And if in addition I happen to believe that God can see the future with absolute clarity, which I do, which is in oppositin to Open Theism this has nothing to do with Physics. In fact an agument that could be used against my faith would Chaos Theory which suggests nothing is predetermined as such but certain my order my be drawn from it. This could be used to support an Open Theist approach. If turns out to be the case I won't be turning my back on it which Einstein did with Quantum Theory! Famously quoted as saying 'He (God) does not play dice!' I'd have to approach open theism with an open mind. A reason why I'm agnostic. I would not be putting physics in the dock though....it never purposely attacks a religion...it just tells it as it is.
Does God know the future?
- Thread starter intro2faith
- Start date
eccl3_6 said:
I can however talk with authority about 'physical time'....time we experience.
I wouldnt want to be drawn into how God experiences time, as an Agnostic I believe we could never truly understand something which is vvastly bigger,better etc. Kinda like I would never try and explain how I feel to a cockroach, he's not going to understand.
insolafide
New member
eccl3_6 said:
keep in mind that this is coming from an amateur... But, the fact that the mathematics of special relativity have shown themselves accurate does not necessarily endorse the Einstonian interpretation of said mathematics, does it? In fact, Lorentzian relativity is mathematically equivalent but still preserves a cosmic, absolute time as General Relativity does.
This interpretation receives more weight as well considering the detection of our movement in the CoBR, and hence an absolute reference frame.
peace.
insolafide said:
I've calmed down now....
When Einstein flipped from thinking of things in Newtonian terms to something else it wasn't an issue that he was taking something and building on it. It was progress! Same with the maths...if another model comes along that works + lends itself to simplicity then EInstein would have leapt at himself. So if the math changes who cares? If it worked I'd count pebbles! But the point is that it does work and our world today is already better for it, in practical terms.
:chuckle:eccl3_6 said:
My birthday is coming up is two weeks!
Look, I can see that I'm not going to convince you that Relativity is still a theory so I'll stop trying. There's no need to just keep running around in circles. I would like to ask you though whether you really do believe that Relativity (both kinds) is the only viable option out there for explaining the universe as it exists?
In my view the success of Einstien's theories only proves that he was very much on the right track, much more so than anyone before him. But I think there is much room for improvement and advancement and that eventually we will find out that time is indeed ONLY metaphysical.
Resting in Him,
Clete
It's impossible to say but I doubt it. I think at worst it will remove a powerful argument in favor of Open Theism but given Relativity's almost universal acceptance even in the church, we almost don't have the argument now. I also think that ecc makes some interesting observations on this question and that he is correct that if Relativity is in fact completely true that it is certainly not fatal to Open Theism.justchristian said:
Open Theism is Biblical and of sound reason, and in my mind that is enough. I don't really care what the scientists say about it. Scientists have been proven wrong many, many times before, the Bible has never been. Einstein will be no different.
Resting in Him,
Clete
I find this statement facinating! :raises eyebrow:eccl3_6 said:
Do you really believe this; that the metaphysical cannot be known but only believed?
If so, is this itself merely a belief or do you know this to be the case?
If you only believe it, does that make the statment metaphysical or is this statement about the way things really are?
If you do know this to be the case, how did you come to this knowledge?
Resting in Him,
Clete
nancy said:
The strength of Open Theism is that it can read the Bible at face value and literally (while recognizing obvious figures of speech), rather than making things about God figurative if they contradict classical theology influenced by philosophy or tradition.
justchristian
New member
from my experience neither is all protestant doctrine, despite many claims. Almost all denominations differ in doctrine at some point so they can't all be biblical.
Clete said:
Relativity IS a theory.....its called the 'theory of relativity'. But the things we have used it to observe aren't. Einstein was arguably the most brilliant mind man the world has seen...i don't particularly see this but he was definitely way,way up there. But he did not appreciate Quantum theory, it didnt add up to him. Quantum theory has since gone on to gain momentum because everyday it is predicting stuff we didnt know about that is becoming true (being observed). It comes down to this; Cavemen may have had a theory why night followed day and day followed night, as would have the Egyptians in the days of Moses, as did the 16th century church when Galileo was a lad. And all these theories could be put forward and with some weight dismissed and agreed on. But arguments could be placed eitherway and science accepts this as healthy. After all if Newton hadn't questioned contemporary theories where would we be today? We never commit ourselves to a theory so solidly as to not be able to rethink it or its maths(the marriage line in bold in the previos post was sarcasm!). But whenever a new theory is put forward it has to incorporate what we already 'know'. So any theory that may replace 'relativity' would only be replacing words (so to speak) but still describing what we observe in nature. The dilation and the quanitification would still be seen and observed and it is this sense that time (physical as opposed to metaphysical) has been accepted and is here to stay.
Just as any explanation why night follows day, and day follows night can be suggested but one, whether caveman, egyptian, or 16th century must accept that night does indeed follow day and day does indeed follow night no matter what explanation is given.
I would argue 'scientists' have been proven wrong time and time again but the pursuit of science never has....
godrulz said:
Nobody is saying science should be recognised as a God!!!!
What is bad science?
This is why religion can be dangerous....it stops other things from progressing which are no threat to it. Through your ignorance you are turning religion into an aggressive, violent thing.
Its just like the crusades all over again.......
Last edited:
eccl3_6 said:
How am I turning religion into a violent thing? Feeding the poor? Praying for the sick? Speaking out against unjust wars?
Bad science=junk science. e.g. vastly more people die from malaria than DEET sensitivity; the earth is not flat; global warming; etc.
Science becomes a god when we think it can give us immortality (cryogenics), cure all diseases, explain origins without a Creator=evolution; cloning, euthanasia, etc.
By turning it against things....i.e.science....like in your last quote below.godrulz said:
There's a world of difference between declaring bad science and bad scientists...the work of bad scientists isn't bad science, its just not science at all.
Are you saying the Earth IS flat??? Science is working to cure erradicate malaria.....DEET (insect repellant for people reading) - are you saying this good science or bad science....surely its good we're saving lives!
If I could find the cure to cancer I would....I'd save all those people's lives and all those families from all that suffering, if I could I would do it now, I'd do it for all disease as well. But I wouldn't think science was a god because of it! Cloning, euthanasia is a morality aspect.....a lackof morality if thats what you think...just because we can doesn't mean that we necessarily should. Science isn't to blame, science is study and learning, how can learning be bad, the people that practice and implement it are to blame for the mistakes.
Personally I am in favour of euthanasia....I think it can be a brave and loving action for one person to do for someone else. And cloning coming to think of it if its only 'blastacasts'.....
Clete said:
Then why are parts of scientific study perceived as a threat if it can never be truly objective.....
If by something never being truly objective in an apolgetic sense, and science is religion as you put it, doesnt't that imply that absolute clarity can never be perceived and doesn't that make you all agnostic?
WOW never though of it that way before....
Heisenberg would be made up.