Spirituality
23 May 08
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterJust so you know, I do baulk at the idea that light is both a particle and a wave. I strongly suspect that it is in fact neither. Both particle physics and wave physics are merely mathematical models we use to predict the behavior of matter. We can show that under certain circumstances one method works well and under other circumstances the other method works well.
Why do baulk at this? You presumably would not baulk at the idea that light is both a particle and a wave?
When you take the effects of quantum mechanics and apply it to near light speed particles the result is wave like motion, when you take the same quantum mechanics and apply it to slow speeds then it looks much more like standard Newtonian motion.
There is no logical contradiction, and any logical contradictions would be unacceptable to science.
Your ideas might be acceptable if they are taken as approximations of Gods actions/knowledge under certain circumstances, but as long as they are logically contradictory they cannot be taken as actual reality. The only problem is that as they were only arrived at through your supposedly logical deductions not observation of reality, the logical contradictions should persuade you to discard some of the conclusions.
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzBut they are only apparent contradictions. For example , we find it hard to figure out how God can be both present with us today and in tomorrow also. However, from an eternal perspective this might be totally logical.
No. It just apparently has more contradictions.
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd that's kind of my point. In actual reality there is no contradiction. When we come across something like the wave/particle problem we can either say " oh dear this doesn't add up it must be bunkum " or we can say " hmmm this is interesting there is obviously some deeper reality about light we don't fully understand yet" .
Just so you know, I do baulk at the idea that light is both a particle and a wave. I strongly suspect that it is in fact neither. Both particle physics and wave physics are merely mathematical models we use to predict the behavior of matter. We can show that under certain circumstances one method works well and under other circumstances the other method w ...[text shortened]... n of reality, the logical contradictions should persuade you to discard some of the conclusions.
A logical contradiction is no reason to call the whole show off and to do so is unscientific. The reason for this is that we often come across new discoveries that make what once seemed illogical undertsandable in the final reckoning.
For God to be omniscient and also not knowing is one of the mysteries of the trinity and an understanding of that deeper reality would bring together the two apparent "contradictions". I see no reason why understanding God should be any easier than waves/particles of light. Apparently , you seme to feel that once one comes across any apparent contradictions that's the time to chuck the God idea in the bin but you would not do so in other contexts.
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnePah! It's you that's jerking people off. As soon as things get tricky for you you walk off. Easy , soo easy.
KM has shown himself time and again to operate in a world void of logic or reason.
The question I have is this: Is he really that dense or does he just enjoy jerking everyone around?
02 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterLike there's a point in discussing anything with someone void of logic and reason. I don't know that I've ever come across someone more dense than you.
Pah! It's you that's jerking people off. As soon as things get tricky for you you walk off. Easy , soo easy.
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou are missing the whole analogy. The whole point of my explanation of wave/particle duality is that there is no such duality and neither idea is in fact correct. They are just mathematical models.
For God to be omniscient and also not knowing is one of the mysteries of the trinity and an understanding of that deeper reality would bring together the two apparent "contradictions". I see no reason why understanding God should be any easier than waves/particles of light.
So if we use the analogy and apply it to your argument then we must conclude that God is neither omniscient nor totally ignorant. (or nonexistent 🙂 )
For example , we find it hard to figure out how God can be both present with us today and in tomorrow also. However, from an eternal perspective this might be totally logical.
No it wouldn't. Sorry.
Apparently , you seme to feel that once one comes across any apparent contradictions that's the time to chuck the God idea in the bin but you would not do so in other contexts.
I have never said that. You are the one who apparently thinks that your idea is critical for your faith.
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadFor example , we find it hard to figure out how God can be both present with us today and in tomorrow also. However, from an eternal perspective this might be totally logical.------- km
You are missing the whole analogy. The whole point of my explanation of wave/particle duality is that there is no such duality and neither idea is in fact correct. They are just mathematical models.
So if we use the analogy and apply it to your argument then we must conclude that God is neither omniscient nor totally ignorant. (or nonexistent 🙂 )
[b] ...[text shortened]... er said that. You are the one who apparently thinks that your idea is critical for your faith.
No it wouldn't. Sorry. ---whitey
However, time could be said to be both present today and tomorrow (if it actually exists lol). In any case I wonder how you know so much about eternity to know this.
02 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhy did you switch threads by the way? Here I am on this thread defending the omniscience and existence of God (Jesus's father by the way) and you try and undermine my position. What words do you think Jesus would have had for those who tried to deny his Father even existed? I wouild remind you that Jesus was not an Atheist and said that his father knows "all things". Maybe you have a problem with some of the issues that God's omniscience brings up because it is a tricky one and it can seem contradictory at times. But if you have a problem and you think that Jesus's Father doesn't even exist then maybe you should take your problem to him instead of me? Or will you argue that Jesus didn't believe in God?
You've shown me time and again. Why would I want to see yet another demonstration? You've convinced me.
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterTime, if it exists, is not an entity and is not present both today and tomorrow. Rather part of it is present today and another part tomorrow.
However, time could be said to be both present today and tomorrow (if it actually exists lol). In any case I wonder how you know so much about eternity to know this.
The real problem you have is you keep trying to instantiate a second timeline for God whilst simultaneously denying that such a timeline exists. You want him to the an eternal unchanging being yet capable of 'creating' a universe which obviously necessitates change. You want him to know everything and nothing, you want him to know today what will happen tomorrow simply because you want who he is tomorrow to be the same as who he is today.
Now if you admitted that God is not omniscient because omniscience is simply illogical, then you might get further, but as long as you hold on to the ridiculous belief that all particles are waves you will never discover quantum mechanics. Maybe God isn't as eternal and omniscient as you want him to be. Maybe you have read it all wrong.
02 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterYour conception of omniscience is just that YOURS. It's yours and yours alone. Only you could be delusional enough to believe that such an incoherent view might be true.
Why did you switch threads by the way? Here I am on this thread defending the omniscience and existence of God (Jesus's father by the way) and you try and undermine my position. What words do you think Jesus would have had for those who tried to deny his Father even existed? I wouild remind you that Jesus was not an Atheist and said that his father kno ke your problem to him instead of me? Or will you argue that Jesus didn't believe in God?
God knows the future, only He doesn't know it until it happens.
Priceless.
It'd be cute from an eight year old, but from you, it's really sad. Didn't you say you were in your forties? Remarkable.
02 Jun 08
4 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneDespite everything you have said the fact still remains that Jesus believed in an omniscient Father God and taught that we were to do his will. It was an integral part of his teachings that we were to have a relationship with his Father and know him as Father.
Your conception of omniscience is just that YOURS. It's yours and yours alone. Only you could be delusional enough to believe that such an incoherent view might be true.
God knows the future, only He doesn't know it until it happens.
Priceless.
It'd be cute from an eight year old, but from you, it's really sad. Didn't you say you were in your forties? Remarkable.
Now even you would have a hard time arguing that away. Jesus would have stern words for anyone who denied his Father's existence. God's omniscience creates some problems regarding free will and suffering as you can see in this thread and many others. It's a complex issue. You may want kindergarten solutions but they are unlikely to come.
What's totally pathetic about what you have just posted is that you have no alternative solution to these issues but instead snipe from the sidelines at my arguments instead. Easy, soo easy. What's more pathetic is that I am defending the very Father God that Jesus believed and followed , and you say you are a respecter of Jesus's teachings???? Pah!
So what's your solution to these issues clever clogs! Do you even have one? Do you struggle with a Father God who allows the holocaust , or is it just not on your radar? Will you join me in defending and arguing for the very Father God without whom Jesus' ministry makes no sense? You won't because you don't even believe that Jesus's Father is actually there. Jesus would be unimpressed.
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn reality it would be quite convenient for me if God was not omniscient and didn't know my every thought or deed.
Time, if it exists, is not an entity and is not present both today and tomorrow. Rather part of it is present today and another part tomorrow.
The real problem you have is you keep trying to instantiate a second timeline for God whilst simultaneously denying that such a timeline exists. You want him to the an eternal unchanging being yet capable of 'c ...[text shortened]... God isn't as eternal and omniscient as you want him to be. Maybe you have read it all wrong.
I don't have a problem per se with a second timeline of sorts and have said so on other threads. I think you are right that God as creator requires some change and movement. There must be a "time" when the universe was not for God and a "time" when he did it. A 5th dimensional being may well experience things as a sequence of events in 5 dimensions. I do have a problem with placing God entirely within our space/time universe. How it works beyond that is partly guess work.
Despite this I think it's logical to think that God has to create Hitler in order for Hitler to have a future. This logically means that knowing what Hitler will do requires a sequence of events to occur that if they don't occur will mean that Hitler's actual future will be unknown (because he won't have one).
Scotty seemed to put forward the idea that God could uncreate Hitler after knowing that Hitler produced the holocaust. This implied that God could foresee the future and could then change it accordingly. The problem (as I'm sure you realise but have yet to admit) is that this is a logical paradox. No Hitler , no future holocaust , no known future to prevent.
Thinking about this then leads one to wonder if God could know what our any of our futures were to be unless he actually created us. Until he creates us he cannot know us and our futures (unless we are automatons).
One thing is clear though. God's knowledge of an actual future requires that an actual future exists. If I am a time traveller and I try to know about the great earthquake in London in 2021 then however good my time machione is and however perfectly knowledgable I am it's not much good to me if the earthquake doesn't actually take place. My powers are dependent on events .
So one could say that God is not totally omniscient because he needs us to make free choices in order to know those choices in the future, but all that would really mean is that he is only as omniscient as he possibly could be given the universe he chose to create.