Does God know the future?
- Thread starter intro2faith
- Start date
eccl3_6 said:Perfectly motionless is not achievable because the position/situation is relative. Einstein stated this early on. Sorry Clete. Your whole argument...whooosh! Up in flames.
Time dilation does happen, it has been observed...would you like examples?
You're an idiot.
All the complication factors I placed were for distraction purposes only. None of them matter in the slightest. If someone on Mars were able to obverse the situation exactly as described in Johnny's (I think it was Johnny's) post from the other day, he too would be able to snap the hypothetical photo and thereby prove that he, the folks on Earth and Capt. Kirk were all three were present in the universe at the same moment in time.
Now, now play nice Clete.
Yes the photo would show the folks on Earth and Captain Kirk. Nobody is disputing that.
But their watches would all show different times. Captain Kirk's would have hardly changed at all!
Time Dilation.....we have observed it, would you like examples?
Yes the photo would show the folks on Earth and Captain Kirk. Nobody is disputing that.
But their watches would all show different times. Captain Kirk's would have hardly changed at all!
Time Dilation.....we have observed it, would you like examples?
:think:
Last edited:
eccl3_6 said:Perfectly motionless is not achievable because the position/situation is relative. Einstein stated this early on. Sorry Clete. Your whole argument...whooosh! Up in flames.
Time dilation does happen, it has been observed...would you like examples?
Humans travelling at the speed of light is also impossible.
God is not finite nor physical. Why tie Him into physical phenomenon?
godrulz said:
Can we use pulsar's or radiation decay to mark a passage of time or are we turning our back on all of science and God's creation to rationalise your thinking now?
Time Dilation.....we have observed it, would you like examples?
Its because I'm using my noodle that your clutching at straws and why Clete's losing his temper.
:chuckle:
godrulz said:
Once more it is not I that is 'boxing' God in to what He can't do - thats your job as an open-theist.
Nobody is talking of humans travelling at light speed. 'Captain Kirk' was a hypothetical as well you are aware. If God is omnipresent then there are lots of things that travel quickly. Is God present near a comet say. Or have we just sent a probe where God can't go. You say he must be omnipresent so He must experience time differently on the comet than on earth.
Time dilation dear boy....would you like examples?
:yawn:
eccl3_6 said:
We are not against science, but that which is misinterpreted/misapplied.
Carbon dating is problematic and cannot be used to prove 200 year old trees are millions of years old.
Yes, give us examples of time dilation in laymen's terms. Then apply it to the eternal God before the creation of the universe and how He subsequently relates to creation.
If your theories prove that God actually observed the Superbowl in 2008 from eternity past, before He actually/objectively brought the universe into existence, I will reject your theories with a clear conscience.
eccl3_6 said:
Presentism vs eternalism, dear smug boy. God is omnipresent (spatial) in the present since the past and future do not exist to be present in. You cannot divorce science from logic and philosophy. Science is limited to observation, but may not provide coherent understanding into the nature of that which is observed.
godrulz said:
Who mentioned Carbon dating? Keep on topic please.
IF YOU WANT TO KEEP IT SIMPLE - IGNORE WHATS IN THE BRACKETS.
Take a very accurate clock to the top of a mountain....take a similiar clock to the bottom of a valley. The two clocks begin to run differently from one another. The one at the top of the mountain is appearing to run slow. (Gravity affects the spacetime curve. Gravity is a weak force comparitively i.e. you don't have to get very far from something to escape it's gravity pull. For example the sun is many, many times bigger than the earth but we're not sucked into the sun are we? We the earth are bigger than the moon but the moon doesn't come flying into the earth. Realitively speaking gravity is a bit of a 'wuss').
This weak force gravity is minutely stronger the closer to the centre of the earth you are. (Newtonian physics works very well as a point source. This tiny little difference that is unnoticeable without technology translates as a tiny difference in the spacetime curve). This time is dilated in comparison to that which is lower down i.e. the clock at the bottom of the valley.....to perfectly functioning clocks, both acting differently in different circumstances....there you go I didn't even use space travel for that example
If you now accept time dilation is actually warranted this means that you have accepted different time references exist but you, the open-theist, still argue that time is experienced the same. The logic goes onto state that an omnipresent God in these circumstances can see the future as explained in a previous post. Open Theism has been caught up by itself in a circular argument!
This contradiction means that one of the three statements is false;
(i) God is omnipresent
(ii) Time dilation works
(iii) Open Theism is right
If you've already accepted what you have physically observed in nature then either (i) or (iii) is false
Open Theism to be right it must either deny God's omnipresence or deny time dilation even though it can be observed. You have found yourselves in a position where you must denounce science even though you know it to be right. You cannot accept physical time as a product of creation and this is why you will seek to argue a physical position with a metaphysical argument...which can't be done.
This is the reason why you cannot and will not accept time dilation and why I can keep giving examples of how it has practical uses in every day life....like Global Positioning Systems....
:BRAVO:
Last edited:
I'm not losing my temper; I'm simply stating the facts as I see them.eccl3_6 said:
The use of any clock, pulsar or radiation decay or any other event that occurs at a predictable rate under normal conditions will not help your argument at this point. All such things are irrelevant because you have already conceded that my hypothetical photograph could be taken by a third party which places all parties regardless of their speeds relative to each other, and regardless of what time their watches read, are, in fact, in the same moment of time at all times. Our third party observer could take a photo of the other two parties whenever he liked and there'd they be in the photo that he had taken. Thus all the examples in the world you want to give will not help you prove that time itself exists or that it has been manipulated in any way. In fact, all your examples would actuall be examples of my hypothetical photo secession. The fact that you can observe the other party is proof that they exist at the same time that you do.
The phenomena that have been observed could be explained if time existed and was being dilated but that is only a hypothesis, which may or may not be correct. The point being, you don't know, nor can you prove it one way or the other, which is the point that I have been making now for weeks.
Einstein’s theories about the nature of time HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN. No amount of your insistence to the contrary will change that very simple fact. At best his theories have predicted phenomena, which we have found evidence to support but that is not proof. That is not even science! That is the very same thing that many so-called "creation scientists" do which the scientific community at large correctly calls them on time and time again. You stand the scientific method on its head when you start with a hypothesis and then go out and try to find evidence to support it. There is profit in doing such things but it cannot be considered proof, that just isn't the way science works. As I've said before, as long as there is more than one viable theory that explains any phenomena then none of those theories can be said to have been proven. And since time dilation is the whole basis of your argument, that presents a pretty big problem for you, doesn't it?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Clete said:
Not in the frame of time Clete....
And you base your argument on perfect motionless. Einstein very early on said that this can't be done because you are always moving relative to something else.....this is what seperated Einstein from Newton.
....whoosh. There goes your argument up in flames again.
Last edited:
I don't get it. What does this mean?eccl3_6 said:
Not in the frame of time Clete....
No I didn't. You're not paying attention. It makes no difference who is moving where in what direction. I put all not that nonsense in there to confuse you. I can't believe it succeeded this well. :chuckle:
I just got through saying in the last post that even in the examples which you are so keen to give, the fact that you are observing something proves that you exist at the same time that whatever it is you are observing exists. In effect you are the third person (actually even the introduction of the third person was a diversion as well, it really makes no difference how many observers there are as long as there are two or more parties, one observing the other (the observed party doesn't even have to be a person).
You don't know what you are talking about but it is irrelevent so I won't bother explaining it to you.
You haven't even addressed my argument nor have you understood it. You're proving my idiot remark to be true every time you make this idiotic claim.
Resting in Him,
Clete
The photograph can exist....nobody suggested that somebody disappears. One is just experiencing time at a different rate to the other. If I sit in a chair and you run round in circles your team is diluted in relation to mine. I can see you and you can see me but we still experience time at different relative rates.
Whooosh!
Whooosh!
Clete do yourself a favour and look up the words 'proof' and 'evidence' in the dictionary before you say I have given you evidence but not proof.
The observation is there, as you say time dilation theory has been used to predict and substantiate evidence. So you are all but accepting the existence of different time frames...but you can't admit it because to do so would be to contradict open-theism.
You are between a rock and a hard place.
Damned of you do, damned if you don't
Because of this contraction one of the three statements is false;
(i)Open theism is correct
(ii)Time dilation exists
(iii)God is omnipresent
If, and as you have hinted an agreeance that observations have been made and corroborated for (ii), then either (i) or (iii) is false. Which is it Clete?
The observation is there, as you say time dilation theory has been used to predict and substantiate evidence. So you are all but accepting the existence of different time frames...but you can't admit it because to do so would be to contradict open-theism.
You are between a rock and a hard place.
Damned of you do, damned if you don't
Because of this contraction one of the three statements is false;
(i)Open theism is correct
(ii)Time dilation exists
(iii)God is omnipresent
If, and as you have hinted an agreeance that observations have been made and corroborated for (ii), then either (i) or (iii) is false. Which is it Clete?
:thumb:
Last edited:
godrulz said:
Metaphysical argument against a physical one....I predicted that earlier didn't I.
Play nice.
On the contrary I have taken your philosophy (open theism) and have applied it to what we observe in the world(science) with the use of logic
A contradiction appears (something which is not logical)
Because of this contraction one of the three statements arises as being false;
(i)Open theism is correct
(ii)Time dilation exists
(iii)God is omnipresent
Observations have been made and corroborated theory for (ii), so then either (i) or (iii) is false. Which is it?
You are truly stupid. Someone explain to me why I'm wasting so much time on this dolt!eccl3_6 said:
No I said just the opposite. People went looking for evidence after they had the theory and when they found some they claimed proof. That isn't the way it works. There are other theories which explain the same phenomena without any requirement for the existence of time in the first place and which preserve Newtonian conservation laws (which Einstein's do not). Occam's Razor is slitting your throat again! And even if it weren't the existence of even one viable theory other than Einstein's is ABSOLUTE, RATIONALLY UNDENIABLE PROOF that Einstein's theory is still just that, a theory; it HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. What's more is that you can't even begin to suggest a means by which it could be proven because you cannot get past the single point that the occurrence of events is not what time is nor is the observance of such events. Time cannot be seen, felt or observed in anyway whatsoever. The closest you can come to to compare the passage of one set of events to another and then call it time but just because you give something a name doesn't mean it exists. All you know for sure is that events have taken place at a certain rate, nothing more.
Open theism must be true because of the rational impossibility of the contrary. If you want to insist that time dilation and Open Theism are mutually exclusive (which I do not) then you have killed your own argument on simple philosophical (i.e. logical) grounds never mind scientific grounds.
You are a liar and an idiot. You neither respect the debate nor even understand the arguments being made. I'm very close to saying forget it and leaving you to your blissful ignorance.
No such contradiction has been proved and so you logic is based on a false premise. Further, according to the classical definition of omnipresence I would say that neither ii or iii are correct whether your logic is sound or not, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
If your attitude doesn't change I am going away. Take your pick, either take the debate seriously or waste someone else's time. I'm getting tired of repeating myself on the same point over and over again anyway. It's just simply not worth the aggravation.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Ok Clete I'll look it up for you:
EVIDENCE n. 1. anything that establishes a fact or gives reason for believing something. 2. statements made or objects produced in a lawcourt as proof or to support a case
PROOF n. 1. a fact or thing that shows or helps to show that something is true or exists. 2. a demonstration of the truth of something, in proof of my statement 3. the process of testing whether something is true or good or valid, put it to the proof,
So yes Clete you've been given lots of proof for time dilation.....lots and lots if you look through the thread. That granted and taken over to the the following argument infers that you will not and cannot accept time dilation as an open theist because when applied to open theism there is an irrefutable contradiction which means that you must make a choice. Because of this contraction one of the three statements arises as being false;
(i)Open theism is correct
(ii)Time dilation exists
(iii)God is omnipresent
Observations have been made and corroborated theory for (ii), so then either (i) or (iii) is false. Which is it?
EVIDENCE n. 1. anything that establishes a fact or gives reason for believing something. 2. statements made or objects produced in a lawcourt as proof or to support a case
PROOF n. 1. a fact or thing that shows or helps to show that something is true or exists. 2. a demonstration of the truth of something, in proof of my statement 3. the process of testing whether something is true or good or valid, put it to the proof,
So yes Clete you've been given lots of proof for time dilation.....lots and lots if you look through the thread. That granted and taken over to the the following argument infers that you will not and cannot accept time dilation as an open theist because when applied to open theism there is an irrefutable contradiction which means that you must make a choice. Because of this contraction one of the three statements arises as being false;
(i)Open theism is correct
(ii)Time dilation exists
(iii)God is omnipresent
Observations have been made and corroborated theory for (ii), so then either (i) or (iii) is false. Which is it?
Have you noticed I'm not rising to you calling me a liar, an idiot? I'll remain calm and reasoned.
Last edited: