Does God know the future?

[godrulz]

Godrulz, spatial relations are the same as time. They are relations we make in our minds and are subjective. So for you to say there is "space" on one hand and time on the other makes no sense.

Wrong assumption leads to wrong conclusions

 

[godrulz]

Nancy he's just made a metaphysical argument physical which obviously can't be done.





Well not until we crack the Grand Universal Theory.......



.......its bound to cause some arguments when that happens

Metaphysics deals with stuff, substance, essence, things vs morals. It is not diametrically opposed to physical concepts.

 

[godrulz]

I'm not no scientist or anything, and God knows I hate physics, but how can you say 'before' when there is nothing to relate time to since God never 'began'? In other words, at what time did God create us? Sure, we might say at such and such thousands and thousands of years ago, but that's our reference to time, since we exist in it. But since God is everlasting, at time did He decide to create us?

IMHO, you cannot say at what time in God's 'world', because there is nothing to measure it by - He's everlasting. God must exist outside of time.

This might not make sense to anyone else on this website, but at least I feel better about getting it off my chest.

<---------Creation-------Incarnation------Second Coming-----Millennium---etc----------->

Creation takes place on the continuum of endless time with no beginning or ending. Creation is not eternal nor simultaneous with events sequential (before or after) it. God does not see the actual incarnation before the creation of the universe. He correctly knows it as possible or potential until He brings it to pass in reality (space-time).

 

[godrulz]

Still debating? They will never "get it". People like godrulz, knight, etc.....are too invested in this theology to consider that they are mistaken.

I used to believe your way. I have nothing to gain or lose by wrongly believing something. I am persuaded based on evidence, not pride or financial gain. We should love truth and expose wrong thinking. Please do not attribute wrong motives to those who have seen the light.

 

[godrulz]

Actually no! Eternity is not dependent on the existence of the universe.

Duration preexisted the material universe within the relations of the triune Godhead.

 

[Z Man]

Actually time as we know it is measured eternity. The measurement of eternity, time, exist for our benefit.

Isn't that a contridiction? How do you measure something eternal?

 

[godrulz]

Isn't that a contridiction? How do you measure something eternal?

Eternal does not have to mean timelessness (Greekish philosophical assumption) ! It can also mean everlasting, endless duration with measurable instants/intervals (biblical, Hebraic view=common sense, the way we live and the way God is revealed in the Bible).

 

[Z Man]

Eternal does not have to mean timelessness! It can also mean everlasting, endless duration with measurable instants/intervals.

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'?

 

[Daniel50]

Solomon presents the true bottom line in the following verses: “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man’s all. For God will bring every work into judgment, Including every secret thing, whether good or evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).

 

[eccl3_6]

Metaphysics deals with stuff, substance, essence, things vs morals. It is not diametrically opposed to physical concepts.

Thats what I told you on post 1131 !!!! You're stealing my stuff......I wish I could copywrite....

However when we have a G.U.T. physics may well meet head on with metaphysics, we're just round the corner.

 

[eccl3_6]

Eternal does not have to mean timelessness (Greekish philosophical assumption) ! It can also mean everlasting, endless duration with measurable instants/intervals (biblical, Hebraic view=common sense, the way we live and the way God is revealed in the Bible).

Absolute bunkum....

Eternity...............an abundance of time, everlasting time
Timelessness......the absolute absence of time.



"Time has come a long way since the Greeks"

 

[elected4ever]

Time is dependent on the existence of eternity. Eternity is not dependent on time. Time changes with the change of whatever is used to measure it. Eternity is a constant and is not dependent on measurable. Calling Eternity metaphysical is man's way of denying that God exist. To man God becomes metaphysical unreal and deniable.

 

[eccl3_6]

Time is dependent on the existence of eternity. Eternity is not dependent on time. Time changes with the change of whatever is used to measure it. Eternity is a constant and is not dependent on measurable. Calling Eternity metaphysical is man's way of denying that God exist. To man God becomes metaphysical unreal and deniable.

Wrong. Time does not rely on the concept of eternity at all. It is acceptable to think of a finite amount of time.....sometimes I like to call them deadlines!

Metaphysical refers to pre-creational state. If you believe that God created the universe then we are talking metaphysics.....you can see this by the meanings of the two words; meta and physic.

 

[eccl3_6]

Wrong. Time does not rely on the concept of eternity at all. It is acceptable to think of a finite amount of time.....sometimes I like to call them deadlines!

Metaphysical refers to pre-creational state. If you believe that God created the universe then we are talking metaphysics.....you can see this by the meanings of the two words; meta and physic.

"I like deadlines......I like the whooshing noise they make as they fly right by." - Douglas Adams.

 

[elected4ever]

Wrong. Time does not rely on the concept of eternity at all. It is acceptable to think of a finite amount of time.....sometimes I like to call them deadlines!

Metaphysical refers to pre-creational state. If you believe that God created the universe then we are talking metaphysics.....you can see this by the meanings of the two words; meta and physic.

eternity is not a concept. It is reality that man chooses to deny. I suppose eternity stopped when time began :juggle: or did we just learn to measure the duration of existence and call it time? :doh:

 

[eccl3_6]

eternity is not a concept. It is reality that man chooses to deny. I suppose eternity stopped when time began :juggle: or did we just learn to measure the duration of existence and call it time? :doh:

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.

 

[Clete]

I can prove this {that time is a real thing} and many people have. A GPS signal from satellites orbitting the aerth wouldn't work if time wasn't a thing. We have to account for its properties which change in order to read a clear signal

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

Thats the point you don't often see the time from more than one perspective which is why we find it hard to comprehend.

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.

However we proved this theory by sending an atomic clock into space whilst a sister clock was kept on earth. When the space clock was returned it was proved that time had run relatively 'slower' it.

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.

This dilation can be worked out using Lorentz's transformation formulas.....which had been discovered wey before space flight (Lorentz died in 1928). Once more experiment had proven theory.

This is truly sad if you think that this is proof. It isn't proof. It is evidence, I'll grant you that but it far from proof which I hope to show you before this post if over.

Ok keep to one side which of the street...which is it gonna be...science....or religion?

The truth, that's the side I'm on. Nothing else will do.

What was that? Both? Ok....here goes.....yes if God were outside time then He would find it hard to do anything so you conclude He is inside it. If you believe God to be without boundaries, limitless, all powerful, OMNIPRESENT....then by definition He has to be everywhere.....inside time and outside time.

I believe 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.

Anything less and surely you don't believe in an all powerful God because I can foresee a God which would be more powerful....one who exists in both states.

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.

Time is a product of physicallity, from Einstein's special realtivity we pass into his General Relativity. If this wasn't working as we thought all those pretty pictures you get from the Hubble telescope they'd disappear in a puff of non-existent smoke for starters.

This simply shows a gross ignorance of both theories. The images we see from Hubble are simple photographs. The photographs of galaxiesare supposedly billions of years old and the light billions of years older 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).

But the prize for the 'most startling display of ignorance quote' goes to....

You CANNOT convert mass to energy or vise versa.

Try telling that to the 140,000 Japanese that died in Hiroshima.
Converting mass into energy is the premise of E=mc2.
Can't convert mass into energy.....no nuclear weapons, no nuclear power, no radiation, no SUN!!! NO STARS!!!!!!! NO UNIVERSE AS WE KNOW IT!!!!!!

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


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.

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.

Back to Lorentz's formulae for time dilation......(On the side.....HIGH SCHOOL? Personal theories??? This is post graduate stuff.) You quantify time by looking at it relatively. Lorentz's formulae again and the two atomic clocks.....

I'm not going to debate this (or any of the rest of the physics) with you. You very simply don't know even what the terms you are using mean. No one has ever quantified time, ever. No one has ever conclusively proved that it time independently exists never mind quantified it.

Well past the hypothesis stage mate...look at all the practical uses we have for it already that I've quoted above....didn't even brush on the Quantum side of things because then things really do start going strange in the world on physics.

This going strange as you call it is the primary reason why I personally believe that there is still important discoveries yet to be made that may change again everything we think we know about the universe which God has created.

But uses of Quantum theory are already well established. It goes to show that even if something doesn't seem to make sense it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand until it has be proven otherwise.

I never said it should be. I have only maintained that it isn't the proof that you think it is.

This was the mistake that the church made with Galileo....or do you still believe the sun goes round the Earth.

It was Aristotle that said the Earth was the center of the universe and perfectly motionless etc, etc, etc. The church blindly excepted everything he said and found Scripture to "prove" it. Practically the entire church believes in what we call Calvinism today for the exact same reason. Centuries ago they took Aristotle at his word and manipulated God's word to fit his. If anyone here holds anything in common with those 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.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[elected4ever]

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.

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!

 

[elected4ever]

Clete

I believe 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.

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.

 

[nancy]

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

Physics is a philosophy as is metaphysics.