Does God know the future?

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

This may have already been stated but time is a distinguished one-dimensional sub-space of spacetime. In other words it is a dimension of our universe and allows matter to exist and in a dynamic rather than a static state.

However, outside of our universe the physical constraints of our universe's time dimension are inapplicable. Hence, it is has no physics related constraint on God though God binds himself to events that occur in our time dimension in His Word.

One very interesting attribute of God is that He has, in His Word, and so therefore is able to predict the future though it hasn't occurred in our time dimension yet.

I agree with W. L. Craig that there is no such thing as "space-time." There is a correlation we can measure, just like we can with pressure and heat. But there is no such thing as "pressure-heat." It's just a convention of measurement. Like wise with supposed "space-time."

If we view it relationally, which I think is the correct view, then non-physical entities like God and angels can have time too.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I agree with W. L. Craig that there is no such thing as "space-time." There is a correlation we can measure, just like we can with pressure and heat. But there is no such thing as "pressure-heat." It's just a convention of measurement. Like wise with supposed "space-time."

If we view it relationally, which I think is the correct view, then non-physical entities like God and angels can have time too.

I really love Dr. Craig's materials. He's a bonafide expert on the resurrection (amongst other things). But he's no astrophysicist.

Our universe's spacetime is well established. I agree with you though that there can certainly be one or more time dimensions outside this universe.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

I really love Dr. Craig's materials. He's a bonafide expert on the resurrection (amongst other things). But he's no astrophysicist.

Our universe's spacetime is well established. I agree with you though that there can certainly be one or more time dimensions outside this universe.

First of all, I don't think being an astrophysicist makes one an expert on time. Einstein was a theoretical physicist, Minkowski was simply a mathematician, Newton was primarily a mathematician, and Aristotle was simply a philosopher (but his concept of time is still hard to get around). Besides, at that level, the questions involve more metaphysics and philosophy and than hard science.

Now I'm no astrophysicist either, but I don't think that the existence of "spacetime" is well established. The correlation may be well established, like the correlation between temperature and pressure, but this data doesn't necessarily imply a Minkowskian 4-dimensional spacetime. The same data can fit within a Lorentzian 3-dimensional model. (cf. Craig's Time and the Metaphysics of Relativity.)

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Every scientist and every peer-reviewed scholarly publication I've read in the past ten years asserts that spacetime is no longer in question.

Prior to 1970, astronomers knew the universe had a beginning but understood little about exactly how the universe got its start. Then two physicists, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, produced the first spacetime theorems of general relativity. Their theorem proved, within the framework of classical general relativity, that if the universe contains mass and if the equations of general relativity reliably describe the universe's dynamics, then its space and time dimensions must have had a beginning that coincides with the universe's origin. The proof that time was created has enormous philosophical implications.

Within the universe, time is the dimension in which cause-and-effect relationships occur. Effects follow their causes. So the beginning of cosmic time implies that an Agent (cause) outside the universe's spacetime dimensions is responsible for bringing into existence the space, time, matter, and energy (effects) astronomers observe.

Now a whole family of space-time theorems exists. These theorems apply to any expanding universe model wherein physical life could possibly exist. Specifically, they are applicable for all life-permitting inflationary hot big bang cosmic models as well as all life-suitable quantum gravity models.
(In inflationary hot big bang models, the effect of general relativity is augmented by a "scalar field" that stretched the universe at many times the velocity of light during a brief period when the universe was younger than a quadrillionth of a quadrillionth of a second.)

Cosmologists don't doubt that the universe contains mass. Neither do most people. However, at the time the first space-time theorem of general relativity was published, astronomers had performed only three independent tests of its reliability. And they had determined to only 1 percent precision that general relativity reliably describes the dynamics of the universe.

Today, astronomers have performed more than a dozen independent tests of general relativity and have confirmed the reliability of general relativity to describe the dynamics of the universe to better than 0.000000000001 percent precision.

Roger Penrose, coauthor of the first space-time theorem, said, "This makes Einstein's general relativity, in this particular sense, the most accurately tested theory known to science" -Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 230.

The thoroughness of testing and the precision of results combined with the breadth of the space-time theorems leave no reasonable basis for doubting that a causal Agent outside space and time brought the universe of space, time, matter, and energy into existence.

That said, Craig's objections are worth a serious look as a response to infinite, dynamic universes. Scientists typically regard infinities as a sign that they have entered a region where their theories are no longer valid. So, there may be good philosophical reasons to reject the notion that we live in a spatially infinite universe. Even so, the issue of the actual spatial extent of our universe still remains.
​

First of all, I don't think being an astrophysicist makes one an expert on time. Einstein was a theoretical physicist, Minkowski was simply a mathematician, Newton was primarily a mathematician, and Aristotle was simply a philosopher (but his concept of time is still hard to get around). Besides, at that level, the questions involve more metaphysics and philosophy and than hard science.

Now I'm no astrophysicist either, but I don't think that the existence of "spacetime" is well established. The correlation may be well established, like the correlation between temperature and pressure, but this data doesn't necessarily imply a Minkowskian 4-dimensional spacetime. The same data can fit within a Lorentzian 3-dimensional model. (cf. Craig's Time and the Metaphysics of Relativity.)

 

[lil-rush]

The point of a definition is to clarify the definiendum. An imprecise definition fails to do that. "Every event has a cause" is unclear. When we make it clear, it turns out to be just as "long-winded" as Kane's (minus the examples).

So sure, your clarified definition is sufficient, but then so is Kane's and so we could have just left it at that. I don't see that your clarified definition is any simpler than Kane's. And Kane's came with examples and illustrations, so that makes it even clearer. Most of the time, clearer is simpler.

I guess since I understand what I'm saying, I don't need examples or illustrations to make it clear to myself.

Of course there is the question of examples and illustrations being clear. If the examples and illustrations are just as confusing as the definition, then they aren't very helpful. For example, a class I took last semester had the most confusing textbook I have ever encountered. The definitions were long-winded, and the examples were completely worthless. Instead of helping to clarify the point, the examples just left me even more confused than I was before reading the examples. I kind of feel like your examples do the same thing, except not to the same degree since I don't have a burning desire to take your examples and do violent things to them.

I think what I've said previously already responds to this, but let me try again.

You suggest that my example is rigged to make it look like Jones couldn't have made a contrary choice. But when you give examples you just end up cheating, like Kane said.

You say, "He could choose chocolate because…"

That's cheating. It's changing the antecedent conditions.

A determinist can agree that if Jones were feeling self-destructive then he could have chosen chocolate. In other words, if the conditions had been different the outcome would have been different.

Yeah, I get the different conditions make for a different scenario thing. It just seems like the example given is set up in such a way that it makes it seem like people only ever have one logical choice for any given situation.

That doesn't defeat determinism, it falls perfectly in line with it. Perhaps you're confusing determinism with a type of Greek fatalism.

…

But this isn't the modern concept of determinism and it definitely doesn't reflect theological determinism. In this sophisticated determinism, the means play a role in what determines the ends. In this type of determinism you can't change the antecedent conditions, because they are part of what does the determining.

I don’t think I was confusing the two, but maybe I was. Seems like you would better know.

I wasn’t trying to change the antecedent conditions. Since you point it out, I realize I was doing it, though.

It's normal for us to think that we can explain our choice. We think we can explain why we do things, why we make the choices we do. (However, some interesting studies have been done that demonstrate that under certain conditions we're actually not very good at explaining our actions. See for example Nisbett and Wilson's paper, "Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes" in Psychological Review 48.3.)

I’ll have to look that up some time.

That's question begging. If Peter could have chosen not to do it then it means Jesus could either have false beliefs or be a liar. Being God, he couldn't have been a liar… and I think most Christians would agree that being God, he couldn't have false beliefs either. So Peter couldn't have chosen not to do it.

From Peter's point of view, he had the option of either denying or not denying Christ.

We see things as a sort of timeline too… and we're "inside" of time. I don't get how a timeline changes anything. Trying to make sense of the outside of time thing is really just a waste of time

starting to realize that

I didn't use words approximate to that either. As I said, no one is asking them to prove a negative.

But let's suppose that someone makes a claim that would require a negative proof. Let's say Richard Dawkins claims "God does not exist." How is it unfair to point out that he can't prove it??

I have no idea why you think I or anyone else has some obligation to be "fair" to someone who takes a position that is improvable… I'm not even sure what you think the fair thing to do is.

Going over this whole part of the discussion, I started out with a wrong understanding of what you were saying, and with a confused argument. Basically, my whole argument about this is wrong. What I was thinking is that it is wrong to try and prove a negative 100%, which is the opposite of what I was arguing.

I don't mind debate as long as the other person doesn't mind being wrong.

I don’t like being wrong. Ever. But I can accept when I’m wrong, which is kind of as good as not minding when I’m wrong.

 

[lil-rush]

I kind of feel like your examples do the same thing, except not to the same degree since I don't have a burning desire to take your examples and do violent things to them.

Correction on this statement: I shouldn't have said "your examples," because I pretty much understand your examples. I meant the examples you copied from that one guy. Kent was it?

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Every scientist and every peer-reviewed scholarly publication I've read in the past ten years asserts that spacetime is no longer in question.

Prior to 1970, astronomers knew the universe had a beginning but understood little about exactly how the universe got its start. Then two physicists, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, produced the first spacetime theorems of general relativity. Their theorem proved, within the framework of classical general relativity, that if the universe contains mass and if the equations of general relativity reliably describe the universe's dynamics, then its space and time dimensions must have had a beginning that coincides with the universe's origin. The proof that time was created has enormous philosophical implications.

Within the universe, time is the dimension in which cause-and-effect relationships occur. Effects follow their causes. So the beginning of cosmic time implies that an Agent (cause) outside the universe's spacetime dimensions is responsible for bringing into existence the space, time, matter, and energy (effects) astronomers observe.

Now a whole family of space-time theorems exists. These theorems apply to any expanding universe model wherein physical life could possibly exist. Specifically, they are applicable for all life-permitting inflationary hot big bang cosmic models as well as all life-suitable quantum gravity models.
(In inflationary hot big bang models, the effect of general relativity is augmented by a "scalar field" that stretched the universe at many times the velocity of light during a brief period when the universe was younger than a quadrillionth of a quadrillionth of a second.)

Cosmologists don't doubt that the universe contains mass. Neither do most people. However, at the time the first space-time theorem of general relativity was published, astronomers had performed only three independent tests of its reliability. And they had determined to only 1 percent precision that general relativity reliably describes the dynamics of the universe.

Today, astronomers have performed more than a dozen independent tests of general relativity and have confirmed the reliability of general relativity to describe the dynamics of the universe to better than 0.000000000001 percent precision.

Roger Penrose, coauthor of the first space-time theorem, said, "This makes Einstein's general relativity, in this particular sense, the most accurately tested theory known to science" -Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 230.

The thoroughness of testing and the precision of results combined with the breadth of the space-time theorems leave no reasonable basis for doubting that a causal Agent outside space and time brought the universe of space, time, matter, and energy into existence.

That said, Craig's objections are worth a serious look as a response to infinite, dynamic universes. Scientists typically regard infinities as a sign that they have entered a region where their theories are no longer valid. So, there may be good philosophical reasons to reject the notion that we live in a spatially infinite universe. Even so, the issue of the actual spatial extent of our universe still remains.

It may be that the majority of physicists are spacetime realists. But this doesn't in itself mean they have good reasons for that position.

One of the major problems with our culture is its current infatuation with scientism. We take it for granted that scientists have good reasons for their beliefs, without realizing that most of their conclusions are not related to their field of expertise but are grounded outside of that field (usually in unexamined metaphysical presuppositions). Penrose, for example, holds to rather ridiculous form of platonism.

I don't see where anything you've said above gives an argument for spacetime realism. Some of it seems irrelevant. We can accept GR and SR and even the creation of time without that. If you'd like to see how this works out, specifically in regards to persons like Hawking, which you mention, see Craig's The Tenseless Theory of Time, chapter 7.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Yeah, I get the different conditions make for a different scenario thing. It just seems like the example given is set up in such a way that it makes it seem like people only ever have one logical choice for any given situation.

It's not logically necessary, only accidentally. Saying "one logical choice" is a bit confusing since it might be taken to indicate logical necessity.

From Peter's point of view, he had the option of either denying or not denying Christ

I don't see this as relevant since Peter was mistaken in his beliefs about the matter. He believed he wouldn't deny Christ, but of course he was wrong. So consulting Peter's point of view doesn't provide us with any helpful information on the metaphysics of free will.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

P.S. I did find some arguments for God's timelessness via Aquinas, but as I suspected they lead to the conclusion that God is something like Aristotle's unmoved mover (which isn't too suprising given Aristotle's influence on Aquinas).

The arguments work from an unwarranted definition of divine simplicity and immutability. In both cases, God cannot change in any sense, even relationally (i.e. to time or persons). But it seems obvious that that doesn't fit the biblical picture of God. For example, the doctrine of propitiation requires God to change in his relation to persons and this is also temporal.

Sorry if I'm being too brief, but I don't have time for more.

 

[magaritha]

yes God does know our future he created us with a purpose and a destiney and all of us have a calling frome God
but we must walk in his will to know our futuer and destiney by giving our lives completly to him;by doing what he says
in his word.

 

[bonnie2]

This is something we can't understand until we get to Heaven. God never meant for us to understand everything; He is SUPPOSED to be wiser than us, completely above us. This is where faith comes in...we have to have faith that both are true. God has given us free will; we are not robots. He also is is complete control of everything

 

[bonnie2]

*in complete control

 

[hislastwalk]

he doesn't KNOW the future, he IS in the future, he's outside of time.. he's here right now, and he's there's in 2020. He knows the future I guess you could say, but he's everywhere.. it's not like he's predicting the future or seeing further, he's just outside of it all.

 

[Katy-follower]

Yes, we were given free will. God didn't want us to be robots, he wanted us to make our own choices. The main choice being whether we accept or reject him. What an amazing gift, to allow us to choose!

The angels were also given free will. We know this because Lucifer and several angels were cast out of heaven. They obviously had free will and Lucifer chose to be selfish, wanting to be higher than God.


Imagine if we were born and conditioned to accept Christ - how would we fully appreciate what he's done for us, and his unconditional love? Love is only true if it's given freely. If we weren't given free will, we would not be able to love him by our own choice.

As born again Christians, God does test our faith in him. We will all go through trials and tribulations. Just like an earthly father disciplines his child, so does God. It's easy to have faith in God when everything's going right, but what about when things go wrong? Do we turn to God? A bad situation should strengthen us and hopefully bring us closer to God, if we choose to turn to him in our time of need..praying and asking him for comfort and guidance... we learn that the only way we'll make it through a trial is by completely relying on God's grace, power and guidance. Your faith levels will grow because you see how he personally helps you through a difficult time.


Yes, God knows the future; he knows everything. Here are just two scriptures, but there are many more...

Isaiah 46:10: "Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done"

Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations"


Because of free will, we have the ability to accept or reject Him.

 

[Katy-follower]

Another question. If God knows the future, then why does he let bad things happen? Why doesn't he stop them if he only wants good things?

This is worth a read: http://www.bible-knowledge.com/trials-tribulations - covers trials and tribulations, how they test our faith, strengthen us and hopefully bring us closer to God.

 

[spiritual_consiousness]

Hello all. God created the Universe. Therefore He exists outside of space and time. Because this is the case, he can observe every possible outcome of every individual human being who could have existed, existed, currently exists, will exist, or can exist. So yes he does know the future. However due to Gods non-temporal nature, what we consider the future, to him is something else. God could be considered somewhat of a mathematician. Knowing all possible outcomes to the great formula or algorithm rather of existence. This ''algorithmic formula'' due to the nature of its incomprehensible complexity relative to diminutive human understanding, has the inherent nature of infinity upon infinity upon infinity (and so on) INFINITELY. God is not temporal, but ETERNAL, and resides within the realm of ETERNITY where there is no sense of TIME as we know it. Within the physical realm, a human being cannot conceive of what this actually means based on the five senses. However, one existing within the realm of ETERNITY, may be able to conceive of this by the grace of the Almighty, via perhaps the act of giving that individual senses beyond the five that exist in the physical realm. For example, within vision, a human being is only able to see visible light. However, visible light is only one aspect of the electromagnetic spectrum. In fact its pretty close to the middle, with radio waves and gamma, or cosmic rays on the respective terminal ends. Another example is perhaps being able to hear the color purple or see emotions, (not facial expressions, humans can be good deceivers) or even taste emotions. But I've gotten off on a tangent. God views all of existence (that based on human understanding) as an infinite tapestry, such as the likes of a painter viewing the canvass by which he/she has created a work of art. We as humans cannot see the Big Picture, because we RESIDE within it. Only God is able to take a few steps back, and view, what Reality actually looks like. Because of its restrictions within the physical realm, no amount of science or technology is able to quantify this empirically. It can only be done so SPIRITUALLY. Consider the Double Slit Experiment ,which worked on discovering the fact if light or electrons behave as particles or waves, and you will see why science fails at this. The conclusion that physicists came to was this: the simple act of observing actual physical entities at the quantum level changes those entities characteristics.

Perhaps if God conducted the experiment He would be able to tell us if light is a particle or wave. For it is He
and He alone who can see the future, and hence determine what the overall outcome would be! Lol

 

[nyla]

GOD KNOWS THE FUTURE HE WALKS AHEAD OF US EACH AND EVERY DAY GOD SETS OUT SIGNALS FOR US LIKE A ROAD SIDE AND HE BASICLY LETS US CHOOSE WEATHER WE GOING TO LET HIM LEAD US OR THE DEVIL, BUT MOST DAF GOD KNOWS THE FUTURE.

 

[Bushido8000]

Pretty interesting when you look at this question through trinitarian/nontrinitarian eyes

Mathew 24:36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,] but only the Father.

Does this verse work if Jesus is God? Nope, not unless you can really stretch the meaning of a verse to incredible lengths.

Does this work if Jesus is not God but the Son of God? ......Yes

So...Does the almighty and powerful God know the future? I believe His power is infinite and he can see into the future. I don't think this messes with our free will and whatnot though.

 

[luciddream1982]

This is something we can't understand until we get to Heaven. God never meant for us to understand everything; He is SUPPOSED to be wiser than us, completely above us. This is where faith comes in...we have to have faith that both are true. God has given us free will; we are not robots. He also is is complete control of everything

I agree 100%

 

[luciddream1982]

Pretty interesting when you look at this question through trinitarian/nontrinitarian eyes

Mathew 24:36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,] but only the Father.

Does this verse work if Jesus is God? Nope, not unless you can really stretch the meaning of a verse to incredible lengths.

Does this work if Jesus is not God but the Son of God? ......Yes

So...Does the almighty and powerful God know the future? I believe His power is infinite and he can see into the future. I don't think this messes with our free will and whatnot though.

Good question. Maybe it was just saying the Jesus while on earth and in the flesh didnt know???