Does God know the future?

[godrulz]

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

Huh?

 

[lee_merrill]

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.

Yes, this is what has been called "The Argument from Reason," as in the description here (a book based on C.S. Lewis' argument in "Miracles"), and I think it makes excellent sense!

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Clete]

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

Brilliant! :thumb:

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Yes, this is what has been called "The Argument from Reason," as in the description here (a book based on C.S. Lewis' argument in "Miracles"), and I think it makes excellent sense!

Blessings,
Lee

i would like to pick that book up sometime as it's one of the few non-fiction books by C.S. Lewis i haven't read.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Brilliant! :thumb:

thanks. looking back at it now, i almost think i am maybe presupposing God's existence in #3 of the second argument, which would be a logic no-no. do i need to reword it or is it ok?

 

[Z Man]

GIT,

Yes, it's circular reasoning. You said:

Because God exists, we have logic...​

​

Then turn right around and say:

Logic proves God exists...​

​

That's a classical example of the circular reasoning fallacy. Your argument is as follows:

1) God exists.

Why?

2) Because we have logic.

Why?

3) Because God exists.

 

[Jujubee]

It is all in the book... all the info oyu need is in the bible... God knows everything and tells us what he thinks we need to know....

 

[Z Man]

It is all in the book... all the info oyu need is in the bible... God knows everything and tells us what he thinks we need to know....

Again, circular reasoning:

God must exist because the Bible says so. The Bible was written by God.

 

[justchristian]

GIT,

Yes, it's circular reasoning. You said:

Because God exists, we have logic...​

Then turn right around and say:

Logic proves God exists...​

That's a classical example of the circular reasoning fallacy. Your argument is as follows:

1) God exists.

Why?

2) Because we have logic.

Why?

3) Because God exists.

What's the alternative.

1) God doesnt exist and we were created by a expanding singualrity from nowhere which gave rise to a life forming universe
how do we know this
2) Becuase logic science exist and tell I so
where are logic and science from?
3)they are byproducts of an expanding singualrity from nowhere which gave rise to a life forming universe

the problem with any claims at beginnings is that our abilty to make claims on such a beginning are inheriently dependant on what are claiming as a beginning. I dont think there is alternative to circular reasoning when it ocmes to such matters. For us, from our persepective, the beginning is a paradox that is not for us to unravel. TO borrow from a fav quote of mine, "the secret to life is not being in the know, but being in the mystery."

 

[God_Is_Truth]

GIT,

Yes, it's circular reasoning. You said:

Because God exists, we have logic...​

​

Then turn right around and say:

Logic proves God exists...​

​

That's a classical example of the circular reasoning fallacy.

i don't see anything circular thus far.

Your argument is as follows:

1) God exists.

Why?

2) Because we have logic.

Why?

3) Because God exists.

#3 is not what i have been saying. it should say something like "because logic is an aspect of the supernatural, aka God, and not the natural.

let me rewrite it another way

1) Logic exists
2) Logic does not arise from natural things
3) Logic therefore must come from something supernatural
4) the supernatural is God
5) God therefore exists

or yet another way

1) we have the ability to reason (logic)
2) the ability to reason is not inherently natural. in other words, it cannot be explained through natural causes and laws.
3) reason is therefore only explainable through the existence of the supernatural
4) the supernatural is God
5) God therefore exists

now neither of these arguments will prove the existence of the Christian God, mind you. they only prove the existence of a God of some sort.

 

[godrulz]

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.

Does it not concern you that you will not take Scripture at face value and that pagan Greeks originated the incoherent timeless/eternal now doctrine? God's years are without end. He is from everlasting to everlasting (Ps. 90:2). Scripture consistently portrays God as experiencing endless time (duration). If timelessness were true, how would God express this in His revelation, or how would He express that He does experience time (if not exactly as He does in Scripture...He should be able to use language to show either concept to accurately portray His nature and ways)?

 

[Z Man]

Does it not concern you that you will not take Scripture at face value and that pagan Greeks originated the incoherent timeless/eternal now doctrine? God's years are without end. He is from everlasting to everlasting (Ps. 90:2). Scripture consistently portrays God as experiencing endless time (duration). If timelessness were true, how would God express this in His revelation, or how would He express that He does experience time (if not exactly as He does in Scripture...He should be able to use language to show either concept to accurately portray His nature and ways)?

God is not expressing to us through Scriptures His experience with time - the Scriptures express how WE see God work in OUR time.

I know C.S. Lewis did a very good analogy with God being a paper, and time being a line drawn upon the paper, but I'm going to try a different analogy to show you that it's us who experience God through time, not the other way around.

God is forever. Not in a sense that He moves through time forever, but that He is 'the beginning and the end'. He is God in 300BC just as much as He is God in 3000AD. He is real in either case. Now let's say that we humans are on a 'convayer' (spelling?) belt that moves us through what we call time. And above that convayer belt is a roof with holes in it. As we move through time, we come in contact with the light that shines down through the holes. Some holes are bigger than others, and they are not evenly spread apart through the roof. So some people encounter the light from the holes more often than others, and some in larger doses than others. The source of this light is from one bulb. And let's say that that bulb is God. Notice that the light bulb does not move along the roof with the convayer belt, but is stationary in it's 'timelessness'. It's us who move across the belt that experience the light as we move along through our time.

It may not be all that great, but I believe that this analogy illustrates how I believe God relates to us through His timelessness and our mortality and limitations of experiencing time.

 

[Z Man]

What's the alternative.

1) God doesnt exist and we were created by a expanding singualrity from nowhere which gave rise to a life forming universe
how do we know this
2) Becuase logic science exist and tell I so
where are logic and science from?
3)they are byproducts of an expanding singualrity from nowhere which gave rise to a life forming universe

the problem with any claims at beginnings is that our abilty to make claims on such a beginning are inheriently dependant on what are claiming as a beginning. I dont think there is alternative to circular reasoning when it ocmes to such matters. For us, from our persepective, the beginning is a paradox that is not for us to unravel. TO borrow from a fav quote of mine, "the secret to life is not being in the know, but being in the mystery."

It's not my intent to disprove God's existence. I merely want to show the Open Theists that their trust in logic for supporting the claim that God exists in time is faulty.

As Johnny said, faith is not logically conceivable. So trying to say that God must adhere to our logic and ways of reasoning is silly.

 

[Z Man]

i don't see anything circular thus far.



#3 is not what i have been saying. it should say something like "because logic is an aspect of the supernatural, aka God, and not the natural.

let me rewrite it another way

1) Logic exists
2) Logic does not arise from natural things
3) Logic therefore must come from something supernatural
4) the supernatural is God
5) God therefore exists

or yet another way

1) we have the ability to reason (logic)
2) the ability to reason is not inherently natural. in other words, it cannot be explained through natural causes and laws.
3) reason is therefore only explainable through the existence of the supernatural
4) the supernatural is God
5) God therefore exists

now neither of these arguments will prove the existence of the Christian God, mind you. they only prove the existence of a God of some sort.

We have the ability to reason, thus God must exist. Logic exists, thus God must exists. Great. But where did our ability to reason come from? In other words, where did logic come from?

As you have said earlier, it comes from God. Thus your circular reasoning.

 

[defcon]

This may have already been addressed, but isn't it a little absurd to constantly say the classical theology of God is greatly influenced by pagan Greek philosphy? Just by Google searching I find many sources stating that Open Theism has many of its beliefs in line with pagan Greek philosphy. Seems to me the whole "pagan Greek philosphy" proclaimed by Open Thiests is over-used to try to move the conversation away from Scripture.

 

[godrulz]

God is not expressing to us through Scriptures His experience with time - the Scriptures express how WE see God work in OUR time.

I know C.S. Lewis did a very good analogy with God being a paper, and time being a line drawn upon the paper, but I'm going to try a different analogy to show you that it's us who experience God through time, not the other way around.

God is forever. Not in a sense that He moves through time forever, but that He is 'the beginning and the end'. He is God in 300BC just as much as He is God in 3000AD. He is real in either case. Now let's say that we humans are on a 'convayer' (spelling?) belt that moves us through what we call time. And above that convayer belt is a roof with holes in it. As we move through time, we come in contact with the light that shines down through the holes. Some holes are bigger than others, and they are not evenly spread apart through the roof. So some people encounter the light from the holes more often than others, and some in larger doses than others. The source of this light is from one bulb. And let's say that that bulb is God. Notice that the light bulb does not move along the roof with the convayer belt, but is stationary in it's 'timelessness'. It's us who move across the belt that experience the light as we move along through our time.

It may not be all that great, but I believe that this analogy illustrates how I believe God relates to us through His timelessness and our mortality and limitations of experiencing time.

Since time is not a thing nor space, all spatial analogies will be inaccurate. You have found an analogy to try to explain your view, but this does not mean the view is in line with Scripture or reality. The exact nature of time/eternity will be based on limited biblical evidence combined with godly logic/philosophy. Your analogy has some merit for past and present (and our limited perspective of it), but it is not applicable to the future (unless the future has already happened making it the fixed past...the Second Coming of Christ has not happened from our perspective AND from God's perspective...He does not see or experience it as past if it is in fact still future to us and Him).

 

[God_Is_Truth]

We have the ability to reason, thus God must exist. Logic exists, thus God must exists. Great. But where did our ability to reason come from? In other words, where did logic come from?

As you have said earlier, it comes from God. Thus your circular reasoning.

Logic comes from God, and is evidence of him. it's the same way with sunlight.

1) sunlight comes from the sun (by definition).
2) we have sunlight (undeniable).
3) therefore the sun exists.

how is that circular? this argument follows the same form as the logic one.

1) logic comes from the supernatural (is not natural)
2) we have logic (obviously)
3) therefore the supernatural exists

if it's circular please spell it out as clearly as you can because i just don't see it. lay it out step by step and show precisely which parts make it circular.

 

[Z Man]

Logic comes from God, and is evidence of him. it's the same way with sunlight.

1) sunlight comes from the sun (by definition).
2) we have sunlight (undeniable).
3) therefore the sun exists.

how is that circular? this argument follows the same form as the logic one.

1) logic comes from the supernatural (is not natural)
2) we have logic (obviously)
3) therefore the supernatural exists

if it's circular please spell it out as clearly as you can because i just don't see it. lay it out step by step and show precisely which parts make it circular.

You say that because we have logic, it proves God exists, and yet, also turn around and say that because God exists, we have logic.

 

[Clete]

You say that because we have logic, it proves God exists, and yet, also turn around and say that because God exists, we have logic.

This is not circular Z Man. You need to slow down and think this through.

If you cannot have B without A then the presence of B proves the existence of A.

Thus if you cannot have logic without God (which you cannot) then the presence of logic proves the existence of God. The argument is that the existence of God is a necessary condition for the existence of logic and therefore if logic exists so must God. That's what it means to be a necessary condition.

Without being insulting, you really would benefit greatly by reading The Big Questions: Philosophy for Everyone. It's a terrific little book that is easy to read and does a terrific job of introducing the reader to the basics of logic and philosophy. I really strongly recommend it for anyone dealing with these sorts of issues.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Johnny]

I don't want to be offensive but that's not good logic. Here's why:

First, you assumed "2) Logic does not arise from natural things". This is an assumption I'm not sure everyone would agree with. Logic can usually be reduced to a mathematical operation, which is arguably natural (or arises naturally in our brains). You may counter that God created nature, but that is assuming His existence when you're trying to prove it in the first place. Remember that computers can use logic (usually better than we can), and they rely completely on natural laws.

3) Logic therefore must come from something supernatural
4) the supernatural is God

Again, you're assuming the existence of God. One could substitute God with purple spacetimewarping flying monkeys, which are clearly beyond natural, and your argument would apply. But we cannot conclude that purple spacetimewarping flying monkeys exist.

1) Logic exists
2) Logic does not arise from natural things