Does God know the future?

[SOTK]

Clete, STOK, Z Man did you see my post #1665 ?
--Dave

Yes, I did, but you seemed to be addressing Z Man more than I so I did not respond. I would like to wait and see how Z Man responds.

 

[SOTK]

They may well have thought it but again, I am not talking about what people think.

Let me ask you a question.

Can anything be known to be false? I don't mean believed to be false, I mean can we KNOW that something is false?

Yes, things can be known to be false and things can be known to be true, however, there are also things which can not be known. This is where faith comes in.

Interesting question.
Logic itself does not work unless the existence of God is presupposed. God's existence is the very foundation of logic. Thus God must exist because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.

I agree with you, Clete, as we are both Christians. What I was getting at is faith. There are many things written in God's Word which seem fantastical from my humanly perspective. There are many, many things which do not. There is an aweful lot of logic written within God's Word, but you must agree that there are ideas and occurences within the Bible where it is hard to imagine, from our limited understanding, how these things are possible. Again, this is where faith comes in. Some things can not be explained nor completely understood. Do you agree?

For you, as a natural creature, to create something out of nothing would indeed be a logical absurdity. But there is no such logical contradiction implied when God, who is not limited by the laws of the conservation of matter, creates 'ex nihilo'.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Okay, I agree, but why is God not limited by the laws of the conservation of matter, but limited in other ways such as knowing the future? I'm just trying to understand how you feel God is not limited in some ways but seemingly limited in others.

 

[Z Man]

What I think you were trying to say is,

"It is logical to us that we must eat or die, but not logical to God that we must eat or die.

This is an irrational statement, but I think it is the one you were trying to make. I hope you see the fallacy of your argument.

--Dave

Well, thanks for pointing out my errors, but I wasn't trying to say that. My point was to ultimately try and show that it may be logical for us to experience time, but I find it ludicris to believe that it's logical for God to also experience time. Saying that it's logical for us to experience time is only obvious, but it only relates to us. It's very foolish to apply our logic about experiencing time to the way God experiences it.

I don't know why, but I seem to have a hard time really explaining what I mean. Sorry. I can see it all in my head, but I feel that I'm just being a little confusing here. I really don't know of any analogies to make it easier either. But I'll see if I can think of one...

Well, I think I was close to explaining what I mean with the story of God's promise to Abraham in my earlier post. Again, we experience time in sequence; we're born, and eventually, after time has passed, we go through life and experience many events, good and bad, and then we die. In the case of Abraham, at one point in Abraham's time, he received a promise from God. God made a promise to Abraham at that exact time in Abraham's life. So to Abraham, the promise was made then, and he had no idea in the past that at that time in his future, God would reveal a promise to him. And when Abraham received the promise, it hadn't come true yet. So Abraham looked to the passing of time, or the future, for the reality of the promise to unfold in the present, which is the only time Abraham existed in. This is how WE experience time. And so we've logically made conclusions based on this experience. We've called things that have happened the past, things to come, the future. In both cases, the events are not real. They're either memories or hopes.

However, I do not think that we can take that same logic that applies to us concerning time, and attach it to God. We may experience time, but why say that if we experience, God must experience it as well? To me, that's the same as a person concluding that since it may be logical for a human to be born in order to exist (or for a Santa Claus to be born to exist...), then it also must be logical to conclude that God too was born in order to exist. To me, that's the same as saying that since we experience time, then God must experience it as well. Am I making any sense? I'm not asking anyone to agree, but just want to make sure I'm clear about what I believe, and what I conclude from people who apply that type of thinking to God (that He must exist in time because we do).

To me, when we say that God made the promise to Abraham at a specific time, we are speaking in terms that we understand. To say that God made a promise to Abraham then is the way we see it, but for God, the promise was made and realized before Abraham was created! And see, I just spoke as a human would think. I said that God made a promise and a brought it to pass before Abraham existed. But what I really believe is that God didn't make the promise at some point in His past; the promise had always been made. It's who God is. And when Abraham reached that point in his life, he realized that part of God too. And looked to the specific time in the future when that part of God became an actuality; when the fulfillment of who God shows us to be comes to past.

God is reality; anything apart from Him is not. We may be manifestations of His reality, but we are not reality in and of itself. God is. We have a past and a future, neither of which is real. I don't believe God has a past or a future. We may see in the Bible God making prophecies and promises at specific times, but those times that God manifested Himself were in OUR TIME. When God made the promise to Abraham, Abraham had to wait for the promise to become an actuality; to become real. But the promise was real to God; it had already been settled. It was just a matter of Abraham (well, his descendants) to catch up to the promise in their time.

Hope this makes sense. Just a little peek inside my thoughts. It may not be all that organized, and a little messy, but I tried to clarify it as much as possible. I'm sure that someone out there has done a much better job at explaining this better than me (C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity), but, oh well. This is my best effort.

My head hurts...

 

[DFT_Dave]

Hope this makes sense. Just a little peek inside my thoughts. It may not be all that organized, and a little messy, but I tried to clarify it as much as possible. I'm sure that someone out there has done a much better job at explaining this better than me (C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity), but, oh well. This is my best effort.

My head hurts...

Z Man,

I appreciate your sincerity. I am very familiar with C.S. Lewis' chapter on "Time and Beyond Time" in Mere Christianity. My favorites books of his are Miracles and The Abolition of Man. I will write a critique on his chapter on time. I will use his own arguments against naturalism in Miracles to refute his commentary on time in Mere Christianity.

It was my studies in apologetics; C.S. Lewis, Frances Schaeffer, and John Warwick Montgomery that persuaded me to accept open theism, what I call dynamic free theism--DFT. (Open Theism comes from the title of a book, The Openness of God)

I would like you to reflect on the part of my post where I explain what an open theist means when we say that God's logic is the same as our logic and tell me if you understand it, in terms of its logic. It's important that we agree on what it means to be logical and rational in this debate, or else, we can not prove any statement or Biblical interpretation to to be correct or incorrect by either of us.

--Dave

"My point is, what may be logical to us may not be logical to God. We know that it's logical to eat, or else we'll die.But for us to say that God is contained by the same logic is ludicris...God does not think it logical for Him to eat"

Here is an error you have made; you have switched the subject of your argument.

"We think it logical that we must eat or die." The correct analogy should be;

"God thinks it logical that we must eat or die". You have have stated correctly;

"We think it logical that we eat or die" but incorrectly substituted Him for we.

"God does not think it logical for Him to eat or die."

When we say our logic and God's logic is the same, we would argue that;

"It is logical to God and to us that we must eat or we will die. It is not logical to God nor to us that God should eat or he will die."

What I think you were trying to say is,

"It is logical to us that we must eat or die, but not logical to God that we must eat or die.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I hope you see the fallacy of your argument.

 

[godrulz]

Stop building your house on logic. Faith is logically absurd.

Faith is not the Kierkegaardian blind existential leap of 'faith' in the dark. True faith is only as good as the logic, reality, and object one trusts in. Otherwise, it is not faith but mere presumption.

 

[godrulz]

Z Man,

I I will write a critique on his chapter on time. I will use his own arguments against naturalism in Miracles to refute his commentary on time in Mere Christianity.

It was my studies in apologetics; C.S. Lewis, Frances Schaeffer, and John Warwick Montgomery that persuaded me to accept open theism, what I call dynamic free theism--DFT. (Open Theism comes from the title of a book, The Openness of God)

C.S. Lewis believed in the Augustinian/Platonic 'eternal now' concept and used a time line analogy to explain it (God is outside the line and sees all). He is brilliant, but wrong on this point.

 

[Lovejoy]

Faith is not the Kierkegaardian blind existential leap of 'faith' in the dark. True faith is only as good as the logic, reality, and object one trusts in. Otherwise, it is not faith but mere presumption.

Very nice! May I borrow that? I was trying to explain that very concept to a secular Jewish gentleman last night, but was unable to. Of course, that fact that I was sober and he was on his 5th Martini was not helping matters....

 

[Clete]

To SOTZ and Z Man,

As new to this website, I want to tell that I am enjoying these debates. I am very gratefull for everyone's participation. I believe debate is vital to our understanding of truth. Our rhetoric may at times seem very adversarial, but the spirit in which we debate, I believe, is our attempt to help each other.

I see at this point we are not on the same page in our understanding of logic. I hope a comparison of these two quotes demonstrate this. Clete, godrulz, and I are using the word "logic" differently than you are. While it is true that the earth being actually "round" was in contradiction to the view that it was "flat", we are using the law of noncontradiction to mean that the earth cannot be both flat and round at the same time and, in the same relationship to the definition of both.

We have to agree on something's, especially our definitions. Here is what I think you are misunderstanding. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Z Man, you have stated,

"My point is, what may be logical to us may not be logical to God. We know that it's logical to eat, or else we'll die. We know that it's logical to have a heterosexual relationship in order to procreate, rather than having a homosexual relationship. We know that it's logical to expect the sun to rise in the morning; for us to grow old and die;"

But for us to say that God is contained by the same logic is ludicris.

God does not think it logical for Him to eat.
God does not think it logical for Him to have any sort of 'procreating' relationship.
God does not think it logical that He will experience a passing of time in which He will grow old and die."

Here is an error you have made; you have switched the subject of your argument.

"We think it logical that we must eat or die." The correct analogy should be;

"God thinks it logical that we must eat or die". You have have stated correctly;

"We think it logical that we eat or die" but incorrectly substituted Him for we.

"God does not think it logical for Him to eat or die."

When we say our logic and God's logic is the same, we would argue that;

"It is logical to God and to us that we must eat or we will die. It is not logical to God or to us that God should eat or he will die."

What I think you were trying to say is,

"It is logical to us that we must eat or die, but not logical to God that we must eat or die.

This is an irrational statement, but I think it is the one you were trying to make. I hope you see the fallacy of your argument.

--Dave

Dave,

I didn't ignore this post. In fact, I loved it. But I generally only respond to a post that I disagree with or that I feel I have something to contribute too. Your post is basically perfect so I just left it to work its ministry. If this is the sort of material we can expect from you on a regular basis, the Calvinists on this site are in big trouble. Keep 'em coming! :thumb:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Yes, things can be known to be false and things can be known to be true, however, there are also things which can not be known. This is where faith comes in.

What? NO! That is belief not faith. Is this the way you (I mean you personally) have faith in God? If so, I'm here to tell you that there is much more to the Christian faith than this. You can unquestionably know that God exists all it takes is faith. That is, Biblical faith; the sort of faith that looks at the substantive evidence and accepts its testimony. It is truly rationally impossible for God not to exist.

After writting this, it occures to me that perhaps I've not understood your meaning. If I've missed your point here please clarify.

I agree with you, Clete, as we are both Christians. What I was getting at is faith. There are many things written in God's Word which seem fantastical from my humanly perspective. There are many, many things which do not. There is an aweful lot of logic written within God's Word, but you must agree that there are ideas and occurences within the Bible where it is hard to imagine, from our limited understanding, how these things are possible. Again, this is where faith comes in. Some things can not be explained nor completely understood. Do you agree?

The only issue that I can think of off the top of my head that might fall into such a category is the doctrine of the Trinity. Other than that, I can't recall anything in the Bible that seemed to me to be illogical or self-contradictory and even the Trinity doesn't fall into the contraditory category but more so the category of paradox. It's as if we simply haven't been given enough details to be able to make total sense of the information we have been given.

What other sorts of things are you refering too in Scripture that seem illogical to you?

Okay, I agree, but why is God not limited by the laws of the conservation of matter, but limited in other ways such as knowing the future? I'm just trying to understand how you feel God is not limited in some ways but seemingly limited in others.

God is limited to reality. Doing the logically absurd only happens in works of fiction, not in reality. And it's not as if God couldn't have made a universe where the future was completely settled where he exhaustively knew every detail of what the future held for that creation. But what He cannot do is make such a creation where the creature can justly be held individually responsible for their actions and where those individuals had the ability to genuinely love God. He couldn't because to make such a creation is a logical absurdity, the one is exclusive of the other.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[bling]

1. Can we say God is not arbitrary?
2. Does that mean, what ever God does there is purpose?
3. Can we then use logic to determine God’s purpose?
4. Does it mean that God is logical because we can logically determine His actions?
5. If God knew what the answer was would He need logic?
6. Is the only way for God to use logic is for Him to not know something?
7. It talks about God reasoning, but is that a one way conversation, kind of like God reasoning with Job?
8. Is there any place in the scripture that talks about God using logic?

I have tried to find another theory besides the theory of relativity that explains why light and the Dobler effect can not be used to measure the speed of the earth. Are all believers in OV also part of the Flat Earth Society since that seems to be the only other explanation?

 

[Z Man]

I would like you to reflect on the part of my post where I explain what an open theist means when we say that God's logic is the same as our logic and tell me if you understand it, in terms of its logic. It's important that we agree on what it means to be logical and rational in this debate, or else, we can not prove any statement or Biblical interpretation to to be correct or incorrect by either of us.

--Dave



Here is an error you have made; you have switched the subject of your argument.

"We think it logical that we must eat or die." The correct analogy should be;

"God thinks it logical that we must eat or die". You have have stated correctly;

"We think it logical that we eat or die" but incorrectly substituted Him for we.

"God does not think it logical for Him to eat or die."

When we say our logic and God's logic is the same, we would argue that;

"It is logical to God and to us that we must eat or we will die. It is not logical to God nor to us that God should eat or he will die."

What I think you were trying to say is,

"It is logical to us that we must eat or die, but not logical to God that we must eat or die.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I hope you see the fallacy of your argument.

Dave,

What you are saying here, I agree with. What I disagree with is when we turn it around and place God under the limits of our knowledge. For example, of course it's logical to say:

"It is logical to God and to us that we must eat or we will die. It is not logical to God nor to us that God should eat or he will die."

The reason we say that it is not logical to God nor to us that God should eat or he will die is because eating and dying are things that we, who are natural and mortal, experience. In the same manner, I believe time is something we, who are natural and mortal, experience. But so many Open Theists seem to believe that since we experience time, then God must experience it too. Why? We've just proved via your example that God is not bound by our natural ways (eating and dying), and that we nor He find it logical that He should experience such things. So why must it be logical for God to experience time?

I believe time is something we experience, not God. Our relationship with Him is in a sequence of events in our life, but I do not believe God experiences a relationship with us in a sequence as well. Like I've stated earlier, I believe that God is reality, and the future, or the past, are not things that He ponders, or hopes and longs for. The future and the past to God are a reality just as the present is to us. God's promise to Abraham has always been, but Abraham only received that promise from God when he had reached the specific time God had appointed to Abraham for revelation. But to God, the promise had always been; it was just a matter of Abraham catching up to that point in his life - his time.

 

[Johnny]

This statement is logically absurd, that's for sure. But I would sooner be eaten by wild dogs that to accept the Christian faith as an absurdity. Your proclamation that it is absurd will land you in Hell if you do not repent.

Any faith is a logical absurdity. I wasn't aware that in addition to my faith in Jesus I must also proclaim that my faith was arrived at by logic or is supported logically. It's not. That's why it's called faith. The most logical position is agnostism. But I am a theist nonetheless. I believe in Jesus whether or not it is logical. The only difference between me and you is that I'm willing to admit that it's not logical and you feel that it's a threat to your belief system if it's not logical. I don't recall God ever asking that we trick ourselves into believing our faith is a mountain of logic and so I don't pretend it is.

 

[godrulz]

Any faith is a logical absurdity. I wasn't aware that in addition to my faith in Jesus I must also proclaim that my faith was arrived at by logic or is supported logically. It's not. That's why it's called faith. The most logical position is agnostism. But I am a theist nonetheless. I believe in Jesus whether or not it is logical. The only difference between me and you is that I'm willing to admit that it's not logical and you feel that it's a threat to your belief system if it's not logical. I don't recall God ever asking that we trick ourselves into believing our faith is a mountain of logic and so I don't pretend it is.

Christianity is logical and intellectually defensible (try Francis Schaeffer or C.S. Lewis). Atheism or agnosticism is intellectually bankrupt and cannot explain reality. Something does not come from nothing. Personal does not come from impersonal, etc. God is the uncreated Triune Creator. This truth alone is coherent.

Faith without evidence is presumption. This does not mean we need absolute proof, but what we know or trust in has defensible truth merit. Jesus either rose from the dead or not. Supernatural does not mean illogical. This is a space-time event that has historical veracity. It is not a fairy tale. We are to give reasons for the hope and faith in us. We are to search the Scriptures to ascertain truth. In the end, we do trust with childlike faith, but it is not just wishful thinking.

 

[Z Man]

Supernatural does not mean illogical.

Thus, it's not illogical to conceive of God existing in an 'eternal now' realm.

 

[godrulz]

Thus, it's not illogical to conceive of God existing in an 'eternal now' realm.

I believe it can be demonstrated that 'eternal now' is a logical absurdity for a personal being. In addition, how has God revealed Himself? Does He experience timelessness (Hellenistic philosophy) or an endless duration of time (Hebraic)? Rev. 1:8 uses tensed expressions about God (past, present, future). This is not a picture of timelessness.

Just because we are talking about God does not make any wild claim true. Some still think God can create square circles or incarnate as a fly and as Jesus at the same time. Logical absurdities are not a limitation on the perfection of God.

 

[Z Man]

I believe it can be demonstrated that 'eternal now' is a logical absurdity for a personal being. In addition, how has God revealed Himself? Does He experience timelessness (Hellenistic philosophy) or an endless duration of time (Hebraic)? Rev. 1:8 uses tensed expressions about God (past, present, future). This is not a picture of timelessness.

Just because God is timelessness doesn't mean He cannot be personal. And your proof text in Revelations is explained in a way in which we understand it. We exist in time, therefore it would be hard to visualize, let alone write down, exactly what timelessness was.

 

[Johnny]

Christianity is logical and intellectually defensible (try Francis Schaeffer or C.S. Lewis). Atheism or agnosticism is intellectually bankrupt and cannot explain reality. Something does not come from nothing. Personal does not come from impersonal, etc. God is the uncreated Triune Creator. This truth alone is coherent.

There's a logical inconsistency in your sentence.

Nonetheless, I enjoy Lewis thoroughly and I think his are some of the best arguments.

 

[godrulz]

There's a logical inconsistency in your sentence.

Nonetheless, I enjoy Lewis thoroughly and I think his are some of the best arguments.

Where is the logical inconsistency?

God is uncreated. He is the First Cause. Matter is not eternal nor did it arise from nothing. GOD created the heavens and the earth? Who made God or where did He come from? He is uncreated triune Creator, from everlasting to everlasting. This is revelation beyond mere reason, but it is not illogical or impossible. It is the only logical explanation for man and the universe.

 

[Z Man]

Where is the logical inconsistency?

God is uncreated. He is the First Cause. Matter is not eternal nor did it arise from nothing. GOD created the heavens and the earth? Who made God or where did He come from? He is uncreated triune Creator, from everlasting to everlasting. This is revelation beyond mere reason, but it is not illogical or impossible. It is the only logical explanation for man and the universe.

The logical inconsistency lies in the fact that you believe logic proves God exists, and that because God exists, we have logic.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

The logical inconsistency lies in the fact that you believe logic proves God exists, and that because God exists, we have logic.

are you saying it's circular?

here's how i'd probably explain it.

Because God exists, we have logic:

1) logic is an attribute of God's existence

2) thus, if God did not exist, we would not have logic

3) the reason we (humans) have logic is because God created us with the ability to reason

4) therefore, we have logic because God exists

Logic proves God exists:

1) Logic is not "natural"

2) anything not natural must come from the supernatural

3) God is the only supernatural being in existence

4) therefore logic is from the supernatural, thereby proving it's existence.

now i just thought these off the top of my head, so there could be problems, but they seem to make sense to me. let me know what you think.

GIT