03 Jun '08 23:35>1 edit
Many of you will be aware af my arguments concerning Free will , omniscience , time and eternity and I'm sorry if it's sounded incoherent to you.
I 've had a light bulb about this. I think a step was missing from my argument that I took for granted.
Step 1 should have been to clarify how I view time. Before we even start to think about the associated problems of God's omniscience versus free will etc we need to ask ourselves what we mean by certain terms as follows...
a) "the" future versus our future. What do we mean by "the" future? Do we believe that our future is "the " future as if our perspective on time is the only perspective possible? For example Hitler's future is our past , so is it "the" past or "the " future or both?
b) "now" --- what do we mean by "now" ? Is the now we are living in and moving through the dimension of time in the only "now" possible? Is it not "now" for Hitler as much as it is "now" for us in 2008? Our " now" could be described as the "past" of those born in 2090 , is their "now" les valid than ours because we won't live in it?
c) "time" ---is time a constant throughout everything ? Or can we have different perspectives on it? For example , june 4th 2008 is "now" for us , it's the "past" for those born in 2090 and it's the "future" for Hitler. Does this mean that we are right and they are wrong just because we happen to be stuck in this particular position in time? Could one say that looking at time is a bit like looking at any dimension in that it can be viewed differently from different positions.?
I wonder if we all assume certain things about time and relate it to how we experience time without realising it. Does the future only exist when we get there? Or can it exist in the future just as much as what we call "now" exists for us? Do we only call it "the" future because it is ahead of us? Would it not be more accurate to call it "our" future?
You see it could be a bit like when we used to look at the universe as if the earth was at the centre of it all . If we only think about time by placing ourselves at the centre we just look at space/time from our own relative position in time.
So when you hear me say "we know Hitler's future before he gets there" it's because I'm looking at time from both Hitler's "now" and from my "now" and not discriminating in favour of my "now" just because I'm in it. This is one aspect of my position that I know is solid . The idea that time is looked at from relative positions by us because we are stuck in one aspect of time.
Overall , we need to think about our assumptions and perceptions of what time is before we can address the question " how can God know what I will do tomorrow if I have free will?".
We need to ask what actually is tomorrow? Just because it's my future can it not also be God's past? Similarly , isn't Hitler's future our past? Do we not need to question whether we are looking at time only from our own perspective?
I 've had a light bulb about this. I think a step was missing from my argument that I took for granted.
Step 1 should have been to clarify how I view time. Before we even start to think about the associated problems of God's omniscience versus free will etc we need to ask ourselves what we mean by certain terms as follows...
a) "the" future versus our future. What do we mean by "the" future? Do we believe that our future is "the " future as if our perspective on time is the only perspective possible? For example Hitler's future is our past , so is it "the" past or "the " future or both?
b) "now" --- what do we mean by "now" ? Is the now we are living in and moving through the dimension of time in the only "now" possible? Is it not "now" for Hitler as much as it is "now" for us in 2008? Our " now" could be described as the "past" of those born in 2090 , is their "now" les valid than ours because we won't live in it?
c) "time" ---is time a constant throughout everything ? Or can we have different perspectives on it? For example , june 4th 2008 is "now" for us , it's the "past" for those born in 2090 and it's the "future" for Hitler. Does this mean that we are right and they are wrong just because we happen to be stuck in this particular position in time? Could one say that looking at time is a bit like looking at any dimension in that it can be viewed differently from different positions.?
I wonder if we all assume certain things about time and relate it to how we experience time without realising it. Does the future only exist when we get there? Or can it exist in the future just as much as what we call "now" exists for us? Do we only call it "the" future because it is ahead of us? Would it not be more accurate to call it "our" future?
You see it could be a bit like when we used to look at the universe as if the earth was at the centre of it all . If we only think about time by placing ourselves at the centre we just look at space/time from our own relative position in time.
So when you hear me say "we know Hitler's future before he gets there" it's because I'm looking at time from both Hitler's "now" and from my "now" and not discriminating in favour of my "now" just because I'm in it. This is one aspect of my position that I know is solid . The idea that time is looked at from relative positions by us because we are stuck in one aspect of time.
Overall , we need to think about our assumptions and perceptions of what time is before we can address the question " how can God know what I will do tomorrow if I have free will?".
We need to ask what actually is tomorrow? Just because it's my future can it not also be God's past? Similarly , isn't Hitler's future our past? Do we not need to question whether we are looking at time only from our own perspective?