 |
| 
bellings
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 5/16/2003 10:47 AM (GMT -6) |   | I recently started attending Woodland Hills with a couple of friends, and they told me about Paster Boyd's theology. So I thought I would come to the webpage and check it out.
In the webpage accompanying this board, the article on OT says:
At the very least, any who would want to continue to hold to the eternal definiteness of the future (in the mind of God) and thus to the non-ontological nature of quantum indeterminacy must now bear the scientific burden of proof.
Fair enough. Let's look at the quantum mechanics (QM). The indeterminacy of a quantum particle is a property of its wavefunction. For example, a particle could have a wavefunction with probabilities of being 1/2 state A and 1/2 state B. When a measurement occurs, the particle must choose a state, and has a 50% chance of being state A or state B. The kicker in QM is that there is no hidden variable; even if a human knows everything there is to know about a particle before making a measurement, he/she will only know the probability getting a certain measurement, and it is not possible to know the outcome with certainty.
However, the real question is not whether a human can know what the measurement will be, but whether God can know what the measurement will be. It is fair to say that God is not physical. Therefore, God can 'observe' the particle without interacting with it. So, let's say at time 't' before the measurement occurs, God writes down in his imaginary book of future events that the particle will be measured in state B. Nothing about the particle has changed. God didn't 'put' the particle in state B at time 't' before the measurement, the particle is still 'free'. It hasn't chosen a state yet. Yes, if we assume that God is always correct, the particle must be in state B once the measurement is made. However, the freedom of the particle (that is, the wavefunction), is unchanged; God simply knew what state the particle was going to choose.
Now let's look at the concept of paths. For a quantum particle, all possible paths make a contribution to the wavefunction of the particle. However, for a classical particle, it will always follow the path of least action. Example, imagine a marble on a hill. The marble will always roll down. However, if we imagine the QM analogue of an electron (the marble) governed by a potential (the hill), there is a non-zero probability that the electron could travel a direction other than down (for example, tunneling). The point is, if our decisions are similar to classical particle, saying that God knows all possible paths is equivalent to saying the God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future.
I prefer the first look at foreknowledge and freedom. Our freedom is like a wavefunction; an intrinsic property that is unchanged even if the future is somehow known by a divine being. On a different thread, the following thought was mentioned: If we asked God what we are going to do at time 't', and he told us that we are going to do 'A', then we would feel cheated, because when that time comes, we have no choice but to do 'A'. However, in this situation, God is interacting with the system. This would be like God forcing the particle in state B at time 't' before the measurement. In the first example, God simply knew the future, but never interacted with the system, so the wavefunction kept its freedom.
Or, perhaps we are completely missing the boat, and trying to understand freedom/foreknowledge is like trying to explain QM with 19th century physics. (For example, wave/particle duality). Here's a classical hypothesis:
Imagine that you and God are facing each other on roller skates. You reach out give a little push. He starts rolling backwards. So who pushed who? If you pushed him, then why are you rolling backwards too? According to Newton's third law, you pushed each other. Perhaps, if freedom/foreknowledge are compatible, this is the easiest way to think about it. You making a decision is the same thing as God knowing you were going to make it. Kind of like action/reaction.
Here's my final thought. When I started to become a scientist, I believed that everything in this world makes sense. As a quantum chemist, I still believe that everything in this world makes sense, but it doesn't bother me if I can't figure out how it all makes sense.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/16/2003 11:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Hello Bellings,
I am but an economist, my knowledge of your area of expertise is imperfect, but here are some thoughts...
quote:
if our decisions are similar to classical particle, saying that God knows all possible paths is equivalent to saying the God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future.
Yes, but we are not classical particles. The path of least resistance or greates "utility" depends upon moral valuations that we make with our free-will. Now, say God knows every possible moral valuation we could make and the probability we might make it. So God's foreknowledge is exhaustive, but it isn't definite foreknowledge. It just knows all the possible states and their probabilities, which themselves are conditioned by previous choices...
One can suppose what is random to us isn't random to God, but that isn't a provable or falsifiable hypothesis. I think this reflects how we do have some real choices regarding which onto-theological models we use to view the world. Choosing to affirm the openness of much of importance(particularly our individual salvations) is potentially a source of angst, or it can lead for us to commit ourselves to the formation of habits/relationships that will point us toward God, while also forming habits/relationships that will enable us to share about our relationships with God with others who are not Christians. Now, these two do conflict somewhat. As such the appropriate compromise must be worked out.
How we work these things out and continue to rework them out fortunately, hopefully, will be influenced by the Holy Spirit and others in the Christian Communities we belong to...
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
bellings
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 5/16/2003 12:21 PM (GMT -6) | | I agree that we are not classical particles. I think that the best description of our freedom is like a wavefunction. The point I was trying to make is that if we are classical particles, and God knows all paths, he knows which one we are going to take. If we are like quantum particles, the whole concept of a path gets cloudy, and all paths contribute. You can't half go to the store and half stay at home. So, to say that those who believe freedom/foreknowledge are compatile bear the scientific burden of proof is wrong. OT is incompatible with science, and it bears the burden of proof.
Also, just because a hypothesis can't be proven does not mean it isn't correct.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/16/2003 12:58 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I agree that we are not classical particles. I think that the best description of our freedom is like a wavefunction. The point I was trying to make is that if we are classical particles, and God knows all paths, he knows which one we are going to take. If we are like quantum particles, the whole concept of a path gets cloudy, and all paths contribute. You can't half go to the store and half stay at home. So, to say that those who believe freedom/foreknowledge are compatile bear the scientific burden of proof is wrong. OT is incompatible with science, and it bears the burden of proof.
From what I have read, there is a fair amount of ontotheological diversity in Physics these days and so I would be skeptical of whether OVT is truly incompatible with Science. It may be harder to reconcile with some approaches to Physics than other.
quote:
Also, just because a hypothesis can't be proven does not mean it isn't correct.
Yes, but you can't claim a Scientific basis for that hypothesis. It comes from other sources. Please do read and participate with the link concerning the Biblical evidence for and against the OVT.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/16/2003 3:31 PM (GMT -6) | | bellings
OT is incompatible with science, and it bears the burden of proof.
Iconoclast
Seems like opposite day. Do you have some evidence for this?
bellings
However, the real question is not whether a human can know what the measurement will be, but whether God can know what the measurement will be. It is fair to say that God is not physical. Therefore, God can 'observe' the particle without interacting with it. So, let's say at time 't' before the measurement occurs, God writes down in his imaginary book of future events that the particle will be measured in state B. Nothing about the particle has changed. God didn't 'put' the particle in state B at time 't' before the measurement, the particle is still 'free'. It hasn't chosen a state yet. Yes, if we assume that God is always correct, the particle must be in state B once the measurement is made. However, the freedom of the particle (that is, the wavefunction), is unchanged; God simply knew what state the particle was going to choose.
Iconoclast
You seem to presuppose that when God "observes" the particle he can gain the appropriate information about it to determine what it will do when an observer collapses the wave function.
It seems to me that this is the same as saying that there ARE hidden variables that God has access to. Scientific theory says there are NO hidden variables.
Now, I agree with you that if God observes the particle and predicts what will happen when the wave function collapses then that is exactly what will happen. However, I would say that this means that God just determined what the particle will do.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 5/16/2003 5:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Bellings:
Could you help me out with a question I have regarding QM? Isn't Schroedinger's equation (as a description of the wavefuction's change over time) completely deterministic and time-reversible? Doesn't this do violence to attempts to use QM as an example of indeterminism?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
bellings
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 5/19/2003 7:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast It seems to me that this is the same as saying that there ARE hidden variables that God has access to. Scientific theory says there are NO hidden variables.
Now, I agree with you that if God observes the particle and predicts what will happen when the wave function collapses then that is exactly what will happen. However, I would say that this means that God just determined what the particle will do.
Bellings I was unclear about God observing the wavefunction. I was merely trying to assert that God could 'see' the wavefunction without having to interact with it, which humans or course can not do. It is not that God sees the future in the wavefunction, because the wavefunction only has the probabilities of future events. Therefore, God could know the future without fundamentally disturbing the freedom of the system (the wavefunction).
Just because God knew how the measurement would occur does not mean that he determined it. When God wrote the result of the measurement in his fictious book of future events, absolutely nothing in this physical world changed. Yes, the particle had to be measured where God said it would be, but its intrinsic freedom (the wavefunction) was unchanged.
anewbeginning Could you help me out with a question I have regarding QM? Isn't Schroedinger's equation (as a description of the wavefuction's change over time) completely deterministic and time-reversible? Doesn't this do violence to attempts to use QM as an example of indeterminism?
Bellings Well, no. The Schrodinger equation will give you the wavefunction. So the problem doesn't lie in the Schrodinger equation, but in the wavefunction and measurements. Imagine a string stretched between two posts. There could be a wave with no nodes, or a wave with a node in the middle, and so on. All of these are allowed waves. In fact, any linear combination of the allowed waves is a solution. In QM, every single one of allowed waves has a non-zero probability of occuring. But when a measurement is made, the wavefunction has to collapse down to a single state. Therefore, even if you know the wavefunction, you don't know which state will be found when the measurement occurs.
The Schrodinger equation isn't time-reversible either. As time passes after the measurement, the system will slowly revert back to it's original wavefunction. If another measurement is made directly after the first measurement, you will get the same result. But if you wait 1 sec after the first measurement, you don't know what the next measurement will be with certainty.
OT seems to base itself in this uncertainty. However, I would assert that OT is looking at it wrong. It's not about whether humans can know the future, but if God can. Then we realize that there is nothing stopping God from knowing the result of a measurement, and that even if he knows the result, the wavefunction of the particle was unchanged. Human freedom is not about whether God knows what we will choose, but it is an intrinsic property that is unchanged even if the future is known. Perhaps freedom and God's foreknowledge are compatible after all!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
bellings
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 5/19/2003 7:22 AM (GMT -6) | | I missed one:
Iconoclast Seems like opposite day. Do you have some evidence for this?
Bellings There is no scientific analog to OT. Therefore, OT bears the scientific burden of proof.
In classical physics, the particle will ALWAYS follow the path of least action. Therefore, if God knows all paths, he knows the future.
In QM, particles don't take 'paths.' They have wavefunctions that are a function of all possible paths, so all paths contribute. Here is a better example: A human can't 1/2 walk to the store and 1/2 drive. Therefore, OT doesn't make sense in QM either.
So, it is opposite day. It looks like the other side bears the burden of proof.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/20/2003 6:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Bellings, you might like the book, "The Foundations of Dialogue in Science and Religion" by Alister McGrath. McGrath's position on "the problem of evil" is that it is an anomalie that, while currently unexplained, doesn't posit the need to reject what he considers to be the Classical understanding of Christian Theology. We are to trust the theologians/head scientists judgements on these matters as to what should be the reigning paradigm in Theology.
On page 2 he talks about how, "the plausibility of scientific approaches - whether in the past or in the present- is significantly affected by prevailing social, religious, and economic assumptions...this point has contributed...to the rehabilitation of religious beliefs as a factor of significance in relation to the historical and contemporary development of the natural sciences. It is a simple matter of fact that religious beliefs have influenced and continue to influence scientific thinking, irrespective of whether this is considered to be a proper or improper influence."
So my response to you would be that it is wrong to argue from Science that OVT is wrong since the Science you are relying on could have been developed from within a deterministic framework in the first place.
determinism is not a falsifiable hypothesis. We are being pseudo-scientific to enthrone it as "Science" or authoritative.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Magneton
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 5/20/2003 7:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi, Bellings. Welcome.
The question you're raising is the first one I had when I entered the board about 2 years ago: how can quantum indeterminacy be considered to be ontological, and inherent in the nature of reality? The discussion at that time was quite helpful to me, and was a starting point in moving me away from some deterministic and dualistic thinking.
www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=453
quote:
The kicker in QM is that there is no hidden variable; even if a human knows everything there is to know about a particle before making a measurement, he/she will only know the probability getting a certain measurement, and it is not possible to know the outcome with certainty.
You concede that there is no hidden variable. I would understand that to mean there is no variable which defines an underlying determinism, a variable which we don't have access to, but which God does. If there is no hidden variable, it says to me that the indeterministic and probabilistic nature of QM represents the nature of reality, and that God knows it as such. So perhaps you could clarify what you mean here.
quote:
However, the real question is not whether a human can know what the measurement will be, but whether God can know what the measurement will be. It is fair to say that God is not physical. Therefore, God can 'observe' the particle without interacting with it.
I agree that God is not subject to the measurement problem that we have. He doesn't need to probe a particle with a photon or confine its path with slits which will send it who knows where. He alone can know the true state of the particle NOW. But if indeterminacy is an ontological feature of reality, there is no predicting of its future behavior. Without some underlying determinacy (which I understand to mean "hidden variables") even God wouldn't be able to predict its future state. This shouldn't be viewed as a weakness of God. In the above thread, Doc suggested that "an element of spontaneity permeates everything -- by God's own design."
Thanks,
Magneton
"I think that I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." -- Richard Feynman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/20/2003 5:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Magneton
Without some underlying determinacy (which I understand to mean "hidden variables") even God wouldn't be able to predict its future state. This shouldn't be viewed as a weakness of God. In the above thread, Doc suggested that "an element of spontaneity permeates everything -- by God's own design."
Iconoclast
Does love also require a kind of "indeterminacy"? If love requires spontaneity then doesn't this imply that there CANNOT be a determinable exact "value" or "worth" to each possible action? That there must at some points be a set of possible actions that are ontologically indeterminate in their "worth"? Otherwise wouldn't love be compelled to ONLY choose the best (or most "valuable") action every time? And if love was compelled to only choose a single course of action at every point in time then how would that be different than a machine? Wouldn't that contradict the very meaning of love?
It seems to me that to say that "value indeterminacy" is NOT true is to say that God was compelled to create the world.
Does this make sense: Love requires spontaneity which requires indeterminacy? Or maybe: out of Love comes spontaneity which has its ground in indeterminacy? Thus when we look deep enough into reality we ultimately come to indeterminacy. And isn't this why the church was so against Newtonian mechanistic determinism when it arose so many years ago? Because it ultimately denies a loving Creator?
What do you think?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
bellings
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 5/21/2003 10:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Philosophy and Science
Let me start by mentioning that the terminal degree is science is a doctor of philosophy. Science is nothing more than organized philosophy, where the world is systematically observed and conclusions are drawn.
DLW Bellings, you might like the book, "The Foundations of Dialogue in Science and Religion" by Alister McGrath. McGrath's position on "the problem of evil" is that it is an anomalie that, while currently unexplained, doesn't posit the need to reject what he considers to be the Classical understanding of Christian Theology. We are to trust the theologians/head scientists judgements on these matters as to what should be the reigning paradigm in Theology.
Bellings Are head scientists really any different than lab scientists? Aren't philosophical arguements 'scientific' in nature. Let's look at the problem with freedom/foreknowledge. Would anyone really believe OT if they didn't think that freedom and foreknowledge were incompatible? And why do they have a problem with freedom/foreknowledge? Because in their view of the universe (which has been shaped by observation, aka science) they can't understand it. You basically made my point for me. Just because we can't understand the problem of pain with modern day thinking doesn't mean we have to abandon our theology. The same is true for freedom. Just because we can't understand freedom/foreknowledge doesn't mean that we have to come up with strange theories like OT and abandon God's total omniscience.
By invoking modern day science, I was only trying to show two things. First, I was trying to show that the freedom/foreknowledge problem isn't much of a problem at all. Second, I was trying to show that OT's assertion that it is justified by science is flawed.
Magneton You concede that there is no hidden variable. I would understand that to mean there is no variable which defines an underlying determinism, a variable which we don't have access to, but which God does. If there is no hidden variable, it says to me that the indeterministic and probabilistic nature of QM represents the nature of reality, and that God knows it as such. So perhaps you could clarify what you mean here.
Bellings I've given this one some thought, and I think that there is absolutely no hidden variable, not even to God. Here's why: to say that there is a hidden variable implies if the particle was conscience, it would 'know' how a measurement would result. A hidden variable would make the physical world deterministic. In modern day thinking, most would agree that not even the particle knows the future. God knows the future because he's God.
A lot of this confusion is caused by me, since I didn't make my point clear. I made the point that God could 'see' the particle without interacting with it. This point did not need to be made, and is totally irrelevent. God didn't have to observe the particle to know the future, he simply knew the future. The main idea is that even though God knew the future, the physical world didn't change, and the particle was still free. And the reason for arguing this is simply to show that freedom/foreknowledge compatibility really isn't a problem.
Magneton But if indeterminacy is an ontological feature of reality, there is no predicting of its future behavior. Without some underlying determinacy (which I understand to mean "hidden variables") even God wouldn't be able to predict its future state.
Bellings If I understand correctly, it seems that you are arguing that God is constrained by the same laws of nature that we are. I simply disagree with this. I don't think that God is constained by anything. If God chose to, I think that he could go faster than the speed of light, or go back in time, or anything else that he saw fit. I think that God can know the future, just because he's God, and without ever observing a hidden variable.
It reminds me of the story a calc prof once told us. (I think it's actually from a book). Here's the paraphrased version. There is a line walking along in Lineville, and it comes across another line. It says, "Hello there fellow line." And the other object replies, "I'm not a line, I'm a square." The line says, "You sure look like a line to me." The other object replies, "Can't you see that I'm a square?" After that conversation, the square walks along in Planeville and comes across a circle. He says, "Hello circle." The circle replies, "I'm not a circle, I'm a sphere." Of course, the square can only see a circle. The sphere then walking along in 3Dville and comes across another sphere. He greets the sphere, and it replies, "I'm not a sphere, I'm a hypersphere. Can't you see that I'm 4 dimensional?"
You all see were this is going. Constraining God to the laws of this world is like constaining a sphere to Planeville. We shouldn't constrain God. We can't adequately describe Him with the laws of this world to even begin making rules that God has to abide by.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/21/2003 10:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Bellings,
You said "If God chose to, I think that he could go faster than the speed of light, or go back in time, or anything else that he saw fit."
Several months ago, I tried to make that argument and was laughed off this board. I'm not a scientist and won't pretend to know much about it - but I can tell you that this your line of reasoning won't get far here !! :)
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
bellings
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 5/21/2003 10:35 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt,
The funny part is, these are probably the same people that think science shouldn't be used as an argument against OT. Sorry people, but you can't have it both ways.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/21/2003 11:06 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Philosophy and Science
Let me start by mentioning that the terminal degree is science is a doctor of philosophy. Science is nothing more than organized philosophy, where the world is systematically observed and conclusions are drawn.
DLWLet me continue by saying that the historical differences between philosophy and theology are primarily that the one appealed to Church as the foundation for its knowledge, and the other didn't. According to Durkheim, no fan of organized religion, it was through centuries of theological discourse that the concepts/modes of reasoning were developed that made philosophy/science possible.
So we still have a circularity problem whereby your science you use to critique OVT is drawn from onto-theological commitments that are rejected by OVTheists as non-biblical and obfuscating the reality of evil and indeterminancy in our world.
quote:
DLW Bellings, you might like the book, "The Foundations of Dialogue in Science and Religion" by Alister McGrath. McGrath's position on "the problem of evil" is that it is an anomalie that, while currently unexplained, doesn't posit the need to reject what he considers to be the Classical understanding of Christian Theology. We are to trust the theologians/head scientists judgements on these matters as to what should be the reigning paradigm in Theology.
Bellings Are head scientists really any different than lab scientists? Aren't philosophical arguements 'scientific' in nature. Let's look at the problem with freedom/foreknowledge. Would anyone really believe OT if they didn't think that freedom and foreknowledge were incompatible?
DLWI think most OVTheists believe it is how foreknowledge detracts from the reality of evil or the goodness of God. I'm sure one can think up a metaphysical scheme where the two are compatible, but does this hypothesis help us organize the data in a manner that serves to advance the kingdom of God? Not by itself, though it can be supplemented by additional concepts as is prevalent in much of Reformed/Kuyperian Thought.
quote:
BellingsAnd why do they have a problem with freedom/foreknowledge? Because in their view of the universe (which has been shaped by observation, aka science) they can't understand it. You basically made my point for me. Just because we can't understand the problem of pain with modern day thinking doesn't mean we have to abandon our theology. The same is true for freedom. Just because we can't understand freedom/foreknowledge doesn't mean that we have to come up with strange theories like OT and abandon God's total omniscience.
DLW:But one can question why OT is the strange theory, while your conception of God's total omniscience is the null hypothesis that belongs to the "Core". Why do we believe that, because it has been believed by all Christians everywhere and at all times? Not necessarily. As McGrath put it, "the fundamental question of experimentation...is-the empirical investigation of the world in order to ascertain what may be known of it,...that such experiments may destroy existing ideas, or force them to be radically modified(p35)."
The question at hand is whether or not total omniscience is one of those ideas that may be radically modified based on our empirical investigation of the world?
That foreknowledge is a presupposition not necessarily supported by scripture is a fundamental topic in the debates here. One can build up an onto-theological theory that shows how it is compatible with freedom/our observed indeterminacies and so on and so forth, but do we need to do this? Isn't it fundamentally a problem of the underdetermination of Global Science as W.V.O. Quine would put it???
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 05/21/2003 4:08:57 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/21/2003 12:17 PM (GMT -6) | | bellings
If God chose to, I think that he could go faster than the speed of light, or go back in time, or anything else that he saw fit.
Iconoclast
So, is there anything that God can't do? Can He make square circles and married bachelors? Can God sin? Can He lie?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/21/2003 12:21 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
bellings
If God chose to, I think that he could go faster than the speed of light, or go back in time, or anything else that he saw fit.
Iconoclast
So, is there anything that God can't do? Can He make square circles and married bachelors? Can God sin? Can He lie?
Can he change the past?
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/21/2003 12:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Good one DLW - I never thought of that one before.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/21/2003 12:26 PM (GMT -6) | | God can do anything logically possible. Therefore, he COULD sin, or he COULD lie, but he has not and never will- it is not his nature to. Christ (God) was here and was tempted to sin, so in order for temptation to be real, it has to be possible to give in, right?
As far as a married bachelor or square circle - or my favorite, can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift? These are absurdities. It's like saying, can God make black white? Can God make up down?
As far as changing the past - if it's illogical, no, however I'm not sure. If he did change the past though, none of us would know it, b/c then the present would be different.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/21/2003 12:30 PM (GMT -6) | | I must acknowledge that it was Herr Roger Olson former professor of Theology at Bethel College who thought up my question.
If changing the past can be an illogicality then why can't knowing the future exhaustively also be seen as an illogicality?
If God sees the present past and future at the same time and God can change the future, then surely God can change the past? Or maybe God changing the future would also be an illogicality within the Arminian/Calvinist view? Clearly, we would never know that he did change the past, but I think there are some past events that certainly would be worth changing(because of my onto-theological commitment to the reality of evil).
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 05/21/2003 5:38:57 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/21/2003 12:38 PM (GMT -6) | | | I'm not sure but I thought that future time travel is a possibility but past time travel is not according to scientific theory. Can someone tell me? | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/21/2003 1:24 PM (GMT -6) | | But the premise of Billings is not about what us humans, caught in time as we are, can do, but what God can do(i.e. foreknow what way a particle will go or something). So if God is outside of time, then time-travel is a bit of a moot-point for God.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Magneton
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 5/22/2003 3:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Bellings:quote:
I've given this one some thought, and I think that there is absolutely no hidden variable, not even to God. Here's why: to say that there is a hidden variable implies if the particle was conscience, it would 'know' how a measurement would result. A hidden variable would make the physical world deterministic. In modern day thinking, most would agree that not even the particle knows the future. God knows the future because he's God.
A lot of this confusion is caused by me, since I didn't make my point clear. I made the point that God could 'see' the particle without interacting with it. This point did not need to be made, and is totally irrelevant. God didn't have to observe the particle to know the future, he simply knew the future. The main idea is that even though God knew the future, the physical world didn't change, and the particle was still free. And the reason for arguing this is simply to show that freedom/foreknowledge compatibility really isn't a problem.
I like the idea you bring up that God is able to ‘see’ the particle without interacting with it, so the particle is unaffected. In our case, any probing we do changes the state of the particle, but God can know the present state of a particle without affecting its future state. And I think you’re saying that if God can ‘see’ the future without telling anyone or acting on the information, then agents are still free, since the situation is not disturbed in any way. The logic seems good to me, but the premise that the future is ‘there to be seen’ seems flawed.
As I understand you to say, the physical world is not deterministic: there are no hidden variables that would make it so. God thus sees it as indeterministic, so he doesn’t PREDICT the future from his knowledge of the present (so I think we agree on that). Rather, you are saying that he ‘SEES’ the future from a vantage point of higher dimensionality, using the illustration from the book Flatland.
As you can well imagine, we’ve discussed this in the past, too. Check out the
“Relativity Theory and Sequencelessness” thread:
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=515
Appeals to higher dimensionality or drawing parallels with the dimensionality of space to understand time are fraught with difficulties. Here are some quotes from Ian Barbour which I brought up in that thread. I highly recommend his book Science and Religion.quote:
We can draw graphs showing time as if it were another spatial dimension. It is sometimes said that we can represent the cosmos as a static spaciotemporal block that different observers "project" as spatial and temporal dimensions in differing ways. Taken as a whole, the block does not "happen"; it just "is." In reply, I would insist that temporal change does occur in every frame of reference. We should speak of the "temporalization of space" rather than the "spatialization of time"(1). Dynamic events, not unchanging substances, are now taken to constitute reality. It may appear deterministic to say that what is future for one observer is already past (and therefore "determined") for another observer. But this is not true for causally related events, for which futurity is shared. Special relativity and quantum theory have been combined in relativistic quantum theory, in which indeterminacies become determinate only with the passage of time. (Science and Religion, p. 179)
-----
(1) Milic Capek, "Relativity and the Status of Becoming," Foundations of Physics 5 (1975):607-617. See also Lawrence Fagg, The Becoming of Time: Integrating Physical and Religious Time (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995)
. . .
A further question is raised by the fact that apparently there can be no physical communication faster than the speed of light. Do we say that God has an array of local projects in isolated parts of the universe? Or is God timeless and eternal, transcending time as well as space? I suggest that God is omnipresent and knows all events instantaneously. The limitation on the speed of transmission of physical signals between distant points would not apply, since God is immanent at all points and in all events. God is neither at rest nor in motion relative to other systems. (p. 181)
The slogan “Stuff happens” is an expression of the OV as it relates to the nature of time. A view of time as another spatial dimension denies that events ‘happen’ but rather says that they just ‘are.’
Thanks,
Magneton
"A seminar on Time Travel will be held two weeks ago." - anon.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Magneton
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 5/22/2003 8:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast:quote:
Does this make sense: Love requires spontaneity which requires indeterminacy? Or maybe: out of Love comes spontaneity which has its ground in indeterminacy? Thus when we look deep enough into reality we ultimately come to indeterminacy. And isn't this why the church was so against Newtonian mechanistic determinism when it arose so many years ago? Because it ultimately denies a loving Creator?
What do you think?
I think it makes sense. In terms of one of your favorite topics, complex adaptive systems, one could say that the loving human being is the highest value state in all of creation. Thus by relating it to the indeterminacy of fundamental particles, your statement has about as much dynamic range as any I can think of in spanning the simple and the complex. Thus the "quantum mechanics of love" that you're suggesting would be the broadest theoretical construct imaginable. Which also means you'll need to fill in a few steps to make the connection.   Go for it!
Thomas Torrance, in The Christian Frame of Mind, has said that there are extremely simple statements, like "E=mc^2" and "Jesus is Lord" that are able to handle awesome complexity. This seems one of those.
Another consequence of Newton's view (specifically his view of space and time as a "container") is denial of the Incarnation:quote:
Theologically the most important problem posed by Newton's thought was his association of space and time as an infinite receptacle with Deity, for that had the effect of reinforcing the dualism between space and matter which we have already noted. If God Himself is the infinite Container of all things He can no more become incarnate than a box can become one of the several objects it contains. Thus Newton found himself in sharp conflict with Nicene theology and its famous homoousion, and even set himself to defend Arius against Athanasius. - Thomas Torrance - Space, Time, and Incarnation, p. 39-40
Magneton
"Simplicity is desirable, in scientific and metaphysical explanations. But it is not the only intellectual virtue, and it turns into a vice if it is bought at the price of high improbability, or of omitting a significant range of relevant data." - Keith Ward - God, Chance, and Necessity | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:11 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 |
|
|