What if God foreknew human reactions?

Well it's hard to say that your idea negates my point when you've actually assumed that our universe is NOT eternal with respect to the creation. And so far as I can see it's completely false to claim that your arguments show that your model or something like it is needed to have a sense of "prior". Certainly you've yet to offer any argument that couls possibly justify such a claim.Your response to my point 2 is also seriously in error. I simply pointed out that if thre are NO points in tiem that are "special" inregard to divine creation then ALL points in time must equally bepart of that divine action.With regard to your resposne to my point 3 since you are assuming a God who is not omniscient you aren't actually dealing with my argument.I would also point out that your model does not justify your claim that I am mixing up "God's time" and "our time". Ignoring time travel anyaction of God's which affects us either cannot be assigned a time in "our time" but is prior to the effect in "God's time" or it occurs prior to the effect in both times. In either case we should still describe it as occurring prior to the effect.

Well my advice to you is, that as a Beleiver, you should consider that the problem is in your beliefs. Unless you are completely closed-minded you should be able to adjust your beliefs to deal with the problem - as, in this case, cavediver has.Your parents had a lot to do with the way you are but they aren't God. They don't have the foresight. I'm sue that they did the best that they could. Surely God's greater knowledge and capabilities mean that He should be held to a higher standard than mere humans.But I really find the idea that God wants a "relationship" with us rather silly. Apart from the hints of Gnosticism it's a bit like me wanting an adult relationship with an ant - it isn't going to happen, the gulf is just too wide. Unless you're going to go Mormon and insist that you're going to become a God then the whole idea makes no sense at all.s

Well there are two wys to "accept"or "reject"GOd.The first way is to accept or reject the idea that God exists. Well I can do that - and in fact it seems to me that I have no choice but to reject in that sense.But surely the important thing is to knowingly accept or reject God as we would accept or reject a person - perhaps similar to a student accepting a mentor. But we can't do that unless we know that God exists and - for the decision to be valid - we would need know God well enough to make an informed choice. And that I am not in a position to do and never have been.spelledit by PBThis message has been edited by AdminPhat, 09-21-2005 02:06 PM

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.

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.

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

quote:

---

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.

---

NO that is NOT all we are debating. God's role in creating our universe is ALSO an essential part of my argument. Given that I have already had to correct you on this point I would have hoped that you would remember. And sinxe in your model Tg is important to THAT, Tg IS important.

quote:

---

Huh? And whose point of view is that? It is a perfect description of
an eternal universe in any sense that I am aware.

---

I explicitly stated the point of view in the section you quoted !
And your point in introducing an addiitonal time dimension was so that our universe would NOT be eternal in that dimension to get around the problem of how a truly eternal universe could have a creator. YOu can't honestly have it both ways.

quote:

---

Believe me, there is failure of understanding but it does not reside in me at the moment...

---

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are simply dead wrong in this assertion. After all you have failed to even remember what it is we are discussing.

quote:

---

We are talking about a god's omniscience wrt Th.

---

Wrong. My argument is based on the idea that God knows the future. Your super-cosmology complicates the picture by introducing two time-dimensions and two futures. It is my perogative to decide how this is to be dealt with in my argument - not yours.

quote:

---

Explain away.

---

Easy enough - especially as I already did it.. To repeat the point it is illegitmate to talk ogf God's actions in terms of Tg because we are not aware of it, then that must apply to your arguments as well as mine. Simple. Where is the problem ??

All sorts of things COULD be true. Catholic Scientist's idea of God isn't one of them. In my view many other Christian ideas of God are also impossible, but not all of them.But to say that something COULD be true is to say very little. If that is the best you can say of it then you haven't got a good reason to think that it is true.Could Christianity be a complete fraud which exists only to feed a soul-eating demon ? It could. But I don't believe that even though it doesn't make any less sense to me than orthodox Christianity

Do you think that your chance of survival depends on what you beleive ?Some - not that uncommon - Christian views hold that you will be tortured for eternity if you happened to belong to the wrong Church. I'd rather cease to exist than face that.And here's one of the issues I have with Christianity - no just and merciful God who wants to save everyone would make salvation dependent on doctrinal correctness when there is no way for us to know what the correct doctrine really is.