Omniscience, Salvation and Free Will [Archive I]

Cross Examiner

July 12, 2003, 11:13 PM

Mr. Howard, you write:

Of all the qualities that are ascribed to God, and we are talking the Christian God here, I have the most trouble with omniscience. I gather there are really two concepts at play. One is that God knows everything that happens in the universe all the time. Specifically, he knows what every one of us is thinking at every moment

This troubled me once. In fact, Philosoft and I had a discussion about the reconciliation of God's omniscience and man's self-determinism (free will) recently. He said God's foreknowledge of the Chicago Cub's winning the World Series precluded that the Cub's could possibly do otherwise (not win). A convicting argument no doubt that would imply that free will is an illusion if God is omniscient. Or, God is not really omniscient at all and we are free. So either God is not omniscient or man is not free, yet the Bible teaches both. Contradiction! Right? Not at all. It boils down to a matter of perspective, because there are two perspectives of time, the finite and infinite (since we know time is a created dimension), man's and God's perspective. Philosoft hasn't responded or countered, you may if you want. For the visualization (you might have to read a few posts before the last to gain context) of what the heck I mean, you can even post, just go here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1065906#post1065906

After all, he has to constantly monitor us for Jesus belief because anyone can die at any second

Priceless. I love that: monitor for Jesus belief!

So what happens if a lifelong believer dies with a little doubt in his mind

A believer will be saved, doubts and all, who really believed and confessed as much (Romans 10:9-10). You don't openly confess that which you don't believe (authentication). Once God has saved you, you cannot be separated from Him (Romans 8:38). If you turn away later in life, fully away as Charles Templeton did, are you still saved, were you actually ever saved (Matt 12:31, Mark 3:29, Acts 7:51, Heb 6:4, Heb 10:26)? Fortunately, I don't have to make that decision. I worry about myself and remain willing teach those that remain open, who do not preclude God or Jesus Christ but continue to seek the evidence, to balance out their views.

Am I certain? 100%? No, I have my doubts according to my nature as a scientific and skeptical mind. I am insatiably curious and the Bible doesn't answer all my questions. So, I am about 95% confident that I have concluded correctly based on the evidence I have; that what I believe is rational and rooted in reality. I trust (faith) God for the other 5% that is unanswered, so I follow, doubts and all. A believer will be saved but a follower is truly blessed, experiences the benefits of maturity, and will experience what it is to conform to the image of Christ, an amazing transformation.

or a lifelong doubter dies with a little belief. What's the criteria for salvation anyway? !00% belief? 99%? 51%?

A lifelong doubter, a thief executed by Rome, died alongside Jesus of Nazareth and evinced a little belief in Jesus as the Christ. Jesus Christ promised him salvation, that very day, nonetheless (Luke 23:43). There is a principle in Scripture that commands each to worry about his own fate, not that of another. Christ said as much to Peter (John 21:20-22). You don't have to worry about justice, there is no oversight for God. There is no injustice in God. Shall not the Judge of all the Earth do right (Genesis 18:25)? Thus, it is not productive to wonder who is saved or to what quantitative criteria God will judge the soul of man against. You may judge yourself qualitatively, however, to know where you stand. You must believe (John 3:16, Romans 5:6), and if you believe, you will want to obey the commands of Christ (1 John 2:3-6, John 14:15, 2 Corinthians 5:17), and to continually renew your mind in Christ (Romans 12:2).

That brings us to the other aspect of omniscience, which is that when God created the universe he knew beforehand when we would die and what we would believe at the time

You�re touching upon the implications of Romans 9; a tough chapter, arguably the harshest in the Bible. Though I add that anything purporting to be the truth cannot soft-peddle the harshness of reality in order to gain converts, or it is no truth at all. To answer your inference, yes, God did know your/my final destination (even hell) when he created you/me, yet he created you/me nonetheless. And here come the questions...:)

But there are a number of problems with that idea, the primary one being that we really don't have free will, at least as far as Jesus belief is concerned.

Au contraire. Man's responsibility to believe on the name of Christ is not lessened by God's sovereignty, each has a chance, each has a choice, within God's greater plan. No one ends up where they did not want to.

Our fate was preordained at creation.

Known, yes, preordained, not exactly. Romans 9 does say Pharaoh (Ramses II?) was brought up for the purpose of God making his name known to the world at the time, through God's utter humbling (Pharaoh was God, remember?) of the greatest King in the world at the time. God actually hardened his heart against change/repentance...in order to execute His overarching, sovereign plan. What in the world!?! That's not fair! Who are you, o man, as the clay vessel to say to God, as the potter; "Why did you make me like this?" Or, who resists God's sovereign will? Can a clay vessel challenge the potter as to why he made some for noble and still others for common use? We know that Pharaoh hardened his own heart repeatedly before God set him irrevocably on the path of unrepentance. Ergo, man executes some free will while God still executes His plan with any intervention justified since there is no higher court than His. No one to appeal to above God.

Not only that, but some people (like us) were preordained by God to not believe and thus to burn in hell.

Not at all. God is giving you opportunity upon opportunity. Right now, God is calling you to repentance and belief in His Son for your salvation. He is merciful and not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9). I am also open to any (just send a private note for email address etc.) who genuinely want to know how to be saved but haven't heard a cogent argument/presentation of the Gospel yet. I won't waste my time with the entrenched atheist that precludes God's existence or the legitimacy of Scripture, the seeker is always welcome.
As a man think himself, so is he (Proverbs 23:7). How you envision yourself is of your own choosing. Can you say God has not extended opportunity to you? What about right now? You have free will to at least explore the evidence further. Will you?

Why would a benevolent God create people just to make them suffer for all eternity

Hell is not a fiery pit with red devils with pointy pitchforks, it is not a cosmic torture chamber, and such notions (Dante et al.) arose from a misunderstanding of the Aramaic mind (we can develop this as interest warrants). Hell is humane treatment for the totally independent mind. The real hell is for fallen (unrepentant, unregenerate) man to be forced to endure a holy God and his presence for all eternity. How cruel! Can God coerce man into loving Him and wanting to be near Him? Not at all. Quarantine. Separate them. The most benevolent thing God could do is to give you yourself, if that�s all really you want.

Of course, there is the argument that we aren't pre-determined to believe or not believe, that we really do have free will in that regard. Fine, but doesn't that negate the idea of omniscience.

Hopefully the above/referenced point clarified this some for you. I'm all about building bridges.

That is, God did not know how the universe was going to turn out when he created it. Am I missing something here, or is it all just a tangled web of contradictions?

God did not know how the universe would turn out now? Is that in one of the OT books I didn't read thoroughly enough? There are no contradictions. A quick poll: do you want there to be contradictions?

A quick note: I reiterate that I am not interested in engaging the entrenched or belligerent, honest seekers can have my time though. The seekers suspect this all may still be true, despite their doubts, I am here for you as a resource. You know who you are ;).

EGGO

July 13, 2003, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by wordsmyth
Wouldn't God's omniscience preclude his/her/its own free will?

It would seem that an omniscient being would be incapable of doing anything that it had not foreseen it would do. It's (God's) every action would be dictated by it's (God's) own omniscience, thus precluding freewill.

So, not only is the concept of omniscience a problem for human freewill, but divine freewill as well.

I don't know why he has freewill in the first place if his thoughts are never-changing...

DMB

July 13, 2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool:
It boils down to a matter of perspective, because there are two perspectives of time, the finite and infinite (since we know time is a created dimension), man's and God's perspective.
I don't know who the "we" are who know this. Can you please spell out what you mean by this? It looks to me at first sight like a classic cop-out.

Cross Examiner

July 13, 2003, 02:42 PM

DMB:

I don't know who the "we" are who know this. Can you please spell out what you mean by this? It looks to me at first sight like a classic cop-out.

No problem. Thanks to Mr. Einstein "we" understand time less as an abstract measurement tool than a tangible part of the physical universe (ergo part of the creation, assuming God is, for the sake of my argument). In any case, the reference to time was a parenthetical thought only, not significant to the issues at hand (please refer to my original post in this thread for clarification, as needed). The main point was that God, by traditional descripiton in Scripture, is outside of time, and what then be the subsequent implications of such to God's omniscience and Man's free will. Was that all you wanted to discuss? Agreement is the exception amongst a group of opinionated sophisticates! :) Enjoy your day.

Respectfully,
BGiC

joedad

July 13, 2003, 04:25 PM

BGiC:
Contradiction! Right? Not at all. It boils down to a matter of perspective, because there are two perspectives of time, the finite and infinite (since we know time is a created dimension), man's and God's perspective. Philosoft hasn't responded or countered, you may if you want.What exactly were you expecting from Philosft? Is your claim that something can be outside of time simply a matter of personal revelation, and therefore religiously axiomatic? If so, perhaps that's why Philosoft hasn't responded.

As for the existence of hells and heavens, I could think of no worse punishment for someone like myself than to be banished to a heaven for an eternity. :)

edit:

And when you state:BGiC:
I reiterate that I am not interested in engaging the entrenched or belligerent, honest seekers can have my time though.are you stating that entrenched and/or belligerent persons are not honest, or is that merely a poor choice of words?

wordsmyth

July 13, 2003, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
The main point was that God, by traditional descripiton in Scripture, is outside of time, and what then be the subsequent implications of such to God's omniscience and Man's free will.

Can you point me to the verse(s) in the bible that state God is outside of time? Also, can you point me to where it states God created or initiated time during creation?

Cross Examiner

July 13, 2003, 06:39 PM

How-dee Joedad:

What exactly were you expecting from Philosft?

Not expecting of Philo, hoping. It's an important issue and since he didn't respond it left a "feedback vacuum" (sounds like marketing lingo, no?). I wasn't sure that my explanation made any sense to the readers (including Philo) and this is a normally vocal group. I've taught before and blank stares are not my goal (though I've had my share). Feedback/questions, good. Silence, not good. Nothing personal against Philosoft. Can a brother get the benefit of the doubt? I come in peace, mostly.

Is your claim that something can be outside of time simply a matter of personal revelation, and therefore religiously axiomatic? If so, perhaps that's why Philosoft hasn't responded.

I see your point. I notice wordsmyth asked for a Biblical justification, not personal revelation, for the eternal nature of God. I'll see, in a bit, if I can't oblige him and answer your inference at the same time.

As for the existence of hells and heavens, I could think of no worse punishment for someone like myself than to be banished to a heaven for an eternity.

Heaven is not puffy clouds, St. Peter with the white beard, cupids playing harps, incessant elevator music etc. I'd hate that place too. Heaven is the epicenter of God, and all that that entails. What is your understanding of heaven then?

are you stating that entrenched and/or belligerent persons are not honest, or is that merely a poor choice of words?

Not a poor choice of words. Let's go back for the whole 9 yards, I done said:

"A quick note: I reiterate that I am not interested in engaging the entrenched or belligerent, honest seekers can have my time though. The seekers suspect this all may still be true, despite their doubts, I am here for you as a resource. You know who you are ;)."

I've never seen a debater tell his oponent; what you said was right on--can I join your group? Why? Both debaters are entrenched. I'm not interested in debating entrenched atheists, even honest ones, only conversing with open minds. Frankly, there are incredibly intelligent men on both sides of the fence so it stands to reason that there are solid rationales to conclude either way, that one's position is not primarily intellectually derived but is primarily derived from individual perspective and what evidence one has sought out (long conversation though we can have it if you REALLY want to). Now for the belligerent individual, well, you don't really need me to explain that one...
If you've precluded God's existence then, wow, you are one confident atheist. If you're that guy then we can talk sports, I guess.

Cross Examiner

July 13, 2003, 07:42 PM

'sup wordsmyth:

Can you point me to the verse(s) in the bible that state God is outside of time? Also, can you point me to where it states God created or initiated time during creation?

Will do. Two quickies (there's more but these should suffice as talking-points for now):

Eternal, NT
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (I Timothy 1:17)

Eternal, OT
Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD , the LORD , is the Rock eternal. (Isaiah 26:4)

My personal favorite is from when Moses asked who exactly it was that commanded him, the reply being "I AM that I AM." (Exodus 3:14). The animated Disney movie, the Prince of Egypt, not expecting much, actually gets the idea of this confrontation pretty well. Look for that scene the next time you watch, if ever.

More info on the subject:
This from Notre Dame department of Philosopy, on the eternal nature of God:
http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc1_15.htm
And in the spirit of Aquinas:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/101002.htm

Two Catholic sources; while I am not Catholic I respect the denomination greatly. I consider the Church in Rome the "archives" of Christianity :).

Hope this helps some,

BGiC

g-train

July 13, 2003, 08:36 PM

That would seem to imply that God is immortal; not that he is outside of time.

Howard

July 13, 2003, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Jobar

But it still sometimes leaves me stunned and gaping when I meet people who, from all appearances, actually believe this crap. :(

In America, especially where I live (South Carolina) a rather sizable majority believes it. At least they say they do. If you promise people eternal life and happiness, they'll figure out a way to believe just about anything. It's hard to fight that with eternal nothingness.

Originally posted by demoninho
Maybe omniscience is knowing all that happens and has happened, but excludes knowledge of future events?
That's not my understanding of omniscience, but since it's pretty much an arbitrary property of God (along with omnipotence and benevolence) I guess it can mean anything you want. That's the great thing about God, he can be anything you want him to be - the ultimate imaginary friend.

Originally posted by net2002
Even today, in many societies it's a death sentence to question the benevolence of Allah.

It's scary to think there are religious fanatics out there who make the fundamentalist Christians seem moderate by comparison.

Originally posted by wordsmyth
Wouldn't God's omniscience preclude his/her/its own free will?

It would seem that an omniscient being would be incapable of doing anything that it had not foreseen it would do. It's (God's) every action would be dictated by it's (God's) own omniscience, thus precluding freewill.

So, not only is the concept of omniscience a problem for human freewill, but divine freewill as well.

Great. Make this even more complicated.

Assuming there was God who created all this, I picture him thinking, "Let's see, should I give the little buggers a healthy capacity for evil? Oh, hell yes, it'll make things a lot more interesting." I mean if you're God you'd have to have all the options� or would you?

joedad

July 13, 2003, 09:23 PM

BGic:
If you've precluded God's existence then, wow, you are one confident atheist. If you're that guy then we can talk sports, I guess.Okay. Though I think there's a lot of similarity between Sports and Religion. Both have spectator appeal, pageantry, triumphalism, tradition, and fans and fan-clubs with varying levels of commitment, but I digress.

BTW, what purpose does your religion have? (I think the question is relative to Howard's OP, if you'd care to answer. If not, that's fine.)

Cross Examiner

July 13, 2003, 10:31 PM

Joedad:

Okay. Though I think there's a lot of similarity between Sports and Religion. Both have spectator appeal, pageantry, triumphalism, tradition, and fans and fan-clubs with varying levels of commitment, but I digress.

True dat. You are so not-a-belligerent-atheist :). You've not insulted me personally, even once! Sorry if I sound jaded--I suppose it's my own fault, naming myself "Billy Graham is cool" and challenging atheists at infidels.org--kinda like walking in to the Lion's Den dressed like a sheep with a steak tied to it's neck. I digress too. It's fun.

BTW, what purpose does your religion have? (I think the question is relative to Howard's OP, if you'd care to answer. If not, that's fine.)

No problem. An open book am I. I currently attend a Baptist Church in Rancho Bernardo (suburb of San Diego) with my wife (and baby boy en route, any day now). Though I'd be comfortable at any Bible-teaching church with sound doctrine and loving, Christ-like folks. We used to go to College Avenue Baptist, a massive seeker-church near San Diego State University--then we moved and got a house--it was too crowded anyway. The purpose of the Church, I suppose (not at all comprehensive), is to call the unbeliever to repentance/change of ways/heart, belief in Christ's resurrection as propitation, the worship of God in spirit and truth, unto good works in the community, sending out others to the ends of the earth, and the maturation of the individual unto the image of Christ himself. So, as you may imagine, the Bible is very important. In fact, if it's not legit, then I must quit ;)!

BTW, I've seen Billy Graham in person, and he really is cool, I mean it. A good man by all accounts and genuine like no other. Thus the namesake. Gotta run, we're meeting some friends for ice cream. I am a crazy party-animal :). Have a pleasant evening Joedad et al.

I come in peace, mostly

BGiC

David M. Payne

July 14, 2003, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
...I'm not interested in debating entrenched atheists, even honest ones, only conversing with open minds...

Does this mean that your mind is open to the possibility that God is a myth, or is his reality entrenched in your mind?

David, the strong agnostic ;)

God and religion, the oldest scam in history and it still sucks them in today.

wordsmyth

July 14, 2003, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Will do. Two quickies (there's more but these should suffice as talking-points for now):

Eternal, NT
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (I Timothy 1:17)

Eternal, OT
Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD , the LORD , is the Rock eternal. (Isaiah 26:4)

This certainly mentions the word eternal, but does not state outside of time.

You see, the problem lies therein.

To be outside of time, is to be completely impotent. You could never go from a state of inaction to a state of action because to do so requires some increment of time. So for God to be outside of time, he could never have created time (or anything else) because that would mean to go from a state whereby time doesn't exist to a state in which it does. Does this make sense to you?

Every action God takes in the bible appears constrained by time. It took God six days to create the world, forty days to destroy it, thousands of years to redeem mankind, and people have waited thousands more for the end. Is there a single example in the bible of God actually performing an action outside of time or is this attribute just an allegation.

My personal favorite is from when Moses asked who exactly it was that commanded him, the reply being "I AM that I AM." (Exodus 3:14). The animated Disney movie, the Prince of Egypt, not expecting much, actually gets the idea of this confrontation pretty well. Look for that scene the next time you watch, if ever.

Interesting, but I'm curious as to how this addresses my second question. Popeye said the same thing... or at least something similar. My second question asked for a quote from the bible that states God created time.

DMB

July 14, 2003, 05:16 AM

BGic: Thank you for responding to my question, but I still have some problems. If we are to understand "time" according to Einstein's model, what does this mean:
there are two perspectives of time, the finite and infinite
It still doesn't mean much to me. I am only a mathematician and no doubt this limits my perception when it comes to statements like this.

Like others here, I also have difficulty in understanding this idea and its implications:
...God...is outside of time
Perhaps you could explain what it means to you and how anyone could know that this was true in the first place. The fact that the bible claims god as eternal is not the same thing, and in any case the bible claims some dodgy things, such as the sun standing still, that one can explain by the limited scientific knowledge of the authors.

s5o8

July 14, 2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by EGGO
I don't know why he has freewill in the first place if his thoughts are never-changing...

I agree�.. I doubt that a omniscient being can even think or have any type of mental process. :confused:

joedad

July 14, 2003, 09:29 AM

BGic:
The purpose of the Church, I suppose (not at all comprehensive), is to call the unbeliever to repentance/change of ways/heart, belief in Christ's resurrection as propitation, the worship of God in spirit and truth, unto good works in the community, sending out others to the ends of the earth, and the maturation of the individual unto the image of Christ himself.And I assume some kind of heavenly reward at the end? Personally, I'm not into the heaven thing. Too much hedonism. Too selfish. I'll take a more peaceful and productive human society instead of any heavenly rewards. If I were still the religious type, that would certainly have to be a major purpose in any religion. I don't have any trouble with my mortality, and insofar as I am able to see myself in other humans and other life, past and present (and future), that's immortality enough.

But what I'm asking is how all those things you mention are directed, unless it's simply your heavenly afterlife. Is that it? Heaven? Or am I misunderstanding?

Cross Examiner

July 14, 2003, 12:59 PM

OK. Let me see if I can't crank out some quick responses for y'all.

David M. Payne writes:

Does this mean that your mind is open to the possibility that God is a myth, or is his reality entrenched in your mind?

Thanks for asking this good question, this is an important issue to me. Do I retain an open mind? Absolutely! I don't preclude God's non-existence. I've experienced and continue to experience him personally; I have examined a good deal of evidence carefully and am confident in my conclusion that my faith is rooted in reality--though it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility that I am fooled and so I am willing to view alternative evidence. In particular, I've been advised on more than one occasion by folks here to look at Joseph Campbell's works and to check out jesuspuzzle.org. I intend, as an honest evaluator, to look into both, as time permits.

Am I entrenched? Well, I am here, at infidels.org, challenging intelligent skeptics to view evidence that does not necessarily confirm the skeptical viewpoint. My openness would be more of a concern if you loitered at any of the sites below, having to challenge me, in my comfort zone, to explore the other side a little.

A short list of sites to find compelling evidence for your opposition:

apologetics.org
carm.org
christian-thinktank.com
christiancourier.com
christian-apologetics.net
christjesus.us
ex-atheist.com
godandscience.org
icr.org
jesusamongothergods.com
jewsforjesus.org
leaderu.com
str.org (stand to reason)
worldinvisible.com

I encourage all seekers, honest evaluators, to look at the other side. Thanks for reading.

BTW, David, are you from Georgia? Hm. Alabama? Your location description definitely puts you below the Mason-Dixon :)

Respectfully,
BGiC

David M. Payne

July 14, 2003, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
OK. Let me see if I can't crank out some quick responses for y'all.

David M. Payne writes:

Does this mean that your mind is open to the possibility that God is a myth, or is his reality entrenched in your mind?

Thanks for asking this good question, this is an important issue to me. Do I retain an open mind? Absolutely! I don't preclude God's non-existence. I've experienced and continue to experience him personally; I have examined a good deal of evidence carefully and am confident in my conclusion that my faith is rooted in reality--though it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility that I am fooled and so I am willing to view alternative evidence. In particular, I've been advised on more than one occasion by folks here to look at Joseph Campbell's works and to check out jesuspuzzle.org. I intend, as an honest evaluator, to look into both, as time permits.

Am I entrenched? Well, I am here, at infidels.org, challenging intelligent skeptics to view evidence that does not necessarily confirm the skeptical viewpoint. My openness would be more of a concern if you loitered at any of the sites below, having to challenge me, in my comfort zone, to explore the other side a little.

A short list of sites to find compelling evidence for your opposition:

apologetics.org
carm.org
christian-thinktank.com
christiancourier.com
christian-apologetics.net
christjesus.us
ex-atheist.com
godandscience.org
icr.org
jesusamongothergods.com
jewsforjesus.org
leaderu.com
str.org (stand to reason)
worldinvisible.com

I encourage all seekers, honest evaluators, to look at the other side. Thanks for reading.

BTW, David, are you from Georgia? Hm. Alabama? Your location description definitely puts you below the Mason-Dixon :)

Respectfully,
BGiC

The problem most of us have in visiting those sites you list is that they kick us off when it becomes clear that we are firm in our belief in the non belief in the God/religion biz. So it's hard to have any meaningful discussions on most of the religious boards. Though many of the Christian boards preach toleration, they don't practice it when faced with the kind of arguments we can raise that challenge their faith. You say you have an open mind, we'll see. ;)

I think you'll find the www.jesuspuzzle.org site by Earl Doherty quite interesting. BTW, if you do a search on my full name, David M. Payne, on google, MSN or Yahoo you can find out more about my work and positions on the things we talk about here.

David, from Reno, Nv

Jobar

July 14, 2003, 05:25 PM

BGiC:
I suppose it's my own fault, naming myself "Billy Graham is cool" and challenging atheists at infidels.org--kinda like walking in to the Lion's Den dressed like a sheep with a steak tied to it's neck.

Well, you will get roared at a lot, but as long as you stay as polite as you have been so far, we promise not to rend you to bits. ;)

Joking aside, we actually appreciate believers who come here and talk to us in a reasonable and mannerly way.

I often give fair warning to ones like you- this forum has made a good number of 'de-converts', and to the best of my knowledge only one professed atheist from this site has gone back to her natal religion. (Look up 'Theistgal' in the members list, if you are interested. She said she became an atheist because her boyfriend was one- and when they split up she went back to Catholicism.)

We've seen believers lose their faith- and it can be agonizing for them. We consider the pain our attacks on your faith may cause to be like that caused by a dentist extracting an abcessed tooth- but it may hurt, and hurt bad. Stay at your own risk, OK?

Cross Examiner

July 14, 2003, 06:09 PM

wordsmyth, you write:

This certainly mentions the word eternal, but does not state outside of time.

Respectfully, I understand eternal to be outside the time domain. Ye Olde Dictionary on eternal:

Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time.

What is the time domain? Carl F.H. Henry characterized time as �the divinely created sphere of God�s preserving and redemptive work, and the arena of man�s decision on his way to an eternal destiny� or �time� is a historical parenthesis within eternity.

You see, the problem lies therein.

To be outside of time, is to be completely impotent

Unless the eternal were to enter the finite, which is what I understand God has done.

You could never go from a state of inaction to a state of action because to do so requires some increment of time

In the finite world, this is always true.

So for God to be outside of time, he could never have created time (or anything else) because that would mean to go from a state whereby time doesn't exist to a state in which it does. Does this make sense to you?

Yes it does, you've explained your view clearly. This would certainly be a problem if the eternal domain operated under the same laws as the finite domain. Unfortunately, the Bible does not explain what the eternal domain is, or how it operates only that God is timeless. I suppose it might be like trying to explain algebra to a squirrel :). I understand Muslim philosophers spent some time and energy trying to comprehend eternity with their finite (though relatively brilliant) minds. I think there's another thread on this idea somewhere else, stretch vs. the atheists? I think this leads into the realms of meta-thought and the like. I'll probably leave such heavy-lifting to the trained philosphers. I'm business by education and tech by practice, so...I may have to link you/point you somewhere else if it is REALLY that important to you.

Every action God takes in the bible appears constrained by time. It took God six days to create the world, forty days to destroy it, thousands of years to redeem mankind, and people have waited thousands more for the end.

True, every action in the finite domain (created universe) is measured against time, even God's.

Not trying to change the subject, but I ran across this verse, part of Paul's arguments with the Athenians (with their polytheistic pantheon and temples to each deity), elucidating God's immaterial and self-sufficient nature:

�The God who made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwells not in temples made with hands; neither is he served by men�s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself gives to all life, and breath, and all things?� (Acts 17:24-25).

Neato, eh? I digress again.

Is there a single example in the bible of God actually performing an action outside of time or is this attribute just an allegation

God created the angelic host before he created this universe (I think, I'll have to verify that against scripture). I would deduce this "occurred" apart from our finite time domain. We can develop this thought if you can show it is very important--limited resources. Gotta focus on a few things only.

Interesting, but I'm curious as to how this addresses my second question. Popeye said the same thing... or at least something similar. My second question asked for a quote from the bible that states God created time.

Bible states explicitly God created the universe. Is time not part of the universe? What about general and special relativity? Is Creator not necessarily greater than creation?

Very sleepy now, still at work too, must get back to work.

BGiC

wordsmyth

July 14, 2003, 09:37 PM

Respectfully, I understand eternal to be outside the time domain. Ye Olde Dictionary on eternal:

Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time.

What is the time domain? Carl F.H. Henry characterized time as �the divinely created sphere of God�s preserving and redemptive work, and the arena of man�s decision on his way to an eternal destiny� or �time� is a historical parenthesis within eternity.
Respectfully, both the dictionary definition and the manner in which Carl F.H. Henry characterize time assumes both that there is a divine being and that that being is outside of time. This assumption shows there is a distinctly theistic bias from both sources. However, neither one gives a coherent explanation as to what it would truly mean to be outside of time. Eternal could mean within time, but only if you assume time itself is eternal, which IMO, makes more sense.

Unless the eternal were to enter the finite, which is what I understand God has done.
This is exactly my point. The eternal could never enter the finite if time were not already present. Lets use the analogy of two frames of film. In the first frame we have the eternal outside the finite. In the second we have the eternal inside the finite. Each frame is a state and to get from one frame or state to the next requires some increment (no matter how small) of time.

In the finite world, this is always true.
To believe that God does not operate under the rules of logic as we understand it renders everything written in the bible about his nature incoherent and meaningless. To say God is timeless is completely meaningless based on our understanding of the nature of time. You could say God is zoinkerless and it would hold as much (little?) meaning.

Yes it does, you've explained your view clearly. This would certainly be a problem if the eternal domain operated under the same laws as the finite domain.
To be outside of time surely would mean eternal, but only in so much as it would mean to be in a state whereby nothing changed. You could never perform an action or even have a thought. It would be like a single frame of film with no possibility of ever moving to the next.

Unfortunately, the Bible does not explain what the eternal domain is, or how it operates only that God is timeless. I suppose it might be like trying to explain algebra to a squirrel . I understand Muslim philosophers spent some time and energy trying to comprehend eternity with their finite (though relatively brilliant) minds. I think there's another thread on this idea somewhere else, stretch vs. the atheists? I think this leads into the realms of meta-thought and the like. I'll probably leave such heavy-lifting to the trained philosphers. I'm business by education and tech by practice, so...I may have to link you/point you somewhere else if it is REALLY that important to you.
It�s not particularly important to me as I am one of those entrenched atheists you are reluctant to debate with. The truth is I not only have a hard time believing that God(s) created time (or anything else for that matter), but I also have a hard time with the cosmological idea that time began at the big bang. Neither one seems plausible to me as they both suffer from the same problem of passing from one state to the next without time.

God created the angelic host before he created this universe (I think, I'll have to verify that against scripture). I would deduce this "occurred" apart from our finite time domain. We can develop this thought if you can show it is very important--limited resources. Gotta focus on a few things only.
Ok, but this also has the same problem. If we assume there was a state in which there were no angels and a state in which there were, then to change from one state to the other requires some increment of time.

Bible states explicitly God created the universe. Is time not part of the universe? What about general and special relativity? Is Creator not necessarily greater than creation?
Sure, time is a part of the universe. However, for God to create the universe requires that time already exists. To go from a state where the universe does not exist to a state in which it does, requires some increment of time. If we accept that God created the universe in six days, then it is obvious that time was a requirement for God to create the universe. Otherwise, it would not have taken him six days to create the universe. He could have done it in no time.

Cross Examiner

July 15, 2003, 12:02 AM

g-train, you're new here, welcome to iidb from one of the few Christian ambassadors! I didn't mean to gloss over your question, you wrote:

That would seem to imply that God is immortal; not that he is outside of time.

in regards to:

Eternal, NT
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (I Timothy 1:17)

Eternal, OT
Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD , the LORD , is the Rock eternal. (Isaiah 26:4)

Yes, I Timothy 1:17 explicity says God is immortal and eternal. Eternal is outside of the time domain, per our trusty dictionary. Let me know if you have any questions, nice to see an agnostic here :) A bit more neutral I suppose.

BGiC

Cross Examiner

July 15, 2003, 12:52 AM

DMB, you wrote:

BGic: Thank you for responding to my question

My pleasure. Your good-natured conversation style is appreciated.

but I still have some problems. If we are to understand "time" according to Einstein's model, what does this mean:

"there are two perspectives of time, the finite and infinite"

It still doesn't mean much to me. I am only a mathematician and no doubt this limits my perception when it comes to statements like this.

I only mean that time, as a subset of the universe, one of the four detected dimensions (3 spatial, 1 temporal) only binds/subjugates that which is in the universe (e.g. man). God, necessarily being greater than His creation, is not necessarily bound to the universe nor to time, being eternal in nature. He may "stand" apart from time, unbounded by time's limitations. Eternal most simply means the rules of time do not apply.

Like others here, I also have difficulty in understanding this idea and its implications:

...God...is outside of time

Perhaps you could explain what it means to you and how anyone could know that this was true in the first place. The fact that the bible claims god as eternal is not the same thing, and in any case the bible claims some dodgy things, such as the sun standing still, that one can explain by the limited scientific knowledge of the authors.

Time is the ruler of our reality, but not God's. Take this pop culture analogy: Neo is governed by the rules of the Matrix while he is in the Matrix. When he leaves the Matrix for the "real world" the rules of the Matrix, like Matrix time and physics etc., have no power over our hero. He is wholly apart from the power of the Matrix in the real world.

You cannot weigh a chicken with a yardstick. You cannot describe reality (A) by reality (`A). The Bible doesn't even attempt to explain the eternal domain, only says God is eternal. We can understand/deduce many characteristics of God from creation and scripture, but nothing more. Eternity is part of this "nothing more". Likewise, we'll never know how God created the universe. I reiterate, there are some things that science and empiricism will never explain.

The "dodgy" stuff (do you watch Ali G?) of the OT are better understood from an Aramaic mindset. This link:

http://christian-thinktank.com/5felled.html#longday

specifially addresses the long-day in Joshua.

Speaking of long days, it's time to get some sleep! :)

BGiC

demoninho

July 15, 2003, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool

God is outside of time

BGiC

I don't know if someone already mentioned the following because I didn't read the entire thread:

I doesn't really matter if god is in or outside of time. Even if he has a complete knowledge of all the different possible futures for him to be omniscient he should know which is our timeline to follow.

wordsmyth

July 15, 2003, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Eternal most simply means the rules of time do not apply.

If God is timeless, but time doesn't hold the same meaning for God that it does for us, then the statement "God is timeless" is meaningless.

Time is the ruler of our reality, but not God's. Take this pop culture analogy: Neo is governed by the rules of the Matrix while he is in the Matrix. When he leaves the Matrix for the "real world" the rules of the Matrix, like Matrix time and physics etc., have no power over our hero. He is wholly apart from the power of the Matrix in the real world.

Ok, lets expand on the Matrix analogy a little. Lets say that Neo can stop time within the Matrix, so that everything and everyone else is standing still. From everyone elses perspective Neo would be outside of time, but time must still pass from Neo's perspective for him to be capable of taking any action.

We can understand/deduce many characteristics of God from creation and scripture, but nothing more.

We can never know any of God's characteristics if the words we use to describe those characteristics have meanings other than our basic understanding of them. If time doesn't mean the same thing when applied to God, then to say God is timeless becomes incoherent. If God's characteristics are incoherent, then how can anyone have even a vague understanding of what it is they believe in.

DMB

July 15, 2003, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool

God, necessarily being greater than His creation, is not necessarily bound to the universe nor to time, being eternal in nature. He may "stand" apart from time, unbounded by time's limitations. Eternal most simply means the rules of time do not apply.

Time is the ruler of our reality, but not God's. ... The Bible doesn't even attempt to explain the eternal domain, only says God is eternal. We can understand/deduce many characteristics of God from creation and scripture, but nothing more. Eternity is part of this "nothing more". Likewise, we'll never know how God created the universe. I reiterate, there are some things that science and empiricism will never explain.

The "dodgy" stuff (do you watch Ali G?) of the OT are better understood from an Aramaic mindset. This link:

http://christian-thinktank.com/5felled.html#longday

specifially addresses the long-day in Joshua.

BGiC

You seem to have given a lot of thought to your faith and to have been trying to understand some of its more puzzling aspects. The bible quite obviously gives very limited guidance about the characteristics of god.

I had a look at the site you suggested, and in particular what it said about the sun standing still. It is clear from the explanation given there that the writer, while very respectful of the sacred text, doesn't feel constrained to take it literally.

As a non-believer, I regard the bible as an interesting group of ancient documents that must be interpreted, as in that example, in terms of the culture of the people who wrote it. Thus anything written about the nature of god in the bible is likely to reflect the understanding of the biblical peoples living in a pre-scientific age. So my understanding about what you have posted here about the nature of god is that you have endeavoured to interpret the limited and not necessarily accurate biblical ideas in terms of modern science. That seems a worthy effort. What does still puzzle me, however, is why you still feel that the xian bible is the unique starting point for exploring the nature of god. Why not some of the other sacred texts?

BTW I don't watch Ali G, but we are both British, so that may have some effect on our vocabulary. ;)

Cross Examiner

July 15, 2003, 03:22 PM

Joedad, you asked:

And I assume some kind of heavenly reward at the end?

I'd say less of a reward than the natural destination (God's presence) for those who actually wanted something to do (and/or were drawn by God) with God. Not really a carrot-on-a-stick since heaven/God's presence is not earned. Conversely, hell (seperation from God) is the natural destination for those who wanted nothing to do with God or even such concepts. I am not saying hell is fun. It's inhabited by folks who have themselves only, without a hint of God's goodness that they attributed to chance or themselves as the originator, eternally. Jesus compared it to an eternal fire of pain, remorse and contempt for God. Make no mistake, by definition, it's utterly lonely in hell (probably the best charactarization is loneliness/isolation), no other fun infidels to hang with.

Personally, I'm not into the heaven thing

I hope you would change your mind. If you love your family, fellowship with other minds, or even entertain the possibility that God exists and is worth knowing personally...you may want to take a second (third, fourth whatever) look at the claims of Christ and adopt the traditional perspective of the evidence, at least temporarily, for the sake of thorough judgement. Just in case putting on the skeptical perspective (which is your choice) when reviewing the evidence might have put your fate in jeopardy. I wouldn't say this, take the time, if I didn't care about you enough or actually concluded as I have. I would not lie about this nor do I have anything to gain by persuading you except the relief that you'll be safe. It is a dangerous thing to fall into the hands of an angry God. Your will is free though. Do what you will. Choice coerced is no choice at all.

Too much hedonism. Too selfish

Hedonism? Selfishness? Did we read the same Gospel?

I'll take a more peaceful and productive human society instead of any heavenly rewards

A noble goal indeed.

If I were still the religious type, that would certainly have to be a major purpose in any religion

Some strains of Christianity preach a more social than redemptive Gospel. Christ's teachings can certainly better the individual and the group. I've seen it with my own two eyes. Though I think if you divorce the power and implications of his Resurrection from his moral teachings, making Jesus Christ a liar or worse, then there is no basis to employ his "good" teaching. Might as well go with Buddha, Ghandi (or yourself) or any other teacher who claimed to be a mere man, living and dying accordingly.

I don't have any trouble with my mortality, and insofar as I am able to see myself in other humans and other life, past and present (and future), that's immortality enough.

I certainly believe atheists can be moral (edit: I just noticed you said mortality, not morality, woops), like yourself. However, I do conclude logically that moral relativity is a slippery slope that knows no self-control in and of itself (we can develop this thought elsewhere, another time) which can lead to some serious problems. Anyway, your concept of immortality may be all you want or expect. If the resurrection is true, then the implications are view altering. It does hinge upon this event, which is why Paul the Apostle made it the only thing that mattered as a basis for decision making on what you want out of life, what you may expect after your body succumbs to entropy.

But what I'm asking is how all those things you mention are directed, unless it's simply your heavenly afterlife. Is that it? Heaven? Or am I misunderstanding?

Fair questions. I hope I understand them and answer reasonably well. I assume "those things" are the purpose(s) of the Church (below)?

"The purpose of the Church, I suppose (not at all comprehensive), is to call the unbeliever to repentance/change of ways/heart, belief in Christ's resurrection as propitation, the worship of God in spirit and truth, unto good works in the community, sending out others to the ends of the earth, and the maturation of the individual unto the image of Christ himself."

I would then say, yes, attaining heaven does direct these purposes. But so also does averting hell for others (compassion), helping others find substantial meaning for their lives and during times of trouble, the betterment of society around the world (e.g. medical missions to Africa) and truly, myriad of other reasons with basis in scripture. Our purpose is not only heaven, though heaven may be the focus of some Christians at certain times. Sadly, when slaves were oppressed they had little hope in this world but leaned upon the particular promises of Christ for life after death in God's good presence. A particular hope for a particular heart. Today, many are lonely and have no hope for meaning, this heart is also addressed in the very person of Christ and in a Church of loving, friendly people (sadly, the Church has become too myopic, not at all like the early Church that thrived on compassion for the world). To be human is to sympathize with the hurting, generally confused world. All of Christianity's many and varied purposes are really driven on the historical and personal/experiential reality of Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God, Savior and lover of Man. If he is only a man, then our problems are too great for him to bare. But if he is not a mere man, then our trust is well placed and will be validated in practice.

Sincerely,
BGiC

David M. Payne

July 15, 2003, 09:45 PM

Well, where were we BGiC? Oh yes, right here. This should give you a little break from the "is God in or out of time" and the "are you in it for the reward" debate. (I don't have an answer to those.)

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
OK. Let me see if I can't crank out some quick responses for y'all.

David M. Payne writes:

Does this mean that your mind is open to the possibility that God is a myth, or is his reality entrenched in your mind?

David, the strong agnostic ;)

God and religion, the oldest scam in history and it still sucks them in today.

Thanks for asking this good question, this is an important issue to me. Do I retain an open mind? Absolutely! I don't preclude God's non-existence. I've experienced and continue to experience him personally; I have examined a good deal of evidence carefully and am confident in my conclusion that my faith is rooted in reality--though it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility that I am fooled�

Respectfully,
BGiC

And then we had that nice list of Christian sites and no response to my point about our difficulties exercising our free speech on sites such as those listed.

Originally posted by David M. Payne
The problem most of us have in visiting those sites you list is that they kick us off when it becomes clear that we are firm in our belief in the non belief in the God/religion biz. So it's hard to have any meaningful discussions on most of the religious boards. Though many of the Christian boards preach toleration, they don't practice it when faced with the kind of arguments we can raise that challenge their faith. You say you have an open mind, we'll see� ;)

David

OK, I can see why you would be somewhat disinclined to address my last post, the fact that we don't get the same freedom of speech on the Christian boards that we give your side here. You can't speak for them, right? Fair enough. So let me ask you a simple question that you should be able to answer easily, the one that should have been my follow up to your first response to me.
You said you could be convinced that you may be wrong as to the existence of God. But then you go right into how strong your belief is and how sure you have it right on the God/religion biz etc. Hum.

What would it take to make you an unbeliever BGiC?

To be fair BGiC, I'll go first and tell you what it would take to make me a believer. It would be easy to get me to see the light, all it would take is God arriving on the planet in person and either appearing in front of all of humanity at the same time, or getting all of humanity together in one place, to give us a little pep talk and confirm his existence and our need to believe in him. As we are dealing with an Omnipotent God, he could do either one easily right? So that is all it would take to make me a believer. Though I know it would be tempting for you to tell me that God wouldn't do that because�(Place your reason here) that isn't the question here, BgiC, this is;

Again what would it take to make you an unbeliever?

I do look forward to your reply. ;)

David

Cross Examiner

July 16, 2003, 12:06 AM

David, bro, what irony. I was at work, writing you a response, waiting for traffic to die down (San Diego can be BAD) so I could go home and eat (my wife made me a cheeseburger pie, gotta die of something, might as well be beef!) and then finish your entitled response. Truth be told, my conscience told me to sit tight and crank out a response, out of respect for your post, thinking it had sat too long. I didn't listen, I sent what I had to my home email and decided to take on traffic. Man did I pay. Worst I've ever seen. No particular reason at all! No accidents, stalled cars, nothing! Time to move somewhere else I guess.

Anyway, I think it most ethical to respond FIFO, first in first out, which is my policy for all who actually care--are not overtly antagonistic. Being a theist at iidb.org means I have a lot of in and not enough time for all the outs. Please believe I never intended to slight you. You were really next and it's too bad I didn't get one out before you had to remind me. What irony, shoulda listened to my conscience ;). Anyway, I'll salvage some of my original response and post it here, now. Here we go:

David M. Payne writes:

Well, where were we BGiC? Oh yes, right here. This should give you a little break from the "is God in or out of time" and the "are you in it for the reward" debate. (I don't have an answer to those.)

I fear I may have over-extended myself, taking on too many threads, leading others to think me impolite. Please accept my sincere apologies. Thanks for you patience :).

And then we had that nice list of Christian sites and no response to my point about our difficulties exercising our free speech on sites such as those listed.

I am very disturbed about how you and others have been treated. I'll elaborate in a bit.

The problem most of us have in visiting those sites you list is that they kick us off when it becomes clear that we are firm in our belief in the non belief in the God/religion biz. So it's hard to have any meaningful discussions on most of the religious boards. Though many of the Christian boards preach toleration, they don't practice it when faced with the kind of arguments we can raise that challenge their faith. You say you have an open mind, we'll see�

My response that got emailed but didn't get posted was:

"If they booted you merely for expressing your viewpoint respectfully, though persistently, then it's imperative we confront them strongly yet lovingly. Via private message, please send me the name of the offending site(s) and the handle(s) you used, unless you'd rather broadcast the gory details in an open post, either way. I am also offended that some claiming Christ would behave contrarily. Christians, when confronted with sin, are required (if accusation is valid) to change. It's the right thing to do."

If you'd like proof that I worked on this before, I have a time-stamped email at my work in-box. Honesty is SO important. You can PM me if you'd like the email. And I'm not trying to show you up any, I understand the frustration of having to wait after showing good faith.

OK, I can see why you would be somewhat disinclined to address my last post, the fact that we don't get the same freedom of speech on the Christian boards that we give your side here. You can't speak for them, right? Fair enough.

No, not fair enough! Unacceptable. I can speak for them and I do now. I insist upon taking this up with the people who wronged you. I was even thinking about it in the shower this morning--because I wasn't sure it was right for me to butt in on your affairs but now I'm even more convinced this must be addressed. How much more leading from the Holy Spirit do I need than a reiteration with such timing of your greivance? If there ever was a compelling case for Christianity, it should be based upon the love and respect we show (particularly for other Christians but also to the world in general) others. Jesus overturned the tables of the merchants in God's Temple but hurt none of them physically. Note that I am not saying that spiritual/historical/philosophical error should not be corrected, which is fatal if we are right on things, which we must assume until shown otherwise, but we should always demonstrate truth with compassion for the individual. Always. God has not forgotten the atheists even if they have forgotten (or don't believe in) Him.

So let me ask you a simple question that you should be able to answer easily, the one that should have been my follow up to your first response to me. You said you could be convinced that you may be wrong as to the existence of God. But then you go right into how strong your belief is and how sure you have it right on the God/religion biz etc. Hum.

Not sure! If anything empiricism has taught me is that there are no certainties. No 100%'s, which relates well to Howard's OP (check it out to see what I mean). I reiterate that I am 95% confident with 5% doubt. Check it:

"I am about 95% confident that I have concluded correctly based on the evidence I have; that what I believe is rational and rooted in reality. I trust (faith) God for the other 5% that is unanswered, so I follow, doubts and all."

With regards to these types of things, you take on the role of juror not lab tech. It is all about confidence, which is never tantamount to certainty. I know this to be an honest answer.

I would encourage all participants, current and future, to read my posts closely. I choose my words carefully, most of the time, and they reveal a lot about me. Heck, read the whole thread. I consider the omniscience/free will issue to be of great importance to matters of faith and human culpability before God.

What would it take to make you an unbeliever BGiC?

Excellent question! I truly love these kinds of questions. In fact, I had an aspiration to actually start a thread, rather than getting buried under several threads, that would deal with this issue. I was going to, and still may if I get time, ask the atheist/agnostic/skeptic community what it would take to make them believe as I do. Ya know, add some polls and some multiple-choice type options etc. to make it clever and encourage participation.

Anyway, I would utterly lose faith if:
-we discover Jesus Christ's remains (e.g. bones)
-we invent AI with a conscience and/or true self-awareness, not a just human mind simulation but truly adaptive and creative (e.g. Skynet on T3 or the machines of the Matrix etc.)
-we find authentic documentation that contradicts the theology of Paul or Peter or James or some other foundational personage
-we find authentic documentation that testifies counter to the Gospel, particularly regarding the resurrection (e.g letters from Caiaphas to his family that the resurrection was a hoax by the disciples etc.)
-we find authentic, trustworthy documentation that testifies that Paul the Apostle (or another foundational Christian like Peter or John etc.) was an immoral man, a hypocrite of some sort
-we prove, not just question or doubt (high burden here) any of the events or people or places the Bible speaks authoritatively on (e.g. archaeological discovery proves Ephesus was actually on the Peloponnesus, not Asia Minor) were fictitious.

To a lesser extent, faith shaking not necessarily breaking:
-we discover sentient life, or sentient life discovers us (e.g. the movie "Signs")
-we discover another planet just like earth or very comparable at least (e.g. that Gas Giant, in recent news, twice as big as Jupiter doesn't do it for me, or ice on Mars, not even close)
-we find the "conscience" in the human genome
-we find that animals have consciences

This was good; a very important exercise that pinpoints exactly what one holds as foundational truth. This list is not at all comprehensive. If I spent a good deal more time I could probably come up with a bunch more. Please suggest others, I'd like to develop a more sophisticated list. There's so many more but I gotta keep moving.

To be fair BGiC, I'll go first and tell you what it would take to make me a believer. It would be easy to get me to see the light, all it would take is God arriving on the planet in person and either appearing in front of all of humanity at the same time, or getting all of humanity together in one place, to give us a little pep talk and confirm his existence and our need to believe in him. As we are dealing with an Omnipotent God, he could do either one easily right? So that is all it would take to make me a believer. Though I know it would be tempting for you to tell me that God wouldn't do that because�(Place your reason here) that isn't the question here, BgiC, this is;

Even then, many, maybe even you, might not believe. I could develop this thought more but I have too much on my plate now.

I followed your advice and googled (google is a verb already?) your name. Interesting life so far! I am also a news and history junkie. At 15 I was watching CNN religiously while everyone else was watching Beavis and Butthead. You served in Vietnam? Speak on that a bit if you don't mind? Where was your tour(s) of duty? Which years etc.? Are you proof that there are at least some atheists in foxholes :)?

I began to read your work Utopia-612. Interesting style, not normally a sci-fi fan. I want to read more though. I also began on the jesuspuzzle but have found several glaring problems on the very first page. I'd like to get into them now but must be content to wait for another time and place. I also sampled Doherty's CHALLENGING THE VERDICT, a counter to Strobel's THE CASE FOR CHRIST, which I've read in large part. I am already concerned that, if I, a hack bible scholar have objected early and often to Doherty, that scholars like Montgomery or Geisler would deconstruct Doherty if he managed to fly onto their radar. I want to get the book but it's rather expensive compared to Strobel's book (more supply will drop the price!). Anyway, these are problems for another talk for another time. Gotta stay focused. Did the above answer your questions as you'd hoped? Have a good night all.

Sleepy, very sleepy,
BGiC

David M. Payne

July 16, 2003, 01:02 AM

BgiC
...When we find that animals have consciences...

It's late, but keep your eye on the gorillas, their coming on pretty well now.

David

Cross Examiner

July 16, 2003, 02:40 PM

Alright, a quiet moment to respond! Jobar, you write:

Well, you will get roared at a lot, but as long as you stay as polite as you have been so far, we promise not to rend you to bits.

Fair enough. It should be evident by now that we are here for discussion, not argument. I'm glad you all feel likewise.

Joking aside, we actually appreciate believers who come here and talk to us in a reasonable and mannerly way.

Eee. Sounds like you've had some bad experiences with my "brethren"?

I often give fair warning to ones like you- this forum has made a good number of 'de-converts', and to the best of my knowledge only one professed atheist from this site has gone back to her natal religion. (Look up 'Theistgal' in the members list, if you are interested. She said she became an atheist because her boyfriend was one- and when they split up she went back to Catholicism.)

I've also noticed a good number of folks claiming to be ex-catholic/ex-christian. Quite a sway you have. Frankly, if my position cannot stand some discipline then it is not worth having. On an aside, not intending to be inflammatory, but you don't hear of too many death-bed conversions of Christians to atheism, though the reverse happens frequently and to many of history's notables. I'm not saying there are no atheists in foxholes, only that they're a dying breed ;). An interesting study if you're inclined.

We've seen believers lose their faith- and it can be agonizing for them. We consider the pain our attacks on your faith may cause to be like that caused by a dentist extracting an abcessed tooth- but it may hurt, and hurt bad. Stay at your own risk, OK?

I really appreciate the warning. If I advance and fall then the outcome is certainly not upon your head, Jobar. You have been kind. I reiterate that I do not want a position that cannot bare close scrutiny--in fact, if it's not legit, then I must quit! Though I challenge you all to the inverse, and all the implications thereof, if my case is shown reasonable and trustworthy.

Sincerely,
BGiC

john_v_h

July 16, 2003, 09:00 PM

BGIC,

A slight digression:
1. If nothing is certain, then the principle that "nothing is certain" is itself uncertain.
2. To be uncertain that nothing is certain is to admit that some things may be certain.
3. But it cannot be the case that nothing is certain and some things may be certain.
4. Therefore, it is false that nothing is certain.

In your reply to the question of what would cause you to lose faith, you cited exclusively empirical evidence. Did you hold to the same standard to arrive at your faith?

Cross Examiner

July 16, 2003, 09:06 PM

Go Hawkeyes! Uh, go Cyclones? � I got nothing. Where were we wordsmyth?

wordsmyth, you write:

Respectfully, both the dictionary definition and the manner in which Carl F.H. Henry characterize time assumes both that there is a divine being and that that being is outside of time..

True, both characterize eternal as being "outside of time." I disagree that the dictionary assumes God's existence regarding eternal, or exhibits theistic bias, only that the idea of God gives "eternal" meaning and context and that eternal is without meaning when stripped of it's traditional associative property to God. Take "atheist," for example:

"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

Does the dictionary also, here, assume God's existence or display bias toward Him? Of course not! Only that without the notion of God, the term atheist is meaningless. Can you actually define atheism without theism? Of course not! Please, please, please...I don't want this to devolve into yet another round of "that depends upon what the definition of is is" -- an utter waste of everyone's time. I'll not resort to anything so silly as having to defend the dictionary from relativist attack. Got a problem? Call Webster's. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but can you tell I dislike such things? So, going forward, the dictionary is authoritative on the meaning of words, period. The quote from Henry is not, of course, though there is descriptive merit in his words. For a purely technical discussion, if that is all you want, we should cling to the dictionary. Otherwise, I'll politely ask you for an absolute definition of what "is" is, without any dictionary bias, before we scratch anything important ;). Nihilists do vex me. They are skeptical of everything, except their own skepticism. Go figure.

This assumption shows there is a distinctly theistic bias from both sources.

Bias? Eternal has no meaning apart from God or at least the supernatural. Can the dictionary define the Poodle absent the notion of dog (or canine)? Does this mean the dictionary is biased in favor of dogs? Is the Constitution biased in favor of Americans? Yep! Well, one would hope :). The notion of eternal is intrinsic to God, part and parcel of His very definition in the Bible and part of my argument for the reconciliation of omniscience and free will, which polite participants grant for the greater good of advancing an argument towards meaningfulness. The Bible is not on trial, here, now, in this thread, the potential contradiction between omniscience and free will is, which is the point of this thread. I suspect you'll need to recant or at least rephrase your objection above if we are to have a meaningful dialogue. For the good of the people!

Eternal could mean within time, but only if you assume time itself is eternal, which IMO, makes more sense

No que bueno amigo. Eternal could not mean "within time", which is to be finite and the very antonym of eternal. Redefining eternal to have it make more sense to you, in your opinion? Please try a different approach?

If you are truly foreign or bewildered to the theistic concept of the interplay between God and time, please start here for some basics:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/101000.htm

Aside from the aforementioned difficulties associated with completely redefining eternal on the spot and taking the thread out of OP original intent/scope of response; doesn�t the Big Bang and relational theory on time, both well accepted, preclude time as absolute in nature? Could the world come into being if time was infinite? Or, when and how did the universe come into being if time is infinite? What about the ICR problem (infinite causal regress)? Didn't Hilbert disprove transfinite mathematics? More questions aplenty! Maybe you and I can discuss this on a separate thread, if you�re really interested?

However, neither one gives a coherent explanation as to what it would truly mean to be outside of time.

Maybe you jumped in late, I can sympathize with that. Go here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1065906#post1065906
and let me know what problems you have, what further explaining is needed and I'll happily oblige you.

This is exactly my point. The eternal could never enter the finite if time were not already present. Lets use the analogy of two frames of film. In the first frame we have the eternal outside the finite. In the second we have the eternal inside the finite. Each frame is a state and to get from one frame or state to the next requires some increment (no matter how small) of time.

Short answer is the eternal, by definition, need not play by the finite's rules. Nor is the supernatural bound by the natural. You cannot apply the rules of baseball to a football game the outcome is incoherency. Time, as part of this universe, is not over God, God is over time and this universe. I would then say that God created the universe outside our time dimension or, equally acceptable, at t=0 with a timeless state preceding the universe (see link below for reference, easy-reading overview). Applying ICR such a timeless (eternal) state is a naturalistic fallacy and to assert that time is absolute really introduces many more problems than it solves. You understand that infinite regress is only a problem for temporal, physical causation, no? We're inching towards the Kalam cosmological argument for God's existence and I don't think you want to take that route. My goal in introducing time was that given the relative (Einstein et al.) notion of time, free will and omniscience reconcile without much difficulty. Given your notion of time as absolute, which is problematic for cosmological reasons, renders my analysis incoherent.

for more info on this.
http://www.la.utexas.edu/phl356/lec5.html

Problem: physical theory unto metaphysical investigation. Weighing a chicken with a yardstick is bad.

To believe that God does not operate under the rules of logic as we understand it renders everything written in the bible about his nature incoherent and meaningless. To say God is timeless is completely meaningless based on our understanding of the nature of time. You could say God is zoinkerless and it would hold as much (little?) meaning.

Subject to logic? Yes. God cannot make a round square. Subject to the physical laws of this universe? No. God does not necessarily come down after going up, like an apple, nor does he suffer any time-related problems like the singularity does.

To be outside of time surely would mean eternal, but only in so much as it would mean to be in a state whereby nothing changed. You could never perform an action or even have a thought. It would be like a single frame of film with no possibility of ever moving to the next.

Physical events must occur in time. Must spiritual events (like the creation of angelic beings)? Natural events occur in time. Must supernatural events (God's fiat of will to create a finite universe)?

This was a wild tangent. Let's go back to the beginning. Given my delineation of time, God as eternal, man as significantly free, is there any contradiction between God's omniscience and free will?

It�s not particularly important to me as I am one of those entrenched atheists you are reluctant to debate with.

I'll work with anyone who doubts or is capable of doubting his or her beliefs. I find most nihilists and ultra-relativists are belligerent and uncooperative as all get-out. I won't waste my time with them like I wouldn't chase my own shadow.

The truth is I not only have a hard time believing that God(s) created time (or anything else for that matter), but I also have a hard time with the cosmological idea that time began at the big bang. Neither one seems plausible to me as they both suffer from the same problem of passing from one state to the next without time

Ah, the crux of the matter. Can you let your qualm go, at least temporarily, for the sake of the argument at hand; free will and omniscience? Can you grant me my premise for the sake of this argument? We have to prioritize our qualms to get to some nugget of truth. I will gladly work with you on the problem of time, infinite regress and such another time, another place. Just PM me when and where you prefer this to happen, fortunately, we have a finite time in between these two points so the aforementioned actions may (unless one of us dies and passes into eternity, or nothingness:)) actually occur in this universe!

Ok, but this also has the same problem. If we assume there was a state in which there were no angels and a state in which there were, then to change from one state to the other requires some increment of time.

In our universe, this is necessarily true. Elsewhere though? Neo can fly in the Matrix but is ground-bound in the real, why? Different universes, different rules apply.

Sure, time is a part of the universe.

Excellent! We�ve found common ground bro! Maybe there�s still hope.

However, for God to create the universe requires that time already exists.

Irrational exuberance (stole it from Greenspan) run amok! We�ve come to a screeching halt on the good-feelings. If the above did not already answer this point, please elaborate on what you mean exactly.

To go from a state where the universe does not exist to a state in which it does, requires some increment of time.

Unless time did not exist until the universe did. As stated earlier, positing that time is eternal itself will create many more problems than it solves. It�ll take a great brain to work around such difficulties. Maimonides and Hawking both agree (for once) that the universe began at a point in time.

If we accept that God created the universe in six days, then it is obvious that time was a requirement for God to create the universe. Otherwise, it would not have taken him six days to create the universe. He could have done it in no time.

Exactly my friend! He did it in no time. Genesis says he instantaneously spoke (willed) the universe into existence then developed it in �6 days�.

Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

God created time when he began the universe; t = 0.

Sincerely,
BGiC

wordsmyth

July 17, 2003, 12:06 AM

BGiC,

I've started a new thread with my latest response so that you can get the topic you began in this thread back on track. I've already involved myself in two other current threads concerning the problems with Gods omniscience and free will and my time for replys is limited, so I will have to discontinue discussion of that subject in this thread.

DMB

July 17, 2003, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by Billy Graham is coolMaimonides and Hawking both agree (for once) that the universe began at a point in time.

I'm not a physicist, much less a cosmologist, so anyone who is better informed than me please correct me. My understanding of Hawking's position is that time began with the universe.

Cross Examiner

July 17, 2003, 01:21 PM

Hello demoninho. I did not see your post so I answered another's before yours. I apologize. You write,

I don't know if someone already mentioned the following because I didn't read the entire thread:

I doesn't really matter if god is in or outside of time.

Respectfully, my recent, previous posts demonstrate that God's eternal nature is important to our discussion.

Even if he has a complete knowledge of all the different possible futures for him to be omniscient he should know which is our timeline to follow

Exactly. He does know being outside of time, demonstrated by the defense as God eternal (above), viewing the end and beginning of each individual's decision tree, all potential and actual paths taken, in aggregate wholly apart from our time domain. See:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1065906#post1065906
for a visualization of this concept.

Sincerely,
BGiC

Spenser

July 17, 2003, 01:33 PM

BGiC,

I'm wondering, since you feel that God's eternal nature is important, what you feel about my Infinite Regress (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57504) post? It posits a great uncertainty about the idea of eternal...

Cross Examiner

July 17, 2003, 08:20 PM

Spenser,
I responded here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1081456#post1081456
per your wishes. We seem to be regular dance partners :).

you write:

I'm wondering, since you feel that God's eternal nature is important

Yes sir, very important.

what you feel about my Infinite Regress post?

I ended up answering fishbulb instead because his post was the only remaining that didn't get objected to and seemed final. You know that ICR is only a problem for the universe creating itself, right? Check my post to wordsmyth for more info, 4 back in this thread. We're still working through free will and omniscience and you are more than welcome to join.

Take Care,
BGiC

Cross Examiner

July 18, 2003, 12:05 AM

john_v_h, welcome to the boringest (sic) thread of all time, kidding, just kidding. You've already livened things up.

You write:

A slight digression:

Uh oh. Not again! Shoulda left a trail of bread crumbs. I'm beginning to be unable to distuingish the rabbit trails from the highway now :).

1. If nothing is certain, then the principle that "nothing is certain" is itself uncertain.

Can I change my answer to: I am confident that few things are certain?

2. To be uncertain that nothing is certain is to admit that some things may be certain.

Sure, why not?

3. But it cannot be the case that nothing is certain and some things may be certain.

Kwa? Oh. I think adding the word "yet" after the word "and" makes a world of difference here.

4. Therefore, it is false that nothing is certain.

Nice. Proof for the existence of absolute truth. Don't tell Spenser.

In your reply to the question of what would cause you to lose faith, you cited exclusively empirical evidence. Did you hold to the same standard to arrive at your faith?

Did I use only empirical evidence to arrive at my faith? Is that what you are asking? No, I also rely upon philosophical reasoning and personal experience to conclude as I have.

Oh. I thought of two more to add to my might lose faith list:

-creation of life from chemicals (Miller-Urey? Not even close)
-resurrection of a corpse from purely physical input (e.g. Frankenstein's monster)

Buenos Noches,
BGiC

Cross Examiner

July 18, 2003, 12:25 AM

DMB, you write:
I'm not a physicist, much less a cosmologist, so anyone who is better informed than me please correct me. My understanding of Hawking's position is that time began with the universe.

I was a little ambigous. Hawking says t = 0, at the inception of the universe, a point in time, the beginning of time/time began with the universe. Or so I recall.

Wow. Finally caught up on all the tangents. Now, anyone have any lingering problems with the original point, my explanation of the reconciliation between God's omniscience and man's free will? No more objections? Hopefully?

Regards,
BGiC

Howard

July 18, 2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool

Wow. Finally caught up on all the tangents. Now, anyone have any lingering problems with the original point, my explanation of the reconciliation between God's omniscience and man's free will? No more objections? Hopefully?

Regards,
BGiC Hello BGIC,
I have one tiny objection. I disagree with you 100%. If, when God created the universe, he knew beforehand every decision I would make in every situation, then I have only one choice, which means I really have no choice at all. Only if I can make a choice that is different from God's plan do I have free will. To me that's so obvious it's self-evident.

When I got up this morning it was pre-ordained that I would have the cereal my wife buys that tastes like tree bark. No one who had free will would do that.

Of course, given the vagaries of life, such as a cat crossing my path and changing my future, not to mention the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical events, it's impossible for me to believe in omniscience. That's just another arbitrary quality assigned to God (such as his existing outside of time) by people who think that's what a proper God should have. People who readily admit that they know nothing about the mind of God�.then proceed to tell us all about it.

What you're doing is what all believers do - choosing the qualities of God that you need to answer the questions posed. I've been here quite a while and I've heard about all manner of Gods - Gods who are intimately involved in human affairs, and Gods who sit back and do nothing; Gods who exist apart from the universe and Gods who are the universe; Gods who send non-believers to eternal torture and Gods who send us to some vague place separate from him; Gods who judge us on our faith and Gods who judge us in our deeds.

My question is not why we should believe in God, but why should we believe in your version of God?

Jobar

July 18, 2003, 10:41 PM

BGiC, free will is one of those things that we have discussed to a small greasy spot on the freeway around here, so a lot of us are just burned out on the topic. I suggest looking for rainbow walking; he's our resident freewill expert (and perhaps our most spectacular de-convert, too.) (Another warning- rw is quite fond of long, long, LONG posts!) ;)

You should look through the archives of EoG to see how many threads have to do with free will, and I am sure you will understand why I myself, as the senior EoG mod, usually avoid them!

Cross Examiner

July 28, 2003, 10:02 PM

Howard. I'm responding to you 10 days later -- I'm all about speed.

I have one tiny objection. I disagree with you 100%. If, when God created the universe, he knew beforehand every decision I would make in every situation, then I have only one choice, which means I really have no choice at all. Only if I can make a choice that is different from God's plan do I have free will. To me that's so obvious it's self-evident.

Yeah. Free will. Fun fun fun. Philosoft and I were talking about it here. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1089702#post1089702) Rather than duplicate the same discussion in this thread, feel free to pick up the torch at the aforementioned link.

Regards,
BGiC

theghostinthemachine

July 28, 2003, 11:21 PM

<snip>

There is no free will/omniscient contradiction. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the claimed contradiction is that God knows that X will do A at T1. Not that X must do A at T1. If God knows infallibly that I will do X at T1, this only states that I will do X at T1, not that I must do X at T1. There are propositions in the argument that would have to be necessary truths, which they are not. Anyway, God being omnscient did know how the universe would turn out. He even knew that you would write this post :)

Cross Examiner

July 29, 2003, 12:18 AM

How-d theghostinthemachine. You write:

There is no free will/omniscient contradiction. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the claimed contradiction is that God knows that X will do A at T1. Not that X must do A at T1. If God knows infallibly that I will do X at T1, this only states that I will do X at T1, not that I must do X at T1. There are propositions in the argument that would have to be necessary truths, which they are not. Anyway, God being omnscient did know how the universe would turn out. He even knew that you would write this post

I used many thousands of words to where you used this paragraph above. Very succinct. :notworthy

However, I've heard the name Dan Barker kicked around alot here. Have you read his argument against free will and omniscience? Can anyone who has sum it up like TGITM did above for the free will POV?

Regards,
BGiC

theghostinthemachine

July 29, 2003, 01:57 AM

I used many thousands of words to where you used this paragraph above. Very succinct. :notworthy

However, I've heard the name Dan Barker kicked around alot here. Have you read his argument against free will and omniscience? Can anyone who has sum it up like TGITM did above for the free will POV?

Regards,
BGiC [/B]

Hello,

I am not familiar with Barkers argument against free will. I will do an internet search for it and see if I can find it.

P.S. Billy Graham is cool! At least I think so.

Koyaanisqatsi

July 29, 2003, 05:03 AM

That's a self-contradictory assertion. If God knows all possible variations on your existence, but doesn't know which particular variations you'll choose (due to "free will"), then you've negated god's omniscience.

To assert that god could willfully blind itself to your particular variations is an absurdity, since omniscience implies foreknowledge (as does the bible), so god would have to have "blinded" itself to all possible events in the exact same instant that it allegedly created all possible events. How could one create all possible events at the same time one blinds oneself to the creation of all possible events?

If you assert, "through omnipotence," then you're simply using one omnimax ability to, once again, negate another.

No matter how you slice it, you're artificially limiting a supposedly limitless being. Why? To justify an absurd construct instead of simply recognizing it to be absurd and discarding it as invalid accordingly.

In other words, you'd be going to illogical extremes in order to desperately apologize for something that should be self-evidently false and therefore discarded.

Alan N

July 29, 2003, 09:54 AM

If God knows infallibly that I will do X at T1, this only states that I will do X at T1, not that I must do X at T1.

Isn't this just POV semantics? From God's POV, which would be reality, I must do X at T1. From my POV, I'm freely choosing to do X at T1. Problem is, my POV doesn't matter (except to me), because reality, Gods POV, is what will be. I must do X at T1, because I will do X at T1.

Kind of like "I have free will in the domain of predetermined will"

theghostinthemachine

July 29, 2003, 06:44 PM

Koyaanisqatsi got up the nerve and wrote:
That's a self-contradictory assertion. If God knows all possible variations on your existence, but doesn't know which particular variations you'll choose (due to "free will"), then you've negated god's omniscience.

That is not what Christian theists like myself claim. God knows infallibly that I will choose to do A at T1.

To assert that god could willfully blind itself to your particular variations is an absurdity, since omniscience implies foreknowledge (as does the bible), so god would have to have "blinded" itself to all possible events in the exact same instant that it allegedly created all possible events. How could one create all possible events at the same time one blinds oneself to the creation of all possible events?

I don't know, how?

If you assert, "through omnipotence," then you're simply using one omnimax ability to, once again, negate another.

No I am not. I am asserting that God knows infallibly that I will do A at T1, and that there exists no contradiction between that proposition and the proposition that we have free will.

No matter how you slice it, you're artificially limiting a supposedly limitless being. Why? To justify an absurd construct instead of simply recognizing it to be absurd and discarding it as invalid accordingly.

Quite the contrary my friend. It is the atheist who wants to turn the blind eye to propositions that are necessary truths and those that are not. If you have a syllogism that presents a contradiction between omnisceince and free will, let's see it. I am willing to bet that this Christian can refute it. And I would not need to apologize for it :)

In other words, you'd be going to illogical extremes in order to desperately apologize for something that should be self-evidently false and therefore discarded.

That is the problem that you have my friend. It is not self-evident. In fact, it is the atheists argument that should have been discarded long ago.

Spenser

July 29, 2003, 06:58 PM

I am asserting that God knows infallibly that I will do A at T1, and that there exists no contradiction between that proposition and the proposition that we have free will.

What nonsense! If God knows infallibly that I will do A (bowl a strike) at T1 (8:31pm) then I cannot possibly do anything else other than bowl a strike at 8:31pm. If I cannot do any other possible thing at 8:31pm then I DO NOT HAVE free will. In order to actually have free will there has to be two possible options, otherwise I only really have one choice. If God knows what I am going to do then I only have one possible option even if I am unaware of it. God cannot know what I will do if I am to have free will or God knows and I do not have free will. The reason you do not think it is contradictory is not logical therefore the argument is weak... :p

Spenser

July 29, 2003, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool

However, I've heard the name Dan Barker kicked around alot here. Have you read his argument against free will and omniscience? Can anyone who has sum it up like TGITM did above for the free will POV?

For Dan Barkers argument on free will goto this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54676) :notworthy

theghostinthemachine

July 29, 2003, 08:46 PM

Spenser in a moment of inspiration, actually tried his hand at philosophy...

What nonsense!

I think the only nonsense around infidels is the atheists who deny the truth of Jesus Christ.

If God knows infallibly that I will do A (bowl a strike) at T1 (8:31pm) then I cannot possibly do anything else other than bowl a strike at 8:31pm. If I cannot do any other possible thing at 8:31pm then I DO NOT HAVE free will. In order to actually have free will there has to be two possible options, otherwise I only really have one choice. If God knows what I am going to do then I only have one possible option even if I am unaware of it. God cannot know what I will do if I am to have free will or God knows and I do not have free will. The reason you do not think it is contradictory is not logical therefore the argument is weak... :p

Foreknowledge does not mean coercion. If I had a infallible time machine, and knew that tomorrow Spencer would bowl a 300, would my infallible knowledge coerce you into bowling a 300? Likewise, looking back at time, we can see that infallible knowledge does not entail that free will does not exist. I know infallibly that I ate wheaties for breakfast yesterday. The only truth that necessarily follows from this, is that I did eat wheaties (what is necessarily true, is actually true), not that I had to eat wheaties. The same reasoning applies to future events as well.

The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.

A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.

Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

Dan Barker is not a philosopher, so it does not surprise me that his reasoning is sloppy; but that is no excuse to offer an argument that is known to be seriously flawed. And it is dishonest to present it as truth. One interesting point is that it backfires on Barker. Atheists, tied to naturalism, must deal with the consequences of reductionism - you have no free will! You think the way you do, and you make the decisions you make because the atoms that combined to make you determined it for you. There is no purpose, there is naturalism. You had no more choice in going bowling today then I had in replying to your post if atheism is true. I had no choice to feely choose. If we assume Barkers argument to be true, then no one exists if atheism is true because reductionism is not compatible with free will., and no personal beings with free will exists.

Put another way, Barkers argument fails for the same reasons as this:

(i) If x knows that you are going to do [some action] A, then you must do A.

(ii) But if you must do A, then you have no choice in the matter (i.e. you will not be able to do otherwise than A).

Therefore, If x knows (beforehand) that you are going to do A, then you have no free choice (i.e. you will not be able to do otherwise than A).

Or, put another way:

Foreknowledge is incompatible with free will.

(therefore God does not exist)

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/freewill3.htm

Despite actuality (God knowledge that I will do A at T1), it is still possible that I will do A or ~A. The first premise in the argument is not a necessary truth - and it needs to be - in order for there to be a contradiction. As related to Brakers argument, infallible knowledge is not incompatible with free will.

The correct form looks like this:

(i) It must be that (if x knows that you are going to do [some action] A, then you will do A).

(ii) But if you must do A, then you have no choice in the matter.

Therefore, If x knows (beforehand) that you are going to do A, then you will do A.

And whala! The contradiction is gone. Modal logic makes it even more clear:

1) God's knowledge cannot be wrong.
~<>(B & ~A) & ~<>(~B & A)
2) God knows that I will do A.
B
3) If I have free will, then (I can do A) and (I can do ~A).
F --> [ <>A & <>~A)
4) If I can do ~A, then it is possibly true that I will do ~A.
<>~A --> <>~A
5) If it is possibly true that I will do ~A, then God's knowledge that I
will do A is possibly false.
<>~A --> <>(B & ~A)
6) If God's knowledge that I will do A is possibly false, then God's
knowledge can be wrong.
<>(B & ~A) --> ~[~<>(B & ~A) & ~<>(~B & A)]
7) Therefore, God's 'knowledge' that I will do A is not possibly false.
~<>(B & ~A) from 1, simplification
8) Therefore, it is not possibly true that I will do ~A.
~<>~A from 5 and 7, modus tollens
9) Therefore, I cannot do ~A.
~<>~A from 8, restatement
10) Therefore, it is false that (I can do A) and (I can do ~A).
~(<>A & <>~A) from 9, but I cannot recall the name for this argument.It is valid.
11) Therefore, I don't have free will.
~F from 10 and 3, modus tollens

The way I see it, only premises 1, 3, and 5 are needed for the argument.The argument isvalid (sic), and I view (1) and (3) as both being true. Premise (5):

5) If it is possibly true that I will do ~A, then God's knowledge that I
will do A is possibly false.
<>~A --> <>(B & ~A)

I do not see as obviously true. It is not of a form which is necessarily valid in modallogic. It would be if B were necessarily true, for in that case anypossible world in which~A was the case would also be a possible world in which B was the case.But B was notconsidered necessary in this argument, nor do I view B as necessarily true:it would seemthat B, for an infallible agent, would be true only in those possibleworlds in which Awere true, and false in any possible worlds in which A was false. Thus, Ido not considerthis argument sound. That does not mean I consider that there is not a problem between free will and omniscience which includes complete prescience, see usenetarticle<35e03eaf.4295574@news.vt.edu> by me.)

In addition, I should mention that there seems to be a theorem in S5 modallogic whichcould be used in the above argument to make it a sound one. But thetheorem is not oneI've seen proved, and is highly counter-intuitive to me, that I won't useit in this post. Nonetheless, if someone could off the list prove the following I could useit in anomniscience/free will argument:[](a v b) --> []a v []b

This was posted at alt.atheism by a atheist named Ed Stoebenau. Mr. Stoebenau did attempt to reconstruct the argument, but his argument fails as well because it fails to demonstrate a necessary truth where it is needed.

http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/xtianity/freewill.html

I'm off, I have to write a rebuttal on a current debate that I am in with an atheist. We are debating the evidential problem of evil at:

http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=125

Howard

July 29, 2003, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Spenser

What nonsense! If God knows infallibly that I will do A (bowl a strike) at T1 (8:31pm) then I cannot possibly do anything else other than bowl a strike at 8:31pm. If I cannot do any other possible thing at 8:31pm then I DO NOT HAVE free will. In order to actually have free will there has to be two possible options, otherwise I only really have one choice. If God knows what I am going to do then I only have one possible option even if I am unaware of it. God cannot know what I will do if I am to have free will or God knows and I do not have free will. The reason you do not think it is contradictory is not logical therefore the argument is weak... :p [/B] Exactly. And you can add to that the question: How does God know what is going to happen? There's only one possible answer: He planned it that way. If he didn't, then there are forces in the universe beyond his control, which no theist worth his theology would acknowledge.

Another way to look at it�
Let all your choices in life be divided into two categories:
1) The choices God preordained for you
2) All other choices
Guess which choice you will make every single time? If you can only make one choice then you have no choice, and no free will.

How can anyone not see that God's omniscience negates human free will? It is patently obvious.

theghostinthemachine

July 29, 2003, 10:18 PM

How can anyone not see that God's omniscience negates human free will? It is patently obvious. [/B]

No, as my above argument demonstrates, it is not necessarily true. There is no contradiction ;) I guess you could say it exists only in the minds of atheists - but this is a matter of persuasion - not logic. Logically there is no contradiction.

Koyaanisqatsi

July 30, 2003, 12:06 AM

"Gathered up the nerve?"

:eek:

The contradiction comes form the fact that you're flipflopping (conveniently) between two disparate timelines; a linear timeline and a simultaneous timeline.

Humanity exists (or shall we say, human perception exists) in a linear timeline, but your god, allegedly, does not (due to omniscience, which does, indeed necessarily incorporate foreknowledge, as "evidenced" not only in the mythology of the bible, but also in the logic inherent in the omnimax attribute).

God is supposed to already know (aka, simultaneous timeline) who is saved and who is damned. That means to god all actual events have already effectively "happened." The entire universe's complete, actual existence is as total in god's eyes as any CD on your shelf represents the totality of that album's music recorded on that disc.

You hold that CD in your hands, and you are no longer holding a linear timeline; you are holding the totality of actual events and every single note, guitar solo, breathe of the singer is resolute, intractable and immovable.

It is entirely irrelevant that it was recorded in a linear manner by humans, because we're discussing matters only from god's perspective.

You, however, are attempting to simply dismiss this fact (where convenient) to then fallaciously slip in what happens from a human perspective. Only god's perspective is relevant to the argument, since the question of free will applies to "his" alleged mechanism of determination. Free will isn't important for humans, necessarily, as it to God.

Yet, from God's perspective, it is impossible to effectively state that we have free will anymore than a word processing program has "free will" independent of "its" programmer.

It may appear to humans as if they are acting on their own at any given moment, but from god's perspective, at no point could they be acting on their own. God allegedly wrote the program due to omnipotence; thus every one and zero and the manner in which it interacts and the possible variables are specifically known. Due to omniscience, the instant God wrote that program is the instant that God knows exactly how that program will be used throughout all of time. He will instantly know (before it "happens" in a linear timeline) who wrote what and why they wrote it. So, if your god is omnimax, then all actual events have, effectively, already happened the instant it created the program.

To god, there would be no relevance to the concept of "free will." It would have no effective meaning, since the universe's actual events have already, effectively, played out in god's mind and every single actual event a fait accompli, just like that CD you're metaphorically holding in your hands.

There would therefore be nothing we could do in a linear timeline that we haven't already done in god's simultaneous timeline. Free will would have no effective meaning for the purposes of the alleged mechanism of determination. We are already saved or damned; the universe has already ended or expanded or whatever it is supposed to do in your mythology to god.

We are, therefore, entirely irrelevant; what we "do," we have already done. Since we have already done it, it is impossible that we do anything but it, therefore effecitvely destroying the concept of free will to begin with.

This is the illogic inherent in omnimax claims and this is why they all fail.

And, by the way, it doesn't make any difference if you think atheism is also illogical or feel that there are unanswered claims inherent in atheism in the slightest. That doesn't change the fact that omnimax claims fail. Always.