No, LFW is self-evident. The problem is your wrong interpretation of the verses in context. Calvinists import a deterministic view on Rom. 9-11, etc., but this does not make their interpretation right.:carryon:
Theology Club: What determines the Omniscience of God
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
No, LFW is self-evident. The problem is your wrong interpretation of the verses in context. Calvinists import a deterministic view on Rom. 9-11, etc., but this does not make their interpretation right.:carryon:
:help:
Tell that to Raven...
Tell that to Raven...
There is a difference between a supernatural miracle (possible for God) and a logical contradiction/absurdity (not possible for God of order).
A well spent fraction of a penny!
When speaking to children, I have heard it explained like this ....
God can't personally "know" Super Man because Super Man does not exist.
And God can't be on the planet Krypton because the planet Krypton does not exist.
Shasta
Well-known member
This is hard to answer. Since Open Theism holds that God exists only within the current moment of universal time we have to assume that this places limitations on His omnipresence as well.
Despite this some would have us revert back to a Newtonian universe. In the real universe, time, space and matter are inseparably interwoven ever since the Almighty spread out the heavens like a curtain
Though this has been proven for many years some Open Theists- prefer the Newtonian universe because it more neatly fits suits the idea of God who, to stay in the moment cannot experience time and change any faster than the rest of the universe.
To answer your question though I would say that the "omnipresence" of a panENthesitic temporal God could be no larger than the dimensions of the temporal spacial universe. Just as He is in pace with universal time experiencing it moment by moment as we do and cannot "know" a future which does not exist so from the standpoint of physics His presence can extend no further than the universe itself.
Even as He is omniscient (of all things knowable) so it could be said that He is omnipresent (in every place it is possible to be). Since nothing exists beyond the material-spatial universe it is as much of a fantasy as tomorrow. This means that God's presence can extend no further than the dimensions of the physical universe.
Now the universe is big (relative to us, anyway). How old it is depends on whether you hold to YEC or OEC. Either way, whether He just put the stars out there or sent them out there faster than light or by some other means the evidence shows that the edge of the visible universe is about 28 billion light years in diameter and growing. At any rate we know it is finite and if we could determine it we could put some dimensions on it.
All that can be said is that just as omniscience means God knows everything that is unknowable so He is omnipresent at everywhere "that He CAN be" "Omni" is supposed to be an all inclusive word
Shasta
Well-known member
I understand your point. In the universe as God designed it many things simply do not exist. Spider man....well I wish he existed although since I don't live in New York he Daredevil and the Fantastic Four would not be of much help to me. On the other hand Satan is pretty much on par with Galactus and I would rather he not be around.
Seriously though, I think you are confusing "potentiality" with "actuality." God does not only know all actualities but all potentialities otherwise He could not have been able to create this crazy Cosmos we live in.
Stan Lee can "create" and "imaginatively" construct characters fully seeing them in his mind. If he were God he might very well make them real and independent of him and maybe even out of a nobler substance than mud. That is the difference (Hebrews 11:1-3).
I was a teacher (k-5). To learn real art they have to see more than the stereotyped creations of their peers but something inside and outside. Actually I am excited about what God is going to do next
If your class has cookies, I'll be there!Am I going to have to teach a lesson on how to spell superhero names on here?
:chuckle:
Only for you because you have a faulty worldview. I already gave an answer and it wasn't difficult at all.
No we don't. What we need to assume is that you are an illogical person. Because you seem unaware that the verb 'exists' is a present tense verb. So it of course doesn't make any sense to say that God 'exists' at any time other time than the present.
Your references? Because I suspect you are just inventing this.
Well it depends on what you mean by 'universe', doesn't it? If you believe that God is real, as I hope, then you cannot possibly deny that God is a part of the real universe. So you would say that God spread himself out like a curtain then? Alternatively, if you are actually referring to the physical universe then you are confusing the two because physical is not the only thing that is real. Issues of space, time and relativity apply to the physical world. Again, you obviously are missing quite a few tricks here. You have some very basic misconceptions of what OVers believe let alone your incomplete view of what 'real universe' means.
Again, you have no references for this. You are just inventing it because you would like to tar OVers with this brush. You are probably distorting what some OVers have said and I think I know where you got this from but unless you can provide references then it can only be assumed that you invented it.
And what would this have to do with open theism?
And besides, if God is real and he is therefore a part of all that is real (the real universe) then you wouldn't expect him to be bigger than the universe would you? Because that would mean that God would have to be bigger than himself! Surely you must agree with this?
Again, you are accusing OVers of believing in a God who is purely physical. I am fairly sure no OVer would say that. Unless you can provide references, the only conclusion is that you are inventing this. OVers believe, in common with what all believers should believe, that God is spirit. Get a grip. Omnipresence is a concept in reference to physical space, which makes no sense in terms of a God who is not physical.
Really?
Again, what on earth has this got to do with open theism? And did you not learn that the whole universe is a lot bigger than what is visible to us? You have a very poor concept of isomorphic expansion (for example, if you understood it, you would not talk about measuring it), which probably parallels your very poor understanding of open theism.
... you have invented what you would like to think open theists believe. I suggest that you study open theism a little more and perhaps look more closely at some of my posts and if you have questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Shasta
Well-known member
I have that disabled.
lain:And, to stab at the OP, I believe God's omniscience is established, for all practical intents and purposes, by scripture. I'm not sure about using determines in that context.
This is not the best way to argue against theological fatalism, which I assume. One may assert my thoughts may have existed in the mind if God, yet they, for me, cannot be the same.
Do you follow me? I am thinking this from your response now and that is different than an eternal thought in the mind of God. They are not to be confused; my thoughts are my own, regardless.
Shasta,
You seem to have placed everything in quotes, which makes it quite difficult to reformat.
I'll try to make do but perhaps later you could edit accordingly.
You said
"If God existed in this current moment in universal time, God only exists in this current moment of universal time."
Is that what you are trying to say? I still fail to see how this places any kind of limitation on God, let alone "limitations on His omnipresence as well". By the time you have finished pronouncing your sentence, we are already at another "current moment of universal time" and I still haven't made any sense of what you are saying.
So if in another 75 moments of 'universal time' later (whatever moments of 'universal' time might mean... do you know?) you look and lo and behold there is an amazing coincidence: God is there as as well, completely unexpected! And of course no one in their right mind would possibly draw the inference that God was actually a living being...
However, the universe is more than physical things. Surely you accept this, otherwise you would probably be an atheist?
As to a definition of time - time is a construct, it is a convenient term for use in human affairs but it has no actual direct physical referent. In other words, it can't be measured because it isn't something that exists physically to be measured. You can't catch it and analyse it, you can't put a sample of it in a bottle or watch it passing by or travel along it in a time machine. And anyone who thinks that Einstein showed that it was a physical property of the universe has completely misunderstood him.
Also you display a basic misunderstanding of the so called expansion of the universe, which isn't expanding at all. Because the universe is ALL (got it?) that exists. It can never be more than that and never be less than that. This is basic logic. You possibly imagine the big bang as a pea that suddenly turns into a football. I assure you that it is not like that at all. There isn't a vast infinite array of empty space into which the ever expanding football expands. The universe has no borders and cannot be measured. A rhetorical question for you: what do you measure EVERYTHING with?
You seem to have placed everything in quotes, which makes it quite difficult to reformat.
I'll try to make do but perhaps later you could edit accordingly.
You said
OK, so let's see where this leads.
"If God existed in this current moment in universal time, God only exists in this current moment of universal time."
Is that what you are trying to say? I still fail to see how this places any kind of limitation on God, let alone "limitations on His omnipresence as well". By the time you have finished pronouncing your sentence, we are already at another "current moment of universal time" and I still haven't made any sense of what you are saying.
So if in another 75 moments of 'universal time' later (whatever moments of 'universal' time might mean... do you know?) you look and lo and behold there is an amazing coincidence: God is there as as well, completely unexpected! And of course no one in their right mind would possibly draw the inference that God was actually a living being...
I'm not sure what being a pantheist has to do with this but I assure you that I believe that Jesus Christ is the perfect representation of God himself and I don't see how anyone who claims the Bible to be inspired by God can believe otherwise. Can I ask you if you believe the same and if so, how can you also suggest that God is not part of the 'physical system'? If your concern is his omnipresence then how can you deny that he is everywhere in the physical system, even he, Jesus, who upholds the universe by the word of his power?
However, the universe is more than physical things. Surely you accept this, otherwise you would probably be an atheist?
As to a definition of time - time is a construct, it is a convenient term for use in human affairs but it has no actual direct physical referent. In other words, it can't be measured because it isn't something that exists physically to be measured. You can't catch it and analyse it, you can't put a sample of it in a bottle or watch it passing by or travel along it in a time machine. And anyone who thinks that Einstein showed that it was a physical property of the universe has completely misunderstood him.
I really don't understand your point. It again makes no sense at all. I firstly said
The universe is everything that is real. God is real. Therefore God is a part of the real universe. This is undeniable, what is so difficult about it?
Look, is love real? Do I hear a 'yes'? So where is this love situated then? I think you are hung up on this physical vs spiritual issue. The universe is much more than the physical.
Also you display a basic misunderstanding of the so called expansion of the universe, which isn't expanding at all. Because the universe is ALL (got it?) that exists. It can never be more than that and never be less than that. This is basic logic. You possibly imagine the big bang as a pea that suddenly turns into a football. I assure you that it is not like that at all. There isn't a vast infinite array of empty space into which the ever expanding football expands. The universe has no borders and cannot be measured. A rhetorical question for you: what do you measure EVERYTHING with?
No, it is very relevant. If you think that there is a boundary to the universe within which you think God (according to your view of open theism) is limited, then it is very relevant. Because you have completely misunderstood the concept of isomorphic expansion. Please cite me a reputable physicist who can confirm that the universe can be measured. I am confident that when you go and look carefully at your sources you will find you have misunderstood them.
Last edited:
Your thoughts and choices cannot logically precede your existence by trillions of years and be exhaustively foreknown apart from sheer determinism. They would then not be your thoughts, but something back of you causing things. You would be a robotic puppet, not a being created in the image of God.
lucaspa
Member
With respect, none of these verses state omniscience or knowing all the future. In the Psalms it simply says that God is very knowing of each individual, not that He is fixing the future. I could say much the same about my children, especially when they were small children and living with me. I was "acquainted with all my ways" for them. I could perceive their thoughts from "far off" and know pretty much what was happening. That did not mean I would know exactly in detail what they always would do next. I would say the psalmist is saying pretty much the same thing about God; it is the psalmist looking from the child's perspective on God the Father.
The quotes from Matthew and Luke simply state that Jesus knew their thoughts in the present. Now, it could be Jesus reading their minds. But in Matthew 12 and Luke 11 Jesus knows the thoughts because the Pharisees have told him their thoughts. Look at Matthew 12:24:
"But when the Pharisees heard about the miracle, they said, "No wonder he can cast out demons. He gets his power from Satan, the prince of demons." "
Not difficult to figure out someone's thoughts when they tell them to you!
lucaspa
Member
IMO, the "omnis" are a human mistake. God is VERY powerful, VERY knowing, and VERY present. This is what scripture teaches. However, humans went and took that and extrapolated that into the "omnis". That erroneous extrapolation has caused endless problems for God and for people trying to find God.
You speak of "foreknowledge". Let's talk just about current knowledge for a moment. God created the physical universe -- His Creation. One property of His Creation is that both the exact position and exact momentum of an electron cannot be known at the same time. If the position is known, then the momentum cannot be known. If the exact momentum is known, then the position cannot be known. This is not a limitation of our measuring equipment or human knowledge. This is a basic property of Creation itself. What it means is that God cannot know both properties at the same time. We can speculate why God created the universe that way such that His knowledge is limited, but there is no doubt that this is the way the universe is.
We can also talk about knowledge of the future. Take any radioactive isotope of an element. In a half-life, 50% of the atoms will undergo radioactive decay. MORE regular than clockwork.
So regular that we use this to make the most accurate clocks around!But the foreknowledge of which atom will decay next? Nope. Can't be done. It cannot be known ahead of time which particular atom will decay. Again, why did God create a universe where part of the future of that universe cannot be known by Him? Good question, and one well worth trying to answer.
Again, I don't think God ever meant scripture -- even by accident -- to portray God as "totally omniscient". That is a human screw-up. Instead, let's ask ourselves: how powerful, knowing, and present does an entity need to be to be God? Or, put another way, how powerful, knowing, and present does God have to be to do what He wants/needs to do to fulfill His purpose within His Creation?
Then Heisenberg hasn't established a want of omniscience, only the existence of a parallel to a square circle, provided we accept the principle as binding on God. But being that natural law is the expression of God and is subsumed by Him that isn't necessarily a foregone conclusion.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
IMO, the "omnis" are a human mistake. God is VERY powerful, VERY knowing, and VERY present. This is what scripture teaches. However, humans went and took that and extrapolated that into the "omnis". That erroneous extrapolation has caused endless problems for God and for people trying to find God.
You speak of "foreknowledge". Let's talk just about current knowledge for a moment. God created the physical universe -- His Creation. One property of His Creation is that both the exact position and exact momentum of an electron cannot be known at the same time. If the position is known, then the momentum cannot be known. If the exact momentum is known, then the position cannot be known. This is not a limitation of our measuring equipment or human knowledge. This is a basic property of Creation itself. What it means is that God cannot know both properties at the same time. We can speculate why God created the universe that way such that His knowledge is limited, but there is no doubt that this is the way the universe is.
We can also talk about knowledge of the future. Take any radioactive isotope of an element. In a half-life, 50% of the atoms will undergo radioactive decay. MORE regular than clockwork.
But the foreknowledge of which atom will decay next? Nope. Can't be done. It cannot be known ahead of time which particular atom will decay. Again, why did God create a universe where part of the future of that universe cannot be known by Him? Good question, and one well worth trying to answer.
Again, I don't think God ever meant scripture -- even by accident -- to portray God as "totally omniscient". That is a human screw-up. Instead, let's ask ourselves: how powerful, knowing, and present does an entity need to be to be God? Or, put another way, how powerful, knowing, and present does God have to be to do what He wants/needs to do to fulfill His purpose within His Creation?
Science is not the source of divine omniscience; nor an explanation of the spiritual concept.
Man should not measure or limit what God knows, according to what man does not know.
The proof texts for exhaustive definite foreknowledge, timelessness, etc. are few, strained, out of context. As you point out, a verse about present knowledge (Open Theists affirm exhaustive past/present knowledge with the future also containing possibilities, not just certainties) cannot be extrapolated to prove EDF.