quote:

---

John Earp, did you not see the word "IF"??

Satan is only "free" to the extent that God allows just as we are only free to the extent that God allows.

---

quote:

---

Well if I ask God whether Elvis is dead, clearly in the year 2003 yes he is dead, so god would say yes.
That is, unless he really is alive :)

---

If God is "outside" time, though, both are simultaneously true, Elvis is alive and Elvis is dead. How does God know it's 2003? It's 1066 to Him right now as well isn't it?




Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?

quote:

---

God created time since he created the sun and time is relative.

---

See I differentiate between "time" and what I call "sequence of events". In Genesis 1:

quote:

---

14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;

---

So God invented a way to measure our sequencing of events and these are called "seasons", "days", "years", etc. But the actual sequencing is independent of our measuring them. Just the fact that to God's perspective, there was a "before" the lights in heaven were made and there was an "after" the lights in heaven were made shows, to me, that God experiences sequential events as we do.

"Time may be relative" but sequenced events are not. You cannot have an effect occurring before it's cause, imho.

cause-->effect shows a sequence, who cares the duration of the interval



Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?

Edited by - Laika on 05/12/2003 12:47:41 PM

quote:

---

Tom: Exactly! You got it! Does God know that for us it is 2025? No. Why? Because it's not. When it's 2005 God will know that for us it's 2005. So, God's knowledge changes. He once knew "It's now 2002 for RD" was true. Does God know believe this is true? No. So, God once believed something was true and he now knows it's not true. God's knowledge changes to keep perfect track of the changing world. That's why God is omniscient.


Tom: Time is relative for US because we're finite observers, limited to one location in the universe. That's all Einstein proved. But since God is an omnipresent observer, time is not relative for him. God brings perfect symulteneity to the entire created order.

---

• “For any agent x, x is omniscient if for every statement s, if s is true, then x knows that s and does not believe that not-s.”

• A being is omniscient if and only if that being knows all truths and believes no falsehoods.

• It is impossible that God should either fail to believe anything that is true or that he should believe any falsehood.

• There is nothing true that God doesn’t know as true, and nothing false that God doesn’t know as false.

• God's knowledge changes to keep perfect track of the changing world.

• Time is relative for us because we're finite observers but not relative for God since God is an omnipresent observer.

• In its scope, God’s omniscience is exhaustive. It encompasses the totality of reality.


• In its nature, God’s omniscience is infallible. God cannot be mistaken in his knowledge. He knows all truths and believes no falsehoods.


• In its mode, God’s omniscience is immediate. God’s knowledge of all things is direct and unmediated. He does not depend upon any person or thing (not even on the speed of light) outside of himself to know what’s going on in the world.

quote:

---

Question: if God is not 'outside of time' then where is he? Does He exist within the spacetime He created?

---

"Time" is just sequencing of events without which there can be no logic, no reasoning, no thought. I see where God created heavenly bodies that are used to measure time. "Time" is not a thing that God can be "inside" or "outside" of.

How can a "timeless" God reason? "If A-->B and if B-->C then A-->C" requires sequencing AND a correct sequencing in order to make sense. A "timeless" God would be senseless, illogical.

Isaiah 1:18

quote:

---

"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD,

---

Sure God, but do You have the time?



Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?

Edited by - Laika on 05/13/2003 07:52:47 AM

quote:

---

"if the universe is constantly changing, then the truth-value of propositions about that changing universe is constantly changing and thus, God’s knowledge changes. Some propositions about the world are true at one time and then, because of changes in the universe, cease to be true at a later time. God knows this. He keeps track of the change. If the truth-values are changing, an omniscient God would know this."

---

I agree with this.

Tom: Grrrrrr.

RD: I believe that he already knows ahead of time the truth value of every proposition at any given time. So, as an example, in the year 1900, he knew the truth value of "Bush will be elected in 2000" to be a true proposition. If Bush did not get elected in 2000, in the year 1900, God would have known that same statement to be a false proposition. Are you trying to say that in the year 1900, the statement "Bush will be elected in 2000" can not be either true or false?

Tom: OK, Gina. Buckle your seat belt and return your tray to its original and upright position.

Every proposition has a truth-value. The principle of bivalence (Oh boy have we talked about THIS baby!), I think, is universally true: “Any proposition X is either true or false.” So, “George Bush will be elected President in 2000,” spoken in 1900 is, I agree, either true or false.

I happen to believe this proposition is FALSE, and that God knew it to be false in 1900. (There’s a barf bag in the seat-pocket in front of you if you need it!) What I think was true in 1900 was “George Bush MIGHT be elected President in 2000.” Might-propositions are propositions TOO, Gina, and they have a truth-value God must know. Now, MIGHT-propositions and WILL-propositions are mutually exclusive. In other words, if “Bush WILL be elected” is true, then “Bush MIGHT be elected” is necessarily false. Why? Well, “might be” implies “might NOT be,” right? I mean, if X only MIGHT happen, then X might NOT happen. That goes without saying. But if X WILL happen, then it cannot be true that MIGHT NOT happen. So, “Bush MIGHT (or MIGHT NOT) be elected” is false if “Bush WILL be elected” is true. Likewise, “Bush WILL be elected” is false if “Bush MIGHT be elected” is true (EVEN IF BUSH IS ELECTED). (Waitress, bring Gina another barf-bag please?)

I take it you believe ALL MIGHT-propositions are necessarily false then. There are three big problems with this (only two that bother you as a determinist):

First, God uses might-propositions about the future in Scripture, and not just like “I know YOU guys think X might happen,” but in divine first-person claims about future events. How do you get around this? God says “X MIGHT happen.” Hmmmm? What kind of God says “X might happen” if he only knows “WILL-happen” propositions are true? What kind of God can believe “X might happen” is TRUE? Ah yes. But there you have it.

Secondly, WHY would you WANT to get around if you already admit that God’s decision to create the world was a FREE one? Back way up. God is free to create or not create. There are TWO possibilities right there. Then, if God does create, God is also free to create a number of different kinds of worlds. Just think about the creative possibilities of God’s freedom. Hmmmm? How many kinds of worlds could God have created? Oh, a few zillion? Who knows? OK, so before God decides TO create God faces at least TWO possibilities. Once he decides TO create he has a zillion possible worlds he CAN create. The future was, at least at this point in God’s experience, OPEN.

Answer this Gina: Did God believe God was equally free to create or not create? Are you going to suggest that brain chemicals and past upbringing brought a “greater motivation” to bear on God making his choice to create an inevitable one? Please don’t try that. If there ever WAS a libertarianly free choice, it was THIS choice. I think we agree on this. So…

So, there was a moment (if even a logical one and not a temporal one) when God knew the proposition “I MIGHT create” was true. This means that the proposition “I WILL create” was FALSE. In the absence of creation, there was a moment when God believed he was free to NOT create the world. And if God was free NOT to create, then the proposition “God WILL create” was false EVEN THOUGH GOD ENDED UP CREATING.

What’s the point? The point is: God is capable of facing possibilities. And God, at least prior to creating this world, faced an open future.

This makes it VERY difficult indeed for you to argue NOW that God is less than omniscient, less than omnipotent, less that glorious, less than God if he were to ever know the future as “X MIGHT happen.” If that’s true, then God wasn’t free to NOT create this world, for the proposition “God might not create the world” was NEVER true. And if the proposition was never true, then God wasn’t free in creating the world.

Open theism is about GOD’S freedom first, and then only secondly and less importantly about OUR freedom.

RD: This is not what I was trying to say. The above is not the open view theory as I understand it. Under the OV, God is "learning"- basically, is surprised as some things occur. As the truth value changes, he is learning of the change.

Tom: But you already admit that God’s knowledge changes. God keeps exhaustive, infallible, and immediate track of the changing state of reality. OK, so how do we account for this “change” in the state of God’s knowledge of the world without implicating God in the “ignorance” implied in the claim that God learns? Easy! Deny that God learns! That’s what I do. God’s knowledge changes. But this change does not amount to “learning.” That’s what you believe right? I can agree also because I define learning as “moving from a state of ignorance about a truth to a state of knowing that truth.” There’s no such “movement” from ignorance to knowledge for God.

What about God’s being surprised? Well, for us humans surprise can be due to ignorance. We can plan on going to the beach via Route A1A but be surprised when we cross the intercoastal because we were ignorant of road work being doing on A1A. God is never surprised this way.

But that’s not the only kind of surprise. We can also be surprised when the “improbable” happens. We know something might happen, and we may even have contingency plans for it and so are perfectly prepared if it happens, but still be surprised when it happens because we knew it was highly unlikely/improbable. See?

If God is surprised, it’s not due as you suppose to ‘ignorance’ about the possibility that X might happen. It’s rather because God KNEW X’s happening was highly improbable. If there exist possibilities, then there are probabilities that attach to those possibilities and God knows these. God says in Jer. 3 to Jeremiah, “Look what Judah has done! After all I’ve done for her! I thought she would return [what kind of God says THAT?] but she did not.” Hmmmm. God expects X to happen because it’s the most reasonable thing to expect, but possibilities are, in the end, still possibilities. And sometimes the improbable happens. Such surprise does not betoken ignorance or weakness on God’s part. It just betokens a loving God who is involved with us in an open future (all the possibilities of which God is perfectly prepared for).

Doc, where the &*#)$(!@ are you? You’re better at this than I am. I’m killin Gina here!

Tom

Edited by - TGB on 05/13/2003 11:01:27 AM

• God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods

quote:

---

TGB
Postmillennialist


Lebanon
1446 Posts Posted - 05/13/2003 : 05:33:24 AM
-----------------------------------------------------------
PoW asks for clarification on what I mean (possibly wondering how I can believe both) by claiming:
God's knowledge changes to keep perfect track of the changing world.
and
Time is relative for us because we're finite observers but not relative for God since God is an omnipresent observer.
Does any one else see a problem in believing both these claims? Anybody? Not you RD! Put your hand down!

OK, both these claims are defended very well by somebody who doesn’t like the open view AT ALL, Bill Craig. This is important, because believing both these things doesn’t make one an open theist.

First, Craig believes (with many non-openness theists) that God is temporal since creation. Whether God was timeless or somehow sequential in the absence of creation is an interesting point for discussion, but it’s academic now (the universe was created and—poof—here we are!). Since creating, God is temporal and will remain temporal forever. God experiences the flow of time, interacts with the temporal world, and knows tensed facts (hello RD!). This is your anti-openness man Craig talking, not me!

Craig argues (again, with many non-openness theists) for the dynamic, or tensed, theory of time, known as the A-theory of time. The universe is a world of true becoming which is constantly changing. Changes are going on all the time. Craig reasons that if God is omniscient (meaning: “God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods”) and if the universe is constantly changing, then the truth-value of propositions about that changing universe is constantly changing and thus, God’s knowledge changes. Some propositions about the world are true at one time and then, because of changes in the universe, cease to be true at a later time. God knows this. He keeps track of the change. If the truth-values are changing, an omniscient God would know this. (This is what I’ve been trying unsuccessfully to get RD to see.)

I’ve argued elsewhere that an omniscient knowledge of the world would necessarily be characterized by three things at least:

In its scope, God’s omniscience is exhaustive. It encompasses the totality of reality.

In its nature, God’s omniscience is infallible. God cannot be mistaken in his knowledge. He knows all truths and believes no falsehoods.

In its mode, God’s omniscience is immediate. God’s knowledge of all things is direct and unmediated. He does not depend upon any person or thing (not even on the speed of light) outside of himself to know what’s going on in the world.
[Side note for RD: The question of whether or not there exist true might-propositions about the future is not answered by appealing to the orthodox definition of omniscience. We already agree that omniscience means “God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods.” Omniscience cannot then be what makes a proposition true or false. Rather, omniscience reflects (exhaustively, infallibly, and immediately) the truth value of all propositions. So the question of whether or not there exist true might-statements about the future can be answered only by reference to the nature of reality itself, or the doctrine of creation. Simply saying “God is omniscient” over and over again doesn’t tell us which propositions are true or false.]

OK. On to the second statement of mine that PoW wants clarification on. There’s no fodder to be had for advocates of divine timelessness in Einstein’s views on Relativity. Relativity regards the way events are perceived by finite (localized) observers. Einstein proved that no two observers in the universe share the same “now” (that is, they don’t experience or perceive the same event at the same time). Lorentz realized this limited application of Einstein’s theory and admitted that if a “universal Mind,” some omnipresent being who did not depend upon the speed of light for the transmission of information, were to exist, Relativity would not apply to such a being. Events taking place at one end of the universe would be simultaneously related to events taking place at the other end of the universe without depending upon the speed of light for the transfer of information and thus by-passing the limitations of relativity.

God IS this omnipresent observer, bringing perfect simultaneity to the universe. God knows my “now” (viz., the time at which I perceive myself to be experiencing an event) and your “now” (viz., the time at which you perceive yourself to be experiencing the same event). He knows they’re different because of the speed of light. But being everywhere present in the universe, God does not depend upon the speed of light for his information and so is able to relate both our “now’s” to his own “now” which is exhaustive (covers all the universe), infallible, and unmediated (doesn’t depend on the speed of light for the transfer of information like we have to). In short, Relativity doesn’t prove the non-existence or impossibility of a universal time, nor does it come close to suggesting that God is timeless (outside of time, whatever). It just proves that the universe is too large a place and the speed of light too slow to make any one finite observer’s time THE universal time for every other finite observer.

I’ll give CVM $100.00 as an offering if Neukem does NOT jump in here very soon and say something about “dimensions.”

Tom

Edited by - TGB on 05/13/2003 05:40:30 AM

---

1. Craig seems nominalistic.

2. Where Tom says, Answer this Gina: Did God believe God was equally free to create or not create? , it brings to attention just how perposterous it is to think that we can know God's thoughts. Not after reading Scripture. (Yet, doing so is all the rage!)

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 2:11
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

---

Such rationalisms are impious. This is not the sort of thing that Paul talks about: "God has revealed it to us by his Spirit." It is just rationalisms. And THAT is impious.

Not to rag particularly about that one instance in Tom's post. I'm not saying that. But I notice that the culture of the discussion is one where there is no dread of trying to put ones own self into "God's head." And that is dreadfully impious.


BTW -- Thanks for taking the trouble to answer my question, Tom. I appreciate it!!!!!