 |
| 
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/16/2004 1:08 PM (GMT -6) |   | What I'm saying is that many famous scienists start with false assumptions. Einstein included. These assumptions lie at the foundation of their theories. If you take away verificationism (which nearly all scientists do), you lose special relativity. If you take away the idea that all religion is false, you lose the multiverse theory which is very closely related to Hawkings' view of time. You also lose Sagan's random chance explaination for the world (the only reason most people have ever heard of him). If Sagan were to abandon this preconception he would have to deal with the universe as it really is: not random. There are causes for things. Sagan would probably agree to this but he won't go too deeply into it, because if you look at the actual causes, you find that the universe is too perfect to be random or lucky, and then your left with God. But even if Sagan is right, quote:
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.
we don't know. There is no evidence that says faster than light travel is possible. There is no evidence that it would reverse time. Sagan agrees with me on that point and disagrees with you.
Now I'll grant that scientists can come upon truth even with the preconceptions leading them. Einstein's formulas work despite that fact that their basis is plainly false. But the preconception of Hawkings and Sagan is that there is no 'why' in the universe. The universe behaves reliably (with exceptions) and these two (Hawkings especially) try to find models that are just as reliable. But it is very reasonable to believe that there is a 'why' upon studying our universe. The fine tuning is amazing. They leave absurd theories (like multiverse and backwards causation) open, because of their preconceptions. For if the absurd or meaningless were true, than there is no need for God.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/16/2004 1:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Clifford Pickover: 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.
Tom: Now that's interesting. I just finished one of Pickover's books. Wasn't impressed at all. Anyhow, what's even MORE interesting about this quote, Bobber, is that you offer it in support of the plausibility of backwards time travel while Pickover equally claims forward time travel is plausible. Yet you seem to have made up your mind already that future time travel is out of the question.
All the interesting examples you provided of people who said something was impossible aren't anything like claiming that travelling backward in time and changing the past is possible.
Lord Kelvin: Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
Tom: A bird is a heavier-than-air flying machine. Lord Kelvin could have and should have known this. He's just dumb!
Tom Watson: I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.
Tom: Short-sighted, yes. But not self-contradictory (as are the rest of the examples you shared).
Read Pickover's book God: The Paradox of Omniscience and decide whehter or not you think he's objective and consistent. He may have a Ph.D. in molecular biology (I think), but he wasn't thinking too doctorally in what I read of him.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/17/2004 2:06 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
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?
quote:
Tom: Not sure what you’re even talking about here.
What im saying is that it’s being suggested to us that God actually didn’t know the future when he said Peter would deny him three times. Its being suggested [correct me if im wrong] that God used the law of probability to make a guess he felt was certain not knew was certain but felt was certain. So Jesus declares Peter would deny him three times and then it doesn’t occur don’t we have a right to question Christ’s credibility? Jesus said himself that he revealed such and other things to do the following.
JN 13:19 "I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He."
So because Jesus could tell them the end from the beginning that would be a sign that they should be able to believe that he was who he claimed to be. If he was wrong, how could they not let their hearts be troubled and how could they trust also in him…..[John 14:1]
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/17/2004 2:28 AM (GMT -6) | | 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?
quote:
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....
quote:
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.” [Tom]
Well it most certainly has been revealed unto us but this is an area I would say [call it my opinion if you like] that Open Theist's won't accept and that is what Jesus said, I Am The Alpha And The Omega, The Beginning And The End, The First And The Last! From my position in the realm of the spirit, your beginning is the same as the end and your end is the same as the beginning. So I would say once again Jesus has revealed how he knew about Peter. About the holocaust issue however you see if you're going to be say critical about the retrograde time concept ive put down you would have to just as critical as your own....
Ok the holocaust happens...you believe in open theism...then why didn't God stop those bad things from happening as well....according to you if he had the capacity to change the past well then he would have done so....but hold on didn't God know the holocaust was occurring in the time of which it was present? Why didn't he stop it then. Didn'the have the power to do so? Im sure you would answer yes, but also state that apparently for some reason he had to allow it to be played out. You might say we don't know or understand all things quite yet.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/17/2004 5:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Bobber: What im saying is that it’s being suggested to us that God actually didn’t know the future when he said Peter would deny him three times.
Tom: Who’s suggesting that?
Bobber: Its being suggested [correct me if im wrong] that God used the law of probability to make a guess he felt was certain not knew was certain but felt was certain.
Tom: It’s possible that the probability of Peter’s denying Christ in those circumstances was 100% because of Peter’s own state, in which case time-travel isn’t needed to know what “will” happen.
Bobber: So Jesus declares Peter would deny him three times and then it doesn’t occur don’t we have a right to question Christ’s credibility?
Tom: Not if Christ’s prediction was conditional, and many predictions ARE conditional without any explicit mention of the condition. Hezekiah’s death for example. God says to Hezekiah through Isaiah, “You will surely die. Get your house in order. You’re sickness is unto death.” What happens to God’s credibility when in response to Hezekiah’s prayer God decides to heal Hezekiah and “add” years to his life? An open theist could (as John Sanders still does I think) approach Jesus’ prediction that Peter will deny him in a similar way. The prediction was conditional. That’s possible, but I think it’s more plausible that Peter’s character was sufficiently predictable at that point as to make it certain he would deny Christ given the right circumstances. Some don’t like that explanation either, but it’s far more plausible to me than venturing a philosophically incoherent belief in time-travel and retroactive causation just because Carl Segan and Hawkings said such time travel “might” be possible.
Bobber: Jesus said himself that he revealed such and other things to do the following: JN 13:19 "I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He." So because Jesus could tell them the end from the beginning that would be a sign that they should be able to believe that he was who he claimed to be. If he was wrong, how could they not let their hearts be troubled and how could they trust also in him…..[John 14:1]
Tom: This is just a difference in reading. I read 13.19 and it seems clear to me that what Jesus is referring to by “it” happening is Judas’ betrayal of him. Peter isn’t being considered. Jesus later refers to the coming of the Spirit and his ministry among believers and says again that he’s telling them about it now so that when it happens they would be assured of their belief in him. There’s no problem there with the open view.
But there is still a huge problem with your view you refuse to even attempt to grapple with and instead offer “cheap excuses.” And that is your inability to make intelligent the claim that an knowledge of an event gained from the actual occurrence of that event can be used to change that event.
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....
Tom: 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: Well it most certainly has been revealed unto us…
What has been revealed to us? Here's the discussion we're having:
quote:
Bobber: Tom, open theism can't explain to my satisfaction how Jesus knew Peter would deny him three times, so open theism must be wrong. We'll have to find some other view that DOES explain it.
Tom: And what other view would you suggest?
Bobber: Time travel. God lives the event, and once he knows what actually happens, he THEN travels back in time and uses that knowledge to influence things so that the undesired events don't happen or so that desired events that didn't happen DO happen. He chagnes the past!
Tom: But that's a self-defeating view, for an event is by definition already the result of whatever was done to prevent or bring it about. An actual event can't also be the basis of actions taken in response to influence whether or not the event occurs. It's not meaningful.
Bobber: The secret things belong to the Lord. We can only understand what's given to us. It may seem like a cheap excuse, but we just aren't able to understand time travel that changes the past.
Tom: Why don't you cut open theists that deal? Why can't we claim that the difficulties involved in the open view are not explainable because they are "secret things" not given to us?
Bobber: …but this is an area I would say [call it my opinion if you like] that Open Theist's won't accept and that is what Jesus said, I Am The Alpha And The Omega, The Beginning And The End, The First And The Last! From my position in the realm of the spirit, your beginning is the same as the end and your end is the same as the beginning.
Tom: I couldn’t tell where Scripture ended and Bobber started there! As an open theist I have no problem with Jesus being the “Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.” I don’t recall the part where Jesus says, “From my position in the realm of the Spirit, your beginning is the same as the end and your end is the same as the beginning.” But let me ask you this; when Jesus says he's the "first" and the "last," the "beginning" and the "end," which "first" is he? And which "last" is he? Is he the first "first" and the first "last"? Or is he the last "first" and the last "last"? I'm dizzy. 
Bobber: So I would say once again Jesus has revealed how he knew about Peter.
Tom: An impossible explanation in my view (for all the reasons I’ve mentioned about the problems involved in claiming that knowledge OF an actual event can serve as the BASIS OF actions taken to influence THAT event. It makes money in Hollywood Sci-fi films, but it doesn’t actually explain anything.
Bobber: About the holocaust issue however you see if you're going to be say critical about the retrograde time concept ive put down you would have to just as critical as your own....
Tom: I try to be as critical of my own view as I am of others. We’ve often said that (with regard to events like the Holocaust) one has to choose her poison: either God could have prevented it but didn’t want to, or wanted to prevent it but couldn’t. The first option posits the mystery of evil smack in the center of God’s own will. The latter places the mystery of evil smack in the center of wills other than God’s. I can live with the latter mystery. But my criticism of your take is that it explains nothing. Nothing. It does not offer a meaningful explanation of freedom and moral responsibility. It undermines the integrity of personal relationships and choices. God never really has to live with our choices. He can rerun history as many times as he wants through as many versions as he needs to get the outcome he desires. But on your take God has obviously settled for the history we now have which appears to be full of evil. Did he try a million times and this was the best he could get? Why stop now? Why EVER stop? As I asked before, which world does God ultimately relate to? Which world does he hold accountable? What are we saying about the integrity of personal relationships, freedom, and responsibility if we claim that God reruns our histories when things turn out the way he doesn’t like. What am I saying to my daughter if, for example, I tell her that she can paint her room any color she likes but that she’s responsible to stay inside the lines I’ve drawn and then after discovering she didn’t stay inside the lines I simply whitewash the room and redraw the lines and have her start over again with the same rules? What happened to consequences? What of the integrity of the relationship between God and the world? Until you offer plausible explanations of some of these types of questions you won’t get much of a hearing.
Tom
Bobber, if the past is changeable, then there IS NO PAST, there is only future. Think about it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/17/2004 5:12 AM (GMT -6) | | 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...
quote:
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.
IM sorry Tom but I would have to suggest your very statement here is contradictory. You say its meaningful to you that God can listen and understand the prayers of millions of people [and I agree he can and does] and yet you say you can’t understand the mechanics of those abilities? You say its unfathomable. But if I state I can’t understand the mechanics of my position you claim that I must do? All I know is science projects [lets just put it this way] by the great law of probability that because time slows down or come to a stop at the speed of light on the other side of the speed of light you would according to the way it looks on paper, you would have the potential for retrograde time motion [anyway you might want to say it] Well I would suggest it’s true. Im not saying others have to believe that but I don’t think its coincidence that atomic clocks run slower and slower as one comes up to the speed of light.
And what they say about the other [what would be retrograde time above the speed of light] I would say answers the question why atomic clocks run slower below the speed of light. In a sort of a way the speed of light represents the walls which surrounds the universe of the physical. In all probability that retrograde time exists on the other side [as scientist many of them suggests] it most certainly answers the question asked down through the ages, how could God know of our decisions and call us the elect by foreknowledge . It also allows the full expression of mankind’s freedom of will….God knew, or God foreknew, and man, even though this was the case has or had total freedom of will. No wild crazy guess games were needed were certain things of some prophecies were revealed [no offence to you my good breathren who might hold to the OT view…I do look upon you’s as precious brethren]
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/17/2004 5:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Bobber-
If the past is changeable, then there IS NO PAST, there is only future.
Think about it.
Get my drift Sisters? If the past can be changed by time travel from any present moment, then potential changes of the past unfold as each moment presents itself. Thus, the future brings with it potential changes to the past. Thus, there is no past. All is future.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/17/2004 5:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Bobber: IM sorry Tom but I would have to suggest your very statement here is contradictory. You say its meaningful to you that God can listen and understand the prayers of millions of people [and I agree he can and does] and yet you say you can’t understand the mechanics of those abilities? You say its unfathomable. But if I state I can’t understand the mechanics of my position you claim that I must do?
Tom: No, I’m not asking for you to explain the mechanics of time-travel. I’m asking for you to make meaningful (analogous) the claim itself, that is, what it means to say that knowledge of a historical event can be the basis of actions taken to prevent or bringing about THAT event. I do understand “God hears a million prayers at once” because I understand “Tom hears two requests at once.” I have an experience which makes meaningful God’s experience, though I cannot observe God’s experience from the inside out. Your claim, on the other hand, leaves me empty handed. I have nothing in my own experience to make meaningful the notion of retroactive causation.
Bobber: All I know is science projects [lets just put it this way] by the great law of probability that because time slows down or come to a stop at the speed of light on the other side of the speed of light you would according to the way it looks on paper, you would have the potential for retrograde time motion…
Tom: The closest thing to “meaningful” I could give this would be that our specific history AS IT HAPPENED would simply run backwards. One wouldn’t travel “independently” back to the past and change it, one would simply rerun the tape as it is, the way you push “reverse” on a video. You observe everything traveling backwards. THAT I can understand. But jumping back to a previous position in the tape to change it so that portions of the tape you’ve already viewed are different when viewed the second time through, is something entirely different (and incoherent).
Bobber: It also allows the full expression of mankind’s freedom of will….God knew, or God foreknew, and man, even though this was the case has or had total freedom of will.
Tom: You’re not facing the issue of freedom and responsibility (or the contradictions involved in retroactive causation), Bobber. If a really DO commit a crime, I am presumably responsible for it. If God travels back in time he does so “in response to my crime.” So my committing a crime must exist, must be actual, for it alone accounts for the time travel in the first place. But through time travel (which by definition is a response TO my crime) God influences me so that I do NOT commit the crime I committed. God’s response TO a historical event is to UNDO the event. But this would by definition UNDO God's response as well. If God succeeds at convincing me to not commit the crime, then God didn’t travel back in time “in response to my crime” to change it. So where are we? In addition, am I responsible for the crime I committed which “caused” God to travel back in time? Did I even commit it? If I didn’t commit it, what did God change? You have multiple pasts, Bobber. Which world does God relate to? Which one does he hold accountable? Which of my pasts am I accountable to God for?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/17/2004 6:21 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom: The closest thing to “meaningful” I could give this would be that our specific history AS IT HAPPENED would simply run backwards. One wouldn’t travel “independently” back to the past and change it, one would simply rerun the tape as it is, the way you push “reverse” on a video. You observe everything traveling backwards. THAT I can understand. But jumping back to a previous position in the tape to change it so that portions of the tape you’ve already viewed are different when viewed the second time through, is something entirely different (and incoherent).
Interesting points you might make here Tom and we'll maybe pick up on this later ... 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/17/2004 12:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Bobber: Interesting points you might make here Tom and we'll maybe pick up on this later ...
Tom: When you pick back up again, please don't pick up with that quote of mine. Pick up with this one:
quote:
Tom: You’re not facing the issue of freedom and responsibility (or the contradictions involved in retroactive causation), Bobber. If a really DO commit a crime, I am presumably responsible for it. If God travels back in time he does so “in response to my crime.” So my committing a crime must exist, must be actual, for it alone accounts for the time travel in the first place. But through time travel (which by definition is a response TO my crime) God influences me so that I do NOT commit the crime I committed. God’s response TO a historical event is to UNDO the event. But this would by definition UNDO God's response as well. If God succeeds at convincing me to not commit the crime, then God didn’t travel back in time “in response to my crime” to change it. So where are we? In addition, am I responsible for the crime I committed which “caused” God to travel back in time? Did I even commit it? If I didn’t commit it, what did God change? You have multiple pasts, Bobber. Which world does God relate to? Which one does he hold accountable? Which of my pasts am I accountable to God for?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/17/2004 7:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Ok Tom I'll seek to respond to this,
quote:
Tom: You’re not facing the issue of freedom and responsibility (or the contradictions involved in retroactive causation), Bobber. If a really DO commit a crime, I am presumably responsible for it. If God travels back in time he does so “in response to my crime.” So my committing a crime must exist, must be actual, for it alone accounts for the time travel in the first place.
Well I wouldn't doubt that the crime didn't exist but for certain various reasons in Gods sovereignty he may step in to override a situation because of people praying for a man or because God did want maybe a certain individual to fulfill a certain destiny. Take for example Ronald Reagan ...he was instrumental in say bringing communism down so actually what the end result was for the gospel to be given more free course in say the Soviet Union.
quote:
But through time travel (which by definition is a response TO my crime) God influences me so that I do NOT commit the crime I committed.
Well actually the man did shoot Reagan and God didn't actually stop the crime. The president was shot, but I do believe that God has a right to bring protection to people if God has so chosen to do so.
quote:
Did I even commit it? If I didn’t commit it, what did God change? You have multiple pasts, Bobber.
Not really you would not have had multiple pasts for if God changed say certain events the very second they occurred there was nothing of the new future that was played out. It was changed. Look Tom I realize one can create scenarios which can be very difficult to explain the answer to. You yourself even admitted that open theism is not air tight...one thing I do know though is that men of physics declare on paper it seems ABOVE the speed of light time would go retrograde. Its not just one or two scientist which admit this but pretty much all of them do, or at least in scientific theory ...I can't believe things work this way by chance... I think the answer is clear...retrograde time, well what it does [IMO] it brings about what we read in Rev 1, I Am The Alpha/Omega, Beginning The End And The First And The Last In other words God knew all our choices from the beginning and our choices were made by our own free will.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/17/2004 8:01 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom: The closest thing to “meaningful” I could give this would be that our specific history AS IT HAPPENED would simply run backwards. One wouldn’t travel “independently” back to the past and change it, one would simply rerun the tape as it is, the way you push “reverse” on a video. You observe everything traveling backwards. THAT I can understand. But jumping back to a previous position in the tape to change it so that portions of the tape you’ve already viewed are different when viewed the second time through, is something entirely different (and incoherent).
Well Tom im sorry but I have a hard time accepting that. For one thing most of the men of physics don't seem to think of it like that....anyone who wants even on the internet to do a study on the subject will find while the idea of potential paradoxes cause people to wonder about it, none the less science does seem to feel actual time travel would be the more true end result...If not why do we see so many many writers discuss about the potential paradox's. Why would men of science discuss such matters if indeed it was merely like you say like a tape....One question though...are you saying this would be like a tape or a picture of the whole thing of physical time that God actually had in the beginning....if so thus would make God the Alpha, Omega, Beginning And The End...and God knew our choices by foreknowledge just like I believe the Bible says which is really a classic or orthodox position....One thing though...it gives the best of both positions...the open theism position and the classic orthodox position both together...I sincerely think its can bring peace between the two camps if people will give it a chance. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/18/2004 5:37 PM (GMT -6) | | No reply. We're in different time dimensions, Bobber.
Take care,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/18/2004 7:41 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
No reply. We're in different time dimensions, Bobber.
Take care,
Yes well I do believe I sincerely tried to respond to your concerns Tom but yes thanks for the converstations we did have take care yourself and have a nice life 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/18/2004 7:52 PM (GMT -6) | | I don't think you grasp the issues that make your view so problematic, but I do appreciate your sincerety in responding! Just didn't see much point in plodding on over the same material. Maybe later!
Blessings,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/19/2004 5:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Well I guess Tom each one looking at others viewpoints think the same thing. There is classical theism which see's things one way and there are you good folks who believe in open theism. I guess my position might be called "Classical Open Theism" which would reconcile the two camps and bring peace between them...like the ole song by the Beetles that have the words, "All We Are Saying Is Give Peace A Chance"  Maybe this is what God really wants? What do ya think? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/19/2004 6:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Bobber
Well I guess Tom each one looking at others viewpoints think the same thing. There is classical theism which see's things one way and there are you good folks who believe in open theism. I guess my position might be called "Classical Open Theism" which would reconcile the two camps and bring peace between them...like the ole song by the Beetles that have the words, "All We Are Saying Is Give Peace A Chance" Maybe this is what God really wants? What do ya think?
I think your view has not a snowball's chance in hell of convincing either side to abandon their view for yours. I think the peace we ought to look for is the peace found in realizing that our differences aren't greater than our similarities. What d'ya think?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/22/2004 3:57 AM (GMT -6) | | http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5473323/
quote:
Theoretical reversal
Hawking, 62, said he no longer believes a 1980s theory that black holes might offer passage into another universe, a rival explanation for identifying where matter and energy go when consumed by a black hole.
Hawking now sides with particle physicists who have long insisted that any matter swallowed by a black hole can’t just disappear but must eventually generate a specific output. The latest theory offers hope that scientists one day may identify the history of what a black hole has taken in over the eons — by decoding what it emits.
“There is no baby universe branching off (inside a black hole), as I once thought. The information remains firmly in our universe,” Hawking said in a speech to about 800 physicists and other scientists from 50 countries. “I’m sorry to disappoint science fiction fans, but if information is preserved, there is no possibility of using black holes to travel to other universes.
“If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our universe, but in a mangled form, which contains the information about what you were like, but in an unrecognizable state.”
Tough luck, bobber. Subtract Hawking from your "men of science" who believe in wormholes and time travel. 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/22/2004 4:21 PM (GMT -6) | | | Well it doesn't really too much matter about the wormhole thing. What matters is that most of all these men agree in theory that if man could go ABOVE the speed of light you would have retrograde time. Even Einstien I would suggest believed that was probable its just that he firmly totally believe nothing could go above the speed of light. But they're thinking of physcial things and their minds are only judging things by the physical, but the Bible says that God is a Spirit. A Spirit is the substance and nature of a different universal order and there is nothing to say that it is below the speed of light. I would submit it is above it and that when Jesus said that he has come doewn from ABOVE the truly meant something. That's what I think anyway Have A Good Day Sis | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/23/2004 2:27 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
God doesn't 'travel' at any speed as a Spirit.
My thought is somewhat the same in a sort of way. I believe there is a line between the two kingdoms, the kingdom of God and the kingdom or universe of the physical. That line is the speed of light which separates them. Its just that an ABOVE the speed of light universe would have the capacity to have retrograde time, as compared to us. God chose not to have limiation of the knowledge of our future so he kicked down that wall of limiation. Revelation of the future was I would say sent back in time to the beginning, and no I don't have all the mechanics of it worked out how this could work out in some ways, but some open theists have admitted here on this site that they don't have all the mechanics worked out about there position either. I sincerely believe though that my position lines up with how God could call us the elect by foreknowledge, and have chosen us from before the foundations of the earth, and still have it so that we had absolute free will in making all our choices.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/26/2004 7:58 AM (GMT -6) | | "Time travel not possible through black holes" -- Stephen Hawking
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/26/2004 8:27 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
"Time travel not possible through black holes" -- Stephen Hawking
That's nice but I never said God needed to have to use a black hole to send revelaton back through time to connect to the beginning. These men do believe that if one was in a faster then light existence it would mean retrograde time would exist but you see the problem is they consider all things of the physcial are the only reality which exist. They won't on the day they die however,[but I hope before] ...then they'll know for a certain there is another order then just the physical but there is indeed the spirit or the spiritual order...a higher one...Jesus said he came down from ABOVE. | | 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 6:56 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 |
|
|