What if God foreknew human reactions?

omnipotence and omniscience have nothing to do with each other.if god created the universe, then god created time as time is a non-constant moving dimension of the universe. if god is outside of time then the future as we call it is no different to him than the distance from houston to columbia is to a god outside of created dimensional space.

Your argument simply stretches an illustrative analogy too far. To take an obvious example there is nothing that an omniscient being could learn. And I note thatyour other point has nothing to do with God actually wanting a real relationship with us. Which is the actual point you were attempting to address.

Good point...why are we as humans so curious about learning? Why do we so easily reject the God concept? Is it like a teenager that wants to be different from his parents? I mean, we all want to know more and more anyway...why not believe that someone already does?

what is it that people freak out about the lack of free will? of course free will is a myth. so what? sit back and enjoy the ride and try to learn as much as you can. it's about becoming better on the inside, not doing important things.

Well I iniitally rejected the God concept because the one I was exposed to didn't make a lot of sense. It wasn't too hard for me, but it certainly is hard for some other people.

quote:

---

I mean, we all want to know more and more anyway...why not believe that someone already does?

---

Because liking an idea has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phatboy:
Just because God knows who are His sheep..(those who hear His voice) does not mean that He does all the choosing. It is a communion of choice...where He first chose us and we later choose Him.

​

Whosoever is a definite value. Whosoever = the chosen. The many who are invited, apparantly includes everyone EXCEPT those who do not choose.

​

If a person chooses not to believe, I think that they will get one more chance to see the reality of what they have freely rejected. Only after this awareness is anyone truly lost.

​

If God allows us to freely and knowingly (with all information) reject Him, He is no longer responsible for us.

---

um not really. who can resist the call of the almighty?Romans
28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.sorry. there is no free will. there's no support for it. if you believe the book, the book denies it.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 09-21-2005 04:30 PM

No I haven't. I stated that Th can be finite or infinite. It makes no difference to my model. Yes I have, when I said this

quote:

---

Whatever kind of model comsology you generate from GR, it will essentially be of two types. One, where the time begins a finite time in the past, and one where the time is infinite in extent. Either way, there is no place for any "before" or "prior".

---

Now, how do you suggest a concept of prior, given that the time-line to which you are trying to be prior either doesn't exist or is always there? Yes, that is fine. But the "states" of those points in time do not have to be set. If you disagree, explain why they must. As I have said repeatedly, this whole debate only requires omniscience wrt Th, not Tg. If you disagree, explain why. As we have no awareness whatsoever of Tg, why would we describe it as occuring prior to the effect in your first case? And please explain why it cannot be assigned a time in Th. In my model, a divine interaction is just a space-time event. It has to be assigned a point in Th. Its causal nature is tied to Tg so we would have no knowledge of it. Prior has no meaning to us for actions of a being who evolves along Tg.

Is omnipotence limited to any laws? If it is then it isn't omnipotenece. It's something just really close. Right. Right again. Omnipotence is always going to loose you. No matter how far you push it back into you understanding, it can always go one step further.

If you believe the book, you would be a fool to freely deny Him. If you don't, you will always have the choice to deny Him. After all, who is He? So either truth is predetermined and living, or truth is human derived conclusions which are always evolving. If I kept an open mind to the latter, I would gain nothing. If you kept an open mind to the former, however, Pascal would have won his wager!

Firstly your denial of my point relating an eternal universe to creation was to insist that the universe had a beginning as seen from your "God's time". That means that it is NOT eternal from the point of view that actually matters.Your argument against there being is easily answered in the same way - since you have introduced your concept of "god's time", and that is obviously the most important time dimension to consider when dealing with God's actions that is the time dimension ot use when considering priority.In other words your arguments are fundamentally inconsistent.As to the other point you still fail to understand. If no points are special then either ALL are set or NONE are set. It would seem odd indeed to say that none are set and still credit God with creating this universe as it is (how does that make sense when the internal state isat least partly independant of God's choices ?). Therefore either there is a special point or set of points such that God sets the state of the universe at those points (indiviudally or collectively) or GOd sets the state at all points in time.This debate does not require that I should accept assumptiosn contrary to the premises of my argument. Thus apart from side issues it does require that God is omniscient with respect to any time dimensions you care to introduce.On your final point the obvious answer as to why we would use that description is because it is correct. If we are not legitimately entitled to explain things in terms of "God's time" then your whole argument based on it must be discarded.

I wouldn't describe truth as either living or predetermined. I am not convinced of the idea of a fixed future and therefore I would say that there are statements that are not yet true or false (but at some time in the future will be one or the other). And I view truth not as an organism - or even a thing in itself - but as a relationship between the semantic contents of utterances and the state of reality this it is not "living".What you call "human truth" is better labeled "human knowledge" and it is our attempt to get at the truth. And what you believe is very much a part of that (and far from one of the more certain parts - and a part that has also been subject to change).In other words you are setting up a very false dichotomy here. P

No, your understanding is fundementally inconsistent.We are debating the impact of a god's foreknowledge of OUR actions, remember? That is all. Given that actions are tied to Th, THAT is all that is important. Huh? And whose point of view is that? It is a perfect description of an eternal universe in any sense that I am aware. Or perhaps you know how to make ethernal mean something more in a space-time with more than one time dimension? The point is that many have naively assumed that an eternal universe removed a position for any creative act. That was what drove many to the Steady State theory, and on the opposite side, what drove the Vatican to accept BBT. Neither view holds any water. Yes, fine, whatever. His actions are causal wrt Tg. I have not said otherwise. In fact, I defined them as such. But again, this is not relevant for this discussion. We are talking about a god's omniscience wrt Th. If you want to talk about a god's omniscience wrt to Tg and Th, then go talk to someone else. I am trying to address the initial issue. I've not quite figured what your are trying to do... Believe me, there is failure of understanding but it does not reside in me at the moment... Yes, I would describe it as the boundary. Evolution within the boundary might be completely determined as you suggest. But it could be stochastic, undetermined, or whatever. You have completely failed to explain why this could not b the case. Your original reason was an appeal to omniscience. We only require omniscience wrt Th for this debate. Please explain. Why? Why is it necessary for a debate about a god's foreknowledge of our actions and its implication for fatalism and determinism? That is what we were discussing after all. Given that the "obvious" view is that fatism/determinism is implied, picking a particular extended-scenario and saying "see, it's still implied" is not really very constructive. I am constructing a scenario where it does not seem to be implied. If you are not willing to address that scenario, I will conclude. There is nothing more to say. Explain away. But Tg is unobservable from our perspective, so has little bearing on our original issue which was about a god's foreknowledge of our actions and its implication for fatalism and determinism.

actually, believing the book makes it easier to deny him.which is why i don't believe the book.

Yeah? I guess that what I see the book is is not some sort of ancient manuscript...I see the character of Jesus Christ talking to me as I recall certain scriptures for situations. It fits..like a hand in a glove even...but I can totally respect how a rationally minded logical thinker who was brought up to be critical and intuitive would avoid limiting their belief to one book.Jar says that thhe book is the map but not the territory. I say that the book is the character and imagination...but not God Himself. Jar, of course, would say "Herself!" I guess that in relation to the point of this topic, God foreknew that many would question His Word.What do we do, though? Voices of God=mental patients.
Scriptures misused = crooked evangelists or cult leaders.Subjective relationships with a God of our imagination= ?Its like to tell the truth: Will the real God please stand up?I believe that for each of us, if we really wanted God to be our God,
an Objective inner confirmation would occur at some point before our soul leaves our body.

the book is useful in as much as it gives a chance to compare your experience with god to that of others. should i change my life and what i think is appropriate because paul says so when he obviously has some demons (in the history sense of the word) which are affecting his opinions? no. he readily admits that his words are his words and not god's. when he says that the scripture is the infallible word of god, he is referring to the law. the torah.