 |
 | 
Reader
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 66
| Posted 5/3/2005 11:11 AM (GMT -6) |   | | Is the basis our understanding of "physics" (which is very limited and continually unfolding as we gain knowledge and tools) or is it scriptures? I think that the miracles that Jesus did were really supernatural and non-physics or super-physics events. I know you believe in literal miracles that supercede normal natural laws at God's decree. Why not this? | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 5/3/2005 1:17 PM (GMT -6) | |
Reader said...
Is the basis our understanding of "physics" (which is very limited and continually unfolding as we gain knowledge and tools) or is it scriptures? I think that the miracles that Jesus did were really supernatural and non-physics or super-physics events. I know you believe in literal miracles that supercede normal natural laws at God's decree. Why not this?
From a strictly logical point of view (upon which physics and even language is based), the future does not yet exist, and the only thing that exists is now. And, as the Bible nowhere indicates an atemporal (timeless) dimension to the universe, I see no good reason for affirming such a concept. It adds nothing to the glory of God, nor does it make God somehow more in control than he would be without it.
Also, affirming the possibility of God working miracles does not mean one can say God is able to make 2+2=5 or to create a square circle. Miracles do not defy logic per se, nor are they necessarily "non-physics," if by that you mean they are not measurable or verifiable by examination. If Jesus restored sight to a blind man, while it is true that He did so in defiance of what was humanly possible, it is not the case that we could not examine such a healing and verify that he formerly was blind and now his ability of sight had been restored.
Blessings,
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Reader
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 66
| Posted 5/3/2005 2:27 PM (GMT -6) | | | JEE: "From a strictly logical point of view (upon which physics and even language is based), the future does not yet exist, and the only thing that exists is now. And, as the Bible nowhere indicates an atemporal (timeless) dimension to the universe, I see no good reason for affirming such a concept."
Reader: That is the core of my point. Does the Bible indicate that John cannot actually see the future or as a witness be transported to the future to observe it. There are some physics that indicate that time travel may be possible, if one had enough energy. Even this, though, is not core - whether we understand the physics of a miracle to legitimize it. We know that the Earth, with all its mass andn inertia, revolves on its axis every 24 hours around the sun. To stop this and turn it backwards and then restart it again is beyond our understanding of the laws of physics. It is recorded that a shadow went backwards 10 steps in 2 Kings 20. While I have no idea how this happened, nor do I have the explanation from physics, I believe that it really did and you believe it as well. Where in Revelation does it preclude that John "literally" witnessed the future? Perhaps this is an instance where the Bible does indicate an atemproal dimension?
The good reason for affirming such a concept is that it is recorded in scriptures, like the backwards shadow and the virgin birth and the resurrection (all impossibilities and illogical).
Revelation 4: After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things."
Look at all the times in Revelation it says, "I saw," "I heard," "I looked." What proof do you present that John did not or could not literally see or experience the future other than "physics?" I find nothing inherent in this concept that diminshes the glory of God. I rather find it amazing that God can reveal the future to His prophets, perhaps even by miraculous time travel.
Is God bound by the speed of light so that He cannot travel faster?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Reader
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 66
| Posted 5/3/2005 3:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Maybe the Old Testament visions were also of the future and that John was seeing them as well? The fact that these future events were already seen in the past in no way negates the premise as far as I can tell. If the speed of light is the only thing that makes time travel difficult, theoretically, is God limited by the speed of light? Are spirits limited by the speed of light and the laws of physics? It seems to me that spirits are beyond the laws of physics and that our glorified body has extra capablities that are beyond physics for us now.
How did 4 men survive in a blazing furnace that killed the strongest men in the kingdom when they pushed them in? Somehow it seems way to limiting to state with certainty that time travel is impossible when even our physicists acknowledge that such a thing may be possible even given what little we do know. To me the most difficult aspect of time travel is not the physics but the philisophical (non-scientific) issues that it raises. Remarkably, this is an aspect that comes up in many of these sites with one conclusion to the philosophical difficulties being, "We cannot understand the parodox this possibility creates, therefore it cannot happen." This seems kind of arrogant to me and hearkens back to a time when men thought the world must be flat because they couldn't conceive of one that was round.
Please keep in mind that I am not claiming with certainty that John did travel in time, just that it seems to be a possibility based upon the text. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 5/3/2005 4:10 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Reader said...
If the speed of light is the only thing that makes time travel difficult, theoretically, is God limited by the speed of light?
To my understanding, the speed of light is not the only thing that makes time travel difficult. What makes time travel difficult (I say impossible) is simply that reverse causation is impossible and for something to exist before it exists (and if one could jump ahead in time he would have existed before he existed) is logically impossible too.
How did 4 men survive in a blazing furnace that killed the strongest men in the kingdom when they pushed them in?
God quite obviously protected them physically from the ravages of the furnace. How that impinges upon the issue of time travel is not at all clear.
Somehow it seems way to limiting to state with certainty that time travel is impossible when even our physicists acknowledge that such a thing may be possible even given what little we do know.
The most that could be possible would be that we could slow down time for someone (relative to others) by rocketing them at extremely high speeds. But that's a far cry from saying they could travel backwards or forwards in time.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.cjb.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Reader
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 66
| Posted 5/3/2005 4:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Science today does not catagorically deny the possibility of traveling to the future as you seem to indicate.
Einstein’s theories of relativity provide the basis of modern notions of time travel. His theory of special relativity allows travel into the future and his theory of general relativity does not discount the possibility of backwards travel in time. Together these theories have brought time travel out of the realm of science fiction and placed it as the focus of modern research.
Time Travel in Einstein's Universe: The Physical Possibilities of Travel Through Time
by J. Richard Gott
Review from Scientific American
"One reason that time travel is so fascinating is that we have such a great desire to do it," Gott writes. And so he explores the possibilities of travel to the past and to the future. Being a professor of astrophysics at Princeton University, he does not stray from the laws of physics in constructing this stimulating odyssey.
You fail to attack the concept with scriptures and instead use a philisophical argument that relativity negates (at least according to the threoretical view of science, physics, that you initially claimed to be the reason this could not happen). There are many scientific proofs in the thory of relativity that are counter-intuitive and, therefore, until our logic cathces up, are counter-logic. It still seems that, based upon current science and based upon the possibility left open in the scriptures, that John may really have seen and witnessed the future and not "unactualized realities." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Reader
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 66
| Posted 5/3/2005 5:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
I posted on the old site as Spen. I never brought this up before or considered it. It seems that science says that this may be theoretically possible. The concept itself is what I was interested in. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Reader
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 66
| Posted 5/3/2005 7:59 PM (GMT -6) | |
jefscott said...Spen: To me the most difficult aspect of time travel is not the physics but the philisophical (non-scientific) issues that it raises. Remarkably, this is an aspect that comes up in many of these sites with one conclusion to the philosophical difficulties being, "We cannot understand the parodox this possibility creates, therefore it cannot happen." This seems kind of arrogant to me.... Jeff: Another way of looking at the arrogance perspective is this: Since our minds can't epistemologically grasp the notion of an existing future, it is speculative to claim there is such a thing. And it is arrogant to be dogmatic about speculation. See how it works both ways?
I think that speculation is much less arrogant than either absolute denial or absolute assertion. There are many things we can speculate about that are not clear in the revealed knowledge of scriptures. Claiming that a speculation is a certainty or making the claim, "My subjective revelation is certainly true or is certainly God," is much more arrogant than stating that perhaps the impression that I felt was God speaking to me.
Beyond that, it would not shock me if you showed me how my words and claims are arrogant. I have a proud nature and humility in me is not "native." I am surely guilty as charged, even though I wish not to be. All I have intended to do in this thread is to bring up a weird idea that seems supportable, at least as a speculation, based upon science and scriptures. That the only "proof" it must be certainly false is "philisophical" and "logic" based upon weak science (non-theory of relativity) seems weak to me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Reader
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 66
| Posted 5/3/2005 8:05 PM (GMT -6) | |
MattBrown said...JEE: However, if time TRAVEL is something He can do, don't you think He wouldv'e gone back given Adam & Eve as many chances as possible to rewrite their tragic fall into sin? Matt: Cool. Groundhogs Day Part II: Paradise Relost
I admit that there are concepts that are wierd. I notice, however, in Revelation that John only observes, hears, and looks. He doesn't interact in the history/future that he observes. He doesn't actually change "time" himself and the "parodox" of change relative to his going to the future would be limited to our acting on his "time travel" in faith and with our free will. If we believe his message of the future through his "time travel" we can find eternal life in the gospel, life where there may have been death had he not brought us this message from the future for us to hear and believe. Weird.
In any case, I admit it is speculation but it seems to me to be speculation that is not proven false by either science or scriptures. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Reader
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 66
| Posted 5/3/2005 9:07 PM (GMT -6) | | | I think that both the sovereignty argument and the OV argument are counter intuitive when pressed to their extremes. There are brilliant people on both sides arguing about issues I can only see the fringes of. The logical battles on either side (provided the positions are not caricatures) are not "intuitive" at all, but very complex and difficult. The "parodox" that results from time travel is no better and, I think no worse, than either of these positions. | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 5/3/2005 9:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Reader
I admit that there are concepts that are wierd. I notice, however, in Revelation that John only observes, hears, and looks. He doesn't interact in the history/future that he observes. He doesn't actually change "time" himself and the "parodox" of change relative to his going to the future would be limited to our acting on his "time travel" in faith and with our free will. If we believe his message of the future through his "time travel" we can find eternal life in the gospel, life where there may have been death had he not brought us this message from the future for us to hear and believe. Weird.
In any case, I admit it is speculation but it seems to me to be speculation that is not proven false by either science or scriptures.
Ron
If such a thing was possible then John saw the future which means the future is predetermined, which means the present has been determined. Determinism. So to act with free will in faith or so called believe the message of the future has no moral significance. It was predetermined. If anything John saw in the future was changed by a present act of will in faith, then he didn't actually see the future, he wasn't observing the future, it was a realm of symbolic contingencies. The future does not exist, this grounds true moral choice, true faithfulness, real prayer, and above all hope. Hope that is seen is not hope. As Jeff said, one has to weight other evidence on this question. There are too many sound biblical and philosophical indicators that outweigh the speculation of time travel to a future or past that co-exists with the present. I think the general tenor of scripture indicates the speculation is probably incorrect.
Peace
RonPost Edited (rsirkel) : 5/3/2005 10:02:46 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Reader
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 66
| Posted 5/4/2005 6:17 AM (GMT -6) | | | I think that the record of what John saw and witnessed is vague enough to not be contradicted or changed (meaning the actual discription of what has been written) and still allow for me personally (and others) to be lost or saved based upon what I choose now. There are, however, certain elements which are explicit and in this case, perhaps, they will not and cannot be changed by any act of free will. It is a strong claim that John makes Rev 9 and 16 concerning all the people on the whole earth.
and they did not repent of their murders nor of their sorceries nor of their immorality nor of their thefts.
Men were scorched with fierce heat; and they blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues, and they did not repent so as to give Him glory.
and they blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores; and they did not repent of their deeds.
At this time NOBODY chooses to repent. What has happened to their free will? NOBODY will choose God nor believe in the gift of God's Son that is sufficient even for all the sins of mankind. I see OV problems here in that this is a prophetic "certainty" however it happens. Did God somehow revoke man's free will at some point in time? As I read this passage the future had been determined for all those alive at that time, regardlesss of their will and it is not a pleasant future. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Reader
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 66
| Posted 5/4/2005 7:34 AM (GMT -6) | | I think that there is a pragmatic aspect to the posibility of "time travel" in that if it did happen or even if it CAN happen, then "God knows the future" is a valid assumption. If this is possible, we are left with the philosophical implications of the "parodox" of time travel that seems very similar to the "mystery" found in the OV/sovereignty debate.
If time travel is certainly possible, then the OV view seems to be certainly false. If time travel is even a theoretical possibility that is limited by "available energy" or the "speed of light," limitations that I don't believe that God is constrained by, then the OV is also very much weakened.
As a secondary issue, it also involves "how certain is prophecy?" If God says that there is a time when "none will repent" and this is certain, then do those people in time really have free will in the sense that OV believes they do? Has God decreed that these people not repent or has He simply seen into the future that they won't - not a single one or is it more mystery?
| | Back to Top | | |
| 29 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:05 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 |
|
|