Can We Experience Relationship With God in a Non-Open World

[Drew]

1. Science requires that there exist objective evidence in favor of these entities. There is none.
2. Science requires that we could repeatedly run experiments that demonstrate the existence and behavior of these entities. There are none.
3. Science requires that these entities exist independently of the observer's beliefs (or lack thereof) regarding them. They do not.

Regarding each of your three statements:

1. I never, repeat never, claimed that there was evidence for these entities. I merely claimed that in a possible world, there could be. The only thing I need to show to support my claim that a "scientific" model could be based on such entities.

2. If we repeatedly ran experiments where puppy stomping was followed by being hit by lightning, this would be as much an experiment as a repeated experiment where muons decayed after blasted with photons (or whatever). Both are repeatable.

3. This is an interesting statement on your part. I presume that you believe that "atoms, muons, gluons, etc" exist independently of the observer's belief in them. I certainly believe that atoms (as an example) are a construction of the human mind. I think one of the most widespread misunderstandings of science is that scientists are claiming these atoms really exist. I believe most scientists would say they are making no such statement. Instead, the atom is a model, a representation, expressed in conceptual and mathematical terms that we can understand and use.

So we come up with the standard model because it describes our world. It is not sensible to say that "atoms exist independently of the observer's beliefs", precisely because atoms are a conceptual model that constitutes (makes up) our belief. The atom is a model, not a "thing out there".

In any event, we came up with the standard model because it described our world well and allowed repeatable experiments. The same could be the case for a model of a world (I will now hop up and down to say that I am not necessarily talking about our world, but about a possible world) like the one I am talking about. Your objection 3, if it applies to anything, applies to both the standard model and to the unorthodox model that I am talking about.

I hope to respond to the rest of your post later.

 

[Drew]

My simplest response, at least until you respond and I hopefully develop a better understanding of your position, is an obvious one: the universe you describe is, quite simply, not our own. Bad people are not always struck dead, evil people do not always kick puppies, and so on. In fact, I challenge you to find any cause-and-effect event chain that we can say will ALWAYS happen in ALL situations with ONE HUNDRED percent certainty. I honestly can't think of one, offhand.

OK. It is now clear that there is a HUGE misundertanding between us (with no blame for this asserted either way). I am trying to defend the notion that the kind of model that I am talking about could describe some possible world - not necessarily our world. I am talking about what makes a model a "scientific" model and I am showing how some other world might be put together in such a manner that it could be scientifically modeled using the rather unorthdodox ideas that I have very briefly touched on. You will, of course, know that I have not really described my model at all. There is a simple reason for this - I am "making it up as I go", based on a prior intuition. So while I will try to elaborate this "model" more clearly, I think you will understand that this is not a trivial task, and it may fall apart almost immediately.

Let's talk about universe X (not necessarily ours). My main point is that scientists in universe X, using the principles of science that Drew and Novum agree on (I think we agree on the principles of science) might come up with a model for that universe that makes use of concepts of morality if that universe is put together in such a way that such a model would conform to the principles of science. So, in that universe, (loosely speaking), "evil people always kick puppies" just like object always fall at 9.8 m/s/s in ours.

In order to not make any one post too long, I will stop, with the realization that I owe you some more stuff.

 

[TanNinety]

Drew and Novum, you have a good discussion going, keep on with it and just consider this a "drive by" posting.

Can We Experience Relationship With God in a Non-Open World

Drew, my answer is YES. Consider the current state of the world, this world and let us assume it is closed i.e., every bit of it is orchestrated and controlled by God. Not one action is taking place which hasn't been orchestrated by God. Now can we experience a relationship with God? Yes, because this experience is programmed into us and our minds by God.

It's easy to explain. Hypothetically: I successfully hypnotized a random girl to fall in love with me and live a romantic life. Even though she is programmed to do the loving, this experience, the feelings are still true to her, in her, just ignorant of the fact of her being hynotized. She will hold these experiences true or free will choices not knowing she is under an influence.

Now, can this be possible with divine hypnosis like influence? I would say yes. But the question is, is this true? Is God really orchestrating everything?

To answer that question we need to consider this question "Can God Experience Relationship With man in a Non-Open World"
A "YES" answer to this question would be as much a "YES" answer to the question "Is there love between the lovers in necrophilia?"
And that is the reason why I believe there is openness in God’s love, not because we can’t have a relationship without it but because He cant have a true meaningful relationship with His creation without it.

 

[Drew]

Hi Tan-Ninety:

It seems you have been away for a while? Good to have you back.

I think there is one hitch in your "girl being hypnotized" analogy. Unlike your hypothetical girl, we (at least the "determinists / Calvinists" among us) indeed believe that our responses to God are "orchestrated". This knowledge is highly problematic in my view and will inevitably taint our experience (unlike the hypnotized girl who is ignorant). If we know our responses are orchestrated, the relationship we have with God is void of any of the things that make relationships real to us who live in the real world.

I admit that I have not really explained why I think we need to be free to "love God back" in order for the relationship to be "real". Perhaps my intuition will turn out to be wrong in this regard.

 

[Drew]

Both of these opinions about God's power in the areas of knowing the future exhaustively, and His control of the world are based on what I beleive Scripture teaches.

Hi lovely:

What do you make of the following text from 2 Kings 20 (with bolding added by me):

1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover." 2 Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, 3 "Remember, O LORD, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes." And Hezekiah wept bitterly. 4 Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him: 5 "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD. 6 I will add fifteen years to your life. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for my sake and for the sake of my servant David.' " 7 Then Isaiah said, "Prepare a poultice of figs." They did so and applied it to the boil, and he recovered.

This text will not be unfamiliar to some of you. I think this text is pretty much a slam dunk against God's exhaustive foreknowledge. The only respectable explanation I have heard from a believer in God's exhaustive foreknowledge is that there is an unwritten caveat to the "you will not recover" statement, namely that it really should be understood as "you will not recover unless you pray" and, of course, God know that Hez would indeed pray. Fine

Well, this is not what the text says, and adding such a caveat does substantially change the meaning. However, for the sake of argument, let's say that we accept the possibility that some texts need to be subject to such "implied qualifications". This same kind of argument can be used in regard to texts like Psal 139:16:

"Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them."

What if I were to propose an "implied qualifier" to the effect that "the days were ordained, subject to your following my ways".

Now please tell me, which "addition" is more justified and why.

 

[TanNinety]

Thank you Drew. I had to clear my mind up and re-evaluate my beliefs. Hence, the absence from the board. Sometimes we get caught up in defending a position that we often step into a phase of not willing to have an open mind (un/knowingly) on the subject which is disastrous to discussions like these and to ones thinking. Not sure if I can stay very long because I have some projects come up at work which are taxing my time.

we (at least the "determinists / Calvinists" among us) indeed believe that our responses to God are "orchestrated". This knowledge is highly problematic in my view and will inevitably taint our experience (unlike the hypnotized girl who is ignorant). If we know our responses are orchestrated, the relationship we have with God is void of any of the things that make relationships real to us who live in the real world.

True. We are on the same page on this one.

What I was trying to imply in my post was that God is capable of having us “ignorant†of this fact that He “foreordains everything†in which case we being ignorant will enjoy a meaningful relationship with Him just like the ignorant hypnotized girl, but He will not be able to enjoy the same with us.
So God being open stems not from His inability to keep us ignorant of His “all ordaining†self, but His will to have a meaningful relationship with His creation.

He designed an open world not because He couldn’t have made us have a meaningful relationship with Him, but because He couldn’t have had a meaningful relationship with us without it. The fact that knowing all our actions are pre-determined makes you and me lose a sense of relationship with God is proof enough that He designed an open world, because in an IDEAL closed world God would have designed it such a way that this knowledge would not bother your and my relationship with Him.

I think our conclusions are the same though we are starting at two different points.

 

[JM]

Both of these opinions about God's power in the areas of knowing the future exhaustively, and His control of the world are based on what I beleive Scripture teaches.

Hi lovely:

What do you make of the following text from 2 Kings 20 (with bolding added by me):

1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover." 2 Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, 3 "Remember, O LORD, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes." And Hezekiah wept bitterly. 4 Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him: 5 "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD. 6 I will add fifteen years to your life. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for my sake and for the sake of my servant David.' " 7 Then Isaiah said, "Prepare a poultice of figs." They did so and applied it to the boil, and he recovered.

This text will not be unfamiliar to some of you. I think this text is pretty much a slam dunk against God's exhaustive foreknowledge. The only respectable explanation I have heard from a believer in God's exhaustive foreknowledge is that there is an unwritten caveat to the "you will not recover" statement, namely that it really should be understood as "you will not recover unless you pray" and, of course, God know that Hez would indeed pray. Fine

Well, this is not what the text says, and adding such a caveat does substantially change the meaning. However, for the sake of argument, let's say that we accept the possibility that some texts need to be subject to such "implied qualifications". This same kind of argument can be used in regard to texts like Psal 139:16:

"Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them."

What if I were to propose an "implied qualifier" to the effect that "the days were ordained, subject to your following my ways".

Now please tell me, which "addition" is more justified and why.

Quote: God heals him and adds 15 years to his life. How does God know that, say, in 5 years, some assasin or deranged person stabs the king and kills him?

Or maybe the king falls off a cliff? or whatever?

The point is that how is it that a God, who [according to Open Theists] cannot see the future, can guarantee 15 years to a man's life.

Does God set the times of birth and death? And if so, how can he do so if He doesnt at least know the circumstances that will lead to a person's death?

How can God make such statements if He has no knowledge or control over the circumstances. What is the means of God's foreknowledge anyway? While God knows all that will happen He has also predetermined those things. God's providence is written all over this from chapter 18 - 20.


How would you respond to this rationale? [Drew's rationale] If God knew Hezekiah was going to plead with Him for extended life and if God knew He was going to give Hezekiah the extended life, why did God make the first statement of Hezekiah's death if it was not going to happen?

The parallel passages of 2 Ch 32:24-26 and Isa 38:1-22 supplement what is not mentioned in 2 Kings 20. God is dealing with Hezekiah's pride and lack of trust in God. Hezekiah had greatly strayed from his original position in 2Ki 18:5

"He trusted in the LORD, the God of Israel; so that after him there was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor among those who were before him." (2Ki 18:5 NASB)

Hezekiah trusted in his own devices. God is bringing him to repentence and by a means contrary to Hezekiah's devices and sin... via dependence upon the grace of God. God removes the pride and forces the issue. God is in control. It was never God's intention for Hezekiah to die as in v1 but to use strong and efficacious rebuke to bring him to repentance. To say otherwise is to contradict scripture and make God out to be a liar. God is saying repent or this will happen.

"Yet He also is wise and will bring disaster And does not retract His words, But will arise against the house of evildoers And against the help of the workers of iniquity." (Isa 31:2 NASB)

"In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us." (Heb 6:17-18 )


"Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'; (Isa 46:9-10)

"For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed. (Mal 3:6)

 

[lovely]

Hi Drew,

I remember that thread, and probably answered part of it, but I imagine I would disagree with my answer. Let me respond again.

First of all, I think if we are going to put a prequalifier on anything it must be consistent with who God says He is, and be proven by the text itself. This may be done by cultural studies of the time, historical books that provide names and dates, by language searches, and so on. But to just add in words to make it support, or not support a man-made doctrine, is not to be done. We are warned by the Word not to this. Do not add, or subtract from the Word of God.

We may have to distinguish between the decrees of God, and the statements of God when we are considering a verse. The question arises, in my mind, if God can change a prophecy, or an out come, based on prayer is it because God knew the prayer was going to take place? I mean, repentance, healings, raising the dead, and the like are all based in our prayers, but only God can accomplish it. It it is in His will to do so He will, and our prayers are to include this. Christ told us to pray that God's will be done. Christ did this in the garden "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me, but not my will, thine be done." Does Christ tell us to pray God's will because it may not happen if we do not? Is God's will bound by the working of our prayers? I do not believe so. I believe in light of Who God says He is, and in light of our instructions to pray His will, that our prayer is a predestined means set up by which God has chosen to fulfill His will?

This brings me to an even more root question. Is God bound by time at all? Is He not, by nature of being the I Am that I Am, God the Creator, outside of His own Creation?

I think the answer to your post is simply that God is outside of time, and that the even though God told Him He was going to die, because of His prayer, his life was extended. It is that simple, but it does not somehow make the idea of it being destined wrong at all. The prequalifer isn't needed. The Nature of God is that He is outside of this realm, and the principals by which He destins man, and relates to man, are set up by Him, but He is not subject to them. Time, space, and mattter are good examples.

Man is destined because God is All-knowing. He knew prior to Creation that Christ would die on the cross...Revelations speaks to this. Yet Christ died on the cross at a specific time in man's time line of history. How can the two be? It is because God's nature is not bound by His creation. He has no beginning and no end, yet we do. "In the beginning God created" Genesis 1:1 This is where we started, but I AM that I Am was, is, and will be.

I wish I were better at apologetics sometimes. The Lord bless you today.

 

[Drew]

I think the answer to your post is simply that God is outside of time, and that the even though God told Him He was going to die, because of His prayer, his life was extended. It is that simple, but it does not somehow make the idea of it being destined wrong at all. The prequalifer isn't needed. The Nature of God is that He is outside of this realm, and the principals by which He destins man, and relates to man, are set up by Him, but He is not subject to them. Time, space, and mattter are good examples.

I must confess that I do not understand how the assertion that God is outside of time solves the problem. Do you believe that your explanation is as precise as you can make it? If so, we may just have incompatible communication styles - so be it. Let me try to be excruciatingly precise:

1. God informs Hezekiah that he (Hezekiah) will die. This declaration is given to Hezekiah at some discrete point in time.

2. This is an utterance from God (via the prophet) and therefore it cannot be a lie, if we believe that God does not lie (as the scriptures claim).

3. If God exhaustively knows the future, and the statement is indeed a statement about Hez's future, the statement must be a lie, in light of the fact that Hez recovers later. The statement simply cannot be a statement from God about Hez's future, since we know it fails to come true and God cannot be a liar. If God makes a statement about Hez's future and does not exhaustively know the future, He is still really lying since He represents the future as certain when it in fact is not.

4. If it is not a statement about Hez's future, what is it a statement about? And how can it not make God a liar.

5. I think it is a statement about intent.

6. If God does not exhaustively know the future, we can indeed rescue God from being a liar. How? By asserting that God had the intent to let Hez die and later changed his mind. God is not a liar under this scenario - He merely has expressed an intent through his statement "you will not recover". And his mind was changed

7. The fact that God may be outside of time is irrelevant to the above argument. The reason for this is that at the time of the delivery of the announcement "you are going to die" to Hez, this announcement becomes a statement about the real world that is governed bya timeline. God is making a statement about a time-governed world - it matters what his statement is about, whether or not He himself is in or outside of time.

Now I would ask you, if possible to point out the flaws in this argument.

 

[R7-12]

The one who spoke to Isaiah was the one who became Christ. He was given the title Yahovah long ago, as were other messengers of the Most High. He was given charge over Israel by delegation of the Father (THE Yahovah) as the elohim of the House of El or the God of Beth-el.

When Almighty God speaks to us it is always through His Messenger, His Voice - the Word of God.

No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him (John 1:18, NKJV).

And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form (John 5:37).

No one has seen God at any time. (1 John 4:12a).

He was the Angel of Yahovah and spoke directly with the prophets as the voice (word) of Almighty God as in the case of Abraham. He is also called the Face of God, the Angel of the Presence, the Captain of the Host of God, and by many other titles.

But the Angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!†So he said, “Here I am.†12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.†13 Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 And Abraham called the name of the place, The-LORD-WILL-PROVIDE; as it is said to this day, “In the Mount of The LORD it shall be provided.†15 Then the Angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time out of heaven, 16 and said: “By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD (says Almighty God), because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son 17 “blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. 18 “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.†(Gen. 22:11-18).

The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.†2 The LORD shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of Your enemies! (Psalm 110:1-2).

There are many additional texts that bear this out. I recommend a thorough study on the matter for everyone who is genuinely interested in this biblical fact.

This also explains your dilemma with the prophecy concerning Hezekiah.

R7-12

 

[Novum]

1. I never, repeat never, claimed that there was evidence for these entities. I merely claimed that in a possible world, there could be. The only thing I need to show to support my claim that a "scientific" model could be based on such entities.

No. Our definitions of words like "evidence", "scientific", and "hypothesis" are based completely and entirely on how things operate in our world. If, in an alternate universe, bad people were always struck by lightning, then I imagine that these three words - and others - would have very different meanings. But given that our universe is, by definition, the only universe in which we know how to operate, your worldview cannot be accepted as scientific.

2. If we repeatedly ran experiments where puppy stomping was followed by being hit by lightning, this would be as much an experiment as a repeated experiment where muons decayed after blasted with photons (or whatever). Both are repeatable.

In the alternate universe, yes. You're merely building a case that your worldview could be accepted as scientifically valid in another world; but not here.

3. This is an interesting statement on your part. I presume that you believe that "atoms, muons, gluons, etc" exist independently of the observer's belief in them. I certainly believe that atoms (as an example) are a construction of the human mind. I think one of the most widespread misunderstandings of science is that scientists are claiming these atoms really exist. I believe most scientists would say they are making no such statement. Instead, the atom is a model, a representation, expressed in conceptual and mathematical terms that we can understand and use.

So we come up with the standard model because it describes our world. It is not sensible to say that "atoms exist independently of the observer's beliefs", precisely because atoms are a conceptual model that constitutes (makes up) our belief. The atom is a model, not a "thing out there".

Stop the presses! Hold the phones! Pull the emergency brake on the train!

Drew, what are these things?

Hint: "Ti" means Titanium, "Sr" means Strontium.

 

[TanNinety]

So we come up with the standard model because it describes our world. It is not sensible to say that "atoms exist independently of the observer's beliefs", precisely because atoms are a conceptual model that constitutes (makes up) our belief. The atom is a model, not a "thing out there".

Stop the presses! Hold the phones! Pull the emergency brake on the train!

Drew, what are these things?

Hint: "Ti" means Titanium, "Sr" means Strontium.

I know its a theory but so were many science facts before they were proven experimentally. Now string theory says that atoms are made up of vibrating energy bands. These vibrations are multi-dimensional, more than 6 or some number thereof. Now if this is proven to be true ..atoms are no longer "particles" or "things out there" like Drew put it, but just energy bands. Wouldn't that change our current scientific model? Or are you content that electrons and protons cannot be disected any more and science has reached its limits on explaining what they constitute of, Novum? If you are not content, what is wrong about what Drew has quoted?

 

[Novum]

I know its a theory but so were many science facts before they were proven experimentally. Now string theory says that atoms are made up of vibrating energy bands. These vibrations are multi-dimensional, more than 6 or some number thereof. Now if this is proven to be true ..atoms are no longer "particles" or "things out there" like Drew put it, but just energy bands. Wouldn't that change our current scientific model? Or are you content that electrons and protons cannot be disected any more and science has reached its limits on explaining what they constitute of, Novum? If you are not content, what is wrong about what Drew has quoted?

I think you might be somewhat misunderstanding the point I was trying to make, Tan.

We already know that electrons and protons are made of quarks and antiquarks; science has certainly not reached its limit in that respect. Now, I'm not up to snuff on my string theory reading, but for now let's assume that atoms are constructed of "energy bands" as you claim. Even if string theory is shown to be true (the current scientific consensus, I believe, seems to be working against string theory), then that will not change the existence of atoms; nor will it change the fact that matter is comprised of them.

 

[Klee shay]

I have been following this discussion for quite a while now; and haven't felt confident in my own mind to contribute as such yet. A possibility struck me today however.

I believe it is possible to have a relationship with God in a non-open world, and the means came via Jesus. God can still remain God as defined in the scriptures - unchanging and righteous; but we now have another means in which to relate to him. Through Jesus.

So in a sense I can see where your logic is coming from, but we aren't relating to the God now that the Jews were before Jesus came. Jesus declared that he is the only door by which we can come to the Father and a man that came by any other means was the same as a thief and a robber.

It's a very subtle understanding, but I feel it's important as Christians we understand that everything we feel pertaining to the Father now, comes only through the Son. There is a purpose for it being this way which I cannot define concisely at this point in time; for there is much I'm still learning. If it comes from God however; then it has to be righteous and purposeful in our relationship with him.

God doesn't change but we can through relating to His Son.

 

[Klee shay]

1. God informs Hezekiah that he (Hezekiah) will die. This declaration is given to Hezekiah at some discrete point in time.

2. This is an utterance from God (via the prophet) and therefore it cannot be a lie, if we believe that God does not lie (as the scriptures claim).

3. If God exhaustively knows the future, and the statement is indeed a statement about Hez's future, the statement must be a lie, in light of the fact that Hez recovers later. The statement simply cannot be a statement from God about Hez's future, since we know it fails to come true and God cannot be a liar. If God makes a statement about Hez's future and does not exhaustively know the future, He is still really lying since He represents the future as certain when it in fact is not.

4. If it is not a statement about Hez's future, what is it a statement about? And how can it not make God a liar.

5. I think it is a statement about intent.

6. If God does not exhaustively know the future, we can indeed rescue God from being a liar. How? By asserting that God had the intent to let Hez die and later changed his mind. God is not a liar under this scenario - He merely has expressed an intent through his statement "you will not recover". And his mind was changed

7. The fact that God may be outside of time is irrelevant to the above argument. The reason for this is that at the time of the delivery of the announcement "you are going to die" to Hez, this announcement becomes a statement about the real world that is governed bya timeline. God is making a statement about a time-governed world - it matters what his statement is about, whether or not He himself is in or outside of time.

Now I would ask you, if possible to point out the flaws in this argument.

Consider it this way...God could know the future and tell Hezekiah that he would die (and here's the bit that doesn't make God a liar) BASED on Hezekiah's state of heart.

"This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover." This is the word of God given to the prophet BEFORE Hez wept bitterly and prayed for God to remember the righteousness he had practiced before him.

Then afterwards, God said to his prophet, "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD. 6 I will add fifteen years to your life. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for my sake and for the sake of my servant David.' "

God may well have known this is what Hezekiah would do in the end; but he wasn't going to tell him that before he wept bitterly of his own free will; and remembered where the balance of life and death came from.

It was a predetermined fact that Hezekiah would die based on his current state of heart...but it was also a predetermined fact that Hezekiah would weep bitterly praying for God to remember his righteousness; and then God could act accordingly. If God had not acted out his righteousness in this way - who would be given glory for healing Hezekiah and delivering the Lord's people from the king of Assyria? Would Hezekiah be given the glory instead...for here is a man that beat a serious illness and defeated the king of Assyria as well - would they have all remembered God did it?

David was a man after God's own heart and always gave the glory back to God. Hezekiah on the other hand may have been tempted to keep some of the glory for himself; and so may the people he led. God is most certainly wise is his predetermined knowledge, but he doesn't always reveal his reasons to mankind. :wink:

 

[lovely]

I will try to answer you, but it may already be as precise as I can make it. We will see after you read my post. I want to acknowledge that I am not completely able to wrap my mind around what I believe the Bible teaches on this matter. I think it is much like the Holy Trinity in that respect. I believe Scripture teaches it, but I do not fully grasp it. I know that complicates my attempt to communicate, but I want to try. As far as my own knowing, where my understanding ends my faith begins, I suppose, it does stretch past my own limts to be sure.

1. God did declare to Hezekia that He would not recover, and I believe that God meant it, and I also believe that He knew it would not ultimately happen. I think these two things can coexist in God’s nature without making God a liar. The moment God declared that Hezekia would die, that was true. God wasn’t just pretending, or manipulating. It was true up until the moment Hezekia prayed. Do you think that Hezekia would have died had he not prayed? I do. It was a statement about his future, and God knew it was true. So did Hezekia, and that is why he wept so bitterly. God did know that Hezekia would pray, and that His prayer would be granted. It was in His (God's) Will. If it was not in His will, Hezekia would have not recovered. We see the opposite when Christ prayed, and asked God to allow the bitter cup of His wrath to pass from Him. It was not in God’s Holy Will to grant such a request, even though Christ’s sweat was as blood.


2. I believe that God’s Eternal Plan, Will, and Purpose, encapsulates and utilizes, Man’s sin, His momentary declarations and eternal decrees, Man’s prayers, His true, and Holy, attributes as they exist in His own Nature, Man’s limits concerning His own natural existence, God’s limitless power as He exists outside of His creation, His ability to grant, or not grant, prayers, His Holy Spirit, and so on. It basically contains all that happen. If God’s control, or knowledge of the future is limited, why does Christ instruct us to pray Thy Will be done on earth as it is in Heaven? What is this will that we are supposed to pray for, and is it less powerful if we do not pray it? I believe it is God’s Eternal Plan happening as He designed it to before time, and that nothing will stop it.


3. I believe that knowing all the future, or being able to control it, does not necessitate God a liar, but knowing only part of it, and not being able to control it, does. I believe that to be true in light of all Scripture. All-knowing, and All-powerful, are supported throughout.

4. I reject the idea of open-ness being needed to relate to God, and I believe that it is by His terms alone that come to Him. See my first post concerning the Gospel, and the state of our relationships before, and after, belief. Also note that self-denial relates greatly to this.

5. If you add a prequalifier to these verses, it should coincide with who God says He is. His Word should support the prequalifier throughout. God says in many places that He knows all the future, and that things are destined, and that people are destined. We see very detailed prophecy fulfilled, and more to come. You would have to add a lot of prequalifiers to God’s Word to make all of this fit in with the idea that God only knows part of the future, and only has partial control. It would require rewriting God’s Word.


6. God not being subject to His creation is the root problem with your argument. He is outside of time, and knowing the future, frankly, is a piece of cake for Him. Him not being subject to His creation has a huge bearing on what you are saying, because you are making Him subject to it by attemting to reduce His power (in your own mind) so that you can obtain a better understanding of Him, and relate to Him better. It does just the opposite, in fact, it is a deception, and makes God a liar. Christ died so that we could have a relationship with Him. Diminishing God's power makes the Gospel irrelevant. He is God, and we are not.

7. I do not believe that God can be fully comprehended. If God’s nature is supernatural, how are we as natural men going to be able to fully understand it? We want to, but never seem to be able to come up with a perfect explanation. How did Christ die for us before the world began, and also in a time frame of our world? I am resolved that much is beyond our understanding, and that to try and make it fit by changing God’s Word, is very sinful. It is a distortion. The more I know Him, the more I know I do not know much. This is cliche, but so true. We should be awestruck by God, and it should overwhelm our thoughts to try and think of who He is. I relate to God, as a believer, in Spirit and in Truth, not in a fleshly sinful mind. The Lord bless you.

 

[Drew]

1. I never, repeat never, claimed that there was evidence for these entities. I merely claimed that in a possible world, there could be. The only thing I need to show to support my claim that a "scientific" model could be based on such entities.

No. Our definitions of words like "evidence", "scientific", and "hypothesis" are based completely and entirely on how things operate in our world. If, in an alternate universe, bad people were always struck by lightning, then I imagine that these three words - and others - would have very different meanings. But given that our universe is, by definition, the only universe in which we know how to operate, your worldview cannot be accepted as scientific.

You have no presented no justification to presume that there cannot be hypotheses, evidence, and hypotheses in another world. It seems entirely reasonable to assume that these concepts would have meaning in any universe with intelligent beings, whatever the content of their model of that universe turns out to be. You have really provided no reason to believe why these concepts can only have meaning in our universe.

A scientific model is just a model that predicts outcomes of experiments. Whether it's components are atoms or little goblins, intelligent beings can make hypotheses, construct tests, and gather data. You seem to be suggesting that science cannot exist in other universes. That is a tall claim which I think needs more justification.

 

[Drew]

2. If we repeatedly ran experiments where puppy stomping was followed by being hit by lightning, this would be as much an experiment as a repeated experiment where muons decayed after blasted with photons (or whatever). Both are repeatable.

In the alternate universe, yes. You're merely building a case that your worldview could be accepted as scientifically valid in another world; but not here.

I suspect that you are not going to like what I have to say next. While I have hitherto been very careful to talk about "possible" worlds, I am going to bite the bullet and now propose that a "morality-based" model (or something like it) could indeed turn out to be a good scientific model in our universe.

Now, this will take some work, so please do not expect something in the next day or two. Plus, I have been using the word "morality-based" very loosely - so please do not necessarily expect me to invoke "morality particles".

Submitted for your consideration: You have an unexamined pre-disposition to accept only "mechanistic" models as possible scientific descriptions of the world.

 

[Novum]

I suspect that you are not going to like what I have to say next. While I have hitherto been very careful to talk about "possible" worlds, I am going to bite the bullet and now propose that a "morality-based" model (or something like it) could indeed turn out to be a good scientific model in our universe.

Then I would recommend your next step be answering the questions I posed earlier in this thread that you have thus far ignored. Reposted here:

What do we gain by adopting your worldview? How will science be changed? How will our lives be altered? What good will be done for mankind?

I'm also curious to read your description of the image I posted earlier, as well.

Submitted for your consideration: You have an unexamined pre-disposition to accept only "mechanistic" models as possible scientific descriptions of the world.

Could you define what you mean by "mechanistic"?

 

[Novum]

No. Our definitions of words like "evidence", "scientific", and "hypothesis" are based completely and entirely on how things operate in our world. If, in an alternate universe, bad people were always struck by lightning, then I imagine that these three words - and others - would have very different meanings. But given that our universe is, by definition, the only universe in which we know how to operate, your worldview cannot be accepted as scientific.

You have no presented no justification to presume that there cannot be hypotheses, evidence, and hypotheses in another world.

That is not my position, nor have I ever made that claim.

It seems entirely reasonable to assume that these concepts would have meaning in any universe with intelligent beings, whatever the content of their model of that universe turns out to be. You have really provided no reason to believe why these concepts can only have meaning in our universe.

You are misunderstanding me. My point is that, in a world where bad people were always struck by lightning, science would have evolved over time to be something so unlike what we have on Earth that, were we to visit this alternate universe, we wouldn't even recognize one of their science books. I can't even begin to speculate what explanations they would derive for why bad people were always struck by lightning, but it is practically assured that it wouldn't resemble the causes of lightning here on Earth.

A scientific model is just a model that predicts outcomes of experiments. Whether it's components are atoms or little goblins, intelligent beings can make hypotheses, construct tests, and gather data. You seem to be suggesting that science cannot exist in other universes. That is a tall claim which I think needs more justification.

Again, that is not at all my position.