Space And Time
Past the edge, and before the beginning. I got involved in a discussion the other day about how the universe began. I used to think about that sort of thing a lot, although often I was aided (or hindered) by substances well within space and time, if you know what I'm saying. These days I never seem to have the time to s-l-o-w d-o-w-n and ponder such things, though when I do it's with an older but clearer mind.
Some people say that at the edge of the universe, space curves and bends back over on itself or some such nonsense. Well what happens if you ignore the curve and go straight? Where does that go? Or if there's a wall at the end of the universe, what's on the other side of the wall?
Some people say that the universe started with a "big bang", and that before that there was no universe, or even no "before that". What caused "nothing" to explode into "everything" when it did instead of a trillion years before or after? Nothing, it just did. That seems really weak.
Some people (myself included) say that the universe and everything in it was created by God. Well, like the other answers it IS an answer, but not really one that answers the question. At least not to my satisfaction. Because who created God? Nobody, He was always there and always will be. What did He do for the eons before He created the universe, and where was He all that time? Just bobbing around in space all alone? It seems to me that the more knowledgeable people get, the more complex becomes their way of saying "Who knows?" They start using bigger words and talking quantum physics but it still doesn't answer the question. "Our finite minds can't comprehend infinity or eternity". Well no duh! That's why we don't understand the answer! It's kinda like I'm watching an episode of the Twilight Zone and thinking "Wow, that would be wierd if something like that happened." Only something like that DID happen, because here we are. We exist, and so does the universe!
But I think that's one reason why I'm stuck on believing God created it all. I can't comprehend how it (the universe) would have come into existence without someone getting the ball rolling, so I have to believe there exists an incomprehensible being who did get the ball rolling, even though I can't fathom where He came from. And since He made all this, He must have had a reason.
What do YOU think?
posted by DErifter @ 9/19/2005 09:55:00 PM
61 Comments:
HAHA! TE, now YOU'RE starting to freak ME out! You must have had some good stuff back then.
Your thoughts on time and space make a lot of sense, and I think it HAS to be that God created it just like you said. I can't imagine nothingness, or before time, but God creating both from outside of both is strangely somehow understandable. I still would like to go back one more step and know more about where He came from and what He did before He created them though. (I know... He was always there) But my mind can't DO that! It reminds me of looking at a reflection of your reflection in a mirror, you know how it seems like you're looking around a corner that you can't quite see around?
When you said "Eternal = No Time" it reminded me of that wierd verse in Colossians 3 where it says "for you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory." It's one of those that makes you go "Wha-? I died? Then where am I now???
So you're telling me that what we're doing now has already happened? Or that, since time is only an invention for our convenience, what we're doing now has always BEEN happening, and always WILL be? Like we're in a living snapshot of everything that has ever happened, or ever will happen, all happening at the same time and continuing forever? (Scratch the word "time" in that sentence because it's not real.)
I do enjoy thinking about it, but I also hate thinking about it. It's fun and aggravating at the same time.
Break it down for me, TE!
TE,
I knew that when you were serious you were very serious, but I now know that when you're kooky you're wacko! (smirk)
The guy at work, who I was talking with the other day, thinks that Martians probably "seeded" us, you know- started our civilization just for their own entertainment, like we would with Sea Monkeys(tm). When I asked him where the Martians came from, he said they in turn were seeded by some other, more advanced race, and so on. When pressed further about where THOSE beings came from, he finally said "They were just always there."
So I told him that was basically the concept of God: A being or beings who always existed, are so far advanced over us that it might as well be infinite, and having the power to create civilizations, might as well be God. (You probably figured out that he doesn't believe in the existence of "God", just these super-advanced aliens. But it all goes back to the same place in the context of time, space, and where we came from. "Who knows?"
Well, we do, but who can explain it to any kind of satisfaction?
Hey, guys. Great discussion, and one that I've been doing some thinking on for some time.
T.E., I like your arguments about God being "above" or "outside" of time because He created it. However, I think I'm going to have to disagree with you overall (although it is a loving disagreement, and not an angry disagreement...haha). What is time, really? It is merely a way for us to measure sequence. But is God above sequence? Well, since we are admitting that God existed before the earth, we must believe that God existed at a time, or sequence, before the earth was formed. So why would we assume that if God, at least at one time, existed in sequence (time) that He does not anymore?
And what is our biblical argument? What passages of Scripture can we point to that prove that God is outside of time? Is it even possible for God to exist outside of time? I'm not trying to limit God here, but obviously there are some things that God cannot do because they are not logically possible. For instance, God cannot make a colorless red car. The fact that it is red means that it cannot be without color. God cannot make a rock so big that He can't pick it up because there is no such thing as a rock that He can't pick up. Also, God cannot make two mountains stand side by side without necessarily creating a valley between them because the very definition of a mountain is that it peaks and then trails off to a lower elevation.
So is it even make logically possible for God to exist outside of sequence (or time)? Is there any way that He could have set up the world so that this makes sense? I'm just asking questions, and I would love to hear what you guys think about this one.
-Josh
Hi Josh, and welcome!
I sure don't have this nailed down, that's one of the reasons for the post. I'm interested in what other people do with these concepts. Most probably don't give it too much thought, except for "I don't have time" or "I need some space" or "I haven't been spaced out in a long time"
All right, that last one is maybe a little different, but still.
If I understand Truth Explorer's theory, God only existed (sequentially) before the earth from OUR perspective. From God's perspective, there could be no before or after. Think of God looking at an empty box from outside of that box (pre-creation)
Now God fills the box with both space and time (creation), though He Himself remains outside of the box. We, who are inside the box and have never been outside of it, can't comprehend anything that is not in the box: it's our whole world. But from God's perspective, since He is still there just as He always has been and always will be, nothing outside the box has changed, only the things inside the box. (Namely us, the universe, and time.) So He can observe and interact with things inside the box, without changing what lies outside of the box.
The biblical support might be Psalm 103:17 "Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God." No beginning or end. In fact, He IS the beginning and the end (alpha & omega).
That's "if" I understand TE's theory. I'm excited to see what he's got to say. Am I close, TE?
Now about those "colorless red car" and "rock He can't lift" questions and others like them, call me illogical but I say yes, He can make a colorless red car, and yes He can make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it. The fact that I don't understand how He could do it doesn't change the fact that He can. How many puzzles have you seen that seem impossible until you see how it's done? Someday it'll be obvious. Of course! So THAT'S how you make 2 mountains stand side by side without a valley between them, I never would have thought of THAT!
By the way, Josh- We'll assume that any disagreements here are not angry ones unless so stated. That seems to work pretty well. We're just sharing ideas, not mandating conformity! Thanks for your comments.
TE,
I can tell you've spent some time thinking about this. ("Time". Listen to me, will ya? Haha!)
Both of you,
I'm sticking to my guns on this "colorless red car/heavy rock" deal.
Josh,
It looks like you view them as pointless questions, since both of the available answers seem to contradict each other. (If the car is colorless, it can't be red. If God can lift the rock, then it's not a rock that He can't lift.)
TE,
You seem to suggest that the answer to these questions is "No, God can't make the car red, because then it wouldn't be colorless" and the same with the rock.
Pretty similar, but still different views. Illogical vs. impossible.
I still think that due to God's omnipotence that yes, He CAN make the colorless car that's red and also the rock that's too heavy for Him to lift. The fact that we don't understand how He could do that has no bearing on the fact that He can. By saying either that it's illogical or that it can't be done, I think we're putting our limits on the limitless God. Our limits from inside the box don't apply to someone who is outside the box (from my earlier example).
TE, when you said:
"We may not be able to comprehend an infinite being, but it is logical that an infinite and unlimited being is not limited as we are. We can't comprehend how space can go on without end, but it is logical that a infinite god could create such a thing."
, you both made my point (about the above questions) and confirmed what I said earlier about how even though I can't fathom how God came to be, I CAN (well, sort of) get my mind around His creating both space and time.
I can feel my mind expanding....
PS- After I gave up on the Vikings last week (in writing no less!) Look what they went and did to the Saints! I'm not sure WHAT to expect from them this week against Atlanta, but I expect Michael Vick to have a big game. I'm really going out on a limb there, huh.
Josh, do you follow football at all? And if so, who's your team?
Well I think we can be pretty sure that we'll never see a colorless red car, but I think God could make one if He chose too. That's just me.
I agree completely that we can be glad in the end that God is constant. But we just see the means differently. You say He CAN'T go against His own nature, I'd say He WON'T go against His own nature. I think He could, but because of who He is He never would. I think He's sovereign and can do whatever He wants, but what He wants is ALWAYS good. Conceivably, He could even do evil, but He would never choose to because He is good. He has free will too, or what would be the value of His love for us? He'd be a robot if He HAD to love us.
Either way, I'm glad He is the way He is. Now if only He would cause the Vikings to be consistently good.
Have yourself a nice night, TE.
It's red, but there is no color, otherwise it wouldn't be colorless!
Where does space end?
What happened before time started?
How can you say that infinite space is logical? How much time would it take to travel from one end of the universe to the other, even using wormholes? It's silliness! You can't comprehend endless space, or the first thing ever to occur, or a colorless red car. That's my point. They all dare our minds to understand them. They make us crazy.
How did a burning bush, which has no vocal chords with which to speak, still manage to speak to Moses? Wouldn't that be illogical? But God did it. He is not bound by any law.
You can accept that God could create time, and to you that's logical. What did He do just before that? I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily, I just think you're limiting God. Why is it illogical that a car could be colorless AND red, but you say it's logical that time exists now, but there was a time when it didn't? If there was a time when time didn't exist, then isn't "now", AFTER that?
Hey, guys. Sorry it's been a few days since I've said anything. I've been swamped at work.
My biggest problem with the conversation thus far is that it has been entirely philosophical and not at all Scriptural. Don't get me wrong: I'm a strong believer in reconciling our faith with philosophical principles. However, the Bible must come first when discussing our disagreements. I hope to point out some passages that put a rather large dent in the idea that God exists completely outside of time. First, though, I want to answer T.E.’s philosophical argument that for God to exist within time (or "sequence") would mean that God would be susceptible to change.
T.E. says that if God can change then He must change for the better or for the worse. Since God is perfect, this change is not possible for He is already the best He can possibly be. This idea dates back to Plato, who obviously was not a Christian since he was born several hundred years before Christ. I have never understood why so many Christians tend to put great deals of faith in Greek philosophy, which was essentially pagan. However, a great deal of our theological tradition comes from Plato and from Aristotle’s concept of God as an unchanging “unmoved mover.” I want to argue that the idea of God being unchanging is unbiblical and makes no philosophical sense.
The “unchanging” argument seems to make sense as long as two assumptions are granted to its presenter: 1) that it is possible to conceive of a meaning for “perfect” that excludes change in any and every respect and 2) that we must understand God in just this sense. God may be completely unchanging in certain respects, such as His righteousness. But the very fact that He is unswerving in His righteousness would necessitate Him changing in some situations. Example: if the creatures behave according to God’s will, God will appreciate this behavior; if not, God will have a different response, equally appropriate and expressive of the divine goodness.
To be completely unchanging, as Aristotle suggested, would logically lead to Aristotle’s idea of God in totality: “If God actually pushed the world in any way, then that would mean a change in God. If God entered into any sort of relation to the world then God would in some sense be dependent on the world. Therefore, the world is moved toward God by His existence, but God does not move toward the world.”
This idea falls apart completely in light of the fact that God entered into the world at a specific moment in time in the form of Jesus Christ. He transferred His inhabitance from the spiritual to the physical. If God truly is completely unchanging then Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is an impossibility.
Truth be told, however, there are over forty passages in the Bible that speak of God changing, relenting, or repenting and only two passages that say He doesn’t. Those two passages, when read in context, do not close the door on God’s attribute of changeability.
1 Samuel 15:29 says, “He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man that he should change his mind.” This passage, however, speaks directly to the issue of whether God is reliable and true to his promises. The Scripture answer a resounding “YES!”, because, as we have already established, God is unchanging in righteousness. It is also quite noteworthy that this same chapter, 1 Samuel 15, twice states that God does repent.
1 Samuel 15:11—"I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions."
1 Samuel 15:35—Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel mourned for him. And the LORD was grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel.
Similarly, the other passage that says that God does not change is Number 23:19, which says, “God is not a human being that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind. Has he promised, and will he not do it? Has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?”
Once again, the point of the passage is to speak to the eternality of God’s character and His promises. It is not to imply that every aspect of God is fixed from all eternity.
God could have set the world up in any way that He chose to. The question is, “How did God choose to set up the world?” This answer cannot be solved with logic alone because given the many possibilities, we cannot intuitively know whether God decided to move alongside us in time or not. But does the Bible give us evidence that He does? I think so.
God is often depicted as:
Changing His mind:
2 Kings 20:1-6—God changes His mind and grants Hezekiah another 15 years.
Jeremiah 26:2-3—God will change His mind if the people will repent.
Exodus 13:10-14—God Changes His mind about the destruction on Israel.
Being disappointed:
Jeremiah 3:6-7, 19-20—God thought Israel would return, but she did not.
Isaiah 5:1-4—God expects to yield grapes, but yields wild (worthless) grapes instead.
Regretting how things turn out because of human decisions:
Genesis 6:6—God regrets making man. How can he regret if he eternally knew that it was certain to turn out exactly this way?
1 Samuel 15:11—“I regret that I made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me.” God had originally planned to bless Saul and his descendents (1 Samuel 13:13).
Giving conditional propositions:
Jeremiah 22:4-5—The king of Judah is told that if he obeys God’s word his descendents will continue to sit on the throne of David.
1 Kings 9:4-7—God will either bless Solomon or not depending on his actions.
Being omniresourceful (changing His plans) in view of the decisions of men:
Exodus 4—God assures Moses that no matter how many times it takes, Pharaoh will believe.
Ezekiel 12:3—“Perhaps they will understand, though they are a rebellious house.”
Exodus 13:17—God takes Israel the long way around because He thinks they may change their minds about going if they face war.
Many more examples could be given of God changing his mind or his plan, but one more should suffice. This one is so striking because it is from the prayer that Jesus himself prayed in the garden:
Mark 14:35-36 35 Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. 36 “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”
The astounding thing about this verse is that Jesus, being Himself God, prayed a prayer that would make absolutely no sense if the future were truly set in stone. Jesus himself is speaking of the future here as if it were partly open.
Though I believe that there are some decent philosophical argument for the changelessness of God, I think they all pale when held up to the vision of our Lord as presented in the Bible. This is not a static God; this is the creative and omniresourceful creator of the universe. He is not an “unmoved mover”; He is the one who responded to our sin by wrapping Himself in flesh and allowing Himself to be killed for the very people who were crucifying Him.
I’ve enjoyed the conversation, and I’m looking forward to hearing from you guys. Sorry about your Vikings, derifter. If you want, you can feel free to join me in cheering for my favorite team, the Pittsburgh Steelers. You guys have a great week.
-Josh
Hi Josh,
You're right- we HAVE been pretty much talking thoughts instead of scripture. Maybe that's because at the beginning, it wasn't necessarily a post about God. Space and time are a couple things that have always kinda nagged at my mind. Not in a bad way, though, but like a brain teaser you just want to figure out before anyone tells you the answer. But so far, no one even CAN tell me the answers!
I think the mind-blowing concepts of space without limits and time without beginning or end <--(depending on who you talk to, and by that I mean YOU, TE!) just naturally lead to a discussion about God, especially among Christians. All infinite things. I don't know how an atheist could avoid that morph during a discussion like this.
I can see your point in some of the verses you listed, where it does look like God has changed His mind. How do you think that squares with all the talk of predestination and foreknowing? Or even prophecy for that matter?
Or from a different angle, tell me your thoughts on the "changing God" verses you listed vs Hebrews 13:8 (Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever). Granted, there's a lot of wiggle-room both ways depending on your definitions of "change", "susceptible to change", and what exactly it means to exist outside of time. That in itself is hard to grasp.
After that, could you just quickly summarize how space can go on without end? Thanx!
The Steelers, huh? Josh, you might be the only one here smiling at the end of the fourth quarter every week. The Packers came real close to catching Carolina on Monday though.
Whoops, I meant to include James 1:17 alongside the verse from Hebrews:
"Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows." (emphasis mine)
Hey, derifter. Yeah, the fourth quater is usually a happy time for me on Sundays. It wasn't that way until last season, though. I definitely went through my share of grief with the Steelers over the past 5 or 6 years.
On to the discussion, though! Ha!
I learned something about 5 years ago that has radically changed my perception of Scripture. It was a simple truth that had been staring me in the face for years, but I had never picked up on it before: Eastern literature often presents truth in paradoxical pairs. The Bible is an eastern book, and it does the same thing. Some examples:
1. Christians-Are we saved, were we saved, or are we being saved? Yes!
2. Jesus-was he fully man or fully God? Yes!
3. Are we condemned because of our sin or because of the sin of Adam? Yes!
4. Are we saved by God's grace alone or by our freewill decision to accept His gift of salvation? According to the Bible, both are true!
We can't pick only the verses that we like and leave the others out. The Bible presents many, many passages that show that God does indeed change His actions based on the decisions of his people. However, there are still a handful of passages that say He doesn't change. Which passages are true? Both! And that's what we have to understand.
Like I said in my last post, there are aspects of God that never change: His goodness, His righteousness, His justice, etc. These attributes are eternally perfect and the fact that he is the maximum of these things will never change. However, that doesn't mean He doesn't change his course of action based on changing circumstances. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. He doesn't change like shifting shadows. You can trust Him because He is eternally the same being; but that doesn't mean He never reacts or grieves or feels joy toward his creation.
Did this help clarify a little?
Hi Josh,
I'm not sure I can cheer for the Steelers. They are, after all, an AFC team. (EEEwwww!) But I have a hunch that your happiness will splatter all over TE and me, and there'll be enough to go around :)
Yes, your explanation did clear some things up. If we're not on the same page, I think we're at least reading the same book!
Does it bother you at all that if God changes His course of action based on changing circumstances, it implies that His first course of action was wrong? Or maybe I'm just jumping to that conclusion. I know what you're saying though, He's not an intellectual or emotional statue. My view of God has Him knowing every detail of everything (even in the future) and although He doesn't control every choice or decision we make, He knows what they will be and can plan around them (or already has, I guess). Some people think that is the same thing as making us choose the decisions He wanted us to make, but it's really not like that. Was it you that was writing about asking your daughter if she wants candy from the store, and equating that with leading her decision even though it was hers to make? Anyway, I read that somewhere recently. DANG my memory!
I liked your paradoxes.
Is the car colorless, or is it red?
Yes!
Okay, I'm not gunna go there again...
You can read about wormholes here
or if you like Carl Sagan, there
TE,
Well, your prediction was right: The Sooners got stomped. What, can you see into the future? (HA!)Other than that, The Gophers beat Michigan for the first time in about 20 years or so. The Packers blew out the Saints and neither the Vikings nor Chiefs lost.
I don't think we're too far apart on the "space" issue (pun intended), and if you're waiting for me to tell you to shut up, you'll be waiting a long "time".
What you said pretty much matches what I said at the end of the original post, so you're making it easy to agree with you!
Clint,
I'm going to wait and let Josh reply in regards to most of your questions, since most of them were related to his comments. Besides, you already know a lot of what I think. Not because you're omnicient, but because I've told you :)
A couple things I DO want to comment on though...
The first will be woefully brief compared to what it deserves just because books could (and have) been written on the topic which, by the way, has more to do with salvation than space and time but oh well.
You said "And if you don't stay in the faith, then God's so-called "gift" will be taken away."
You may disagree and probably do, but in my view of the everlasting life that is granted to those who believe, it's just that: Everlasting. So you may refer to yourself as an ex-Christian but in my view no such creature exists. True believers have everlasting life which by definition can't be taken away. Which means to me that those who "leave the faith" either never were given everlasting life, or they still have it. If you were ever born again, you have that life and you always will, regardless of your actions (see you in heaven, brother!). Don't take this as demeaning, but if you never were born again then you never had that life and still don't. It's kind of a tough position to hold, but it's how I interpret things.
Second, and I feel a bit funny saying this, but after Josh replies I'd like to ask a favor of you. I know you're not just pulling your questions out of your butt and throwing them out here to trip us up. I know you've asked the same questions of yourself. They're tough questions and ones that we sometimes don't want to ask. But I think they need to be asked and I thank you for asking them. But the favor I'd like to ask is this: Tell us where you went in your quest to find the answers. How close did you get to satisfying your need to know? Obviously, you never found the answers you were looking for, but I'd be interested in the answers you DID come up with (before leaving, of course. I know where you're at now.)
So anyway, why I felt funny asking that was because at first I thought it would be like asking you to help us Christians beat you in the debate if we knew where you had been. Then it occurred to me that we really aren't debating here, (at least I don't think so) but looking for answers to hard questions. If you can help me understand something that I don't understand, I'll take it. I'm not that picky about where truth comes from as long as it's truth. And if I can help you find an answer you were looking for, would you turn it down?
And YEAH! What's up with all this anti-Christian words "tainting my site"? Dang!
You're funny.
PS- TE knew that the Sooners would get stomped, but I bet he feels disappointed anyway. Maybe we should stop talking about the Sooners getting stomped.
Okay, guys: this is going to be long! Sorry about that.
Hey, Clint. Man, I’m really glad to have you in on the conversation. Don’t worry about being “anti-Christian” because I can tell you’re really thinking through these issues. I truly appreciate your thoughtfulness.
I would like to delve a little further into my theology here, because I think I can help you with some of your questions. I struggled with these exact issues when I got to college. I didn’t feel like anyone had answers for me, so I started to do a lot of reading on my own. What I came up with, based on studying many religions and finally deciding that the Bible was true and trustworthy, is a different way of seeing some of the biblical passages than many other Christians I know. I can see that you’re not in a place anymore where you can say that you feel the Bible is indeed true or trustworthy, but maybe discussing some of these things will help you to at least see it from a different perspective. So, with all that in mind, I’d like to answer your points one by one.
Your first assumption is that, “If God is God, then He must be omniscient. In other words, he must already know what is going to happen before it ever happens.” I think this is the first mistake that many people make. What does “omniscience” mean, anyway? It simply means that God knows everything that there is to know. But why do we assume that it is possible for anyone (including God) to know exhaustively what the future will hold even though it hasn’t happened yet? In my view, the future is yet to come, and therefore it is not exhaustively knowable.
My argument is not about God’s knowledge. I agree with other theologians that God knows the entire content of reality perfectly. Anything that can be known is known by God.
Where I disagree with most people is with just exactly what the content of reality consists of. Calvinists maintain that God knows all future events because He ordains all future events. Arminianists claim that God knows the future because the future is there for Him to know. However, I do not see the free will of people and of spiritual beings as being compatible with a predetermined future.
If all future reality is already settled from all eternity then there are no legitimate choices. The decision I will make next week over whether to have eggs on Tuesday or not is not truly free if it is already certain that I will have eggs. If from all eternity God has known that I will have eggs next Tuesday, then I can do nothing but have eggs next Tuesday.
Because of this incompatibility with free will, I believe that future reality consists of some certainties (what God decrees, where the human race as a whole is moving as we near the eschaton, Christ’s death for the salvation of mankind, etc.) and some possibilities (the free will decisions of individual people, etc.). This is not merely a philosophical belief, but one that I have found the Bible affirms.
Because of this, I believe God knows the future in part as possibilities, in part as certainties. Those things that He ordains to pass He certainly knows will happen ahead of time. However, those things that He leaves open for his free creatures to decide He knows in terms of possibilities rather than certainties: God knows that agent x may possibly do action y or z, but that x would never do a because of their character, their ability, or their geographical location.
Does this limit God? I do not believe so, but let me give an example. In my opinion, God does not know that a monkey is sitting next to me on the couch right now as I write this. In fact, there is not a monkey sitting next to me on the couch right now. Am I limiting God by saying that He does not know there is a monkey sitting next to me? No, because reality does not consist of a monkey sitting with me right now.
Am I limiting God by saying that He doesn’t know what all of the future free will decisions of everyone who will ever exist will be? In my view, no, because those people do not yet exist and neither do their decisions. Reality does not consist of any decision that will be made in the year 2055, and therefore that decision can only be known by God as a possibility right now and not a certainty.
The next question that is logically asked of this view of God is this: how can we trust God to be wise if He does not know the entire future exhaustively? I think we ask this because our view of God is so small. God, however, is infinitely intelligent. Most Christians would affirm this and yet few follow that belief to its logical conclusions.
The fact of God’s infinite intelligence would mean that God knows every possibility that the future could hold. Not only that, but He can prepare as adequately for each possibility as if it were the only possibility He had to consider. Our understanding of this is limited because of our experience with our own intelligence. An example would be beneficial.
If I am making Southwest Chicken for my wife (one of my favorite dishes to cook), then I will have chicken in the oven, tea boiling on the stove, rice cooking in a pot, mushrooms sautéing in one pan and onions sautéing in another. These five things require my full attention. If I am also trying to watch Smallville on television then something is going to get burned, spilled, dried out, or blown up. Because of my finite intelligence, if my attention is divided five different ways, that is about all I can handle.
God, however, is a God of infinite intelligence. His attention cannot be divided because you cannot divide infinity. From the foundation of the world He knew that I, Josh Crain, exactly the way I am now, was a distinct possibility; and He loved that possibility. From the foundation of the world, God knew that the events of September 11 were a possibility and He prepared the hearts of those people who lost loved ones as if it were a certainty. My theological view does not undermine God’s wisdom or sovereign control: it rather infinitely exalts it. In this view God does not know less than the classical view: He knows more. He does not under-know the future: He over-knows it.
If God’s infinite intelligence is granted, then we start to realize that God has more control of the universe in the openness model than He does in any other Arminian model. He is the infinitely intelligent God who will be victorious in the end. He is not surprised, He is not shaken, He is not unprepared. Since from all eternity God has known all possibilities, He’s just as prepared for any possibility to happen as He would be if it were a certainty. God loses absolutely no providence in this view.
This could obviously raise a lot of questions and I’m prepared to answer those whenever they come to you. Keep in mind, however, that there is no passage in the Bible that says God fully knows all that will come to pass. The closest we get is Isaiah 46:9-11—“Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. 11 From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do.”
This passage, however, lends itself to exactly what I’ve been saying: God does know the future insofar as “what I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do.” Feel free to ask me any questions that this stance brings to your mind. However, this is how an omniscient God could change His plan based on the actions of his freewill creatures. This is how an omniscient God could regret how someone turns out; Saul didn’t have to be the way he ended up…he freely chose to start down that path. Our failure to understand this is not the fault of biblical authors who “were too dumb to think up stories that were consistent with the idea of what an omniscient God should be.” Our failure to understand this is due to the fact that we see God in the same way the Greek philosophers saw Him, and that is simply not the way that God is consistently viewed in the Bible. The biblical authors are undeviating in their portrayal of our Lord; we do an injustice to their writing when we bring our presuppositions to the text.
As far as your criticisms of the paradoxes: I think you’re taking them too far. What are Christians saved from? We are saved from the consequences of our sin. That consequence is hell, but I fail to understand why you insist that hell is a created place that God has set aside for the wicked. The entire Bible speaks of a God who desperately wants us to spend eternity with Him, but simply cannot coexist in the same sphere as unrighteousness for all of eternity because He is completely holy. Hell has been understood as many things, but most recently many theologians have come to believe that hell is the destruction of a soul who chooses to separate himself from God. This would explain why Jesus said things such as, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28) Regardless of the details of precisely what hell will be like, most theologians can agree that hell will last eternally (whether that’s annihilation or eternal suffering) and that it will be horrible because of the absence of God’s presence. Hell is not God’s choice for us, as He made clear by laying down His life for the very ones who crucified Him.
Jesus—fully man or fully God? Yes! The argument that Jesus could not have done miracles if he were fully man does not stand: Jesus was fully man, not merely man. The arguments that Jesus would not have to eat if He were fully God, wouldn’t have to pray, wouldn’t have been killed, etc. would stand if Jesus were merely God, but he was fully God living a temporary life as a man.
If I wear a blue jacket today and meet you, we would say hello and talk for a while. If I wear a red jacket tomorrow, you wouldn’t say, “That can’t be Josh; Josh wears blue jackets.” I am still fully Josh no matter what I wear or where I am. God is still fully God, even if He cloaks himself in skin and lives as a man who needs nourishment and who’s body can be destroyed if not acted upon by supernatural forces.
Condemned because of our sin or Adam’s? Yes! When sin entered the world through Satan and through man, it changed this earth forever. That change influences us all and is at least partly responsible for the mess we’re in now. If I live a perfect life will I be condemned for the sin of Adam? No; but because of man’s initial sin our condition has deteriorated and I will not live a perfect life.
God’s grace or our freewill decision? Both! By God’s grace I am offered a gift of salvation. There is nothing meritorious about me accepting this free gift but there is much merit in God’s offering it.
What about the “free” part? Clint, I’m not sure what conditions or denominations you are speaking of that put demands on this free gift, but the Bible is clear that it is free. However, once accepted, it will cost you everything. We come just as we are, but after Christ enters our life He begins to work on our hearts and change us. This is not a “killjoy” kind of change! This is life! I never understood what living was until I accepted Christ. I see so much anger and bitterness and hatred in the world; wherever the light of Christ does not shine there is a depth of sadness that nothing can overcome but Him.
Clint I’m sure you’ve heard all of this before. However, I just want to share with you the joy that I have from knowing Him. I’m praying for you, man, because I’ve been where you are and I know it’s so tough. I really appreciate your willingness to chat with me, though. If you ever want to discuss or just talk about the Steelers (that’s right, baby…they won again last night!), feel free to let me know. Take care, and let the discussion continue.
-Josh
Hey, Clint. I’m spending too much time here today, too, but I have to leave tomorrow for a hiking trip so I’m trying to answer some questions before I go. By the way, I really like your website (especially the “devotionals”, lol).
I want to talk about the “free” gift of salvation. I think our opinions are butting heads because we have a different definition of free. Mine is that it doesn’t cost you anything to accept it, yours is that it is only free if you don’t have to do anything to receive it. Even the bum on the street that we give $5 to has to reach his hand out to receive it. Having faith that leads to repentance is us spiritually reaching our hand out to receive God’s gift of salvation. The reason I say it’s free is because you don’t have to change your life to accept the gift; just come in faith. However, once you’re saved it does cost you your life.
I completely agree with you that we have far too many preachers who want to emphasize the “free” part, but turn down the volume on the true cost of discipleship. I understand what they’re trying to do (make the Gospel have wide appeal/being a salesman), but I don’t feel that this is the way Christ presented His own gift. “Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:37).
----------------------
God does know everything. My argument is not about God’s knowledge but about the content of reality that is knowable.
You said:
“How could such a God know some events about the future but not others? For instance, how could he know that Jesus would be "the lamb slain before the foundation of the world" before he ever created the world and before he ever knew that man would rebel? After all, if he didn't know what man would choose, then how would he know that Jesus would have to die?”
God creates a people that He knows will populate the earth and number in the millions and billions. You don’t think He would know beyond a shadow of a doubt that not all of them will choose to follow Him? Even if Adam and Eve wouldn’t have fallen someone else would have. It was inevitable, and therefore God had a plan in place. That doesn’t mean that every single detail of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection were foreknown ordained. The fact that He would save us from sin and destroy the work of the devil was, however.
God ordains some events throughout history and He, of course, foreknows what these events will hold because He causes them to pass. A God of infinite intelligence would also know the likelihood of certain free-will events coming to pass, as well as those events which were 100% bound to occur. So: how does He know some things and not others? Because:
1. He brings about some events Himself
2. He knows those things which are completely inevitable (such as the fall of man)
3. He knows the percentages of likelihood of all other events
----------------------
You said:
“How could someone be infinitely intelligent, yet not know how things are going to turn out? By definition, that is limited intelligence. That is, your God's intelligence is limited only to the present and not to the future. Or rather, his intelligence is limited to only a few parts of the future. Am I missing something here?”
I may have not done a good job of explaining this. I’m not saying that God’s intelligence is limited to the present; rather, I am saying that there is no possible way for God to have exhaustive knowledge about the future since it doesn’t exist yet. Similarly, God does not have exhaustive knowledge about the Steelers/Cowboys game that happened this last week, because there was no Steelers/Cowboys game last week; it doesn’t exist. This is not an argument about God’s knowledge (which is perfect), but about the nature of time. A great book to check out on this subject of time being one direction is “The Arrow of Time,” by Peter Coveney.
Even infinite intelligence cannot know for sure how everything will turn out. Take a basketball game, for instance. Let’s say God is watching the Houston Rockets verses the Los Angeles Lakers. Going into the game, God knows that the Rockets are far more talented and should win. He knows the exact attributes, talents, and tendencies of each player. He knows every single detail about them including what emotional thing could have happened to them that day and affected their game play. God knows that the Rockets are (hypothetically) 85% sure to win this game because they’re the better team and Kobe Bryant has his feelings hurt from a conversation he had last night with Shaquille O’Neil.
Two quarters into the game the Rockets are up 17 points and looking good. Then Tracy McGrady turns his ankle while coming down with a rebound and landing on Yao’s foot. McGrady’s out the rest of the game, Kobe turns it on in the fourth quarter; Lakers win by 3. Even infinite intelligence could not have predicted this outcome.
Now take Israel. She perverted herself with idols, she disgraced herself before the Lord. Given all of the conditions of hearts of individuals in that nation; given their past, their tendencies, and their characters, God “thought that after she had done all this she would return to me” (Jeremiah 3:7). However, because people acted contrary to their normal tendencies “she did not (return), and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it.”
God is infinitely intelligent; but even with that much intelligence He cannot look at all the variable of most given complex situations and know the outcome 100% unless He gets involved. It’s not about knowledge or intelligence; it’s about the unpredictability of free will.
-----------------------
You said:
“How would a God knowing everything about the future in any way contradict people having free will? As a Christian, I could see that God could still give me a choice, even though he already knows what choice I will make.”
I maintain that God has set up a world in which He moves alongside of us in time. However, let’s assume for a moment that I am wrong. How would this model (that many people hold) work, exactly?
From all eternity God knows what movie I will choose to see on October 12, 2005. You say I still freely chose to see this movie, but God simply knows what I will choose. How is that possible? If God knows what “decision” I will make before I am created then I wasn’t present when the “decision” was actually made. So who made the “decision” for me? Do my “decisions” exist alongside of God for all eternity? If we choose that path then we’ve entered into dualism. The point is this: you can’t have it both ways. Either you make your decisions and God doesn’t have exhaustive foreknowledge of future events, or God makes your decisions for you and so He does have exhaustive foreknowledge of future events.
-----------------------
You said:
“God ‘prepared the hearts’ of those people who lost loved ones? I wonder how many victims of September 11 would agree with your assessment.”
It’s my conviction that God is always at work in the world around us. Do I come to this conclusion in large part because of my Christian worldview? Absolutely. Just as you have come to the conclusion that God wasn’t at work in their hearts based on your atheistic worldview. The truth is that there were many people who pulled through that tragedy that say they relied on God for their strength. There are also many people who were hurt, are still angry with God and have their lives in pieces that would say He wasn’t there for them when they needed Him the most.
I believe God was there for all of those who hurt. It comes back to choice once again: some chose to rely on Him, some didn’t. The truth is that you and I will look at this tragedy from two very different perspectives and those perspectives will largely define what we see.
Well, I’m not sure if I helped any or muddied the water some. I look forward to hearing from you again when you get a chance. We’ll all try extra hard not to waste our lives away checking out comment sections all the time, but I do enjoy the conversation. Now if you’ll excuse you I have to go for a ride in my colorless red car.
-Josh
P.S. Thanks for the compliment on my picture. It's a rare Chinese technique still practiced in some parts of south-east Asia called "haveyourwifetakeapicturethenphotoshopit." Maybe one day I will teach you this art. heh heh...take care : )
Wow, party at my place while I'm working huh? Now what have I told you kids about that?
I had a lot of reading to do when I got home and I'm thoroughly enjoying it. For the most part I'm gunna sit here in the bleachers for a minute and watch. But there's a couple things I want to say quick.
Clint,
Maybe that favor I asked wasn't really a good question. I was thinking about it at work today, and I guess it would be pretty tough to say "how close you got" to the answers you didn't get. Thanks for trying though. Also I wanted to insert a chuckle for your "playing Christian's advocate" (chuckle...)
Oddly, you're doing a fair job of arguing my view on the topic of foreknowledge/free will.
TE,
"What???"
Josh,
I disagree with quite a lot of what you say about God's knowledge of the future and how it relates to free will, but you are making a good argument for your view.
Also, "Steelers won again" (Whatever...)
Thanks to all of you for sharing your thoughts.
TE,
I thought you got knocked back to 1979! But it was good for a laugh, thanks.
AWWW, CRAP!
Nowww I've gone and done it. I was kinda teasing that link with my curser just for fun, and I accidentally cut and pasted it in my browser and hit "enter"!!! I tried clicking on "stop", but it was too late.
I'll miss you guys.....
Ha ha! Hey, I thought Einstein did NOT believe in God, or was it that he wasn't a Christian?
Clint,
Yesterday that evil laugh would have scared me, but today it's somehow, I don't know, "comforting" :D
By the above definition, I suppose you're religious too, eh?
Clint,
Well, no I wasn't trying to pin you down. I wouldn't. That's up to you. I only said that with a bit of a smirk on my face. It almost sounds like that's the way Albert meant it, too. Like he was saying, "Well, if you want to call my fascination with the incredible depths and wonder of the universe religious, then yes I'm religious." That's how you strike me. On the other hand, I really don't know that much about you so maybe I'm way off.
Clint,
I've thought about writing a decoy post to relieve some of the pressure on this one. (Yours was the 50th comment- unheard of on this site!) I think I'll put something up about fabric and see what happens.
It’s the post that would not die! I hope you guys don’t mind me adding my 2 cents to the conversation. I found this site by clicking on a link on one of derifter’s posts on Josh’s site and thought a post entitled “Space and Time” would be a fun one to read.
55 comments later…
So anyway, my name is actually Josh, but I thought “cadre” would be less confusing since the other Josh has already posted. “Cadre” is in fact my Xbox live gamer tag... so if you guys want to join me in a game of Halo 2 sometime, feel free.
Clint, I’m actually posting to comment on some of your thoughts, but I realize you’ve spent a lot of time here already, so don’t feel like you have to respond if you don’t want to.
First, you said: “If Adam and Eve sinned, it was because they didn't fully understand the consequences of their actions. The words "you shall surely die" held utterly no meaning for them. So how is that a "free will" decision when the creation is not even capable of understanding what the consequences of the decision would be? That would be like me telling a 2-year old not to touch a hot oven or he will be burned, then sitting back and watching him do it. The story of Adam and Eve is exactly the same way.”
My thought was this: If your 2-year old continually wants to touch the oven even though you told him not to because he would get burned, would you not eventually let him touch the oven so that he would know that what you said is true and for his benefit? The consequences of the burn would certainly be unpleasant for both you and your 2-year old, but the benefit would be that he is much more likely to trust you the next time you told him not to do something. I am not a father myself, so this may, in fact, be a horrible example. When I one day have kids of my own I may think much differently.
Next, you said: ”So then, my question is does God creating a creation with free will but limited knowledge not present a fundamental flaw in the creation? A flaw that will always lead to things that God does not want? And if that is the case, then how can he hold his own creation responsible for that? After all, he is the one who set things up that way.”
I think that we can use children as an example here again. When a family decides to have children, they can not bring a child into the world and give that child a complete knowledge of everything they’ve learned throughout their lives on the first day of the child’s life. This would, in essence, mean that the parents had given birth to a new parent instead if the parents giving birth to a child. So, with that in mind, should the parents be at fault for every mistake that the child makes throughout its life? What about the parent’s grandchildren? They were the one’s that brought the original child into existence, and they also did this knowing that the child (or some child down the line) had the potential to rebel at some point along the way and do things that may in fact lead to a destructive life.
As a Christian, I see my role as the “child” in the family. God did not create me to be another god with infinite knowledge, but instead to be his child. If I am a child, then I have the choice of either obeying the word of my Father, or disobeying it. It’s my choice, but if I continue to test him, then God will eventually let me “burn my hand on the oven” so that I will know that his word can be trusted.
Next, you said: “If I have the power to stop it, but instead I stand back and watch as someone brutally murders another right in front of me, then you would condemn my actions as evil. Yet when a God does nothing, we can overlook it. Why?”
I’ll quote Phillip Yancey to try to answer that: “Power can do everything but the most important thing: it cannon control love…In a concentration camp, the guards possess almost unlimited power. By applying force, they can make you renounce your God, curse your family, work without pay, eat human excrement, kill and then bury your closest friend or even your own mother. All this is within their power. Only one thing is not: they cannot force you to love them. This fact may help explain why God sometimes seems shy to use his power. He created us to love him, but his most impressive displays of miracle – the kind we may secretly long for – do nothing to foster that love. As Douglas John Hall has put it, “God’s problem is not the God is not able to do certain things. God’s problem is that God loves. Love complicates the life of God as it complicates every live”.” (Philip Yancey, Disappointment with God
So, how would it affect your example the “brutal murderer” was your child? What if both the murder and the victim were your children? What if you loved them both equally and truly impartially?
Next you said: “My point is, why would God care what the heck I do? It would be like me having an ant farm then deciding to punish my ants for not worshipping me. Or for trying to escape. Why would I care what my ants do? If some of them want to stay with me and worship me, great. But if some of them want to defy me, go outside the ant farm and live in the dirt, more power to 'em.”
I think this is one of the most striking differences between our points of view. You see humanity as God’s ant-farm where I see humanity as God’s children. Sure, if my ant-farm escapes, big deal. But as children, we have the right and the free-will to defy our parents and do every bad thing they told us not to. To think that God should simply not care if I choose to defy him would make him a horrible and un-loving father.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read another long post on this subject everyone. And thanks for your responses to the other guys here, Clint. You’ve really made me think about some things that I may have taken for granted in the past and I really do appreciate that. But again, please don’t feel like you need to keep posting on my behalf.
-cadre (the other josh)
Well, as I said about 35 or 40 comments ago, "Hi Josh, and welcome!"
Only this time it's a different Josh. Since your comments are in regard to things Clint said, I'll just greet you and let him do his part. Again, Cadre, welcome.
Clint,
Don't worry about sounding "harsh". I've read enough of your other responses to the other guys here to get a bit of a feel for your passion for the subject. That's kinda why I wanted to use you as a sounding board for some of these ideas of mine. Hope you don't mind :)
Anyway, I liked your response...I don't have time at the momement to write another two pager (I'm at work now) but thought I'd write a quick line to thank you for the response. Once again you've given me some things to think about, but that's why I've enjoyed reading this discussion! Hopefully I'll have some time later to give it some thouught and respond.
-cadre
I plan to get a 360 eventually, but I don't think I'll be able to get one at launch. $400 is pretty steep. I guess I could try to earn some extra cash babysitting...but the demand for sadistic babysitters is low these days :-) j/k. Might be able to get one a couple months after launch though when I can throw some xmas money at it.
Right now my two biggest games are Halo 2 and World of Warcraft on PC. I played Godzilla: Destroy All Monsters with a friend one time and it was great! We spent hours leveling cities in the wake of our glorious destruction!
The cold hard truth is...somewhere down the line I became a bit of a game freak. Over the past 4 years I've managed to buy all three of the major game consoles (gamecube, xbox, playstation 2). The last game I beat was Eternal Darkness on the cube. It's a pretty decent action/puzzle solving game if you're into that kind of thing. The sanity effects are wild.
btw:
I just thought of this...but I'm not the same "Josh" that posted on joshcrain.com on the Katrina and Laura: Why Extreme Calvinism is Hurting the Cause of Christ, Part 1 story. Sorry for the confusion (if there was any). I am, in fact, a completely different "Josh" all together and not the guy JCrain was debating.
Cadre,
I have to admit I felt a little sorry for you when I first read your 2-year-old-burning-his-hand-on-the-oven analogy. My first thought was "Uh-oh, Clint's gunna eat him alive on that one."
So Clint starts off his comment with "Fresh meat! Yum...."
I gotta go with Clint on that one, that analogy just does't work for me. Burning your hand is way different than "Surely dying". By the the time they disobeyed, it was too late to learn the lesson they were supposed to learn about God's word being true and for their benefit. But I can see where you were going with it though.
Clint,
You can't have it both ways.
You said, "I just realized that I am outnumbered 4 to 1 here. 4 Christians vs. 1 Atheist. Though only 2 of them are actually fighting."
Then I think you're outnumbered 2 to 1, not 4 to 1. But that's okay, I'm not that good at math either.
Hee-Ha-Hooooo. I'll take 1 point for that!
You said, "If I know that sleeping with someone will give me AIDS, I ain't gonna sleep with that person. Likewise, if Adam fully understood that eating the fruit would bring him death, he wouldn't have eaten it either."
Maybe that's what you think when you're reading a story about Adam eating from the tree (which I doubt was an apple tree but anyway), but when it comes down to it are you that sure you wouldn't? People sleep with AIDS-infected people every day, and some even know it. People smoke, which eventually will bring death. People do all sorts of things that they know are bad, and in some cases lethal. You could print on a pack of smokes the words, "SMOKING CAUSES CANCER. CANCER CAUSES DEATH." and people would still smoke. They figure it won't happen to them, or the research is faulty. They think, "I will not surely die" because they have been deceived. If they had believed the true info that they had received, they would not have smoked.
Probably. Or they might just think it's worth it. I smoked for 16 years because I figured the consequences were so far down the road that "this cigarette here" won't make any difference. I'm starting to drift from my point.
Adam and Eve knew the truth, but they were deceived, and the disobedience that followed is what lead to their death. God didn't say, "In that day I will surely kill you to teach you a lesson about obeying me." He was telling his 2-year-olds, "You shall not play out on the highway, because in that day you will get hit by a car and surely die. So don't play on the highway." It wasn't a warning about the punishment that awaited them, it was truth about the danger that awaited them.
To sum all that up, fully understanding something doesn't guarantee that you will make the right decision. (I should've just said that!)
Later, about your son you said, "When he is an adult and doesn't do what I want, that's fine! He can make his own decisions then. And will have no punishment to ever fear from me. THAT is true love. Not like God's love, which is more like a threat that I'm going to shoot him if he doesn't do what I want."
The fact that your son has no punishment to fear from you doesn't mean that there are no consequeces for his actions. Playing in the street when you're 20 can get you killed just like when you're 2. The fatherly advice remains: "Don't play on the highway." Death doesn't have to be a disciplinary action. It can be a result of your own stupidity. Or gullibilty in the case of Adam.
Later you said, "I will NOT turn the question off just because..."
I like that. I've DONE that, and I hated it then (though it's convenient), but I didn't call it "turning off the question." That's a very accurate description of that act. I'm gunna try to work that into conversations from now on...
Still later you said, "So let me rephrase that from "Why would God care?" to "Why would God feel the need to punish?"
The need to punish (which I don't think is anywhere to be found in The Garden) is born of love, as you mentioned earlier. We'd all agree that a little discipline is a good thing. But I don't think that's what was happening in the Garden. That wasn't punishment, but death. Consequences of actions. Jump off a building, you die. You don't die because you disobeyed the rule about "no jumping from the building", you die because when you hit the ground you went "splat". That's why the rule about no jumping existed.
Later still you said, "He has only one rule and it is an ultimatum: LOVE ME OR DIE."
I don't see it that way. I see people drowning, and Jesus saying, "Gimme your hand! Trust me, I won't let go. If you don't take my hand, you'll drown!"
On a different note (and later) you said of Satan,
"So why didn't God just let him have a little section of heaven, isolated from the rest? That way the sin is contained, and will never escape.
I would think that sin, not confronted, would run wild and grow and spread, but that's just me.
Earlier, no wait. Later, you said, "Just remember it is ideas that are competing here, not people :)"
"Exactly"
And farther down you said, "The other 2 must be just enjoying the fight :)"
Well I was, until you started picking on me!
And finally, you said,
"I've played Halo with friends but I don't play online. I'm more of a Nintendo person. I've got my gamecube and lately have been wearing out Star Wars: Rogue Leader, trying to unlock all the missions. I've also been playing a bit of Dragon's Lair 3D, and have just beat Robotech Battlecry.
For multiplayer, you can't beat Godzilla: Destroy All Monsters Melee. My friends and I play that every time we get together. For FPS multiplayer, we do Halo, XIII, and Medal of Honor: Frontline."
I once beat the computer at Pong, and I'm getting pretty good at Space Invaders. You guys are nuts.
Cadre, at first I thought you might have been "Josh Crain the Other", but I kinda figured it out. Josh City over there, huh?
Looks like we poked the bear, Clint! If I were going to be completely honest...I'd have to say I knew the "burning hand" analogy wasn't going to work before I posted...but I really wanted it too somehow :-)
Derifter, you said: “Then I think you're outnumbered 2 to 1, not 4 to 1."
Truth be told, it may be 2 to 1 in favor of Clint now...you see, I somehow managed to click on his i am an atheist link a few posts above. Looks like you were right when you said "To sum all that up, fully understanding something doesn't guarantee that you will make the right decision." Now I've gone off and become an atheist even though Clint told me up front what the consequences of that action would be :-)
So, I have a half-formed thought running around in my head and was thinking maybe you guys could help me finish it (or dismiss it).
Is it possible to have a truely loving relationship where there is no need for trust?
I'm thinking that if God had bestowed all of his knowledge on Adam from the start then there would really be no need for Adam to trust God (he would simply know God...and therefore that might've somehow deminished Adam's (and eventually humanity's) capacity to love God.
If God's design was for humainty to love Him and He them, then trust must be established...and for trust to be established, there must be a choice (eat or don't eat the fruit).
That make any sense?
Cadre,
Boy, did YOU stir up some bad memories! You reminded me that I was the first to click on the iamanatheist link that Clint left there, like cheese for a mouse. Looks like it's us 3 against Josh, or 3-2 if TE comes back.
About your half-formed thought:
I don't think you have to choose between trust and love, especially if love comes first. I can trust Satan to act counter to my best interest at all times. But I don't love him. I love my wife, and I trust her, but I'm not sure what love would look like without trust. When it comes to God, "To know, know, know Him is to love, love love Him. And I dooooooooooo." Sorry, I should take that tune to the lounge. But I think the trust is in the knowing.
Another twist that brings up would be the reverse: God can love us, but can He trust us? I dunno. I doubt it, unless we mean trust us to do what He knows we'll do, due to His knowledge of the future. And I think you guys have all pretty much come around to my view on that, right? (Uh huh. Sure.)
That reminds me. Have you guys noticed how this has become "the post that really doesn't have that much to do with space and time anymore"? Not that it bothers me, it's all good stuff. I was just noticing that. Another thing I've noticed is that if you want to float a half-formed thought, this is an ok place for it. Heck, it's a good place to float non-formed thoughts (even ask TE! hahaha!)
By the way, I loved your sadistic babysitter comment. You kinda snuck up on me with that one.
derifter,
You said: "Another twist that brings up would be the reverse: God can love us, but can He trust us?"
I think God could trust Adam at first...but only if there was a reason to trust him...hence the choice to eat or not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. I guess what I'm trying to establish with this line of thinking is the necesity for the test that God placed in the garden. If God had not placed a circumstance in the garden in which Adam could disobey, then Adam would not even have the option of not trusting God and I'm not sure that would be real love. Even though Adam knew God, it would be hard to love Him if no other options were available.
I'm also trying to show that love does indeed "complicate the life of God" as I said from my original post.
If we could divise a world for our children in which there was no potential for heart-break or trouble of any kind, would they love us for it? Or would they simpy know that we did it for them and leave it at that? Well, now I'm starting to sound like Rod Serling on an intro to the Twilight Zone so I guess I'll wrap this post up.
It's still a half-formed thought, but I think maybe it's getting somewhere...at least in my mind.
Maybe you should try to define "trust" the way you're using it. I might not be understanding what you're getting at. It seems to me that if God has infinite knowledge of the future (as I believe He does) then "trust" as I'm using it wouldn't be an issue since He would know beyond a doubt what choice we would make. Obviously, the choice would have to actually present itself at some point, or knowing what we'd choose would be meaningless. (Josh's view I think, would say that's why God can't know the future, if I understand what he's saying.) Maybe if you hold to that view (that God knows everything that can be known, verses my view that God knows absolutely everything), trust would be more of an issue.
Dang! I leave for a few days and you guys write War and Peace 2! Don't we all have jobs?
Cadre, welcome to the discussion. It's always good to have another Josh on board. You guys have had some great points, and I want to discuss them, but I'll have to get to them tomorrow. In the meantime...
Cadre, you can babysit my kids anytime you want (I don't have any yet, but maybe some day...)
Clint, you made me an atheist, too. I clicked that stupid link before I could even research it. While I was there I almost bought a t-shirt! They had some pretty funny stuff.
T.E.-You dead, man?
derifter-I'm very sad that we haven't found a way to fit in a colorless red car anywhere recently. Do you have to trust a colorless car to get you somewhere before you can love it? Only Clint knows for sure...haha.
Okay, enjoy your days. I'll be fighting my other critics over at my website for the remainder of the afternoon.
Clint,
You brought up a lot of good questions. Some I'm gunna have to think about some more, and they may end up like space and time:puzzling, but solid answers are hard to find.
The trust and love thing Cadre mentioned isn't a complete thought yet, so that's hard to nail down. What is meant by trust is an important part of the question. My wife can trust me to not run around on her, but it would be crazy of her to trust me to remember all 12 things at the grocery store without a list. One of those is a critical part of love, and the other is just that I have a bad memory and has little to do with love. So I'll wait on that question.
One of the hard ones is why death is the result of sin, instead of a year in jail. I think it points out the serious nature of sin, and why God is so against it. Why Jesus had to die because of it. It's not something he can just sluff off and say, "Oh, that's ok".
Why didn't God create us with infinite knowledge? I don't know.
For that matter, why didn't He create us to be His equals? I don't know. I suppose He COULD have, but I don't know why He didn't. TE will probably say there can't be more than one necessary being or something and that may be, but myself, I just don't know.
Will we be able to sin in heaven? Another good question, and one I've wondered about before. Maybe our free will will be perfected then, so our will will match God's of our own free will (because of our new glorified existance). It could be that since the price of sin had not yet been paid when Adam & Eve sinned, that's why they faced death themselves. But once we've been fully restored, and live in a paradise that is free from sin instead of this fallen world, the blood of Jesus has paid the price "once and for all" (I think that's in Hebrews somewhere but I don't have a lot of time right now to look it up.) so rather than sinning we'd be continually cleansed by His sacrifice and kept holy by it (including our desires.)
We might have to define sin, too. There's actions (I call them sins with a small "s") and the condition of having "missed the mark", or being dead in your sins, (which I call Sin with a capital "S")
Anyway, I gotta go. More later.
Hey where ya been, TE?
Hey clint,
I liked you comment to Josh: "Fighting on your home turf, huh? Maybe I will go there and join forces with the legions of darkness to fight against you." Definite lol on that one.
Also thought it was interesting when you said "Now be honest here. Is that REALLY an offense that merits such a severe punishment?". Seems like I've heard that somewhere before...(Genesis 3:4). I'm not trying to call you the devil here :-) just thought maybe you said it that way on purpose since you just talked about joining the forces of darkens to fight against Josh :-)
be back later,
-cadre
Hey-
Sorry I haven't been around much lately, but my wife had surgery the other day and I've only been able to get down here once in a while when she's napping.
When I said,
"Why didn't God create us with infinite knowledge? I don't know."
What I meant to say was I don't know "yet" :]
Clint, you said,
"To me that person never looks stupid, but just looks thoughtful and honest."
If you think I don't look stupid, you haven't had a good look at my picture. (Hint: I'm the one with no gills.)
(sigh...) I don't have much time now either, because I have to get to bed, but one thing I wanted to ask you is this.
If the penalty for sin had been 10,000 years of separation instead of death, would you have asked "Why so harsh? Why not 10 years?" Or if it was 10 years, would you have asked, "Why not a month?" Or if the penalty was no ice cream before bed would that have fit the crime? I don't think you (or I) really understand how serious sin is. Adam and Eve didn't have a bunch of rules to follow to stay in line. They had one rule. One. "Don't eat from that tree." How tough could that have been?
But included in just that one little thing is not only disobedience, but betrayal, deceit, greed (because the serpent told them they'd be like God and oooh, that must've sounded good) pride, and who knows what else? It was a big deal, not just a little slip.
Getting killed by a car seems harsh for that mistake too. Why couldn't it just bounce off and maybe scratch you? I get what you're saying about how God made the rules and the consequences and all, but how do we figure how it all fits when we are comparing an infinite God with our finite experience and judgement. When you say it's not fair, you're assuming that you know all the details, or at least enough to make an informed judgement. I don't think we have a clue about the battle that's raging around us.
The cookies. Say the dad made the cookies and someone else (an enemy) put the poison in them.
Man, you miss a day and all the sudden you're trying to repond to something that was written 10 comments ago!
I better hit it.
Clint and TE,
Go easy on each other. Remember we're canning each other's ideas, not each other. Passion is fine, but don't get down on each other. Don't make me write a post about a time-out!
Also, don't keep giving me permission to delete your comments. If you want to delete your own comments, you know how to do it. I'll delete mine if I feel the need but it's unlikely that I'll ever delete yours. Although we all have a lot to think about, don't forget that we enjoy this. Otherwise we probably would be spending time with our families instead of this. That reminds me....
Clint,
You said "how do you KNOW that God is good? Good enough to deserve to be trusted with your entire life even when the things he does doesn't make any sense sometimes?"
I think this is why He sent Jesus...to prove that His heart is good and that he CAN be trusted. Since before humanity, God has had to deal with the accusation that He is somehow holding out on those he created. Satan mounted his entire rebellion on the idea that God was holding out on him in some way. So why didn't he just destroy Satan? As Josh has said on another post, "The accusation, once made, must be answered. Even destroying the accuser...will not rid God of the indictment." So how does a good God display his goodness...his options are either to send his only son to die for us...or to come down with all his power and bully up Satan. I don't think God wants to be seen as a bully. No one really loves a bully, they just fear them.
Also, you said: "The dad made the cookies (the fruit), put poison in them (death), and told the kids (Adam and Eve) not to eat them. Someone else (the devil) came and persuaded them to do it anyway." in reference to derifter's statement.
Is it scripturally sound to think that Satan DID poison the knowledge the tree provided? I'm not sure...that's why I'm asking.
Did Satan corrupt good knowledge therefore poisoning it by the time humanity took it?
I'd be interested to hear what all of you thinkg.
I'll be back later.
-cadre
Clint,
You also said: "And besides, if the #1 religion in the world really is true, then isn't it worth discussing in depth a little bit? Especially with someone who doesn't share the same viewpoint that you have?"
I think you're exactly right. That's why I've enjoyed this thread so much. Not because I thought someone would win the debate in the end, but because it's just a bunch of guys talking about stuff that's important to them. It's rare to find a place like this on the Internet where 3 christains (4 if you count me, the newb) and an atheist can discuss things like this and it doesn't degenerate to a flame war, so I've really been blessed by everyone's willingness to talk and share with one another here.
-cadre
Clint,
Hey!!! I thought "I" was your arch-nemesis! Dang it all TE! The spotlight's always on YOU! Maybe we could be co-arch-nemesisses.
Back to Clint.
I'm going to step out of the current argument for a second to ask you for a bit of personal info (if you're willing, but don't feel pressured.) Going back to something TE said,
"It's not going to happen because Derifter and I came to know the one true God,(and yes it was an experience, what else could it be, that's what life is, experience after experience) and we love him. I know that's something you can't possibly understand and I don't expect you to."
That got me thinking. I don't think you ever said whether you had any kind of a "conversion experience" or a time when you actually met God. I don't think that kind of thing is necessary to become a Christian, as I know Christians who never have experienced anything like that, but I can't say I know anyone who HAD an experience and then left the faith. I had kind of a dramatic experience years ago, but I haven't brought it into this discussion until now just because (as you mentioned to TE) it's hard for you to argue against for one thing, and it doesn't add that much to the discussion from our side because it's a subjective experience. There's a place where that is appropriate, but I don't think this is it. So I'm not asking for details, just whether there was a time when you knew for sure that you were born again, or just a church-goer?
Cadre,
I think you got included when Clint said the whole 4-1 against him thing, even though you and me became atheists via his link. That still chaps my hide. I hate being an atheist.
The poison I meant was not that the knowledge was corrupted, but the poison was put into their minds by Satan. I don't see the knowledge as being corrupted, but Adam and Eve. I guess the way I worded it, it sounded like the cookies themselves were poisoned. My intent was to say the kids become poisoned by the decision/action of eating the cookies, not that there was anything wrong with the cookies themselves. Either way, it's just my best guess. I don't see one way or the other as scriptural or unscriptural, just "non"-scriptural because I don't see it written there at all.
I'm realizing that in order to stay current in this thing, either you guys have to comment less, or I have to comment more because when I get here and read like 4 or 5 800-word comments, I spend too much time responding to 3 or 4 things and in the meantime 10 other things get ignored.
Thanks for the well-wishes for my wife. TE, she said to tell you to "stick it."
No she didn't, that was ME! Just kidding. Seriously, she doesn't feel like a new woman yet, she's still pretty sore. She's been home from work all week and I went back Wednesday so she took care of herself for 2 days now. But she's getting better. Thanks again!
Thanks to both TE and Clint for shaking hands. It's no fun but it's worth it. Even if we don't change anyone's mind, let's still enjoy the conversation. I appreciate all of your (all of you guys's) questions and comments because they make me think. Do you guys say, "...all y'all's questions?" We don't talk that way up here so that was a mouthful.
Clint,
You said, "If Adam had just said, "I messed up, Dad. I'm sorry." Do you think God would have given up the sentence?"
Hmm. That's starting to sound like repentence. Like a desire to renew the relationship. The price to pay to get back to how it used to be is something that Adam couldn't pay. So God came up with a way to make it work. In answer to your question, yes- sort of. Because He has justice to deal with, the price still had to be paid but He paid it Himself. I think He couldn't give up the sentence so He transferred it. Does that work for you?
TE,
99's coming up fast.
I know.
You just had the stones removed? Why didn't they take the whole thing out?
Space and time. There. I just wanted to be on topic.
TE,
What am I doing up this late when I have to work in the morning? Now see, there's one of those questions that you just sit and wonder about, and I don't think there is a good answer. Heh heh. Well, I just hit a couple of other blogs, and now I'm ready to hit the hay. We'll have to start calling you TE100. Take care brother.
I hope it all works out for ya TE, whatever it is.
Hey TE-
I thought you were going to show us your mug!
The only team they could beat is the Packers, does that really count as a win?
Well New Orleans, too, but does THAT really count as a win?
Yeah, you're right- It IS hard to get down 17-0, but the Vikes are getting good at it.
So,
Since it seems to be impossible for the Vikings to move the ball...
How do you feel about the theory that motion is impossible, because in order to move from here to there you have to cross an infinite number of points in a finite amount of time?
Um, half of each?
Actually, the points are real only for the Vikings. If you're the Steelers, you simply glide past the imaginary points on your way to the Super Bowl. :)
Josh,
There are no points for the Vikings.
TE,
I think you already said that under another post.
Go Vikes! (cough, cough...)
No, I think that's something new.
Josh,
Going back to your earlier comment (scroll back in comments to Oct 12) about the non-existent monkey sitting next to you on the couch, God didn't know about that because it never happened, you're exactly right. But He knew you'd use that example before you used it (in my view) because that decision DID exist in what at that time was the future.
I've used this example before: In the movie The Outlaw Josey Wales, I know whether or not Josey kills Fletcher at the end of the movie because I've seen the movie and I know how it ends. Josey didn't know whether Fletcher would even find him until it happened, but I did. I didn't tell Fletcher where to find Josey, and I didn't make Josey's decision for him about whether to kill him. Even though in their minds none of this had happened yet, I knew it would because I've seen the movie.
That's how I see God's knowledge of the future. He's seen the movie, so He knows what will happen. To us, who are IN the movie, it appears that know one could know what will happen next since it hasn't happened yet. But God could have told TE, "Now in Josh's next comment he's going to say that I don't know about the monkey sitting next to him on the couch, but that's only because there's not a monkey there!"
Now, just how much of the script of this movie we're living is written by God and how much by us, and how that relates to free will and predestination is for another post, but I think this is enough to explain my view.
Hey, that was on topic!
Hey, derifter. I understand your belief about the nature of time and I have many friends and colleagues that feel the same way. I can't hold to that view because I feel it has no:
1. Biblical merit (as Christians, this should be our most important thing to check; what in the Bible suggests to you that the entirety of the future is already settled and that God knows it in just this way?)
2. Scientific merit (Einstein's opinon of the "illusion" of time based on relative relation to events has since been discredited by quantum physics)
3. Logical merit (there are a lot of philosophical problems with God being timeless as opposed to Him being eternal)
Though I completely respect your view and held it myself at one time, the more I look into this subject the more I am convinced of my beliefs. I feel that this view of God's relationship to us allows me to 1) Attribute both power and wisdom to Him without suggesting that He ordains evil (Calvinism) 2) Avoid the logical inconsistency of suggesting that human freedom can coexist with foreknowledge of free decisions (Arminianism).
I'm more than happy to answer any objections that you have about it. I also know that there's a tremendous chance that I'll never convince you of my opinion, but I enjoy the discussion anyway.
On another football note...WHEW! I thought my Steelers were going to drop that game against Baltimore. Then today I find out that Big Ben is out for the next game.
As long as we don't start Maddox again...
Josh,
That must be some re-tooling you're doing over at your site. I've been wandering around aimlessly for a couple weeks now.
In reply to point #1 from your last comment, I think that any example of prophecy reveals that God has intimate knowledge of the future. As far as the future being "settled", I'm not sure what you mean. If you're implying that my view has every event for all time laid out as carved in stone, then no, I don't believe that. I think we've covered this before. I don't think that God's foreknowledge of every event equals God controlling every event. Just like I knew Josey Wales's next move without deciding it for him. It was his own free will choice, but my knowing about it ahead of time didn't help him decide.
Point #2, I'm not that up on all of Einstein's theories or what's been discredited so I really can't say too much there. I suppose I should have studied up on all that before ever writing the post, but I never dreamed that it would go this far.
Point #3, Is there a difference between timeless and eternal?
All these "points" aren't reminding me of the Vikings at all. But you mentioned the Steelers and yeah- They played that right to the end didn't they? But you knew they'd win. I don't have the same confidence in my team, because they suck. Our QB is out too so maybe something good will come of it. Maybe I should root for the Steelers. Nah, they're AFC. (Spit) They'll have to beat the Colts before they get to the Big Game though.
Post a Comment
<< Home