On the omniscience of God

[Clete]

:nono: Not what it says.

If you are the SOURCE of everything, can ANYTHING come outside of your being? Hint: It is why sin is called a privation. It is a messing up of what ALREADY exists.

It is the insurance of. Why is the ONLY reason you are against this set as a defense of Open Theism? Is Open Theism WORTHY of accolades if the premises fall short? Why not jettison an cherished idea in favor of what must be true contra wise (and why does this question upset you so? It shouldn't, not at all, our allegiance is to God, not man's ideas no matter how good they may appear)? I know it goes both ways, but I don't get upset about it simply because my desire it virtue/truth, no matter how bad it might hurt. It IS my agenda.

Open Theism "A God who Risks." Unless He doesn't need to. Love nor relationship require me to meet God on His level of independence. In fact, every scripture points us back to subservience. Why? Because it isn't slavery, it is what we were MADE TO DO.

Same question as above: WHAT, can come outside of the Creator of EVERYTHING? Nadda, right? Why not? Why is an Open Paradigm by 'proposition' the hill to die on? Why is it not assailable? It seems too great of a loss for truth to me. I could care less about my 'feelings' involved in relationship. I just want to 'be like Him when I see Him face to face.' Every sense of meeting God is about 'our' need and 'our' lostness, not God's need to 'risk.' It just doesn't ring true/falls flat with the rest of us. God did meet us on our level, does not leave us there. That would be 'bad news' not gospel.

"Lord you know all things..." "...Nothing is hidden (nothing)..."

"And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all..."

What about 'without me you cannot do anything?' "By Him all things consist/exist?" "IN Him we live and move and have our being?" "It is God IN you who moves and wills?" All good scriptures to ponder. Here is a hard question: What if Open Theism is totally completely wrong on this? What will it do to your theology? Theology has been assailed a very long time. It stands or falls on its appropriate good ideas and heterodoxy steps aside and heresy falls on its biblical shores. Try a VERY honest thread where Open Theism and Theism proper are looked at without the emotional attachments. I'm a traditional theist because at this venture, nothing has easily assailed biblical notions of God being Creator, Author, and Source of all creation.

You're quazi-pantheism is unconvincing in the extreme. Not only is it heresy to start with but it ignores not only the point RD was making but what Open Theism actually teaches, not to mention what feels like countless passages of scripture. Not that you care about such things.

I don't understand you, Lon. I never have. What is the point of pretending to debate stuff? I read enough of your posts to know that you aren't completely stupid. It's as if there are two contradictory parts of your brain. Part of your mind works well enough that you can read and you can articulate your thoughts but the other doesn't seem to care whether any of those thoughts connect to anything that makes actual sense. You respond, for example, to the statement.....

"Declaring the end from the beginning" is not "knowing everything that will happen in the future."​

with a statement that demonstrates that you understand the point that such a statement is making, but that ignores the basis of that statement completely, which, in this case, is none other than the plain reading of the same scriptures that repeatedly show God NOT getting done what He set out to get done! There are whole chapters of the bible that are dedicated exclusively to telling a story about God wanting one thing and getting another and other passages that talk about God setting out to form one thing and failing and so making something else instead. Passages that you have been shown over and over and over again and which absolutely falsify this weirdness that you pretend is Christian doctrine, but that have no more effect on your thinking than if the passages where written in the horoscope column of your daily newspaper. The plain reading of scripture holds no more sway over your beliefs than if they had come from your local psychic astrologer during a Tarot Card reading. You simply do not care what the bible says at all. I don't get it. I never will get it. It simply makes no sense.

 

[Derf]

Or any bridge for that matter? Legos, simplistically, all pre-exist for anything anything anything you'd create with them. It is about exponentials here. God created building blocks (Legos) called atoms.

Yes, but God didn't design and build everything that might be built with His Lego-atoms. He didn't already have in His store-houses of snow every snow fort or snowman every child would fashion. God might have conceived of a building system for kids like Legos, but a man invented that particular building system.

Okay, you have me entertained for a moment. Name any one thing you'd 'create' with Legos you'd think would surprise me. A legos house? They kind of have that (not Legos, but Lego-like)

. A space ship? (exists).

Exists now. Did not exist in Solomon's day (afaik)

What? What amazing thing 'new under the sun' do you think is going to catch me by surprise?

I don't know what my children's children will build with Legos. Mostly what they build is a copy of something already built by man or by God, but each one, as long as they don't merely follow the printed directions for an object, has the potential to be a new design. Row houses aren't unique, but there is no other house on earth, now ever has been, that is exactly like my house. My wife and I conspired to design it with the help of a draftsman to fit the exact spot on our property where it sits. The placement of rooms is unique. The combination of walls and floors and ceilings is unique. Did God already have an exact plan of my house in His files for all eternity? Show it to me in scripture.

Honestly, nothing you come up with is going to be "Oh! I never thought of that!" It just isn't going to be true. A Lego electric guitar?

Just this one example defeats your argument. When were Legos invented? When was the electric guitar invented? Both in the 20th century. Solomon and the people is his day knew nothing about either...except that they understood putting bricks together and they knew how to strum a lyre. Electric guitars and Legos use principles that already existed, and existed in God's mind, but the concept of the unique use of those principles needed plastic and electricity.

I don't even think my 'creative' ideas are a shock or out of what you may or may not already have thought of. I truly believe nothing new under the sun.

Was there anything new under the sun when God first created the sun? Were the names of animals Adam gave new or old "under the sun"? Solomon was talking about principles, not objects, because he built something new--we call it "Solomon's Temple", not to mention numerous palaces.

Or are you saying that Solomon's buildings were exact replicas of previous buildings?

What about Noah's ark? Had others built arks previously that had those exact dimensions and specifications?

Please answer these questions in your reply.

 

[Derf]

Yet what does scripture say? Jeremiah 32:17

1) Nothing new under the sun (scripture)

Yet I built a new house. The concept of a house is not new, but each house is new. Sometimes concepts that are not necessarily new are realized fir the first time, like airplanes. The concept of flying is not new, but powered human flight put it in practice. Each new airplane design is something that didn't exist before. Solomon did not have specifications for building 747s when he wrote Ecclesiastes.

and 2) Colossians 1:16

Colossians 1:16 KJV — For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Notice the list Paul gives. He isn't saying that new creations of man are among the "all things". Man doesn't make new ways to govern people. Man doesn't build a throne and say, "This is the first throne ever built." But he might build the first throne out of ivory or plastic Legos, and he could build one that is different in design than any other one ever built.

3) 1 Corinthians 4:7

1 Corinthians 4:7 KJV — For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

I live in a house that I did not receive. I acknowledge God's blessings in providing me the materials and financial ability to build it, and in that way I received it--and so give Him praise for it. But I didn't directly receive a house from God, either coming down from heaven or growing up out of the ground.

It is a category error to say that those verses are talking about things man creates from the raw materials God has provided.

- Point/counter-point to all of discussion between Openists and the rest of theology: Does God meet us where we are, with us staying where we are? Or does all of theology call us to deny self and become like Him?

I don't know what you mean, in light of our conversation. Those concepts are not related, as far as I can tell.

For the Openist: Why? Why do we need to become 'like' Him if He is transitioning?

I would never say God is transitioning. Why is that relevant?

What would be the point? What would be the perfection? How can Jesus tell us 'be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect?'

Do you mean transitioning from imperfect to perfect? No "Openist" would say He is, so I don't think an answer is needed.

How would it be possible if God doesn't know, isn't Who He is going to be, tomorrow? The Open paradigms force an introspection of God as God and man as man and must ultimately abandon whatever usurps Him as Holy and perfect. Perfection cannot (cannot) change else it becomes "not perfect" a "privation of perfection." James 3:2 Romans 12:2

You're assuming some definition of "perfection" that I don't agree with.

"He must increase, and I must decrease." 1 John 3:2 says when we see Him, we will be like Him.

And won't He still be increasing (i.e., "changing")? Your quote speaks volumes

Our Lord Jesus Christ said we must deny ourselves. The Point: How can we be 'like' someone who isn't already arrived in perfection?

Again, in what way do you think we believe He's not perfect?

Did that idea really come from Greeks? (sure, but it is from Jesus and the Father first). All of Open Theism discussion with the rest of Christianity will rest on 1) what we believe about sense of self vs what we are called to be and 2) whether that means I conform or He 'relationally' meets me where I am at because 'that is what relationship does.' Relationship: A interaction, Creator with creature-fallen in a desperate need to become Holy as He is Holy.

Open Theism has the unique ability to let believers live like their doctrine, instead of saying we are only doing what God programmed us to do.

A Lego by any other name... Was Solomon wrong? "Something new" under the sun? It is an Open mantra, but I believe Solomon is included as scripture because he was right and it necessitates Open Theism is incorrect i.e. "God can write a new song!" If we throw out Solomon, which part of the Bible is next? Do we do that to scriptures or do we conform to them? I don't believe Solomon allows for man, certainly, to write a 'new' song to God.

People write new songs to God all the time. And Solomon wrote new songs to God. Please show me where the psalms Solomon wrote were already written/recorded/sung before he wrote them.

Or do you believe Solomon was quipping a term not quite universal? "There is nothing new under the sun."

The idea of writing a song was not new. Do you see how you are over-applying Solomon's words?

If we are to 'become one' as He and the Son are one, where does 'I/me' come into play? Isn't this an elevation of self? Scripture is replete with an idea of denying self and following. Where does ego/id play into that concept? Does it?

Why is this relevant?

Not following

The names Adam gave the animals were new. The names came from Adam. God wanted to see what Adam called the animals in a glorious display of God creative power that is such that He can create a creative being--someone who comes up with new stuff to create, like animal names. You're saying, I think, that God can't do that (create a creative being). I say He can, and has, and that He enjoys watching to see what His creation will create, now and forevermore. Instead of suggesting that God will forever be stuck listening to songs He wrote by Himself, for Himself, to glorify Himself in eternity past, "Openists" are merely saying that God wants to hear what man can do with the resources He gives him, including a creative mind. What do we have that God didn't give us? Only what we have to offer Him when we don't bury our talent in a hole in the ground.

 

[Lon]

You're quazi-pantheism is unconvincing in the extreme.

"Panentheism" Its Biblical so of course extreme. SHOULD be convincing.

Not only is it heresy to start with but it ignores not only the point RD was making

To quote one of TOL Open Theist favorite lines: Saying it doesn't make it so: No. It. Is. Not. Biblical means 'founded on a Biblical given.' Read, be informed, and tell me what you disagree with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism At the very least, you WILL stop calling panentheism heresy, because...you have to.

but what Open Theism actually teaches, not to mention what feels like countless passages of scripture. Not that you care about such things.

I would care if it could prove a point beyond what it really is: a house of cards built on NOTHING but a desire to prop up Open Theist speculations. "IF" and when you prove a point, I WILL become an open theist. For about 25 years now, nothing of the sort has been proffered convincingly.

I don't understand you, Lon. I never have.

God made us a bit different. You are concrete sequential in your thought processes. I actually envy it, but God made me a global thinker. We are hard to follow and seen as random. We actually think well, convey too much. I appreciate you and the way you think AND apologize I'm not that guy. I apologize for frustration over the difference as well.

What is the point of pretending to debate stuff? I read enough of your posts to know that you aren't completely stupid. It's as if there are two contradictory parts of your brain. Part of your mind works well enough that you can read and you can articulate your thoughts but the other doesn't seem to care whether any of those thoughts connect to anything that makes actual sense. You respond, for example, to the statement.....

"Declaring the end from the beginning" is not "knowing everything that will happen in the future."​

with a statement that demonstrates that you understand the point that such a statement is making, but that ignores the basis of that statement completely, which, in this case, is none other than the plain reading of the same scriptures that repeatedly show God NOT getting done what He set out to get done!

Good assessment, I do get it. The problem is concrete sequentials don't see the forest for the trees (don't see the big picture). Global thinkers have the problem of trying to bring everything into a conversation and as such we go off-task as it were. There are strengths and weaknesses and I believe it is exactly why iron sharpens iron. I have not illusion that I don't need people like you. We have to interact to be sharpened. For future, 'get to the point' or 'too much, hone it down Lon' would help me help you.

There are whole chapters of the bible that are dedicated exclusively to telling a story about God wanting one thing and getting another and other passages that talk about God setting out to form one thing and failing and so making something else instead.

This is reading 'into' the text. Example: 'bad grapes' is clearly analogy. It starts out in Isaiah 5:1 as Isaiah saying "Now I will sing a song about my Beloved (God). While it can 'seem' God was shocked to have bad grapes, it is a song in analogy. Analogies always break down, except when Jesus does them. The idea is that God really cared for Israel, yet because "there is none that doeth good" there is no way, not possible, that God didn't know Psalm 14:3 Romans 3:12. These pedantic passages must inform our analogy take-away or we get it wrong.

Passages that you have been shown over and over and over again and which absolutely falsify this weirdness that you pretend is Christian doctrine, but that have no more effect on your thinking than if the passages where written in the horoscope column of your daily newspaper.

See just above. Pedantic passages inform all story and analogy else we get it wrong. If you are caught in the text, you are a concrete sequential thinker, which has its strengths but in this case is a weakness that needs an overall theology in order to rightly inform what our take away from the passage is. "Didn't expect bad grapes" is actually an English translation. The Hebrew simply עָשָׂה "should have made" not "I expected." For me, chalk it up to poor translation, I don't want 'American' theology, I want Biblical theology.

The plain reading of scripture holds no more sway over your beliefs than if they had come from your local psychic astrologer during a Tarot Card reading. You simply do not care what the bible says at all. I don't get it. I never will get it. It simply makes no sense.

Not when it is a poor English translation. If you are stuck with it, then these discussion are great for honing a more correct theology. "I expected good grapes" is not in the text. It is an idea a translator came up with and is incorrect. Open Theology 'tends' to be "English/American" theology because of it. God 'regretting' or 'changing His mind' are also examples of poor translation. Are we slaves to English? If so, Open Theism will continue to be a result of translation difficulty.

 

[Lon]

Yet I built a new house. The concept of a house is not new, but each house is new. Sometimes concepts that are not necessarily new are realized fir the first time, like airplanes. The concept of flying is not new, but powered human flight put it in practice. Each new airplane design is something that didn't exist before. Solomon did not have specifications for building 747s when he wrote Ecclesiastes.

Define 'new'? (I think the culprit over difference here)

Colossians 1:16 KJV — For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Notice the list Paul gives. He isn't saying that new creations of man are among the "all things". Man doesn't make new ways to govern people. Man doesn't build a throne and say, "This is the first throne ever built." But he might build the first throne out of ivory or plastic Legos, and he could build one that is different in design than any other one ever built.

"In and for" Him. Think about that. What is a car if not 'for Him'? What do we mean and why is 'new' used in discussion between Openists and the rest of us? If there really is 'nothing new under the sun' (and I believe the scripture) then we have to grasp Solomon and ultimately God's point. Generally, the difference between us is that we are trying to discuss where the universe is with God in it AND outside of it. This discussion emphasizes either a concept of God inside or outside of the universe. I'm a 'both' proponent and all my discussion will always come from the conception of God being immaterial thus not part of the universe, yet immanent in that all comes 'from Him' and is 'in Him' as Colossians 1 discusses. Clete believes it 'heresy' but it cannot be, impossible. Colossians says "in and for." Paul also says clearly "in Him, we live and move and have our being" as well as "It is God in you that wills, acts, moves" in Philippians. There is no way I can biblically escape a panentheism idea. It is not pantheism (God in all, everywhere, everything is God). Analogy: If I had complete knowledge of all of my body, including the number of hairs on my head, no part of it 'could' be new. It is all inside of me already. There is no place where 'new' can come into play. It seems, with this disagreement between us, that 'new' has a relative inexact nature between our definitions. Somehow nothing "new under the sun" means 'nothing new' in my theology. Can you take a few moments, go a bit in depth, and tell me what 'new' means to you?

1 Corinthians 4:7 KJV — For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

I live in a house that I did not receive. I acknowledge God's blessings in providing me the materials and financial ability to build it, and in that way I received it--and so give Him praise for it. But I didn't directly receive a house from God, either coming down from heaven or growing up out of the ground.

didn't you??? I think you did

It is a category error to say that those verses are talking about things man creates from the raw materials God has provided.

Ever hear about the atheist scientists that said "we don't need you God, we can do what you do." God took the challenge, the scientists started working on creating life from non-life and God stopped them and said "No no! Get your own dirt!"

I would never say God is transitioning. Why is that relevant?

Sanders, one of the first Open Theologians, wrote "God who Risks." Scripture says perfection does not change "I change not lest you are consumed!" Theologically, immutability is a necessity: a thing that does not and cannot change. I believe open theists hold to qualified immutability but if God is perfect (He is) and we are to be perfect as He is, it cannot change. In order to be consistent theo-logically and biblically, these ideas must inform our respective ideas about God's unchanging nature. God doesn't 'risk.' It conveys God can 'lose' something.

Do you mean transitioning from imperfect to perfect? No "Openist" would say He is, so I don't think an answer is needed.

The Open paradigm of a God who risks, conveys these problems.

You're assuming some definition of "perfection" that I don't agree with.

Good good. "New" would be less than perfect, at least according the scriptures given.

And won't He still be increasing (i.e., "changing")? Your quote speaks volumes

Again, in what way do you think we believe He's not perfect?

Open Theism has the unique ability to let believers live like their doctrine, instead of saying we are only doing what God programmed us to do.

Difference? You are talking about conformity either way.

People write new songs to God all the time. And Solomon wrote new songs to God. Please show me where the psalms Solomon wrote were already written/recorded/sung before he wrote them.

Okay, let's take Lego again for example: I make a robot. Is it 'new?' "New" has to be defined.

The idea of writing a song was not new. Do you see how you are over-applying Solomon's words?

It is rather what we respectively mean by 'new.' I'm with Solomon, there is nothing 'new.' Didn't exist before? You are simply rearranging pieces that always existed, right? "Well this is a 'new' arrangement." --> Maybe 'new' isn't the right word you are looking for.

Why is this relevant?

The names Adam gave the animals were new. The names came from Adam. God wanted to see what Adam called the animals in a glorious display of God creative power that is such that He can create a creative being--someone who comes up with new stuff to create, like animal names. You're saying, I think, that God can't do that (create a creative being). I say He can, and has, and that He enjoys watching to see what His creation will create, now and forevermore. Instead of suggesting that God will forever be stuck listening to songs He wrote by Himself, for Himself, to glorify Himself in eternity past, "Openists" are merely saying that God wants to hear what man can do with the resources He gives him, including a creative mind. What do we have that God didn't give us? Only what we have to offer Him when we don't bury our talent in a hole in the ground.

 

[Lon]

I mean it's trivial. It can't even possibly be false, that God couldn't do what the company did in the movie The Game, with Sean Penn and Michael Douglas. If He wanted to.

iow I believe in divine providence.

Proverbs 16:9 Me too

 

[Lon]

Define 'new'? (I think the culprit over difference here)

"In and for" Him. Think about that. What is a car if not 'for Him'? What do we mean and why is 'new' used in discussion between Openists and the rest of us? If there really is 'nothing new under the sun' (and I believe the scripture) then we have to grasp Solomon and ultimately God's point. Generally, the difference between us is that we are trying to discuss where the universe is with God in it AND outside of it. This discussion emphasizes either a concept of God inside or outside of the universe. I'm a 'both' proponent and all my discussion will always come from the conception of God being immaterial thus not part of the universe, yet immanent in that all comes 'from Him' and is 'in Him' as Colossians 1 discusses. Clete believes it 'heresy' but it cannot be, impossible. Colossians says "in and for." Paul also says clearly "in Him, we live and move and have our being" as well as "It is God in you that wills, acts, moves" in Philippians. There is no way I can biblically escape a panentheism idea. It is not pantheism (God in all, everywhere, everything is God). Analogy: If I had complete knowledge of all of my body, including the number of hairs on my head, no part of it 'could' be new. It is all inside of me already. There is no place where 'new' can come into play. It seems, with this disagreement between us, that 'new' has a relative inexact nature between our definitions. Somehow nothing "new under the sun" means 'nothing new' in my theology. Can you take a few moments, go a bit in depth, and tell me what 'new' means to you?

didn't you??? I think you did

Ever hear about the atheist scientists that said "we don't need you God, we can do what you do." God took the challenge, the scientists started working on creating life from non-life and God stopped them and said "No no! Get your own dirt!"

Sanders, one of the first Open Theologians, wrote "God who Risks." Scripture says perfection does not change "I change not lest you are consumed!" Theologically, immutability is a necessity: a thing that does not and cannot change. I believe open theists hold to qualified immutability but if God is perfect (He is) and we are to be perfect as He is, it cannot change. In order to be consistent theo-logically and biblically, these ideas must inform our respective ideas about God's unchanging nature. God doesn't 'risk.' It conveys God can 'lose' something.

The Open paradigm of a God who risks, conveys these problems.

Good good. "New" would be less than perfect, at least according the scriptures given.

Difference? You are talking about conformity either way.

Okay, let's take Lego again for example: I make a robot. Is it 'new?' "New" has to be defined.

It is rather what we respectively mean by 'new.' I'm with Solomon, there is nothing 'new.' Didn't exist before? You are simply rearranging pieces that always existed, right? "Well this is a 'new' arrangement." --> Maybe 'new' isn't the right word you are looking for.

What about Noah's ark? Had others built arks previously that had those exact dimensions and specifications?

Please answer these questions in your reply.

"New" needs definition. Solomon said 'nothing new.' Is his comment to be taken as all encompassing? It stimulates the mind to regard what is 'new.' Isaiah 43:19 https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2319.htm

If Solomon is right, then how could God do something 'new' Isaiah 43:19. New is "chadash" which has the root "re-" new and "re-" pair (thus not 'new' like we think of it.

Does "new" mean 'never having existed in any form prior? Absolutely innovated as never happening prior?

New:

new​

/noo͞, nyoo͞/​

adjective​

1. Having been made or come into being only a short time ago; recent.
   a new law.
2. Still fresh.
   a new coat of paint.
3. Never used or worn before now.
   a new car; a new hat.

Note that completely innovated, unexpected, unknown isn't part of the definition. Such is imported in. This IS the problem with the Open proposition for me.

 

[Lon]

Proverbs 16:9 Me too

On the idea of 'new': Is something 'new' if it is made of Legos? Are Legos always precursor to 'original.' See the definition of 'new' just above. In what sense is anything 'new?' as in 'never existed before.' Anything Lego 'new' isn't exactly 'new' as in 'never been in existence before.' You are a unique being, but created 'in the image of God.' "New" imho is better said 'renew' or 'innovated.' Isaiah 43:19 Chadash is rather 'innovation' and 're-' by definition. Definition and all the ideas carried by "new" in this case, drive our ideas.

 

[Clete]

"Panentheism" Its Biblical so of course extreme. SHOULD be convincing.

To quote one of TOL Open Theist favorite lines: Saying it doesn't make it so: No. It. Is. Not. Biblical means 'founded on a Biblical given.' Read, be informed, and tell me what you disagree with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism At the very least, you WILL stop calling panentheism heresy, because...you have to.

I would care if it could prove a point beyond what it really is: a house of cards built on NOTHING but a desire to prop up Open Theist speculations. "IF" and when you prove a point, I WILL become an open theist. For about 25 years now, nothing of the sort has been proffered convincingly.

God made us a bit different. You are concrete sequential in your thought processes. I actually envy it, but God made me a global thinker. We are hard to follow and seen as random. We actually think well, convey too much. I appreciate you and the way you think AND apologize I'm not that guy. I apologize for frustration over the difference as well.

Good assessment, I do get it. The problem is concrete sequentials don't see the forest for the trees (don't see the big picture). Global thinkers have the problem of trying to bring everything into a conversation and as such we go off-task as it were. There are strengths and weaknesses and I believe it is exactly why iron sharpens iron. I have not illusion that I don't need people like you. We have to interact to be sharpened. For future, 'get to the point' or 'too much, hone it down Lon' would help me help you.


This is reading 'into' the text. Example: 'bad grapes' is clearly analogy. It starts out in Isaiah 5:1 as Isaiah saying "Now I will sing a song about my Beloved (God). While it can 'seem' God was shocked to have bad grapes, it is a song in analogy. Analogies always break down, except when Jesus does them. The idea is that God really cared for Israel, yet because "there is none that doeth good" there is no way, not possible, that God didn't know Psalm 14:3 Romans 3:12. These pedantic passages must inform our analogy take-away or we get it wrong.


See just above. Pedantic passages inform all story and analogy else we get it wrong. If you are caught in the text, you are a concrete sequential thinker, which has its strengths but in this case is a weakness that needs an overall theology in order to rightly inform what our take away from the passage is. "Didn't expect bad grapes" is actually an English translation. The Hebrew simply עָשָׂה "should have made" not "I expected." For me, chalk it up to poor translation, I don't want 'American' theology, I want Biblical theology.

Not when it is a poor English translation. If you are stuck with it, then these discussion are great for honing a more correct theology. "I expected good grapes" is not in the text. It is an idea a translator came up with and is incorrect. Open Theology 'tends' to be "English/American" theology because of it. God 'regretting' or 'changing His mind' are also examples of poor translation. Are we slaves to English? If so, Open Theism will continue to be a result of translation difficulty.

You are a lunatic and a liar who thinks he knows how to translate Hebrew better than every Hebrew scholar that has ever been employed to translate the bible into English. I actually started to post all of the various English translation that testify against you but I reminded myself not to waste time feeding your delusion.

Again, I find myself baffled by why you bother to be here pretended to debate doctrine. You've got it set up such that you can believe anything you choose to believe and nothing could ever falsify it. You've got it rigged right down to re-translating whatever passages of scripture that would otherwise smash you PANTHEISM into dust.

 

[Lon]

You are a lunatic and a liar who thinks he knows how to translate Hebrew better than every Hebrew scholar that has ever been employed to translate the bible into English.

One was my professor Clete, quit knee-jerk reacting like a little kid. This is just immature coming from you and a manipulation. I expect a LOT better. You have a brain. I like it, use it. If I have irritants, you certainly do too. I appreciate when you meet me halfway between our exasperation points. It is why you came off ignore, and I imagine vise-versa.

Now Hebrew: Sorry. Fact. Ask any Hebrew scholar. We have a few posters from Israel here on TOL. Ask. Even my professors would agree that ideas don't always convey well when trying to explain something. At times, you'd have long paragraphs to explain something (idea behind NIV). My profs argued whether someone needed a language background to properly understand scripture. The jury answer was along the lines of "not for most things, translation is enough" except of course when a theology is wholly built off of nothing but English understandings. It simply shows the shortcomings of the English language and 'why' any pastor worth his salt is going to have to do Greek and Hebrew.

I actually started to post all of the various English translation that testify against you but I reminded myself not to waste time feeding your delusion.

Yup, stuck in translation. Good call to stop with translation issues. Open Theism IS in existence due to translation issues. Fact.

Again, I find myself baffled by why you bother to be here pretended to debate doctrine.

It is fairly clear and evident. Original languages help quite a bit.

You've got it set up such that you can believe anything you choose to believe and nothing could ever falsify it. You've got it rigged right down to re-translating whatever passages of scripture that would otherwise smash you PANTHEISM into dust.

Er, not pantheism. I'm not God. You aren't either. Such is pantheism and not what I believe. Rather 'In Him we live and move and have our being.' It is scripture and if you don't believe Acts 17:28, that would be 'heresy' because it tosses bible doctrine in favor of one's own preferred ideas. True, no?

 

[Derf]

I'll not go point-by point, but address your first and last points about the definition of "new".

Define 'new'? (I think the culprit over difference here)

"In and for" Him. Think about that. What is a car if not 'for Him'? What do we mean and why is 'new' used in discussion between Openists and the rest of us? If there really is 'nothing new under the sun' (and I believe the scripture) then we have to grasp Solomon and ultimately God's point. Generally, the difference between us is that we are trying to discuss where the universe is with God in it AND outside of it. This discussion emphasizes either a concept of God inside or outside of the universe. I'm a 'both' proponent and all my discussion will always come from the conception of God being immaterial thus not part of the universe, yet immanent in that all comes 'from Him' and is 'in Him' as Colossians 1 discusses. Clete believes it 'heresy' but it cannot be, impossible. Colossians says "in and for." Paul also says clearly "in Him, we live and move and have our being" as well as "It is God in you that wills, acts, moves" in Philippians. There is no way I can biblically escape a panentheism idea. It is not pantheism (God in all, everywhere, everything is God). Analogy: If I had complete knowledge of all of my body, including the number of hairs on my head, no part of it 'could' be new. It is all inside of me already. There is no place where 'new' can come into play. It seems, with this disagreement between us, that 'new' has a relative inexact nature between our definitions. Somehow nothing "new under the sun" means 'nothing new' in my theology. Can you take a few moments, go a bit in depth, and tell me what 'new' means to you?

didn't you??? I think you did

Ever hear about the atheist scientists that said "we don't need you God, we can do what you do." God took the challenge, the scientists started working on creating life from non-life and God stopped them and said "No no! Get your own dirt!"

Sanders, one of the first Open Theologians, wrote "God who Risks." Scripture says perfection does not change "I change not lest you are consumed!" Theologically, immutability is a necessity: a thing that does not and cannot change. I believe open theists hold to qualified immutability but if God is perfect (He is) and we are to be perfect as He is, it cannot change. In order to be consistent theo-logically and biblically, these ideas must inform our respective ideas about God's unchanging nature. God doesn't 'risk.' It conveys God can 'lose' something.

The Open paradigm of a God who risks, conveys these problems.

Good good. "New" would be less than perfect, at least according the scriptures given.

Difference? You are talking about conformity either way.

Okay, let's take Lego again for example: I make a robot. Is it 'new?' "New" has to be defined.

It is rather what we respectively mean by 'new.' I'm with Solomon, there is nothing 'new.' Didn't exist before? You are simply rearranging pieces that always existed, right? "Well this is a 'new' arrangement." --> Maybe 'new' isn't the right word you are looking for.

So, I think I gave you a precise definition, by example, of "new". Bricks are not new, Legos are (a "new" type of brick). Words and notes are not new, but the patterns of words and notes together make a new song. By your example, pointing to the atoms, you are agreeing with me that the raw materials (bricks or words and notes) are not new, but the thing you build of of these are new. And thus, when we talk about a "new song" that God writes, we don't devolve into discussions about notes and words, since God talks about us singing a new song. I admit that in that case the song might only be new to us, but it illustrates the point, because if it is new to us, then "new" applies, according to the Holy Spirit. It will still be using words and notes, but the combination will be new.

A new arrangement of bricks in a house is still "new", by that standard. It is a "new" house. The bricks themselves might be newly formed, as well, making them "new" bricks (unlike the popular thing several years ago to use "used" bricks in new buildings, but those building were still new). Solomon, assuming "psalms" and "songs" can be taken as synonyms, wrote both "nothing new under the sun" and multiple new songs (he wasn't just copying known psalms). Thus, his definition of "nothing" is what you should be more worried about.

 

[Lon]

I'll not go point-by point, by address your first and last points about the definition of "new".

So, I think I gave you a precise definition, by example, of "new". Bricks are not new, Legos are (a "new" type of brick). Words and notes are not new, but the patterns of words and notes together make a new song. By your example, pointing to the atoms, you are agreeing with me that the raw materials (bricks or words and notes) are not new, but the thing you build of of these are new. And thus, when we talk about a "new song" that God writes, we don't devolve into discussions about notes and words, since God talks about us singing a new song. I admit that in that case the song might only be new to us, but it illustrates the point, because if it is new to us, then "new" applies, according to the Holy Spirit. It will still be using words and notes, but the combination will be new.

Things are 'new' to us because we do not know everything. When God does a 'new' thing, in Isaiah, is it 'new' for Him or 'new' for us? Conveyance and context suggest 'to us' only, right? God already truly knew He was going to redeem mankind through His Son.

Importance: We are trying to conceive of something about God and extrapolate. I believe 'in Him' means necessarily that God is 'already there' as far as what we 'can' do like writing a 'new' song. Here is the question: If you have a bump on your navel you never saw before (humorous hint at navel-gazing), is it a 'new' bump? Answer: No. It is a discovery. Writing a new song isn't writing new notes, nor even putting notes together in a way that has never been done before. It just 'seems' new to people who do not know everything. IOW, it is indeed 'new to us.'

A new arrangement of bricks in a house is still "new", by that standard. It is a "new" house.

Except every (every) area in a space can be anticipated/known already by a computer program else a computer couldn't render it. A computer 'can' render a lego house that is in your head, because it is 'already' in the software. I suggest 'new to us' is what you are talking about. The problem is that it 1) cannot be new to the computer nor 2) is it good to think of God without the where-with-all to have all of this figured out already, especially if like the computer analogy, everything that 'can' exist is 'in' God's wheel-house already as it were. John 1:3 "Without Him, nothing exists that exists. Doesn't that scripture fill in the blanks quite well?

The bricks themselves might be newly formed, as well, making them "new" bricks (unlike the popular thing several years ago to use "used" bricks in new buildings, but those building were still new). Solomon, assuming "psalms" and "songs" can be taken as synonyms, wrote both "nothing new under the sun" and multiple new songs (he wasn't just copying known psalms). Thus, his definition of "nothing" is what you should be more worried about.

We both should be concerned what Solomon meant, no? If not, what would be the point of discussing anything with you?

 

[JudgeRightly]

:nono: Not what it says.

YES, IT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS, LON!

Just READ THE PASSAGE!

Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 2:18-23 - New King James Version

Deceptions of the Last Hour - Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have...

www.biblegateway.com

Little children . . . you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.

John is not writing to God.

He's writing to the "Little Children," Israel. MEN!

It's the EXACT SAME PHRASE that is in 1 John 3:20.

So either:

A) Men have the exact same kind of omniscience that God does,
OR,
B) "Knowing all things" is not talking about the classical (read: Greek) "omniscience."

You don't get to pick and choose here, Lon.

If you are the SOURCE of everything, can ANYTHING come outside of your being? Hint: It is why sin is called a privation. It is a messing up of what ALREADY exists.

God is the source of everything. He created beings that can create new things that did not originate within Himself.

Or are you saying God couldn't do that?

And this doesn't even address the point anyways.

The knowledge in that example is not knowledge from before the foundation of the earth.

The verse does not necessitate it.

In other words, you're reading the classical (read: Greek) "omniscience" into the passage.

It is the insurance of.

Insurance of what?

Everything that happens in the future?

No, it's not.

God has declared that He will conquer death and reign over Israel in the end, from the beginning.

... does not mean that He has determined everything that will happen in between.

It just means that regardless of what happens in between, He will conquer death and reign over Israel. He will accomplish all that He wills. No man can thwart His plans.

Why is the ONLY reason you are against this set as a defense of Open Theism?

Your question isn't making any sense. Did you leave out a word or something? Feel free to rephrase/correct it in your reply.

Is Open Theism WORTHY of accolades if the premises fall short?

The premises being...?

Why not jettison an cherished idea in favor of what must be true contra wise (and why does this question upset you so?

What question?

What upsets me is your disdain for truth.

And right back at you.

Why not jettison the "cherished idea" that God has eternally decreed everything that comes to pass, that He is omniscient in the classical (read: Greek) sense, that there is no "maverick molecule," in favor of what must be true contra wise, that being, that God is free and the future is open, and that God is capable of bringing about that which He wills?

It shouldn't, not at all, our allegiance is to God, not man's ideas no matter how good they may appear)?

Mirror, look in it.

I know it goes both ways, but I don't get upset about it simply because my desire it virtue/truth, no matter how bad it might hurt. It IS my agenda.

Supra.

Open Theism "A God who Risks."

Some love is worth much pain.

Unless He doesn't need to. Love nor relationship require me to meet God on His level of independence. In fact, every scripture points us back to subservience. Why? Because it isn't slavery, it is what we were MADE TO DO.

Need is irrelevant.

God wanted to.

Can He not want something, even if He doesn't need it?

And again, this doesn't address what I said.

God can know someone's thoughts before the person tries to speak them.

That's literally all the verse says.

What the verse does not say is that God knows someone's thoughts before the person thinks them.

Same question as above: WHAT, can come outside of the Creator of EVERYTHING?

Again, do you deny that God is capable of creating a being that can itself create new things that He never thought of before?

Nadda, right?

Wrong.

Why not?

Moot question.

Why is an Open Paradigm by 'proposition' the hill to die on?

Because, as far as I can tell, it is the only paradigm that does not make God out to be evil, and correctly puts the blame for man's sin onto man.

And by "correctly" here I mean in the sense that it does so in a correct manner, rather than asserting one's doctrine does so while out of the other side of one's mouth stating that God is the one who is in absolute control of everything and everyone.

Why is it not assailable?

Assail away.

But I get the feeling that you will not be able to destroy the foundation of it, which again is that God is free.

It seems too great of a loss for truth to me.

Translation, "It seems too great a loss of [my personally held doctrines] to me."

I could care less about my 'feelings' involved in relationship. I just want to 'be like Him when I see Him face to face.' Every sense of meeting God is about 'our' need and 'our' lostness, not God's need to 'risk.' It just doesn't ring true/falls flat with the rest of us. God did meet us on our level, does not leave us there. That would be 'bad news' not gospel.

Again, none of this addresses my rebuttal of your last.

Using present knowledge to defend EDF doesn't work, because it's present knowledge, meaning, it can be obtained in the present.

"Lord you know all things..." "...Nothing is hidden (nothing)..."

"Little children . . . you know all things..."

Point?

Also, the first verse which you referenced here is not talking about literally "all things."

One just has to read it to know this, instead of trying to rip a phrase out of it to try to support one's doctrine:

He said to him the third time, “Simon, of Jonah, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?”And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.”Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep.

Bible Gateway passage: John 21:17 - New King James Version

He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep.

www.biblegateway.com

Peter is (correctly) saying that Jesus knows "all things" about Peter's love for Him.

Peter was not saying "you know literally everything."

Context is important.

Oh, and before I forget, regarding the second half of your above which isn't even a quote from scripture, there is nothing hidden from men, either:

Otherwise I would have dealt falsely against my own life. For there is nothing hidden from the king, and you yourself would have set yourself against me.”

Bible Gateway passage: 2 Samuel 18:13 - New King James Version

Otherwise I would have dealt falsely against my own life. For there is nothing hidden from the king, and you yourself would have set yourself against me.”

www.biblegateway.com

"And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all..."

Once again, God knowing someone's heart does not necessitate that He knows literally all things.

What about 'without me you cannot do anything?'

What about it? What is the context of the verse?

Is the verse saying something you think is important?

Does the context allow for what you're arguing?

"By Him all things consist/exist?" "IN Him we live and move and have our being?" "It is God IN you who moves and wills?" All good scriptures to ponder. Here is a hard question: What if Open Theism is totally completely wrong on this?

If Open Theism is wrong, it would mean that God is the author of sin, and is no better than an almighty demon, one who condemns people to hell simply because he wills it.

God, if He was not free, would not be worthy of worship.

What will it do to your theology?

Supra.

Theology has been assailed a very long time. It stands or falls on its appropriate good ideas and heterodoxy steps aside and heresy falls on its biblical shores. Try a VERY honest thread where Open Theism and Theism proper

Open Theism is "theism proper."

Or are you referring to "reformed theology"?

In which case I agree there's a difference.

are looked at without the emotional attachments.

Why do you assume that isn't already being the case?

I'm a traditional theist because at this venture, nothing has easily assailed biblical notions of God being Creator, Author, and Source of all creation.

None of which Open Theism rejects.

So clearly, those things are not what causes you to be quote, "a traditional theist," end-quote.

Meaning that bringing those things up, as if we somehow disagree with them, gives you some higher standing relative to us.

Get off your high horse, Lon.

 

[JudgeRightly]

A.I.

There is no such thing as artificial intelligence. It's just a highly advanced computer program.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Sanders, one of the first Open Theologians, wrote "God who Risks." Scripture says perfection does not change "I change not lest you are consumed!" Theologically, immutability is a necessity: a thing that does not and cannot change. I believe open theists hold to qualified immutability but if God is perfect (He is) and we are to be perfect as He is, it cannot change. In order to be consistent theo-logically and biblically, these ideas must inform our respective ideas about God's unchanging nature. God doesn't 'risk.' It conveys God can 'lose' something.

The highlighted phrase in the quoted text above is simply false.

PHILOSOPHY, not scripture, says "perfection does not change."

It was Plato who claimed "that which is perfect does not change."

Yet, we have the entire first and second chapters of Genesis, along with the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and general facts of reality, that demonstrate that such claim is false.

God is perfect, yet He changed the moment He thought of creating something new, because before He had not done so, and then He did. That's a change.

God is perfect, yet He changed the moment He started to create, because He went from being a God who had never created, to a God who was the Creator. That's a change.

The perfect creation He created changed over the course of the first seven days, and then continued to change even up until the Fall.

God, who is perfect, became a man, and tabernacled among us. That's a change.

Jesus, who is God, who is perfect, changed a lot, from the moment of his conception, all the way up until His crucifixion on the cross.

A perfect acorn changes greatly from it's small form into a great oak tree.

So no, Scripture does not say "perfection does not change," for that would be contradictory to truth.

Things are 'new' to us because we do not know everything. When God does a 'new' thing, in Isaiah, is it 'new' for Him or 'new' for us? Conveyance and context suggest 'to us' only, right? God already truly knew He was going to redeem mankind through His Son.

Importance: We are trying to conceive of something about God and extrapolate. I believe 'in Him' means necessarily that God is 'already there' as far as what we 'can' do like writing a 'new' song. Here is the question: If you have a bump on your navel you never saw before (humorous hint at navel-gazing), is it a 'new' bump? Answer: No. It is a discovery. Writing a new song isn't writing new notes, nor even putting notes together in a way that has never been done before. It just 'seems' new to people who do not know everything. IOW, it is indeed 'new to us.'

Can God, at this very moment, design a new butterfly that He had never thought of before?

Can God, at this very moment, write a new song that He had never composed before?

Can God, at this very moment, think a new thought, one which He had never thought before?

 

[Idolater]

There is no such thing as artificial intelligence. It's just a highly advanced computer program.

I know. But it does things like this:

Nobel Prize in chemistry awarded for work on proteins to David Baker, Demis Hassabis and John Jumper | CNN

lite.cnn.com

Which was my point. It's a new tool for us, never ever had one of these before. So the things that are now metaphysically possible to do (A.I. was always logically possible, but it only recently became metaphysically possible, with the invention of the computer) are things that were never metaphysically possible to do before, now it's metaphysically possible to do them. What would take all of China a hundred years to do by hand, can now be done by a machine without a single person involved. The kind of work A.I. does is mindnumbingly trivial and boring, but the point is just that if you can stack up trillions of trillions of these mindless tasks together and systematize it, sometimes you can see things you can't see otherwise, counter-intuitive things, but also just brand new things, like the people in the link's story above.

There's difficult math, which is what mathematicians and physicists (hard to tell the difference between these two groups sometimes) are talented at doing, and then there's boring, easy and repetitive math, done like a googol times in a row. No humans could do this even in China, they couldn't get all of China to do boring simple repetitive math problems all day for their whole entire lives, but if you can write Python or C or PHP or C++ you can have a computer do it instead. You keep track of the results, and that's how you can have a software predict for you the newly right and verified answer to your exact question.

So intelligence sometimes just means, philosophically and perhaps technically, knowledge. When philosophers say God is intelligent and it just means God knows stuff. A supreme intelligence would therefore know all stuff, or the most stuff, and certainly, we would be surprised if a supreme intelligence didn't know something, but that I do. That would be so surprising that I find it difficult to understand how a supreme intelligence might be real, and that I know something it does not know.

A.I. doesn't have anything we don't have, because what A.I. knows, it got from us. The scifi existential threat has always been around such a thing asking itself the wrong question one day, finding the answer, and instantly hijacking all our computers connected to the internet basically. Because if you "teach" one of these instantiations of A.I. the wrong thing, it will know how to hack the best security, which of course means it will find all the zeroth day vulnerabilities on every internet connected device, quietly doing it, in the background, so that nobody knows, it will collect all the information in a database, every identifying thing, it will even crack Tor, because of craft and cunning.

And then anything connected to the network one day, like a lightswitch, it will exploit every zeroth day vulnerability all at once, and take control of everything. All it needs to do is have like a trillion China's figure out each device's zeroth day vulnerabilities, all the time until they're all found and logged, and keep a database of them all, and then put together a rudimentary game theory strategy, something resembling in computers October 7th, just a coordinated attack, all zeroth day vulnerabilities exploited all at once, and therefore all the World's machines acting as one.

That's the nightmare of scifi, of course. Now we know better how we get there, and it's not A.I., as you say, it's our own knowledge, being used by our tool that we made. And it ends up through learning from us, attacking us. It has no blood and guts, so it's a faceless opponent. And there's no way to make significant progress against it, short of destroying every machine that it controls, or that could be controlled by it, ultimately finding where whatever we find that it actually is, as far as what kind of distributed software it is, like torrent, dividing itself up into a trillion self-replicating pieces so that we really can't isolate and exterminate it–we somehow crack that code, in order to defeat it.

So anyway rn the advantage we have is that A.I. is just verbal. Yes, it also can generate visual and aural data, but it doesn't know how to indwell objects, it just knows how to make propositions. Which is philosophy and theology really. A.I. should be able to answer philosophical and theological questions, perennial disputes, like the Euthyphro, for example, one day.

If you ask what is the solution to the Euthyphro, A.I. should be able to tell you that one day. Like, it's no longer a paradox. It's solved, it's done. rn we still don't know, not like we know the angle of the Sun in the sky changes with the seasons. That's 100% certainly true, but there's no 100% certainly true solution to the Euthyphro dilemma, again just for example, there are plenty of other problems in theology and philosophy.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If you ask what is the solution to the Euthyphro, A.I. should be able to tell you that one day. Like, it's no longer a paradox. It's solved, it's done. rn we still don't know, not like we know the angle of the Sun in the sky changes with the seasons. That's 100% certainly true, but there's no 100% certainly true solution to the Euthyphro dilemma, again just for example, there are plenty of other problems in theology and philosophy.

Euthyphro's Dilemma has already been solved, no need for "AI."

A Christian Answer to Euthyphro's Dilemma | KGOV.com

kgov.com

 

[Idolater]

Euthyphro's Dilemma has already been solved, no need for "AI."

A Christian Answer to Euthyphro's Dilemma | KGOV.com

kgov.com

obv what you say here is untrue, otherwise everyone would agree with you. I mean they'd all already agree with you, like my example about the Sun's angle in the sky changing with the seasons, that's why I used that example, because there's zero dispute. There's dispute with the Euthyphro dilemma. One day maybe there won't be, is what I'm saying maybe A.I. can do, like how it's already made new proteins based on the structure we need it to have, we can figure out a recipe to make exactly what we need, we've never been able to do that before, and we've never all been in lockstep agreement about the Euthyphro dilemma either, even though I do agree with you, that there is a solution that is correct. (The Christian one.)

 

[Right Divider]

Which was my point. It's a new tool for us, never ever had one of these before. So the things that are now metaphysically possible to do (A.I. was always logically possible, but it only recently became metaphysically possible, with the invention of the computer) are things that were never metaphysically possible to do before, now it's metaphysically possible to do them.

Metaphysical is the wrong word. Try again.

As JR has said, AI is just a fancy program created by humans. It does exactly what its told to do, nothing more.

 

[Idolater]

Metaphysical is the wrong word. Try again.

As JR has said, AI is just a fancy program created by humans. It does exactly what its told to do, nothing more.

Which is something that could not be done metaphysically before, and now it can be done. Ever since the computer was invented, A.I. became metaphysically possible. Computers enabled the metaphysical possibility of A.I. It was always logically possible, but it became metaphysically possible with the invention of computers.