 |
| 
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/14/2004 5:37 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
The "it's a mystery" defense! ROTFLMAO
Well is it possible that maybe you're guilty of the putting God in the box mentality? Don't cloud up the issue here Sis with the smoke of diversion...  the fact is you good people here have claimed it's impossible for retrograde time to even exist or that it is impossible to take place...I think ive demonstrated that it is possible...Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega and the Beginning And The End, and I submit that's alot more then just metaphoric language that one dear person on here suggested. Again even Hawkings stated it is scientfically possible...why are you people saying it isn't? | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/14/2004 6:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Bobber
the fact is you good people here have claimed it's impossible for retrograde time to even exist
as shown by physicists
quote:
or that it is impossible to take place...I think ive demonstrated that it is possible...
Where? I haven't seen anything from you that shows that.
quote:
Again even Hawkings stated it is scientfically possible...why are you people saying it isn't?
Where did Hawking say that?
I've read the links you've posted and they disagree with what you've posted, it's obvious you didn't read the links yourself.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/14/2004 7:48 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
the fact is you good people here have claimed it's impossible for retrograde time to even exist [Bobber]
quote:
as shown by physicists
As shown by physicists?!? Isn’t Mr Hawkings a physicist and a very renown one? If Hawkings stated its impossible for retrograde time to exist why did he state the following then….
quote:
We thus have experimental evidence from the bending of light, that space-time is curved, and confirmation from the Casimir effect, that we can warp it in the negative direction. So it might seem possible, that as we advance in science and technology, we might be able to construct a wormhole, or warp space and time in some other way, so as to be able to travel into our past. [Stephen Hawkings]
So when Hawkings states we might be able to construct etc, etc, etc, to be able to travel into our past you’re saying it wouldn’t be possible according to physicists? And Hawkings isn’t one such individual? Hawkings also stated to be able to go back in time what you would need is a ship to go faster then the speed of light...he said it...its in the quotes....no offence but why won't you admit that?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/14/2004 8:03 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Bobber
So when Hawkings states we might be able to construct etc, etc, etc, to be able to travel into our past you’re saying it wouldn’t be possible according to physicists? And Hawkings isn’t one such individual? Hawkings also stated to be able to go back in time what you would need is a ship to go faster then the speed of light...he said it...its in the quotes....no offence but why won't you admit that?
"One of these is, if sometime in the future, we learn to travel in time, why hasn't someone come back from the future, to tell us how to do it?" -- Stephen Hawking, in the same lecture
"A possible way to reconcile time travel, with the fact that we don't seem to have had any visitors from the future, would be to say that it can occur only in the future. In this view, one would say space-time in our past was fixed, because we have observed it, and seen that it is not warped enough, to allow travel into the past. On the other hand, the future is open. So we might be able to warp it enough, to allow time travel. But because we can warp space-time only in the future, we wouldn't be able to travel back to the present time, or earlier." -- Stephen Hawking, in the same lecture
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/14/2004 8:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: God can't use that knowledge to bring the event about, to prevent the event, to guide people toward or away from the event, or anything else. There is nothing a God with such knowledge can do that a God without such knowledge cannot also do.
Bobber: Why can't he and who are we really to say that things on the time line [physcial time] can't be changed? Yes men of physics struggle with this but even many of them have put forth that well maybe this would occur to allow it or maybe that. If you're a Christian, Tom, lets not say to quick God can't do this or do that. Lets be careful shall we not to lock God in our box of limitations.
Tom: Gosh I hate it when people do that. We don't wanna limit God so we won't refuse attributing to God the ability to do anything we imagine might be possible (time travel, whatever). If that defense is allowed, Bob, then there's NO bit of evidence you'll accept as a disproof of your view. You just wanna believe it 'cause it helps you feel better about the puzzle. Whatever floats your boat bro. But you can't demonstrate how the pieces actually fit. You can solve all of this by simply giving us an example of how God might use such knowledge. If you can't, then I don't see that you've even ascribed anything meaningful to God at all.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/14/2004 9:39 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
"One of these is, if sometime in the future, we learn to travel in time, why hasn't someone come back from the future, to tell us how to do it?" -- Stephen Hawking, in the same lecture
He’s asking a good question and a good answer might be what ive already stated. Who’s to say that mankind will ever develop such a technology, im sure the second coming of Christ will take place long before such and could it be that God may not allow the physical time line of man to be tampered with…[that is by man]but Hawkings states the principals in physics are there none the less for backwards [retrograde ] time to exist.
quote:
"A possible way to reconcile time travel, with the fact that we don't seem to have had any visitors from the future, would be to say that it can occur only in the future.
But all he’s clearly doing here is adding a theory why then future visitors we haven’t seen…what about the theory or suggestion that God just won’t let man even in the future tamper with the time line of physical time? What would be wrong with that? If he was a believer in God seeing he believes retrograde time is allowable he would therefore have to agree such might be the case. My good friends here of the OT position will probably stay with Hawkings original question though. You will continually want to lock into it and say again Where are the visitors from the future…..And the truth of the matter still is you don’t need any to make what ive said to be true….God may not allow any tampering or changing of the time line except what he might choose to do.... [I betya that might get a reaction  Kind of hope that they'll ask me what I mean by that 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/14/2004 9:48 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
Bobber, you say, it is scientifically possible to travel back in time.
We say, no it ain't. You say, God doesn't have to follow our science.
So why bring up science in the first place?
Ooooo, good point Sahid. Body slam!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/14/2004 9:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid: Does God have to travel faster than the speed of light to go back in time?
Tom: This is part of the problem too. An omniscient God by definition wouldn't travel at any speed. The transfer of information would be everywhere immediate for God.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/14/2004 10:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Sahid: Does God have to travel faster than the speed of light to go back in time?
quote:
Tom: This is part of the problem too. An omniscient God by definition wouldn't travel at any speed. The transfer of information would be everywhere immediate for God.
But the only problem here is that there is no such thing as being in the future...why...because it is not a reality until it unfolds...again we might ask is God enjoying the weather in the land of the wizard of Oz...no such place exist...therefore we cannot claim that God is not omniscient just because he is not in that imaginary place....Once the future does take place however...ahhhhh.....it is no longer imaginary....going backwards in time is not an imaginary principal....its allowable by our knowledge of physics.....Stephen Hawkings said so
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 7/14/2004 12:38 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Bobber: that is one thing God says which reveals his reality...his ability to not predict, but rather reveal the future...
Tom: But since what is revealed is already by definition the result of whatever was done that contributed to bringing it about, such revealation cannot become the basis upon which the future is formed. Such revelation cannot be gainfully employed by God or anyone else. God can't use knowledge gained FROM an event to act providentially with regard TO that event. He can't use that knowledge ot bring the event about, to prevent the event, to guide people toward or away from the event, or anything else. There is nothing a God with such knowledge can do that a God without such knowledge cannot also do.
Tom,
This is something I've been meaning to ask you about for a while. You seem to grant that, if God had timeless knowledge of future events, God would be able to reveal those events to us. Do you grant this much? And, if so, could that ability in and of itself be considered an advantage? Perhaps not "providential advantage" in the sense of being able to use such knowledge to bring about an event or prevent it, etc. But advantageous nonetheless in terms of divine revelation. I can think of a couple of ways someone might consider this to be advantageous: First, many people believe that revealing future events is one of the ways God establishes God's credentials. Second, the ability to reveal future events would be important for those who hold to inerrancy and who also interpret Scripture to reveal future events in a way that seems incompatible with a partly open future.
So if you fall into one of those two categories, wouldn't "timeless knowledge" provide something that the OV doesn't provide? I realize this is a litte different from the argument you've made regarding "providential" advantage. But is there a potential advantage nonetheless and, if so, shouldn't we concede as much?
Thanks,
Earl
| | Back to Top | | |
|
sometimesisquint
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 91
| Posted 7/14/2004 1:44 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/14/2004 2:29 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
But the only problem here is that there is no such thing as being in the future...why...because it is not a reality until it unfolds...again we might ask is God enjoying the weather in the land of the wizard of Oz...no such place exist...therefore we cannot claim that God is not omniscient just because he is not in that imaginary place....Once the future does take place however...ahhhhh.....it is no longer imaginary....going backwards in time is not an imaginary principal....its allowable by our knowledge of physics.....Stephen Hawkings said so
Ok. The future is like Oz; it doesn't exist. Once the future does take place it's no longer imaginary. So are you saying the future has taken place? It hasn't. You need some sort of hyper-time or static or tenseless time theory to make that work. Have fun filling the holes in those arguements. If you're doing static or tenseless time, you lose freewill and get a set, already real future. If you do hyper-time, maybe. It might allow for freewill, but it doesn't allow for God to move around in our time. By removing your finger to cover one hole, you leave another hole uncovered.
Again I'll ask. Did God know the future before He created? Let's say God had the ability to create universes A through Z. In some of those scenarios there is sin, in some there isn't. If God chooses on with sin, and He has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future, then He willfully caused sin. But God is holy. We've got exhaustive foreknowledge, goodness, and complete power attributed to God in the moments before creation. These don't lead to sin. But there it is. So we've got some options.
1. God doesn't have exhaustive foreknowledge.
2. There is no such thing as exhaustive foreknowledge.
3. God isn't good.
4. There is no such thing as good.
5. God is in some way powerless.
6. There is no such thing as power.
The odds deny God a property. The evens deny the property itself. The evens say nothing about God directly. Either God has exhaustive foreknowledge or He doesn't. If He does I'd have to go with Lee and say that all people will be saved. But I don't think the scripture backs that view.
I'm tired of writing. It seems like you're doing the finger covering holes thing. It's frustrating. All the answers you give open up new problem. Which you answer with answers that cause the same problem you sought to solve in the first place. You can't have both God knowing and not knowing before creation. Pick one.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/14/2004 3:12 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I'm not sure I trust you to make definitive scientific or theological arguments about the nature and possibility of time-travel when you can't even figure out how to work the editing tools on this forum. [sometimesisquint]
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; I Cor 1:27  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/14/2004 3:42 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
No, for precisely the same reason that "time travel" to the past would not work--nothing exists but now. The most that traveling at speeds close to the speed of light would do is make present change as perceived by the traveler go slower. It would not affect the status of the ever-present now that exists regardless of how fast objects are traveling.
That is not according to what men of physics say John…they state very clearly that retrograde time would exist above the speed of light.
quote:
In addition, God is everywhere; therefore, Bobber's contention that God supercedes the speed of light is not true, as God has no need to travel from place to place (He's already everywhere at all times). [John]
But the future is not a real place John until it occurs….but God will not have it so that he has limitations….so the knowledge of the future is connected back to the past…. I will not accept that Jesus made wild risky guesses when it came to things like Peter denying the Lord three times nor do I believe God made Peter deny him. I would suggest the only thing that works would be the thing ive suggested….It also lines up with what men of physics say would take place above the speed of light…..
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/14/2004 3:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Earl: You seem to grant that, if God had timeless knowledge of future events, God would be able to reveal those events to us. Do you grant this much? And, if so, could that ability in and of itself be considered an advantage?
Tom: I don’t know how a God with timeless knowledge would be able to reveal those events to us. The revelation is itself an event in time and would, presumably, be as timelessly known as what is revealed. But the timeless character of the knowledge won’t permit the logical sequence necessary for God to FIRST know and THEN reveal. So I’m not sure I’d grant that the move is even possible. True, I usually grant it’s possible to those who claim it because they claim it is the basis for God’s providential action in the world. So I grant it for the sake of argument because it becomes obvious that even IF it were possible it would not be useful.
But you’re suggesting non-providential uses of such knowledge, namely, that God is revealed as a God who possesses such knowledge, pure and simple. And this must make a big impression on those who realize God has such knowledge. And secondly, it explains how God prophesies future events.
OK, on the first use, I'm not sure how impressed I am by a God who knows the entire future miticulously but can do nothing with that knowledge except tell me that he knows everything meticulously. What's impressive about being able to do so little with so much knowledge?
The second (prophecy) is not a non-providential use of timeless knowledge. At least it doesn’t seem so to me. Prophesying the future is an act God understakes to accomplish some purpose. This seems like a providential act to me. But either way, the simple act would seem impossible. Timeless knowledge, at least understood traditionally, isn’t acquired by God in stages. He possesses it as an attribute. It wouldn’t be possible for God to timelessly know an event (say, Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem in 4 BC) and reveal it to an Old Testament prophet prior to the event. For, presumably, God knows the two events (the prophecy and the prophesied) in one single, timeless act of knowing. In order for knowledge of an event to be the BASIS of choosing to prophesy the event, the former has to come to God logically prior than the latter. And that’s not possible with timeless knowledge.
Bobber’s version doesn’t fair any better. Hawkings at best admits that it MIGHT be THEORETICALLY possible to travel back in time. That’s a big might and an even bigger theoretical. And Hawkings is one (albeit very smart) physicist. Other equally smart scientists disagree. Bobber will have to come up with something more. I don’t find the idea that God can travel back in time with information gained from actual events themselves (once they’ve occurred) intelligible or (if it were granted) advantageous.
But I’m not a smart physicist!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/14/2004 3:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Sahid,
quote:
Again I'll ask. Did God know the future before He created? Let's say God had the ability to create universes A through Z. In some of those scenarios there is sin, in some there isn't. If God chooses on with sin, and He has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future, then He willfully caused sin. But God is holy.
Well said. This is very much like the reasoning that led me, many years ago, to work at testing whether scripture could be read consistent with OV (of course I didn't call it OV in the 1980's). But Calvinists don't believe that God at any point in time "purposed" something truly new to His mind. Thus, our whole creation with all it's events are in God's mind eternally (past and future), including all of God's thoughts and actions. But note, they therefore have to take verses that speak of God "purposing" and "deciding" as figurative. But they take any verses consistent with Calvinism as being inexplicable any other way. But if we're going to let language do it's natural bending, shouldn't it be bent towards consistency with our native intuition? Calvinists seem to think otherwise.
That's why it seems hasty to jump on the bandwagon of scientific models that presuppose the invalidity of human intuition about time, space, and causality. If we start denying intuition, we're committing intellectual suicide. Besides, there are very talented scientists from various world-views that question all major scientific paradigms. Why, then, believe that science has "arrived?" I'm sticking with intuition until it has been completely and absolutely shown to lead to an undeniable contradiction - which would just prove that we are intellectually incompetent to know THE TRUTH.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/14/2004 8:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Folks...
Let me ask some of you folks what you think of the following story...maybe you'll think its just that...a story but I can assure you its not....a number of years ago in the Southern United States a fellowship of believers at a Bible college were having a prayer meeting....During the time of prayer they felt an overwhelming urge to pray for the US President, Ronald Reagan....this was not something like praying for the government like we all do in general way but they had a real compulsive leading to do so, that is to pray for the President....After praying for some time the leader of the group began speaking words which didn't make sense to them at the time, strange words...
but a few days later they were shocked to discover the things that were said and the statements that were made were the exact words that Ronald Reagan said AFTER he was shot....this group of believers felt God had them pray for the president to save his life. Well a few years ago a read Nancy Reagan’s book, “My Turn,” where she talked about the attempted assignation....the bullet that went into the President was a certain type of bullet which was designed to explode upon entering the body but for some strange reason it didn't. Here’s what I suggest happened and that is God changed his destiny, meaning what God saw take place from the realm of time he was willing to change....some would suggest that's not possible for what about the paradox problem....
Well consider this, and I would suggest it will show you God can change the time line....to be in good taste i'll not use the Presidents name here...but lets say a man is shot...God sends the knowledge of it back in time, where Christians begin to pray....they're praying for the mans safety and welfare....God answers the prayer by sending the angels and they cause a slight change of what took place....now if all this takes place [in the way that we look at things immediately the very second the bullet hits the man, there is therefore no future things that have taken place beyond that that causes a paradox....as long as all the changes are made at that very moment and second....So I don't see any problem with God changing the time line but he has to do it immediately that is as time goes along....don’t you think that God could do that? I would suggest he does for people more then you might imagine…some say the knowledge of the future to God would be useless...I just can't buy that argument.... I believe God does intervene sometimes not all the time,but sometimes for various certain reasons. Not possible? 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/14/2004 8:28 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I don’t find the idea that God can travel back in time with information gained from actual events themselves (once they’ve occurred) intelligible or (if it were granted) advantageous. [Tom]
See my last post Tom and tell me that its not advantageous
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 7/14/2004 8:51 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
Did God know before the creation of the universe that I would lust after that girl in chemistry class? If so, is it possible that I could have proven God wrong and kept my mind pure?
Excuse me, but I think I might have been in that class. Sorry friend, but if that was the same girl  I remember, well... you didn’t have a chance. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/14/2004 8:55 PM (GMT -6) | | I'll recommend a book by my favorite Morman, Pastwatch, by Orson Scott Card. He deals with an analogous story to your president example. The issue is whether time is made of distinct units or if momments flow into one another. If momments are distinct, you could conceivably (not in reality) go back in time and change stuff, but you'd find it unchanged when you came back (if that were possible). It's pretty much a static model of time. If time flows, the "first" future is destoyed and the "second" future replaces it. But would God remember what never had and never would exist. It could sort of jive with hyper-time. But that's the thing. In hyper-time the "real" or "absolute" time is not moved backwards through. It either is "eternally present" or is one way. I think you view must hold the distict units of time view to make sense. But consciousness itself argues against distinct units of time. It seems at least that time flows. It doesn't look like reality is like a movie with a succession of frames. And if it is, you are not the same person as "you" were a momment ago. God would have zillions of "you" to save. It seems clear that time flows just like space; there are no distinct units making up space; you can cut any unit of space in half. It looks like you could conceivable cut any duration of time in half. So, non-distinct time at least appears to be true, but it is in contradiction to unity of consciousness, travel backwards through absolute time, and God causing change through blasting back information (three things that you want to keep).
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
| 127 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:59 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|