Does God know the future?

[nancy]

Of course, time and space are relationships dependant on our minds, but nonetheless they are true relationships even if they are inadequate representations in our minds.

 

[nancy]

By the way, you guys are way off topic.

 

[Poly]

This is a great point, Clete. Would we want to be loved because somebody was made to love us? Could we even consider that love? If this is love, I don't want it. I'd feel robbed, like something was missing. Why is this kind of "love" not ok with us yet God doesn't mind it? If we desire true love because somebody wants to love us, then I can't see the Creator wanting anything less from His creation.

Zman neg repped me for this one.
"It's a horrible point and you didn't think it through."

:darwinsm:

 

[eccl3_6]

GPS is reliant on the existence of very accurate clocks not on the independent existence of time.

The signal would be skewed if the effects of time weren't compensated for.....argue it if you want but I can promise you they do account for this...if they don't it doesnt work.

Often? Is this really what you mean? Have you ever, even once, seen time from more than one perspective? I don't think you have. I'm wondering why you phrase this as though anyone ever has or as if it would even be possible to do so.

Stars, blackholes, solar systems, galaxies. the universe is riddled with references. Something closer to home maybe....particle accelerators. Labs that study quantum theory....try and understand what those little electron orbits are really doing and we see an apparent break down in time. Relativity is all around.

No we proved that the clock ran slower. It's not the same thing nor do we have any way of tell for certain whether anything more than that happened.

The experiment was repeated recently. The chances of the clocks breaking down and then spontaneously starting again in direct accordance to time dilation theory, twice (!) is literally billions of billions to one. I'll take that as proof,,,,,

This is truly sad if you think that this is proof. It isn't proof. It is evidence.

proof n. 1. a fact or thing that shows or helps to show that something is true or exists.
evidence n. 1. anything that establishes a fact or gives reason for believing something.


I now starting to suspect you don't have a scientific background at all....you're not talking scientifically....

that God is everywhere that exists that He wants to be. I can't make Him be somewhere He does wish to be and neither can you, nor is He capable of being in a place that doesn't exist like outside of time.

So He's not omniscient then?

Well who the hell are you? Do you think your imagination trumps reality? I want to worship God is Spirit and in TRUTH, not Greek philosophical fantasy land.

Temper, temper. All I'm saying is you can't say God is infinite, omnipresent, all knowing and all powerful and then start placing limits on Him like He can't exist or be i certain conditions because you say so...like you did when you said "nor is He capbable of being....."

This simply shows a gross ignorance of both theories. The images we see from Hubble are simple photographs. The galaxies of photographs are supposedly billions of years old and the light billions of years old than that and yet no matter how far "back in time" we look there are fully formed galaxies which would have taken billions of years to have developed, which is in direct opposition to predictions made by other major scientific theories which are almost universal held as "proven" (like the Big Bang theory for example)

Hubble's photographs are not simple photos...many of the images are beyond our perception of sight....the photos are translations of infrared images.....images that couldnt be correlated if we didnt have these theories. The fact that we're able to come out with these images, which then go on to support star evolution theories support the technology and theory behind Hubble. Anything said to the contrary is to put your head in the sand much like the church did with Galileo.

Okay! This is precisely what I wanted, for you to flip out and prove that you did not read or probably even go to the site which I linked too. You are going on the PBS version of Einstein's theories which MAY OR MAY NOT be accurate. I made this obviously provocative statement in hopes that this would be your reaction because I've already tried twice and failed and now I'm going to try a third and final time to attempt to show you guys that Einstein’s theories have not been proven nor is it likely that they will ever be and your reaction has provided me (hopefully) with the tool I've needed to communicate the point.
I do not doubt that Einstein's theories are both extremely brilliant and extremely eloquent and have been quite useful in several fields of science and has lead to huge strides in technology (including the atomic bomb), but even though this is true IT IS NOT PROOF, especially about the nature of time. The way that space-time works is hundreds of times more complex than E=mc2 ever thought about being and yet there are literally dozens of other theories out there that twist off of Einstein's theories in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons, some of which discount the existence of time all together. I linked to one (the first one I could find) which presents and very good case for a unification theory in which much of what Einstein said is retained but where all the conservation laws remain in tact as well. Here's a brief quote from the site...

Mass and energy are inseparably linked to each other, because both of them have the luxon momentum as the base of their definition.

This formula was many times misunderstood and wrongly explained.
Mass cannot be converted to energy and energy cannot be converted to mass. Nevertheless, a certain energy is always linked to a certain mass. During the explosion of the Hiroshima bomb not a single gram of mass was converted to energy. Mass cannot be changed to energy, as dollars can be changed to gold.
During an atom bomb explosion a certain part of the rest mass of the uranium is converted to pure movement mass (the mass of the luxons), or, a part of the rest energy is converted to movement energy (the energy of luxons).
There is no conversion of mass into energy during an explosion.​

Luxon Theory - E=mc 2

Try telling Oppenheimer(the dude in charge of making the bomb dropped on Hiroshima) that Einstein's theories might not work........the Bomb did the talking. And did you just argue that rest mass suddenly became moving mass? This is just arguing over terms made up to facillitate the understanding of a difficult topic. If something is moving then it has kinetic energy ( m v v / 2). Which didnt exist prior. Hence energy is produced but conservation of energy states the energy can not be created therefore a transition has existed. mass to energy. This isn't even graduate stuff anymore....this is becoming elementary physics and you're still making mistakes.

What's the point?
Well the point is that Einstein's theories do not necessarily mean what you think they mean and you cannot prove that they do, no one can. If you were so certain that mass was converted to energy at Hiroshima and you find out now that you might not be correct about that (and probably aren't) then how is it that you intend to convince me that you know enough about it to tell me that you've got time figured out as well? The point is that you don't and no one else does either and the sort of expertise required to even intelligently discuss the issue is demonstrated in the above linked web site which neither of us nor anyone else on TOL has 1% of.

How do you know? You're struggling to display what we call A-level understanding of physics(age 16-18). I doubt if you'd get a place reading physics in a decent university over her.

Let me tell you there are plenty of things that are up for debate in the world of physics and somethings that are just universally accepted. You've made an argument against radiation decay...you go and stand in post fire Chernobyll and see how long you last before bits of you start falling off. 'Mass conversion' is a given.

Now, before anyone else goes berserk on me with this Luxon Theory, I do not endorse it any more than I do Einstein's Relativity. I simply am using it as one credible example of the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say you cannot prove anything based on Einstein’s theories and no one here knows enough about what they are saying to even know the parameters of such a discussion. Relativity is fascinating and important stuff but it just isn't the magic bullet that closed theists seem to think it is, it just isn't.

You misunderstand Luxon theory because you're approaching it from a Lay perspective. A LUXON IS A MASSLESS PARTCLE THAT ALWAYS TRAVELS AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE USED TO EXPLAIN A CONSERVATION OF MASS.....NO SCIENTIST ACTUALLY STATES THAT.ONLY THAT IT HOLDS A 'POTENTIAL' MASS THAT IS NEVER REALISED AS IT IF IT WERE TO BE IT WOULD CEASE TO BE A LUXON AND WOULD BECOME A TARDYON e.g. a neutrino

I'm not going to debate this (or any of the rest of the physics) with you.

Good, I should be getting paid to teach you physics like this......

If anyone here holds anything in common with those who put people who tried to silence people like Galileo for going against dogma it is Z Man, nancy, and presumably yourself who cling to pagan Greek philosophy and conform the Bible to fit it.

Einstein was a Greek???
It was definitely the church that persecuted Galileo. Look up a wee bit....I'm agnostic. I've never asked the Bible to conform to anything.....I do demand that the church stays away from controlling science with philosophy though. Philosophy only has a place in the application of science not in its discovery.





You are definitely out of your depth......

 

[eccl3_6]

And I keep telling you that eternity is not metaphysical. Nothing you have said has any bearing on that. None of your four formulas has any bearing on eternity. It only has relevance to our perception of time which is measured eternity. Eternity continues regardless of what happens to the universe or how we understand what may or may not happen to the universe. All of it happens within eternity. Man does not like eternity because they have no way of defining the infinite. That does not mean the infinite is not also present day reality. :chew: on that!

Ive stayed away from giving any formulas to keep things simple for you. Those were just statements. 'Man doesn't like eternity does he?' I deal with concepts of infinity everyday in the maths I use. Its an intrinsic part of maths these days. If you want to talk in infinities for a short while here goes....

Ever played is, not, is, not, is, not, is, not + infinity, is + infinity +1 as a kid?

Here are some mathematical rules to it infinity + 1 = infinity
infinity + 1,000,000 = infinity
infinity x infinity = infinity
but
infinity squared x infinity =infinity (not infinity cubed!)

because if you multiply infinity squared by infinity well infinity squared is infinitely larger than infinity so infinity, even though its infinity, becomes negligible and pales away from the immense size of infinity squared which is difficult to get in the first place since

infinity x infinity = Infinity and not infinity squared!

And then we can go into subsets of infinity which are infinite.....even if there are a finite number of sets!!!

:hammer:

You may think I'm making this up but I can assure you I'm not....its all theoretical math. Mathmaticians have been dealing with immeasurables since the concept ZERO came about. We also deal with complex and irrational math which to wouldn't exist, and in fact doesnt exist apart from that it does....and works too!!!!

It might be bloody scary but I can promise you man bangs heads with infinity every day and not just from a theological angle.

 

[eccl3_6]

typo

infinty squared x infinity = infinity squared

 

[elected4ever]

Eternity most certainly is metaphysical. Most of what we have been discussing is metaphysical.

Physics is a philosophy as is metaphysics.

All things temporal are within the eternal and nothing exist outside the eternal. Which is the greater reality? That which exist regardless of temporal laws or that upon which the temporal laws relies. Eternity is as much a physical reality as time and is for more stable.

 

[eccl3_6]

philosphy is the understnading of human perception....physics doesn't give a monkey's about human perception only about its traits. The word philosophy can also imply an advanced study and so can be used to describe physics....but it is not physics itself. This isn't opinion here....its just an understanding of the two concepts combined with a dictionary.

 

[eccl3_6]

Elected4ever,

Only if

I can't believe I'm still having to type this out.....but here goes.

There is a difference between what metaphysical time and physical time. Metaphysical 'time' if thats how you want to think of it probably is infinite so if thats what you want to believe then fine....that all comes down to your own belief system. My own personal belief is that yes it is infinite.

Physical time is not as straight forward.
Physical time is a component of a physical universe....this is the theory of relativity....time dilation and the like which has been proved and has numerous practicalities in our day to day lives i.e. satellite communication.
Physical time is quantifiable.

If the universe continues to expand.....infinite physical time.
If the universe stops expanding and remains stable.....infinite physical time.
If the universe stops expanding and begins to collapse on itself......finite time.
If the universe collapses and then reexplodes. Cause and effect and time begins and ends and begins and ends until the loop is broken....if the loop is broken.

The argument you place is metaphysical.
A metaphysical argument cannot be placed against a physical proposition and vice versa.....it doesnt make sense. One is philosophy......the other is science. Its like having a conversation with someone in English when they can only understand French. The two don't correlate.

:think:

 

[nancy]

Philosophy is just a way of thinking. Physical science is just a way of thinking. You are confusing meatphysics and physics for philosophy and physics. Understanding of human perception sounds like psychology to me.

 

[elected4ever]

Ive stayed away from giving any formulas to keep things simple for you. Those were just statements. 'Man doesn't like eternity does he?' I deal with concepts of infinity everyday in the maths I use. Its an intrinsic part of maths these days. If you want to talk in infinities for a short while here goes....

Ever played is, not, is, not, is, not, is, not + infinity, is + infinity +1 as a kid?

Here are some mathematical rules to it infinity + 1 = infinity
infinity + 1,000,000 = infinity
infinity x infinity = infinity
but
infinity squared x infinity =infinity (not infinity cubed!)

because if you multiply infinity squared by infinity well infinity squared is infinitely larger than infinity so infinity, even though its infinity, becomes negligible and pales away from the immense size of infinity squared which is difficult to get in the first place since

infinity x infinity = Infinity and not infinity squared!

And then we can go into subsets of infinity which are infinite.....even if there are a finite number of sets!!!

:hammer:

You may think I'm making this up but I can assure you I'm not....its all theoretical math. Mathmaticians have been dealing with immeasurables since the concept ZERO came about. We also deal with complex and irrational math which to wouldn't exist, and in fact doesnt exist apart from that it does....and works too!!!!

It might be bloody scary but I can promise you man bangs heads with infinity every day and not just from a theological angle.

Regardless of your mathematical formulas it does not change a thing. The very thing that makes your math work is what is denied. If the eternal were not constant then no math equation would be worth a grain of salt. It is not me who relies on theory but you.

I do not object to you theoretical assumptions or to the work you are doing. That does not give you the right to assign reality to the spire of theory. Who knows, you may even find a better way to define reality. You rely on the eternal, the eternal does not rely on you.

 

[Clete]

Clete I do not understand what you are implying here. Would you care to explain this? To me, God can easily exist outside of time but time cannot exist outside of God. God is not bound by time.

God cannot exist outside of something that you cannot be in. Time is an idea. It is what we call the keeping track of sequence and duration. If God exists (which I know you do not deny) then He has duration (in this case infinite duration) and He does something and then does something else, that's sequences. Thus God experiences both duration and sequence which we call time. It is not a thing or a location which can be left and entered into or bound by.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

That's just silliness. You only believe that because you have to, for your theology to work. But in common sense terms, or, logically speaking, you can't even measure something during an 'endless duration'. I mean, what would be the first event that happens in an 'endless duration'? And from what event before that could you measure to the very first event to say it happened at a specific point, or 'time'?

Before creation, God is from everlasting to everlasting. Creation had a beginning. Before our creation (matter), God existed. He existed one second before Gen. 1:1. He existed 1 year before creation. He existed billions of years before that. A year is one measure of duration. Extrapolate that back forever and we have the everlasting God, the uncreated Creator existing. He was not in a simulatenous 'eternal now' moment. He was existing, thinking, feeling, relating, knowing, communicating, fellowshipping, loving within the triune Godhead forever. He will continue to do so forever, but now we are part of the picture. He had no beginning and end. We had a beginning, but no end. His continuum parallels ours (see the Bible). He will experience the 2008 Superbowl when we do. It has not happened and is not seen trillions of years ago (this is absurd...God does not control players on both sides like chess pieces...even if he did, the actual game still is not real/actual).

I do not deductively believe this to make my theology work. The theology is consistent with this understanding, but it is developed inductively from the evidence. Calvinism is deductive in its preconceptions foisted on Scripture and reality (calling kettle black, are we?).

God is the First Cause. There is no first event for God. He is the "I am", the self-existing one. In human terms, our first event is EARTH vs divine time ground 0 at the moment God spoke the universe into existence. He existed before that moment in sequence. The incarnation came later after the Fall. His resurrection did not happen before Lucifer fell. The Second Coming has not happened yet.

Whose view is consistent with common sense and logic? You live as if God has always existed in an endless duration of time. The Bible reveals God walking along in History with His people (right down to the incarnation historically). You live as if the future is open and the past is fixed (presentism). Why revert to Greek, pagan philosophy to shore up your determinism?

 

[godrulz]

God cannot exist outside of something that you can be in. Time is an idea. It is what we call the keeping track of sequence and duration. If God exists (which I know you do not deny) then He has duration (in this case infinite duration) and He does something and then does something else, that's sequences. Thus God experiences both duration and sequence which we call time. It is not a thing or a location which can be left and entered into or bound by.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Why is this so hard to see, you other egg/block- heads out there? Good summary, Clete!
:idea:

 

[elected4ever]

God cannot exist outside of something that you can be in. Time is an idea. It is what we call the keeping track of sequence and duration. If God exists (which I know you do not deny) then He has duration (in this case infinite duration) and He does something and then does something else, that's sequences. Thus God experiences both duration and sequence which we call time. It is not a thing or a location which can be left and entered into or bound by.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Thanks. :cheers:

 

[Clete]

eccl3_6,

You didn't even bother to try to get a single point I made. Your repsonses (for the most part) had almost no relation to the point I was making at all.

I spent over an hour typing that post and my points were not only valid but actually had something to do with the issue of this thread which is not physics. Instead of paying attention to the point you want to insinuate that I am a liar and that I'm making stuff up as I go etc. Well fine. You can take you physics books and shove it right up your back side. I now longer care, as obviously you don't either. You can waste someon else's time.

:wave2:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[eccl3_6]

Regardless of your mathematical formulas it does not change a thing. The very thing that makes your math work is what is denied. If the eternal were not constant then no math equation would be worth a grain of salt. It is not me who relies on theory but you.

I do not object to you theoretical assumptions or to the work you are doing. That does not give you the right to assign reality to the spire of theory. Who knows, you may even find a better way to define reality. You rely on the eternal, the eternal does not rely on you.

I'm an agnostic dude, not an atheist....I believe in a God. You may say that science doesn't change a thing...apart from the computer it enabled, which we're communicating on. And the car you drive to church...and the oven with which you cook your food ......and the fridge you keep your beer in........and the medicine you give your kids when thy're ill............the appliance of science is everywhere and if you deny it then you become hypocritical and doesn't the church have something to say on that.




Some people get on the knees to pray.....
Some do it by looking to the stars.....

Galileo looked at the stars

 

[justchristian]

God cannot exist outside of something that you can be in. Time is an idea. It is what we call the keeping track of sequence and duration. If God exists (which I know you do not deny) then He has duration (in this case infinite duration) and He does something and then does something else, that's sequences. Thus God experiences both duration and sequence which we call time. It is not a thing or a location which can be left and entered into or bound by.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I agree good summary. But if time is just an idea how do you explain relativity, time dilation etc? Or do you disquish between our metaphysical time and God's duration time?

 

[elected4ever]

Why is this so hard to see, you other egg/block- heads out there? Good summary, Clete!
:idea:

Not so hard to see. I just wonted to be sure we are on the same page. :think:

 

[eccl3_6]

eccl3_6,

You didn't even bother to try to get a single point I made. Your repsonses (for the most part) had almost no relation to the point I was making at all.

I spent over an hour typing that post and my points were not only valid but actually had something to do with the issue of this thread which is not physics. Instead of paying attention to the point you want to insinuate that I am a liar and that I'm making stuff up as I go etc. Well fine. You can take you physics books and shove it right up your back side. I now longer care, as obviously you don't either. You can waste someon else's time.

All the points were related to a direct quote of yours. The thread is regarding the future which involves time and I am clearly expressing that metaphysical time and actual physical time that you and I experience cannot be considered the same thing. I' m not saying you are a liar but I am saying you have a poor understanding of the science you are quoting.
Its sounds like you've lost you temper a little bit.
Its me that feels Ive been wasting my time reexplaining the science to your theory.