God knows what will happen in the future, correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Our perception/feeling of the duration of “time” between events is subjective and varies among individuals. A small child feels that the duration between birthdays will never end, while an adult feels a progressive shrinking of duration with every passing year. I do the laundry every Sunday morning and I could swear that I had just done it the previous day when actually 7 days had passed. But regardless of how long the duration felt between events, there was a duration. Even with the Lord, scripture says that a thousand years feels like a day to Him, which would follow that 2 thousand years would seem like 2 days for a duration of 1 day between events.
 
rstrats said:
Our perception/feeling of the duration of “time” between events is subjective and varies among individuals. A small child feels that the duration between birthdays will never end, while an adult feels a progressive shrinking of duration with every passing year. I do the laundry every Sunday morning and I could swear that I had just done it the previous day when actually 7 days had passed. But regardless of how long the duration felt between events, there was a duration. Even with the Lord, scripture says that a thousand years feels like a day to Him, which would follow that 2 thousand years would seem like 2 days for a duration of 1 day between events.
Click to expand...
God is outside of time.

The Scripture there is not meant to relate some actual “experience” of God.
 
Bookcat said:
Nope.

Cause your trying to make God into a creature.

God does not know in the same way we know.
Click to expand...
It’s strange, innit? We have books, and films, and radio shows, and photographs, and computers with HDDs, that can hold data and words and knowledge that can be instantly accessed at any time and can last a long time, if not forever.

And yet these guys seem to get hung up on how humans know things… I wonder how offended books, computers, and the rest would be…
 
onenow1 said:
God’s knowledge is not gained like ours, by proceeding step by step from things known to those unknown. By knowing Himself perfectly, God knows…
Click to expand...
Right - the knowledge of God is not like ours.

In fact as you hint there - created things are not the object of divine knowledge - the object of God’s knowledge is the divine knowledge - it is God Who is the object.
 
Gorgias said:
No – it actualizes at the time that it occurs. God simply has ‘foreknowledge’ of it. Even that is a misnomer, because it is only ‘foreknowledge’ from our perspective; from God’s, it’s not knowledge ‘before’ or ‘after’, but merely, His knowledge in the eternal Now.
Click to expand...
The content of creation is actual from God perspective. It is no actual from our perspective since we have to wait for time in order to make our decisions and make them actual. Am I correct by now? Yes. Hence we have fates.

This however at best is illogical since it question the very concept of God as creator since the very act of creation is related to actualizing something into existence, namely creation, yet everything is actual from God perspective!
 
Bookcat said:
Again …looking for bike peddles…

No you would be incorrect.

God does not know as we know.

Nor is God a creature…
Click to expand...
I am not. I am trying to say that the concept of timeless God is incoherent.
 
Bahman said:
I am not. I am trying to say that the concept of timeless God is incoherent.
Click to expand...
Yes your trying to make God a creature.

The only incoherency is in ones understanding (misunderstanding) and misapproach.

As I noted like a person who thinks a car works like a bicycle and thus keeps trying to understand why the peddles do not go round and round like his experience.

As our fellow posted put it:
Gorgias said:
an appeal to the nature of God that presumes that He has the same characteristics as created beings is doomed to failure from this invalid premise…
Click to expand...
 
Bahman said:
You cannot pick up the conclusion of my argument and say a simple “NO”. You have to make an argument.
Click to expand...
No.

For it is not fate …but freedom.

I am free 🙂

I have provided plenty “over time” 🙂

(and it was a passing comment in your discussion with another…)
 
If someone wishes to learn to drive a car one has to accept that his bicycle is not a car and start looking into cars. If he keeps trying to think of his car as if it was a bicycle he is going to drive himself crazy trying to find the peddles.

If that person comes to one and insists - “but show me how I make the peddles go round and round…”

One has to get them to see that it is not like a bicycle.

If they keep coming back to “but the peddles do not go round and round” …

One has to tell them - no it is not a bicycle it is a car. You are thinking as if it were a bicycle.

If they then keep saying:

“how do I make the peddles go round and round”
  • one cannot show them that how they go round and round for they do not.
One has to repeat - “your thinking as if it is a bicycle -you need to cease that line of thinking”…“the peddles do not go round and round”…
 
Bahman said:
Y.
Click to expand...
If someone wishes to learn to drive a car one has to accept that his bicycle is not a car and start looking into cars. If he keeps trying to think of his car as if it was a bicycle he is going to drive himself crazy trying to find the peddles.

If that person comes to one and insists - “but show me how I make the peddles go round and round…”

One has to get them to see that it is not like a bicycle.

If they keep coming back to “but the peddles do not go round and round” …

One has to tell them - no it is not a bicycle it is a car. You are thinking as if it were a bicycle.

If they then keep saying:

“how do I make the peddles go round and round”
  • one cannot show them that how they go round and round for they do not.
One has to repeat - “your thinking as if it is a bicycle -you need to cease that line of thinking”…“the peddles do not go round and round”…
 
clem456 said:
Might mysterious be a better word than incoherent?
Click to expand...
There is no mystery when we can comprehend and imagine the very concept of timeless God. Why it was invented at first place if it was assumed to be a mystery without explaining the subject matter better? Why we should accept a mystery as a cornerstone of our belief system?
 
Bahman said:
Y.
Click to expand...
If someone wishes to learn to drive a car one has to accept that his bicycle is not a car and start looking into cars. If he keeps trying to think of his car as if it was a bicycle he is going to drive himself crazy trying to find the peddles.

If that person comes to one and insists - “but show me how I make the peddles go round and round…”

One has to get them to see that it is not like a bicycle.

If they keep coming back to “but the peddles do not go round and round” …

One has to tell them - no it is not a bicycle it is a car. You are thinking as if it were a bicycle.

If they then keep saying:

“how do I make the peddles go round and round?”

One cannot show them that how they go round and round - for they do not.

One has to repeat - “your thinking as if it is a bicycle -you need to cease that line of thinking”…“the peddles do not go round and round”…
 
clem456 said:
Might mysterious be a better word than incoherent?
Click to expand...
It’s incoherent to him because no one’s ever seen a timeless being.

And in Ptolemy’s time no one had ever seen the people of the Antipodes…
And in Aristarchus of Samos’s time no one had ever seen the orbit of anything - just things that seemed to move in the sky…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top