Uncertainty or...?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes it presents a problem. A problem which you have not been able to resolve. The existence of God as you propose constitutes time travel and, as I have already said, that is incompatible with quantum randomness. So either your God does not exist or quantum effects are not truly random.

Proposing an eternal being does not mean time travel only a being that is timeless and omniscient. Hypothetically such a being could know the outcome of every quantum event but each event would still be uncertain.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I said apparent contradictions , not actual contradiction. This is the whole point. There is an apparent contradiction between God's omniscience and free will just as there is an apparent contradiction between light being a wave and a particle at the same time. It's to do with the terms we use and our limited understanding. What's interesting is that i ...[text shortened]... nk an idea but with God you use a diiferent agenda. It's just a matter of being consistent.

In both cases I rightly declare that the two concepts are incompatible. I clearly stated that light is not both particle and wave. In fact it is neither. Similarly God cannot be omniscient whilst we have free will (by your definition). In fact neither is the case.

There, you see? I can be consistent.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Proposing an eternal being does not mean time travel only a being that is timeless and omniscient.

If said being transfers any information from the future to the past - or in fact information that depends upon information from the future, then that constitutes time travel.

Hypothetically such a being could know the outcome of every quantum event but each event would still be uncertain.
No, such a being could not know the outcome of each event while the outcomes remain uncertain. It violates certain principles of logic, and as pointed out in another thread, logic is inviolable.

You claim it makes sense to you, but despite many threads on the subject, you have failed to explain it in an understandable manner. Should we take it that it requires one to wear one of those secret decoder rings? Or must one simply suspend rational thought?

Originally posted by twhitehead
In both cases I rightly declare that the two concepts are incompatible. I clearly stated that light is not both particle and wave. In fact it is neither. Similarly God cannot be omniscient whilst we have free will (by your definition). In fact neither is the case.

There, you see? I can be consistent.

What errant rubbish!!! The concept of light behaving as a wave and also as a particle HAS to be compatable because the 2 slit experiment proves this. What we now know is that there must be some underlying truth to the property of light that unifies the wave / particle contradiction. This is what apparent contradictions are - they offer us a deeper insight . Apparent contradictions are not always a reason to discard a theory. You accept this in quantum physics but with my argument you do not . You use the apparent contradiction to not pursue the idea any further as suits your own agenda.

I am fully aware of the contradiction in my argument , I just think the concept of eternity resolves it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
What errant rubbish!!! The concept of light behaving as a wave and also as a particle HAS to be compatable because the 2 slit experiment proves this.

Note that you are using words like 'behaving as' and 'concept'. And not, the 2 split experiment does not prove them compatible, it proves them both wrong.

What we now know is that there must be some underlying truth to the property of light that unifies the wave / particle contradiction. This is what apparent contradictions are - they offer us a deeper insight. Apparent contradictions are not always a reason to discard a theory.
Yes they are. The wave theory of light and the particle theory of light must both be discarded in favor of whatever unifying theory comes up.

You accept this in quantum physics but with my argument you do not.
How many times must I say it: I do not accept it in quantum physics!

You use the apparent contradiction to not pursue the idea any further as suits your own agenda.
No, I use that contradiction (its more than 'apparent'😉, to dispute your hypothesis. You are welcome to pursue it further, but until you do, you remain wrong.

I am fully aware of the contradiction in my argument , I just think the concept of eternity resolves it.
But you have not been able to explain how in an understandable manner. In fact, as your first post was supposedly an attempt to explain it, you have done remarkably badly, as instead of resolving the contradiction you practically proved the contradiction thus proving your self wrong.

Remember:
However, this would clash with Heisenbergs Uncertainty principle would it not? Such an event could no longer be random.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If said being transfers any information from the future to the past - or in fact information that depends upon information from the future, then that constitutes time travel.

[b]Hypothetically such a being could know the outcome of every quantum event but each event would still be uncertain.
No, such a being could not know the outcome of each even ...[text shortened]... ires one to wear one of those secret decoder rings? Or must one simply suspend rational thought?[/b]

No, such a being could not know the outcome of each event while the outcomes remain uncertain. It violates certain principles of logic, and as pointed out in another thread, logic is inviolable. ---whitey--

Doh! But in my thought experiment YOU would know the result of the event because you had already witnessed it happen. Even human beings are capable of knowing the outcomes of quantum events. But witnessing a quantum event happen does not prove that it is therefore not uncertain.

My point is that God has already witnessed every quantum event in eternity . He knows these events just in the same way you know them , because for him (in his unique position in relation to time) it's already happened. You think he knows from a position somewhere on our timeline , whereas infact he knows it from the perspective of eternity.

How could an eternal God who is omnisicient NOT know every quantum event? He would have to . Otherwise your concept of God is way off beam because you place God as moving along our timeline with us in space/time ---which is not the Christian God and you know it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Doh! But in my thought experiment YOU would know the result of the event because you had already witnessed it happen. Even human beings are capable of knowing the outcomes of quantum events. But witnessing a quantum event happen does not prove that it is therefore not uncertain.

Witnessing a quantum event and then time traveling to before the event does prove that it is not uncertain. Your thought experiment proved that.
The problem is that you seem to think that if you make up a thought experiment that includes somebody doing the impossible then the impossible has been proven possible.
Let me try it. In my thought experiment God does not exist. Therefore God does not exist. QED.

My point is that God has already witnessed every quantum event in eternity . He knows these events just in the same way you know them , because for him (in his unique position in relation to time) it's already happened. You think he knows from a position somewhere on our timeline , whereas infact he knows it from the perspective of eternity.
But if he interacts with our timeline, it constitutes time travel which violates the uncertainty principle.

How could an eternal God who is omnisicient NOT know every quantum event? He would have to .
Therefore, an eternal God cannot exist or Quantum Mechanics is wrong and everything is predetermined. QED

Originally posted by twhitehead
Witnessing a quantum event and then time traveling to before the event [b]does prove that it is not uncertain. Your thought experiment proved that.
The problem is that you seem to think that if you make up a thought experiment that includes somebody doing the impossible then the impossible has been proven possible.
Let me try it. In my thought exper an eternal God cannot exist or Quantum Mechanics is wrong and everything is predetermined. QED[/b]

But if he interacts with our timeline, it constitutes time travel which violates the uncertainty principle.---whitey------

But what if he DOESN'T interact with our timeline and instead just holds that knowledge within the constraints of eternity. He could still be omniscient of all events (past , future , present) but his omniscience would have no effect on anything.

You see what you can't logically show is how God just knowing something changes the nature of the event. Try this thought experiment...

Imagine that God doesn't exist (100% ) and life, the universe is Godless (you won't find this difficult LOL) . Uncertain quantum events happen in our universe (you would not dispute this). Now , imagine I have a God machine that can create an omniscient , eternal God that does not interact with time . I switch on the machine and God is created . God immediately knows all quantum events.

ok , so the question is - what has changed? How does God simply knowing these events suddenly logically change the nature of the events? Has God's knowledge somehow affected the events on a quantum level? Why does God knowing change things? Are you saying that if the God machine was switched on then suddenly the laws of quantum mechanics would switch to make all events determined and caused? How would that happen?

The problem I have is that you seem to think that uncertain quantum events cannot co-exist together with an eternal being but you have as yet given no physical or logical description as to how the two are interrelated. Unless you can answer the God machine question of course.....

(NB- I will of course accept that there are exceptions regarding pre destination and times when God does interact with time- but at the moment that is not the issue )

Originally posted by twhitehead
Witnessing a quantum event and then time traveling to before the event [b]does prove that it is not uncertain. Your thought experiment proved that.
The problem is that you seem to think that if you make up a thought experiment that includes somebody doing the impossible then the impossible has been proven possible.
Let me try it. In my thought exper ...[text shortened]... an eternal God cannot exist or Quantum Mechanics is wrong and everything is predetermined. QED[/b]

Let me try it. In my thought experiment God does not exist. Therefore God does not exist. QED.---whitey----


You really are a prune sometimes. I have never said that my argument is a proof of God existing at all. You are either prone to rash posting or just devious. My argument is a refutation of the "An omniscient God cannot co-exist with free will" position which hypothetically starts with the premise " If God exists then..."


Wake up and smell the coffee , you are having a debate all of your own and not listening properly.

The fatc that you seem to casually skim read over what is actually a complex argument suggests to me that its subtlties are too much for you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Note that you are using words like 'behaving as' and 'concept'. And not, the 2 split experiment does not prove them compatible, it proves them both wrong.

[b]What we now know is that there must be some underlying truth to the property of light that unifies the wave / particle contradiction. This is what apparent contradictions are - they offer us a dee ...[text shortened]... isenbergs Uncertainty principle would it not? Such an event could no longer be random.[/b]

Yes they are. The wave theory of light and the particle theory of light must both be discarded in favor of whatever unifying theory comes up. ---whitey---

And in my argument the unifying theory is eternity .

Originally posted by knightmeister
You really are a prune sometimes. I have never said that my argument is a proof of God existing at all. You are either prone to rash posting or just devious. My argument is a refutation of the "An omniscient God cannot co-exist with free will" position which hypothetically starts with the premise " If God exists then..."

Read my post again, and also read what I was replying to. You were refuting my point that something was illogical by saying "But it works in my thought experiment". I replied by pointing out that the correct conclusion should have been that your thought experiment was illogical.
Your position does not start with "If God exists then...", it starts with "If (insert totally inconsistent and illogical clause) is possible then..." and then you proceed to claim that your illogical clause is therefore possible.

Its quite simple: time travel and quantum uncertainty are incompatible. If your thought experiment includes both then your though experiment cannot be used to draw any logical conclusions other than the fact that they are incompatible.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Yes they are. The wave theory of light and the particle theory of light must both be discarded in favor of whatever unifying theory comes up. ---whitey---

And in my argument the unifying theory is eternity .

That is fine so long as you stop claiming that the pre-unified theories are valid and compatible: they aren't.

Originally posted by knightmeister
But what if he DOESN'T interact with our timeline and instead just holds that knowledge within the constraints of eternity. He could still be omniscient of all events (past , future , present) but his omniscience would have no effect on anything.

We can go that route, but first you must throw out your whole thought experiment.

You see what you can't logically show is how God just knowing something changes the nature of the event.
I think I can.

Try this thought experiment...

Imagine that God doesn't exist (100% ) and life, the universe is Godless (you won't find this difficult LOL) . Uncertain quantum events happen in our universe (you would not dispute this).
I would. I do not know whether or not quantum events are truly random or predetermined.

Now , imagine I have a God machine that can create an omniscient , eternal God that does not interact with time . I switch on the machine and God is created . God immediately knows all quantum events.

ok , so the question is - what has changed?
What has changed is that you have allowed the creation of a being that is incompatible with the initial premise.
Quite simply you have created a second timeline and placed the current universe in the past on your new timeline. Thus all events in the current universe are now history and thus essentially predetermined.

How does God simply knowing these events suddenly logically change the nature of the events?
It doesn't what changes the nature of the events is changing the universe to allow for the existence of such a God.

What is interesting about much of your post is that it is remarkably similar to quantum mechanics in that knowing where a photon of light goes does actually change its nature and appears to modify its history from a random undetermined path to a predetermined one.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is fine so long as you stop claiming that the pre-unified theories are valid and compatible: they aren't.

You misunderstand what the pre-unified theories actually are because you keep placing God on a timeline pretending that he "foresees" events or "predicts" them (as I have been at pains to point out)

Originally posted by twhitehead
We can go that route, but first you must throw out your whole thought experiment.

[b]You see what you can't logically show is how God just knowing something changes the nature of the event.
I think I can.

Try this thought experiment...

Imagine that God doesn't exist (100% ) and life, the universe is Godless (you won't find this difficult ...[text shortened]... re and appears to modify its history from a random undetermined path to a predetermined one.

I do not know whether or not quantum events are truly random or predetermined. ---whitey----

Now I know you are wriggling!!! Are you about to go back on Heisenberg now? This would be good , especially since you have used him to support your position in other areas. The argument assumes that Heisenberg is correct , if you want to debate that then start a new thread.

Me thinks you are sabotaging things because you can see where it's going.