Yeah, I don’t think he is choosing his words carefully.
The eternity of God means that he is independent of time. We speak of ‘eternity past’, but that is more of a technical term and about logical sequence and not related to time, strictly speaking. Our language is inadequate to fully do God justice – that should be no surprise, especially when talking about his relationship to time – our our verbs are tensed, bound in sequential time to which God is not limited.
Were you trying to be funny?
No. And you really need to cut down on the smileys. Maybe cold turkey would be best.
God’s existence can be split into two, with Creation and without. The without we (I) refer to as before, as in God’s foreknowledge. Also, to create implies a ‘time’ when the creation did not existence, hence the need to act.
Analogies help some people understand. Granted, this is a difficult topic to touch on, let alone get any kind of grip, and impossible to surround.
The problem is that the analogy just doesn’t do what you want it to, as I have explained at length and you have not responded to.
But if God is outside of time, then what is foreknowledge to us is just knowledge to God.
The best I can hope for with respect to God’s providence (for your sake) is that you will experience some that is undeniable.
Not that I want you to fall on hard times, but sometimes that is what it takes for God to get our attention. The providential sequence of ‘co-instants’ in this account is wonderful:
The best I can hope for is that you will be able to explain something, anything. Now that would be a demonstration of God’s providence.
That link doesn’t go where you think it does.
Maybe it is your thinking that is skewed.
It is the same link, copied and pasted.
Or have you been banned from BioLogos. That makes a certain amount of sense.
OK, now it works. Don’t know why it didn’t before. So, was that intended to be part of the discussion of how miracles work, or was it just you trying to convert me? And what was that last snide remark about?
That ↑ is a pot calling a kettle black. It doesn’t excuse me, however, from being less than gracious, returning insult for insult and me being not what I want to be.
The sequence of multiple co-instants in Maggie’s desperation is a very cool illustration of God’s working in his providence. It is unexplainable, however, how God orchestrates events – timing and placing, in his sovereignty over time and place, even with the best crafted analogy. No laws of nature where broken, at least from a human perspective, in any of those events. They were way more than just highly improbable independent coincidents, they were fully infused with meaning that integrated them all together into a wonderful unity.
It is intended to be another example in someone else’s life besides mine to show you what providential, ‘hypernatural’, miracles look like. It does not, once again, explain how God accomplishes it. Can you point out where any laws of nature were broken?
What I hope it might be for some unbelieving onlookers, who may be humble seekers, is additional evidence for God’s existence, exemplifying one of his primary M.O.s, and thus maybe helping them find him. It might also be encouragement for some believers who need it.
You are certainly not a humble seeker, and we are certainly not friends, but in the extreme (and it would be a miraculous instance of God’s providence!), it might someday help you to find him / be found of him. That implies we would be friends forever, perish the thought.
Is that what you think it was? No, I don’t insult you.
Again, the difference seems to be that you don’t call it breaking laws when the breaking happens where you can’t see it happening. I don’t consider that to be a useful distinction.
You understand that we aren’t arguing here about God’s existence but about the nature of miracles (assuming they happen). Right?
I will further say that this all strikes me as seriously egotistical. God is arranging other people’s lives to send me a message. It remeinds me also of the way people who survive or avoid plane crashes commonly credit God for saving them when 100 others were killed.
Oh please 
:
They were at least less than gracious. I can find more, and in other conversations, but it would just be an exercise in negativity.
I don’t see you giving us any explanation that explains and otherwise makes sense of the events. Or are you denying that there was any meaning in the combined sequence?
John and theodicy again. And two red herrings, or are they straw men, or both.
Still, they weren’t insults. You can deal with your own behavior without attacking mine.
Whether I think there was meaning is irrelevant. As for explanations, if they were caused by God, then he must have intervened through violation of natural laws. You yourself have implied that, though you don’t realize it. I have pointed out the implications of what you said. And you need to respond, if you have any interest in real discussion.
Do you have any response?