Does God know the future?

[Turbo]

Rationalism vs. empiricism was all the rage in the 18th century. Some people still try an argue it now....Clete is.

No he isn't, you blithering idiot! :bang:

This is once more yet another example of your antequated philosophy struggling to keep up with contemporary science.

No, it's another example of you building flimsy strawmen.

 

[Clete]

So anyone keeping on track....

Both Johnny and myself have posted threads now saying that to continue arguing Open Theism and your concept of existence in time is to ignore certain characteristics of nature.

Either denounce relativity and it's spin off implications (namely time dilation/multiple time frames) and come with an alternative theory that explains what we are seeing.

I have done both of these already and on top of that shown that time dialation is irrelavent to the issue of Open Theism, you just keep ignoring it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

I think it's funny how this agruement against relativity has come down to "it must be wrong it conflicts with Open Thiesm."

This has to be an intentional lie! What would motivate you to say such a thing? I have made argument after argument from at least three entirely different logical directions none of which have been refuted in the slightest! (I haven't read Johnny's post yet but I suspect it will be no different.)

That's the spirit.

No it isn't! I have repeated myself ad nausium specifically because I know that there are others (like yourself) who may actually be letting this idiot convince them that he's got a good point! Without that single consideration this would have been a complete waste of time.

Nevermind any other rational rebuttle. It's wrong because it proves wrong what I and a small majority of Christianity have cooked up. I think we've definately beat this dead horse to long.

You are either incredibly stupid (which I do not believe) or you are intentionally lying. I have provided numerous substantive arguments that substanciate every claim I have made. I do not simply proclaim something false becuase I don't like it. If you know of one that I have not then quote it and I will do so. If you cannot do so then recant this nonsense and debate me with some substance or admit that you cannot.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[eccl3_6]

I have done both of these already and on top of that shown that time dialation is irrelavent to the issue of Open Theism, you just keep ignoring it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Where?

How can you say whether its irrelevant or not. You don't understand it! You've brought up E=mc2 into the debate in the past, Lord knows why, and claimed to be a physics guru because your HIGHSCHOOL teacher bumped your grade up!!!

YES or NO time. Answer the question please...

In light of Johnny's post....

If you accept that reality (i.e. what you call "now") is the freeze-frame snapshot of the universe in the present, and if you accept special relativity, then you must accept that true reality encompasses all of the events in spacetime--past, present, and future. Because the perception of 'now' for any observer is no more valid than the perception of any other observer (according to special relativity), and the perception of 'now' is completely relative, then any observer in the universe can potentially be experiencing any 'now' (past, present, or future). Thus, the true reality of the universe encompasses all "nows".

Do you accept Special Relativity, as the scienific community has done to a man, or not?

YES or NO

 

[eccl3_6]

No, it's another example of you building flimsy strawmen.

Einstein was a flimsy, straw man?
WOW

 

[Turbo]

Einstein was a flimsy, straw man?

No, your repeated claims that Clete is demanding that you renounce reason and logic,and that he is arguing rationalism vs. empiricism were.

And now you've added a new strawman with this post. I didn't even mention Einstein.

 

[Clete]

Although they all three may exist at the same time, what they call "now" is entirely relative.

You're still caught up thinking in a Newtonian sense. In Dr. Greene's book "The Fabric of the Cosmos", he illustrates the point using "now-lists". According to classical laws (and common experience), everyone in the universe should agree upon any given freeze-frame snapshot of the universe. For example, assume I am keeping and updating "now lists". I want to do a "now list" of the position of the sun in the galaxy. I know that it takes roughly 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach me, and so I can deduce the position of the sun 8 minutes ago. I add that to the "now-list" of 8 minutes ago. The same thing applies for Johnny Alien on Planet Z 10 light years away. He realizes that it takes 10 years for the light from our sun to reach him, and so he adds the position of our sun in the galaxy to the "now-list" from 10 years ago. According to Newton (and Clete), everyone in the universe would agree that the sun was in position X at time Y. Thus, everyone's "freeze frame" of the universe is the exact same snapshot.

However, according to special relativity, two observers in motion will not agree on "now". Imagine that me and Johnny Alien are separated by 10-billion light years (there are two ways to magnify the effects of relativity, increasing the distance and increasing the velocity. This example deals with large distances and small velocities). Although separated by 10 billion light years, assume we are motionless relative to each other. We begin recording "now-lists" of the events on Earth. Because we are motionless relative to each other, our now-events line up perfectly. He records atomic nuclei decaying at the same time I do. Assume that Johnny Alien gets up and runs away from the my position (the earth) at 10 miles/hr. He still keeps-his now lists, except when they are compared, the events on his now-list occured 150 years ago on my now-list. He now hops in a jet and travels 1,000 miles/hr towards earth. The events on his now-list occured 15,000 years in the future, according to my now-list.

You went from discussing now to discussing the past and the future.
The bottome line is that at any one moment a third party could be observing both of the other two parties. This alone proves they all three exist at the same time. The speed at which "time is passing" for any one of the three is irrelavent to the point.

Even stranger is looking at Johnny Alien's now-list the moment before and the moment after he begins jogging away from earth. While JA is sitting motionless relative to me, he is recording the same "now" as I am. However, the moment he gets up, he is recording John Wilkes Booth assasinating Lincoln, even though that occured over a century ago for me.

This simply would not happen. Relativity does not predict that time would move backward for anyone. An observer of our planet which was a hunred light years away would see somethiing that happened a hundred years ago but that is not a "now list" because it fails to account for the time it took the light to travel to our observer.

Here is the bottom line, and the entire reason special relativity is extremely relevant to the discussion at hand. This is important, please consider it entirely and thoroughly before you respond:

I always do so. I respond to each point but not before I've read them all (unlike some on this thread).

If you accept that reality (i.e. what you call "now") is the freeze-frame snapshot of the universe in the present, and if you accept special relativity, then you must accept that true reality encompasses all of the events in spacetime--past, present, and future.

This is simply not so. No one, not even Einstien said anything about anyone leaving the present and leaping into the future. Relativity does not predict any such thing and that is what you would have to believe in order to accept your argument.

Because the perception of 'now' for any observer is no more valid than the perception of any other observer (according to special relativity), and the perception of 'now' is completely relative, then any observer in the universe can potentially be experiencing any 'now' (past, present, or future). Thus, the true reality of the universe encompasses all "nows".

Your conclusion is not supported by your premise. No one is saying that anyone's now is any more valid than another. I'm simply saying that they are in fact the same thing. I see a guy travelling really fast and he appears to me to be moving in slow motion, he looks at me and I seem to be in fast foward but at any one point in time what we are doing is what we are doing, the frequency of our relative events is irrelavent.

The only possbile avenue of refutation here is to debate special relativity.

Saying it doesn't make it so. You've not presented even a logically consistent argument never mind an accurate portrayal of relativity.

No one here has presented a valid refutation, and I strongly believe that no one here will ever present a valid argument (mathematical or otherwise) against relativity.

You're missing the point. At this point in the debate such a refutation is not needed. Relativity is irrelevent because no one (even if relativity is 100% correct) ever leaves the present - ever.

Given that relativity has nearly 100 years of experimental and theoretical support, and has been universally accepted among the physics and mathematical community, I strongly feel that anyone claiming that they have either refuted relativity or that relativity doesn't have adequate support does not understand relativity, its implications, or its evidences, and is thus talking out of their rear end.

Again, irrelavent. If you want to worship at Einstein's feet go ahead, it does no injury to my theology.

Thanks, by the way, for giving an argument with some substance to it and for responding to the actual point I've made in the debate. I do not understand why no one else seems able to understand it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[eccl3_6]

YES or NO....please.

Whether you see it as irrelevant or not please;

Do you accept Special Relativity, as the scienific community has done to a man, or not?

YES or NO?

 

[Clete]

Where?

Pretty much the whole first half of this thread. It would help if you pay attention long enough to understand my arguments.

How can you say whether its irrelevant or not. You don't understand it!

I do understand it and I have already explained why it is irrelivent about 6 or 7 times now. Your ignoring the point won't make it go away.

You've brought up E=mc2 into the debate in the past, Lord knows why, and claimed to be a physics guru because your HIGHSCHOOL teacher bumped your grade up!!!

You are a lair. The fact is I've made the exact opposite cliam...

While I did major in physics while in college, I do not consider myself a physicist by any stretch of the imagination.

from post 437

Do you accept Special Relativity, as the scienific community has done to a man, or not?

YES or NO

NO I do not but I simply will not debate any longer as it is irrelivent.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[eccl3_6]

In response to the question I asked, "do you believe in Special Relativity..YES or NO?"

NO I do not but I simply will not debate any longer as it is irrelivent

I'm not surprised, if you disbelieve in the greatest breakthrough discovery of the twentieth century, that you don't want to talk about it.

Oppenheimer built the atom bomb because of it..........do you believe in nuclear technology Clete
YES or NO?

Do you believe in Sattellite communication Clete......
YES or NO?

Do you believe in nuclear fusion Clete..........
YES or NO?

IF you don't believe in nuclear fusion Clete......do you believe that the Sun exists, or the Stars...
YES or NO? ​

To denounce time relativity is akin to denouncing all these things. This is extremely relevant for the reasons posted by Johnny...

This If you accept that reality (i.e. what you call "now") is the freeze-frame snapshot of the universe in the present, and if you accept special relativity, then you must accept that true reality encompasses all of the events in spacetime--past, present, and future. Because the perception of 'now' for any observer is no more valid than the perception of any other observer (according to special relativity), and the perception of 'now' is completely relative, then any observer in the universe can potentially be experiencing any 'now' (past, present, or future). Thus, the true reality of the universe encompasses all "nows

Whoosh!

 

[Clete]

In response to the question I asked, "do you believe in Special Relativity..YES or NO?"



I'm not surprised, if you disbelieve in the greatest breakthrough discovery of the twentieth century, that you don't want to talk about it.

Do you know how to debate on topic at all?

Oppenheimer built the atom bomb because of it..........do you believe in nuclear technology Clete
YES or NO?

Yes. To clarify, I do not accept what relativity predicts about the nature of time (as well as a hand full of other issue). I do not deny that the work Einstein did was extremely valuable in many ways.

Do you believe in Sattellite communication Clete......
YES or NO?

Of course. This is irrelevant to the point being debated.

Do you believe in nuclear fusion Clete..........
YES or NO?

Yes and no. An explanation would be irrelevant to the point being debated.

IF you don't believe in nuclear fusion Clete......do you believe that the Sun exists, or the Stars...
YES or NO?

Of course they exist but it has not been proven fusion is what is fueling the sun. Again, explanation would be irrelevant.

To denounce time relativity is akin to denouncing all these things. This is extremely relevant for the reasons posted by Johnny...

It is irrelevant for the reasons I gave to Johnny and to you which you continue to ignore.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[eccl3_6]

Post retracted in light of the following post by Johnny....good work fella.

:BRAVO:​

 

[Johnny]

An observer of our planet which was a hunred light years away would see somethiing that happened a hundred years ago but that is not a "now list" because it fails to account for the time it took the light to travel to our observer.

This was covered in the first paragraph: "For example, assume I am keeping and updating "now lists". I want to do a "now list" of the position of the sun in the galaxy. I know that it takes roughly 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach me, and so I can deduce the position of the sun 8 minutes ago. I add that to the "now-list" of 8 minutes ago."

Relativity does not predict that time would move backward for anyone.

Relativity predicts exactly what I have described. I paraphrased this roughly from Brian Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos".

Relativity does not predict any such thing and that is what you would have to believe in order to accept your argument.

Again, you can say it doesn't, but I can provide citations. Here's a reference to get you started: The Concept of Simultaneity, Simultaneity

Your conclusion is not supported by your premise. No one is saying that anyone's now is any more valid than another.

My conclusion follows strongly. Usually when you're aruing with someone's logic, you accept the premise for the purpose of debate and show why the conclusion doesn't follow. Instead of just saying "your conclusion isn't supported by your premise", you say "look, if we accept your premise, then your conclusion can't follow because x,y,z". I think you'll find that you can't really argue with the actual logic unless you disregard the premise, which you have chosen to do. At least be frank, don't say my conclusion doesn't follow, just say you don't accept special relativity.

You've not presented even a logically consistent argument never mind an accurate portrayal of relativity.

I've done both. I can restate the logic if you'd like.

Again, irrelavent. If you want to worship at Einstein's feet go ahead, it does no injury to my theology.

I'm not worshiping at Einstein's feet any more than you're worshiping at Newton's feet. If Einstein was wrong, then he was wrong. I am not about to stick by him because I thought he was a nice guy or something. He's not wrong though. This has been studied extensively.

NO I do not

Very well. If you chose to bury your head in the sand and ignore reality then you are someone who can't be reasoned with. Eccl, our job is done here.

 

[eccl3_6]

Very well. If you chose to bury your head in the sand and ignore reality then you are someone who can't be reasoned with. Eccl, our job is done here.

:thumb:​

 

[godrulz]

I think it's funny how this agruement against relativity has come down to "it must be wrong it conflicts with Open Thiesm." That's the spirit. Nevermind any other rational rebuttle. It's wrong because it proves wrong what I and a small majority of Christianity have cooked up. I think we've definately beat this dead horse to long.

I think we are misunderstanding or misapplying relativity to the issue. Not all of relativity theory is established fact, and not all of it is relevant to issues relating to God, eternity, free will, and time. Issues of time perception are not identical to issues about the nature of eternity and essential time.

 

[Clete]

We are simply going in circles because you guys won't acknowledge the point. Let me just refine it down to one simple question.

Does anyone, regardless of the speed in relation to anyone or anything else, ever leave the present?

Yes or no!

Relativity DOES NOT answer this in the affirmative and a negative answer renders time dilation irrelavent.

I will not respond to anything else that you two bring up until I get a straight forward asnwer from both of you on this piont.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[eccl3_6]

Whose present?

I never leave my present but Johnny does. Johnny doesn't leave his but I do. :think:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Whose present?

:bang:

 

[eccl3_6]

:bang:

Thats relativity.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Thats relativity.

What's relativity? What are you saying? Why don't you just answer Clete's question?