Does God know the future?

[godrulz]

Could you define/explain redemptive truth for me please?

Behavioral truth is things like loving your neighbour, helping old ladies across the street, not stealing, not punching people in the face, not smoking, etc. These truths are found in all religions, but they do not get one to heaven or hell in themselves. Salvation is not based on good works vs bad works (scale/balance). We all fall short of the glory of God no matter how good or bad we are in our behavior.

Redemptive truth refers to the person and work of Christ. He is perfect, holy, loving and bridges the gap between sinful man and a holy God. Faith in Him vs persistent unbelief determines our eternal destiny. Man cannot save himself. Our righteousness is as filthy rags. Redemption is the process of God providing a substitute for the penalty of sin (death Rom. 3:23; 6:23). Only the death of Jesus Christ, the God-Man, satisfies the governmental issues the Moral Governor of the universe faced. His moral law must be upheld for the highest good of God and the universe. His love and holiness both must be satisfied. He wants to freely forgive sinners, but must deal with justice and transformation issues and public welfare. "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Hebrews). Eph. 2:8-10...It is faith in Christ that provides redemption (buying back off the auction/slave block). We cannot save ourselves since we all die if we try to jump the Grand Canyon, the separation between a holy God and sinful man. The cross bridges the gap. The resurrection of Christ seals the deal.

The founders of other religions did not die for the sins of the world. They were not the Lamb of God, the Messiah, sent from the Father, who takes away the sin of the world. They did not rise from the dead. Jesus is God, not a mere teacher. His claims are authoritative and exclusive. There is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). Faith in Him leads to eternal life (vs outward behavior modification; Jn. 3:16, 36). He is the only way back to God. He is truth (redemptive; Jn. 14:6). If you have the Son, you have life (I Jn. 5:11-13). His gospel is the power of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16, 17; I Cor. 1:18).

Other religions may help you become a better person in society (as does Christianity). Only Christ can redeem (buy back since we are fallen) us and transform us from hell bound sinners to heaven bound saints. He makes us holy. inwardly. Outward behavior modification leaves us separated from God in our sins. Christ in you, the hope of glory (Col. 1:27).

Christ came to give us abundant and eternal life. Buddha and Mohammed were looking for truth and died apart from God. Their teachings cannot save you (redemptive truth) though they may make you better people (behavioral truth).

Mormons are good family people and clean living. They trust a counterfeit Christ and gospel and will not have eternal life unless they jettison heresy for redemptive truth. We share common biblical, behavioral 'truths', but they do not have redemptive truth (trust Joseph Smith instead of the true Jesus Christ= Gal. 1:6-10; 2 Cor. 11:4).

 

[eccl3_6]

Behavioral truth is .....

Good explanation.... :thumb:
I'm not saying I believe in it (you weren't expecting me to though were you?) but I appreciate what you are saying and it helps me appreciate where you are coming from.

This is a big leap for me, please stay with me....just trying to understand more...
Is this what is meant by Jesus dying for our sins?....in a way he kinda bought them off us so the Father could forgive us without having to punish us. Sort of save us from having to go through punishment.

Issues I would have are with original sin. I don't see man as fallen. I don't like the rapist....but I can't blame the child of the rapist argument. I can't rationalise hell either......I realise this is off thread but I needed to clarify behavioral truth before I could continue.....

Good work fella,
We might not agree often but at least we're civil....
Cheers

 

[godrulz]

Good explanation.... :thumb:
I'm not saying I believe in it (you weren't expecting me to though were you?) but I appreciate what you are saying and it helps me appreciate where you are coming from.

This is a big leap for me, please stay with me....just trying to understand more...
Is this what is meant by Jesus dying for our sins?....in a way he kinda bought them off us so the Father could forgive us without having to punish us. Sort of save us from having to go through punishment.

Issues I would have are with original sin. I don't see man as fallen. I don't like the rapist....but I can't blame the child of the rapist argument. I can't rationalise hell either......I realise this is off thread but I needed to clarify behavioral truth before I could continue.....

Good work fella,
We might not agree often but at least we're civil....
Cheers

'Original sin' is classic, traditional theology. It is more Augustinian than biblical. Babies are born innocent. We have physical depravity from Adam's fall, not moral depravity. Moral depravity is developed through choices, not genetics. We, not Adam, is responsible for our condemnation.

If man was created to live forever, two possible destinies are necessitated. Unbelief vs belief determines this.

 

[eccl3_6]

'Original sin' is classic, traditional theology. It is more Augustinian than biblical. Babies are born innocent. We have physical depravity from Adam's fall, not moral depravity. Moral depravity is developed through choices, not genetics. We, not Adam, is responsible for our condemnation.

If man was created to live forever, two possible destinies are necessitated. Unbelief vs belief determines this.

Which nicely takes us back onto thread....

If God wants us to live forever in Heaven through Jesus then why must there be two possible destinations? Surely God would know that some are going to end up in Hell and suffer for a long time. If God is good then why would he introduce such a test.

If I saw my worst enemy in the road about to be run over by a car he hadn't seen. I like to think I'd pull him out of the road. I might not like him but I'm not going to let him come to any harm unless its a matter of self defense. ie he's coming at me with a knife!

Why would God create somebody when there's a chance they're going to suffer. "Please don't make me in the first place!" would be my plea.

Its like me giving matches to a baby and telling him not to play with them...maybe he will burn himself, maybe he won't....You just wouldn't do it. If he does play with them you could say he brought it on himself....I personally would blame the adult who provided the matchbook.


Oh and in addition if physical depravity came about because of the fall wouldn't that mean that the story of Adam comes around before the physicallity of man came about. Doesn't this either imply that Eden wasn't on Earth (but before creation i.e.Heaven) and that there was a change in man on earth.....Evolution?

 

[justchristian]

If God wants us to live forever in Heaven through Jesus then why must there be two possible destinations? Surely God would know that some are going to end up in Hell and suffer for a long time. If God is good then why would he introduce such a test.

I don't really think there is an eternal hell so this is mostly devil's advocate. But I'll try and answer you question with another - why do couples have children?

 

[eccl3_6]

I don't really think there is an eternal hell so this is mostly devil's advocate. But I'll try and answer you question with another - why do couples have children?

Lots of possibilities....
Here are a few:-
*To create something together, a physical materialisation and testimony of their love for one another.
*To achieve a sense of immortality.....to pass on one's genes.
*Natural animal instinct.
*In third world countries it is to assure their longevity....children look after their parents in later life.
*By accident
*To unite rifts e.g. between two families...as in the war of the roses in England. House of Lancaster married the House of York to create the House of Tudour....i.e. the Tudour Monarchy (Henry VIII).



Don't see where you are going on this yet so over to you.......

 

[justchristian]

So despite the state of the world they often feel it is worth it. Even if that child could end up a drug adict, murder, rapist, get raped or murdered. All the bad things that could happen. Yet it is worth the risk. I think the same is true of God. Even though I hate the phrase the end justifies the means. Whatever our intended choosen relationship looks like it is worth the risk we might not choose.

 

[eccl3_6]

So despite the state of the world they often feel it is worth it. Even if that child could end up a drug adict, murder, rapist, get raped or murdered. All the bad things that could happen. Yet it is worth the risk. I think the same is true of God. Even though I hate the phrase the end justifies the means. Whatever our intended choosen relationship looks like it is worth the risk we might not choose.

But these reasons that I gave cannot be applied to God look at them again and in the same order....

God has no-one to share a marriage with. No testimony with another...if we assume He's the one God.

He is already immortal

I think we can safely put God above animal instinct

No longevity issues for an eternal God

And I think we can rule out 'by accident'.....I hope!!!

To unite rifts.....He's God who's He gonna have a rift with.....are we here to save angels!?!

 

[Johnny]

i have no idea what you are saying here. I am not denying that Einstein thought about things in an interesting way. But I am suggesting that His interpretation of the facts was most likely wrong.

You haven't provided any examples. Here's a good excerpt (from a page extensively detailing the history of inertial frames).

"This is why it is so important that Einstein's 1905 paper begins with a critical analysis of the entire notion of a frame of reference. It is tacitly assumed by Lorentz's theory, and classical electrodynamics generally, that we have a reference-frame in which we can measure the velocity of light. But how is such a reference-frame determined? The distances between points in space can only be determined if it is possible to determine which events are simultaneous. In practice this is always done by light-signalling, if only in the informal sense that we identify simultaneous events when we see them at the same time. But if the spatial frame of reference is determined by light-signals, and is then to be used to measure the speed of light, we would appear to be going in a circle; the underlying assumption must be that, while light-signalling is useful and practical, it is not essential to the definition of simultaneity, and that there is a fact of the matter about which events are simultaneous that is independent of this method of signalling. This assumption was actually made explicit by James Thomson. He recognized — alone, apparently, before Einstein — that the measurement of distance involves

the difficulty as to imperfection of our means of ascertaining or specifying, or clearly idealizing, simultaneity at distant places. For this we do commonly use signals by sound, by light, by electricity, by connecting wires or bars, and by various other means. The time required in the transmission of the signal involves an imperfection in human powers of ascertaining simultaneity of occurrences at distant places. It seems, however, probably not to involve any difficulty of idealizing or imagining the existence of simultaneity. Probably it may not be felt to involve any difficulty comparable to that of attempting to form a distinct notion of identity of place at successive times in unmarked space. (1884, p. 380).

In other words, Thomson assumed that it was not a difficulty in principle, like the difficulty of determining rest in absolute space. But Einstein showed that it was precisely the same kind of difficulty, and that determinations of simultaneity involve reference to an arbitrary choice of reference-frame, just as much as determinations of velocity. Einstein's conclusion is, of course, entirely contingent on the empirical facts of electrodynamics; it could have been avoided if there were in nature a useful signal of some kind whose transmission would provide a criterion of absolute simultaneity, so that the same events would be determined to be simultaneous in all inertial frames. Or, experiments might have been able to reveal the dependence of the velocity of light on the state of motion of the source. Then synchronization by light-signals could still have been regarded as a mere practical substitute for a notion of absolute simultaneity that stood on independent grounds, empirically as well as conceptually. But as Einstein saw, because of the apparent independence of the velocity of light of the motion of the source, even “idealizing or imagining the existence of simultaneity” involves light-signaling more essentially than anyone could have realized. Unless some other criterion of simultaneity is provided, therefore, the establishment of a spatial frame of reference involves light-signaling in an essential way. In the absence of such a criterion the speed of light cannot be, as Lorentz supposed, empirically measured against the background of an inertial frame; in that case the only empirically sound definition of an inertial frame is the one that appeals to the speed of light." source.

The entire point of me introducting relativity into this argument was to question whether or not God can exist in two different frames. Can He exist in a location in which time is passing slower than another location?

I hope that no one here is still seriously dissenting to the notion of time dialation, special relativity, or general relativity. All of these theories have nearly a century of evidence backing them up. As another (eccl probably) said, it's akin to saying "Combustion doesn't work" as I zoom by you in my car.

 

[eccl3_6]

You haven't provided any examples. Here's a good excerpt (from a page extensively detailing the history of inertial frames).
...........
...........
...........

The entire point of me introducting relativity into this argument was to question whether or not God can exist in two different frames. Can He exist in a location in which time is passing slower than another location?

I hope that no one here is still seriously dissenting to the notion of time dialation, special relativity, or general relativity. All of these theories have nearly a century of evidence backing them up. As another (eccl probably) said, it's akin to saying "Combustion doesn't work" as I zoom by you in my car.

Good link! Unfortunately these theories have been refuted by others on this sight, time and time again. (Forgive the pun),

As an agnostic I believe in a God but do not speculate on His direction, aims, reasons actions etc. . But I loosely define the concept of God as omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient 'force' of some description, I personally add that this force is 'good'. Dealing with that which I observe in such a universe as described in the link above I answer the question "Can He exist in a location in which time is passing slower than another location?" with reason.

Is He omnipresent?
I believe (can't prove) He is so for me the answer must be Yes he can exist in a location in which time is passing elsewhere. Physics states spacetime relations and my religion sits well with it. People will argue that God created the universe and so time must have existed before creation. This is only what we can describe as 'metaphysical time' because physics isn't going to explain it unless we get some pretty hefty(big) revelations in the world of science, like a letter of out of God's journal written in stars signed at the bottom 'God'. So we are not about to attempt to disprove your religion regarding this. So there is no reason why time dilation, general or special relativity should be at odds with your faiths.

But all this is based on my assumption that 'God', or whatever you address this force if you believe in it, exists. I can't prove it though.

This demands Faith.

Ask me if Boyles' Law works and I can show the experiments, talk you through it, describe it and show you. I can prove it. I can prove it to the same extent that I exist and that I am not a figment of your imagination. It is in such a way a physical argument cannot be argued against with a philosophical one. The arguments posted against t dilation and g/s relativity have all been metaphysical (philosophical) and bear no relation to physical observation.


If you want to argue the universe, the world and everything in it became so in just 7 earth days then we may have an argument. Bring it on!

As it stands though, to argue against the existence of time is similiar to arguing against the ground that lies beneath your feet.

 

[Sealeaf]

in as much as this question is about time/eternity it is a question better answered by physics than religion. The human authors of our Bible and theological works all assumed they knew how time worked. In fact they did not. They saw time as a series of instants through which we pass. Future instants are not yet real, past instants are no longer real, the are gone by, and the current moment of now is real.

Relativity and quantum physics inform us that this view of time, while intuitive, is an illusion. This means that theological reasoning based on these false assumptions can't be trusted.

 

[godrulz]

in as much as this question is about time/eternity it is a question better answered by physics than religion. The human authors of our Bible and theological works all assumed they knew how time worked. In fact they did not. They saw time as a series of instants through which we pass. Future instants are not yet real, past instants are no longer real, the are gone by, and the current moment of now is real.

Relativity and quantum physics inform us that this view of time, while intuitive, is an illusion. This means that theological reasoning based on these false assumptions can't be trusted.

I will trust God's self-revelation over changing, contradictory, speculative theories any day. One must also understand and apply science. There will be no contradiction with God's Word.

 

[elected4ever]

in as much as this question is about time/eternity it is a question better answered by physics than religion. The human authors of our Bible and theological works all assumed they knew how time worked. In fact they did not. They saw time as a series of instants through which we pass. Future instants are not yet real, past instants are no longer real, the are gone by, and the current moment of now is real.

Relativity and quantum physics inform us that this view of time, while intuitive, is an illusion. This means that theological reasoning based on these false assumptions can't be trusted.

The only thing humans can do is measure time. Humans cannot measure eternity. Time has a beginning and and ending for all humans no matter how it is measured. Eternity does not. Time and eternity occupy the same existence and time exist within the confines of eternity. That does not make the past uncertain or unreal.

 

[eccl3_6]

The only thing humans can do is measure time. Humans cannot measure eternity. Time has a beginning and and ending for all humans no matter how it is measured. Eternity does not. Time and eternity occupy the same existence and time exist within the confines of eternity. That does not make the past uncertain or unreal.

We deal with eternities and lots of them every day....if you want to get slightly mathematicl I could even show you some in a finite space. I could even show you an infinite amount of infinites in a finite space.

Jump into a blackhole and see how infinite time is. It would look pretty infinite to me as you approach the event horizon....it would look like you were frozen in time in fact. For you jumping into the blackhole it would be a different story altogether.....time would get very finite, very quickly.

 

[godrulz]

The only thing humans can do is measure time. Humans cannot measure eternity. Time has a beginning and and ending for all humans no matter how it is measured. Eternity does not. Time and eternity occupy the same existence and time exist within the confines of eternity. That does not make the past uncertain or unreal.

Time marching on even after we die. It is part of the warp and woof of existence. Our perception of time in relation to our earthly existence is subjective and depends on consciousness. At death, time still carries on. We then think, act, and feel in a different place, eternity, where we will experience an endless duration of time, as God always has (we had a beginning, whereas God is uncreated; time did not have a beginning since it is not a created thing. It is simply the concept of duration, succession, sequence inherent in the universe).

 

[eccl3_6]

Metaphysical/physical argument again!!!
Why do you think time as you experience it wasn't created?

 

[elected4ever]

Metaphysical/physical argument again!!!
Why do you think time as you experience it wasn't created?

Because time is eternity measured. We exist in eternity It is our measurements of eternity that we call time. We did that for the sake of reference. Even black holds have a beginning so black holes are not eternal. The laws of physics are still at work in a black hole. All things that have a beginning are subject to the laws of physics. The laws of physics are even a creation. An order created that governs creation and none can step out of their rule who are created. Man can like it or lump it but man will never achieve his gaol of supplanting God.

 

[drbrumley]

Good post.

We are in eternity now. Humanity always has been. God gave us the measurements at the beginning in Genesis when He created the sun, moon and stars.

 

[Johnny]

I will trust God's self-revelation over changing, contradictory, speculative theories any day.

Which of God's revelations are you talking about? Are you saying that the Bible contradicts SR, GR, and Quantum Mechanics? Which thoeries are contradictory? Which ones are speculative? That's too vague.

duration, succession, sequence inherent in the universe

If duration, succession, and sequence are inherent in the universe, what about those outside the universe? Also, going backwards through time would also yield duration, succession, and sequence.

You have defined time as "duration, succession, and sequence", yet you have said nothing about the flow of time. Can the flow reverse? Can it speed up or slow down? Duration, succession, and sequence are simply not enough because we know that these occur at different speeds for different observers. So my question for you is this: Since you have determined that God experiences time (i.e. duration, succession, and sequence), how fast is time flowing for God and what happens when it flows at a different speed for me?

Also, no one has reconciled the concept of God existing eternally before creation and experiencing time.

 

[Johnny]

Good post.

How is that a good post? That didn't answer his question.