its value(s) based upon the parameters? Either way you are really making a gross simplification of God Almighty, but the later at least accounts for the fact that God does change his actions. He does one thing, he stops, and he does another. Not to say he is limited to one action at a time.

Those are finite and superficial and necessarily constrain your concept of the infinite. The infinite is not just a series of segments.

A line IS a series of segments. At least get your geometry right.

Let me explain: No matter where you 'try' to begin setting up a series of infinite segments, it is already superficially well beyond the bounds of what has eternally existed. One way we express this is to say God's past is still going on forever in the opposite direction because an eternal nonbeginning already exceeds the capacity of segments to qualify (iow, your analogy can't).

The infinite goes on forever, but exists over a domain and range. These themselves can be infinite, as in this case. Nevertheless, the domain and range contain all that is finite. The continuously infinite exists at every point in its domain and may be evaluated at any point or range just as a finite line segment. None of this really matters at any rate - There is no good justification for reducing God to a simple line.

None of this abstract logic addresses the fact that God does one thing, stops that thing, and then does another. Nor that he interacts with us who are in time. He created the world in seven days, each day doing something different. This progression of action and thought = change. Change can only occur over time.

 

[Lon]

Neither scripture nor logic necessitate it.

Er, I've taught Mathematics. I seriously doubt your prowess. I told you to take it to a prof. You are just ignorant and arrogant and generally a punk kid who doesn't know when he is among his betters, including your Trinitarian father.

A line is composed of segments. The line might be infinite but it may be evaluated over a particular finite range. Furthermore, a more complex function can be infinite as well - and a function can change its value at different points. Better yet, the combination of many functions can be both infinite and hold many different values at the same point in time.

Incorrect. A ray, by example is both finite and infinite, but a line is not. You'd need a better Mathematics degree than you currently possess, though a decent grade in Geometry would have been enough to show you that you are incorrect.

What describes better? A simple line that is fixed or something more complex that can vary its value(s) based upon the parameters? Either way you are really making a gross simplification of God Almighty, but the later at least accounts for the fact that God does change his actions. He does one thing, he stops, and he does another. Not to say he is limited to one action at a time.

This is two-dimensional thinking and constrained thinking to what is finite and physical.

A line IS a series of segments. At least get your geometry right.

Nope, only to show which line we are talking about as it passes through two points. The ONLY reason we need those two points is to plot it. Likewise, God must interact with us for us to know who He is. He is 'relational to but unconstrained by time.' I've taught Math, you???? :noway:

The infinite goes on forever, but exists over a domain and range. These themselves can be infinite, as in this case. Nevertheless, the domain and range contain all that is finite. The continuously infinite exists at every point in its domain and may be evaluated at any point or range just as a finite line segment.

Only as to the direct interaction with the finite. IOW, what we have, we know to only be a small revelation of the infinite. Your brain can ONLY hold so much therefore, in trying to qualify the infinite, you are only capable of describing what is finite about Him. Look at my Ephesians sig "Beyond" what you can know.

At any rate, none of this abstract logic addresses the fact that God does one thing, stops that thing, and then does another. Nor that he interacts with us who are in time. He created the world in seven days, each day doing something different. This progression of action and thought = change. Change can only occur over time.

You aren't thinking well, then, because it certainly does. You cannot quantify an unending past with time segments. It is a logical, mathematical, and physical impossibility. Again, ask someone who actually is doing mathematics or build me a computer that can keep track of an unending past and future??? :noway:

 

[csuguy]

Er, I've taught Mathematics. I seriously doubt your prowess. I told you to take it to a prof. You are just ignorant and arrogant and generally a punk kid who doesn't know when he is among his betters, including your Trinitarian father.

You are no ones better Lon. If you were you would be able to establish your points without appealing to authority. Furthermore, I'm on my last two classes for my Masters in Computer Science - considered to be one of the most difficult of degrees. Both at work and school I'm considered to be one of the top developers. You've taught some classes? So what? I'm qualified to teach classes myself if I so desired. I'm by no means intellectually inferior to you - as much as you would like to believe that.

Incorrect. A ray, by example is both finite and infinite, but a line is not. You'd need a better Mathematics degree than you currently possess, though a decent grade in Geometry would have been enough to show you that you are incorrect.

A line is composed of finite segments. I'm not saying it is a Ray, which has a single fixed endpoint. A ray is also composed of finite segments.

This is two-dimensional thinking and constrained thinking to what is finite and physical.

The physical and finite have more than two-dimensions. You are oversimplifying God to make a point that clearly contradicts the scriptures.

Nope, only to show which line we are talking about as it passes through two points. The ONLY reason we need those two points is to plot it. Likewise, God must interact with us for us to know who He is. He is 'relational to but unconstrained by time.' I've taught Math, you???? :noway:

Those two points are selected because they are part of the line.

Only as to the direct interaction with the finite. IOW, what we have, we know to only be a small revelation of the infinite. Your brain can ONLY hold so much therefore, in trying to qualify the infinite, you are only capable of describing what is finite about Him. Look at my Ephesians sig "Beyond" what you can know.

We might not be able to hold every value of an infinite sequence in our heads - but if we have wisdom we can speak of an infinite sequence without the need to do so. We instead identify how to calculate a value at a particular point, we identify the limits of the equation, and we identify what value the equation approaches at those limits, etc.

At any rate, this is again irrelevant since God is not a line and does not do one thing and one thing alone for all of eternity. You are essentially reducing God to some fixed constant or law of the universe rather than a personal God who interacts with us and the rest of creation.

You aren't thinking well, then, because it certainly does. You cannot quantify an unending past with time segments. It is a logical, mathematical, and physical impossibility. Again, ask someone who actually is doing mathematics or build me a computer that can keep track of an unending past and future??? :noway:

You can evaluate an unending equation at any point or range. You can also evaluate an equation as it approaches some limit - even negative infinity.

At any rate this is irrelevant when speaking of God. You are trying to reduce God to a line but have no justification for speaking of him as such. You simply ignore biblical evidence that contradicts your attempts to do so. Having failed, you resort to trying to assert authority in the matter - expecting me to just fall in line. You are being disingenuous Lon.

 

[Lon]

You are no ones better Lon. If you were you would be able to establish your points without appealing to authority.

Says the kid who thinks he is smarter than his Trinitarian father.....and a mathematics teacher

Furthermore, I'm on my last two classes for my Masters in Computer Science - considered to be one of the most difficult of degrees. Both at work and school I'm considered to be one of the top developers. You've taught some classes? So what? I'm qualified to teach classes myself if I so desired. I'm by no means intellectually inferior to you - as much as you would like to believe that.

... so you are an arrogant cuss. The problem? It takes quite a bit of confrontation to put you in your place, especially when you are wrong, like you are here.... Arrogant is, as arrogant does, the further problem is I've studied a LOT longer than your 4 years. Will you get that? Probably in 20 years, it may be too late for the apology, but you are wrong. I am right. That's all there is to say about it at this point. It doesn't matter if you can 'be' corrected or not, but rather what effort will be involved to deflate your over-inflated-wrong head.

A line is composed of finite segments. I'm not saying it is a Ray, which has a single fixed endpoint. A ray is also composed of finite segments.

A step at a time:
-a point - finite
-a segment - finite regarding its two points
-a ray - finite with infinite unidirectional movement only
-a line - infinite bidirectional

and that is only to explain why God, who is infinite, cannot be expressed in segments (nor a line in segments).

So, just as God is love, but Love is not God, a line is expressed but not defined with a segment and both points that express the duration of the segment do not and cannot apply to the line but in an arbitrary fashion.

The physical and finite have more than two-dimensions. You are oversimplifying God to make a point that clearly contradicts the scriptures.

Isaiah 29:16
Try also God and Science, You really are just a little, arrogant ignorant young fellow, Csg.

Those two points are selected because they are part of the line.

Correct, and no matter how long you draw that segment, it will never ever ever, be anything but a finite representation of a finite portion of the infinite. IOW, one will always be finite, the other always infinite and the finite always expressing the infinite inadequately.

We might not be able to hold every value of an infinite sequence in our heads - but if we have wisdom we can speak of an infinite sequence without the need to do so. We instead identify how to calculate a value at a particular point, we identify the limits of the equation, and we identify what value the equation approaches at those limits, etc.

At any rate, this is again irrelevant since God is not a line and does not do one thing and one thing alone for all of eternity. You are essentially reducing God to some fixed constant or law of the universe rather than a personal God who interacts with us and the rest of creation.

No, rather I'm using finite terms, as Paul did that you might understand the 'breadth width and depth' of God's love which 'has no (such) limits.' I truly would that you weren't arrogant today, and would learn just that.

You can evaluate an unending equation at any point or range. You can also evaluate an equation as it approaches some limit - even negative infinity.

No you cannot. You can find an existing pattern, but because your evaluation is finite, you cannot be sure you understand the (infinite) equation no matter how structured the pattern appears. Like in Algebra, sometimes you can find and solve for the missing parameter, and sometimes you can simplify for what you know. Often that should include even an extra place holder or at least recognizing that the one stands for polynomials rather than only a single one. Similarly, saying that God can only experience sequentials like you and I is equally as haphazard despite your 'silly' comment (which itself was shortsighted, haphazard, and amateur). We can ONLY say something definitive about what is 'definite' (defined-finite). That excludes the infinite, especially as the definer and his/her choice of parameters are 'finite.'

At any rate this is irrelevant when speaking of God. You are trying to reduce God to a line but have no justification for speaking of him as such.

:doh: The same logic that demonstrates that a segment is an expression of a line but impossible vise-versa (you cannot draw an actual line and arrows are used to explain why) is the same logic that demands an eternal God with no beginning is relational to but unrestricted by time, which is a product of finite creation. God isn't created, so unconstrained by the intervals of time. It is a logical parameter of creatures, not creators.

You simply ignore biblical evidence that contradicts your attempts to do so.

Um, no. Hebrews 7:3 Ephesians 3:20,21 Psalm 90:2; 93:2
It is both scripturally and logically impossible.

Having failed, you resort to trying to assert authority in the matter

If only you treated your elders better, and of course you don't, despite which scriptures actually tell you to not be ignorant and arrogant and to treat your elders as betters and to not be arrogant ignorant punk. Your disdain is equally noted. 1 Timothy 5:1 In fact, scripture tells us to 'correct you' gently, but you will be hard pressed find it going the other way.

- expecting me to just fall in line. You are being disingenuous Lon.

I 'expected' you to take this to a mathematics professor before spouting off in further ignorance and arrogance. Perhaps even a philosophy professor would explain the logical necessity to you. This is part of the classical curriculum for a philosophy class regarding the logical demand of an infinite God. You are out of your element and out of your area of expertise and 'acting' like you know better than your own professors who teach this classically, along the lines I've given you today.

 

[Desert Reign]

Logical Proof:
1) "New" relates to something one has never experienced 'before'

Thanks for telling us what we already knew. However, the question was not about what 'new' relates to but can God write a new song. We all know what the phrase 'a new song' means. And in Ps.91 when the psalmist tells us 'Sing to the LORD a new song', I hardly think it means 'sing to the Lord a song which we have never sung before.' What it obviously means is 'sing to the Lord a song that the Lord has never heard before'. I can't think of the point in singing it to him otherwise.

2) Only man is finite, and only one who is finite can experience 'new'

That's a great opinion, thanks for sharing it. I especially like the allusions to the many Biblical passages referring to finite.

3) 'new' can ever only apply to one who is finite

Sounds like a great opinion.

.: There necessarily, is nothing "new" to God who is infinite

He tells us things are 'new' because they are to us.

So basically, your answer is no. God cannot write a new song.
Thanks for sharing your view on that.

I know, I know. You're going to say that the singing is for our benefit, not God's. That's why you need to re-write the Bible: 'Sing to ourselves a new song...'

 

[Lon]

Thanks for telling us what we already knew. However, the question was not about what 'new' relates to but can God write a new song. We all know what the phrase 'a new song' means. And in Ps.91 when the psalmist tells us 'Sing to the LORD a new song', I hardly think it means 'sing to the Lord a song which we have never sung before.' What it obviously means is 'sing to the Lord a song that the Lord has never heard before'. I can't think of the point in singing it to him otherwise.

Let's be pedantic then.... how many things, in all of creation, did God make? Of those, what song, about any one of them, would you consider 'new' to God that isn't already there? Does He love the sparrow any less? Hasn't that song already been written? (these are all yes/no questions and I think pretty easy as well as incredibly logical/intuitive where you can say "oh you are right!" anytime now...)

That's a great opinion, thanks for sharing it. I especially like the allusions to the many Biblical passages referring to finite.

If you don't 1) understand you are finite, and 2) that God is infinite, what would a scripture help you understand that you don't already? There are scriptures that say it, but some of this is apprehended logically or not at all, even the scriptures that says so. They prove their own points. I'm not sure if you were here when I gave the link which incidentally has a lot of scriptures.

Sounds like a great opinion.

There is a lot more than just 'my' opinion involved. The first concludes logically why God is relational to but unconstrained by time by William Lane Craig. The second Stanford article describes Craig's position as well as others and why their 'temporal' disagreement is the actual problem. They are caught trying to understand God by the only thing they can understand.

So basically, your answer is no. God cannot write a new song.
Thanks for sharing your view on that.

You're welcome.

I know, I know. You're going to say that the singing is for our benefit, not God's. That's why you need to re-write the Bible: 'Sing to ourselves a new song...'

I can help you with the logical tools, as I started in my first paragraph. You only need to pick them up and use them. My first question was, 'what exists that God didn't make?' Next: Does God have to 'count' the number of your hairs from moment to moment to know how many of them there are? IOW, "How" does God know what He knows? Luke 12:6,7 If you say He has to count them, you are saying God is constrained to 'your' universe. I say He is not (and can provide the verses a bit later). Just now, I want you to logically work through your own suppositions and see why they are wrong. Scripture will certainly provide the closure to these that will shut this part of the thread.

 

[LoneStar]

Why is that weighty? The Bible explicitly states there is no time issue and that things don't come to his mind. CR was shifting his argument. Moving the goal posts, so to speak. Him not answering tells me he has no interest in what is right, only in promoting his agenda. Whatever that may be.

It was heavy to me, in that I had not considered the implications that a 'yes' or 'no' would entail. Made me think about a comment you hear a lot of people say: God already knows everything from the beginning to the end. I used to think that way without ever really considering the implications of it. But if that were true then no song would ever be new to God because He always knew of it.

I may not be eloquent in the way I am thinking out loud, but I know what I'm thinking and will continue to think on it >>> silently.

 

[Clete]

Threads that dig into the meat of theology

I was afraid that there was something you had wanted me to respond to that I had overlooked.

 

[Clete]

New to you, yes and necessarily, logically so or else: God is the product of the universe and has a god

Logical Proof:
1) "New" relates to something one has never experienced 'before'
2) Only man is finite, and only one who is finite can experience 'new'
3) 'new' can ever only apply to one who is finite
.: There necessarily, is nothing "new" to God who is infinite

He tells us things are 'new' because they are to us.

Open Theism is dangerously close to Process Theology and Mormonism at times. This is one of those where it is illogical and reduces God to having a god Himself (unwittingly, I know you guys don't do this on purpose like the Mormon and Process Theologian).

This thread has nothing at all to do with Open Theism.

But I have to say, watching you guys speak of logic is rather entertaining.

 

[Nick M]

Made me think about a comment you hear a lot of people say: God already knows everything from the beginning to the end. I used to think that way without ever really considering the implications of it. But if that were true then no song would ever be new to God because He always knew of it.

God declares he does not know everything from the very beginning. He brought the animals before Adam to see what he would call them. He said "Now I know that you will not withhold your son from me". I know people say it, but the Bible declares it otherwise right from the start. Does he know the secrets of your heart? Of course. All he has to do is look. But he can't see into the future as it has not happened. Knowing these qualities of his nature tells us that God is moral.

He did not have to take on human form and serve justice for sin. He chose to save life. He can't be amoral and relational at the same time.

 

[Nick M]

This thread has nothing at all to do with Open Theism.

I think it does. It is his character to think and then act. That is moral, to chose right over wrong.

 

[LoneStar]

God declares he does not know everything from the very beginning. He brought the animals before Adam to see what he would call them. He said "Now I know that you will not withhold your son from me". I know people say it, but the Bible declares it otherwise right from the start. Does he know the secrets of your heart? Of course. All he has to do is look. But he can't see into the future as it has not happened. Knowing these qualities of his nature tells us that God is moral.

He did not have to take on human form and serve justice for sin. He chose to save life. He can't be amoral and relational at the same time.

It's making more and more sense to me. This thread has helped. Gonna keep watching it.

 

[csuguy]

Says the kid who thinks he is smarter than his Trinitarian father.....and a mathematics teacher

I'm 27 thanks. My dad is no longer a Trinitarian btw, after being asked to defend it by the church and going through the church materials on the matter - he found the church position lacking, as I did. I myself only questioned the Trinity when I tried to defend it. And a mathematics teacher has no say concerning theological matters like this - you are misapplying your field of study.

... so you are an arrogant cuss. The problem? It takes quite a bit of confrontation to put you in your place, especially when you are wrong, like you are here.... Arrogant is, as arrogant does, the further problem is I've studied a LOT longer than your 4 years. Will you get that? Probably in 20 years, it may be too late for the apology, but you are wrong. I am right. That's all there is to say about it at this point. It doesn't matter if you can 'be' corrected or not, but rather what effort will be involved to deflate your over-inflated-wrong head.

I'M the "arrogant cuss"?! You are the one declaring your credientials and telling everyone to fall in line - because you think yourself superior. I told you about my education so that you would understand that I'm educated as well and you have no business making such declarations. So now you resort to attacking my age and calling me arrogant. Sad, sad Lon.

A step at a time:
-a point - finite
-a segment - finite regarding its two points
-a ray - finite with infinite unidirectional movement only
-a line - infinite bidirectional

Never said anything to the contrary. Your point?

and that is only to explain why God, who is infinite, cannot be expressed in segments (nor a line in segments).

So, just as God is love, but Love is not God, a line is expressed but not defined with a segment and both points that express the duration of the segment do not and cannot apply to the line but in an arbitrary fashion.

A line is equivalent to an infinite series of line segments, which are themselves finite. There is no difference between the two. If you can't understand this then you aren't much of a mathematician.

Isaiah 29:16
Try also God and Science, You really are just a little, arrogant ignorant young fellow, Csg.

Are you going to claim to be the potter now? That would be a new level of arrogance even for you.

Correct, and no matter how long you draw that segment, it will never ever ever, be anything but a finite representation of a finite portion of the infinite. IOW, one will always be finite, the other always infinite and the finite always expressing the infinite inadequately.

A single line segment can't do the job - but an infinite series of line segments can.

No, rather I'm using finite terms, as Paul did that you might understand the 'breadth width and depth' of God's love which 'has no (such) limits.' I truly would that you weren't arrogant today, and would learn just that.

You have no good justification for reducing God to a line - and the result is non-sensical theology that contradicts the scriptures. God isn't an equation or a mathematical construct like you are treating him.

No you cannot. You can find an existing pattern, but because your evaluation is finite, you cannot be sure you understand the (infinite) equation no matter how structured the pattern appears. Like in Algebra, sometimes you can find and solve for the missing parameter, and sometimes you can simplify for what you know. Often that should include even an extra place holder or at least recognizing that the one stands for polynomials rather than only a single one. Similarly, saying that God can only experience sequentials like you and I is equally as haphazard despite your 'silly' comment (which itself was shortsighted, haphazard, and amateur). We can ONLY say something definitive about what is 'definite' (defined-finite). That excludes the infinite, especially as the definer and his/her choice of parameters are 'finite.'

Yes - you can evaluate infinite equation at any point if you have the equation. If you lack the equation then, no, you can't calculate anything. But this is all irrelevant since God is not a line or an equation to be solved. You've constructed a red herring.

:doh: The same logic that demonstrates that a segment is an expression of a line but impossible vise-versa (you cannot draw an actual line and arrows are used to explain why) is the same logic that demands an eternal God with no beginning is relational to but unrestricted by time, which is a product of finite creation. God isn't created, so unconstrained by the intervals of time. It is a logical parameter of creatures, not creators.

Again - an infinite series of continuous line segments is can serve as the equivalent to of any line. And, again, God is not a line.

Um, no. Hebrews 7:3 Ephesians 3:20,21 Psalm 90:2; 93:2
It is both scripturally and logically impossible.

Uh, yes. You are ignoring every time God interacts with man, every time he starts something and stops something. Did he not create the world in 6 successive days, each time building on what was previously done? Did he not flood the world for a time, but then stop? Will he not hold a judgement in the future? Will he not make a new heaven and new earth when all is said and done? This progression of actions and thought demonstrate a God who is in time. You are ignoring all these things and more, instead focusing on your red herring of treating God Almighty as if he were some line.

If only you treated your elders better, and of course you don't, despite which scriptures actually tell you to not be ignorant and arrogant and to treat your elders as betters and to not be arrogant ignorant punk. Your disdain is equally noted. 1 Timothy 5:1 In fact, scripture tells us to 'correct you' gently, but you will be hard pressed find it going the other way.

1 Timothy 4:12-13 Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example [e]of those who believe. 13 Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching.

I 'expected' you to take this to a mathematics professor before spouting off in further ignorance and arrogance. Perhaps even a philosophy professor would explain the logical necessity to you. This is part of the classical curriculum for a philosophy class regarding the logical demand of an infinite God. You are out of your element and out of your area of expertise and 'acting' like you know better than your own professors who teach this classically, along the lines I've given you today.

1. You are not my professor - but yes I do appear to know more than you on these topics

2. Everything I've stated concerning mathematics is correct. If you can't understand that an infinite series of continuous line segments can serve as the equivalent of a line (or any other function for that matter) then you don't understand math half as well as you think. You certainly couldn't be a computer scientist if you can't comprehend even this.

3. Everything you've put forth is a red herring that has much to do about nothing. You are ignoring the scriptures in favor of this psuedo-theology/mathematics thing you've got going on which clearly contradict the scriptures.

 

[Lon]

I'm 27 thanks. My dad is no longer a Trinitarian btw, after being asked to defend it by the church and going through the church materials on the matter - he found the church position lacking, as I did. I myself only questioned the Trinity when I tried to defend it. And a mathematics teacher has no say concerning theological matters like this - you are misapplying your field of study.

There you go being a child again. I have two degrees :noway:

I'M the "arrogant cuss"?!

Yes. I gave you the verse on how you should behave, and how you don't.

You are the one declaring your credientials and telling everyone to fall in line - because you think yourself superior. I told you about my education so that you would understand that I'm educated as well and you have no business making such declarations. So now you resort to attacking my age and calling me arrogant. Sad, sad Lon.

You were always this way, even before you went to college.

Never said anything to the contrary. Your point?

A line is composed of segments. The line might be infinite but it may be evaluated over a particular finite range.
A line IS a series of segments. At least get your geometry right.

A line is composed of finite segments. I'm not saying it is a Ray, which has a single fixed endpoint. A ray is also composed of finite segments.

My point was that a line contains a segment but a segment does not contain/cannot contain a line nor limit it unidirectional.

A line is equivalent to an infinite series of line segments, which are themselves finite. There is no difference between the two. If you can't understand this then you aren't much of a mathematician.

No, I can't understand that and no, you'd have to show me it in the Geometry book. Again, a line contains a segment, but a segment doesn't and cannot contain the line. The segment is finite. The line is infinite. God interacting with us does somewhat define Him, such as a segment would be the definition of a line from point A to B but finite in expression. Because of this, God would have to necessarily be the product of creation, to be in anyway limited by it, including time because "God has no beginning" and "His past is still going forever." I've linked enough of the philosophy discussions that this 'should' be verifiable to everyone reading in thread.

Are you going to claim to be the potter now? That would be a new level of arrogance even for you.

:doh: Isaiah 29:16a then.

A single line segment can't do the job - but an infinite series of line segments can.

The problem with the segment is that it is mathematically arbitrary and superficial. Example: If you go to Europe, to build a house, you must leave the yard stick behind and pick up a meter stick. Such explains that our measurements are entirely arbitrary to whoever had the longest arm, and whoever decided distance to the moon and sun were better. That arbitrary difference caused us to lose a space probe.

So the 'theoretical segment is first, man-made, which in turn, means it has a start and expiration date. When it gets past the line, we are talking about a plain. After that, we eventually get to God by arbitrary randoms that are all observable truths of math, but are finite. Point? In trying to set up the equivalent of randoms that it would take to get to eternity past, and I'm talking of a ray at this point, we could NEVER keep up with the demand of an eternity past, into our future. Does that compute? We couldn't even get to an eternity past, even if we used all of eternity future to try. It becomes an exponential impossibility.

Theoretically, we understand an infinite expression of segments, but we 'make' those. We don't (can't) make lines.

You have no good justification for reducing God to a line - and the result is non-sensical theology that contradicts the scriptures. God isn't an equation or a mathematical construct like you are treating him.

I didn't. I reduced to mathematics to show logic. God has no beginning or end (like a line). That alone validates the image but God is beyond that. The universe has limitations so even the supposed line is but a segment. We conceive of a line as infinite and thus mathematics enable us to see characteristics at least to some partial degree, about God, who is infinite.

Yes - you can evaluate infinite equation at any point if you have the equation. If you lack the equation then, no, you can't calculate anything. But this is all irrelevant since God is not a line or an equation to be solved.

Again, we can evaluate only what we know. Computers crunch numbers better than we and have come up with answers we never could or not without a lot of tedious and year consuming work, but even those computers have limits, even with the right codes. Some programs, if run, would come up with answers, but long after you and I are dead and that is with them crunching numbers incessantly. You are aware of the Human Genome Project and subsequent projects no doubt?

Again - an infinite series of continuous line segments is equivalent to a line. And, again, God is not a line.

You are a broken record. I already said the logic behind one, is the impetus for the other, logically. If you can follow the one, you can understand the other and why it is illogical. Not only that, your insistence that God is stuck in sequential time is a ray (from point A to point B and beyond which time is)! :doh: That would have God finite!

Uh, yes. You are ignoring ever time God interacts with man, every time he starts something and starts something. Did he not create the world in 6 successive days, each time building on what was previously done? Did he not flood the world for a time, but then stop? Will he not hold a judgement in the future? Will he not make a new heaven and new earth when all is said and done? This progression of actions and thought demonstrate a God who is in time. You are ignoring all these things and more, instead focusing on your red herring of treating God Almighty as if he were some line.

The scriptures, again: Hebrews 7:3 Ephesians 3:20,21 Psalm 90:2; 93:2
Next: Do you understand what an eternal non-beginning entails logically? Mathematically? Give me a computer that 'can' calculate it. If it is past, surely a computer can quantify it (it can't). Your succession of segments ONLY works if it is unidirectional, and it isn't. God's past "is still going on forever." Another way of saying it is "He doesn't have one." Both have historically been correctly used in discussing God's nature and are part of university level discussions.

1 Timothy 4:12-13 Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example [e]of those who believe. 13 Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching.

:doh: This is a directive to you to be a great example! Kid!

1. You are not my professor - but yes I do appear to know more than you on these topics

Luke 6:40

2. Everything I've stated concerning mathematics is correct. If you can't understand that an infinite series of continuous line segments can serve as the equivalent of a line (or any other function for that matter) then you don't understand math half as well as you think. You certainly couldn't be a computer scientist if you can't comprehend even this.

You really should 'ask' before you speak. You've no idea what I've taught through the years. You are a hasty-judgment kid and will continue to be so until you stop being hasty with erroneous judgments and wrong-headed answers.

3. Everything you've put forth is a red herring that has much to do about nothing. You are ignoring the scriptures in favor of this psuedo-theology/mathematics thing you've got going on which clearly contradict the scriptures.

Er, I've given scripture. You haven't, not even the supposed ones you think don't support this. Whatever 'clarity' you think you have, you've been dismal about revealing those scriptures, and you with a mathematics degree and theology understudies??? Odd we both have the credentials but come to opposite conclusions about logic, God's nature, and the difference between a physical creation and a nonphysical God. I generally think the camp that believes God progresses is yet caught in a God of the physical universe He supposedly 'created.' That God, imo, is yet constrained by the finite mind and that person has yet to understand that God is apart from His creation. John 1:3 Colossians 1:16-18
He doesn't change eternally Psalm 102:27 James 1:17

Again, this is all collegiate level discussion. To not recognize that is to your own detriment, not mine. These are discussions in every philosophy class, and even in higher math classes like quantum physics and mechanics. If you do not recognize the strong conclusions on this side of the debate table, you are in gross overgeneralization and not up to par in these discussions. I've become sophomoric to your freshman antics, but for the purpose of trying to get you to realize, in your arrogance, you are behind these discussions. Do a bit of research into God's character and nature in philosophy and you'll quickly find we are not reinventing the wheel here. Far from it. I'm simply giving you the Christian reasoning and response to a challenge that God is time-bound. Such is, untenable logically and scripturally. He is relational to, but unconstrained by, time.

 

[Lon]

This thread has nothing at all to do with Open Theism.

I'll try to keep it short.

 

[csuguy]

There you go being a child again. I have two degrees :noway:

As do I - imagine that! :noway: I've got a B.S. in Computer Science, a B.A. in Religious Studies, and at the end of this semester a Masters in Computer Science.

Yes. I gave you the verse on how you should behave, and how you don't.

I'm behaving fine - it is you who are in error: demanding everyone fall in line behind you. You attempt to use your own supposed authority to silence any meaningful discussion. You are more concerned that people agree with you than you are about the truth.

You were always this way, even before you went to college.

I have always been against those who would try to use authority to silence reason. Always will be. Your supposed authority means nothing to me. If you know your stuff then there should be no need to fall back on claims of authority - you should be able to provide well-reasoned arguments for your positions and address other peoples arguments and challenges.

This is nothing new with you - you may begin a discussion in good spirits - but you quickly descend into appeals to authority, even your own authority (ha!), and personal attacks on the other party - like trying to dismiss them outright because they are younger than you. The fact is that a few years from now when I have my Doctorate in Theology or the like, you will still attempt the same antics - because you think you are superior to everyone else and that they should just fall in line behind Lon! HA!

My point was that a line contains a segment but a segment does not contain/cannot contain a line nor limit it unidirectional.

Never said a segment does contain an entire line.

No, I can't understand that and no, you'd have to show me it in the Geometry book. Again, a line contains a segment, but a segment doesn't and cannot contain the line. The segment is finite. The line is infinite. God interacting with us does somewhat define Him, such as a segment would be the definition of a line from point A to B but finite in expression. Because of this, God would have to necessarily be the product of creation, to be in anyway limited by it, including time because "God has no beginning" and "His past is still going forever." I've linked enough of the philosophy discussions that this 'should' be verifiable to everyone reading in thread.

If you can't understand how an infinite series of continuous segments can compose a line - or any other function for that matter - then you aren't nearly as educated in math as you like to think. You shouldn't need to look this up in a math book to understand it if this is your field of study. This is, maybe, Calculus I material.

Theoretically, we understand an infinite expression of segments, but we 'make' those. We don't (can't) make lines.

A line is composed of an infinite series of segments. Again, red herring. This is much to do about nothing.

I didn't. I reduced to mathematics to show logic. God has no beginning or end (like a line). That alone validates the image but God is beyond that. The universe has limitations so even the supposed line is but a segment. We conceive of a line as infinite and thus mathematics enable us to see characteristics at least to some partial degree, about God, who is infinite.

Again, we can evaluate only what we know. Computers crunch numbers better than we and have come up with answers we never could or not without a lot of tedious and year consuming work, but even those computers have limits, even with the right codes. Some programs, if run, would come up with answers, but long after you and I are dead and that is with them crunching numbers incessantly. You are aware of the Human Genome Project and subsequent projects no doubt?

You are a broken record. I already said the logic behind one, is the impetus for the other, logically. If you can follow the one, you can understand the other and why it is illogical. Not only that, your insistence that God is stuck in sequential time is a ray (from point A to point B and beyond which time is)! :doh: That would have God finite!

God is not finite, but God is in time. If you prefer, we could say time is part of God. You continue to ignore the scriptures in favor of nonsensical analogies to mathematical constructs that are irrelevant.

The scriptures, again: Hebrews 7:3 Ephesians 3:20,21 Psalm 90:2; 93:2
Next: Do you understand what an eternal non-beginning entails logically? Mathematically? Give me a computer that 'can' calculate it. If it is past, surely a computer can quantify it (it can't). Your succession of segments ONLY works if it is unidirectional, and it isn't. God's past "is still going on forever." Another way of saying it is "He doesn't have one." Both have historically been correctly used in discussing God's nature and are part of university level discussions.

Wrong - a succession of segments doesn't require that it be unidirectional. Look up doubly linked lists, for instance. Also - you are the one who insists on coming up with a mathematical representation for God - not me. You are in error as far as I'm concerned - you've made much to do about nothing. We need but go back to the scriptures to find that you are in error in attempting to assert that God is outside time - and I've provided a multitude of examples from scripture that demonstrate your error.

:doh: This is a directive to you to be a great example! Kid!

In part. It is also a directive to not let others look down on you simply because one is young. Not that I'm terribly young, but I shall always be younger than you. That is not a reason for me to be silent and accept whatever you say.

Luke 6:40

Once more - you, Lon, are not my teacher.

You really should 'ask' before you speak. You've no idea what I've taught through the years. You are a hasty-judgment kid and will continue to be so until you stop being hasty with erroneous judgments and wrong-headed answers.

I don't need to know what you've taught to know that my statements concerning math are correct. While Mathematics is not my primary field of study, it is an integral part of Computer Science - so I've had my fair share of classes on the topic.

Er, I've given scripture. You haven't, not even the supposed ones you think don't support this. Whatever 'clarity' you think you have, you've been dismal about revealing those scriptures, and you with a mathematics degree and theology understudies??? Odd we both have the credentials but come to opposite conclusions about logic, God's nature, and the difference between a physical creation and a nonphysical God. I generally think the camp that believes God progresses is yet caught in a God of the physical universe He supposedly 'created.' That God, imo, is yet constrained by the finite mind and that person has yet to understand that God is apart from His creation. John 1:3 Colossians 1:16-18
He doesn't change eternally Psalm 102:27 James 1:17

Again, this is all collegiate level discussion. To not recognize that is to your own detriment, not mine. These are discussions in every philosophy class, and even in higher math classes like quantum physics and mechanics. If you do not recognize the strong conclusions on this side of the debate table, you are in gross overgeneralization and not up to par in these discussions. I've become sophomoric to your freshman antics, but for the purpose of trying to get you to realize, in your arrogance, you are behind these discussions. Do a bit of research into God's character and nature in philosophy and you'll quickly find we are not reinventing the wheel here. Far from it. I'm simply giving you the Christian reasoning and response to a challenge that God is time-bound. Such is, untenable logically and scripturally. He is relational to, but unconstrained by, time.

You have ignored the scriptures Lon. How many times must I reference such things as the creation over 6 days, the flood, the judgement, the creation of the new heaven and earth, God's numerous interactions with men in the bible and his response to their actions. In truth - the whole testimony of scripture is against you Lon - it all contradicts the idea that God is outside of time. You have ignored this simple fact and gone off on a red herring about lines as if that somehow dismissed the scriptures.

This is why we have reaches such different conclusions Lon: it is because your view isn't based upon the scriptures. It is based upon your psuedo-intellectual mathematical theology.