How can God regret if he knows the future?

[Tinker Grey]

That is what some humans chose for themselves, so they will have it.

God chose a world where this would happen. Such a god is not worthy of worship.

 

[GospelS]

God chose a world where this would happen. Such a god is not worthy of worship.

A real world. That's what you would also want.

 

[Barney2.0]

If your god created the space-time continuum, he created the future. If he created the future, it is a fait accompli. You have no choices; you were created doing every action you will ever do. There is no free will. It is an illusion. Of course, he's not manipulating you; the word doesn't apply when he created you doing everything you will ever do. You are judged; the conclusion has been reached (not really, since omniscience merely knows and never evaluates); it's over; it's done. It's a dead parrot.

A timeless god cannot do anything. An omniscient god can not decide anything. And if a timeless god can do something and did create the space-time continuum, did he do it half way or completely? Your future is not merely known. It is created and unchangeable.

Or perhaps such god concepts are incoherent.

The future of man is created to adapt to man’s will, the future of man is decided by his own actions and will. God didn’t create the future opposed to man’s will or to decide his faith, the fate rests upon the choices we make as individuals and is meant to act in accordance with our free will and choices not contrary to it. God hasn’t created us to do everything we will ever do, he created us with a mind to choose to do as we wish to choose eternal life or death in sin. God in his omniscience created man to choose his fate and God later judges man based on the choices he knows in his omniscience that they will make based on the free will given to them. God’s judgement and evaluation acts in accordance to man’s decision and not opposed to it or contrary to it. The conclusion itself is based on man’s will to choose eternal life or eternal death, this is perfectly coherent.

 

[Tinker Grey]

A real world. That's what you would also want.

Is your god omniscient? Then it knows how to make a different world without a hell.
Is your god omnipotent? Then it could do so.

A god that would make a world that requires(?) him to torture people for eternity? Yeah. Evil.

 

[GospelS]

Is your god omniscient? Then it knows how to make a different world without a hell.
Is your god omnipotent? Then it could do so.

A god that would make a world that requires(?) him to torture people for eternity? Yeah. Evil.

All is fair in war and love. God began love and man began war. It's all fair and will end well. Don't you worry. A world without hell is on it's way.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

All is fair in war and love. God began love and man began war. It's all fair and will end well. Don't you worry. A world without hell is on it's way.

So you would torture your kids for a limited time then?

 

[Tinker Grey]

All is fair in war and love. God began love and man began war. It's all fair and will end well. Don't you worry. A world without hell is on it's way.

Whatever gets you through the night.

 

[GospelS]

So you would torture your kids for a limited time then?

Their choice, love OR war.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Their choice, love OR war.

oh my that is terrible.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The future of man is created to adapt to man’s will, the future of man is decided by his own actions and will. God didn’t create the future opposed to man’s will or to decide his faith, the fate rests upon the choices we make as individuals and is meant to act in accordance with our free will and choices not contrary to it. God hasn’t created us to do everything we will ever do, he created us with a mind to choose to do as we wish to choose eternal life or death in sin. God in his omniscience created man to choose his fate and God later judges man based on the choices he knows in his omniscience that they will make based on the free will given to them. God’s judgement and evaluation acts in accordance to man’s decision and not opposed to it or contrary to it. The conclusion itself is based on man’s will to choose eternal life or eternal death, this is perfectly coherent.

I'll try one more time to make myself clear. If you don't get it, feel free to lay that at my feet.

You have agreed that your god is outside time. Such a being can take no actions because there is no way to sequence its actions. Indeed, such a being cannot distinguish action from inaction. If you say your god does action A then action B, you are saying B followed A or A preceded B ... in time. Without time there can be no A followed by B.

Now you could say that it's all A all the time, but that is stasis. This is similar to what I said about omniscience. If all is known, then all decisions that could have been made are known. Thus, no decision is made nor can be made. No thought can take place. Here too, action is impossible.

This god cannot judge. Whatever judgement could have been rendered is moot. Whatever is known is known and nothing can change.

Let pretend, arguendo, that a timeless entity could have made the space-time continuum. What does this entity experience? The unfolding of the universe? No. Unfolding happens in time. This entity cannot experience that. Thus, the entire space-time continuum, from the Big Bang to the Big Crunch (or heat-death of the universe, or whatever) lies before this entity as a completed thing. There is NO FUTURE for this being. It just is. The space-time continuum that it created just is. The future we anticipate is done. There are no choices. This god created it (arguendo) in place and unchangeable.

So we have an omniscient being that cannot it think--it is inert--a omnipotent being that cannot act--it is in stasis--that created (a thing it cannot do) a universe in which we have no choices but are blamed for them for failure to believe this.

So, yeah, it's incoherent.

Just think had Christianity been more modest: This modest being is very very wise and very very smart and yet bound by time. Its apparent omniscience is just this wisdom far beyond our own. It could be mistaken about things however less frequently than mere mortals are. It could therefore "repent him that he made man" (Gen. 6:6). He could be watching the future unfold. He could render judgement on our decisions after they happen. It might even forgive those that could not believe on scant evidence, because it would understand what it means to make a mistake or understand what it is to not have enough information to be convinced.

But Christianity had to have its god all-everything-all-the-time. They've killed their own god.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll try one more time to make myself clear. If you don't get it, feel free to lay that at my feet.

You have agreed that your god is outside time. Such a being can take no actions because there is no way to sequence its actions. Indeed, such a being cannot distinguish action from inaction. If you say your god does action A then action B, you are saying B followed A or A preceded B ... in time. Without time there can be no A followed by B.

Now you could say that it's all A all the time, but that is stasis. This is similar to what I said about omniscience. If all is known, then all decisions that could have been made are known. Thus, no decision is made nor can be made. No thought can take place. Here too, action is impossible.

This god cannot judge. Whatever judgement could have been rendered is moot. Whatever is known is known and nothing can change.

Let pretend, arguendo, that a timeless entity could have made the space-time continuum. What does this entity experience? The unfolding of the universe? No. Unfolding happens in time. This entity cannot experience that. Thus, the entire space-time continuum, from the Big Bang to the Big Crunch (or heat-death of the universe, or whatever) lies before this entity as a completed thing. There is NO FUTURE for this being. It just is. The space-time continuum that it created just is. The future we anticipate is done. There are no choices. This god created it (arguendo) in place and unchangeable.

So we have an omniscient being that cannot it think--it is inert--a omnipotent being that cannot act--it is in stasis--that created (a thing it cannot do) a universe in which we have no choices but are blamed for them for failure to believe this.

So, yeah, it's incoherent.

Just think had Christianity been more modest: This modest being is very very wise and very very smart and yet bound by time. Its apparent omniscience is just this wisdom far beyond our own. It could be mistaken about things however less frequently than mere mortals are. It could therefore "repent him that he made man" (Gen. 6:6). He could be watching the future unfold. He could render judgement on our decisions after they happen. It might even forgive those that could not believe on scant evidence, because it would understand what it means to make a mistake or understand what it is to not have enough information to be convinced.

But Christianity had to have its god all-everything-all-the-time. They've killed their own god.

Hardly. And though the God of the Bible is beyond being captured by our cognitive capacities, perhaps even seemingly paradoxical when we attempt to rub our rational rhetoric through our logic machines, it's very difficult to say that God, even 'outside' of time, is dead. Remember, we're not dealing with one 'static' and 'solid' being. We're dealing with, as the Bible expresses, and whether some of you supposedly 'more logical' folks can't seem to wit, a Being who is dynamic, eternal and ...... has some quality or other of fluidity.

So, put that in your logic chompers why don't ya!

And if that's not enough, then maybe try the following thread on for size, if you can!

The Paradoxical Lies within your Logic …

 

[cvanwey]

Remember, we're not dealing with one 'static' and 'solid' being. We're dealing with, as the Bible expresses, and whether some of you supposedly 'more logical' folks can't seem to wit, a Being who is dynamic, eternal and ...... has some quality or other of fluidity.
So, put that in your logic chompers why don't ya!

And if that's not enough, then maybe try the following thread on for size, if you can!

The Paradoxical Lies within your Logic …

Rather than doing any of that, one could just start by applying Occam's razor.

1. Humans wrote the Bible, and that's it. Or...
2. Some other conclusion.

Additionally, what's more likely?

A. God created humans
B. Humans created God

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Rather than doing any of that, one could just start by applying Occam's razor.

1. Humans wrote the Bible, and that's it. Or...
2. Some other conclusion.

Additionally, what's more likely?

A. God created humans
B. Humans created God

Hold on there. Not so fast! I think Glass and McCartney give that assumption (or the jump to an unnecessary conclusion) a black eye.... [and yes, I know the article below deals with the application of science, but I think the underlying point of the article STILL applies ... ]

Science, Ockham’s Razor & God | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now​

You don't get to just say, "Oh, Ockam's Razor," as if that in and of itself, by itself, is somehow self-explanatory and self-evident in it's application. No, it's not.

Now, with what you've said just above, you're just blabbing because you've got nothing else to say of any substantive other than that you think God "could'a, would'a, should'a."

Well, He didn't do the little things in this life that many of us wish He did, so we all have to deal with it as it is. And we all have to die. And, in a way, whether we recognize it or not, we need to realize that God dealt with it all too, and in a way that we are familiar with ...

... and yes, God's nature is fluid and eternal, eternally fluid in fact (and I'll say this despite how some will try to counter by saying, "...but, but, but the Scripture says that God is unchanging." And I'll just say, "Right, He's unchanging; His nature has always been able to do what He wants despite His being outside of time ... etc., etc., etc., etc.

It's a paradox. Kind of.)

 

[cvanwey]

Hold on there. Not so fast! I think Glass and McCartney give that assumption (or the jump to an unnecessary conclusion) a black eye.... [and yes, I know the article below deals with the application of science, but I think the underlying point of the article STILL applies ... ]

Science, Ockham’s Razor & God | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now​

You don't get to just say, "Oh, Ockam's Razor," as if that in and of itself, by itself, is somehow self-explanatory and self-evident in it's application. No, it's not.

Now, with what you've said just above, you're just blabbing because you've got nothing else to say of any substantive other than that you think God "could'a, would'a, should'a."

"Not so fast." My points are simple. When presented with an assertion, you are faced with two plausible paths...

1. Conclude the simplest conclusion. 2. Or, opt for a more complicated one.

I opt for the simpler one. 1. "Humans wrote the Bible and that's it." Seems to make everything fall into place more clearly - (i.e.) limited knowledge base, conflicts abound, inaccurate physical information given, etc... But if you choose to opt for 2., knock yourself out

And the second, is A or B more likely?

Well, if you were to destroy all humans, accept for a few, erase all literature and memory, and place them all on a remote island, pretty soon, they will start to worship something I reckon. And one then asks them self, do we invent God to 'fill-in-the-blanks" or to "give us hope".? Or, is there some cosmic God out there, which chooses to remain elusive, but programs us to always ask the question 'does God exist'?

Oh, and I have not read the link yet. Do I need to, after this response?

Well, He didn't do the little things in this life that many of us wish He did, so we all have to deal with it as it is. And we all have to die. And, in a way, whether we recognize it or not, we need to realize that God dealt with it all too, and in a way that we are familiar with ...

... and yes, God's nature is fluid and eternal, eternally fluid in fact (and I'll say this despite how some will try to counter by saying, "...but, but, but the Scripture says that God is unchanging." And I'll just say, "Right, He's unchanging; His nature has always been able to do what He wants despite His being outside of time ... etc., etc., etc., etc.

It's a paradox. Kind of.)

Thanks for the sermon

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"Not so fast." My points are simple. When presented with an assertion, you are faced with two plausible paths...

1. Conclude the simplest conclusion. 2. Or, opt for a more complicated one.

I opt for the simpler one. 1. "Humans wrote the Bible and that's it." Seems to make everything fall into place more clearly - (i.e.) limited knowledge base, conflicts abound, inaccurate physical information given, etc... But if you choose to opt for 2., knock yourself out

And the second, is A or B more likely?

Well, if you were to destroy all humans, accept for a few, erase all literature and memory, and place them all on a remote island, pretty soon, they will start to worship something I reckon. And one then asks them self, do we invent God to 'fill-in-the-blanks" or to "give us hope".? Or, is there some cosmic God out there, which chooses to remain elusive, but programs us to always ask the question 'does God exist'?

Oh, and I have not read the link yet. Do I need to, after this response?

I don't know. Do you? It's your choice whether or not you wish to remain on a more plebeian level of analysis or move up to a more cogent and robust one ...

Thanks for the sermon

You're welcome!

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night.
1 Samuel 15:11

The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.
Genesis 6:6

Have you come across Open Theism: the belief that the future is open to God. The future is not knowable, so it is not part of God's omniscience. Which means that he can regret something that happened or that he was part of. God did not know how Saul would turn out, only his heart at the time he was chosen.

Or Neo-Molinism: God knows all possible futures, but it is not possible to know which one will come to pass. So he can regret something that happened, even though he knew it was a possibility. God knew that mankind could make a mess of things but he took the risk none-the-less.

Finally there is the possibility that our ideas about God's omniscience are overblown. Look up the verses that deal with the subject and they either imply that God knows everything about something specific or that the Jewish authors could not see the limits of God's knowledge.

 

[Hawkins]

It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night.
1 Samuel 15:11

The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.
Genesis 6:6

In the process of human witnessing, you have to say something humans can comprehend to a certain extent such that the message can convey. If you tell Noah how Quantum physics works it won't convey, as he can't tell his sons and sons of sons to remember. Thus what the eyewitnesses wrote down (conveyed by word of mouth to begin with) is a close explanation which humans can comprehend thus can convey till today, disregarding what God said exactly. To put it another way, from Noah's perspective, "regret" is already the closest meaning about what God told him, such that this piece of speech can last till today.

That said. Earth needs to be destroyed (as can be deduced by later humans like me, but not Noah with his know-how back then) because its purpose of existence has been defeated. Earth is for humans to have a choice, such that some of them will be saved in the end. Up to the lineage of Noah no one can be saved by Law (with the same Law 2/3 angels will be saved in the end).

God' Law in heaven when used in the Final Judgment, 2/3 angels will be saved but 0 humans can be saved this way, as proved up to the point of Noah. Humans can only be judged by an alternative but not using the same set of Law used on the angels. To do so, a justification must be made in order to make this alternative legitimate and lawful. This justification is Jesus Christ.

 

[cvanwey]

I don't know. Do you?

Of course I don't know. And neither do you. But thanks for the assertive sermon?

It's your choice whether or not you wish to remain on a more plebeian level of analysis or move up to a more cogent and robust one ...

And speaking of 'cogent' and 'robust', be sure to exhaust the many other claims to divinity, as you seem to with this one. I'm sure you can spin all their claims to align and make sense too, if you really try long and hard enough Otherwise, maybe you are not giving it enough effort. Maybe your effort(s), on their claims, are 'plebeian'...?

Again, if I read a body of text, any text, which claims to be inspired or given by a higher power, I ask myself....

(1.) Is it mistaken, untrue, other? Or...
(2.) Is it true

(1.) Seems to be the case with all of them, as none offer anything above and beyond, which could not have been offered, if they were not inspired from the beyond.

And again...

If we were to get rid of all history and technology, and start over, and isolate a few humans, would humans begin to worship god(s) again because...?

(A.) God remains hidden, but programs us with the urge to worship Him.
(B.) Humans invent god(s) for the things we do not understand or because we ask for the meaning of life, for which we invent an answer to sooth or comfort?

I'm going with (B.)

Care to engage in any of these two conclusions? If not, I totally understand

 

[Barney2.0]

I'll try one more time to make myself clear. If you don't get it, feel free to lay that at my feet.

You have agreed that your god is outside time. Such a being can take no actions because there is no way to sequence its actions. Indeed, such a being cannot distinguish action from inaction. If you say your god does action A then action B, you are saying B followed A or A preceded B ... in time. Without time there can be no A followed by B.

God is outside time in the sense is he is unaffected by it and is uncreated by nature, God being outside time doesn’t mean he can’t influence it. God doing actions doesn’t mean they have to be time based like human actions, if there can be no A followed by B without time, then there also can’t be time itself, since something outside of time must have caused it to start and appear, an action, everything create has a beginning.

Now you could say that it's all A all the time, but that is stasis. This is similar to what I said about omniscience. If all is known, then all decisions that could have been made are known. Thus, no decision is made nor can be made. No thought can take place. Here too, action is impossible.

This god cannot judge. Whatever judgement could have been rendered is moot. Whatever is known is known and nothing can change.

He’s not only doing A or only B, the actions of God are not in time, if there can be no A or B without time then there also can’t be time. Your whole argument is based on actions being finite operations and then you force the idea of operations being finite on God. The decisions of God are based on the changing will of humanity to choose eternal death or eternal life, God has given humanity free choice, he knows their choices and judges them based on their own choices not against the will of humanity or contrary to it. God judges humanity through themselves, God knowing everything doesn’t mean he has prejudged everyone to heaven and hell. God’s judgement is based on what he knows humanity will choose based on their freedom of choice and his judgement is based on their final decision in this early temporary life which he knows they will make and conforms his judgement to their changing will. A life long sinner who repents and then dies suddenly will be judged according to this new action of repentance that God knew he would make before he died. God has not prejudged people to their fate, he judges in accordance to their actions.

Let pretend, arguendo, that a timeless entity could have made the space-time continuum. What does this entity experience? The unfolding of the universe? No. Unfolding happens in time. This entity cannot experience that. Thus, the entire space-time continuum, from the Big Bang to the Big Crunch (or heat-death of the universe, or whatever) lies before this entity as a completed thing. There is NO FUTURE for this being. It just is. The space-time continuum that it created just is. The future we anticipate is done. There are no choices. This god created it (arguendo) in place and unchangeable.

So we have an omniscient being that cannot it think--it is inert--a omnipotent being that cannot act--it is in stasis--that created (a thing it cannot do) a universe in which we have no choices but are blamed for them for failure to believe this.

It all depends on what you mean by experience, being outside of time doesn’t mean God can’t enter into time or influence it, he’s not locked out of time, he created it, thus is free to interact with it or change it as he pleases. God created time and unfolded the universe within the time that he created at the time he wanted to do it. Define what you mean by future, God doesn’t change with time since he is unaffected by it, the future or atleast our future was shaped by God to be dependent on our actions and our future changes with our own actions, it’s not all pre-decided and put in place contrary to human will. Our future is based on our choices, thus it confirms to our choices it doesn’t act contrary to our choices, but in accordance with them. The future you anticipate is not set contrary to the will which God created you with, it is based on your will. God influences our changing future through our ownselves.

We do have an omniscient being that both thinks and interacts with this created realm that we exist in. God does act otherwise you’d have to affirm that creation is divine as in pantheism, if the universe decides our actions then you have to naturally attribute omniscience and omnipotence to creation and you end up with the same problem your trying to make. We do have choices and we are judged in what we choose to make out of our own will not God’s will, God knows what choice we will make andnd judges us based on what we did based on what we wanted to do out of our own personal desires and will and you stand condemned before God by the choices that you chose to make out of your own self which God didn’t pre-decide for you.

So, yeah, it's incoherent.

Just think had Christianity been more modest: This modest being is very very wise and very very smart and yet bound by time. Its apparent omniscience is just this wisdom far beyond our own. It could be mistaken about things however less frequently than mere mortals are. It could therefore "repent him that he made man" (Gen. 6:6). He could be watching the future unfold. He could render judgement on our decisions after they happen. It might even forgive those that could not believe on scant evidence, because it would understand what it means to make a mistake or understand what it is to not have enough information to be convinced.

But Christianity had to have its god all-everything-all-the-time. They've killed their own god.

It’s incoherent according to your faulty argument, the doctrine is not incoherent in of itself. There’s a difference between being modest and being imperfect. Creation is naturally imperfect, what is imperfect cannot be created by something equally imperfect. If God not knowing everything seemingly solves a non existent problem, if God’s wisdom or omniscience is limited in any way than how in the world did he create time, yet he himself is bound by it and influenced by it and limited in it, despite being the creator of it? As for Genesis 6:6 I already explained what it means at the beginning of this thread, it doesn’t indicate regret or repentance in a human sense, which is why the NIV translates the passage as grieved instead of repent. If God can mistaken about somethings then how do we know he isn’t mistaken about being God, how do we determine when he’s mistaken and when he isn’t if he can make mistakes in general? For God to render decisions after they happen and not being omniscience in knowdge would mean he’s eventually going to have mistakes just like any normal courts that we have make mistakes, if he actually condemns someone to hell based on a faulty judgement or by accident, why worship God, your views lead to way more problems rather than solving any.

Christianity isn’t the only religion where God is everything all the time, that’s the natural and logical viewpoint of who and what God is by nature if you believe God exists. Our God is quite alive and he’s not bound to your arguments and conceptions of him.

 

[NxNW]

God hasn’t created us to do everything we will ever do, he created us with a mind to choose to do as we wish to choose eternal life or death in sin. God in his omniscience created man to choose his fate and God later judges man based on the choices he knows in his omniscience that they will make based on the free will given to them.

If God knows in advance what choices I will make, they are not choices. Therefore, free will cannot exist in a universe with an omniscient God.