Uncertainty or...?

Originally posted by twhitehead
My understanding was that we are discussing reality. Reality is therefore the goal posts. I personally have not ruled out multiple timelines as a possible reality.
It is true that your initial thought experiment assumed some things such as a single timeline and the possibility of time travel and my counter argument includes the fact that either of those d to invent a third possibility which is illogical since "randomness = not determinism".

you detested both randomness and determinism and tried to invent a third possibility which is illogical since "randomness = not determinism". ---whitey===

I have no detest of randomness or determinism. I think they both exist in our universe alongside some free will.

Your position is not following the laws of logic.

You define randomness as = not determinism and then you think that this shows that something that is not determined must be random.

This is like saying cow = not a sheep

...therefore ..if it's not a sheep it must be a cow!!

Doh!

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, if you look very carefully at the highlighted sentence in your post, would you agree with me that time travel is impossible, and communications from God are also impossible?

The problem with your position is that you don't stick to any pre determined boundaries around the argument.

The standard atheist position seems to be " If God exists and is omniscient and knows what you are going to do tomorrow then you can't be free to do anything else"

Note that this position assumes that God exists.So if he exists and we narrow the definition to the God of Christianity then God must be eternal (for the purposes of the argument)

My position is that it is possible for an eternal God to know your future without it affecting your free will.

You seem to sometimes refute this by saying that it's impossible for God to exist outside time (even though time is relative and just a product of our universe) .

Of course you can argue that it is illogical that a being could exist in an eternal dimension , but that my friend is not the debate.

It's a bit like me saying if X= 23 and y=5 then X+y= 28 and then you turning round and saying that's illogical because x cannot be 23.

On top of this you bring in multiple timelines which are highly contentious (although possible) to muddy the waters. Can you please discipline yourself to stick to the main proposition we are debating.

If you want to dispute that God could not be eternal then do so , but the argument pre-assumes that he is.

My position is that an eternal God could know what you will choose tomorrow because to him you have chosen it already.

This is very similar to the position on you knowing OJ Simpsons future . You know what OJ will do , why? - because that's what he did (free or otherwise) . You could not know it unless he chose it. Your knowledge is determined by his choice just as God's knowledge is determined by your choice tomorrow. Just like you do not have to wait for OJ to make his choice in order to know it (because of your special relationship within time to those events) God does not have to wait for tomorrow to happen to know your choice.

You see God has a unique relationship to our timeline that means that past present future are kinda meaningless concepts. So when we say God knows "in advance" we don't really mean that God is on our timeline , only that from our perspective it seems like it's in advance.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Your position is not following the laws of logic.

You define randomness as = not determinism and then you think that this shows that something that is not determined must be random.

This is like saying cow = not a sheep

...therefore ..if it's not a sheep it must be a cow!!

Doh!

My apologies, I did not use a clear enough notation. The intended formular was (and I suspect you know that):
randomness=determinism compliment

Originally posted by knightmeister
Are you really interested in understanding this concept ?

The premise of the whole hypothetical position assumes that God is God and as such is not part of our timeline but exists in a different dimension (eternity) . Time travel in our time dimension is impossible but we are not talking about a being who lives on our timeline are we. We are talking about a being whose relationship to time is very different.

I am interested, if you are going to be honest and consistent.
But time travel is time travel whether or not it goes via a third party God dimension or not. You are claiming that God is capable of interaction with the universe (are you not?) and thus capable of implementing time travel. Remember that you specifically suggested that time travel was impossible and that is an impossible for God too!

Originally posted by knightmeister
It's a bit like me saying if X= 23 and y=5 then X+y= 28 and then you turning round and saying that's illogical because x cannot be 23.

A perfectly valid logical argument by the way. If x cannot be 23 then the whole argument is in fact incoherent and must be discarded.

On top of this you bring in multiple timelines which are highly contentious (although possible) to muddy the waters. Can you please discipline yourself to stick to the main proposition we are debating.
No. If your intent is to make a conclusion about the universe then you cannot ignore the possibility that your premises might be false. I know you too well, you will eventually say: "Well that prooves it" without admitting that your 'proof' is based on a highly conditional premise.

If you want to dispute that God could not be eternal then do so , but the argument pre-assumes that he is.
Is it coherent to talk about him being eternal? See x not equal to 23 above.

My position is that an eternal God could know what you will choose tomorrow because to him you have chosen it already.
That is fine, so long as you realize that he cannot know it today! My future self will also know what I will choose tomorrow because for him, I have chosen it already. What I dispute is the possibility that your God could interact with our timeline. In fact you have yourself stated that it would be impossible.

You see God has a unique relationship to our timeline that means that past present future are kinda meaningless concepts.
He must necessarily have no relationship with our timeline.

So when we say God knows "in advance" we don't really mean that God is on our timeline , only that from our perspective it seems like it's in advance.
What you really mean is that God is time traveling. He is taking information from the future and inserting it, or its effects, into our timeline in the present (or the past). That violates your own specified clause.

Is a person "time traveling" when they anticipate the thunder to sound as they recently saw the flash of lightning?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Is a person "time traveling" when they anticipate the thunder to sound as they recently saw the flash of lightning?

No. But that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
A perfectly valid logical argument by the way. If x cannot be 23 then the whole argument is in fact incoherent and must be discarded.

[b]On top of this you bring in multiple timelines which are highly contentious (although possible) to muddy the waters. Can you please discipline yourself to stick to the main proposition we are debating.
No. If y ...[text shortened]... into our timeline in the present (or the past). That violates your own specified clause.[/b]

A perfectly valid logical argument by the way. If x cannot be 23 then the whole argument is in fact incoherent and must be discarded.
----whitey----

You miss the point (consciously?). The atheist position is that "an omniscient eternal God cannot know what we are about to do if we have free will. " This position seeks to point out that these two things are incompatible , but that is not what you are doing.

This position pre assumes that God could be eternal. If you are then saying that God cannot be eternal then you need to specifically address that issue rather than cross pollenating it with this debate.

It seems that by having to withdraw the idea of an eternal God independent of time from the debate you are implicitly accepting that if God WERE eternal (however preposterous that idea is to you) then maybe an eternal omniscient God actually might b compatible with free will after all.

The argument is one regarding two theorectical concepts namely God = eternal , omniscient and Humans = some free will. The question is then are these two concepts potentially compatible with each other and NOT to question the validity of either of the concepts.

I absolutely agree that if God is not eternal then it's impossible , but then as soon as God is not eternal to me he is not God anyway. You might as well say that God doesn't exist and the whole game is off from the start , but you and I know that is not the debate.

So maybe you would like to address the actual issue of if x= 23 and y= 5 can x+y =28?

Originally posted by twhitehead
A perfectly valid logical argument by the way. If x cannot be 23 then the whole argument is in fact incoherent and must be discarded.

[b]On top of this you bring in multiple timelines which are highly contentious (although possible) to muddy the waters. Can you please discipline yourself to stick to the main proposition we are debating.
No. If y ...[text shortened]... into our timeline in the present (or the past). That violates your own specified clause.[/b]

Is it coherent to talk about him being eternal? See x not equal to 23 above. ---whitey------


Erhem ... prove that he cannot be eternal.

NB- A dimension of eternity is bound to be partly incoherent to us because we are trapped in time. Just as a sphere is a bit mind boggling for a circle to comprehend who lives in 2 dimensions.

Originally posted by twhitehead
A perfectly valid logical argument by the way. If x cannot be 23 then the whole argument is in fact incoherent and must be discarded.

[b]On top of this you bring in multiple timelines which are highly contentious (although possible) to muddy the waters. Can you please discipline yourself to stick to the main proposition we are debating.
No. If y ...[text shortened]... into our timeline in the present (or the past). That violates your own specified clause.[/b]

He must necessarily have no relationship with our timeline.---whitey---

Are you saying that he can't be present to all parts of our timeline without influencing it? He's supposed to be omnipotent remember. No-one is saying God travels in time only that he has a relationship to time.

Originally posted by twhitehead
A perfectly valid logical argument by the way. If x cannot be 23 then the whole argument is in fact incoherent and must be discarded.

[b]On top of this you bring in multiple timelines which are highly contentious (although possible) to muddy the waters. Can you please discipline yourself to stick to the main proposition we are debating.
No. If y ...[text shortened]... into our timeline in the present (or the past). That violates your own specified clause.[/b]

My position is that an eternal God could know what you will choose tomorrow because to him you have chosen it already. --KM

That is fine, so long as you realize that he cannot know it today! My future self will also know what I will choose tomorrow because for him, I have chosen it already. What I dispute is the possibility that your God could interact with our timeline. In fact you have yourself stated that it would be impossible.-----whitey ---

RESPONSE----

Of course he doesn't know it "today" he knows it for all eternity. He also doesn't have to interact with our timeline or influence it to know it . He can just be present to our timeline. By present to our timeline what I mean is that his eternal presence is penetrating time but he is not part of time or on the timeline.

When Christians say that God knows today what you are going to do tommorrow then they don't mean on the timeline as such but that God knows in eternity such that theoretically he could tell them . When he does tell people then it goes into the realms of predestination and prophecy , and then I wouild accept that free will has been taken out of the equation somewhat.

When God does interact directly with our timeline (eg in Christ's incarnation) then you notice that Christ does not often know what is going to happen (apart from what he is told by his eternal father).

Originally posted by twhitehead
A perfectly valid logical argument by the way. If x cannot be 23 then the whole argument is in fact incoherent and must be discarded.

[b]On top of this you bring in multiple timelines which are highly contentious (although possible) to muddy the waters. Can you please discipline yourself to stick to the main proposition we are debating.
No. If y ...[text shortened]... into our timeline in the present (or the past). That violates your own specified clause.[/b]

What you really mean is that God is time traveling. He is taking information from the future and inserting it, or its effects, into our timeline in the present (or the past). That violates your own specified clause.---whitey----


No that's not what I mean at all and you know it. Most of the time he does not insert any information into our timeline at all unless there is a prophecy or word of knowledge. 99.9999% of the time this information has no effect on our timeline. God just "knows" in eternity what you are doing in March 2008 just like he knows how many hairs are on your head.

It seems to me that you are slowly realsing that as long as God is eternal (and not on our timeline) and as long as he doesn't interfere or travel in time then my proposition might just be possible afterall.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My apologies, I did not use a clear enough notation. The intended formular was (and I suspect you know that):
randomness=determinism compliment

I didn't know . I'm not a mathematician by trade.