Randomness and God

I think you need to pay attention to what I said. The only exception to the omniscience of God is the one He reveals primarily in Genesis 22:12.The text has God saying "NOW I KNOW". This clearly implies that until this moment God did not know something. What He did not know is confined with absolute specificity IF you pay attention to the context by which the statement was uttered.As to your belief being the same as Mike the Wiz, ok, if you say so, but you need to objectively substantiate this belief with some type of criteria outside of your own subjective view.I only believe what the Bible reveals about God, and in this context the source portrays God to have ONE exception to His omniscience.Look forward to your reply.

Woa..cool down, WT. What made you upset like that?WT: "I think you need to pay attention to what I said. The only exception to the omniscience of God is the one He reveals primarily in Genesis 22:12. The text has God saying "NOW I KNOW"."
---
Please read Genesis 22:11.

Hi W.T,Sorry for taking so long to respond. I think some of the fog is gradually lifting from my eyes but I just want to make sure I understand you here.God IS omniscient in all the ways we know and love except for an aberration which occurs when an individual makes a trust decision (I’m using trust decision as a shorthand here, but I think I know what you mean). This doesn’t mean that God isn’t able to react to that decision the individual makes, its just that God does not know the outcome of that particular trust decision.Now returning to my little thought experiment, where Sally is truly undecided about whether or not to trust God and become a non-heathen. She’s been locked into a room, with a copy of the Bible and told not to come out until she’s made a decision. When she makes the decision, she either presses the blue (I’m still a heathen) button or the red (I accept and trust God) button.By your reckoning, God does not know which button she will press but is, as you say, ready to react to whatever decision she makes.Now, Sally may not know about it, but the experimenter has cunningly attached the blue button to fire off a salvo of intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles — you know, the worst sort — at Washington. Now even though God knows what the blue button is connected to, and is ready to react to a nuclear holocaust, he doesn’t know it will happen. That’s because the holocaust is a direct result of Sally’s choosing to be a heathen, which is the only thing God cannot predict.(Note that in the above, Sally could just as easily have chosen the red button. And it could have been the red, rather than the blue button which led to global nuclear holocaust. Sally doesn’t know what the buttons do.)However, God is ready to react, and because of my (poor) choice of extreme example here would act to stop the world from destruction. Maybe He would stop the button from working as it should, somehow jam the signal the instant the button is depressed or cut the connection or something.Is this what you believe? If so, it seems to me that we’ve developed a pretty good test for the existence of God.And what if the consequences of depressing a particular button aren’t so dire? Let’s just say that the button operates a kettle which allows the experimenter to have a cup of tea. God therefore cannot know in advance whether the experimenter will have a cup of tea or not. Its pretty counter-intuitive to think that God does not know whether or not someone is about to have a cup of tea.And what if that cup of tea starts off a chain of events like:Experimenter has tea
Experimenter eats biscuit with tea
Experimenter accidentally discovers they enjoy the same sort of biscuit as their’ fellow experimenter.
.
.
.
they fall in love and get married
and have many many childrenEither you’re saying that God could not have foreseen the birth of the children (which I don’t think you are) or that God would have ensured that the two of them would have got together even without the tea. In which case, at what point does God step in? Does God know that the experimenter was about to have a biscuit (which of course he only has with tea)? I don’t see how he could, because that would imply that he knew the outcome of Sally’s decision. Does God know that the two co-experimenters would discover that day that they share the same taste in biscuit? Again, don’t see how that’s possible. Or do we just leave it at God works in mysterious ways in which case, how do we know that when He says He’s not omniscient, he’s merely alluding to a higher, mysterious level of truth whereby He really is.The other possibility of course, is that you don’t think there’s any meaningful distinction between being ready to react and knowing in advance, in which case God actually is omniscient, but I don’t think this is what you were getting at either.PE

---

Mrs Hardy: "And how is Mrs Laurel?"
Stanley: "Oh, fine thank you."
Mrs Hardy: "I'd love to meet her some time."
Stanley: "Neither do I, too."

I claim God does not know for CERTAIN/SURE. He can predict and probably be correct 99.99999 percent of the time, BUT He does not know for absolute certain/surety UNTIL the person does what they actually do. And I make this claim citing words that came out of God's own mouth (Gen.22:12 "now I know"). The specific context of the exception is "vertical free will choices" that involve the one thing God cannot create : faith/trust (exception to His omnipotence).If, like you say, Sally is making a free will decision whether to trust God or not THEN God does not know for certain what she will choose until she actually makes the decision physically. If those buttons are in reality connected to nuclear launch mechanisms THEN in accordance with the exact circumstances described God still does not know for certain.I believe you are (besides critically thinking) ALSO attempting to establish that there exists no difference in the free-ness of any free will choice ?If you are then I must remind the specific parameters of what God does not know as contained in the source of this alarming claim.We seem to be on the same wavelength when you surmise that a test may have been developed to test the existence of God. You said it first and I agree if I can only cease from forgetting the grasp of the point being made which dances elusively away from my understanding everytime I try to dwell on it.Egg, please take another hack at your points. I percieve they be pointier than I am understanding them.

WT, if you claim that God can't be 100% sure based from Genesis 22:12.
You have to see Genesis 22:11.(Genesis)
22:11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here [am] I.
22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me.It was an angel who said "Now I know".. not the God Himself. Would you give me another passage from Bible saying that God doesn't know 100% about the future?

Willowtree,When I asked Jehovah about free will and predestination, He said that He knew all the possible outcomes, knows all possible futures, but doesn't know, generally, a particular future, insofar as that future was dependent on free will choices by men or angels, (and there could be other free will agents). There were some things He did know, because He was going to use His free will to respond to the choices of others, to make things come out a certain way. And, He didn't give absolute free will to anyone, but only limited, so He could stay in charge.He also said that He determined the outcome of dice and coin flips and such things, according to various factors. When someone wants randomness, He allows it, even though He knows the outcomes before hand, and makes sure that randomness doesn't mess up anything important to Him. Created randomness. I tested some of these ideas with praying and not praying about games with dice. The length and exciting variations in back-gammon games, for example, appeared very much influence by the way I prayed over each roll of the dice.Just my report.Stephen

CHRIS :Angels are messengers and virtually nothing else. Sometimes they kill at God's command, but for the most part they deliver messages.The angel in Genesis 22 and God Himself are indistinguishable. The angel spoke what God told him/her to speak - thats why the angel said "I". Do you understand ?

John chapter 21 has the risen Christ asking Peter three separate times IF he loved Him.Peter answered "...thou knowest all things..." That's a pre-Pentecost answer.Jesus asked the question because He did not know. The passage means what it says, and the greek syntax will not allow the question(s) to be rhetorical.Jesus asked the question because He intends to find out. How can Jesus discover if Peter loves Him or not ?If you fear God, then you want to make Him happy, loving God is what makes Him happy, but how do you love an invisible Being ? The Bible is crystal clear that faith/trust is what pleases God. Therefore, the ONLY way to prove your love for God is to demonstrate faith/trust.What's the point ?Fear, love, and faith/trust are all synonyms.God decided that at the age of at least 120, Abraham feared Him. The New Testament places this obedient act of Abraham into the 11th chapter of Hebrews, which is the only chapter in the Bible where God eulogizes man for having faith. This chapter tells us what Abraham was thinking when he was about to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham believed that God would of raised Isaac from the dead had He not stayed his hand.If Peter fears God he will go where Jesus leads despite the suffering that may result. If Peter loves Jesus he will do whatever He says to do. In so doing, he proves whether he fears God and trusts his Savior.Love, trust/faith, and fear are all interchangeable/synonymous.Did Peter love Jesus ?History says he did. The two epistles of Peter in the canon evidences he did. The way Peter died proves he did.Peter, in his epistles wonders aloud to the saints he is writing to when he says "....whom having not seen ye love..." Peter walked and talked with Jesus, yet these saints who never experienced the Living Word convinced Peter that they loved Him.Love of God is only determined by ones willingness to engage in the only activity that pleases Him - faith.

Unless you can cite some outside source for these beliefs of yours - they are purely subjective, if not, downright gnostic, and thus eligible for error.Jehovah speaks through the written word, and unless your experience is compatible with what the written word says, I must conclude Jehovah was not the one who answered you.

Great topic Yaro, Does God contradict randomness, I think this has been a phylosophycal debate for some time, The Clock Work universe verse the Free will universe. Can there be a true free will if all possible outcomes are already determined? I have come to believe that If "God" trancends the concept of time then the idea of randomness is moot. Because all possible outcomes of every event happens at once ( In regards to God.) There is no randomness to God IMO. I think it was St. Thomas Aquinas that described God as the Unmanifested reality that wills the universe into being. God is being itself. This is strictly a personal opinion not based on any fact or verifiable text so scoffers can relax they're mouses.. LOL.

WT, I think I get what you are trying to say.
I have few questions about it.How did Jesus know that Peter would deny Him 3 times while Peter said he would die for Him?(Mark 14:26-31)
And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives. And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered. But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee. But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be offended, yet will not I. And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. But he spake the more vehemently, If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee in any wise. Likewise also said they all.You could say that it happend because it was written.
"for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered."
From your point of view then.. God played with Peter's will. I could agree, because maybe God had plan for Peter, so God made Peter to deny Jesus to save Peter's life.But what about Judas?
God had plan that Jesus would die for us. Does it mean God made Judas to betray Jesus.. and made Judas to go to hell because of His plan?

CHRIS :This is an excellent post.Until pointed out to me, I assumed God was omniscient. Dr. Scott taught a lesson on Genesis 22 many years ago and dropped the bombshell from the text that God Himself admits an exception to His omniscience.I have struggled with the omniscience of God my entire life. How could He know IF I have the ability to change my mind at will ?Yet, the context of the exception limits the exception to decisions of trust/love/fear directed at or against Him. In this precise context God does not know FOR ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY what a person will actually do until they do whatever they do.Is your submission of the event of Peter and his infamous denial of Jesus congruent with the context of Genesis 22 ?Apparently not because Jesus knew.However, this is my view and now having answered I am open to your take on this as I freely admit that the issue you raise to be worthy of study.Then you bring up Judas.The exact questions you raise here is the exact subject of a teaching lesson by Dr. Scott. In this particular teaching, Dr.Scott tackles the obvious questions; whether Judas was predestined to do what he did; and God's part in fulfilling the prophecy etc.etc.I have heard this teaching about 10 times and it is heavy stuff. I could not begin to communicate the content of the teaching as it is logidemic as it gets. I can verify that Judas made a free will decision based upon many factors, that He was not set up by God in order to fulfill prophecy.I cannot answer you about Judas until I obtain a copy of this tape (PN #1). Maybe you can get it too from his website.Please do not read between the lines concerning what I say. I simply cannot give you even an opinion about Judas in this subject until I refresh my knowledge with PN #1.Chris, the content of this post is quality stuff. I do maintain the exception to God's omniscience. But go ahead and tell me what you think.

Willowtree,First, thank you for the encouraging response to my effort to describe what I perceive as the fear of God.Now, to this post. You inquire, There are, I believe, many ways one can come to the idea that this Person, Jehovah, is out there and speaks to each of us personally. A brief booklet, "The Gospel in the Stars" argues that "the heavens declare the glory of God" means that Jehovah has sent this message to every human group in the way constellations are formed and named.But, I came to this notion first at the encouragement of a Baptist preacher, and later as a scholar. The latter will be of more interest to you, since it involved the written word, known as the Bible. When I looked at those writings with all the intellectual integrity that I could muster, I found myself swamped with calls to hearken to the voice of the Lord, know His voice, live by every word that proceeds out of His mouth, etc. The written word became a cook book for learning to hear Him speak directly. The "proof of the pudding" as they say, was in the eating. I learned to hear Him say something, and then watched it happen. This was supposed to convince me I was, indeed, hearing something objective, and it did.So, I would listen to what may have been God speaking to me, to pray for the unusual event X. When X happened, I got more confident that the "voice" in my mind was God. I have mentioned several of these unusual events in other threads here, but that information is really useless to anyone but me. It's the nature of the beast that anyone who wants to hear God speak, objectively, will have to get their own convincing stories.Now, almost always, when I hear Jehovah say something to me, I ask Him for scriptural confirmation. I agree that "the scriptures cannot be broken" so that anything one hears not confirmable through scripture is suspect. Of course, when I asked Him how I could know it was Him speaking, He said that the voice in my head must be willing to testify to Yeshua walking in the flesh on this earth, to destroy the works of Satan. He said that I could often find some of Satan's little gifts confirmed in scripture as well, but he would never get me to testify to what the blood does to his works. (Scriptural confirmation? Yeshua's reply to the "he casts out demons by the power of Satan" accusation. He made it clear that a house divided does not stand, implying that the devil never attacks his own works. But, "they overcome evil by the blood of the Lamb, and the word of their testimony, and they loved not their lives unto death."Working backwards, I can never search out what matters to God. That is, after endless Bible studies, I was left with a confused image of God. But when I listen, and then look for confirmation, I see things in scripture, really important things.So, I have scriptural confirmation for all that He has told me about randomness, predestination, and "omniscience." But, it didn't come that way, and someone inclined to disagree would accuse me of bad exegesis. I hear God saying that they point such a finger at me, because they have a log in their eye. Namely, they ignore the hundreds of foundational commandments to hear and know His voice, to prophesy His interpretation of what is written. We cannot find eternal life in the Scriptures, we can only find our way to a place at His side, where, after waiting a while, He turns to us and speaks.If you want, I will return to my post, and give scriptural confirmations to every statement. But, you'd find more satisfaction if you would ask God to show you these Himself.Hoping for a few million hilarious years at the banquet table with you, I am,Stephen

I read every word of this reply of yours Ben. You have explained yourself very well. No two people can completely agree on everyhting, and where we depart is the exact way God speaks.I am a protestant, and we have one criteria to judge if God has/is speaking; it must not contradict the written word, that God speaks through the written word, and anything that is incompatible with the written word is not the word of God.Only a called gift minister can explain the meaning of the written word, as God intentionally shields the message from the sheep until they hear His voice through the Preacher. You can read the Bible your entire life and never be none the wiser to the message contained therein unless a talented and gifted man/woman of God show you what is already there.When a person subjects themself to God's chain of command of speaking, then they get to know what the written word really means and says. God has said that He will speak through His word via the Preacher, the only voice I hear is the voice of His word - thats how God speaks. He wants people to have the courage, the nerve to believe that the good things promised in His word are to be SEIZED by faith minus some gnostic experience telling them so. When a person has the gall to embrace God this way HE WILL MANIFEST HIMSELF TO THEM AND KEEP HIS WORD AS PROMISED IN HEBREWS 11:6.With all due respect Ben, I think you need to progress out of this quasi-gnostic reliance of relating to God via this "He told me" syndrome. You need to submit to a called minister of God because the word says this is the way God speaks and He will not exempt anyone from this structure. Just friendly advice which you didn't ask for.That banquet you mention is the first great event of our eternal life, glad to see your eyes on the prize.

Hi WT,Yes, you have quality stuffs there. And I'm sorry I can only give you my oppinions.."I have struggled with the omniscience of God my entire life. How could He know IF I have the ability to change my mind at will?"
-----
What I believe:
God is not limited by time nor space. I think it is possible that God IS in the past, present, and future right now. So God knows what are you going to choose eventhough you change your mind all the time, because He could see what you will choose for your final decision in the future.I think when Jesus asked Peter three questions, does Peter love Jesus or not (John 21) was for Peter to think and not only to answer it with words.
I think.. Peter was a "wise" guy:
1. He asked Jesus to let him walked on the water, but then he got afraid and began to sink. (Matt 14)
2. He rebuke Jesus (Matt 16:22), eventhough he said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God"(Matt 16:16).
3. He cut somebody's ear (John 18:10), eventhough Jesus told his disciples to love and told Peter himself to forgive people not 7 times but 70x7.
While the others only asked Jesus, "Lord, shall we smite with the sword?" (Luke 22:49)
4. Jesus said to Peter, "When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest". (John 21:18)
I think from those we can see that Peter was a person with his own mind, little bit rebelion, and not so strong in faith.
I think Jesus asked Peter 3 times to make Peter stronger and to give him a lesson.
Jesus didn't need the answers, but Peter needed the questions.
If Jesus needed the answers, why Jesus asked Peter three times?
God knows our real heart eventhough we say differently in our mouth... my oppinion.About the denial of Peter, I can say nothing, it could be because it has been written or because God changed Peter's will to save Peter (like what I wrote before).
But.. looking from the faith of Peter and his personality, I think God didn't change Peter at all.
And you would think that Jesus made prediction from it, I don't think Jesus makes predictions on something.. He knows everything.I think God had a plan for Peter:
(Matthew 16:18)
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
-> And I think Jesus was preparing Peter for it, so He made somebody asked Peter 3 times and Peter denied it. Then Jesus asked Peter 3 times also (3 times because after the third question from Jesus, Peter got grieved) just to give him a lesson. Because He knew that Peter's faith would be as strong as rock later on.. I think it was all being planed by God.
God works in a mysterious way.. we can not know for sure His plan, we can only make predictions.. that's for sure."I can verify that Judas made a free will decision based upon many factors, that He was not set up by God in order to fulfill prophecy."
------
But on John 13:
"25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it? 26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. 27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly."
-> Here Jesus specially told Judas to go and do the thing.
If Jesus didn't know about Judas' faith, but then He made Judas to do that, it sounds unfair.
But let's see other way:
God knows everything, He had plan for Jesus to die and to save our soul by the betrayal of Jesus' desciple. So God made one twisted or evil soul (which would go to hell eventually) to be one of Jesus' desciples who would betray Him later. Then, it sounds fair for God to let Judas goes to hell.. just my oppinion.
I know you won't give your oppinion about Judas now, just wanted to give you my oppinion on this.And one more thing,
(Revelation 7:3-8)
"(7:3) Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
(7:4) And I heard the number of them which were sealed: [and there were] sealed an hundred [and] forty [and] four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
(7:5) Of the tribe of Juda [were] sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben [were] sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad [were] sealed twelve thousand.
Etc..etc."
-> Here it says about people who love God or have faith in Him. I know this could have metaphorical meaning, but what do you think about this?Those are just my oppinions, which are subjective. And I know it's not good enough, that's why I bring this to you so we can discuss it.
About Dr. Scott.. I searched on the net and I found 3 Dr. Scott's, could you give me the link to the website of Dr. Scott you meant?
Thanks.