Proof from the Bible that God is In Time

[Lighthouse]

It makes perfect sense if you just think about it.

If it did you would be able to lay it out, plainly.

Okay, a line is infinite. As soon as you put a point on it, it is no longer a line but two rays and has properties of both finite point of origin and infinite properties. In other words, it stops being infinite because you are constraining it with the finite, in this case two rays extending from the 'finite' point.

The problem is trying to put an arbitrary point of consideration on His infinite existence. It is trying to force God to be 'finite.' The point automatically redacts Him being infinite. God does this entering and interacting with us in our perceptions thus time, but those are 'His' meaningful and eternal points, because He is eternal.
In other words, He qualifies/quantifies us, we do not quantify or qualify Him. The infinite can measure what is finite (measurable) but the finite cannot measure what by definition has no measure.

Okay, first of all, time is only conceived because of physical properties. Without it, there is no way to measure duration. The have done experiments with people, even on a recent episode of BrainGames, where people were deprived of some senses and lost capability of gauging duration. Because God does not change, even if only for an Open Theist's understanding of immutability, that aspect is beyond space, time, and any other measurement. Why? Because to what every even the OV allows immutability, there is no change. No change = no duration.
Example <--------------------> This line will never change. It goes both ways to infinity and cannot be measured. You can't measure an infinite line and you can only observe the segment of it that is within our physical area of ability.

Because God is 'infinite' and measure is 'finite' you cannot measure Him with anything. Like the segment in the line above, you can only do so with what every portion of Him interacts with us. We do not know all of God.

True, but these are important principles that are true nontheless.

Time is a concept, but its impetus is observation. In other words, without our 5 senses, there is no sense of duration. I can but point to tests done to show this, but remembering God has an infinite past (that in our language is 'still going' by conception, already means God escapes what we know of time. We never do nothing, so are always sensing duration (doing something). When we sleep, there is no time. You do not lie there for 8 hours knowing you are lying there for eight hours (sans insomnia). You lie down, close your eyes, and instantly are awake, yet 8 hours (or so) has past. Also, we do travel to the past and see the past, believe it or not. For instance, we know that we see stars that exploded well before we were born, yet we can watch it 'as it happened' when Moses was a live because it is still happening when we see it. That is, the manifestation is now with us of something that happened hundreds of years ago. We literally watch it explode 'now.' And here is the mind boggler: It no longer exists! At the moment we are watching the explosion on a telescope, the even is happening before our eyes, yet the star hasn't existed for hundreds of years.

The point, if we can already travel in a limited manner backwards in time, then God, who is infinite and all powerful, is infinitely more able than we. On top of that, we are talking about a 'physical' thing. God is Spirit.

I missed this as you pushed your response altogether, but no, it is no house of sand. Mathematics and science help us at least partially understand and establish what is infinite. It is in comparing the two that we get small glimpses and here are several given.

Why do I even bother?

 

[Lon]

Why do I even bother?

One line is all you could muster?

There is a little bit of 'inequity.'

Just sayin'

In repeat:

True, but these are important principles that are true nontheless

If you can't understand the proofs, it doesn't mean they aren't true. It means you don't get them.

 

[Letsargue]

One line is all you could muster?

There is a little bit of 'inequity.'

Just sayin'

In repeat:

If you can't understand the proofs, it doesn't mean they aren't true. It means you don't get them.

Understand what Proofs???; - Proofs are Written!! - You've given Nothing, but your own talk on this Topic. - You did good on the other topic that the Scriptures agreed with you on!! - But this one, --- you have nothing to say by the mouth and voice of Christ!!!

Paul -- 071213

 

[Lighthouse]

One line is all you could muster?

I started out to say more, then I realized it was pointless.

There is a little bit of 'inequity.'

Just sayin'

You're not saying much of anything.

In repeat:

If you can't understand the proofs, it doesn't mean they aren't true. It means you don't get them.

What proofs? You haven't given any. All you've done is make statements and fail to support any of them. You haven't even given illogical evidence for your statements; as I said previously, you haven't offered a foundation; neither of rock nor of sand.

 

[Lon]

I started out to say more, then I realized it was pointless.


You're not saying much of anything.


What proofs? You haven't given any. All you've done is make statements and fail to support any of them. You haven't even given illogical evidence for your statements; as I said previously, you haven't offered a foundation; neither of rock nor of sand.

Just because you don't understand the proof doesn't mean it isn't a proof!

<---------------l---------------------l--------------->

There is no finiteness to a line other than as it interacts with random and finite points. If it is arbitrary and random, are we really measuring anything? Can we 'measure' a line? No. We measure segments and such. We cannot measure the infinite.
In the same way, we cannot address an infinite past with time because there is no starting place to set a clock to! Duration requires measurement.
There is no finiteness to God other than as He interacts with His finite creatures.

You can say 2+2=4 is an assertion but it is a fact as well. The proof is stated within itself.

The same with my statements above. I can break them down but it'd be pedantic, like trying to slowly and clearly tell you why two plus two equals four. The proof requires that you know at least some basics. If you don't, this thread is going to become very very long. Why do you think the others left the thread? They know the above is true.

 

[Letsargue]

Just because you don't understand the proof doesn't mean it isn't a proof!


You can say 2+2=4 is an assertion but it is a fact as well. The proof is stated within itself.

The same with my statements above. I can break them down but it'd be pedantic, like trying to slowly and clearly tell you why two plus two equals four. The proof requires that you know at least some basics. If you don't, this thread is going to become very very long. Why do you think the others left the thread? They know the above is true.

Just like THIS!!! – What does this have to do with “TIME”?? - But this is the way most of you all try to Win your Arguments!! – You’ll use this for your win and won’t let go, (( SO Go ahead and Win your Way ))!! – Time is still just the comparison between different Lengths of Events!! – Events take different Times every Time. There are no exact same Time, or Times of any Events. Every Event is a different Time of an Event. – How old is the Universe?? – How ever many TIMES the Earth has gone around the Sun!!! – The Earth hasn’t been here that many Times to answer the question in YEARS!!! – If not Years, - then not Decades either, or Centuries. How about using; - The Universe is (( One Time )), and that Time ( Never ) started and can never End!! – What do you do with the Universal Time, half it, or Trillionth it?? – The Universe is made up of all events at the same Time, or it couldn’t be ( Observed ). Every Event, or Time of all events must be at this very same Time of Event, or you can't observe ( This ) / "Present" Time / Event!!

There is nothing like Geniuses, who think Time is something that can be Eventful and Observed in itself: - (( “Oh!! - I saw Time today; - it looked real Good to me” ))!! – ( Time, or Times, cannot be Eventful in itself ). Show us how that can happen; - Any Time!!! – There is no way you can describe anything without describing (( Events ))!!!

Paul – 071313

 

[Lighthouse]

Just because you don't understand the proof doesn't mean it isn't a proof!


You can say 2+2=4 is an assertion but it is a fact as well. The proof is stated within itself.

The same with my statements above. I can break them down but it'd be pedantic, like trying to slowly and clearly tell you why two plus two equals four. The proof requires that you know at least some basics. If you don't, this thread is going to become very very long. Why do you think the others left the thread? They know the above is true.

And here you are dumb enough to think my argument is about the infinite nature of lines. I know lines are infinite, and segments are finite. I know "points" on a line are finite, but that there are an infinite number of them on said line; as said line is infinite. I also know that we cannot measure infinity; I also know we are not God.

My argument is with the statement that duration requires measurement. It does not. It requires experience, e.g. a cognizant being to experience the passing of moments. God was that being before creation.

Your argument that God experienced nothing before creation is a falsity.

 

[Letsargue]

And here you are dumb enough to think my argument is about the infinite nature of lines. I know lines are infinite, and segments are finite. I know "points" on a line are finite, but that there are an infinite number of them on said line; as said line is infinite. I also know that we cannot measure infinity; I also know we are not God.

My argument is with the statement that duration requires measurement. It does not. It requires experience, e.g. a cognizant being to experience the passing of moments. God was that being before creation.

Your argument that God experienced nothing before creation is a falsity.

( What God was or Doing “Before” the Creation ). -- That’s what my up and coming Thread on my Blog is going to be about, when I get it Written.

I can't ( run ) the Computer and the Air Conditioner at the same ( "TIME" )!! - They are two things having there own ((( "TIME" / Events )))!! - I have to ( shut ) the Computer off ( Now ). -- Things don't ( work ) by some Universal Time Thing!!! - A drunk, - ( driving ) are two things that don't ( work ) in some ~(( Time Apmosphere )), but ( get ) in each others "WAY" of their (( Events ))!!

Paul -- 071313

 

[Lon]

And here you are dumb enough to think my argument is about the infinite nature of lines.

The problem? I'm not dumb at all and you are missing the connect. All measurements are within the field of mathematics and all of them help us understand the other. 2+2=4 works in inches and minutes.
If I prove one, I've proved the other. It matters if you understand or not, but it doesn't change a truth if you do not.

I know lines are infinite, and segments are finite. I know "points" on a line are finite, but that there are an infinite number of them on said line; as said line is infinite. I also know that we cannot measure infinity; I also know we are not God.

:up:

My argument is with the statement that duration requires measurement. It does not. It requires experience, e.g. a cognizant being to experience the passing of moments. God was that being before creation.

That is 'measuring.' It doesn't matter if you are cognizant that you are taking stock, nor if it is accurate or not. Such is a construct by our finite minds. Being a construct means we 'make it up.' God is not constrained by what we make up. Next, if I put my finger on a line, such doesn't mean I'm constrained to that line. The exact same thing works with God interacting with us in time. You can't 'will' it not to be so, even if you don't understand this.

Your argument that God experienced nothing before creation is a falsity.

I've said this before, even in the open view, God is immutable in some ways! As I said, I believe this is why a bunch of open theists dropped out. They know this is true and thus they see how the proofs work.

 

[Lighthouse]

The problem? I'm not dumb at all and you are missing the connect. All measurements are within the field of mathematics and all of them help us understand the other. 2+2=4 works in inches and minutes.
If I prove one, I've proved the other. It matters if you understand or not, but it doesn't change a truth if you do not.


:up:

That is 'measuring.' It doesn't matter if you are cognizant that you are taking stock, nor if it is accurate or not. Such is a construct by our finite minds. Being a construct means we 'make it up.' God is not constrained by what we make up. Next, if I put my finger on a line, such doesn't mean I'm constrained to that line. The exact same thing works with God interacting with us in time. You can't 'will' it not to be so, even if you don't understand this.

I've said this before, even in the open view, God is immutable in some ways! As I said, I believe this is why a bunch of open theists dropped out. They know this is true and thus they see how the proofs work.

Like I said, this is pointless. You are a foolish little child with no support for your claims except to say the statement is true because it's true. That's begging the question, Lon; assuming the conclusion and stating it as fact with no foundation of evidence. If this were a court case it would be thrown out.

 

[Lon]

Like I said, this is pointless. You are a foolish little child with no support for your claims except to say the statement is true because it's true. That's begging the question, Lon; assuming the conclusion and stating it as fact with no foundation of evidence. If this were a court case it would be thrown out.

Only if the Judge couldn't understand mathematics applied to the real world.

I cannot explain to you why something becomes finite when you 'add' finite things to it. It is just true. When you add a point to a line, it becomes two rays (no longer an infinite line, but two rays that start somewhere/sometime). The more finite interacts with infinite, the less the infinite is seen as infinite and is rather conceived in the finite. God never meant for you to box (finite) Him in as He interacts and is relational to us in our existence. We are contained within Him so there is nothing outside of Himself and He's infinite. You can't measure that and time is a measurement or a 'sense' of measurement (haphazard way of keeping time).

I can't prove to you this way, that it is true. It just is, but...
*************************************************************
Let's try to go about this another way:

God's names:

El Shaddai - God Almighty. Genesis 49:24 Psalm 132:2,5 Several open theists have claimed that God is not omni (all)- Potent (mighty) but when shown this is His name, they quickly redacted the statement (it is His name). Why is that important to this discussion? Because "nothing is impossible with Thee [God]." Jeremiah 32:17 That also means going back and forth through time. Einstein showed it is mathematically possible. Why then can't people? Because we are not physically capable, we'd die; but Einstein whom you mention, knew it could be done, just not 'lived' through, at least in practical theory (It can be done).

So, # 1) God is not constrained by time by sheer power alone.

Let's look at another name.

YHWH Alpha-Omega God is/was everywhere. Exodus 3:14 John 6:20; 8:58

God specifically talks about the past in present language. This defies Greek sentence structure unless God is able to transcend time.
In John 8:58 , Jesus says "...Before Abraham was, I Am!"
It is both his time-transcendent name, and His name as God.
It is His deified name as well but it cannot be a partially true name or it'd not be true. To say in the past "I AM" means I transcend time. Everything for us in the past is 'was.' Not for Christ Jesus our Lord and God.

So, # 2) God is not constrained by time by His own name and confession to transcend it.

Yet one more name of God:

El De' ot God-all Knowing 1 Samuel 2:3 1 John 3:20. Open theism especially objects to omniscience, rather saying "He knows all there is to know" but do not seem to realize they tack on in conveyance "for man at least in potentiallity." In other words, they do not believe He knows all, but that this knowledge is limited by parameters, which especially include time-future. They also don't believe God knows the heart/mind of man until man reveals Himself. However, as with the other Names of God listed, if He is one, then He is all of these names. If He isn't one of these names, then He is none of them as well. Why? Because If God isn't all powerful, then something greater than He exists and He is no longer God. If God isn't all-knowing, then this universe contains mysteries, and God isn't the biggest thing in the universe any longer, the 'mystery' is. If God isn't all present, then there are places outside of God He is not aware of. In short, the universe contains God rather than God containing the universe.

So, # 3) God is not constrained by time by His own name because it means He sees beyond its limitations for us.

The very names of God declare that God is unconstrained by time. "Before Abraham was, I AM." John 8:58

You'd have to tell God He is not El Shaddai, El De'ot, or YHWH in order to say He experiences time as you and I but these are His names.

 

[Lighthouse]

Only if the Judge couldn't understand mathematics applied to the real world.

I cannot explain to you why something becomes finite when you 'add' finite things to it. It is just true. When you add a point to a line, it becomes two rays (no longer an infinite line, but two rays that start somewhere/sometime).

Um, no.

The line remains infinite, in spite of the finite nature of the segment.

The more finite interacts with infinite, the less the infinite is seen as infinite and is rather conceived in the finite. God never meant for you to box (finite) Him in as He interacts and is relational to us in our existence. We are contained within Him so there is nothing outside of Himself and He's infinite. You can't measure that and time is a measurement or a 'sense' of measurement (haphazard way of keeping time).

:doh:

God exists and is cognizant, therefore He experiences; it is irrelevant that He may not have recognized a specific measurement of the moments that passed before creation.

I can't prove to you this way, that it is true. It just is, but...

"It just is" is the purest form of assuming the conclusion.

Let's try to go about this another way:

God's names:

El Shaddai - God Almighty. Genesis 49:24 Psalm 132:2,5 Several open theists have claimed that God is not omni (all)- Potent (mighty) but when shown this is His name, they quickly redacted the statement (it is His name). Why is that important to this discussion? Because "nothing is impossible with Thee [God]." Jeremiah 32:17 That also means going back and forth through time. Einstein showed it is mathematically possible. Why then can't people? Because we are not physically capable, we'd die; but Einstein whom you mention, knew it could be done, just not 'lived' through, at least in practical theory (It can be done).

So Einstein proved nothing, because it was never shown to actually be possible except in theory.

And to say all things are possible with God does not mean God can do things that are just plain impossible. We know there are things God can't do, such as cease to be God. But the issue here being time travel, time does not exist as a physical construct through which one can travel. God can no more travel through time that He can visit the Red Queen in Wonderland, because Wonderland doesn't exist outside of the realm of thought; it's not a physical place.

So, # 1) God is not constrained by time by sheer power alone.

See above.

Also, learn to use the bullet point code.

Let's look at another name.

YHWH Alpha-Omega God is/was everywhere. Exodus 3:14 John 6:20; 8:58

God specifically talks about the past in present language. This defies Greek sentence structure unless God is able to transcend time.
In John 8:58 , Jesus says "...Before Abraham was, I Am!"
It is both his time-transcendent name, and His name as God.
It is His deified name as well but it cannot be a partially true name or it'd not be true. To say in the past "I AM" means I transcend time. Everything for us in the past is 'was.' Not for Christ Jesus our Lord and God.

So, # 2) God is not constrained by time by His own name and confession to transcend it.

Again, no.

Jesus was referencing what God said to Moses, which was not simply "I Am," It was, "I Am Who I Am." It was meant as a present condition that was [is] continuous and had always been. Jesus was not saying that He presently existed before Abraham but that He had existed before then; but not only that but that He existed now and had always existed. He was essentially saying, "I am and always have been."

Yet one more name of God:

El De' ot God-all Knowing 1 Samuel 2:3 1 John 3:20. Open theism especially objects to omniscience, rather saying "He knows all there is to know" but do not seem to realize they tack on in conveyance "for man at least in potentiallity." In other words, they do not believe He knows all, but that this knowledge is limited by parameters, which especially include time-future. They also don't believe God knows the heart/mind of man until man reveals Himself. However, as with the other Names of God listed, if He is one, then He is all of these names. If He isn't one of these names, then He is none of them as well. Why? Because If God isn't all powerful, then something greater than He exists and He is no longer God. If God isn't all-knowing, then this universe contains mysteries, and God isn't the biggest thing in the universe any longer, the 'mystery' is. If God isn't all present, then there are places outside of God He is not aware of. In short, the universe contains God rather than God containing the universe.

So, # 3) God is not constrained by time by His own name because it means He sees beyond its limitations for us.

You assume too much, for God knows the hearts of men, and no open theist I know denies that.

But they do deny that God knows the taste of Little Jack Horner's plum pie.

The very names of God declare that God is unconstrained by time. "Before Abraham was, I AM." John 8:58

No, they don't.

You'd have to tell God He is not El Shaddai, El De'ot, or YHWH in order to say He experiences time as you and I but these are His names.

Falsity; I have to deny nothing to say I experience time as God does.

You are the one who denies God is incapable of not knowing that which He chooses not to; you deny His omnipotence.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," You are a fool, Lon.

 

[Lon]

Um, no.

The line remains infinite, in spite of the finite nature of the segment.

Incorrect. It now has properties of both the infinite and the finite. Yes it is still infinite, but 'without' the point. That is always finite.

:doh:

God exists and is cognizant, therefore He experiences; it is irrelevant that He may not have recognized a specific measurement of the moments that passed before creation.

You can 'doh' all you like. It is incorrect. You are logically, trying to make God exist 'inside' of something which is logically impossible AND dethrones Him from being God. Whether you understand or not doesn't do a thing to this truth. It is true regardless. God, by definition, has nothing outside of Himself.

"It just is" is the purest form of assuming the conclusion.

:up: Absolutely!

So Einstein proved nothing, because it was never shown to actually be possible except in theory.

Wow. It's convenient how you'll quote him 'until' he disagrees with you :chuckle:
He actually proved it is possible, just not for human beings unless and until certain 'physical' hurdles could keep a man alive and propel him.

And to say all things are possible with God does not mean God can do things that are just plain impossible.

Agree. However, Einstein proved this is possible, just not for human beings.

We know there are things God can't do, such as cease to be God.

Agree.

But the issue here being time travel, time does not exist as a physical construct through which one can travel. God can no more travel through time that He can visit the Red Queen in Wonderland, because Wonderland doesn't exist outside of the realm of thought; it's not a physical place.

One of these isn't investigate by science, the other is.

See above.

Also, learn to use the bullet point code.

I can use code. It's not that important to me.

Again, no.

Jesus was referencing what God said to Moses, which was not simply "I Am," It was, "I Am Who I Am." It was meant as a present condition that was [is] continuous and had always been. Jesus was not saying that He presently existed before Abraham but that He had existed before then; but not only that but that He existed now and had always existed. He was essentially saying, "I am and always have been."

Disagree. It has to be a consistently true construct to say "I AM" when talking about the past. "Before Abraham was, I was" would have worked and "Before Abraham was YHWH" would have worked. Jesus used both.
Not either/or.

You assume too much, for God knows the hearts of men, and no open theist I know denies that.

:up: I'm always happy to hear this. Unfortunately Open Theism 2 and 3 have those Open Theists who disagree with you so it is important to know they exist and familarize yourself with them. I'm very glad when I have to address them you'll be right there will me. There indeed, are a good number of you who side with me so I am always pleasantly pleased when I find more of you - In Him

No, they don't.

No less than one might expect here...

Falsity; I have to deny nothing to say I experience time as God does.

You are the one who denies God is incapable of not knowing that which He chooses not to; you deny His omnipotence.

No, I don't say that He can't. I'm simply disagreeing that He did. Jesus did this but the Father never ceases being the Father nor constrains Himself. This is simply an Open Theist wish. Since time is theoretically traversable, God can certainly do the theoretically possible. In other words, the theory says if man could live through it, and if there was sufficient power, it is doable. Even by OV standards, God can do whatever is doable.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," You are a fool, Lon.

Sad that you took the 'excuse' route. All of Christianity but a few thousand believe as you do. It is sad you think we are all fools. Even the brilliant ones of us. The force of this is about like getting hit with a Q-tip if you don't mind me saying so. God can do what is doable. Jeremiah 32:17

I do understand your emotional attachment to Open Theism. I don't believe 'emotion' (love for it) a good reason to retain it, however.

 

[MarkA]

perhaps people are conceiving time as a straight line,

when in fact it is many lines branching out into many different directions all created from a single beginning.

there is no need for God to "change his plan" or "change his mind" all realities and contingencies where created from the beginning and the reality we are in is but one of millions, billions or more of already created possibilities.
God ceased from all his creation on the 7th day if the Bible is to believed.

 

[Letsargue]

perhaps people are conceiving time as a straight line,

when in fact it is many lines branching out into many different directions all created from a single beginning.

there is no need for God to "change his plan" or "change his mind" all realities and contingencies where created from the beginning and the reality we are in is but one of millions, billions or more of already created possibilities.
God ceased from all his creation on the 7th day if the Bible is to believed.

You said that God stopped working ( ON ) the Seventh (( DAY ))!! – When did the (( DAY )) Start and End, and Why??? ---- Give us all, your “Many Lines” of Time in some Straight Line!! – You must be a Genius also. – What’s Your Time Made of??? – It must be Formed of Something if it Exist as a Thing!! - Things are Composites of other Things, like different Atoms; - what is your Time Composed OF??? – I must Learn the Stuff of Geniuses!!!!

Paul – 071513

 

[Lighthouse]

Incorrect. It now has properties of both the infinite and the finite. Yes it is still infinite, but 'without' the point. That is always finite.

That's what I said, so now you look even more a fool by calling it incorrect and then proceeding to agree with it.

No surprise as your entire argument is one big self-contradiction.

You can 'doh' all you like. It is incorrect. You are logically, trying to make God exist 'inside' of something which is logically impossible AND dethrones Him from being God. Whether you understand or not doesn't do a thing to this truth. It is true regardless. God, by definition, has nothing outside of Himself.

God doesn't exist inside of time. Neither do we. Nor do we [God included] exist outside of time. Time is not a dimension, it is not a structure, which one can exist within our without.

:up: Absolutely!

Oh, brother.

I can't believe you seriously just admitted that.

Wow. It's convenient how you'll quote him 'until' he disagrees with you :chuckle:

I didn't necessarily agree with him the first time I quoted him, doofus. Are you incapable of following along?

But the reality is that I will agree with him in the events he stated a verified fact. I disagree with his unproven theory regarding time travel.

He actually proved it is possible, just not for human beings unless and until certain 'physical' hurdles could keep a man alive and propel him.

Really? He proved it possible? Show us.

Agree. However, Einstein proved this is possible, just not for human beings.

Poppycock!

One of these isn't investigate by science, the other is.

Linking to Wikipedia doesn't prove squat.

I can use code. It's not that important to me.

And clearly neither is logic.

Disagree. It has to be a consistently true construct to say "I AM" when talking about the past. "Before Abraham was, I was" would have worked and "Before Abraham was YHWH" would have worked. Jesus used both.
Not either/or.

Why do I even bother? You're a blockhead, Lonnie.

:up: I'm always happy to hear this. Unfortunately Open Theism 2 and 3 have those Open Theists who disagree with you so it is important to know they exist and familarize yourself with them. I'm very glad when I have to address them you'll be right there will me. There indeed, are a good number of you who side with me so I am always pleasantly pleased when I find more of you - In Him

Self-congratulatory much?

No less than one might expect here...

What is this even supposed to mean?

No, I don't say that He can't. I'm simply disagreeing that He did. Jesus did this but the Father never ceases being the Father nor constrains Himself. This is simply an Open Theist wish. Since time is theoretically traversable, God can certainly do the theoretically possible. In other words, the theory says if man could live through it, and if there was sufficient power, it is doable. Even by OV standards, God can do whatever is doable.

Two different subjects.

And you've yet to prove time travel doable.

Sad that you took the 'excuse' route. All of Christianity but a few thousand believe as you do. It is sad you think we are all fools. Even the brilliant ones of us. The force of this is about like getting hit with a Q-tip if you don't mind me saying so. God can do what is doable. Jeremiah 32:17

You're a failure. You have failed to show that time is a dimensional construct through which one could travel or exist either inside or outside.

I do understand your emotional attachment to Open Theism. I don't believe 'emotion' (love for it) a good reason to retain it, however.

Emotional? I don't accept doctrine based on emotion. Not only did I grow up seeing the detriment to living in faith such an approach caused, but I am very logically minded and accept the open view because it is logically consistent, as opposed to the settled view.

perhaps people are conceiving time as a straight line,

when in fact it is many lines branching out into many different directions all created from a single beginning.

there is no need for God to "change his plan" or "change his mind" all realities and contingencies where created from the beginning and the reality we are in is but one of millions, billions or more of already created possibilities.
God ceased from all his creation on the 7th day if the Bible is to believed.

Toucan Sam called.

P.S.
The Bible says God rested from creation on the seventh day; it does not say He ceased creating forevermore at that point.

 

[Lon]

That's what I said, so now you look even more a fool by calling it incorrect and then proceeding to agree with it.
No surprise as your entire argument is one big self-contradiction.

Nope. You missed a huge part of that point. To say I agree with you means you'd agree with me and as such, you'd see how the finite is left out of the infinite other than it being a place where they intersect. God is infinite therefore cannot be defined by finite time. I'm beginning to repeat myself so I'd say we are almost done when you are missing what I've already said once (and throughout the rest of this post).

God doesn't exist inside of time. Neither do we. Nor do we [God included] exist outside of time. Time is not a dimension, it is not a structure, which one can exist within our without.

It is a mental construct observing duration and only as it pertains to physical reality.

Oh, brother.

I can't believe you seriously just admitted that.

I will agree with truth regardless of disagreement on other matters. 2+2=4 is a pure assertion. My agreement was that it indeed is the shortest route to the truth of the matter. If I can pendantically show 2+2=4, buy bringing a bag of apples to school, it takes a bit longer. Probably best in a kindergarten class. Quantum physics is much harder and I don't have that many apples.
The second link below, however, does a good job of breaking it down into algebra and mentions the geometric formula also. As such, it is more accessible and approachable.

I didn't necessarily agree with him the first time I quoted him, doofus. Are you incapable of following along?

:chuckle: (sorry "dufus" distracted me)

But the reality is that I will agree with him in the events he stated a verified fact. I disagree with his unproven theory regarding time travel.

Convenient.

Really? He proved it possible? Show us.
Poppycock!
Linking to Wikipedia doesn't prove squat.

Here is his Space/Time Continuum for Dummies

And clearly neither is logic.

Clearly? Work out the time/space continuum yet?
Please help me with the math. It looks like it works mathematically to me.
But quantum physics isn't my strong suit.

Why do I even bother? You're a blockhead, Lonnie.

Clearly? Work out the time/space continuum yet?

Self-congratulatory much?

Really? Is this what you got out of that? :nono:

What is this even supposed to mean?

Predictable Open Theism stance?

Two different subjects.

It depends on if you can disprove the mathematics for me or not, otherwise it is the same exact subject matter. God can do what is doable.

And you've yet to prove time travel doable.

Read both of the above. It is proven in science 'mathematically.' The problem? We have no way, as finite humans, to carry it out. We'd die long before we ever approached the speed of light because you can't have a capsule that would allow man to live through the inertia of that kind of speed. Anyone that says it is impossible, is saying that it is impossible for man because we couldn't live and we don't have that kind of power. Nobody says it is theoretically impossible that I'm aware of. They just say it is impossible for us, and at that, only given what we currently know of the universe. In other words, they aren't saying it will always be impossible, but that we haven't the tools for doing so at present. As such, it is a little bit of an 'assertion' game but only insomuch as it was an assertion game that man could travel to the moon. The math all worked. The same is true here. The math does work.

You're a failure. You have failed to show that time is a dimensional construct through which one could travel or exist either inside or outside.

Yeah, I didn't think you could do the math, but now that you asserting that I'm the illogical one, I'll leave it up to you to show me the problems with the theory. I made sure to give it to you in two ways if one doesn't click with you. Either link is fine.

Emotional? I don't accept doctrine based on emotion. Not only did I grow up seeing the detriment to living in faith such an approach caused, but I am very logically minded and accept the open view because it is logically consistent, as opposed to the settled view.

Well, you seem to degenerate in debates so I 'think' it looks like emotionalism to me. Er...this redress of your's looks to be a classic case in point.

We are and should be emotionally committed to our doctrines. They are about the God we love and so I have no problem with it. I don't even mind what I'd view as cheapshots. They aren't important, LH. All that is important is the truth and if you could show me where truth lies or correct me, I'm good on such points. I don't see it but I do keep my eyes open. I don't need the banter, but I do it myself pretty much unintentionally. Perhaps a human failing of most of us. At any rate, I actually 'like' this subject and our conversation and believe you've been civil for the most part and as such, for both, thanks.

In Our Precious Christ

-Lon

 

[Letsargue]

Nope. You missed a huge part of that point. To say I agree with you means you'd agree with me and as such, you'd see how the finite is left out of the infinite other than it being a place where they intersect. God is infinite therefore cannot be defined by finite time. I'm beginning to repeat myself so I'd say we are almost done when you are missing what I've already said once (and throughout the rest of this post).


It is a mental construct observing duration and only as it pertains to physical reality.


I will agree with truth regardless of disagreement on other matters. 2+2=4 is a pure assertion. My agreement was that it indeed is the shortest route to the truth of the matter. If I can pendantically show 2+2=4, buy bringing a bag of apples to school, it takes a bit longer. Probably best in a kindergarten class. Quantum physics is much harder and I don't have that many apples.
The second link below, however, does a good job of breaking it down into algebra and mentions the geometric formula also. As such, it is more accessible and approachable.


:chuckle: (sorry "dufus" distracted me)

Convenient.

Here is his Space/Time Continuum for Dummies
Clearly? Work out the time/space continuum yet?
Please help me with the math. It looks like it works mathematically to me.
But quantum physics isn't my strong suit.

Clearly? Work out the time/space continuum yet?
Really? Is this what you got out of that? :nono:
Predictable Open Theism stance?

It depends on if you can disprove the mathematics for me or not, otherwise it is the same exact subject matter. God can do what is doable.

Read both of the above. It is proven in science 'mathematically.' The problem? We have no way, as finite humans, to carry it out. We'd die long before we ever approached the speed of light because you can't have a capsule that would allow man to live through the inertia of that kind of speed. Anyone that says it is impossible, is saying that it is impossible for man because we couldn't live and we don't have that kind of power. Nobody says it is theoretically impossible that I'm aware of. They just say it is impossible for us, and at that, only given what we currently know of the universe. In other words, they aren't saying it will always be impossible, but that we haven't the tools for doing so at present. As such, it is a little bit of an 'assertion' game but only insomuch as it was an assertion game that man could travel to the moon. The math all worked. The same is true here. The math does work.


Yeah, I didn't think you could do the math, but now that you asserting that I'm the illogical one, I'll leave it up to you to show me the problems with the theory. I made sure to give it to you in two ways if one doesn't click with you. Either link is fine.

Well, you seem to degenerate in debates so I 'think' it looks like emotionalism to me. Er...this redress of your's looks to be a classic case in point.

We are and should be emotionally committed to our doctrines. They are about the God we love and so I have no problem with it. I don't even mind what I'd view as cheapshots. They aren't important, LH. All that is important is the truth and if you could show me where truth lies or correct me, I'm good on such points. I don't see it but I do keep my eyes open. I don't need the banter, but I do it myself pretty much unintentionally. Perhaps a human failing of most of us. At any rate, I actually 'like' this subject and our conversation and believe you've been civil for the most part and as such, for both, thanks.

In Our Precious Christ

-Lon

You don’t pay attention to any points, or anything, but your own bowels!! – You can’t really respond to anything with anything!! - You just talk as if you’re saying something to prove someone wrong. - Anyone can see through your nonsense here!!! -- (( Respond to Something ))!!! -- (( God in Time is the Topic ))!!!

Paul – 071613

 

[Lighthouse]

Nope. You missed a huge part of that point. To say I agree with you means you'd agree with me and as such, you'd see how the finite is left out of the infinite other than it being a place where they intersect. God is infinite therefore cannot be defined by finite time. I'm beginning to repeat myself so I'd say we are almost done when you are missing what I've already said once (and throughout the rest of this post).

I never said God was finite, that He was defined by anything finite, nor that He was defined by time.

Your error is that you think time is finite; time never began, nor shall it end.

It is a mental construct observing duration and only as it pertains to physical reality.

The measurements of time are either physical or mental constructs, but not time itself. Time is simply the duration of existence: the passage of moments, from one to the next.

I will agree with truth regardless of disagreement on other matters. 2+2=4 is a pure assertion. My agreement was that it indeed is the shortest route to the truth of the matter. If I can pendantically show 2+2=4, buy bringing a bag of apples to school, it takes a bit longer.

I'm trying to look up "pendantically" but I can't find it. It keeps asking me if I means "pedantically."

If that's what you mean then I agree, you're being pedantic.

Probably best in a kindergarten class. Quantum physics is much harder and I don't have that many apples.

Time is dealt with in theoretical physics, as it can't be proven physically, especially in regards to time travel.

The second link below, however, does a good job of breaking it down into algebra and mentions the geometric formula also. As such, it is more accessible and approachable.

I'll deal with that when I get to the link.

:chuckle: (sorry "dufus" distracted me)

If you're trying to correct me both spellings are recognized and accepted, however mine is more widely than yours, even to the point that dictionary.com pointed to my spelling when I looked yours up and my browser's spell check recognizes mine and not yours.

Convenient.

What's so "convenient" about it, as you were being sarcastic?*

*I'm clarifying for those reading who may not have realized you were being sarcastic.

Here is his Space/Time Continuum for Dummies
Clearly? Work out the time/space continuum yet?
Please help me with the math. It looks like it works mathematically to me.
But quantum physics isn't my strong suit.

It works theoretically because it's based on the hypothesis which is at best an assumption.

Clearly? Work out the time/space continuum yet?

Space and time are not linked; the idea that they are is nothing more than assumption based on conjecture with no empirical evidence.

Really? Is this what you got out of that? :nono:

I recognize you for what you are.

Predictable Open Theism stance?

Is that supposed to be a question?

It depends on if you can disprove the mathematics for me or not, otherwise it is the same exact subject matter. God can do what is doable.

You've yet to prove it doable.

Read both of the above. It is proven in science 'mathematically.' The problem? We have no way, as finite humans, to carry it out. We'd die long before we ever approached the speed of light because you can't have a capsule that would allow man to live through the inertia of that kind of speed. Anyone that says it is impossible, is saying that it is impossible for man because we couldn't live and we don't have that kind of power. Nobody says it is theoretically impossible that I'm aware of. They just say it is impossible for us, and at that, only given what we currently know of the universe. In other words, they aren't saying it will always be impossible, but that we haven't the tools for doing so at present. As such, it is a little bit of an 'assertion' game but only insomuch as it was an assertion game that man could travel to the moon. The math all worked. The same is true here. The math does work.

In other words it can't be proven, thus it is unfalsifiable and therefore is unreliable. The math you claim works cannot actually be applied.

You fail.

Yeah, I didn't think you could do the math, but now that you asserting that I'm the illogical one, I'll leave it up to you to show me the problems with the theory. I made sure to give it to you in two ways if one doesn't click with you. Either link is fine.

I've already shown you the logic doesn't work. That's all I need.

Well, you seem to degenerate in debates so I 'think' it looks like emotionalism to me. Er...this redress of your's looks to be a classic case in point.

I have little more emotional capacity than psychopaths because of my Asperger's.

We are and should be emotionally committed to our doctrines. They are about the God we love and so I have no problem with it. I don't even mind what I'd view as cheapshots. They aren't important, LH. All that is important is the truth and if you could show me where truth lies or correct me, I'm good on such points. I don't see it but I do keep my eyes open. I don't need the banter, but I do it myself pretty much unintentionally. Perhaps a human failing of most of us. At any rate, I actually 'like' this subject and our conversation and believe you've been civil for the most part and as such, for both, thanks.

In Our Precious Christ

-Lon

Let me know when you're ready to argue the only truth that matters: God's word.

 

[Lon]

It works theoretically because it's based on the hypothesis which is at best an assumption.

You realize, I hope, that it is proven by all the higher maths. They all come up with the same equation. To then say 'at best an assumption' is compensating, imho. It is theoretically sound (meaning we can't do it, but it works on paper). The same was again, once said of going to the moon. It was always theoretical until it was accomplished. Just because something isn't accomplished does not mean it is an assumption by any stretch. It is a sound logical theory that works on paper very well.

I have little more emotional capacity than psychopaths because of my Asperger's.

Wow, you could have PM'ed me, thank you for sharing this.

Let me know when you're ready to argue the only truth that matters: God's word.

So no 2+2=4, gotcha.

I believe John 8:58 does exactly this.