Determinism, Compatibilsm, Free Will, Ex Nihilo

[shunyadragon]

Are you proposing that God does NOT know?

I do not attempt to propose anything as to what God specifically knows nor does not know, nor do I second guess God. I believe in an unknowable God that cannot be defined from the human perspective.

Well, it isn't "knows OR determines". Knowing, in and of itself, does not determine anything. I may "know" that my daughter will choose vanilla ice cream rather than chocolate, but knowing did not determine her decision.

Someday your daughter may surprise you and choose chocolate. God is not necessarily even concerned about details, and individuals still may have choices that are not determined for God's will to be the rule in the overall destiny of our human journey as a whole. The idea that God chooses or knows one will be saved and ninety-nine will not becomes problematic in what in reality is the nature and purpose of God. That is why I do not try to define nor second guess God.

So, it acknowledges determinism, but denies that things are pre-determined.

As in our knowledge of our physical existence it is apparent the Natural Law determines the over all nature of all events, but the fractal nature of our existence gives variety and diversity to the outcomes of events. For example: no two Monarch butterfly wings are exactly alike, but all Monarch butterflies look like Monarch butterflies.

Methinks there is a problem here. If it isn't the knowledge that determines something , then what? What DETERMINES the outcomes?

If you believe in God, God determines the ultimate outcome of everything, but Free Will and the fractal nature of Creation provides the diversity and variation of individual events within the constraints of God's Will. Sometimes humans make bad choices, and God does not necessarily have to know the fate of each individual. I am uncomfortable trying to second guess the constraints of God's Will.

If you do not believe in God, Natural Law and the nature of our existence determine the ultimate outcome of everything, but the fractal nature of our world provides the diversity and variation of individual events withing the constraints of Natural Law.

[seven7up]

I believe in an unknowable God ...

True.

That is what you believe.

Someday your daughter may surprise you and choose chocolate. God is not necessarily even concerned about details,...

I am interested. "Sweety, you always liked vanilla and always hated chocolate. What made you change your mind?" I am concerned about the details of my children. I would think that God cares about us in the same way.

How about generalities? Is God concerned , in general, about where we will end up spending eternity ... In Heaven or Hell?

The idea that God chooses or knows one will be saved and ninety-nine will not becomes problematic in what in reality is the nature and purpose of God.

It doesn't seem problematic to you ... because you think that you are that 1 out of 99. It certainly seems problematic for the 99 others who will suffer for eternity. But hey, as long as it isn't you ... am I right?

That is why I do not try to define nor second guess God.

I am not second guessing GOD , .... I am second guessing a certain kind of theology.

See the difference?

-7up

[seven7up]

The reason this “Love” is the most powerful force in all universes is because it compels even God. So to have this Love would make us like God Himself, so why does God not just make us with this Love and place us in heaven?

Are there something God just cannot do:....

Could God place this Godly type Love in a person at his/her creation (an instinctive love) or would an instinctive love be like a robotic love and not like God’s Love?

Could God just force His Love on man against the “will” of man or would that be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun? ....

Well , God DOES create people who do genuinely choose to love Him. So, no need for force, or a shotgun apparently.

That does not address the point of the original post, which asks why God creates those who will NOT genuinely choose to love Him.

.....


But since you missed the original point and brought up another aspect of the conversation, let me give you a couple quotes about that,


"Even proponents of libertarian freedom will admit, although paradoxically, that the choices we make are the results of the motivations, desires, loves, values, priorities, beliefs, etc., that constitute who we are, that make up the real essence of our actual being. That is why our choices reveal who we are. If our choices were not produced from the essence of our being, they would not be our choices fundamentally and would not reveal anything about who we are." - Mark Hausam


"{The "free-will defense" of those who believe in Ex Nihilo creation} assumes that God must create morally fallible persons if he creates them free. However, that is not true given evangelical assumptions. If God creates ex nihilo, then he can create any persons that it is logically possible to create. He certainly could have created more morally sensitive and rational persons than we are. Indeed, Francis Beckwith, in his contribution to NMC, argues that perfectly rational beings are perfectly good even though free to choose evil if they wish. If Beckwith is correct, then the fact that a person rationally chooses to always do what is right is not incompatible with libertarian free will. Given the creedal view, there is no reason that God could not have created perfectly rational persons who will always see by the light of reason that always choosing what is right is the most rational course. Thus, God had open to him the possibility of creating more intelligent and morally sensitive creatures who would bring about less evil than we do because of sheer irrationality. God is thus morally indictable for having created creatures who bring about more evil than other creatures he could have created from nothing." - Blake Ostler

So, what is the alternative? I quoted this earlier:

"I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man-the immortal part, because it has no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man." - JS

I suppose I agree with "process theologians" in a certain respect,

"No special philosophical problems are raised by this view: if it is intelligible to hold that the existence of God requires no explanation, since something must exist necessarily and “of itself,” then it is not unintelligible to hold that that which exists necessarily is God and a realm of non-divine actualities. Nor is this a denial that our world is contingent and created by God." - David Ray Griffin


-7up

[JimL]

7up wrote:

Let's look at compatibilism this way: Let's say that God is going to roll some dice.

Let's say that God was the only Being in existence, then decides to create some six sided cubes that roll randomly 7 times and then die (pun intended.)

Note: Keep in mind that the logic holds true even if they are twenty sided dice, or if they roll a hundred times or whatever.

In this case, God creates these cubes from God's own mind, but they will roll "random" numbers. Let's say that the four cubes that God creates will roll as follows:

A) 1, 3, 5, 1, 1, 5, 3...

B) 2, 6, 4, 6, 6, 4, 2...

C) 2, 2, 4, 6, 2, 4, 3...

D) 1, 1, 5, 5, 2, 6, 3...


God knows what the combination is going to be before he even decides to create any one of these cubes. Now, let's say that God, in his mind says, "I like even numbers, not odd numbers" (Or if you want to look at it as even numbers are righteous acts, and odd numbers are sins).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Back to this dice (six sided cube) example. Here, we can think about a set of "possible combinations" that can be rolled (Beyond the combination seen here, in mathematics, we study about an "infinite set of possible numbers", but let's keep it simple here for now).

When God creates the six-sided cube, there was a "possible cube" that would randomly/freely roll 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2. Let's say that 2 represents the best possible choice. God could create that cube if God wants to, and logically could create it (or one that happens to roll the same combination) over and over and over, since God has an infinite set of "possible cubes" that God could potentially create from nothing.

Anyone following me?

-7up

If god creates and rolls the dice, then whether he knows on which numbers they will land is irrelevant, he, by rolling them, would still be the cause of the end result. You're not suggesting that the dice have a choice in the matter are you?

[shunyadragon]

I am interested. "Sweety, you always liked vanilla and always hated chocolate. What made you change your mind?" I am concerned about the details of my children. I would think that God cares about us in the same way.

I do not see God as a micromanager.

How about generalities? Is God concerned , in general, about where we will end up spending eternity ... In Heaven or Hell?

I consider concepts such as Heaven, Hell, purgatory, reincarnation as human interpretations of ancient world views and myths, and in reality it is so conflated with contradictions that I could not have confidence in any world view based on ancient myths.

I consider God compassionate and yes God judges in the journey of the soul, but considering God is the primary entity of responsibility for Creation, these ancient concepts including 'Original Sin' and the 'Fall,' just do not make logical and consistent sense.

It doesn't seem problematic to you ... because you think that you are that 1 out of 99. It certainly seems problematic for the 99 others who will suffer for eternity. But hey, as long as it isn't you ... am I right?

Actually no, it does not make sense.

God is not a chess player
with the white pieces.
God is the sea,
and we are the fishes.

Frank Doonan

I am not second guessing GOD , .... I am second guessing a certain kind of theology.

See the difference?

-7up

I seriously question all ancient 'certain kinds of theology.'

[Bill the Cat]

So, you are arguing that we are not created by God?

Not even a little bit.

There is no "man" with you Bill.

Sure there is! God doesn't exist in time. As such, those of us who do, everything we decide is known by God because He sees all times as "right now". Therefore, when He acted inside time to create us, it was based on His knowledge of every decision we will ever make. It's not that hard to understand.

I have no choice but to build whatever it is you are describing with straw.

You aren't even trying. You continue to act like I am saying God's existence is inside time when I am not. That's the definition of a straw man, and a rather simple one at that.

If God does not exist temporally, then there is no such thing as interpersonal relationships with God.

False. God does not EXIST temporally, but He ACTS temporally because the action is inside of our time and space.

I did not falsely reconstruct what you are arguing, because it is impossible to logically reconstruct what you are arguing.

I reconstructed it in 3 sentences. Sure says something about your intellect that you can't, huh?

This position you have taken is directly the result of you LOSING our previous debate.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! You left the site! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...8044#post78044

I successfully explained how IF God creates Ex Nihilo (out of nothing), then God ultimately determines ALL OUTCOMES.

And I blew it out of the water. And was still waiting for an answer for 18 months. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post63112

I

explained that by rejecting ex nihilo, this problem can be avoided. However, this rejection of ex nihilo would mean that God must be creating out of something that has always existed in some form or another from eternity. Your misinterpretation of the Biblical text (and your refusal to accept the history of the development of Ex Nihilo) will not allow you to reject "creation out of nothing".

I never misrepresented the Biblical text. I admitted that ex nihilo was a developed doctrine. I also showed that it is consistent with the Bible, and how your "eternal matter" was a Platonic idea.

So, instead of agreeing with my argument, you instead retreated into the idea you are currently presenting, which is the idea that God did create ex nihilo, but we all existed eternally ... but, here's the twist ... we existed eternally ONLY in God's own mind. But the result is the same. This means that you are essentially arguing that WE ARE JUST AS ETERNAL AS GOD IS!

In order to be "eternal", we would have to actually exist outside of time, which we don't. But God's knowledge of our existence is eternal because it exists within Him (not us, mind you, but His knowledge of us).

In other words, the only option left to you after you lost that debate, was to take a pseudo-Mormon position, but a PanENtheistic version of it.

Not even close on either charge. You left both threads, and those with India (Kind Debater) too, unanswered for quite some time.

P.S. Tell me Bill, do we even exist at all?

Of course we do.

Or is all of our reality and existence just playing out inside of God's mind still?

If you mean He is aware of it, yes. If you mean reality doesn't really exist, then no.

If what you claim is true, would it matter either way?

Absolutely! As I said in the other thread, God can not know something that isn't so. He knows we exist, therefore we exist.

[JimL]

Because there is no such thing as "not yet" to God. It's called "the eternal now". He sees all times as now. He doesn't learn events as we experience them. His timelessness already knew them.

But that is not logical Bill. Think about it. The notion of god that you are portraying is not only that he is eternal, but that all that he creates exists eternally in his mind as well. For one thing, if created things exist eternally in gods mind, then 1) he didn't create it, and 2) if they are eternal, they have no freedom.

This very moment has always existed in God's mind.

See above.

Because we choose them "now", and God has always known "now".

How can we choose anything "now" if those choices exist eternally. The argument that our choices are eternal, but that we, the choosers, are temporal and free to choose otherwise is completely illogical.

If you ascribe linear events to God's knowledge, you are making a mistake. He does not "pick new stuff up" after we do it, nor does He create stuff and make us fit to it. He has always known these choices. And we have always existed in His mind as His foreknowledge of us and our choices.

I don't think that you're thinking this through Bill.

[Bill the Cat]

But that is not logical Bill.

Sure it is.

Think about it. The notion of god that you are portraying is not only that he is eternal, but that all that he creates exists eternally in his mind as well.

This is a terrible analogy, but I need you to work with me on this... think of it like a painter. He knows what the painting will look like when he is done. It "exists" in his mind as an idea, but doesn't exist in reality yet. Now, imagine He knows what YOU as the painter will be painting perfectly, down to the brush stroke, even before you paint it. Now imagine He can see every sequence in your painting the portrait as if you were doing it right now.

Now, God sees everything as "right now". He knows what the painting is going to look like and knows every stroke the painter will paint, and thus creates the painter, brush, paint, easel, and canvas exactly as He saw it happening. But He creates them at a specific point in time/creation. Prior to that point in time/space, they did not exist in our reality, but they existed in God's mind as knowledge. For me, right now, my grandchildren exist in God's mind as He knows everything they will ever do, because to Him, they exist "now" and He knows what to create to facilitate their choices as He knows them.

For one thing, if created things exist eternally in gods mind, then 1) he didn't create it, and 2) if they are eternal, they have no freedom.

Since God exists outside of our reality, He did. And since He knows what we will choose, He creates to actuate those choices.

See above.

Ditto.

How can we choose anything "now" if those choices exist eternally.

Because we do not now physically exist in eternity. We exist in a temporal state. He does not.

The argument that our choices are eternal, but that we, the choosers, are temporal and free to choose otherwise is completely illogical.

Our choices are not eternal. They are known eternally.

I don't think that you're thinking this through Bill.

Actually, I've given this a tremendous amount of thought. It's the only way any of it can make sense with an eternal God. Otherwise, we end up with the Mormon concept of an exalted being, and the illogic that flows from that. 7up's religion teaches that God had a father who exalted Him, and God's father had a father who exalted him, ad infinitum. And somehow, by being exalted, God knows things that will happen in the future from both his and our standpoint, despite never having seen or experienced the future.

[seven7up]

If you believe in God, God determines the ultimate outcome of everything, ....

Only if God is the "first and only cause" of the existence of everything else, by God creating everything Ex Nihilo (ie "out of nothing"). That means that God is the only eternally existing Being, and God caused every other being to exist.

There is a Calvinist by the name of Mark Hausam who presented a fascinating paper against Arminianism where he argues a similar "logical contradiction" between ex nihilo and free will.

In that paper, Hausam, who again, is a Calvinist, resigns to the fact that Ex Nihilo creation results in determinism and a lack of true free will.

"{In LDS thought} there are laws and structures of reality that are not identical with God, that God did not create and cannot destroy, that are coeternal with him, and that limit his ability to accomplish all that he would like to accomplish. And this teaching Mormonism holds in common with Arminianism.

In contrast to both Arminianism and Mormonism, Calvinist thought holds that God is never defeated in any of his desires. Calvinists believe that all the events of history, including all sin and suffering, have been ordained by the eternal will of God and are thus, obviously, in accordance with that will. As the Calvinist Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.”

Calvinism wouldn't exist without Ex Nihilo and Calvinism is BASED on Ex Nihilo creation theology. As Hausam says, "In fact, creation ex nihilo logically leads directly to Calvinistic determinism." Hausam puts it this way by first saying IF we truly have free will ....

"If our choices are undetermined by God and first-causal by nature, they therefore cannot be effects of God’s creative activity. They cannot be explained by it or traced back to it. They are wholly self-existent or self-originated. God cannot create uncaused choices, directly or indirectly. He cannot create them directly, nor can he start in motion a chain of causes and effects that eventually leads to them, for the very simple reason that they are, by definition, uncaused or self-caused. And the choices here cannot be separated from the person choosing. Since the choice is uncaused, the will that produces the choice must be uncaused. Since God did not create (even indirectly) any of the actual choices of the will, he did not create whatever it is in the will that is the cause of the actual choices we make."

So, our choices would be determined by God with "creation out of nothing" doctrine, because not only does God cause individuals to exist while knowing the outcome, but God also is the cause of the nature of each individual, indeed, in Ex Nihilo creation God creates every single aspect of each individual, which in turn determines how those individuals will act in any given circumstance. He continues:

"Therefore, if God were the creator of our being or the essence of who we are, as a logically consistent account of creation ex nihilo would affirm, he would also be the creator and cause, at least indirectly, of the actual choices we make. But since these cannot be causally traced back to God, in Arminianism, the essence of who we are that our choices flow from, and thus reveal and express, must also be unable to be traced back to God or his creative activity. Whatever God created ex nihilo when he created human beings, he thus did not create that which constitutes the real essence of our being and character. So we can see that, in Arminian theology, the main implications of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo are negated and the doctrine itself is thus, in effect, relegated to practical unimportance, since the most important part of who we are, that which defines our primary essence, is not created by God, but is self-existent or self-created appropriate for such entities in Arminianism, although Arminians, being less consistent and developed in their theology, usually do not clearly see this and avoid the term because of its obvious clash with more classical theistic aspects of their thinking that they do not want to wholly or explicitly jettison."

So, Hausam goes on to explain that essentially, Arminians wanted to have their cake and eat it too, which is what modern mainstream Christianity tries to do as well. On one hand, they want to say that God created every aspect of our existence which logically determines outcomes, yet on the other hand want to claim that the created creatures are responsible for their own nature/characteristics, which God himself created. In Ex Nihilo, it is absurd that God creates creatures who are ignorant, disobedient, discontent and easily deceived and then God punishes those who He created for being that way.

On the other hand, if we hold that each individual "will" has existed from eternity past, the theodicy changes radically.



-Stephen

[seven7up]

False. God does not EXIST temporally, but He ACTS temporally because the action is inside of our time and space.

You still have the problem of God not being able to have a relationship with his eternal Son, Jesus Christ, outside of creation .... because both are outside of time prior to creation in your theology.

I never misrepresented the Biblical text. I admitted that ex nihilo was a developed doctrine. I also showed that it is consistent with the Bible, and how your "eternal matter" was a Platonic idea.

Eternal matter was the ONLY idea prior to the mid to end of second century A.D. The people who developed the doctrine just turned the Platonic single substance which was "the only uncaused thing" into the single substance which is the "the only uncreated thing". Entirely borrowed from Platonic thought.

Contrary to that, I am saying that there are infinite uncaused causes.

I reconstructed it in 3 sentences. Sure says something about your intellect that you can't, huh?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! You left the site! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...8044#post78044

For starters, you conflated two different ideas and refused to acknowlege it.

7up wrote: I have said this MANY, many times. It is amazing that you keep getting this wrong after the lengthy discussions we have had. I NEVER argued that foreknowledge is the same as causation. I argue that creation Ex Nihilo is the same as causation.

Bill responded: "Since creatio ex nihilo is all about foreknowledge, then you are equating the two whether you want to admit it or not."

Foreknowledge is NOT equated to causation. Just take the DICE example I gave earlier in this thread. Let's say that God DOES NOT CREATE the dice from nothing. They already exist! God may know what combination will be rolled, but God is not the cause of the combination rolled. Big difference.

So, you were forced to get around this by saying that essentially that our WILLS exist from eternity. But for all practical purposes, that is the LDS position and you simply decided to mirror it. The only difference is that you say that our wills, choices, etc existed eternally in God's mind, rather than wills/intelligences that have always existed outside of God's mind in reality.

You retreated into your PanEntheistic view, so there was nothing left to discuss. You are essentially saying that GOD is FORCED to create what occurs eternally in God's mind, thus God makes outwardly into created temporal reality the eternally existing reality of God's mind.

Anybody who looks at the definition of PanENtheism will see it for what it is. You simply deny it.


-7up

P.S. Kind Debater made complaints about you and cow poke and other posters there to other moderators. Those complaints were ignored (she complained how rude , unChrist -like, and unreasonable you are). She and I finished our conversation elsewhere.

[seven7up]

If god creates and rolls the dice, then whether he knows on which numbers they will land is irrelevant, he, by rolling them, would still be the cause of the end result. You're not suggesting that the dice have a choice in the matter are you?

I am saying that each roll is truly "random". God did not force each roll to roll something specific. God can "choose" which dice to create out of nothing (out of infinite possibilities), and THAT is how God determines outcomes. God is not determining outcomes by forcing each roll.

This can be made parallel to free will choices. Each free will choice is not forced by God, however, out of the infinite possibilities of different kinds of creatures/people who make different kinds of choices, God can determine what occurs by deciding which creatures/people to create and which ones not to create.

---------------

By the way, at the end of our previous debate, Bill ended up simply saying that God has no choice in the matter. He says that the finite number of created people and their choices existed eternally in God's mind, and God HAD to make those eternally existing mental reality into physical reality.

7up wrote: It appears that you (Bill) are now trying to argue that God is forced (later you call it like being a "slave) to create what he creates, because God foreknew the creatures of creation and their outcomes, and by foreknowing something, God must actuate what He foreknew in his own mind. In other words, you appear to be arguing here that God is limited by God's own foreknowledge. Your rational leads you to something like: God first thought of ignorant and disobedient beings, therefore God was forced to create ignorant and disobedient beings.

Bill responded: Wrong. God foreknew that we would be how we are, ignorant and disobedient, and He created us based on those "blueprints". Changing the blueprints would violate what He foreknew, thus causing a logical contradiction.
...

7up wrote: Is it God's foreknowledge that determines whether or not the creature's actions become actualized (God's foreknowledge is the first cause), or are the creature's actions "first causal" by nature and God foreknows those actions?

Bill responded: The answer is neither. God creates as the "first cause", but His creation is limited to the parameters of His foreknowledge of our decisions. They both work together simultaneously for God to be our cause while our decisions are our own to be judged.

Again, Bill was forced in our previous debate to say that OUR WILL IS COETERNAL.with GOD's WILL.

7up wrote: You essentially proposed that God's unembodied mind included the unembodied minds/wills of those that God had not actuated yet, but our minds/wills existed within God's mind nonetheless.

Bill responded: AS FOREKNOWLEDGE. That's what you simply refuse to grasp.

No, I get it. But what YOU don't get is that your theory here still means that OUR WILL, even as God's foreknowledge, is just as effective and at creating reality as God's will.

-7up

[seven7up]

7up's religion teaches that God had a father who exalted Him, and God's father had a father who exalted him, ad infinitum. ....

Actually, that is not official doctrine. It may be true, but I wouldn't go as far to say that the LDS religion teaches it as part of the gospel.

In fact, many LDS presidents have discouraged people from taking dogmatic positions on these theories.

"Many have tried to penetrate to the First Cause of all things; but it would be as easy for an ant to number the grains of sand on the earth. It is not for man, with his limited intelligence, to grasp eternity in his comprehension. … It would be as easy for a gnat to trace the history of man back to his origin as for man to fathom the First Cause of all things, lift the veil of eternity, and reveal the mysteries that have been sought after by philosophers from the beginning. What then, should be the calling and duty of the children of men? Instead of inquiring after the origin of Gods—instead of trying to explore the depths of eternities that have been, that are, and that will be, instead of endeavoring to discover the boundaries of boundless space, let them seek to know the object of their present existence, and how to apply, in the most profitable manner for their mutual good and salvation, the intelligence they possess. Let them seek to know and thoroughly understand things within their reach, and to make themselves well acquainted with the object of their being here, by diligently seeking unto a super-power for information and by the careful study of the best books" (DBY, 25).

-7up

[Jichard]

Let's start simple and pretend for a moment that God can create beings who are free to choose. There are assumptions made with this idea/statement, some of them false, but just play along for a moment.

Let's say that God creates 20 people, numbered below. And let's say that the even numbers will choose salvation and the odd numbers damnation.


Saved
2) Bob, 4) Frank, 6) Sara, 8) Marcus, 10) Isabel, 12) Johnny, 14) Matilda, 16) Joseph, 18) Simon, 20) Karina


Unsaved
1) Cain , 3) Matt, 5) Alicia, 7) Carmen, 9) Nathan, 11) Jeremy, 13) Candace, 15) Javier, 17) Jose, 19) Mary




Would those who chose salvation be any less free if God simply did not create unsaved in the first place? (Would they not have free will?)

In other words, isn't there a false logical assumption to believe that God must create people He knows will be damned in order for there to be free will for those who God knows will be saved?


There is much more to discuss here; I just wanted to get the ball rolling.


-7up

God does not need to create people He knows will be damned, in order for there to be free will for those who God knows will be saved. To generalize the point: there is no impossibility in creating only agents who are free, yet who one knows will never do anything morally wrong.

[jordanriver]

God does not need to create people He knows will be damned, in order for there to be free will for those who God knows will be saved. To generalize the point: there is no impossibility in creating only agents who are free, yet who one knows will never do anything morally wrong.

the question on God, what did He know and when did He know it.

How do you uncreate something that already has been created. (is there a past present future tense with something like Bible-God) If you know the future, then to you , even future events would be past tense because they've already happened because you saw them happen.

So if God foresaw that Jichard was not going to believe in Him, ....then its too late. If God causes Jichard to not exist, then how is that God saw Jichard in the first place? If God prevents Jichard's existence, then God's omniscience was false when He saw an existing Jichard rejecting God.

.....gotta stop here, this makes me dizzy

[bling]

Even scientifically it is easy to envision God outside of time, because time as we know it only exists in our time/space relationship of our universe. Our time began with the Big Bang and fill fade in cold Quantum darkness. When the matter and energy discipate into Quantum zero point energy at absolute zero our time will end.

I agree but not all see it. There is a lot more to my post 15 any further comment?