I agree - if your statement is applied to the created order (creation) - its evinced by the increasing number of grey hairs accumulating on your head, and the tears we have shed at innumerable funerals.
The premise that "Time does not exist outside a thinking mind" is a methodology whereby Open Theism adherents hope to undermine the classical definition of Gods omniscience, especially in regard to the classical notion that he has determined all things.
I think it is a side pursuit of some that are Open Theists.
Why do you think JudgeRightly and Clete actively defend that premise?
Because they believe that time is absolute, in the sense that God works sequentially, and therefore exhibits aspects of time, even prior to the world being created.
That God is rational and thinks in a logical framework does not mean that His thinking processes are restricted to sequentiality (such as the mind of man)
You don't know that.
- That conclusion of yours may seem logical as you extrapolate from the lesser logical mind (of man) to the greater logical mind (of God)- but that would be an ontological category error - In that you are assuming (projecting) your finite understanding (and functionality) onto the infinite mind of God - Thereby constraining Him to your, mans, parameters.
No, I'm using the characteristics God exhibits in the bible, including the things He told us He did during the creation of the world and "before" the creation of the world. These characteristics are logically superior to acting in a way that is without order (i.e. chaotic).
If God says that He knows the "end from the beginning" don't assume it's by extrapolation of a contemporaneous data set - If you do than of course God will comfortably fit into your man-made paradigm (Open Theist perspective)
Only you've missed the scripture. He never said "I know the end from the beginning." He said, "I declare the end from the beginning..." The ellipsis is important, so lets review the whole verse:
[Isa 46:10 CSB] "I declare the end from the beginning, and from long ago what is not yet done, saying: my plan will take place, and I will do all my will.
Notice what God is saying He declares: His plan...His will...what He will accomplish ("I will do all my will.") If this verse were meant to be applied to every fact about the future, then He was saying that His will is that the most heinous sins anyone has ever committed were God's plan and purpose.
Whereas if you don't make that (ontological error) assumption that God logically extrapolates like man.
Then, perhaps, when He makes statements like this concerning His Being.
"I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please'." (Isaiah 46;10)
Yes, see above.
Then, perhaps, you have a coherent reason, to contemplate, or logically assess as a plausible concept, some alternative paradigm (that is not man centric) - so as to actually discern the truth of that statement - and so come to understand that Gods thinking is not restricted to sequentiality (in and of Himself - innately) as man's mind is restricted - God knows the end from the beginning because He knows His own mind - He knows what He has purposed, what He has determined.
Right. And whatever man might devise to thwart God's purposes, God will be able to overcome. It isn't talking about sequentiality at all.
The objection could be raised that the very concept inherent in the phrase - "my purpose shall stand, and I will do all that I please" - denotes, if anything, planning, sequential planning and sequential execution of that planning, to which I will reply "who's denying that?" - certainly not me.
We have to understand that the scriptures are overwhelming couched in anthropomorphic language, that is the scriptures are specifically framed for man's comprehension. So, the logical sequencing, as well as the temporal sequencing (outworking) of Gods purposes (His intent) can be seen and deduced by the creature man (that they are in accordance with scripture)
In other words, you are saying that you can't prove your point with scripture. I'm ok with that.
But in those instances where God is describing His person, His personal attributes (specifically) such as in Isaiah 46:10 and in Malachi 3:6 and in James 1:17 - than we ought to perceive that we need to elevate out thinking above what our normal criteria would be (man centric - creation centric) - and understand the descriptors not as comparative, but as absolute , when applied by God, to Himself, in regard to His personal attributes.
I think you ought to consider the extreme importance both JudgeRightly and Clete adjudge that issue (concept) - recognizing that those two persons, in particular, are the primary intellectual defenders (apologists) of Open Theism on that forum.
It must be of very significant importance to warrant the concentrated firepower, regards defending OT against raiding Calvinist apologists.
Is that not so?
So, something for you to think about.
The constant quoting of supposedly identified, logical fallacies, especially in regard to those contending against Open Theism is a constant and annoying feature of that particular forum (Open Theism Home World) - in my opinion.
Agreed. Especially when they don't see them in their own writings.
Personally, I view the abundant use of that ploy, on that forum, as just that, nothing more than a ploy - with the unstated intention to disrupt the natural flow of conversation, under the ostensible cover of an insistence on logically building argumentation, and/or, counter argumentation.
I agree.
One way I can bring that to your attention is in the current discussion on Our Moral God thread wherein you are engaged - Clete's OP states that the Logos is better translated as the Logic, quoting in support, the work of Calvinist academic and philosopher Gordon H Clark.
What I find interesting, and most telling, is that Jesus, the personification of Logic - never - not even on a single occasion - raises the objection in any of His discourse, that His opponents have used an identifiable logical fallacy - He just got on with the discussion.
No, He often used questions or statements to get His listeners to consider the broader ramifications of their own questions and statements.
As an aside - moonbeam is not without allies - some of which you will find joining the fray at Open Theism Home World.
It's quite possible one of them will make mention of that fact.
.
They've banned a lot of people. Some warranted, some not.
