PDA

View Full Version : I NOT ROBOT



Knight
February 28th, 2006, 06:14 PM
Wow, the sequel to the Hollywood blockbuster iROBOT looks awesome!

It looks much better than the first movie.

CLICK HERE (http://www.theologyonline.com/inotrobot.html) for a preview.

allsmiles
February 28th, 2006, 06:15 PM
i love straight to DVD movies!!! :thumb:

kmoney
February 28th, 2006, 06:16 PM
:chuckle: Well done....

I was a little confused though when the link was a TOL page :noid:

Lighthouse
February 28th, 2006, 06:46 PM
:rotfl:

Lucky
February 28th, 2006, 07:21 PM
:thumb:

Greywolf
February 28th, 2006, 07:48 PM
:chuckle: :up:

anna
February 28th, 2006, 10:18 PM
cool. :cool: If only that was a movie, I'd buy that one

death2impiety
February 28th, 2006, 10:24 PM
LOL you are talented man Knight!

sentientsynth
March 1st, 2006, 08:33 AM
:darwinsm:

Lostinspace
March 1st, 2006, 09:48 AM
:thumb: very cool...

PastorZ77
March 1st, 2006, 10:50 AM
that was awesome night, very clever...

docrob57
March 1st, 2006, 11:30 AM
BOOOOOOOOO!!!!! I want my money back!!!!!!

:noid:

And the answer to the question is "yes."

In other news, my virus has finally subsided. :comeout:

Knight
March 1st, 2006, 11:33 AM
BOOOOOOOOO!!!!! I want my money back!!!!!!

:noid:

And the answer to the question is "yes."Well... if the answer is "yes" why are you "booo-ing"? :D

Lucky
March 1st, 2006, 12:03 PM
Don't be suprised if some non-OVers answer "yes". Reason being there are some who believe all those "dark forces" describe God and that we are "still free".

Knight
March 1st, 2006, 12:11 PM
Don't be suprised if some non-OVers answer "yes". Reason being there are some who believe all those "dark forces" describe God and that we are "still free".Trust me, I know. :)

docrob57
March 1st, 2006, 12:14 PM
Well... if the answer is "yes" why are you "booo-ing"? :D

I don't know. It just seemed to be the thing to do at the time. :(

Knight
March 1st, 2006, 12:20 PM
I don't know. It just seemed to be the thing to do at the time. :(:chuckle:

jobeth
March 1st, 2006, 12:51 PM
In order to sin freewill is necessary, because the only way it is logically possible to sin is if you are free from God's control.
But in order to obey an Omnicausal God freewill is not necessary. How can you logically disobey an Omnicausal God?

Daniel50
July 7th, 2008, 12:40 AM
Wow, the sequel to the Hollywood blockbuster iROBOT looks awesome!

It looks much better than the first movie.

CLICK HERE (http://www.theologyonline.com/inotrobot.html) for a preview.

Excellent !!!:jump: :yoshi: :peach:

Eli_Cash
July 7th, 2008, 02:48 AM
From the mock poster: (emboldened emphasis mine)

"In a world where freedom was outlawed.

...the dark forces Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Impassibility and Immutability closed in.

Are you still free?"

Have the open theists who promote views such as those quoted above even considered the consequences of their words? If God really turns out to be all of these things, how will he react to the characterization of his attributes as "dark"?

asilentskeptic
July 7th, 2008, 02:51 AM
From the mock poster: (emboldened emphasis mine)

"In a world where freedom was outlawed.

...the dark forces Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Impassibility and Immutability closed in.

Are you still free?"

Have the open theists who promote views such as those quoted above even considered the consequences of their words? If God really turns out to be all of these things, how will he react to the characterization of his attributes as "dark"?

I don't think he will mind!


Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
Lamentations 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Eli_Cash
July 7th, 2008, 03:34 AM
I don't think he will mind!


Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
Lamentations 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

I think He will when one uses his essential attributes to accuse him. Especially when the one doing so claims to be a Christian.

Prisca
July 7th, 2008, 03:45 AM
Is there a Riff Trax on that one yet?

TomO
July 7th, 2008, 05:37 AM
I think He will when one uses his essential attributes to accuse him. Especially when the one doing so claims to be a Christian.

:think: That depends on whether HE gets so wrapped up in the Dogma which man surrounds HIM with that HE forgets to look at the Heart.......

:nono: I don't think we have to worry about that.

Lighthouse
July 7th, 2008, 12:34 PM
Seeing as how the Bible never says He is any of those things, we have nothing to worry about, Eli.

Eli_Cash
July 9th, 2008, 12:32 AM
Seeing as how the Bible never says He is any of those things, we have nothing to worry about, Eli.

Omnipresence

Psalm 139:7-12 KJV
Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

1 Kings 8:27 KJV
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Jeremiah 23:23-24 KJV
Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

Acts 17:27-28 KJV
That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Omniscience

Hebrews 4:13 KJV
Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Omnipotence

Job 42:2 KJV
I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.

Revelation 19:6 KJV
And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

Eli_Cash
July 9th, 2008, 12:38 AM
:think: That depends on whether HE gets so wrapped up in the Dogma which man surrounds HIM with that HE forgets to look at the Heart.......

:nono: I don't think we have to worry about that.

The heart is precisely what I'm talking about. There is a real difference between not understanding that God has the attributes of Omnipotence, etc., and claiming that these attributes are "dark forces". The former is error, the latter is presumptuous almost to the point of being blasphemy.

Lighthouse
July 9th, 2008, 04:52 PM
Omnipresence

Psalm 139:7-12 KJV
Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

1 Kings 8:27 KJV
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Jeremiah 23:23-24 KJV
Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

Acts 17:27-28 KJV
That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Omniscience

Hebrews 4:13 KJV
Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Omnipotence

Job 42:2 KJV
I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.

Revelation 19:6 KJV
And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
None of those say that He either is present everywhere all at once, that He knows everything, even if it does not exist, or that He can do anything, even that which is against His character or attributes.

TomO
July 9th, 2008, 07:05 PM
The heart is precisely what I'm talking about. There is a real difference between not understanding that God has the attributes of Omnipotence, etc., and claiming that these attributes are "dark forces". The former is error, the latter is presumptuous almost to the point of being blasphemy.

:confused: Am I to understand you are a worthy Judge of mens hearts?

:Plain: If ones understanding of omnipotence is that it states GOD uses HIS Children as puppets on strings then you would be right in considering this to not be an attribute of OUR LORD and to claim such an attribute to be a dark force.

:nono: Stop judging by mere appearences and make a right judgement.

So tell me Eli....do those who lack understanding of the Trinity risk Judgement as well?

:noid:

Eli_Cash
July 10th, 2008, 09:50 PM
None of those say that He either is present everywhere all at once,

Acts 17:27-28 KJV
That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
(emphasis mine)


that He knows everything, even if it does not exist,

Perhaps not, but this one does.

Matthew 11:21 KJV
Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.


or that He can do anything, even that which is against His character or attributes.

Why would he do that which is against his character and attributes? That would contradict his omnipotence, not reinforce it.

Eli_Cash
July 10th, 2008, 10:07 PM
:confused: Am I to understand you are a worthy Judge of mens hearts?

Are you worthy to judge God's character?


:Plain: If ones understanding of omnipotence is that it states GOD uses HIS Children as puppets on strings then you would be right in considering this to not be an attribute of OUR LORD and to claim such an attribute to be a dark force.

Psalm 17:13-14
Arise, O LORD, disappoint him, cast him down: deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword: From men which are thy hand, O LORD, from men of the world, which have their portion in this life, and whose belly thou fillest with thy hid treasure: they are full of children, and leave the rest of their substance to their babes.
(emphasis mine)


:nono: Stop judging by mere appearences and make a right judgement.

Who are you to judge how I'm judging?


So tell me Eli....do those who lack understanding of the Trinity risk Judgement as well?

:noid:

There is a difference between not understanding the Trinity and claiming that it is evil. The former is confusion, the latter is blasphemy.

Lighthouse
July 11th, 2008, 07:25 AM
Acts 17:27-28 KJV
That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
(emphasis mine)
Still doesn't say what you want it to say. Even the "every one of us" isn't everyone who is alive. It's everyone who is in Him.


Perhaps not, but this one does.

Matthew 11:21 KJV
Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
No it doesn't. This verse gives no one any reason to believe that He knows who is going to win the 2009 Super Bowl.


Why would he do that which is against his character and attributes? That would contradict his omnipotence, not reinforce it.
No it wouldn't.

TomO
July 11th, 2008, 09:41 AM
Are you worthy to judge God's character?

:Plain: That's quite a stretch you are making there.




Who are you to judge how I'm judging?

Yes.....now I understand. Hypocrisy often leads to red rep scores. :think:




There is a difference between not understanding the Trinity and claiming that it is evil. The former is confusion, the latter is blasphemy.

Whatever.....have fun walking your Dogma. :yawn:

Eli_Cash
July 11th, 2008, 07:05 PM
Still doesn't say what you want it to say. Even the "every one of us" isn't everyone who is alive. It's everyone who is in Him.

He was addressing non-believers there.


No it doesn't. This verse gives no one any reason to believe that He knows who is going to win the 2009 Super Bowl.

It shows that he knows things that aren't the case, or as you put it "that don't exist". Tyre and Sidon did not see Jesus' works, and yet he was competent to speak of how they would have reacted if they had. Unless you think he was just guessing.


No it wouldn't.

Yes it would. If God's omnipotence is his ability to do anything that he wants, then if he did what he did not want, what is against his character, it could only be by constraint. Thus he would not be all powerful.

Lighthouse
July 13th, 2008, 04:29 PM
He was addressing non-believers there.
Care to back that up?


It shows that he knows things that aren't the case, or as you put it "that don't exist". Tyre and Sidon did not see Jesus' works, and yet he was competent to speak of how they would have reacted if they had. Unless you think he was just guessing.
:bang:

Because He knew Tyre and Sidon.:dunce::duh: They existed at one time. They were over.

There is no reason to believe that God knows things that have no possibility in previous or current existence. I.e. things that have yet to happen [2009 Super Bowl].


Yes it would. If God's omnipotence is his ability to do anything that he wants, then if he did what he did not want, what is against his character, it could only be by constraint. Thus he would not be all powerful.
What about His attributes? Could He act against His attributes? For example, I do not have the ability to fly because I do not have the attributes that would allow me to fly. So I cannot fly. However, if I was all powerful, would I be able to fly without the attributes needed to fly?

Eli_Cash
July 13th, 2008, 09:00 PM
Care to back that up?

The passage is in Paul's sermon on Mars hill, which, if you will recall, was directed to a pagan gentile audience.



:bang:

Because He knew Tyre and Sidon.:dunce::duh: They existed at one time. They were over.

But those works were never performed in them, and yet Jesus was still competent to say how they would have reacted.


There is no reason to believe that God knows things that have no possibility in previous or current existence. I.e. things that have yet to happen [2009 Super Bowl].

In the passage that I cited God apparently knew something that had not happened. In addition, there's the matter of Jesus foretelling Peter's denial of Him. Did he know this, or was he guessing?


What about His attributes? Could He act against His attributes? For example, I do not have the ability to fly because I do not have the attributes that would allow me to fly. So I cannot fly. However, if I was all powerful, would I be able to fly without the attributes needed to fly?

If you didn't have the attributes needed to fly how would you be all powerful?

Lighthouse
July 13th, 2008, 10:13 PM
The passage is in Paul's sermon on Mars hill, which, if you will recall, was directed to a pagan gentile audience.
That's not backing it up. Show me how you came to that conclusion. Verses?


But those works were never performed in them, and yet Jesus was still competent to say how they would have reacted.
So? That's irrelevant to the issue.


In the passage that I cited God apparently knew something that had not happened. In addition, there's the matter of Jesus foretelling Peter's denial of Him. Did he know this, or was he guessing?
God also stated that He never thought people would sacrifice children. And He also stated that He did not previously know the reaches of Abraham's faith, until Abraham obeyed Him.

As for Peter's denial, He knew Peter's heart. He knew Peter was weak. He knew that if someone confronted Peter, Peter would deny.


If you didn't have the attributes needed to fly how would you be all powerful?
:bang:

Can God travel through time?

Eli_Cash
July 14th, 2008, 02:51 AM
That's not backing it up. Show me how you came to that conclusion. Verses?

Acts 17:22,23
Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.



So? That's irrelevant to the issue.

He had knowledge of an event which never occurred. Considering that you (apparently) wanted verses that showed that God could know something that didn't exist, this is very relevant.


God also stated that He never thought people would sacrifice children. And He also stated that He did not previously know the reaches of Abraham's faith, until Abraham obeyed Him.

Verses?


As for Peter's denial, He knew Peter's heart. He knew Peter was weak. He knew that if someone confronted Peter, Peter would deny.

He knew? So does that mean that Peter's denial was a foregone conclusion?


:bang:

Can God travel through time?

In what sense? I believe that God transcends time, so the very concept seems unintelligible to me. You'll have to be more specific.

Lighthouse
July 14th, 2008, 07:29 AM
Acts 17:22,23
Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
Yet Paul was speaking of "us," in that particular instance, to the men of Athens.


He had knowledge of an event which never occurred. Considering that you (apparently) wanted verses that showed that God could know something that didn't exist, this is very relevant.
Wrong. This was knowledge of something that could have happened, and God, knowing what He knew, of Tyre and Sidon knew what would have happened. The issue is not the past, but the future.


Verses?
And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
-Genesis 22:12

And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.’
-Jeremiah 32:35


He knew? So does that mean that Peter's denial was a foregone conclusion?
Actually, no. But Peter was weak, so there is no reason to assume he would have mustered the strength to proclaim the truth, instead of deny Christ like that.


In what sense? I believe that God transcends time, so the very concept seems unintelligible to me. You'll have to be more specific.
Time is an attribute of God. It exists because He exists. It is dictated by His very experience. So He cannot move back and forth between what was, now and what's to come, because only the now exists. The future has not happened, in any sense, and the past is over and gone. There's nothign to go to in either direction. So God cannot do anything that contradicts an attribute of His existence. In other words, He cannot stop being God.

Eli_Cash
July 16th, 2008, 01:02 AM
Yet Paul was speaking of "us," in that particular instance, to the men of Athens.

Acts 17:24-28 KJV
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Paul's whole argument here depends on the idea that those who should seek the Lord are the same which live move and have their breath in him, and are "all nations of men" and of whom it was said by their own poets that they are the offspring of God.


Wrong. This was knowledge of something that could have happened, and God, knowing what He knew, of Tyre and Sidon knew what would have happened. The issue is not the past, but the future.

It was neither past nor future, but something that never happened at all, which is why I quoted it, since you brought up the idea that God couldn't know things that didn't exist. In this passage it seems that he knows how they would have reacted, even though it never happened. How is this possible? Under your view he would only have been speculating.


And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
-Genesis 22:12

So you believe that God didn't know that Abraham feared him before that?


And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.’
-Jeremiah 32:35

I don't think this is speaking of his knowledge but his will/desire/intention, contrasted with his explicit command. In other words, "I didn't tell you to do this, nor did I want you to."

The word for mind here is "leb".

3820
leb
labe

a form of 'lebab' (3824); the heart; also used (figuratively) very widely for the feelings, the will and even the intellect; likewise for the centre of anything:--+ care for, comfortably, consent, X considered, courag(-eous), friend(-ly), ((broken-), (hard-), (merry-), (stiff-), (stout-), double) heart((-ed)), X heed, X I, kindly, midst, mind(-ed), X regard((-ed)), X themselves, X unawares, understanding, X well, willingly, wisdom.


Actually, no. But Peter was weak, so there is no reason to assume he would have mustered the strength to proclaim the truth, instead of deny Christ like that.

So Jesus was just making an educated guess? Or did he know what Peter would do? Please understand that I'm not concerned with how he knew, but with whether he knew, or was just guessing.


Time is an attribute of God. It exists because He exists. It is dictated by His very experience. So He cannot move back and forth between what was, now and what's to come, because only the now exists. The future has not happened, in any sense, and the past is over and gone. There's nothign to go to in either direction. So God cannot do anything that contradicts an attribute of His existence. In other words, He cannot stop being God.

So are you a presentist or an open futurist? I thought that most Open Theist held to an open future theory, in which the past is real but the future is not. If you hold to a presentist theory of time, then it would seem that statements about the past are just as speculative as statements about the present. On the other had, if you hold to an open future theory then it seems that you would conclude that God could travel into the past, since it exists. Unless you believe that there are problems with the notion of time travel other than the ontology of past and present, in which case your time travel objection to my view may not be sound.

Lighthouse
July 16th, 2008, 07:40 AM
Acts 17:24-28 KJV
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Paul's whole argument here depends on the idea that those who should seek the Lord are the same which live move and have their breath in him, and are "all nations of men" and of whom it was said by their[b] own poets that they are the offspring of God.
Still nothing that says He is in all places at all times, even if He doesn't want to be there.


It was neither past nor future, but something that never happened at all, which is why I quoted it, since you brought up the idea that God couldn't know things that didn't exist. In this passage it seems that he [B]knows how they would have reacted, even though it never happened. How is this possible? Under your view he would only have been speculating.
He knew enough about them, because they did exist. Please do try to think before you type.


So you believe that God didn't know that Abraham feared him before that?
That's what I'm saying. Because Abraham didn't even know how devoted he was to God. And God didn't want to just peek into Abe's heart. He wanted Abe to show how devoted he was.


I don't think this is speaking of his knowledge but his will/desire/intention, contrasted with his explicit command. In other words, "I didn't tell you to do this, nor did I want you to."

The word for mind here is "leb".

3820
leb
labe

a form of 'lebab' (3824); the heart; also used (figuratively) very widely for the feelings, the will and even the intellect; likewise for the centre of anything:--+ care for, comfortably, consent, X considered, courag(-eous), friend(-ly), ((broken-), (hard-), (merry-), (stiff-), (stout-), double) heart((-ed)), X heed, X I, kindly, midst, mind(-ed), X regard((-ed)), X themselves, X unawares, understanding, X well, willingly, wisdom.
And? He never thought anyone would do such a thing, period.


So Jesus was just making an educated guess? Or did he know what Peter would do? Please understand that I'm not concerned with how he knew, but with whether he knew, or was just guessing.
He knew that if confronted, Peter would deny. What of it?


So are you a presentist or an open futurist? I thought that most Open Theist held to an open future theory, in which the past is real but the future is not. If you hold to a presentist theory of time, then it would seem that statements about the past are just as speculative as statements about the present. On the other had, if you hold to an open future theory then it seems that you would conclude that God could travel into the past, since it exists. Unless you believe that there are problems with the notion of time travel other than the ontology of past and present, in which case your time travel objection to my view may not be sound.
Are you really that stupid? You can't travel to something that isn't there. It's over, it's gone, it no longer exists. But it did happen.

Eli_Cash
July 17th, 2008, 03:46 PM
Still nothing that says He is in all places at all times, even if He doesn't want to be there.

Where would he not want to be?


He knew enough about them, because they did exist. Please do try to think before you type.

Yes, Tyre and Sidon did exist, but their repentance never occurred. Nevertheless, Jesus apparently knew for a fact that it would have.



That's what I'm saying. Because Abraham didn't even know how devoted he was to God. And God didn't want to just peek into Abe's heart. He wanted Abe to show how devoted he was.

Then why didn't he let him go through with it?


And? He never thought anyone would do such a thing, period.

People did that kind of stuff all the time, and I'm pretty sure that God knew about it.



He knew that if confronted, Peter would deny. What of it?

1. He also knew that Peter would be confronted three times, something that wasn't dependent on Peter's heart.

2. If he knew that Peter would deny him, then was Peter's action free?


Are you really that stupid? You can't travel to something that isn't there. It's over, it's gone, it no longer exists. But it did happen.

I still don't know what your view is. Are you a presentist? Are you an open futurist? A presentist believes that only the present exists, and the past and future are merely useful fictions. An open futurist believes that the past exists, but the future does not. If you believe that the past exists, then your own position is susceptible to the same time-travel criticisms that you seem to be directing at mine. If you don't believe that the past exists then you have an unorthodox position for the Open View, and you also have a challenge of explaining what is meant by such past statements as "Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead".

But to answer your original question, I don't think that the statement "God can travel through time" is even intelligible, so no, I don't think that God can do it.

Lighthouse
July 18th, 2008, 09:46 AM
Where would he not want to be?
:think:

:idea:

Hell. The Lake of Fire. A toilet.


Yes, Tyre and Sidon did exist, but their repentance never occurred. Nevertheless, Jesus apparently knew for a fact that it would have.You're just dumb.


Then why didn't he let him go through with it?Are you really that stupid? You're actually asking why God stopped Abraham from killing Isaac?

:squint:


People did that kind of stuff all the time, and I'm pretty sure that God knew about it.After the first time it happened, yes. But He never expected them to do it before the first time someone did it. He says so.


1. He also knew that Peter would be confronted three times, something that wasn't dependent on Peter's heart.Why did He know that?

:sozo:Because He made it happen!


2. If he knew that Peter would deny him, then was Peter's action free?God knows that if I am given the choice between vanilla and chocolate ice cream, I will choose chocolate. Because He knows me that well. That doesn't mean I am not free to choose vanilla. But I won't, because I don't want to. What of it?


I still don't know what your view is. Are you a presentist? Are you an open futurist? A presentist believes that only the present exists, and the past and future are merely useful fictions. An open futurist believes that the past exists, but the future does not. If you believe that the past exists, then your own position is susceptible to the same time-travel criticisms that you seem to be directing at mine. If you don't believe that the past exists then you have an unorthodox position for the Open View, and you also have a challenge of explaining what is meant by such past statements as "Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead"."Useful fictions?" The past is not fiction. It actually happened.

But, as I've already told you, the past is over, and therefore NO LONGER EXISTS.

As for the rest of this paragraph, it's complete idiocy.


But to answer your original question, I don't think that the statement "God can travel through time" is even intelligible, so no, I don't think that God can do it.Well, that's a start.

Now, why did God bring the animals before Adam?

Eli_Cash
July 18th, 2008, 06:44 PM
:think:

:idea:

Hell. The Lake of Fire. A toilet.

Psalm 139:7-12 KJV
Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
(emphasis mine)


You're just dumb.

Did he know, or didn't he? If he knew what they would do, then he knew about an event that never happened.


Are you really that stupid? You're actually asking why God stopped Abraham from killing Isaac?


:squint:

Yes I'm asking that. So why did he stop Abraham?

It should also be pointed out that in this passage it isn't God in his transcendence, saying "now I know". It's the Angel of the Lord. So it's really a moot point no matter how you answer. There's nothing there to indicate that God didn't know what Abraham would do.


After the first time it happened, yes. But He never expected them to do it before the first time someone did it. He says so.

The passage that you quoted wasn't the first time that people had performed human sacrifices. Also, God explicitly forbids the practice in Leviticus, so he clearly knew about it before this instance.

Leviticus 18:21 KJV
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.


Why did He know that?

:sozo:Because He made it happen!

How did he make it happen? Did he control the actions of the people who confronted Peter?


God knows that if I am given the choice between vanilla and chocolate ice cream, I will choose chocolate. Because He knows me that well. That doesn't mean I am not free to choose vanilla. But I won't, because I don't want to. What of it?

So then God's determinate foreknowledge doesn't conflict with your freedom. Right?


"Useful fictions?" The past is not fiction. It actually happened.

But, as I've already told you, the past is over, and therefore NO LONGER EXISTS.

No longer exists in what sense? Simpliciter? Tensed? If it's the former then it seems to imply that it never "happened" in any meaningful sense, since the past tense would be unreal. If the latter then it really isn't any different from a tenseless theory of time like what I hold. So if time travel is problem for me, then it is a problem for you too.


As for the rest of this paragraph, it's complete idiocy.

Why don't you just answer my question, or do you not understand it?

Are you a presentist?

Are you an open-futurist?

Do you have a different theory of time? If so please explain it.


Well, that's a start.

Now, why did God bring the animals before Adam?

If you won't answer my questions, why should I answer yours?

Lighthouse
July 19th, 2008, 10:13 PM
Psalm 139:7-12 KJV
Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
(emphasis mine)
Wrong Hell.


Did he know, or didn't he? If he knew what they would do, then he knew about an event that never happened.
He knew what would have happened, because He knew the people He was speaking of. Because they had existed. He cannot say if the people of Wonderland would act a certain way if He performed miracles there. And that is my point.


Yes I'm asking that. So why did he stop Abraham?
Because He had the information He needed. You're really stupid.


It should also be pointed out that in this passage it isn't God in his transcendence, saying "now I know". It's the Angel of the Lord. So it's really a moot point no matter how you answer. There's nothing there to indicate that God didn't know what Abraham would do.
And further proof of your stupidity.

The Angel was quoting God, you moron. God told the angel what to say. He told the angel to tell Abraham that He now knew.


The passage that you quoted wasn't the first time that people had performed human sacrifices. Also, God explicitly forbids the practice in Leviticus, so he clearly knew about it before this instance.
Prove it.


Leviticus 18:21 KJV
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
How convinced are you that Leviticus was completed before God said this?


How did he make it happen? Did he control the actions of the people who confronted Peter?
All He really had to do was remind these people that Peter was a disciple of Jesus. And when three people had asked, He was done.


So then God's determinate foreknowledge doesn't conflict with your freedom. Right?
This foreknowledge is not determinate.:nono:

It also must be noted that this does not mean that God knows specifically when I will have that choice.


No longer exists in what sense? Simpliciter? Tensed? If it's the former then it seems to imply that it never "happened" in any meaningful sense, since the past tense would be unreal. If the latter then it really isn't any different from a tenseless theory of time like what I hold. So if time travel is problem for me, then it is a problem for you too.
Time travel does not, and will not ever, exist. It is an impossibility due to the non-existence of any time other than the present.

And I don't know the first word. This is the first time I have ever heard/seen it.


Why don't you just answer my question, or do you not understand it?

Are you a presentist?

Are you an open-futurist?

Do you have a different theory of time? If so please explain it.
I don't really see how I have not explained myself.

The future is open. It is not set in stone. The past is not open. It cannot be changed. It has already happened. It is set in stone.


If you won't answer my questions, why should I answer yours?
Have I sufficiently answered your question? If so, please answer mine.

Eli_Cash
July 20th, 2008, 02:39 PM
Wrong Hell.

Prove it. I know that "sheol" means "the grave" literally, but "gehenna" also means "trash pit" literally. Nevertheless "gehenna" was used by Jesus do refer to Hell. How is this any different? And if God would not want to be in a toilet, as you say, then why would he want to be in a grave?


He knew what would have happened, because He knew the people He was speaking of. Because they had existed. He cannot say if the people of Wonderland would act a certain way if He performed miracles there. And that is my point.

But it didn't happen. Yet he knew it. Which undermines your contention that God cannot know something that doesn't exist. That event doesn't exist, regardless of whether the people in it do.


Because He had the information He needed. You're really stupid.

Why would he have the information at that point but not before? Abraham still had the ability to change his mind, so according to the open view God could have still been wrong about Abraham. The only way he would know for sure is by letting Abraham go through with it. Then he could have raised Isaac from the dead.


And further proof of your stupidity.

The Angel was quoting God, you moron. God told the angel what to say. He told the angel to tell Abraham that He now knew.

Where does it say that the Angel was quoting God at this point? In this passage he refers to himself in the first person and to God in the third person. However, later on when He is quoting God He is explicit about it, saying "says the Lord". So it seems that you are adding something to the passage that isn't there.



Prove it.

I think I did. If the Law in question was given by God before the events recounted in Jeremiah, then it seems clear that God knew that men were capable of such a thing.


How convinced are you that Leviticus was completed before God said this?

When Leviticus was composed is not relevant. What is relevant is whether or not God gave that law in the time of Moses. I think most conservative Christians believe that he did. If you have a different view I'd like to hear it.


All He really had to do was remind these people that Peter was a disciple of Jesus. And when three people had asked, He was done.

So then he knew for a fact that three people would be willing to confront Peter about this?


This foreknowledge is not determinate.:nono:

So Jesus could have been wrong? Was He guessing or not?


It also must be noted that this does not mean that God knows specifically when I will have that choice.

That may be, but Jesus had a good idea of the time frame for Peter's denial. Before the rooster crowed.


Time travel does not, and will not ever, exist. It is an impossibility due to the non-existence of any time other than the present.

This is what confuses me about your position. Here you say that no time other than the present exists. But later you say that the past is set in stone. If the past doesn't exist, then how can it have any content or attributes?


And I don't know the first word. This is the first time I have ever heard/seen it.

Simpliciter basically means "simply" or "without qualification". It is used to contrast with the idea of tensed existence, or existence at a time.


I don't really see how I have not explained myself.

Because you seem to be switching between two incompatible theories of time.


The future is open. It is not set in stone. The past is not open. It cannot be changed. It has already happened. It is set in stone.

OK. This is basically the open-future or growing-block theory of time. My point is that you reject the possibility of time travel into the past due to the past being fixed. This is no different from the tenseless theory that is employed by the settled view. So if time travel is a logical absurdity in your theory, then it is in mine as well.


Have I sufficiently answered your question? If so, please answer mine.

If I remember correctly, the Bible says that God brought the animals to Adam to see what he would name them.

Lighthouse
July 21st, 2008, 11:53 AM
Prove it. I know that "sheol" means "the grave" literally, but "gehenna" also means "trash pit" literally. Nevertheless "gehenna" was used by Jesus do refer to Hell. How is this any different? And if God would not want to be in a toilet, as you say, then why would he want to be in a grave?
It was a figure of speech. David was one of God's chosen people. So, of course, God would find David, wherever David made his bed. It was an exaggeration to make a point. Like saying 110%.

God is not present in the Hell where the demons were cast.


But it didn't happen. Yet he knew it. Which undermines your contention that God cannot know something that doesn't exist. That event doesn't exist, regardless of whether the people in it do.
No it doesn't, you idiot. Jesus was referring to what could/would have happened. Not what has not come anywhere near happening. He knew this in the same way He knew Peter would deny Him if confronted.


Why would he have the information at that point but not before? Abraham still had the ability to change his mind, so according to the open view God could have still been wrong about Abraham. The only way he would know for sure is by letting Abraham go through with it. Then he could have raised Isaac from the dead.
You're an idiot.


Where does it say that the Angel was quoting God at this point? In this passage he refers to himself in the first person and to God in the third person. However, later on when He is quoting God He is explicit about it, saying "says the Lord". So it seems that you are adding something to the passage that isn't there.
:bang:

Moron.


I think I did. If the Law in question was given by God before the events recounted in Jeremiah, then it seems clear that God knew that men were capable of such a thing.
I'm still waiting for you to prove your assertion.


When Leviticus was composed is not relevant. What is relevant is whether or not God gave that law in the time of Moses. I think most conservative Christians believe that he did. If you have a different view I'd like to hear it.
I'm still waiting for you to provide scripture.


So then he knew for a fact that three people would be willing to confront Peter about this?
No. He didn't need to know that. All He needed to know was that people are generally curious if they recognize a person that has some semblance of fame. And all He had to do then was call people's attention to Peter until three people had asked him [Peter] if he was one of the disciples of Jesus.


So Jesus could have been wrong? Was He guessing or not?
Idiot.

Determinate means that the foreknowledge dictates the action. His foreknowledge does no such thing.


That may be, but Jesus had a good idea of the time frame for Peter's denial. Before the rooster crowed.
So?


This is what confuses me about your position. Here you say that no time other than the present exists. But later you say that the past is set in stone. If the past doesn't exist, then how can it have any content or attributes?
It cannot be changed because it no longer exists, it is gone.:doh:

You're not very smart, are you?


Simpliciter basically means "simply" or "without qualification". It is used to contrast with the idea of tensed existence, or existence at a time.
The past once existed, because it was once the present. It no longer exists, because it has passed. It is gone. Not even God can go back to it.


Because you seem to be switching between two incompatible theories of time.
Only because you're an idiot.


OK. This is basically the open-future or growing-block theory of time. My point is that you reject the possibility of time travel into the past due to the past being fixed. This is no different from the tenseless theory that is employed by the settled view. So if time travel is a logical absurdity in your theory, then it is in mine as well.
It is not due to the past being fixed. It is because of the reason the past is fixed; it's non-existence.


If I remember correctly, the Bible says that God brought the animals to Adam to see what he would name them.
OK. So why does it say that if God already knew what Adam would name them?

Eli_Cash
July 21st, 2008, 09:12 PM
It was a figure of speech. David was one of God's chosen people. So, of course, God would find David, wherever David made his bed. It was an exaggeration to make a point. Like saying 110%.

God is not present in the Hell where the demons were cast.

That's your interpretation, but it's hardly beyond dispute.


No it doesn't, you idiot. Jesus was referring to what could/would have happened. Not what has not come anywhere near happening. He knew this in the same way He knew Peter would deny Him if confronted.

Jesus was referring to a set of circumstances that never obtained, and said what the consequences would have been without any hint of doubt.


You're an idiot.


:bang:

Moron.

I take it then that you don't have a legitimate response to either of my questions. I stand by my points. God did know Abraham's heart before he acted, and I see no evidence that the Angel of the Lord was quoting God in this passage.



I'm still waiting for you to prove your assertion.


I'm still waiting for you to provide scripture.

Leviticus 18:1
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

The chapter in Leviticus is addressed to Moses. I'm pretty sure that Moses predates Jeremiah. Thus it doesn't matter when Leviticus was composed. If Leviticus is accurate, then the commands were given to Moses.


No. He didn't need to know that. All He needed to know was that people are generally curious if they recognize a person that has some semblance of fame. And all He had to do then was call people's attention to Peter until three people had asked him [Peter] if he was one of the disciples of Jesus.

So he could have been wrong?


Idiot.

Determinate means that the foreknowledge dictates the action. His foreknowledge does no such thing.

That's not an answer to my question. Could Jesus have been wrong?

(Also, I was using "determinate" in the sense of "definite". I'll try to avoid the ambiguity henceforth.)

And if definite foreknowledge of the actions of free creatures is possible, then why do open theists seem so intent on claiming that freedom and foreknowledge are incompatible?


So?

So you said that God doesn't know when you will make the choice but it seems that this wasn't true in Peter's case.


It cannot be changed because it no longer exists, it is gone.:doh:

You're not very smart, are you?


The past once existed, because it was once the present. It no longer exists, because it has passed. It is gone. Not even God can go back to it.


Only because you're an idiot.


It is not due to the past being fixed. It is because of the reason the past is fixed; it's non-existence.

But the future doesn't exist either, but i doubt you would say that the future is fixed.


OK. So why does it say that if God already knew what Adam would name them?

Because He hadn't seen it actually come to pass yet.

Lighthouse
July 22nd, 2008, 10:46 AM
That's your interpretation, but it's hardly beyond dispute.

Jesus was referring to a set of circumstances that never obtained, and said what the consequences would have been without any hint of doubt.

I take it then that you don't have a legitimate response to either of my questions. I stand by my points. God did know Abraham's heart before he acted, and I see no evidence that the Angel of the Lord was quoting God in this passage.
Idiot.


Leviticus 18:1
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

The chapter in Leviticus is addressed to Moses. I'm pretty sure that Moses predates Jeremiah. Thus it doesn't matter when Leviticus was composed. If Leviticus is accurate, then the commands were given to Moses.
But the passage in Jeremiah was speaking of a time before that.


So he could have been wrong?

That's not an answer to my question. Could Jesus have been wrong?
Are you asking if Peter could have recalled Jesus' words, and decided not to deny Him? Yes. He could have. But there is also no reason to believe he would have, because he was too weak.


(Also, I was using "determinate" in the sense of "definite". I'll try to avoid the ambiguity henceforth.)

And if definite foreknowledge of the actions of free creatures is possible, then why do open theists seem so intent on claiming that freedom and foreknowledge are incompatible?
We don't. It's the "exhaustive" foreknowledge that's the problem.


So you said that God doesn't know when you will make the choice but it seems that this wasn't true in Peter's case.
Because He worked to bring it to pass.


But the future doesn't exist either, but i doubt you would say that the future is fixed.
Because it hasn't happened.:dunce::duh:


Because He hadn't seen it actually come to pass yet.
Bingo!

Eli_Cash
July 22nd, 2008, 10:50 PM
But the passage in Jeremiah was speaking of a time before that.

The law of Moses was given before they entered the land, whereas the passage in Jeremiah refers to sins that they committed in the land.


Are you asking if Peter could have recalled Jesus' words, and decided not to deny Him? Yes. He could have. But there is also no reason to believe he would have, because he was too weak.

So the you believe that Jesus could have been wrong?


We don't. It's the "exhaustive" foreknowledge that's the problem.

What does it matter if the foreknowledge is exhaustive?


Because He worked to bring it to pass.

Why can't that be the case with your choice of ice cream?


Because it hasn't happened.:dunce::duh:

You said that non-existence was the reason for the past's being fixed. This is also something that you hold to be true of the future also, so it seems that you should say that the future is fixed as well. I don't see how the distinction between happened/hasn't happened is any different from the fixed/open distinction, ontologically. So invoking this distinction begs the question of what makes the past fixed.



Bingo!

Your point?

Lighthouse
July 23rd, 2008, 11:58 AM
The law of Moses was given before they entered the land, whereas the passage in Jeremiah refers to sins that they committed in the land.
The passage in Jeremiah is not referring to the Israelites.


So the you believe that Jesus could have been wrong?
He wouldn't have been wrong.


What does it matter if the foreknowledge is exhaustive?
The only way it can be exhaustive is if that which has yet to come to pass already existed to be known, i.e. has already happened. It's a paradox.


Why can't that be the case with your choice of ice cream?
Why would it be? What would be the purpose?


You said that non-existence was the reason for the past's being fixed. This is also something that you hold to be true of the future also, so it seems that you should say that the future is fixed as well. I don't see how the distinction between happened/hasn't happened is any different from the fixed/open distinction, ontologically. So invoking this distinction begs the question of what makes the past fixed.
No. I said the reason it is fixed is because it already happened and no longer exists. Both things together. The future is not fixed, because it has not yet happened.


Your point?
It hadn't happened yet. God did not know what Adam was going to name the animals.

Eli_Cash
July 23rd, 2008, 02:59 PM
The passage in Jeremiah is not referring to the Israelites.

Wrong.

Jeremiah 32:30-35 KJV
For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the LORD. For this city hath been to me as a provocation of mine anger and of my fury from the day that they built it even unto this day; that I should remove it from before my face, Because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face: though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive instruction. But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it. And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
[emphasis mine]


He wouldn't have been wrong.

Then he knew definitely that it would happen. And yet this was a moral choice on the part of Peter. So it seems that the Bible does teach definite foreknowledge of free moral actions.


The only way it can be exhaustive is if that which has yet to come to pass already existed to be known, i.e. has already happened. It's a paradox.

That depends on perspective. It hasn't happened from our point of view, but this doesn't mean that it isn't fixed from God's perspective. So the "paradox" is illusory.



Why would it be? What would be the purpose?

To be all-knowing.


No. I said the reason it is fixed is because it already happened and no longer exists. Both things together. The future is not fixed, because it has not yet happened.

What do you mean by "happened"? Earlier in this post you seemed to claim that "happened" is synonymous with existing to be known. It seems to me that existing to be known is no different than being fixed. In which case you still haven't explained how the past can be fixed, but not the future.


It hadn't happened yet. God did not know what Adam was going to name the animals.

It doesn't say that God didn't know what he would name them.