 |
 | 
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/15/2004 2:04 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Bobber, what's it gonna be? 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? [Sahid]
Absolutely not! God had every right to get the ball rolling and bring forth creation. If you choose to sin that’s your own bad decision. Stop trying to blame God! You are what you yourself have chosen to be...step up to the plate and accept responsiblity for your own actions...God is not mocked...a man will reap what he sows...you're the sower in the field of your own life...don't try to put that on God.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/15/2004 4:00 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Bobber
quote:
Tom: 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.
Bobber: See my last post Tom and tell me that its not advantageous 
Perfectly unintelligible jibber to me. But hey, if it makes life work for ya, go for it. Love Jesus and others. Who cares about the rest?
Peace,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/15/2004 4:23 AM (GMT -6) | | singular "time travel" events don't solve the problem of God having to "blast back" infinite amounts of data through finite media
and when the information gets there, the recipients are all dead 
"Conclusion
To begin with, it is rather difficult to define exactly what is really meant by FTL travel and FTL communication. Many things such as shadows can go FTL but not in a useful way which can carry information. There are several serious possibilities for real FTL which have been proposed in the scientific literature but there are technical difficulties. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle tends to stop the use of apparent FTL quantum effects for sending information or matter."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/15/2004 5:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
singular "time travel" events don't solve the problem of God having to "blast back" infinite amounts of data through finite media
Well like I said before Sis you don't have to blast back infinite data to make true what ive stated before....
quote:
There are several serious possibilities for real FTL which have been proposed in the scientific literature but there are technical difficulties.
Well im glad to see you're finally acknowlegding that for it seems to me by no means were you doing before....and sure there are technical difficulties for man ever to be able to achieve such a thing...but man is physical [that is part of his being] but God is a Spirit, the substance and nature of a higher order of existence....those difficulties I would submit do not apply to God....lets not bring God down to a creature of lower glory 
quote:
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle tends to stop the use of apparent FTL quantum effects for sending information or matter."
Well from what ive read about the Heisenberg uncertainty it's basically this that if you seek to observe a thing you're adding light or energy which changes the object...what in the world does that have to do with what ive put forth....im sure you and your friends here Sis might not think of me as the sharpest pencil on the block but please tell me what you're meaning.... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/15/2004 5:59 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Bobber
quote:
singular "time travel" events don't solve the problem of God having to "blast back" infinite amounts of data through finite media
Well like I said before Sis you don't have to blast back infinite data to make true what ive stated before....
You believe God knows the future, correct? All the future or just some of the future?
All the future means, everything into infinite eternity.
He sends it back through finite media.
Infinite information cannot be stuffed into finity.
If you say God can do any silly thing that comes to your head, then you have no argument against all the wackos out there saying any crazy thing. There has to be some basis to your belief and you have provided no basis.
quote:
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle tends to stop the use of apparent FTL quantum effects for sending information or matter."
quote:
Well from what ive read about the Heisenberg uncertainty it's basically this that if you seek to observe a thing you're adding light or energy which changes the object...what in the world does that have to do with what ive put forth....im sure you and your friends here Sis might not think of me as the sharpest pencil on the block but please tell me what you're meaning....
Sending information back adds matter to the past which changes the past.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/15/2004 6:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Sister: Sending information back adds matter to the past which changes the past.
Tom: Precisely. So there are two pasts. The past that ran its course to get to the point in time at which God could THEN relay info "back" to the past, and the past that ran its course after God visited it.
Utterly rediculous.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/15/2004 6:39 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Sister: Sending information back adds matter to the past which changes the past.
Tom: Precisely. So there are two pasts. The past that ran its course to get to the point in time at which God could THEN relay info "back" to the past, and the past that ran its course after God visited it.
Utterly rediculous.
AND, it goes on: the information relayed back was about a future that DIDN'T have information from the future, so you'd have to relay back to the past, again, new information as well, about a future that DID have future information. Understand?
first pass through time -- no information about the future
second pass through time -- includes information about a future that doesn't possess information about the future
third pass through time -- includes information about a future that possessed information about a future that doesn't possess information about the future
fourth pass through time -- includes information about a future that possessed information about a future that possessed information about a future that doesn't possess information about the future
fifth pass through time -- includes information about a future that possessed information about a future that possessed information about a future that possessed information about a future that doesn't possess information about the future
.
.
.
The Bobber Paradox.   | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/15/2004 7:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Bobber-
Your explanations suffer from the same intelligibility gap that condemns the traditional timeless knowledge (i.e., simple foreknowledge) view. It’s like theological Sci-fi. Now, take your example. Ronald Regan speaks some words at t3. That actually happens. God experiences that and “in response” takes this information back to the past, to t2 and has somebody during prayer utter those very same words.
God doesn’t “get” Regan’s words until Regan speaks them at t3, at which time t2 has past without your friend speaking Regan’s words. That particular t2, unvisited by God from t3, had to pass to get to the t3 which makes the past-visit possible. If God cannot visit the past with info on an event until that event occurs, then by definition the to-be-visited-past has already occurred without the visit. When God visits t2 from t3, then, he is necessarily changing the past.
This has huge implications. If God can change the past, why has he left so very much of it as it is (the Holocaust, world wars, etc.)? Why not revisit it as many times as possible with as much revelation as possible until you get the flow of history you want? Why not believe that God is constantly revisiting all points of the pasts and actualizing all the possible worlds? What's to stop one from claiming that God is revisiting the Fall over and over again in an attempt to get it to turn out positively? Are we resopnsible for acts we commit the first run through but not the second run through time? If Adam falls at t2 and God goes back in time to t1 where Adam is being tempted and succeeds in convincing Adam of the terrible consequences of his sin so that Adam doesn't sin, is Adam still responsible for the sin he committed which was responsible for God's choosing to go back to t1 in the first place? In which worlds are the consequences of evil actions chosen but successfully changed by God through revisiting them played out? Are they played out anywhere? If not, what happens to moral responsibility and free will? At what point does God decide to live with our choices? Are there ANY philosophical restraints on how far one is to carry this Sci-fi script?
You haven’t answered any of the important questions. Not only are you unable to account meaningfully for HOW God gets such a thing done, you’re unable to account for WHY God doesn’t do so much more when he is presumably able to do so as often as he likes via time travel.
The idea that there are at least two versions of the past (or an infinite number of them as Sisters suggested!), one which runs its course to get God to a point in time where he is able to travel back to the past, and the revisited version of the past containing whatever deposit of information God brought to it, remains unintelligible to me. It’s doesn’t solve anything and creates its own set of problems for free will, moral responsibility, and providence.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/15/2004 7:27 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
You believe God knows the future, correct? All the future or just some of the future?
Well ive already covered this ground Sis ….Ive stated the future that is of physical time may not be infinite. In a faster then light universe you wouldhave the capacity of anti-time, so you don’t have to know all the future of physical time to know the future of mankind within the universe of the physical. The universe of the physical time as we know it may be done away and please don’t tell me there aren’t knowledgeable men of physics who haven’t’ suggested time could go other directions in another universe. You would be just kidding me if you did.
quote:
If you say God can do any silly thing that comes to your head, then you have no argument against all the wackos out there saying any crazy thing. There has to be some basis to your belief and you have provided no basis.
I would say I most certainly have…just because you claim I haven’t doesn’t make it so Sis….
quote:
Sending information back adds matter to the past which changes the past.
Well I don’t know Sis…have a look at this…here’s one place where it states you could very well send messages back into the past….
www.angelfire.com/ga/dracodraconis/physicsconcl.html -
Unfounded Conclusions
quote:
Through the manipulation of virtual particles, it is theoretically possible to both SEND MESSAGES BACKWARDS IN TIME!!! through the application of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and to TRAVEL BACKWARDS IN TIME!!! by use of the Casimir Effect.
Messages in time: the momentum associated with a virtual particle can be very precisely measured, and due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the location of that particle becomes so uncertain as to occupy all of space. Thus, the momentum associated with a virtual particle can be exchanged no matter the physical location of the two particles between which the exchange takes place. If the particles are sufficiently far enough apart, the virtual particle that travels between them appears to move faster than the speed of light. The result is that the particle which receives the virtual particle appears to affect the transmitting particle backwards in time. If these effects are properly measured, it could be possible to transmit messages to the past!
I'll admit im getting lost in a few of these technical things...But I believe the general jist is true that being, we know on the other side of the speed of light anti-time, retrograde time, whatever you might want to call it would exist. It would absolutely fit the scriptural truth that Jesus is the Alpha /Omega, Begingging And The End....it would provide the means whereby God knew of our decisions by foreknoweledge without having made the decisions for us....wouldn't you good people agree ?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
sometimesisquint
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 91
| Posted 7/15/2004 7:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Bobber-
This has huge implications. If God can change the past, why has he left so very much of it as it is (the Holocaust, world wars, etc.)? Why not revisit it as many times as possible with as much revelation as possible until you get the flow of history you want? Why not believe that God is constantly revisiting all points of the pasts and actualizing all the possible worlds?
...doesn’t solve anything and creates its own set of problems for free will, moral responsibility, and providence.
Tom
Yes, indeed. It raises too many questions about God's character and the nature of "evil".
quote:
Let me ask some of you folks what you think of the following story...
Am I the only person who requires documented evidence of this "story" and it's supposed credibility? I know that the discussion doesn't hinge on the factual representation of Ronald Reagan prophecies, but really, this sounds like the perfect ammunition for every middle-American skeptic.
I'm not denying the supernatural ability of God (although, as has been argued effectively, this sort of ability is impossible for varying reasons) but it does seem unfortunate that with the age of information and technology in which we find ourselves existing we can't "back up" all these claims of divine intervention.
---
All apologies for the off-topic post...
"What's partner yoga?"
"It's when you're two with the universe."
-My Friend Keith
---
When life gives you dish rags, you make...a kite that won't fly in the rain. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/15/2004 7:36 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Bobber
In a faster then light universe you wouldhave the capacity of anti-time, so you don’t have to know all the future of physical time to know the future of mankind within the universe of the physical.
The future of mankind is eternal.
quote:
The universe of the physical time as we know it may be done away and please don’t tell me there aren’t knowledgeable men of physics who haven’t’ suggested time could go other directions in another universe.
There aren't. No sane person believes in backwards causation.
"anti-time"???
You and spenlake need to get together with your "anti-time" and "anti-events". Anti-logic
quote:
Sending information back adds matter to the past which changes the past.
quote:
Well I don’t know Sis…have a look at this…here’s one place where it states you could very well send messages back into the past….
www.angelfire.com/ga/dracodraconis/physicsconcl.html -
Unfounded Conclusions
Did you look at the bottom of that page? It says:
--an excerpt from THE MOCK-JOURNAL OF UNTRUE SCIENCE
That's why he called the page, "Unfounded Conclusions".
The guy makes a case for free will.
http://www.angelfire.com/ga/dracodraconis/physicsphil.html
quote:
I'll admit im getting lost in a few of these technical things...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/15/2004 10:13 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
God doesn’t “get” Regan’s words until Regan speaks them at t3, at which time t2 has past without your friend speaking Regan’s words. That particular t2, unvisited by God from t3, had to pass to get to the t3 which makes the past-visit possible. If God cannot visit the past with info on an event until that event occurs, then by definition the to-be-visited-past has already occurred without the visit. When God visits t2 from t3, then, he is necessarily changing the past. [Tom]
Hi Tom and thanks for your response. Only in one sense he is changing the past in giving them certain particular words which they really didn't totally understand the significance of....but what’s wrong with changing some things of the past for a certain given reason God chooses to direct humanity....take for example a bullet hits a person and God knows the wound will terminate the individual ....all this changing of the occurrence can be done in a split second to cause a different end result. None of the other future would have to even be played out...what do you have there? I would say no real paradox....immediate change.
quote:
This has huge implications.
It could have implications if you didn't have an all wise God overseeing the time line. And keep in mind it could be said there are great huge implications in regard to the total open theism position that many of you good people put forth and a great many in Christiandom believe you need to appreciate those....one being like we've talked about and will never get rid of that you's will be asked about, and asked about and that is declarations that God made about Peter denying him three times. [and other things as well] We're to believe Jesus would go out on a limb and make an educated logical guess things like this would occur? Were to believe that Jesus loved us [some might argue]so little that he'd go out on a limb so far like that that if wrong everything would fall apart and that we'd cease to have confidence in him?
quote:
If God can change the past, why has he left so very much of it as it is (the Holocaust, world wars, etc.)? Why not revisit it as many times as possible with as much revelation as possible until you get the flow of history you want?
Because it might be even though it doesn't please God, some things for certain reasons just have to be allowed to play out. Yes I know none of us want the cheap excuses but remember there is a scripture which does state the secret thing belongs unto the Lord but that which is revealed belongs to us and to our children....I will say this though...how do you know that God didn't change alot of various things....or that he didn't get involved to at least minimize what might have happened or could have happened...I mean I know you people believe in prayer.
quote:
You haven’t answered any of the important questions. Not only are you unable to account meaningfully for HOW God gets such a thing done...
But how many of us can really account in a meaningful way of how God can speak words and create the universe to begin with??? Can any of us as Christians wrap our minds around a concept of one we can actually talk to in something we call prayer and he becomes our actual Lord but also friend and yet he created billions of galaxies...someone like to whom the bible say we are created in his image!?! And again if we were to ask the question how could God have millions and millions of Christians praying all at once and he’s able to focus in upon us every second as if we were the only one praying?
That right there would take different time frame dimensions of God and don’t even ask me what that means. God listens to you fully and with 100 % attention but he's listening to me the same way at the exact same moment of time? And like ive said millions of other people as well? How could God do this? You accept it though don't you even though you don't understand it? If you're a Christian im sure you do. I conceded to Sis I was getting lost in in odd one of the technical things we were discussing the Heisenburg Uncertainty but none the less I still believe that what ive said holds true….we do know that time slows down or atomic clocks run different as one reaches light speed? Its said that time, or at least our perception of looking at another going the speed of light would mean time would stop….why should the system of the universe be set up this way….and when men of physics say FTL going [faster then light] they would be experiencing retrograde time relative to us….
I ask how does it fit in and why? And I see the why answered very clearly….to provide God the capacity to know the end from the beginning…I would say that has to be the only reason why atomic clocks run differently with different situations…Einstein and men of physics have shown us what happens but they don’t answer the question why it happens….there’s where I think we Christians can step up to the plate and point out to them and to humanity the only logical conclusion. If what im saying doesn’t make sense then why then do atomic clocks all run different [when looking at different scenarios]That's the thing that kind of convinces me that I might be right
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/16/2004 6:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Bobber: …what’s wrong with changing some things of the past for a certain given reason God chooses to direct humanity…
Tom: What’s wrong with it is everything I’ve explained thus far. It’s impossible to conceive, solves no problems, and creates a new set of problems.
Bobber: ....take for example a bullet hits a person and God knows the wound will terminate the individual ....all this changing of the occurrence can be done in a split second to cause a different end result. None of the other future would have to even be played out...what do you have there? I would say no real paradox....immediate change.
Tom: It’s worse than paradox. It’s not even coherent. The problem is the death of the person who was shot DID occur and is by definition the event which brought God to the point of deciding to go back to the past in the first place. The shooting DID take place. It’s what causes/motivates the time-travel. But the time-travel is designed to uncreate the very cause of its own undertaking. See, all that the present moment IS is by definition already the result of WHATEVER has been done to influence it. You deny this in positing multiple pasts in your theory. You claim the first past is the basis upon which God decides at some present moment after the event to go back and undo things. But the undone past is the basis of the choice to go back in time.
Bobber: It could have implications if you didn't have an all wise God overseeing the time line.
Tom: The implications are there no matter what. That God is all-wise doesn’t explain why a God who can revisit the past as often as he likes has chosen to leave our history as screwed up as it is. One is left wondering what “wise” means.
Bobber: And keep in mind it could be said there are great huge implications in regard to the total open theism position…
Tom: There are indeed. But at least the implications follow from coherent claims.
Bobber: …one being like we've talked about and will never get rid of that you's will be asked about, and asked about and that is declarations that God made about Peter denying him three times.
Tom: I wouldn’t suggest that open theism is 100% airtight and doesn’t leave a single question unanswered. But it fairs better than the competition. The view on Peter’s denial that I take is not implausible. But you’ve got to make several huge assumptions (of science and theology) before you get to Peter, and even then, more philosophical problems are created than are solved.
Bobber: We're to believe Jesus would go out on a limb and make an educated logical guess things like this would occur?
Tom: I wouldn’t, but that’s not my explanation of Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial.
Bobber: Were to believe that Jesus loved us [some might argue] so little that he'd go out on a limb so far like that that if wrong everything would fall apart and that we'd cease to have confidence in him?
Tom: Not sure what you’re even talking about here.
quote:
Tom: If God can change the past, why has he left so very much of it as it is (the Holocaust, world wars, etc.)? Why not revisit it as many times as possible with as much revelation as possible until you get the flow of history you want?
Bobber: Because it might be even though it doesn't please God, some things for certain reasons just have to be allowed to play out. Yes I know none of us want the cheap excuses but remember there is a scripture which does state the secret thing belongs unto the Lord but that which is revealed belongs to us and to our children....
Would you allow ME to use THAT same defense against YOUR claims that open theist explanations of Peter’s denial don’t make sense or aren’t plausible? I think I’ll just reply, “Well, you know, the secret things belong to the Lord, Bobber. How Jesus knew Peter would deny him three times just isn’t something that’s revealed to us. I know that’s a cheap explanation, but you’ll just have to suck it up. The future is partly open even if that can’t always be explained to our satisfaction.”
Bobber: I will say this though...how do you know that God didn't change alot of various things....or that he didn't get involved to at least minimize what might have happened or could have happened...I mean I know you people believe in prayer.
Tom: Well, I don’t think God has already changed the past a lot for the same reasons I don’t think God can make a rock so big he can’t pick it up, or make a married bachelor, or make the color red smell good. But I do believe God gets very involved in minimizing evil the FIRST time through. I just believe he’s intelligent enough to do all that can be done to minimize evil the first time he encounters it.
quote:
Tom: You haven’t answered any of the important questions. Not only are you unable to account meaningfully for HOW God gets such a thing done...
Bobber: But how many of us can really account in a meaningful way of how God can speak words and create the universe to begin with? Can any of us as Christians wrap our minds around a concept of one we can actually talk to in something we call prayer and he becomes our actual Lord but also friend and yet he created billions of galaxies...someone like to whom the bible say we are created in his image!?! And again if we were to ask the question how could God have millions and millions of Christians praying all at once and he’s able to focus in upon us every second as if we were the only one praying?
We don’t need to be required to account for HOW God can create the universe. We need to account for the meaningfulness of the claim “God created the universe.” So, yes, I can wrap my head around the concept of God creating, speaking, and hearing our prayers. I can often hear what two people are saying to me and understand them both. So it’s not a leap into meaninglessness to wrap my head around the concept that God may be so intelligent and have such infinite abilities that he’s able to attend to millions of issues at once. That is meaningful to me. Sure, I can’t stand on the inside of that and explain the mechanics of those abilities. That’s “unfathomable.” But it’s not “illogical” or “contradictory” to affirm THAT it happens. However, God traveling TO the past on the BASIS OF the past to CHANGE THE PAST is perfectly meaningless to me.
Bobber: That right there [hearing millions of prayers] would take different time frame dimensions of God…
Tom: You’ve been reading Hugh Ross. If I can hear two or sometimes three people speak to me at the same time and process what they're saying, I don’t need to posit God’s 'extradimensionality' to understand that he is able to listen to millions of people speaking to him at once and still attend to each one as if that one were the only one. I suggest that in believing God needs extra time dimensions to pay attention to everybody’s prayer you are overly anthropomorphisizing (sp?) God. You’re attributing your own limited attention span to God. But why believe that because I’m unable to pay attention to more than three or four items in a single time dimension God must be unable to pay attention to more than several million items in a single time dimension? What's your basis for assuming this?
Bobber: God listens to you fully and with 100% attention but he's listening to me the same way at the exact same moment of time?
Tom: Absolutely. God’s that capable, and claiming he can do so is not in itself a contradictory claim (as is your theory of changing the past on the basis of the past).
Bobber: And like ive said millions of other people as well? How could God do this? You accept it though don't you even though you don't understand it?
Tom: But I do UNDERSTAND it. I understand that it can happen because I have something analogous in my own experience to make sense of it happening. I don’t understand the mechanics of how it works for God, but that’s OK, and it’s different than not understanding YOUR theory of changing the past via time travel.
Bobber: If what im saying doesn’t make sense then why then do atomic clocks all run different?
Tom: Maybe because we’re finite observers in an immense universe? Does there have to be a theological reason for why no two finite observers in the universe share the exact same time frame? What’s wrong with the physical laws offering the final word on why this is so?
Hey, Bobber, at least answer the question about moral responsibility in a changing past. If a guy murders a new born baby and God goes back in time and gets involved to minimize the evil of this situation so that the guy doesn’t murder the baby but goes on to live a good life and bless many, is the guy morally responsible for the murder he committed which made the time travel possible? And then there’s the issue of the murdered baby who went to heaven. But now the baby didn't die. In the recreated past (a second past) the baby grows up to become an unloving and evil person who dies at the age of 80 and goes to hell. And then there’s the interconnectedness of relations. This baby lives out his life and impacts thousands of people who in turn impact thousands of others. The waves of influence compound beyond our ability to consider, and they all involve morally responsible actions. Which world does God hold morally accountable, Bobber? The one in which the guy murders the baby (guy grew up and went to hell and baby went to heaven) or the world in which he doesn’t murder the baby (guy grew up and went to heaven and baby grew up and went to hell)? You whole approach undermines the INTEGRITY of personal relations, moral responsibility, and free will. Find another answer!
Sit back, light up a Cohiba and think about it. If you create more problems than you solve, chances are you've shaved this morning with Ockham's Razor and got cut. Try some "Open After Shave" to cool the burn and close those cuts up.
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/16/2004 7:09 AM (GMT -6) | | www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/sagan.html
NOVA: Do you think that backwards time travel will ever be possible?
Such questions are purely a matter of evidence, and if the evidence is inconsistent or insufficient, then we withhold judgment until there is better evidence. Right now we're in one of those classic, wonderfully evocative moments in science when we don't know, when there are those on both sides of the debate, and when what is at stake is very mystifying and very profound. [Carl Sagan]
If we could travel into the past, it's mind-boggling what would be possible. For one thing, history would become an experimental science, which it certainly isn't today. The possible insights into our own past and nature and origins would be dazzling. For another, we would be facing the deep paradoxes of interfering with the scheme of causality that has led to our own time and ourselves. I have no idea whether it's possible, but it's certainly worth exploring. [Carl Sagan]
Mmmm….Mr Sagan who was a pretty well respected man in the science community seemed to believe something going back in time might be possible…Shouldn't we at least take note of this?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/16/2004 7:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Bobber: It could have implications if you didn't have an all wise God overseeing the time line.
quote:
Tom: The implications are there no matter what. That God is all-wise doesn’t explain why a God who can revisit the past as often as he likes has chosen to leave our history as screwed up as it is. One is left wondering what “wise” means.
Well we know that God is sovereign and there may be certain exact reasons why God does certain things. That is not a cop out excuse. The Bible does speak and teach on the sovereignty of God that there are some things God by his own will can and will do. Like I say there may be certain reasons we don’t understand why. For example in one place in the Bible Jesus [God ] healed certain individuals like the man laying by the pool of water. Why didn’t he just go up and heal them all at the pool? There might just be certain reasons why God for whatever reasons chooses to intervene. Another example the tower of Babel…humanity was doing something wrong that displeased him and he came down to stop it…why doesn’t God come down and stop everything going wrong? We just don’t know all things on this side Tom and while that sounds like a cop out Paul the Apostle did say on this side of life we see through a glass darkly. I like anyone can give you my theory on why God might have allowed various tragedies of history to take place and might be right but unless one is speaking with absolute revelation from God all one is doing is guessing.
[I’ll seek to address your other statements Tom in some later posts. Thanks for your response]
| | Back to Top | | |
|
sometimesisquint
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 91
| Posted 7/16/2004 7:51 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/16/2004 8:06 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Bobber
NOVA: Do you think that backwards time travel will ever be possible?
If this worked, you could just click it!  | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/16/2004 8:08 AM (GMT -6) | | This one seems to only go in one direction:
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/16/2004 8:11 AM (GMT -6) | | In THIS example -- "retrograde movement" -- there is only the appearace of reversal:
And we all know, that if it can't be found in Google it just does not exist!
        | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/16/2004 11:07 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Sagan is famous for bringing his presumptions into his arguements and ignoring evidence that doesn't fit his plans. He thinks, given the size of the universe, that extra-terrestrial life is probable, but the evidence doesn't agree, so he ignores it. Both Hawkings and Sagan have invented theories that, far from proving atheism, assume atheism. They in essence say, "Assuming atheism, my theory must be true. So, you can see from my theory that atheism is true." Scientists should at least try to be objective. You've chosen to quote probably the two scientist most famous for bringing unfounded assumptions into science while ignoring evidence or ideas that they don't like. [Sahid]
O come now Sahid you're talking about another topic all together when you state what Sagan believes about other things. Are you suggesting men of physics which side in with whatever your vision of truth is [about this subject] are right about other subjects when they go against what you and I hold dear? Im sure you hold Einstein in esteem do you not? In the area's that he was right in he was right in. In areas that he was wrong in he was wrong. You believe in having a living vital relationship with God?
I think maybe you do. Einstein didn't and even though we know he talked about God playing dice, if you read his writings he was at best a believer in deism . My point is Hawkings and both Sagan have stated their opinions in the matter about the possiblity of travelling backwards in time and to suggest these men are not scientific well I think a great many in educated fields would most certainly disagree with you .
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/16/2004 11:19 AM (GMT -6) | | From A Lead Writer Of Discovery Magazine Clifford Pickover
ww.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/through2.html
"Don't believe anyone who tells you that humans will never have efficient technology for backward and forward time travel. Accurately predicting future technology is nearly impossible, and history is filled with underestimates of technology: "
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." (Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895)
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." (Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943)
"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home." (Ken Olsen, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977)
"The telephone has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." (Western Union internal memo, 1876)
"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value." (Marshal Ferdinand Foch, French commander of Allied forces during the closing months of World War I, 1918)
"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" (David Sarnoff's associates, in response to his urgings for investment in radio in the 1920's)
"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools." (New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's revolutionary rocket work, 1921)
"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" (Harry M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927)
"Everything that can be invented has been invented." (Charles H. Duell, commissioner, US Office of Patents, 1899)
Clifford Pickover is a research staff member at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center. He is the lead writer for Discover Magazine's brain-boggler column and the author of Black Holes: A Traveler's Guide, among many other books. This article was adapted from: Time: A Traveler's Guide, by Clifford A. Pickover. Copyright © 1998 by Clifford Pickover. Used by permission of Oxford University Press, Inc. | | 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 6:03 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 |
|
|