Does God know the future?

[eccl3_6]

Why set up an alternate thread (they already exist) when these points are relevant to God, the future, and foreknowledge? It is not like I am arguing abortion or capital punishment on an OT thread. They are background material that is very relevant. If you can mix SR in all the related threads, then I will talk A vs B time theory on all the related threads.

I cannot follow your line of thinking, so I will leave it to Clete to try to break through the wall of prejudice.

Because if we ignore or brush over an argument nothing will ever be resolved, accepted or refuted. This thread matured to a stage where the Open Theist argument must either resolve itself with relative time, i.e. adapt, or concede if it cannot prove time to be not relative, i.e. absolute. This is why Clete ran away to find a 'magazine' and has not been seen since.

 

[novice]

Read the last two paragraphs. All the other Open Theists think this is relevant because they believe God experiences time as we do. But we experience time relative to our position and state relative to others. Open Theism teahces absolute time but time is proven in reality to be relative.

​

The measurement of time is proven to relative.

Just as the measurement of objects is relative when employing Einstein's theory. Two 12 inch rulers change sizes when one ruler is moving relative to another but clearly these two rulers will be the same size when they "meet up" again and are both placed on a table next to each other.

However, I am willing to give you the chance to make your case. Let me give you a challenge . . .

Can you theorize a way to use the benefits of the theory of relativity to time travel in a real objective way? In other words, if you had all the benefits of the theory of relativity at your disposal could you accurately predict the winner of the superbowl in the year 2010 and personally place a bet on that game in Las Vegas this year? (2005)

I will grant you a spaceship that can fly near or at the speed of light for you quest.

The bottom line is, if the theory of relativity offers no ability to travel into the future and then travel back to the present and then interact with that present (reuniting "the now") then this theory is simply irrelevant and does not help your case whatsoever.

 

[Johnny]

The measurement of time is proven to relative.

You and Clete have both made the same claim (though I think Clete has backed off it and returned to full-fledged denial of relativity). What is the qualitative difference between the measurement of time and time? Clocks are our only guide to the passage of time, and no matter what mechanism they rely upon (be it radioactive decay, laser pulses, or other mechanical means), they all show the same lag. Are the clocks all playing tricks on us?

The bottom line is, if the theory of relativity offers no ability to travel into the future and then travel back to the present and then interact with that present (reuniting "the now") then this theory is simply irrelevant and does not help your case whatsoever.

Howso? Just because one cannot reunite with the past does not make the point irrelevant. The point remains that there are more than one "nows" and more than one "present" in the universe.

 

[novice]

Just because one cannot reunite with the past does not make the point irrelevant. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

If the benefits of the theory of relativity do not allow the ability to interact with future and or past events how on earth could this theory be relevant to open theism?

It's your assertion so certainly you should be able to explain how it is relevant.

Happy hunting! ​

 

[novice]

You and Clete have both made the same claim (though I think Clete has backed off it and returned to full-fledged denial of relativity). What is the qualitative difference between the measurement of time and time? Clocks are our only guide to the passage of time, and no matter what mechanism they rely upon (be it radioactive decay, laser pulses, or other mechanical means), they all show the same lag. Are the clocks all playing tricks on us?

There is the measurement of time which open theism, closed theism, Calvinism, no "isms" address specifically.

Then, there is the concept of time. The concept of time is simply the idea that one event happens after another event and so on. Reality is a succession of events regardless of whether or not some events may appear to happen faster or slower than other events due to the effects of mathematics or physics.

 

[Johnny]

Then, there is the concept of time. The concept of time is simply the idea that one event happens after another event and so on.

And clocks measure how fast that is taking place, i.e. how fast we time is flowing or how fast we are moving through time (however you want to describe it). So when you say that it's simply the "measurement" of time that is relative, what do you mean? That's like distinguishing between the measurement of length and length itself. For this reason the statement seems largely irrelevant. I was trying to uncover whether or not that was directed against relativity or just made as a general statement. Either way there is no distinction between time and the measurement of time.

Reality is a succession of events regardless of whether or not some events may appear to happen faster or slower than other events due to the effects of mathematics or physics.

The mathematics and physics are a result of observational reality, not vice versa. We have not forced some illusitory reality upon ourselves by theorizing about relativity. One of the premises of science is that there exists an objective reality which is measurable. Relativity implies that there isn't a universal present. Truly, our reality is a succession of events. Nonetheless, that does not imply that everyone will agree on a freeze-frame snapshot of the universe in the present. You have painted a picture in which there is a true universal "present", and we are just moving through it at different speeds--like two characters moving at different speeds in a film. You are assuming that if we pause the film, both characters are on the same frame. This isn't an accurate analogy. Each character would argue that they are on a different frame, even though you asked them at the exact same time. And no character is more right than the other.

 

[novice]

The mathematics and physics are a result of observational reality, not vice versa. We have not forced some illusitory reality upon ourselves by theorizing about relativity. One of the premises of science is that there exists an objective reality which is measurable. Relativity implies that there isn't a universal present. Truly, our reality is a succession of events. Nonetheless, that does not imply that everyone will agree on a freeze-frame snapshot of the universe in the present. You have painted a picture in which there is a true universal "present", and we are just moving through it at different speeds--like two characters moving at different speeds in a film. You are assuming that if we pause the film, both characters are on the same frame. This isn't an accurate analogy. Each character would argue that they are on a different frame, even though you asked them at the exact same time. And no character is more right than the other.

All of which is exactly why my point is so relevant to your assertion that the theory of relativity is relevant at all to open or closed theism.

If the benefits of the theory of relativity do not allow the ability to interact with future and or past events how on earth could this theory be relevant to open theism?

It's your assertion so certainly you should be able to explain how it is relevant.

And the party is all of the sudden over. So sorry!​

 

[novice]

eccl3_6 where are you?????

Not even your hero Johnny can help now.

Can you theorize a way to use the benefits of the theory of relativity to time travel in a real objective way? In other words, if you had all the benefits of the theory of relativity at your disposal could you accurately predict the winner of the superbowl in the year 2010 and personally place a bet on that game in Las Vegas this year? (2005)

I will grant you a spaceship that can fly near or at the speed of light for you quest.

The bottom line is, if the theory of relativity offers no ability to travel into the future and then travel back to the present and then interact with that present (reuniting "the now") then this theory is simply irrelevant and does not help your case whatsoever.

 

[novice]

eccl3_6 is gone :banned: so it's up to you Johnny, Can you theorize a way to use the benefits of the theory of relativity to time travel in a real objective way? In other words, if you had all the benefits of the theory of relativity at your disposal could you accurately predict the winner of the superbowl in the year 2010 and then personally place a bet on that game in Las Vegas this year? (2005)

I will grant you a spaceship that can fly near or at the speed of light for you quest.

The bottom line is, if the theory of relativity offers no ability to travel into the future and then travel back to the present and then interact with the present (reuniting "the now") then this theory is simply irrelevant and does not help your case whatsoever.

 

[novice]

When I said, "The bottom line is, if the theory of relativity offers no ability to travel into the future and then travel back to the present and then interact with the present (reuniting "the now") then this theory is simply irrelevant and does not help your case whatsoever."

I could have stopped at, "The bottom line is, if the theory of relativity offers no ability to travel into the future." And still made my point and refuted this silly argument but I wanted to drive the nail in even deeper.

 

[novice]

Let's make predictions shall we?

How much obfuscating will Johnny have to do in order to distract people away from his answer being a "no"? In that he cannot theorize a way to use the benefits of the theory of relativity to time travel in any objective way? :chuckle:

 

[novice]

Johnny?

 

[logos_x]

Johnny?

:chuckle:

 

[novice]

This house is clear.

 

[godrulz]

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/leftow.html

Eccl. must have got banned before he wrestled with this article. I think Craig provides food for thought and calls into question the credibility of his arguments (that I have not been able to put my finger on clearly enough).

I will summarize some thoughts shortly.

 

[novice]

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/leftow.html

Eccl. must have got banned before he wrestled with this article. I think Craig provides food for thought and calls into question the credibility of his arguments (that I have not been able to put my finger on clearly enough).

I will summarize some thoughts shortly.

That is interesting and all but a more fundamental problem exists with eccl and Johnny's argument which is that the theory of relativity doesn't provide a vehicle or mechanism to leave the present.

If time travel were a byproduct of the theory of relativity they might (and I emphasize "might") have a argument to build on.

It doesn't and therefore they don't. ​

 

[Clete]

That is interesting and all but a more fundamental problem exists with eccl and Johnny's argument which is that the theory of relativity doesn't provide a vehicle or mechanism to leave the present.

If time travel were a byproduct of the theory of relativity they might (and I emphasize "might") have a argument to build on.

It doesn't and therefore they don't. ​

How come when you say this it sounds so much better than it does when I say it! Perhaps I should learn to use fewer words.

Anyway, you present an outstanding argument and articulate it brilliantly. Keep it up! :thumb:


Johnny,

If you're still around, now that eccl3-6 is outa here perhaps I can participate again without losing my mind, but I've lost track of where we were. Was there a particular point which you would like for me to respond too? If so, I'll be happy to do so.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

That is interesting and all but a more fundamental problem exists with eccl and Johnny's argument which is that the theory of relativity doesn't provide a vehicle or mechanism to leave the present.

If time travel were a byproduct of the theory of relativity they might (and I emphasize "might") have a argument to build on.

It doesn't and therefore they don't. ​

Time travel is science fiction, not coherent science.

 

[godrulz]

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/leftow.html

Eccl. must have got banned before he wrestled with this article. I think Craig provides food for thought and calls into question the credibility of his arguments (that I have not been able to put my finger on clearly enough).

I will summarize some thoughts shortly.

To whet your appetite to read the article (and if Eccl. comes back):

- There are at least 2 different interpretations of Relativity theory that are experimentally indistinguishable...philosophical foundations are relevant.

- It was a later application by Minkowski that talked about space-time as a 4th dimension. Einstein talked about 'ether' (?!) for the space-time manifold.

- Eccl. commits a reductionist fallacy by reducing time to the physical while ignoring metaphysical issues (as I suspected).

- Newton distinguished time and the measure of time (duration).

- A theory is common sense; physics likes the B-theory (bias).

- Temporal becoming (past, present, future) is self-evident, but the language of physics is limiting. It is possible to integrate these concepts with Special Theory of Relativity (STR), despite Eccl. lack of understanding.

- Positivist philosophies have tainted discussions on time; biblical vs secular philosophy must be considered, not just physics.

- Eccl. seems to adopt Leftow. This guy's theories led to a denial of demons, angels, and the intermediate state of souls. Science, not Scripture is faulty.

- There is no frame of reference in which all events are simultaneous.

- Temporal events do not exist tenselessly/simultaneously. Reality is not reduced to a single point.

- God's frame of reference is not literal with all events present/actual (He knows reality as it is).

- Eccl. misapplies relativity to metaphysics (hence his avoidance of other arguments besides relativity).

- Lorentz transformations have different interpretations. Neo-Lorentzian interpretation pulls the rug out from under the feet of divine eternity appeal to STR (timeless).

- Time dilation applies to physical, not the eternal God. "It is the dimensions of the material instruments for measuring, not space and time that are distorted."

- It is not legitimate to appeal to Relativity to support timelessness (I suspected a more qualified person could deflate Eccl. pomp).

- There are category and conceptual mistakes to use relativity to disprove OT or A-theory time. It presupposes a reductionist view of time and one particular, problematic interpretation of STR that is incompatible with tensed theory of time (that is more coherent than timelessness). A theory is inherently superior to B theory (but secular theoretical physicists might differ).

 

[godrulz]

One last shot:

Robert Jastrow "God and the Astronomers" (conclusion)

"...at this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Can a banned person read without posting? If not, can Knight unban Eccl. so I can exact revenge for the muddy waters he was creating?