Originally posted by knightmeister You're talking utter gobbledygook. Your argument relies on a notion of time you cannot possibly define or implement and the generalisation of specific definitions. To use bbarr's phrase, it's word salad. ----starrman---
It doesn't totally rely on a notion of time. It does rely on a notion of eternity , which you seem to exclude. If you think that e ...[text shortened]... t say so , but this would not be a proof that an eternal God could not see time in this way.
My point is that god may or may not be able to see time in that way, but you certainly cannot. As such any talk of such a thing is utterly retarded, you just cannot say anything about it, you'll never know what it feels like, means, infers or any other interaction with such a state. You are a causal being, end of.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH However, according to the Bible, as I stated in my post, the past is just as perspicuous to God as is the future. I was not implying that God knows only all futures without knowing the actual future. Just as the past had multiple possibilities prior to actual events, God knows any and all items within what is known as time, both possible and actual.
But does God know which of the possible futures is the actual future?
If he does, then the so called 'possible' futures are not only impossible but irrelevant, and Gods knowledge of them is irrelevant.
If he doesn't, then his knowledge of all possible futures is not very useful to him either.
Originally posted by Starrman My point is that god may or may not be able to see time in that way, but you certainly cannot. As such any talk of such a thing is utterly retarded, you just cannot say anything about it, you'll never know what it feels like, means, infers or any other interaction with such a state. You are a causal being, end of.
My point is that god may or may not be able to see time in that way, but you certainly cannot. --starrman----
And if the debate we were having was regarding whether men could "see into the future" or not and whether that would affect free will , then your point would be valid. However , that is not the debate here since the issue is whether an eternal God can know your future without it neccesitating you have no choice in it.
So whether I can do this or not makes....well....no difference at all really because it's not about what I can or can't do.
Originally posted by twhitehead x and y are not times.
Read my original computer example again, and tell me which pieces you don't understand.
The x=2+y model is a specific example of my model to help you understand it:
a) a computer is programmed with the program x=2+y.
b) the program is run with input y=3.
c) we, as eternal beings as far as the computer and program are concerned ...[text shortened]... incoherent to talk about 'potential' values of x.
Originally posted by knightmeister Is Y meant to represent the past or the future?
Neither. Y is a variable in a computer program.
Stop thinking analogies for a moment and take my description at face value.
In case you have no programming experience, the computer in question has been told to take whatever number it is given (called y for reference sake) add 2 to it and spit out the answer. In my example, the computer was given a number 3 and it adds that to 2 and spits out the number 5.
Originally posted by knightmeister My point is that god may or may not be able to see time in that way, but you certainly cannot. --starrman----
And if the debate we were having was regarding whether men could "see into the future" or not and whether that would affect free will , then your point would be valid. However , that is not the debate here since the issue is whether an eter ...[text shortened]... makes....well....no difference at all really because it's not about what I can or can't do.
Actually it matters completely. Your discussion topic is nonsensical and any opinion you have on it is by inference, nonsensical too.
Originally posted by Starrman Actually it matters completely. Your discussion topic is nonsensical and any opinion you have on it is by inference, nonsensical too.
Nice!! Very Open minded of you!!!
Once again you come out with a non supported statement rather than an argument.
You may feel that the idea of dimensions outside of or beyond time are nonsense but many physicists might disagree. Brian Greene for one believes in up to 13 dimensions , but obviously that's nonsense isn't it?
Originally posted by twhitehead Neither. Y is a variable in a computer program.
Stop thinking analogies for a moment and take my description at face value.
In case you have no programming experience, the computer in question has been told to take whatever number it is given (called y for reference sake) add 2 to it and spit out the answer. In my example, the computer was given a number 3 and it adds that to 2 and spits out the number 5.
I am taking your description at face value and it works. Now I want to see how it applies to time. If you can't apply it or make it relevant to time itself then what exactly is your point? You must be able to relate your model to reality in some way or it is just abstract and self contained. My model (eg harry) may seem difficult to contemplate but at least I have tried to make it relevant.
I understand that if Y=3 then x must be 5 (was it) . So now explain what this proves please.
(I have some experience of programming basic and using "Gosub" routines , but not machine code or anything else , however I understand the way computers work without having IT qualifications )
Originally posted by twhitehead But does God know which of the possible futures is the actual future?
If he does, then the so called 'possible' futures are not only impossible but irrelevant, and Gods knowledge of them is irrelevant.
If he doesn't, then his knowledge of all possible futures is not very useful to him either.
But does God know which of the possible futures is the actual future? Yes.
If he does, then the so called 'possible' futures are not only impossible but irrelevant, and Gods knowledge of them is irrelevant. As stated, God's omniscience is such that He knows not only the actual but the speculative. Irrelevant? Perhaps, but still cool.
Originally posted by knightmeister Nice!! Very Open minded of you!!!
Once again you come out with a non supported statement rather than an argument.
You may feel that the idea of dimensions outside of or beyond time are nonsense but many physicists might disagree. Brian Greene for one believes in up to 13 dimensions , but obviously that's nonsense isn't it?
You're missing the point. Can you offer any evidence at all for the state of time which god exists in or percieves?
Originally posted by Starrman You're missing the point. Can you offer any evidence at all for the state of time which god exists in or percieves?
Absolutely no evidence whatsoever other than experience of personal encounters with the Spirit.
The debate is not about that though. It's about the hypothetical idea that an eternal God might be able to know your future without it necessitating you cannot be free to do otherwise. All you are saying is God can't be eternal which is a different issue altogether.
Originally posted by knightmeister Absolutely no evidence whatsoever other than experience of personal encounters with the Spirit.
The debate is not about that though. It's about the hypothetical idea that an eternal God might be able to know your future without it necessitating you cannot be free to do otherwise. All you are saying is God can't be eternal which is a different issue altogether.
Your hypothetical idea is so hypothetical it's beyond reasoning and as such I'm just going to ignore it.
Originally posted by Starrman Your hypothetical idea is so hypothetical it's beyond reasoning and as such I'm just going to ignore it.
That's your choice , but bear in mind that thsi hypothetical is often rasied by atheists as an argument against free will when it is said " how can God know what you are about to choose and that choice still be a free choice?" . My response has been to use the premises of this argument (ie that God might exist and free will might exist) to make a counter case. If you think it's an irrelevant hypothesis then please ask the Atheists to stop raising it.
Also , bear in mind that you have not been able to stay with the argument NOR counter it in any way that stays true to the original premise. Instead you imagined a god who is time limited , which to me is not really a God at all.
(I would also add that there are many physicists (like brian greene) who hypothesise far more dimensions in string theory for example and they don't seem to be accused of being unreasonable. Me thinks you just don't like it when someone makes a bold and assertive counter argument on this issue. Christians are not all idiots you know and we do think about thses things. )
knowing proves nothing at all....
13 Mar '08 10:37
Back to Top