God's Foreknowledge

[Brade]

Your position is that God simply cannot know because if he does, according to you the future cannot be known.

That's not my position. My position is that God cannot know future contingencies because facts about future contingencies don't exist. And I believe facts about future contingencies don't exist because I believe in libertarian free will. Tom's already sketched out how libertarianism about free will militates against the existence of facts about future contingencies.

But then you presume that 'time' is somehow unchanging (which it isn't)...

The libertarian position may commit one to a certain view about time, but I don't think it's that one.

...and to exist outside of it is impossible

Now this is an interesting one. I do happen to think that timelessness is problematic. First, it's difficult to make any sense of the notion, and second, it's seems to conflict with properties we ordinarily attribute to God. The second concern is, in my view, particularly problematic for Mormons, and it appears that CK is aware of that.

Now, none of that is to say that timelessness if false. Maybe it's true. But here's the interesting bit, there's good reason to think that appeals to timelessness do not solve the apparent inconsistency between libertarian free will and omniscience (in the strongest sense). In other words, even if timelessness is true, it doesn't seem to solve the problem. Linda Zagzebski pointed that out in one of her books on the topic, and the timelessness version of the argument for the incompatibility of libertarian free will and extreme omniscience appears to be quite compelling. That is to say, it looks difficult to refute. It's worth noting that Zagzebski actually does think that libertarian free will is compatible with divine foreknowledge. She just happens to also think that the appeal to timelessness doesn't work, and I agree. She touches on it in her Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article.

If you do not contain all knowledge, then tell me, how can you be sure that the knoweldge you have is the "best", "most efficient", or "most true" knowledge?

Remember the that incompatibilists position is that because we have libertarian free will there are no such facts as facts about future free choices. If there are no such facts, then it's just no mark against God's omniscience if he doesn't no them. It's no mark against somebody to not have something that doesn't or can't exist. So, the incompatibilist can say, per their view, that God is omniscient

[handys003]

I find it interesting that quantum mechanics, the longest standing scientific explanation for the behavior of matter yet to be disproven or replaced by a better explanation, supports the notion of an indeterminate universe as well. God knows everything that can be known. God can do everything that can be done. It would not surprise me at all to hear the prophets who wrote the Old Testament to tell me in the next life that they never conceived of anyone thinking otherwise, thus they saw no need to be more specific than they were. I am sure some of the prophets were capable of understanding the reality of an indeterminate universe. You don't even need quantuum mechanics to discover that. It's a logical imperative that even a primitive man could figure out through his own human experience.

I agree but some wont.

[Darth J]

I agree but some wont.

That is the best LOL cat ever.

[Darth J]

There are a couple of ideas particular to LDS theology that I'm not sure have been discussed as they relate to this thread:

1. If God has a physical body, then he exists in space. Since time and space are interrelated, per Einstein, then the suggestion that "God exists outside of time" implies that he would also exist outside of space, which is not compatible with God being a physical being.

2. It does not necessarily follow that God telling the future to a prophet means that God already knows that this future is absolutely what will happen. If God is omnipotent, and He knows everything that could possibly happen and how it could possibly happen, then He has the power to set events in motion so that through His omnipotence His predictions about the future become a self-fulfilling prophecy, because He makes that particular future happen.

3. Nobody has mentioned God's own free agency. The fundamental aspect of the plan of salvation as expressed in Mormon theology is free agency. Free agency requires a meaningful choice. If "God knows all things" means He knows everything that could possibly happen in the future and how it could possibly happen, then God has absolute free agency because He knows all possible choices that He can make. But if God knows the future because that future is definitely going to happen, then the future is predetermined and therefore God Himself has no free agency.

4. If "God knows all things" means that He knows a specific future that inevitably will happen, then it creates a paradox, because from God's perspective the future is always the past because from His perspective the future has already happened. In other words, the future is always the past because He already saw it happen.

5. If all members of the Godhead are equal in their knowledge, power and majesty, then Jesus Christ is equal to Heavenly Father and knows everything that Heavenly Father does. In D&C 45:3-5, Jesus Christ as a resurrected God said this:

"Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him

[Darth J]

You are incorrect in the extremity of your presumed interpretation, that somehow all scriptures must be open to any and all interpretation, thus making man the arbiter of God's words rather than God the author of words for men. Some parts of the Bible are open to allegorical interpretation, this is very much true. But one must look at those ideas in context, in other words, they often are ambiguous to begin with. However there are places in the Bible that are concrete and definately not open to vague interpretation.

And who decides which is which? You?

"making man the arbiter of God's words" And you are basing your opinion on your interpretation of the scriptures and telling the people who disagree with you why they are wrong, making you the arbiter of God's words.

"somehow all scriptures must be open to any and all interpretation" Who has said this?

"God the author of words for men." Which of the scriptures did God personally write?

[Darth J]

Can we surprise God? I don't think so, or else the scriptures do not mean what they say... We have been down this road so many times it does not take omniscience to figure out what is going to happen. The same people will chime in with the same arguments. I did really like Cold Steel's response. I understand the "predestination" warning alarms that seem to always go off when this subject is broached. However, if you start to limit God's knowledge where does it end? If we could surprise God, then why not Satan? If he could find out some knowledge or law that God did not know existed could Satan somehow conquer God? If so we need to pray "for God" instead of praying to Him! I cannot comprehend a God who does not know ALL THINGS. In fact the scriptures say the exact opposite:This seems to indicate that God knows all things, even that Abraham will have eternal life and that His seed would bless the families of the earth through his priesthood. This is not a "student God" speaking, this is an omnipotent and an omniscient God who is not sitting in jeopardy every hour, not wondering if His servants will obey Him. This earth life is not a test for God, but a test for us, His children, and more correctly a tutorial for Godhood. Teaching us those things we will need to know and do in order to righteously handle his authority, power and exaltation. Only a fool would think that they could outsmart God, in fact the Lord has said:Do you realize what this means? We cannot outwit God, it is sheer folly and I might add the height of arrogance to think that we could "surprise God." We might please God, or kindle His wrath but I submit that nowhere in history has men, or devils ever outsmarted God. He is "more intelligent than they all." How does He know the future before it happens? Thus God not only knows all things about this earth and the inhabitants, but knows His own future. That is why after the judgment as far as God is concerned their is "time no longer."

"or else the scriptures do not mean what they say" At least, what you think they say.

"If we could surprise God, then why not Satan?" I think we can surprise Satan.

"If he could find out some knowledge or law that God did not know existed could Satan somehow conquer God?" That would be impossible if God is omniscient, because God knows everything that is possible to know. The thread is about what "omniscient" means, and if it is not possible to understand what omniscience is and how it relates to free agency, then the scriptures on the subject are superfluous.

"We might please God, or kindle His wrath" But if God knows one single, inevitable future then he should either be please with me right now for something I haven't done yet or angry with me for something I haven't done yet. Pleasing Him or kindling His wrath means that our actions are changing His moods, and how would this be possible if He already knows for certain what we are going to do?

"Only a fool would think that they could outsmart God," Consiglieri said surprise Him, not outsmart Him.

"but I submit that nowhere in history has men, or devils ever outsmarted God." And no one who believes in an indeterminate future has said otherwise.

"but knows His own future." Then God Himself has no free agency, because He could not choose something other than what He had already foreseen or else He would would make His foreknowledge false.

[mbh26]

If "God knows all things" means that He knows a specific future that inevitably will happen, then it creates a paradox, because from God's perspective the future is always the past because from His perspective the future has already happened. In other words, the future is always the past because He already saw it happen.

If God sees the future and it influences what He does in the present, would that not be backward causation and illogical?

[Darth J]

If God sees the future and it influences what He does in the present, would that not be backward causation and illogical?

Yes.

[TOmNossor]

Chuckle, so only "thinking" LDS disbelieve a common belief..... sorry if I find your position somewhat self self serving with little in the way of reasoning.

I know LDS who have thought extensively upon the issue and they do not reject it.

Jeff,

Your response here was to my comments directed at CKSalmon. He expressed here:

that he was surprised to discover a LDS (you) arguing that God was outside of time.

I was not trying to offend you. I was actually trying to defend your LDS-ness. My comments about

[Brade]

You may have thought a great deal about this issue. I believe JohnDoe has thought a great deal about this and he is a LDS who posts on this board. He is a LDS compatiblist. I think he believes that God knows all future events absolutely, but he also believes that the future is determined (not open).

I'm glad you brought up JohnDoe. It's worth pointing out that JohnDoe recognizes the incompatibility of foreknowledge and libertarian free will (I hope I'm representing his view correctly), and he rejects libertarian free will. That's fine, and it's a perfectly consistent and reasonable position. There are other notions of free will besides the libertarian one, and John's a compatibilist insofar as he believe a notion of free will is compatible with foreknowledge (or determinism). Problems crop up when folks try to mix libertarian free will (what I believe is the intuitive notion of free will) with extreme omniscience (the most popular sort of omniscience).

[T-Shirt]

I believe that God knows all things. However I believe that simply means He knows all possibilities and can, with this divine foreknowledge, make plans to accomplish His purposes by making plans that will accommodate all possible choices. I believe that God has backup plans for everything for the simple reason that He knows all possibilities. Thus, I don't think we can surprise God, but I do think we can disappoint Him. When God foretold the name of Joseph Smith in the days of Joseph of Egypt, I believe He had a backup plan in place, possibly even Joseph Knight, who, from the beginning, was faithful to Joseph Smith and, who's father's name was also Joseph. Because of God's foreknowledge, He can always bring about His purposes by making plans for all possible choices that we can make. He knows, in advance, all of the choices we can make, but I don't believe He knows, with certainty, which of those choices we will make.

Best,

T-Shirt

[TOmNossor]

I'm glad you brought up JohnDoe. It's worth pointing out that JohnDoe recognizes the incompatibility of foreknowledge and libertarian free will (I hope I'm representing his view correctly), and he rejects libertarian free will. That's fine, and it's a perfectly consistent and reasonable position. There are other notions of free will besides the libertarian one, and John's a compatibilist insofar as he believe a notion of free will is compatible with foreknowledge (or determinism). Problems crop up when folks try to mix libertarian free will (what I believe is the intuitive notion of free will) with extreme omniscience (the most popular sort of omniscience).

Brade

I was surprised to see that you were not involved in this previous thread.

Here is a discussion that included John Doe, me, Uncertain, Log, and a number of other folks.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/37736-open-theism/page__st__20

I thought you were there, but I didn't see you as I went through it.

John Doe did say that he believes God has absolute foreknowledge (but it was not a major thrust of the thread).

I spoke a lot about becoming and what I called

[Lightbearer]

"or else the scriptures do not mean what they say" At least, what you think they say.

Why is what you think what they say any more correct?

"If we could surprise God, then why not Satan?" I think we can surprise Satan.

Actually I was referring to Satan surprising God, I know Satan does not have omniscience.

"If he could find out some knowledge or law that God did not know existed could Satan somehow conquer God?" That would be impossible if God is omniscient, because God knows everything that is possible to know. The thread is about what "omniscient" means, and if it is not possible to understand what omniscience is and how it relates to free agency, then the scriptures on the subject are superfluous.

I am not the one making the scriptures superfluous, I am saying the plain fact that God knows all things and there is not anything that He does not know... and I am saying it has zero effect on our agency because we don't know it and God has not "willed it" just because He knows it.

"We might please God, or kindle His wrath" But if God knows one single, inevitable future then he should either be please with me right now for something I haven't done yet or angry with me for something I haven't done yet. Pleasing Him or kindling His wrath means that our actions are changing His moods, and how would this be possible if He already knows for certain what we are going to do?

You somehow think that God is like your avatar (the Emperor in Star Wars) He is not, He is loving and He is just and just because we as mortals cannot imagine restraint or love when we have "all knowledge" does not mean that God does not have it.

"Only a fool would think that they could outsmart God," Consiglieri said surprise Him, not outsmart Him.

That is exactly what is implied by the argument that we can "surprise God," that is why Satan could not foist the doctored version of the 116 page manuscript to discredit the Book of Mormon, but instead God knew almost 2000 years before it happened that Martin Harris would loose the manuscript and told Nephi to prepare for that eventuality.

"but I submit that nowhere in history has men, or devils ever outsmarted God." And no one who believes in an indeterminate future has said otherwise.

Sure you have, by implication, if we can surprise God, or do that which He has not foreseen then that is placing Him on the same level we are, and "His thoughts are not our thoughts" therefore we cannot outwit or surprise Him. One can suppose that He does not know all things, but it cannot be proved by scripture or the words of the prophets to do so, only idle speculation of philosophers that I do not give any confidence in.

"but knows His own future." Then God Himself has no free agency, because He could not choose something other than what He had already foreseen or else He would would make His foreknowledge false.

Who said God had "free agency" as we understand it? Furthermore, agency is the power to choose, if He chooses to do a thing then He would already know by His omniscience that He was going to do it. Hard for finite minds to grasp I admit but not impossible. Sort of like when it says something is "foreordained before the foundations of the world were made." You see we cannot limit God by our narrow mortal perspective of reality and if we accept the Standard Works as true, then I assume we cannot disregard or discredit those scriptures when it is in conflict with out man-made philosophies or theories.

[Brade]

Why is what you think what they say any more correct?

Actually I was referring to Satan surprising God, I know Satan does not have omniscience.

I am not the one making the scriptures superfluous, I am saying the plain fact that God knows all things and there is not anything that He does not know... and I am saying it has zero effect on our agency because we don't know it and God has not "willed it" just because He knows it.

Nobody on the side of the debate that you disagree with (at least in the Mormon context) believes that if God knows what future free choices an agent will make, then he wills those choices. The argument isn't that God's knowledge causes free will to not exist, but that's what you seem to think incompatabilists are claiming. The argument is that if God knows something, then that implies that the content of his knowledge exists, and it's merely a certain sort of content (facts about future free choices, in this case) that threatens free will, not his knowledge of that content. For if there were no God, but there were still facts about future free choices, then the incompatabilist (myself, Tom, Ostler) would still say that there could be no free will in the libertarian sense, or that if there is free will in the libertarian sense, then there are no facts about future free choices.

You somehow think that God is like your avatar (the Emperor in Star Wars) He is not, He is loving and He is just and just because we as mortals cannot imagine restraint or love when we have "all knowledge" does not mean that God does not have it.

You're right about all that, and nothing about incompatabilists arguments counters anything you said there.

but it cannot be proved by scripture or the words of the prophets to do so, only idle speculation of philosophers that I do not give any confidence in.

Now come on. This is just a trivial claim. Certainly we can prove that the scriptures say "God knows all things", but that's hardly a proof that God knows all things. If the argument for the claim that God knows all things is based on the fact that a book contains the expression "God knows all things" then the pro-extreme-omniscience folks are in worse shape than I thought. Fortunately for you view, there are much better arguments than that.

[Darth J]

Why is what you think what they say any more correct?

Actually I was referring to Satan surprising God, I know Satan does not have omniscience.

I am not the one making the scriptures superfluous, I am saying the plain fact that God knows all things and there is not anything that He does not know... and I am saying it has zero effect on our agency because we don't know it and God has not "willed it" just because He knows it.

You somehow think that God is like your avatar (the Emperor in Star Wars) He is not, He is loving and He is just and just because we as mortals cannot imagine restraint or love when we have "all knowledge" does not mean that God does not have it.

That is exactly what is implied by the argument that we can "surprise God," that is why Satan could not foist the doctored version of the 116 page manuscript to discredit the Book of Mormon, but instead God knew almost 2000 years before it happened that Martin Harris would loose the manuscript and told Nephi to prepare for that eventuality.

Sure you have, by implication, if we can surprise God, or do that which He has not foreseen then that is placing Him on the same level we are, and "His thoughts are not our thoughts" therefore we cannot outwit or surprise Him. One can suppose that He does not know all things, but it cannot be proved by scripture or the words of the prophets to do so, only idle speculation of philosophers that I do not give any confidence in.

Who said God had "free agency" as we understand it? Furthermore, agency is the power to choose, if He chooses to do a thing then He would already know by His omniscience that He was going to do it. Hard for finite minds to grasp I admit but not impossible. Sort of like when it says something is "foreordained before the foundations of the world were made." You see we cannot limit God by our narrow mortal perspective of reality and if we accept the Standard Works as true, then I assume we cannot disregard or discredit those scriptures when it is in conflict with out man-made philosophies or theories.

"Why is what you think what they say any more correct?" I'm saying that more than one good faith (no pun intended) interpretation is possible for believing Mormons, and that if someone doesn't agree with my interpretation, he or she is not "apostate."

"God has not 'willed it' just because He knows it." Then can I make a choice that is different than the future that God already knows is inevitably going to happen? If yes, then I cause Him to cease to be God because His foreknowledge was false. If no, then I don't have a choice because the inevitable future that God has already seen is the only choice I can possibly make.

"You somehow think that God is like your avatar (the Emperor in Star Wars) He is not, He is loving and He is just and just because we as mortals cannot imagine restraint or love when we have 'all knowledge' does not mean that God does not have it." My avatar is of Darth Sidious before he became the Emperor in Revenge of the Sith. The point of this thread is to reconcile God's love, which is not in dispute, with God's ability to foresee the future--the fact of which is not in dispute, but the meaning of which is. A loving and just God would not send an individual to mortal life knowing for certain that this individual is going to make all the wrong choices and go to hell (in the general sense, not the Dante's Inferno sense), just so God could sit back and watch the show (even though, since the future is already set, God has already seen the show). This is what handys003 was talking about.

"I am not the one making the scriptures superfluous, I am saying the plain fact that God knows all things and there is not anything that He does not know" So are the people who think that the future is indeterminate. The point is whether "God knows all things" means that He knows the future because it has de facto "already happened" and He has seen it, or that because of His infinite intelligence He knows every possible thing that ever could happen.

"That is exactly what is implied by the argument that we can 'surprise God,' that is why Satan could not foist the doctored version of the 116 page manuscript to discredit the Book of Mormon, but instead God knew almost 2000 years before it happened that Martin Harris would loose the manuscript and told Nephi to prepare for that eventuality." No, that is not a logically necessary conclusion. It is also possible that God foresaw this possibility and took steps to prepare for it, and it is also possible that when God says something is going to happen, He makes it happen--not because the future is inevitable, but because when He tells the future to a prophet God is saying that He is going to cause this result.

"Who said God had 'free agency' as we understand it?" Well, it's not a given that we do understand what free agency really is. But I think anyone would agree that any understanding of free agency would have to mean that we have some meaningful ability to choose between alternatives. I think some Lehi guy said something or other about that. There are two major problems in Mormonism for thinking that God might not have free agency. The first is not unique to Mormonism: if God is not free to choose, then He is not omnipotent because He does not have all possible power. There is only one thing He can ever do. The second has to do with the good/evil dichotomy talked about in 2nd Nephi. Good cannot exist without evil. If God did not have the possibility of making an evil choice, then He could not be good, because the Book of Mormon teaches that "good" mean having a choice between good and evil and choosing to be good. Obviously, God would cease to be God if He made an evil choice, since "good" is part of the definition of God. The indeterminate future perspective is that God would not make an evil choice because it is impossible, but that He would never choose evil because of His perfect righteousness and the perfection of His character. God being good, in other words, not because He is constrained to be good (like Satan wanted us to be), but because He is so holy and righteous that He always chooses to be good.

"You see we cannot limit God by our narrow mortal perspective of reality and if we accept the Standard Works as true, then I assume we cannot disregard or discredit those scriptures when it is in conflict with out man-made philosophies or theories." I understand, but that's the opposite of what this thread is about. It's not based on man-made philosophies, because the argument assumes that God is what the Standard Works say He is. The question is what the Standard Works mean, and if you believe that it is as simple as you are saying, you certainly are free to do so. However, if we accept the Standard Works as true, then God is completely good and just and He also knows everything. A lot of smart, good, kindhearted people have left religion altogether because they could not reconcile these two concepts. Philosophy calls this "the problem of evil," and it is related to the topic in this thread. Another thing we would believe if we accept the Standard Works as true is that God is no respecter of persons, which most people would agree means that He loves all His children equally. There is another thread here that I got banned from about "the Lord protecting His missionaries in Chile," where I took exception to the implication that God forewarned this mission president so the missionaries would be prepared, but didn't bother to do the same for the hundreds of His other children in Chile whom He just left to suffer and die. The implication is that God loves Mormons better. Even if they don't agree with how I said it (which the board admins clearly did not), most fair-minded people would have a problem with the idea that a perfectly loving and just God picks and chooses which of His children He's going to throw a bone to. It's an issue of trying to explain to people struggling with these concepts of why they should maintain their faith in God.

You seem to feel that if people on this thread say that God does not already know an inevitable future that absolutely will happen, that we are demeaning God. But a great many people feel that Mormons are doing that in a much worse way by teaching that God is a perfect Man who has a physical body. The people who believe that God foresees all possibilities of an indeterminate future are not disputing God's love, perfection, intelligence, wisdom, or power. We are trying to think about how those things relate to each other.

[Darth J]

One can suppose that He does not know all things, but it cannot be proved by scripture or the words of the prophets to do so, only idle speculation of philosophers that I do not give any confidence in.

This thread is not supposing that He does not know all things, it is discussing what "all things" means.

You realize that "the scriptures say this plain and clear" (not saying that those are your precise words) is the exact same reasoning that Protestants and evangelical Christians use against our teachings, right?

-Mormonism is false, because the Bible says God is a spirit,

-Mormonism is false because it adds to the scriptures and the Bible says not to,

-Mormonism is false because the Bible says that Christ is the only Melchizedek priesthood holder,

-Mormonism is false because the Bible says that the devil will appear as an angel of light (they say this referring to Moroni, for those who think Mormonism was inspired by Satan instead of just made up),

-Mormonism is false because the Bible says that no man has seen God at any time,

Those kinds of things. Which the Bible does in fact say. But what the scriptures "clearly say" isn't so clear to us, is it?

[mapman]

-Mormonism is false because it adds to the scriptures and the Bible says not to,

Does not. The Bible never refers to itself because it is an assemblage of seperate books that each added to the scriptures.

[Darth J]

Does not. The Bible never refers to itself because it is an assemblage of seperate books that each added to the scriptures.

I know that. I'm saying that's what some people arguing against the Church say. Revelation and I don't remember right now which book of the Old Testament say the thing about adding or taking away from "this book." The Bible-is-inerrant type people tend to think "this book" means the current Christian Bible that didn't exist at the time the "this book" warnings were written.

[cksalmon]

Now this is an interesting one. I do happen to think that timelessness is problematic. First, it's difficult to make any sense of the notion, and second, it's seems to conflict with properties we [LDS] ordinarily attribute to God. The second concern is, in my view, particularly problematic for Mormons, and it appears that CK is aware of that.

Right. I have significant difficulty reconciling divine timelessness with the LDS conception of HF as a spatially-located entity. (My focus is narrow here, admittedly: for the sake of simplicity, I'm discounting the problem that divine timelessness raises with regard to my own belief in the now embodied state of Jesus as well as the LDS understanding of the Holy Spirit's apparently non-spatially-bound power to influence. Ultimately, those issues are quite important, and certainly not to be lightly cast aside, but, for the sake of discussion..., etc.)

I just don't see how it would work.

Best.

cks

[Brade]

Right. I have significant difficulty reconciling divine timelessness with the LDS conception of HF as a spatially-located entity. (My focus is narrow here, admittedly: for the sake of simplicity, I'm discounting the problem that divine timelessness raises with regard to my own belief in the now embodied state of Jesus as well as the LDS understanding of the Holy Spirit's apparently non-spatially-bound power to influence. Ultimately, those issues are quite important, and certainly not to be lightly cast aside, but, for the sake of discussion..., etc.)

I just don't see how it would work.

Best.

cks

I don't either. Over the years, from Sunday school classes and such, I've gotten sense that it's the standard view in the Church. That's very puzzling to me.

[handys003]

There are a couple of ideas particular to LDS theology that I'm not sure have been discussed as they relate to this thread:

1. If God has a physical body, then he exists in space. Since time and space are interrelated, per Einstein, then the suggestion that "God exists outside of time" implies that he would also exist outside of space, which is not compatible with God being a physical being.

2. It does not necessarily follow that God telling the future to a prophet means that God already knows that this future is absolutely what will happen. If God is omnipotent, and He knows everything that could possibly happen and how it could possibly happen, then He has the power to set events in motion so that through His omnipotence His predictions about the future become a self-fulfilling prophecy, because He makes that particular future happen.

3. Nobody has mentioned God's own free agency. The fundamental aspect of the plan of salvation as expressed in Mormon theology is free agency. Free agency requires a meaningful choice. If "God knows all things" means He knows everything that could possibly happen in the future and how it could possibly happen, then God has absolute free agency because He knows all possible choices that He can make. But if God knows the future because that future is definitely going to happen, then the future is predetermined and therefore God Himself has no free agency.

4. If "God knows all things" means that He knows a specific future that inevitably will happen, then it creates a paradox, because from God's perspective the future is always the past because from His perspective the future has already happened. In other words, the future is always the past because He already saw it happen.

5. If all members of the Godhead are equal in their knowledge, power and majesty, then Jesus Christ is equal to Heavenly Father and knows everything that Heavenly Father does. In D&C 45:3-5, Jesus Christ as a resurrected God said this:

"Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him

[Brade]

if you accept that HF organized matter then this must be from a different universe.

I don't see how it follows from the notion that God organized stuff that he did so from a different universe. I mean, it could just be the case that he organized stuff from round here in this universe. We organize matter (in crude ways of course), and do so easily enough from within this universe. I'm not suggesting that there's nothing at all to be said in favor of God existing outside this universe, but I don't think the idea that he organized stuff supports that conclusion. You might respond by saying that God organized the entire universe. The reasoning might look like this. If God is an organized thing, then if he organized this entire universe, he couldn't be a part of this universe before he organized it. And then you'd need some stuff about how organized things can't self-organize, but I think you get the point

[handys003]

I don't see how it follows from the notion that God organized stuff that he did so from a different universe. I mean, it could just be the case that he organized stuff from round here in this universe. We organize matter (in crude ways of course), and do so easily enough from within this universe. I'm not suggesting that there's nothing at all to be said in favor of God existing outside this universe, but I don't think the idea that he organized stuff supports that conclusion. You might respond by saying that God organized the entire universe. The reasoning might look like this. If God is an organized thing, then if he organized this entire universe, he couldn't be a part of this universe before he organized it. And then you'd need some stuff about how organized things can't self-organize, but I think you get the point

[cksalmon]

However if you accept that HF organized matter then this must be from a different universe.

So,

(1) HF organized matter

(2) Therefore, HF organized this [matter] from a different universe

I think we're missing between like 1 to 46 consequent propositions prior to (2), here.

I don't see it.

Best.

cks

[handys003]

So,

(1) HF organized matter

(2) Therefore, HF organized this [matter] from a different universe

I think we're missing between like 1 to 46 consequent propositions prior to (2), here.

I don't see it.

Best.

cks

LOL! rehashing ex nihilo again?