Originally posted by knightmeisterIt is an obvious conclusion that if you drew picture B you could not have drawn picture A. How could you have drawn picture A yet now we see picture B? You refuse to answer that question.
I don't think it's me that has the burden of proof here. I'm going to turn this question around....
How does the fact that we know I drew picture B neccessarily prove that picture A was an impossibility?
The point of my analogy is to show that if a being existed that was at least partially free of time constraints then we can no longer assume that knowing the future proves predetermination. Free will can not be ruled out as a possibility.
I think the real question is what do you mean by free will and what do you mean by predetermination. Lets have some definitions.
To me, it is obvious that unless multiple timelines exist, then only one possible path is possible in the future and predetermination is a fact. But maybe I don't understand what you mean by predetermination.
The normal philosophical issue with it is not whether or not there is predetermination but whether or not there is predestination.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI did not specify exactly how Dr Who's time machine worked although I may have used the phrase "travels back through time" but let's go with this. If I changed the story to include details of his time machine and added that the way it worked was that it allowed him to step outside of time into an extra dimension called "E" and then step back into the timeline at selected points (a bit like steping on and off a tube train) would you be able to prove logically that Columbus' actions were logically determined by NECESSITY?
In your story, Dr. Who does not have the ability to be "free of time", rather he merely has the ability to travel through it. At all points, Dr. Who exists within Dr. Who's timeline, irrespective of anyone else's timeline. This is quite different than your concept of God, who does not exist within time or space.
I would be making Dr Who even more analogous to God and Columbus' free will could still not be eliminated as a possibility .
Originally posted by twhitehead"It is an obvious conclusion that if you drew picture B you could not have drawn picture A. How could you have drawn picture A yet now we see picture B? You refuse to answer that question."TWHITEHEAD
It is an obvious conclusion that if you drew picture B you could not have drawn picture A. How could you have drawn picture A yet now we see picture B? You refuse to answer that question.
[b]The point of my analogy is to show that if a being existed that was at least partially free of time constraints then we can no longer assume that knowing the futur ...[text shortened]... it is not whether or not there is predetermination but whether or not there is predestination.
It's not obvious that's my whole point! Tell me why it is obvious ?
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt is obvious from the fact that you are unable to answer the question:
"It is an obvious conclusion that if you drew picture B you could not have drawn picture A. How could you have drawn picture A yet now we see picture B? You refuse to answer that question."TWHITEHEAD
It's not obvious that's my whole point! Tell me why it is obvious ?
How could you have drawn picture A when we know that you drew picture B?
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe problem with your theory is that the history Dr. Who knows is the only possible history. [If it can turn out differently, then Dr. Who isn't omniscient, for there is something he does not know: the alternate histories!] Since that history is the only possible history, it is not possible for Columbus to do anything other than journey to the new world.
Yes , he does have foreknowledge but it is dependent on his POSTknowledge of history. His foreknowledge is not dependent on Columbus' choices being determined because if Columbus had free will he would still know what he did in history. Whatever Columbus chooses Dr Who will still know. He only has to pick up a history book or do his research.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe simple answer to your question is that the fact that I draw picture B is unknown until I actually do it. When I decide to draw picture B (instead of picture A) I am creating the timeline as I go. Until the very moment I draw picture B the future is not set , I set it by drawing picture B . Now Dr Who would only know that I drew picture B because he could see it in the past , the timeline is set by then , the fact that having a time machine enables him to hold this information both in the time before and after I draw picture B does not prove that Picture B is inevitable or not inevitable , all it proves is that I did draw picture B and that Dr Who has a time machine . You see if I had not drawn picture B Dr who would have no way of knowing in advance that I would draw picture B. He still has to rely on me to do it before he can know anything.
It is obvious from the fact that you are unable to answer the question:
How could you have drawn picture A when we know that you drew picture B?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think the real question is what do you mean by free will and what do you mean by predetermination. Lets have some definitions.
It is an obvious conclusion that if you drew picture B you could not have drawn picture A. How could you have drawn picture A yet now we see picture B? You refuse to answer that question.
[b]The point of my analogy is to show that if a being existed that was at least partially free of time constraints then we can no longer assume that knowing the futur ...[text shortened]... it is not whether or not there is predetermination but whether or not there is predestination.
To me, it is obvious that unless multiple timelines exist, then only one possible path is possible in the future and predetermination is a fact. But maybe I don't understand what you mean by predetermination. TWHITEHEAD
By free will I mean an action or decision that is not 100% determined , in that there are many (or at least 2) possible outcomes. With predetermination you only have one possible outcome.
I do NOT see why you need multiple timelines in order for other possibilities to be possible.These possibilities do not have to exist in order to be possibilities. To me a timeline is something that could either be fixed in advance of the person on the timeline or could be created by the person moving through the timeline. I go for the second one in relation to free will . I think it's perfectly plausible for a timeline to be an evolving thing that develops as it goes along a bit like a trickle of water finding a path through some dirt. In this sense the timeline (or rather the person at the front of the timeline ) creates itself as it moves forward . The future is fluid but the past is fixed because it has happened.
Your sense of the timeline seems to be more like a railway track that needs a line and points "ahead" of it and several "track options" in order to create options. My sense is more like an off road vehicle that leaves it's own tracks behind it but can forge it's own tracks as it goes and therefore doesn't need a track(or several tracks) laid out in front of it.
The interesting thing about both these analogies is that what can be observed in the real world would look exactly the same , a person moving through time with a track left behind him. We have no way of knowing if the person is making their own tracks or is following a track laid out for them.
Even Dr Who in his time machine can only see the track that Columbus followed or made in history. He does not know if multiple timelines exist or not because he can only see ahead of columbus because he has already looked back at him first. For all Dr Who knows Columbus may have been off roading through time and made his own tracks or he might have followed one of many multiple tracks. Sure he can see Columbus' future but that's only because he can see the track he made or followed through time.
Multiple timelines are possible I don't doubt. You see what I doubt is not your theory but your CERTAINTY . I don't see how you can be sure that multiple timelines MUST exist. It's not obvious to me because I don't accept whatever deduction you have made from my Dr Who story , but then you haven't shown your working yet , only your "obvious" answer.
Originally posted by knightmeisterIntroducing Dr Who just complicates the matter. Your apparent paradox is easily demonstrated by simply talking about history.
The simple answer to your question is that the fact that I draw picture B is unknown until I actually do it. When I decide to draw picture B (instead of picture A) I am creating the timeline as I go. Until the very moment I draw picture B the future is not set , I set it by drawing picture B . Now Dr Who would only know that I drew picture B because he ...[text shortened]... ce that I would draw picture B. He still has to rely on me to do it before he can know anything.
You say that the past is fixed. So at time T you have two options draw picture A or draw picture B. At time T+1 the choice has been made, you drew picture B. It is fixed. So if you sit at T+1 and look at time T, as far as you are concerned there is only one possible option - draw picture B. So to observe time from the future is identical to observing time from and external point (as Dr Who appeared to be doing) because all relevant events are fixed.
In the future only one possible path exists, the fact that we do not know what the path is does not change that fact. You cannot change the future. Is that future created by us? Yes of course it is. But it is still a single path.
The issue of predestination is that if God is an external entity who created the complete timeline then he knew/knows the full time line before (in his timeline) he created it. Thus if I do not believe in him then he chose it that way even though within the timeline the cause of my beliefs may be due to some particular events within the timeline.
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut the point is ..how does the timeline become fixed? Is it a) fixed in place BEFORE we travel through it , or is it b) fixed by us AS we travel through it. This is very important because b) raises the possibility of free will but a) cannot be proven anywhere near as catagorically as Atheists seem to state.
Introducing Dr Who just complicates the matter. Your apparent paradox is easily demonstrated by simply talking about history.
You say that the past is fixed. So at time T you have two options draw picture A or draw picture B. At time T+1 the choice has been made, you drew picture B. It is fixed. So if you sit at T+1 and look at time T, as far as you are ...[text shortened]... n the timeline the cause of my beliefs may be due to some particular events within the timeline.
You see I do not agree that God created the "complete timeline". I believe he created the universe with free will in it and our timelines have a certain life of their own.
TWHITEHEAD"The issue of predestination is that if God is an external entity who created the complete timeline then he knew/knows the full time line before (in his timeline) he created it."
You have not understood the method by which God knows what you will choose . He knows in the same way Dr Who knows what Columbus will do because he/you have done it . In a sense God has to "wait" for you to make choices before he can know what those choices are but at the same time , because he is eternal , he knows it both before and after you have chosen. He is like Dr Who in this way , his knowledge is RELIANT on your choice but his ability to be outside time means he can know your choice before you make it (BUT NOT IN YOUR TIMELINE) . He can't know your choice until you make it , but he can see what you have chosen because before you made that choice he watched you choose it IN THE PAST. In one sense God's knowledge of your choices is no more special than your knowledge of the outcome of 9/11 . You know the outcome because you have already watched it happen . God knows your choices because he has already watched it happen. The only difference is you are trapped in time , he is not.
You would have a hard time proving that 9/11 could only ever have happened the way it did purely based on the fact that you NOW know the outcome. If you had a time machine and took that information back into 2000 would that then prove that it would be predestined? No, it wouldn't because you would have had to watch it first to know that it did happen. Your information in 2000 would not be a PREDICTION of future events but a RECORD of past events. You would be no better off than you are now.You would still be reliant on 9/11 happening , if it hadn't already happened for you then you wouldn't know.
The point of the Dr Who analogy is that if time travel was possible then the fact that Dr Who knows what Columbus will do does not prove anything about predetermination or free will either way. I accept that free will can not be proven from what Dr Who knows , do you accept the reverse?
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe problem is that you are trying to put God with one foot in our timeline and one foot in some other external timeline and that just cant work.
But the point is ..how does the timeline become fixed? Is it a) fixed in place BEFORE we travel through it , or is it b) fixed by us AS we travel through it. This is very important because b) raises the possibility of free will but a) cannot be proven anywhere near as catagorically as Atheists seem to state.
You see I do not agree that God created the ...[text shortened]... created the universe with free will in it and our timelines have a certain life of their own.
If he created our timeline from an external place then he created it complete. That is not optional. Time is merely a dimension of the universe. You cannot claim that he created two space dimensions and just let the third one grow on its own.
Time is special in that information cannot flow backwards. Time travel is impossible. God cannot possibly both know the full history of the universe and influence it simultaneously except by creating the full history and influences instantaneously in his own timeline.
Of course I personally don't think it is possible to have one time line within another and an 'eternal' being is impossible.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't believe he did create our timeline he just created the universe and set it in motion and watched it unfold. There's no need for a time line. I can't prove this though. But if you think it is logically neccessary then you ned to prove it and not just state it.
The problem is that you are trying to put God with one foot in our timeline and one foot in some other external timeline and that just cant work.
If he created our timeline from an external place then he created it complete. That is not optional. Time is merely a dimension of the universe. You cannot claim that he created two space dimensions and just le ...[text shortened]... ink it is possible to have one time line within another and an 'eternal' being is impossible.
"You cannot claim that he created two space dimensions and just let the third one grow on its own."
First of all time is the 4th dimension not the 3rd. Time is just a series of events one after the other , that's all. God can initiate the universe with a massive amount of energy (eg Big Bang) and then sit back and watch it happen , just like you can set a firework going and then watch it explode. The process of the explosion is what creates the sensation of time. God can initiate a process without having to lay a track out for it to follow. You don't need a timeline. You just need a big bang.
It turns out that what you are really saying is that an eternal being is impossible and time travel is impossible and that is your real problem with the Dr Who analogy. However , you might just accept that if I did think an eternal being was possible then believing in free will and God at the same time may or may not be inconsistent or illogical.
However , it would be nice to hear WHY you think an eternal being is impossible rather than just stating it as if it is "obvious"?
Originally posted by knightmeisterTime is part of the universe. The universe includes all time. To create the universe is to create all time. Your claim is therefore that God did not create the universe but only some of it. The whole concept of 'create' directly assumes a God timeline external to the universe. Otherwise you could only say that the universe 'just is' and not that it was 'created'
I don't believe he did create our timeline he just created the universe and set it in motion and watched it unfold. There's no need for a time line. I can't prove this though. But if you think it is logically neccessary then you ned to prove it and not just state it.
"You cannot claim that he created two space dimensions and just let the third one grow on its own."
First of all time is the 4th dimension not the 3rd. Time is just a series of events one after the other , that's all.
Reread my sentence. I did mean a space dimension. Maybe God only created one dimension and then 'kick started it'?
God can initiate the universe with a massive amount of energy (eg Big Bang) and then sit back and watch it happen , just like you can set a firework going and then watch it explode. The process of the explosion is what creates the sensation of time. God can initiate a process without having to lay a track out for it to follow. You don't need a timeline. You just need a big bang.
Again you are imagining a greater spacetime environment into which a universe gets created. Also you are assuming that the greater timeline of God is running at the same speed as the universes allowing God to sit back and look in on the universe. How then does he know the future?
It turns out that what you are really saying is that an eternal being is impossible and time travel is impossible and that is your real problem with the Dr Who analogy. However , you might just accept that if I did think an eternal being was possible then believing in free will and God at the same time may or may not be inconsistent or illogical.
However , it would be nice to hear WHY you think an eternal being is impossible rather than just stating it as if it is "obvious"?
I need to think about this one long and hard, but yes I think that a being outside of time is illogical.
Space and time and especially light are far more complicated than we generally realise.
Originally posted by twhitehead"Time is part of the universe. The universe includes all time. To create the universe is to create all time. Your claim is therefore that God did not create the universe but only some of it."TWHITEHEAD
Time is part of the universe. The universe includes all time. To create the universe is to create all time. Your claim is therefore that God did not create the universe but only some of it. The whole concept of 'create' directly assumes a God timeline external to the universe. Otherwise you could only say that the universe 'just is' and not that it was 'c ...[text shortened]... and time and especially light are far more complicated than we generally realise.
Can you get me some "time" and send me a sample through the post please , I will crush it up in a testube to see what it's made of . Maybe you can send me a small piece of a "mile" while you are at it and I will see if they are similar on a quantum level. Of course you and I both know that this is a ridiculous idea and yet you talk about God "creating time" as if it was just a 3 dimension thing or a gas or proton or something!? One can postulate reasonably that time doesn't really exist , it's just a mental unit of measurement. What we do know is the massive explosion called the big bang does exist and the explosion itself (+ all the other forming of solar systems and evolution of life on earth) is what has come to be known as "time passing" (?) , but all that may be happening is one thing is leading to another thing by process of cause and effect.
Your idea that God only created "some" of the universe is trumped by the science my friend. The science says that everything in the universe existed at the big bang in a tiny but incredibly dense ball. Give it enough energy and off you go! Why can't time just be an effect of the universe rather than "part of it". What I find amazing is how you can be so definite about all this and sound so certain about things which are on the edge of even the most eminent physicists' speculation. You are the one being catagorical about this and that places the burden of proof on you.
Originally posted by knightmeisterSend me a bit of one of the three space dimensions and I will send you a piece of the time dimension. fair trade?
Can you get me some "time" and send me a sample through the post please , I will crush it up in a testube to see what it's made of . Maybe you can send me a small piece of a "mile" while you are at it and I will see if they are similar on a quantum level. Of course you and I both know that this is a ridiculous idea and yet you talk about God "creatin ...[text shortened]... be happening is one thing is leading to another thing by process of cause and effect.
I never said that time was a three dimensional object. I said it was a dimension.
Your idea that God only created "some" of the universe is trumped by the science my friend. The science says that everything in the universe existed at the big bang in a tiny but incredibly dense ball. Give it enough energy and off you go! Why can't time just be an effect of the universe rather than "part of it". What I find amazing is how you can be so definite about all this and sound so certain about things which are on the edge of even the most eminent physicists' speculation. You are the one being catagorical about this and that places the burden of proof on you.
Surely you are also being categorical about the baseless assumption that the apparent directionality of time implies the need to only create the starting end of the universe and 'give it a kick start'. How do you know that God did not create the end of the universe and start winding it backwards? At least I am not assuming the existence of a being outside of our time frame that has a time frame of its own but somehow interacts with our time frame etc etc etc.
Back to Predestination. On the one side you have theists claiming that the 'first cause' argument is valid, where they claim that everything has a cause which was caused by something else. Surely this leads directly to the conclusion that God caused everything?
Even if you don't agree with this argument then if God knew the full history of the Universe at the time he made it then how can the method he uses to know it affect the fact that he created it with full knowledge and is thus responsible? Is still don't get that bit. Your Columbus example tries to show that fore knowledge does not equal responsibility bit it leaves out the creation bit. If Dr Who created the universe after going back in time then he would have predestined it.
Originally posted by twhitehead"If Dr Who created the universe after going back in time then he would have predestined it."
Send me a bit of one of the three space dimensions and I will send you a piece of the time dimension. fair trade?
I never said that time was a three dimensional object. I said it was a dimension.
[b]Your idea that God only created "some" of the universe is trumped by the science my friend. The science says that everything in the universe existed at th ...[text shortened]... Who created the universe after going back in time then he would have predestined it.
"if God knew the full history of the Universe at the time he made it then how can the method he uses to know it affect the fact that he created it with full knowledge and is thus responsible?"
No , if Dr Who created the universe then he would know what Columbus' was going to do by virtue of his time machine , but if he did not create the universe at all then Columbus would not exist and neither would his free will , so Dr Who's time machine would be useless. So Dr Who has no way of knowing what Columbus' will actually do until the universe is created but once it is created then he can know by getting into his machine. His knowledge is not dependant on looking ALONG a timeline but by being free of it.
The paradox is that God knows what Columbus will do because that's what he did do , but AT THE SAME TIME he also doesn't know until he does it . However , because he doesn't have to wait for Columbus (like we would on a timeline) he can know it anyway . Unlike us , God can watch all the points on the timeline simultaneously whereas we can only watch one point at a time , although interestingly we can watch thousands of timeline points simultaneously when we look into our past , it's the future we can't see because it is unfolding in front of us. God can see the future because it is both unfolding in front of him and behind him all at the same time. (if that makes sense?)