Re: Open View/Closed Future

[Turbo]

Turbo, the Scriptures clearly state God is the creator of time...

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Were you aware of this?

Time is not a thing. The concept of time is used to describe duration and sequence.

Unlike His creation, God has endured since eternity past. As you quoted, "He is before all things." If God exists "outside of time" then this statement and many others like it in the Bible are either false or meaningless. It is illogical to refer to something that happened or existed before time existed.



Though God created "all things," He Himself is uncreated; He did not create Himself. Were you aware of this?

Did God have to create love for love to exist?

 

[godrulz]

I would say all are created things. They are all created expressions of the intrusic nature of God but as created are independant of God. Time may not be something as a tree, but it is something like gravity, or electromagnetism. I am not saying gravity and electromagnetism are intrusic to God's nature, but that time, like them, is created. It is a property of the universe independant of God. We may not be able to put it under microscope but we can express it in math. It can be observed, measured, manipulated, and changed. All physics and science as I understand them hold time as a something.

The common sense view is that time is not wrapped up in physics and science. It is merely a descriptive word for the duration/sequence/succession we all experience as we think, act, and feel. You cannot put the past and future in a bottle. The events can be recorded historically, but they do not exist beyond the present instant. We can reference intervals between instants, but it is fundamental and abstract, not tangible and verifiable physically.

Faulty assumptions (time is a created thing or it is space) leads to faulty conclusions.

 

[godrulz]

Why? Wasn't Jesus ignorant in many respects to what was knowable?

This relates to His incarnation/kenosis/humiliation where He became the God-Man (Phil. 2; Jn. 1:1, 14). As a man, He grew in wisdom, knowledge, stature, and in favor with God and man (Lk. 2:52). He was hungry, tired, thirsty, and even died! None of these things apply to God or the Word in His preexistence. Any ignorance of Jesus relates to a voluntary choice to veil His Deity for a time on earth. He was 100% man and 100% God. During this time, He voluntarily laid aside attributes like omnipotence. He was limited by the flesh to our planet. The exact nature of how His divine and human nature relate is speculative. I assume that He inherently did not know His preexistent knowledge as a baby, but had to learn to speak, do homework, be a carpenter, etc. The idea of not knowing when His Second Coming would be relates to this, and perhaps to the fact that even the Father had not set the date in stone in the first century.

As God, in His preexistence and post-resurrection, He was not ignorant of anything. He was omniscient knowing the past/present perfectly, and the future as possible/probable.

 

[godrulz]

Turbo, the Scriptures clearly state God is the creator of time...

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Were you aware of this?

Did God create your car, pen, or computer? Did He create your supper or the clothes you were?

When He says nothing is impossible for God, does that mean God lies, dies, creates rocks too heavy to lift, makes 2+2=11, makes black white at the same time, etc.?

God did not create love, hunger, sin, joy, etc. Time is as fundamental as anything. It is not created. It is simply a descriptive aspect of any personal being or reality that experiences one moment after the next. In God's case, it is an everlasting duration of moments (that have content). In our case, our experience had a beginning, but will never end.

 

[justchristian]

So it still all comes down to time again eh?

 

[godrulz]

So it still all comes down to time again eh?

A correct view of time/eternity (endless duration vs timelessness; not a thing) is a root factor. The other is the nature of genuine free will (libertarian) and what omniscience actually means (knows all that is knowable).

 

[eccl3_6]

The common sense view is that time is not wrapped up in physics and science. It is merely a descriptive word for the duration/sequence/succession we all experience as we think, act, and feel. You cannot put the past and future in a bottle. The events can be recorded historically, but they do not exist beyond the present instant. We can reference intervals between instants, but it is fundamental and abstract, not tangible and verifiable physically.

Faulty assumptions (time is a created thing or it is space) leads to faulty conclusions.

I am really surpised that the apologists on this site haven't embraced relativity yet. It can actually be used to support your Genesis theories. But to comment Godrulz:
#1 It may be commonsense view that time is not wrapped up in physics but that is only from our own perspectives. Try and imagine a four dimensional shape. You'll find it difficult because you see it three dimensions. Try and explain the colours of the rainbow to a blind man and you'll find it difficult because he doesn't see colours. Time is a product of physical existence. Scientific fact- we use connotations of this understanding everyday in modern technologies.

#2 Time can be 'intensified' or 'dilated' in relation to things. In this sense you can put it in a jar. You can quantify it. It is real.

#3 Can't put the past in a bottle? Look at a star. You are seeing exactly what happened thousands of years ago. Look at the sun. The light from it took 10 seconds to get to you. Look at your TV. The image you see isnt the current image, it happened in the past but due to the nature and speed of light only billiionths and billionths of a second in the past so for all intents and purposes it is the here and now. Everything you feel, see and observe is relative. Especially time.

#4 What you record as the historical sequence of events only happens in that order relative to your observation. It is theoretically possible for you to leave someone on yor 20th birthday, travel at near light speed, come back a year older, and everybody else back on earth has aged ten years (time dilation). The way they observe your history will then be much different to the way you observe theirs.

#5 Time has been verified and is tangible- it is not abstract. If it were sattellite communications wouldnt work as we have to account for relativity to receive a clear signal.




Time to hit the science books......

 

[eccl3_6]

A correct view of time/eternity (endless duration vs timelessness; not a thing) is a root factor.

This is really disturbing. Firstly you say time is unquantifiable, untangible and then you hit us with a correct view is to consider this time/eternity as a root factor!!!

I apologise if my argument doesnt appeal to the non scientists....but what you are saying is nonsense. A root is a quantifiable notion, even if complex or irrational numbers are forced to be used to complete it. It is always theoretically quantifiable. Your view is a contradiction of terms and the argument has a hole in it big enough to sail a ship through.

This smacks of Galileo....

 

[godrulz]

I am really surpised that the apologists on this site haven't embraced relativity yet. It can actually be used to support your Genesis theories. But to comment Godrulz:
#1 It may be commonsense view that time is not wrapped up in physics but that is only from our own perspectives. Try and imagine a four dimensional shape. You'll find it difficult because you see it three dimensions. Try and explain the colours of the rainbow to a blind man and you'll find it difficult because he doesn't see colours. Time is a product of physical existence. Scientific fact- we use connotations of this understanding everyday in modern technologies.

#2 Time can be 'intensified' or 'dilated' in relation to things. In this sense you can put it in a jar. You can quantify it. It is real.

#3 Can't put the past in a bottle? Look at a star. You are seeing exactly what happened thousands of years ago. Look at the sun. The light from it took 10 seconds to get to you. Look at your TV. The image you see isnt the current image, it happened in the past but due to the nature and speed of light only billiionths and billionths of a second in the past so for all intents and purposes it is the here and now. Everything you feel, see and observe is relative. Especially time.

#4 What you record as the historical sequence of events only happens in that order relative to your observation. It is theoretically possible for you to leave someone on yor 20th birthday, travel at near light speed, come back a year older, and everybody else back on earth has aged ten years (time dilation). The way they observe your history will then be much different to the way you observe theirs.

#5 Time has been verified and is tangible- it is not abstract. If it were sattellite communications wouldnt work as we have to account for relativity to receive a clear signal.
Time to hit the science books......

Our subjective perception of sunlight differs from the objective reality of light travelling. God knows and perceives both correctly. We know it theoretically. Our perception does not change the knowable, objective reality.

You know we cannot go at the speed of light, so that analogy is irrelevant and does not change the reality of daily living and historical bibical revelation.

Relativity/perception is not decisive in determining the true, objective nature of time vs eternity.

 

[godrulz]

This is really disturbing. Firstly you say time is unquantifiable, untangible and then you hit us with a correct view is to consider this time/eternity as a root factor!!!

I apologise if my argument doesnt appeal to the non scientists....but what you are saying is nonsense. A root is a quantifiable notion, even if complex or irrational numbers are forced to be used to complete it. It is always theoretically quantifiable. Your view is a contradiction of terms and the argument has a hole in it big enough to sail a ship through.

This smacks of Galileo....

What are you babbling about...I was not talking about mathematical square roots?!

Time can be measured, but it is still not a physical thing.

I said time/eternity is a key issue (a fundamental or root issue/factor) to the debate on exhaustive foreknowledge and free will. The future has a degree of uncertainty and is known by God as such.

 

[eccl3_6]

Our subjective perception of sunlight differs from the objective reality of light travelling. God knows and perceives both correctly. We know it theoretically. Our perception does not change the knowable, objective reality.

You know we cannot go at the speed of light, so that analogy is irrelevant and does not change the reality of daily living and historical bibical revelation.

Relativity/perception is not decisive in determining the true, objective nature of time vs eternity.

We know it theoretically and objectively - WE USE IT EVERY DAY!!!
You don't need to travel at the speed of light to experience time dilation! The analogy is relevant you just haven't grasped the science yet.

"Relativity/perception Time Vs Eternity???

Perception IS relativity!!!!!

Eternity is an abundance of time.........why the 'Vs'?....They are not in conflict with one another.


I'm starting to understand what Galileo went through.

 

[godrulz]

We know it theoretically and objectively - WE USE IT EVERY DAY!!!
You don't need to travel at the speed of light to experience time dilation! The analogy is relevant you just haven't grasped the science yet.

"Relativity/perception Time Vs Eternity???

Perception IS relativity!!!!!

Eternity is an abundance of time.........why the 'Vs'?....They are not in conflict with one another.


I'm starting to understand what Galileo went through.

What do you mean 'why the V's'? Eternity is an endless duration of time that God experiences, not timelessness, nor an incoherent 'eternal now' impersonal existence.

 

[eccl3_6]

What do you mean 'why the V's'? Eternity is an endless duration of time that God experiences, not timelessness, nor an incoherent 'eternal now' impersonal existence.

So what you meant to say was Absence of time VS Eternity....not what you actually said at all. And the rest of my post still stands.


Physics in room 101 for you I'm afraid.

 

[justchristian]

OK, to be fair, you guys are misreading godrulz a bit. Mabye I only read what he meant because we've agrued this mabye 5-10 times indirectly. But he is still wrong about time in either case. The Galileo anaolgy is great. I really see his view of time (and he is not the only one who holds it) to be right up there with a flat earth, an earth at the center of the universe etc.

 

[Delmar]

I really see his view of time (and he is not the only one who holds it) to be right up there with a flat earth, an earth at the center of the universe etc.

Oh brother!

 

[justchristian]

All right, all right. That was a hyperbole. But his view of time is not consistant with what we obeserve in the universe.

 

[eccl3_6]

No but the secret to Galileo is two fold

#1 He was forced to renounce what he knew to be true, by the Church and those most zealous

#2 He is the father of theoretical science. Modern scientific methods of research originated with him....good old Galileo

 

[godrulz]

So what you meant to say was Absence of time VS Eternity....not what you actually said at all. And the rest of my post still stands.


Physics in room 101 for you I'm afraid.

There is no such thing as absence of time. TImelessness is incoherent. Eternity can be seen as timelessness, but it can more correctly be seen as endless time.

 

[godrulz]

All right, all right. That was a hyperbole. But his view of time is not consistant with what we obeserve in the universe.

It is consistent with the revelation of God in Scripture where we see Him experiencing an endless succession of time (Ps. 90:2; Rev. 1:8; historical narratives from Genesis to Revelation).

 

[justchristian]

It is consistent with the revelation of God in Scripture where we see Him experiencing an endless succession of time

I am refering to your understanding of time not being something.