Spirituality
14 Feb 09
17 Feb 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't know about an external timeline. What I do know is that agerg's position necessarily places God entirely within our timeline which is a false premise.
That is somewhat technically incorrect too. Under your hypothesis, the universe if taken as a whole with all of time included is essentially a static object. The question then is whether God sits in some external time line and sort of instantaneously created the complete static universe, or is God also a static part of the whole?
17 Feb 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterI suspect that even if he is somehow external to our time-line, his interactions with us can be considered part of our time-line. From our point of view he is in our time-line and if he knows the future then he knows it ahead of time.
I don't know about an external timeline. What I do know is that agerg's position necessarily places God entirely within our timeline which is a false premise.
If he is in any way external to our time-line then it implies that our existence is static and free will (of the type you believe in) cannot exist.
17 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet me abruptly turn this around. If there really is an eternal omniscient , omnipresent God then how would he NOT be able to know what you are doing tomorrow?
I suspect that even if he is somehow external to our time-line, his interactions with us can be considered part of our time-line. From our point of view he is in our time-line and if he knows the future then he knows it ahead of time.
If he is in any way external to our time-line then it implies that our existence is static and free will (of the type you believe in) cannot exist.
Even if you had the ideal liberetarian free will and a multitude of choices tomorrow , would you really be able to stop God from knowing?
You might try to trick God or second guess him.Let's say you really do have a real choice between X and Y. Let's say you wait until the final millisecond before you choose X or Y and then just as you go to choose Y you change your mind to X and then you change again , hoping that God will not know or that somehow you can throw off his prediction.
The reality would be that such a God would be completely unaffected by such antics. You could choose X on the basis of some random quantum experiment - he still is going to know. He HAS to know because he's in tomorrow watching you.
If you cannot think of a way that such a God can be prevented from knowing all your tomorrows (even if you had real free will) then your argument is dead.
You need to be able to say " ahh , but if we really had free will then God would be at a loss - therefore we can't have free will"
Could you outline a scenario where an eternal omniscient God could be obscured from knowing?
17 Feb 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo am I, but is it the same I as now, and can I realistically be said to know what I will do tomorrow. The only way God can be said to know what will happen tomorrow and simultaneously be the same God as today is if he is for all intents and purposes a static being and if our universe itself is static. i.e. tomorrow is already fixed and the free will you talk of is an illusion. (note that I personally have no real problem with such a view)
He HAS to know because he's in tomorrow watching you.
17 Feb 09
7 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister
I don't know about an external timeline. What I do know is that agerg's position necessarily places God entirely within our timeline which is a false premise.
LIAR!!! You can put your god in a timeline orthogonal to ours if you like, and at no point have I EVER SUGGESTED OTHERWISE or implied such!!! You are making up bs and saying it is mine ðŸ˜
In fact for your assertion that God created the universe to hold I have to assume that god does lie outside our timeline in some way.
Your reasoning in a prior post about you knowing what hitler doing in 1939 does not mean he could have done something different is flawed because...
unlike God you wouldn't have known what hitler would have done in 1938 or any other time before!!!
As I and others say. If your god knows I will do X tomorrow and his knowledge is infallible then it is a done deal...I must do X
17 Feb 09
Originally posted by AgergYour reasoning in a prior post about you knowing what hitler doing in 1939 does not mean he could have done something different is flawed because...
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]I don't know about an external timeline. What I do know is that agerg's position necessarily places God entirely within our timeline which is a false premise.
LIAR!!! You can put your god in a timeline orthogonal to ours if you like, and at no point have I EVER SUGGESTED OTHERWISE or implied such!! ...[text shortened]... I will do X tomorrow and his knowledge is infallible then it is a done deal...I must do X[/b][/b]
unlike God you wouldn't have known what hitler would have done in 1938 or any other time before!!!
----------------------agerg-----------------------------
I know exactly what Hitler did from 1938-1945 and none of that proves that he didn't have free will.
17 Feb 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI must confess all this talk of God being static etc doesn't make sense to me. I don't know how you have come to that conclusion. Is it another piece of abstract geometry again?
So am I, but is it the same I as now, and can I realistically be said to know what I will do tomorrow. The only way God can be said to know what will happen tomorrow and simultaneously be the same God as today is if he is for all intents and purposes a static being and if our universe itself is static. i.e. tomorrow is already fixed and the free will you talk of is an illusion. (note that I personally have no real problem with such a view)
17 Feb 09
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou fail to see the part in my post where I said you wouldn't have known such were you living in 1938 or anytime before!!!
Your reasoning in a prior post about you knowing what hitler doing in 1939 does not mean he could have done something different is flawed because...
unlike God you wouldn't have known what hitler would have done in 1938 or any other time before!!!
----------------------agerg-----------------------------
I know exactly what Hitler did from 1938-1945 and none of that proves that he didn't have free will.
You are looking at the past, your God looks at the future and the past. big difference!
17 Feb 09
2 edits
Originally posted by AgergYou are looking at the past, your God looks at the future and the past. big difference!
You fail to see the part in my post where I said you wouldn't have known such were you living in 1938 or anytime before!!!
You are looking at the past, your God looks at the future and the past. [b]big difference![/b]
------agerg--------------------------
Of course I would not know because I am not eternal . I live a life trapped in time. God does not. Even so , I can know Hitler's future and what hitler did. Let's say I travelled back in time to 1938 , I would still know his future.
But would this be incompatible with hitler's free will? I don't see why it would be. I would simply know what he did in 1939-45. I would still have no way of knowing if his actions were free or pre determined.
All I would know is that Hitler did what he did. For me hitler's actions would be a past event not a future one. My timeline view just gives me information about hitler's choices but says nothing about whether those choices were the only one's ever possible.
17 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterIts funny how you accused me of having a position that necessitates the limitation of your God to this timeline yet it is infact your reasoning that requires this be true!🙄😕
You are looking at the past, your God looks at the future and the past. big difference!
------agerg--------------------------
Of course I would not know because I am not eternal . I live a life trapped in time. God does not. Even so , I can know Hitler's future and what hitler did. Let's say I travelled back in time to 1938 , I would still know s choices but says nothing about whether those choices were the only one's ever possible.
If God created the universe then given he knows everything, then not only is it true that he would see the timeline corresponding to this universe in its entirety the moment he created it (from his perspective), but knowing everything also implies he would have known what would have been in the set of outcomes for this universe before he even created it.
Your time-travelling garbage requires that you first existed in the future within this timeline to know what hitler would do in the future if you travelled into the past.
Your god being omniscient knows the state of this timeline not only at the point of creation and every point thereafter, but before he created it.
His knowledge of what I do is not contingent upon me first doing it. What I must do is already determined if your God is omniscient, and this is true before there exists a universe for me to do it in.
17 Feb 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterIf the universe is a static object to God ie he can see past present and future simultaneously from some external perspective, then our view of him must necessarily also be static. I don't think it is geometry but it is logical.
I must confess all this talk of God being static etc doesn't make sense to me. I don't know how you have come to that conclusion. Is it another piece of abstract geometry again?
17 Feb 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo an eternal God who is not trapped within time (like we are) cannot logically enter into time in anyway? Please explain......
On the other hand, it is simply self-contradictory when your view entails both (1) that god acts in time and (2) that it is not the case that god acts in time
[WORD TOO LONG]
So an eternal God who is no ...[text shortened]... ped within time (like we are) cannot logically enter into time in anyway? Please explain......
I've explained it many times in the past. I don't understand why you still don't get it. You're a reductionist with respect to time, remember? So talk of time is for you reducible to talk of events/changes, remember? Therefore, when you state that God exists outside of time, you are saying nothing more or less than that God is not subject to change. This follows from your very own definition of time, for Chrissakes. But you are obviously committed on the other hand to the proposition that God IS subject to change. After all, you are committed to the idea that He is a causal agent, that He has undertaken creative acts, that He interacts with His creation. Things that are not subject to change/events cannot be causal agents. You are committed on so many levels to the claim that He is a causal agent who is subject to change. And yet you keep insisting that it is not the case that He is subject to change (in the only way your claim of a timeless eternal God can be interpreted within your own definition of time).
Now, you can keep on pretending and starting thread after thread about how this only seems contradictory. But that won't change the fact that your view simply IS contradictory. Your view is incoherent and makes no sense.
I've seen this basic argument against your conception of God referred to as the Problem of Action, and it is sound. At this point, I can't help it if you don't get it or are still not properly responsive to logical contradictions. Your God simply doesn't exist. Your God is not even logically possible!
17 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI agree. At first sight however the phenomena appears to be contradictory and strange , later we realise it isn't once you appreciate the wave/particle nature of light.
There is nothing "not logical" about the effects of wavelike behavior (or of inseparable particle-wave behavior). Check out the double-slit experiment, for example.
----------------lemon------------------------------
I agree. At first sight however the phenomena appears to be contradictory and strange , later we realise it isn't once you appreciat ...[text shortened]... rticle nature of light.
So it is with appreciating the timeless/in time qualities of God.
So it is with appreciating the timeless/in time qualities of God.
Like I said, you can keep on pretending that your view only seems contradictory, but the fact is that it seems that way for good reason: it IS contradictory. Some things really are what they seem to be, you know.
17 Feb 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou are right. So how do we know if something is only apparently contradictory or actually?
[b]I agree. At first sight however the phenomena appears to be contradictory and strange , later we realise it isn't once you appreciate the wave/particle nature of light.
So it is with appreciating the timeless/in time qualities of God.
Like I said, you can keep on pretending that your view only seems contradictory, but the fact is that ...[text shortened]... y for good reason: it IS contradictory. Some things really are what they seem to be, you know.[/b]
One thing I have noticed about the FW v O debate is how readily many try to find objections and how few (if any) seem to give the ideas a chance and think about them.
If one decides in advance that an idea won't make sense then it probably won't. The self fulfilling prophecy principle will take hold.