On the omniscience of God

[annabenedetti]

Because they don't follow the laws of logic. Thus, by definition, they are irrational.
Indirectly, Arthur did. And you agreed with him.
Dimension? Not sure. It is definitely "above" our plane of existence, however.
Your question answers itself.

Okay, so I didn't say God was irrational, and neither did Arthur. Good we're clear on that point.
This seems to be an issue of semantics. You say heaven is on a different plane, I say it's in a different dimension.
How do you think angels crossed between heaven and earth?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Okay, so I didn't say God was irrational, and neither did Arthur. Good we're clear on that point.

The argument presented for [how God (infallibly) knowing the future means that the future is settled] was a purely logical one. Reminder: Arthur said this:

. . . Knowing that the event is going to occur is not negating your choice in the matter. From our linear perspective we're all effectively living in the absolute present, a nanosecond from past or future but that's our frame of limited frame of reference and how we perceive time. In seconds, minutes, days, years etc.

. . .

It does bemuse me when people try to limit God on these things.

Well, of course it would have to be infallible foreknowledge otherwise it might as well just be a strong hunch. In no way has that coerced, influenced or altered anything in itself. . . . If God knows things in advance and what paths people are going to take is it really much of an argument to claim that you had no choice in what you were doing (good or bad for equality)?

. . . With our limited frame of reference and perspective it's a bizarre thing to me to say what God cannot do, especially in matters relating to time. For us, a day is pretty much always as a day give or take. It certainly isn't as 10,000 years or the reverse. In this dimension we experience time as we reference it by. That doesn't apply to God. . . . Is it impossible for there to be other[ colors] in a dimension outside of this one or impossible for God to create them simply because our minds can't fathom it?

He says these things because he believes God can do the irrational.

God cannot do the irrational, nor is He irrational Himself.

This seems to be an issue of semantics. You say heaven is on a different plane, I say it's in a different dimension.
How do you think angels crossed between heaven and earth?

I don't know. How is this relevant to whether God knowing the future means that the future is settled?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Is God infallible? Does that infallibility apply to His attributes?

If so, then, by the laws of logic, there is no choice BUT to answer the phone at that exact time.



Saying it doesn't make it so, Arty.



That's exactly the point, Arty.

God infallibly knows something will happen, therefore it will happen exactly the way he knows it will happen.



Yes, because of logic.

Reminder:

Premises: Supposition of infallible foreknowledge, Definition of “infallibility,” Definition of “necessary,"

Logical Principles: Principle of the Necessity of the Past, Transfer of Necessity Principle, Principle of Alternate Possibilities





God is not irrational, despite your claims to the contrary. That includes what He can or cannot do.



Saying it doesn't make it so, and the Bible says that God is in time. https://kgov.com/time, but that's a (related) topic for another discussion.



No, the "other note" is an octave lower or higher than the one you started with. You're trying to make what is a spiral staircase into a straight line segment then declaring that we can't imagine beyond the two ends of that segment, when in reality, it's a continuous spiral staircase of sound frequencies. We use "A-G, back to A, etc."

I used to play the violin (still have it too), so I'll use it as an example.

The lowest note I can play on it (when it's tuned properly) is G₃, at 196 Hz. That doesn't mean that it can't play lower notes, but doing so requires "detuning," loosening, the string. The Highest note it can play is A, at 3520 Hz, four octaves higher than the note just above the first A on the G string, which is played by placing one's first finger on the G string on the neck of the violin just opposite the peg box from the nut.

Thus, one can play from 196 Hz (G) all the way up to 3520 Hz (A), continuously! You can even do it glissando!

All that to say that A, B, C, etc, to G, are just names we've given to certain frequencies in octaves. There's nothing about a particular frequency (pardon the pun) that says it must be a "B-flat" other than the naming scheme that was arbitrarily assigned to it.

The scale of sound (which is ultimately what we're talking about) is, for all intents and purposes, infinite, despite humans only being able to hear from about 20 Hz to 20 kHz.



The physical universe allows for colors. (Which are also described by the frequencies of waves of light, btw).

Other dimensions don't exist. Sure, we can try to imagine what such dimensions might look like, but they are, by definition, imaginary. Thus the argument is moot.

All that to say, you're trying to argue against logic, Arty. It's not going to end well for you.

Yes, so that has to include foreknowledge. In fact if it isn't infallible it isn't foreknowledge.

Logic dictates that you are going to do something. For the purposes of the phone call scenario and presuming you're conscious and able to take the call then simplistically you're going to do one of two things: Either answer it or not. Your argument conflates foreknowledge with manipulation and they're not remotely the same thing. Another scenario and not one I'm suggesting that you would do btw. Supposing I know that you're going to go out later, get drunk, get in a fight and end up in jail for the night. Am I responsible for what you did and the outcome simply because I knew what was going to happen? By a similar token, suppose I knew that you were going to go to a grocery store, purchase a winning lottery ticket and land a fortune, am I in any way responsible for that also? Of course not. Not simply for having foreknowledge. If I influenced you in some way then that's different. If I were capable of dictating either series of events then also, completely different. If God knows what you are going to do before you do it then that isn't the same as His controlling you to do something and taking away your ability to make a choice.

In no way have I claimed that God is irrational, nor will I.

Time as we understand and reference it hardly applies to an eternal being. We're bound by all sorts of physical laws that we have no control over or choice in the matter. On this plane of existence we're subject to aging, entropy, decay and death. Cheery stuff but true, right? That obviously doesn't apply to God and limiting His capability through a lens of our limited understanding doesn't strike me as particularly rational. The passage regarding a day being as 10,000 years for God and in reverse seems pretty clear that time in relation to God is far removed from our perspective.

You used to play the violin? Cool, me too albeit not very well, in fact my grandad used to craft them. The piano/keyboard was more my instrument. Saying that, I used to mess around with the violin by as you've mentioned, loosening the strings and detuning it. Made for some interesting sounds. The point is, that there are only so many notes. Going back to the keyboard for a minute, you generally start with 'middle C' and play a C major octave as it's the easiest. So that's C,D,E,F,G,A,B - then back to C again. Put those alphabetically and it's obviously A,B,C,D,E,F,G. There's no 'H'. The same with colour, we can only perceive so many and there are only three primary ones, all others are secondary. Now, is it possible that there are more that we can't 'hear' or 'see' or is that impossible for God?

Wouldn't the Heavenly realm be a 'different dimension'? I'm talking dimension as being a different state than the physical world we're in.

I'm not 'trying to argue against logic' at all and that kinda remark brings nothing to the discussion.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The argument presented for [how God (infallibly) knowing the future means that the future is settled] was a purely logical one. Reminder: Arthur said this:





He says these things because he believes God can do the irrational.

God cannot do the irrational, nor is He irrational Himself.



I don't know. How is this relevant to whether God knowing the future means that the future is settled?

No, I didn't "say those things because I believe God can do the irrational" at all. That I believe that an omnipotent God isn't bound by our limited perspectives is not the same thing whatsoever. What may seem irrational to you isn't necessarily so simply because it doesn't fit into your perception or what God can potentially be limited by.

 

[annabenedetti]

The argument presented for [how God (infallibly) knowing the future means that the future is settled] was a purely logical one. Reminder: Arthur said this:

He says these things because he believes God can do the irrational.

God cannot do the irrational, nor is He irrational Himself.

I don't think at all that Arthur sees God as irrational, but he's entirely capable of explaining that to you himself.

I do think that you limit God by subjecting him to your human understanding of logic.

I don't know. How is this relevant to whether God knowing the future means that the future is settled?

You brought up dimensions with me, JR. I'm answering you. They relate to the idea of God being outside our understanding of time and space.

So, you don't know how angels travel from heaven to earth. No one even knows where heaven is, but it's not of this world. If it's not of this world, then of what world is it?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I don't think at all that Arthur sees God as irrational, but he's entirely capable of explaining that to you himself.

I do think that you limit God by subjecting him to your human understanding of logic.


You brought up dimensions with me, JR. I'm answering you. They relate to the idea of God being outside our understanding of time and space.

So, you don't know how angels travel from heaven to earth. No one even knows where heaven is, but it's not of this world. If it's not of this world, then of what world is it?

Exactly. If we try to limit God to our own insistence on what constitutes 'rationality' then how do we 'rationalize' an omnipotent being that has no beginning or end? We can't do that through any 'logical' frame of reference as such is completely beyond any frame of understanding. Everything on this plane of existence has a start. How can we envisage something that has always existed? We cant. Where it comes to foreknowledge then the obvious raional counter is that it doesn't negate someone's choice in an event. That can only come about via direct influence or manipulation of events. Say I knew something beforehand that you would have no say in, that you were going to wake up in the middle of the night at 4:32 AM. Is that the same as ensuring that it happens? Of course not.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes, so that has to include foreknowledge. In fact if it isn't infallible it isn't foreknowledge.

Then you must acknowledge that If God infallibly knows T, therefore T must occur, according to the laws of logic:

Further, God cannot know (in the sense you mean it) the free will choices that men make. If He knows, they aren't free.

T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am

1. Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
2. If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
3. It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
4. Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
5. If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
6. So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
7. If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
8. Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
9. If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
10. Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

Source

Logic dictates that you are going to do something.

If God infallibly knows T, then logic dictates that you will do T, and not !T.

For the purposes of the phone call scenario and presuming you're conscious and able to take the call then simplistically you're going to do one of two things: Either answer it or not.

Wrong. Necessity of the past dicates God infallibly knew T. Definition of "infallible" dictates God cannot be wrong. Transfer of necessity principle (p → q) dictates that it is now necessary that T. Definition of "necessary" dictates that you cannot do otherwise than T. Principle of alternate possibilities dictates that if you cannot do otherwise, then you do not act freely. Therefore, when T, you will not do it freely.

Your argument conflates foreknowledge with manipulation

There is no manipulation, Arty.

It's simply infallible knowledge.

YOUR argument is conflating "omniscience" and "foreknowledge" with "predestination," which IS manipulation.

If God knows what you are going to do before you do it then that isn't the same as His controlling you to do something and taking away your ability to make a choice.

No one said it was.

In no way have I claimed that God is irrational, nor will I.

Good.

Time as we understand and reference it hardly applies to an eternal being.

Sure it does.

Eternal means "without end," in at least one direction.

We're bound by all sorts of physical laws that we have no control over or choice in the matter. On this plane of existence we're subject to aging, entropy, decay and death. Cheery stuff but true, right? That obviously doesn't apply to God

Yes, God is not bound to or by the laws or universe He created.

and limiting His capability through a lens of our limited understanding doesn't strike me as particularly rational.

Do you agree that God is rational and cannot be or do the irrational?

The passage regarding a day being as 10,000 years for God and in reverse

There is no such passage.

seems pretty clear that time in relation to God is far removed from our perspective.

Are you perhaps referring to 2 Peter 3:8?

I'm pretty sure I've explained to you before that that has nothing to do with time, but rather it's a description of how patient God is, as the very next verse states, in no uncertain terms, and how capable He is, patient enough that it's as if a thousand years is as a day, and capable enough to accomplish in a day what it would take man a thousand years to do.

The point is, that there are only so many notes. Going back to the keyboard for a minute, you generally start with 'middle C' and play a C major octave as it's the easiest. So that's C,D,E,F,G,A,B - then back to C again. Put those alphabetically and it's obviously A,B,C,D,E,F,G. There's no 'H'.

Because "H" is just "A" an octave higher. It's still a different note, it just sounds similar because of the frequencies, but we call it "A." Did you notice that when I first mentioned the G string on my violin, I used "G₃"?

The same with colour, we can only perceive so many

That's simply a limitation of our eyes. Some creatures can see more colors than we can.

and there are only three primary ones, all others are secondary.

Actually, technically there are six, Red, Green, Blue, for light, and Magenta, Cyan, and Yellow, for pigments. Combine the former to make white light. Combine the latter to make black pigment.

Now, is it possible that there are more that we can't 'hear'

Again, about 20 Hz to 20 kHz is what most people can hear (with people who are older only being able to hear up to about 15-17 kHz). Frequencies outside of those ranges we cannot perceive, but that doesn't mean they're irrational or are impossible.

or 'see'

We can (typically) see wavelengths on the electromagnetic spectrum from 350 to 700 nanometers. Below that is infrared, and above that is ultraviolet. We can't see those frequencies.

or is that impossible for God?

Clearly, God can "see" beyond what we can, and "hear" beyond what we can. But that doesn't mean those things are "impossible" or "irrational." They follow the laws of physics and reason as well.

Wouldn't the Heavenly realm be a 'different dimension'? I'm talking dimension as being a different state than the physical world we're in.

I'm not 'trying to argue against logic' at all and that kinda remark brings nothing to the discussion.

But that's exactly what you're doing. The logical argument presented establishes, logically, that if God infallibly knows T, then !T is impossible, and a person will only do T.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I do think that you limit God by subjecting him to your human understanding of logic.

There's no such thing as a "human understanding of logic."

Logic IS. Period.

It is, BY DEFINITION, objective. There's no such thing as "subjective objectivity." It's a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron.

If we try to limit God to our own insistence on what constitutes 'rationality'

What method did you use to come to that conclusion?

If it wasn't logic, then it, by definition, is irrational.

If it was by logic, then you've proved my point at the beginning of this post.

then how do we 'rationalize' an omnipotent being that has no beginning or end?

By saying He has no beginning or end. See how easy that was?

Next question.

We can't do that through any 'logical' frame of reference

Sure we can. I just did it.

as such is completely beyond any frame of understanding.

As Clete put it:

Clete said: Ever thought that the reason you can't use human language to explain it is because [JR insert: your position] makes no sense? It is truly impossible to fathom the self-contradictory. If it is so ineffable then why do you believe it? That's a real question, [JR insert: Arthur]. Why do you believe it?

Everything on this plane of existence has a start.

God is not on this plane of existence, therefore that rule doesn't apply.

How can we envisage something that has always existed? We cant.

We don't have the context to fully comprehend a being that has existed forever. That doesn't mean we can't rationally explain it.

Where it comes to foreknowledge then the obvious rational counter is that it doesn't negate someone's choice in an event.

Wrong, for the reasons stated previously.

That can only come about via direct influence or manipulation of events.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Say I knew something beforehand that you would have no say in, that you were going to wake up in the middle of the night at 4:32 AM.

If that knowledge is infallible, then yes, that means that the person will, in fact, wake up at 4:32 AM.

(Which isn't the middle of the night, btw, unless you're using a clock in an area four timezones behind you...)

Is that the same as ensuring that it happens? Of course not.

Moving the goalposts.

This is an argument against predestination, which is a step further than foreknowledge.

Think of it in terms of Calvinism vs Arminianism. What is being addressed here is against the latter, for the most part. You're trying to bring the former into the discussion.

 

[annabenedetti]

There's no such thing as a "human understanding of logic."

I'm not applying "subjective objectivity" to logic.

I'm saying God's logic surpasses human logic.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm saying God's logic surpasses human logic.

There's no such thing as "human logic," Anna.

There is only logic. Something is either logical, or it is not. There's no "beyond" or "surpasses logical." That's called "irrational."

And God IS logic. He IS reason. John 1:1 states:

In the beginning was the Logic. And the Logic was with God, and God was the Logic. (logos means logic, reason)

God says, "come, let us reason together..."

God is a RATIONAL BEING, and is the source of reason and logic.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Then you must acknowledge that If God infallibly knows T, therefore T must occur, according to the laws of logic:





If God infallibly knows T, then logic dictates that you will do T, and not !T.



Wrong. Necessity of the past dicates God infallibly knew T. Definition of "infallible" dictates God cannot be wrong. Transfer of necessity principle (p → q) dictates that it is now necessary that T. Definition of "necessary" dictates that you cannot do otherwise than T. Principle of alternate possibilities dictates that if you cannot do otherwise, then you do not act freely. Therefore, when T, you will not do it freely.



There is no manipulation, Arty.

It's simply infallible knowledge.

YOUR argument is conflating "omniscience" and "foreknowledge" with "predestination," which IS manipulation.



No one said it was.



Good.



Sure it does.

Eternal means "without end," in at least one direction.



Yes, God is not bound to or by the laws or universe He created.



Do you agree that God is rational and cannot be or do the irrational?



There is no such passage.



Are you perhaps referring to 2 Peter 3:8?

I'm pretty sure I've explained to you before that that has nothing to do with time, but rather it's a description of how patient God is, as the very next verse states, in no uncertain terms, and how capable He is, patient enough that it's as if a thousand years is as a day, and capable enough to accomplish in a day what it would take man a thousand years to do.



Because "H" is just "A" an octave higher. It's still a different note, it just sounds similar because of the frequencies, but we call it "A." Did you notice that when I first mentioned the G string on my violin, I used "G₃"?



That's simply a limitation of our eyes. Some creatures can see more colors than we can.



Actually, technically there are six, Red, Green, Blue, for light, and Magenta, Cyan, and Yellow, for pigments. Combine the former to make white light. Combine the latter to make black pigment.



Again, about 20 Hz to 20 kHz is what most people can hear (with people who are older only being able to hear up to about 15-17 kHz). Frequencies outside of those ranges we cannot perceive, but that doesn't mean they're irrational or are impossible.



We can (typically) see wavelengths on the electromagnetic spectrum from 350 to 700 nanometers. Below that is infrared, and above that is ultraviolet. We can't see those frequencies.



Clearly, God can "see" beyond what we can, and "hear" beyond what we can. But that doesn't mean those things are "impossible" or "irrational." They follow the laws of physics and reason as well.



But that's exactly what you're doing. The logical argument presented establishes, logically, that if God infallibly knows T, then !T is impossible, and a person will only do T.

Okay, sure, let's refer to a choice you make as 'T'. So, if God has foreknowledge (infallible by definition) that at some point you are going to do T then T at that point is what you will end up doing. Whether it's answering the phone, watching a film, going for a walk or whatever. That you're not going to do anything other than T in no way translates to your not having had the freedom to choose at that point, it's simply that God knows that T is what you are/were going to choose, that's it. Contorting this into some convoluted argument that your ability to act freely has been impacted upon because you're not going to deviate from T is conflating foreknowledge with some sort of influence where there is none. It really is pretty simple without any need for complication. You are/were going to choose T. God simply knows, that's it.

You're correct in that there's no manipulation. You're incorrect in stating that I conflate foreknowledge and omniscience with predestination. I don't in any way, shape or form. I'm not a Calvinist, nor am I arguing this from any sort of Calvinist perspective. I haven't even brought predestination into this argument, nor was I about to as I don't go along with it.

Sure, we can describe eternal with words but envisioning it is something else altogether.

So, good, you acknowledge that God isn't bound by the laws He creates. Well, that includes time.

Yes, I'd agree that God is rational. That doesn't equate to God having to conform to what human beings consider to be so however.

A verse can describe more than one thing and it seems entirely rational to me that time in relation to God would in no way be limited by our narrow perception of it.

No JR, 'H' is not "just an octave higher", that's A in a higher register, not an entirely separate note. If you loosen or tighten up the G string on a violin then you're either tuning through the frequencies lower to F or higher to A. This is why when learning the piano, lessons generally start with middle C. Makes sense. It's in the middle of the keyboard, gives the best range for ascending and descending scales and C is the simplest scale to start with. In all of the annuls of classical music history, all tonal pieces have been written in none other than the keys of A B C D E F G or accidentals thereof. Unless that is, you can think of one I've missed? Maybe Stravinsky wrote a piano concerto in J Flat Minor that's somehow passed me by?

Um, green is a secondary colour JR, it's a mix of blue and yellow. There are three primary colours, blue, yellow and red. What colours are creatures seeing exactly that we aren't?

Sure, there's certain frequencies we can't pick up on. There's actually ones we can hear while younger that we can't when older. Doesn't equate to there being new notes on the scale or colours never before discovered.

If God isn't bound by the laws He creates then what may seem impossible or irrational to us on this plane of existence is not necessarily the case at all.

It isn't what I'm doing at all and answered in my first paragraph here.

 

[Arthur Brain]

There's no such thing as a "human understanding of logic."

Logic IS. Period.

It is, BY DEFINITION, objective. There's no such thing as "subjective objectivity." It's a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron.



What method did you use to come to that conclusion?

If it wasn't logic, then it, by definition, is irrational.

If it was by logic, then you've proved my point at the beginning of this post.



By saying He has no beginning or end. See how easy that was?

Next question.



Sure we can. I just did it.



As Clete put it:

Clete said: Ever thought that the reason you can't use human language to explain it is because [JR insert: your position] makes no sense? It is truly impossible to fathom the self-contradictory. If it is so ineffable then why do you believe it? That's a real question, [JR insert: Arthur]. Why do you believe it?

God is not on this plane of existence, therefore that rule doesn't apply.



We don't have the context to fully comprehend a being that has existed forever. That doesn't mean we can't rationally explain it.



Wrong, for the reasons stated previously.



Saying it doesn't make it so.



If that knowledge is infallible, then yes, that means that the person will, in fact, wake up at 4:32 AM.

(Which isn't the middle of the night, btw, unless you're using a clock in an area four timezones behind you...)



Moving the goalposts.

This is an argument against predestination, which is a step further than foreknowledge.

Think of it in terms of Calvinism vs Arminianism. What is being addressed here is against the latter, for the most part. You're trying to bring the former into the discussion.

I've answered in regards to foreknowledge in my previous so no need to restate. Once again, I'm not arguing for predestination or from a Calvinist perspective whatsoever.

 

[annabenedetti]

There's no such thing as "human logic," Anna.

There is only logic. Something is either logical, or it is not. There's no "beyond" or "surpasses logical." That's called "irrational."

And God IS logic. He IS reason. John 1:1 states:

In the beginning was the Logic. And the Logic was with God, and God was the Logic. (logos means logic, reason)

God says, "come, let us reason together..."

God is a RATIONAL BEING, and is the source of reason and logic.

I didn't say God was beyond logic, I said His logic surpasses ours. Surpasses in capacity. It's at a supernatural level that humans, limited by their humanity, cannot match or comprehend. To equate the human capacity for logic with God's capacity for logic is the ultimate pridefulness.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That you're not going to do anything other than T in no way translates to your not having had the freedom to choose at that point,

Yes, Arty, it does, for the reasons outlined above.

it's simply that God knows that T is what you are/were going to choose, that's it.

It's because God infallibly knows it that you cannot do otherwise, Arty. That's not free will at that point.

Contorting this into some convoluted argument that your ability to act freely has been impacted upon because you're not going to deviate from T is conflating foreknowledge with some sort of influence where there is none.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Arty, and I and Clete have CLEARLY outlined the line of reasoning that NECESSITATES that if God infallibly knows T, then !T is impossible. You're welcome to try to disprove it, but so far, all you've done is whine and complain and project upon us that we're "conflating foreknowledge with some sort of influence."

Where in our line of reasoning Is that the case, Arty? You won't give specifics.

It really is pretty simple without any need for complication.

It's as simple as we've outlined.

You are/were going to choose T. God simply knows, that's it.

By definition, a settled future does NOT allow for free will.

By definition, Arty. Not just because we say so. And we have explained why.

You're incorrect in stating that I conflate foreknowledge and omniscience with predestination.

What you're doing is conflating what we're arguing against with predestination, by calling it "manipulation by God."

I don't in any way, shape or form.

Liar.

I'm not a Calvinist, nor am I arguing this from any sort of Calvinist perspective.

No one said you were.

I haven't even brought predestination into this argument, nor was I about to as I don't go along with it.

You were arguing that what we were saying about infallible foreknowledge was that it was "manipulation by God." That's not our position.

Sure, we can describe eternal with words but envisioning it is something else altogether.

Again, we don't have the frame of reference to fully comprehend how long God has existed, but that does NOT mean that we can't understand that He has, in fact, existed forever.

So, good, you acknowledge that God isn't bound by the laws He creates. Well, that includes time.

Nope. Sorry. It doesn't. "Time" isn't a law that He created.

Yes, I'd agree that God is rational. That doesn't equate to God having to conform to what human beings consider to be so however.

There's that "subjective objectivity" again.

Again: Logic IS.

God is the source of logic. He is reason itself.

God says "Come, let us reason together," and he communicates with us in a way we CAN understand.

Our understanding of "rational" comes from Him.

A verse can describe more than one thing

No one said it couldn't. The problem is that the meaning is literally given in the very next verse!

God is patient and capable. That's literally all it's saying.

And you seem to be ignoring the fact that the word "as" is used throughout.

and it seems entirely rational to me that time in relation to God would in no way be limited by our narrow perception of it.

Then you need to get your head checked, because things that are irrational should not seem rational to you.

"Outside of time" is an irrational concept. That's not me saying that. It is by definition irrational.

And Scripture doesn't allow for it anyways. God has a past, exists in the present, and looks forward to the future.

That's what scripture says.

No JR, 'H' is not "just an octave higher", that's A in a higher register, not an entirely separate note.

The fact of the matter is that the note you hear in one octave is, in fact, a different frequency than the one you hear in another octave. Things that are different are not the same.

In all of the annuls of classical music history, all tonal pieces have been written in none other than the keys of A B C D E F G or accidentals thereof. Unless that is, you can think of one I've missed? Maybe Stravinsky wrote a piano concerto in J Flat Minor that's somehow passed me by?

You realize that I wasn't saying that "A" an octave higher than another "A" should be called "H," right? Because that would be stupid.

Um, green is a secondary colour JR, it's a mix of blue and yellow. There are three primary colours, blue, yellow and red.

Wrong, or at least, not completely correct.

Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow are primary colors for pigment.
Blue, Red, and Green are primary colors for light.

What colours are creatures seeing exactly that we aren't?

A few animals that can see ultraviolet.

9 Animals That Can Actually See in UV

Did you know that many animals are actually able to see in UV? Here are but a few of them.

interestingengineering.com

A few animals that can see infrared.

Animals That Can See Infrared Light

Cold-blooded animals such as blood-sucking insects, some snakes, fish and frogs can see infrared light.

sciencing.com

Sure, there's certain frequencies we can't pick up on. There's actually ones we can hear while younger that we can't when older. Doesn't equate to there being new notes on the scale or colours never before discovered.

That's my point, Arty!

If God isn't bound by the laws He creates then what may seem impossible or irrational to us on this plane of existence is not necessarily the case at all.

God cannot know or do the impossible, Arty, because BY DEFINITION IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!

You're literally saying that God can be irrational yet remain rational!

That's A CONTRADICTION! The law of noncontradiction states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true simultaneously in the same sense.

God is rational. He cannot do the irrational, because doing so would mean He is irrational.

There's a difference between saying "God can do something we cannot" and "because God can do something we cannot, therefore He must be capable of doing irrational things." The former is rational. The latter is, by definition, irrational.

It isn't what I'm doing at all and answered in my first paragraph here.

It is, in fact, calling God irrational.

You're trying to say that A = !A. It won't work. The irrational one here is YOU!

 

[JudgeRightly]

I didn't say God was beyond logic, I said His logic surpasses ours.

Surpass means to go beyond, Anna.

Surpasses in capacity.

Of course God is capable of having a greater grasp of a situation. But that DOES NOT NECESSITATE that logic has different standards, one used God, and one used by man.

Logic is the same for God as it is for man.

You seem to be conflating God's capability of understanding everything about a situation with the idea that God can somehow know that which isn't knowable.

If there's a finite universe, and something is happening in that finite universe, then God can look at that universe and instantly know everything about it. But He can't know things about it that aren't true, except that he can know that those things aren't true. He can't know, for example, how many hairs are on the boogeyman's head, what a square circle looks like, that 1+1=3. or what it's like for Him to sin. These things are by definition irrational, and God cannot have experiential knowledge of these things. Why? The boogeyman doesn't exist, and therefore, you can't count something that is nonexistent. A square is not a circle, and a circle is not a square. 1+1=2, not 3. God has never sinned, and never will.

It's at a supernatural level that humans, limited by their humanity, cannot match or comprehend.

Yes, God is far more capable than humans. He made us.

But that DOES NOT MEAN that He can do or be or know the irrational!

To equate the human capacity for logic with God's capacity for logic is the ultimate pridefulness.

Now you're moving the goalposts. Earlier, you said "human logic," now you're saying "human capacity for logic," which are two VERY different concepts. Because I agree, Man's capacity for reason is much lower than God's. But that's an entirely different matter than the fact that God is the source of what we humans call logic and reason.

 

[annabenedetti]

Surpass means to go beyond, Anna.

In difference or in kind?

Of course God is capable of having a greater grasp of a situation. But that DOES NOT NECESSITATE that logic has different standards, one used God, and one used by man.

Logic is the same for God as it is for man.

You don't know that, JR. Only God knows whether your understanding is complete.

You seem to be conflating God's capability of understanding everything about a situation with the idea that God can somehow know that which isn't knowable.

If there's a finite universe, and something is happening in that finite universe, then God can look at that universe and instantly know everything about it. But He can't know things about it that aren't true, except that he can know that those things aren't true. He can't know, for example, how many hairs are on the boogeyman's head, what a square circle looks like, that 1+1=3. or what it's like for Him to sin. These things are by definition irrational, and God cannot have experiential knowledge of these things. Why? The boogeyman doesn't exist, and therefore, you can't count something that is nonexistent. A square is not a circle, and a circle is not a square. 1+1=2, not 3. God has never sinned, and never will.



Yes, God is far more capable than humans. He made us.

But that DOES NOT MEAN that He can do or be or know the irrational!

You, a human, are telling God what He can and cannot do.

Now you're moving the goalposts. Earlier, you said "human logic," now you're saying "human capacity for logic," which are two VERY different concepts. Because I agree, Man's capacity for reason is much lower than God's. But that's an entirely different matter than the fact that God is the source of what we humans call logic and reason.

No. Not moving the goalposts. I contend the same as I did then. If by trying to clarify what I meant you have a better understanding of what I meant, then good. But your understanding is semantic. When say "God's logic surpasses human logic" I mean both in scope and in perfection. We are imperfect, He is perfect. In everything and every way. Again: "I do think that you limit God by subjecting him to your human understanding of logic."

 

[Right Divider]

In difference or in kind?

There is only one "kind" of logic.

No. Not moving the goalposts. I contend the same as I did then. If by trying to clarify what I meant you have a better understanding of what I meant, then good. But your understanding is semantic. When say "God's logic surpasses human logic" I mean both in scope and in perfection We are imperfect, He is perfect. In everything and every way. Again: "I do think that you limit God by subjecting him to your human understanding of logic."

Logic is logic. There are not different kinds of logic. There are not different scopes of logic. etc. etc.

Understanding the application of logic is a different story.

 

[Clete]

Okay, sure, let's refer to a choice you make as 'T'. So, if God has foreknowledge (infallible by definition) that at some point you are going to do T then T at that point is what you will end up doing. Whether it's answering the phone, watching a film, going for a walk or whatever. That you're not going to do anything other than T in no way translates to your not having had the freedom to choose at that point, it's simply that God knows that T is what you are/were going to choose, that's it.

I don't understand why this is so difficult to get across...

You are making a claim here. It isn't an argument, it's simply a claim. What I've presented isn't just a claim but an actual argument, and a quite formal one at that, which has very clearly stated premises and each step of which, including the conclusion, follows from the those that precede.
The way reason works and the way rational debate is supposed to work, is that if you want to reject the conclusion of an argument, you need to either refute the validity of a premise to demonstrate how the argument doesn't logically follow. The key words there being REFUTE and DEMONSTRATE. Simply showing up and making claims doesn't get the job done!

So, which premise is false, AB? Where's is the flaw in the argument?

If you can't answer then all you're really doing is trying to say that logic doesn't work but that your proclamations somehow convey truth anyway.

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

You don't know that, JR. Only God knows whether your understanding is complete.

And you know better?

You, a human, are telling God what He can and cannot do.

Wrong. I, a rational human, am telling you, an irrational human, what God can rationally do, and what He rationally cannot do.

When say "God's logic surpasses human logic" I mean both in scope and in perfection. We are imperfect, He is perfect. In everything and every way.

So what? That does not mean He can therefore do the irrational.

Again: "I do think that you limit God by subjecting him to your human understanding of logic."

You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but the fact that Clete and I have presented a formal argument, and so far, both you and Arthur have failed to even TRY to demonstrate that that argument is invalid in some way, we can safely say that you're the irrational ones, and not us.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, Arty, it does, for the reasons outlined above.



It's because God infallibly knows it that you cannot do otherwise, Arty. That's not free will at that point.



Saying it doesn't make it so, Arty, and I and Clete have CLEARLY outlined the line of reasoning that NECESSITATES that if God infallibly knows T, then !T is impossible. You're welcome to try to disprove it, but so far, all you've done is whine and complain and project upon us that we're "conflating foreknowledge with some sort of influence."

Where in our line of reasoning Is that the case, Arty? You won't give specifics.



It's as simple as we've outlined.



By definition, a settled future does NOT allow for free will.

By definition, Arty. Not just because we say so. And we have explained why.



What you're doing is conflating what we're arguing against with predestination, by calling it "manipulation by God."



Liar.



No one said you were.



You were arguing that what we were saying about infallible foreknowledge was that it was "manipulation by God." That's not our position.



Again, we don't have the frame of reference to fully comprehend how long God has existed, but that does NOT mean that we can't understand that He has, in fact, existed forever.



Nope. Sorry. It doesn't. "Time" isn't a law that He created.



There's that "subjective objectivity" again.

Again: Logic IS.

God is the source of logic. He is reason itself.

God says "Come, let us reason together," and he communicates with us in a way we CAN understand.

Our understanding of "rational" comes from Him.



No one said it couldn't. The problem is that the meaning is literally given in the very next verse!

God is patient and capable. That's literally all it's saying.

And you seem to be ignoring the fact that the word "as" is used throughout.



Then you need to get your head checked, because things that are irrational should not seem rational to you.

"Outside of time" is an irrational concept. That's not me saying that. It is by definition irrational.

And Scripture doesn't allow for it anyways. God has a past, exists in the present, and looks forward to the future.

That's what scripture says.



The fact of the matter is that the note you hear in one octave is, in fact, a different frequency than the one you hear in another octave. Things that are different are not the same.



You realize that I wasn't saying that "A" an octave higher than another "A" should be called "H," right? Because that would be stupid.



Wrong, or at least, not completely correct.

Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow are primary colors for pigment.
Blue, Red, and Green are primary colors for light.

View attachment 2342
View attachment 2343



A few animals that can see ultraviolet.

9 Animals That Can Actually See in UV

Did you know that many animals are actually able to see in UV? Here are but a few of them.

interestingengineering.com

A few animals that can see infrared.

Animals That Can See Infrared Light

Cold-blooded animals such as blood-sucking insects, some snakes, fish and frogs can see infrared light.

sciencing.com

That's my point, Arty!



God cannot know or do the impossible, Arty, because BY DEFINITION IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!

You're literally saying that God can be irrational yet remain rational!

That's A CONTRADICTION! The law of noncontradiction states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true simultaneously in the same sense.

God is rational. He cannot do the irrational, because doing so would mean He is irrational.

There's a difference between saying "God can do something we cannot" and "because God can do something we cannot, therefore He must be capable of doing irrational things." The former is rational. The latter is, by definition, irrational.



It is, in fact, calling God irrational.

You're trying to say that A = !A. It won't work. The irrational one here is YOU!

You're conflating foreknowledge with a lack of free will. I've already acknowledged that if God has foreknowledge that you are going to choose something or decide an action then 'T' is what you are going to do. What I'm arguing against is the notion that foreknowledge precludes it. Any given day you will make any number of choices or actions regardless of whether anyone knows in advance or not. So, if God knows that one day you will answer the phone then how, at that given point, has your free will or choice in the issue been impacted? You haven't been destined or programmed to answer it, you simply choose to answer it and God knows this.

Not sure how having a contrary position on the subject is 'whining and complaining' exactly, especially considering you're the one who seems to be het up and feels the need to "shout" in this post.

Again, I'm not arguing for a 'settled future', certainly not of the sort that some Calvinists claim, whereby everything happens by sovereign decree. I think it was GM who once argued that Trump was elected to power via God's will and I don't hold with any of that or predestination as that would do away with any kind of choice or will. Nor am I lying about any of this so that was uncalled for on your part.

Your argument posits that foreknowledge neutralises free will because if God knows something that you're going to do then you can't deviate from it. My counter is as above.

Sure, you can describe something with words without being able to fully comprehend or imagine it. Eternity is one such thing outside of scope.

God isn't bound by time, the same way we are. We have a very narrow and limited perception where we're effectively constantly living in the present and limiting God's ability where it comes to the issue once again, doesn't strike me as particularly rational. God is bigger than our understanding or any particular belief. With regards to the passage then again, a verse can do one or more things and the use of the word "as" only underscores the point yet further that time in relation to God is not as we can experience.

It's quite funny that you bring subjectivism into logic as I've heard all manner of irrationality through to bat crazy views on here through the years and I wager all the proponents of such considered their position sane and logical. By way of, I don't need to get my head checked but thanks anyway! I'm not claiming that "God is outside of time" anyway but it's pretty clear that we have a very narrow understanding and experience of it in relation.

Of course a note one octave higher or lower has a different frequency but it's still the same note. 'C' one octave either way or multiple ones is 'C'. This is basic, rudimentary theory. So, back to my original point being that there are no other notes than A-G that we can experience or hear but who's to say that God couldn't create more. Yes, it would be stupid to claim that there's any 'H' note so read back what you initially wrote.

With regards to colour, then I read up rather a bit more on that and it is indeed more complicated than a cursory understanding gives.

Neither infrared or ultraviolet are 'new colours' simply because we can't see them.

I'm not claiming that God can know or do the impossible, rather that what might seem irrational or impossible to mere human beings doesn't apply to an all powerful God. There's a difference which surely you can understand?