Archive for FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT BREAK THE CHAINS OF IGNORANCE AND FEAR
 


       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Truth, Goodness and Beauty
Mutley

Time

I don't know where else to put this, so I thought I would put it here. Everyone is obviously familiar with the logical contradiction between free will, and God being all knowing. It causes the thorny problem of God knowing before he creates someone that he will torture that someone in hell, but God goes ahead and creates that person anyway. Very bad. and, it also begs the question of how we could possibly change our fate through free will, when doing so would end up making God's prediction about us wrong, but yet, God can never err if he is all knowing. A thorny problem indeed.

So how could God be all knowing, and yet, simultaneously not know the future? How could God be all knowing, and yet not be certain that he will send said person to hell and therefore the person's actions will be the determiner? There is only one possible answer. God does know all things but doesn't know the future for sure, because there is no such thing as the future, and therefore God is not required to know it. The future is a mental construct invented by the human mind. It is an expectation of the mind. I want to be very clear here. I am not saying that our mental construct is inaccurate, as often it ends up being quite accurate (but not always). What I AM saying, is aside from the accuracy of this mental concept, it is nothing more than a mental concept, which means it only exists in the mind. A guy at a seminar asks people to raise their hand when it's the future. So sure enough, a few minutes later, someone raises their hand, to which the guy replies "why are you raising your hand, it's not the future, it's the present moment?". When the future arrives, it is not the future, it is the present moment. So, based on that understanding, there actually is no such thing as the future, the future never arrives. It is only an expectation or mental construct existing soley in the mind. The only thing that actually ever exists is the present moment which goes on and on and on and on......

But let's even go deeper. Take the word "moment". What does it mean? Is it a second? A minute? A nanosecond? Two minutes? It's unspecified. It is a word that does not correspond to any measurement unit of time. Units of time do not exist either. They are merely mental constructs invented by the mind for measurement, but there really is no such thing as nanoseconds, as time does not click like a fake Rolex watch, time moves in a seamless, smooth, continuous fashion like the hand of an authentic Rolex. What is the dividing point between one "moment" and the next? In actuality, there is no dividing point unless we decide to arbitrarily designate one. So really, there isn't even any such thing as the "present moment" as that too is merely a mental construct of ours.

Now, here's where it gets weird. If time, in reality, is seamless and not fragmented into any units or even moments, then time has to be one thing, not multiple things. It's one seamless thing. So if we see it as the whole that it really is, rather than fragmenting it with our mental concepts, then there is really no past, present or future. Pretty weird if you think about it.

So why is God supposed to know about a mental idea that we create? Why is God, in order to be all knowing, supposed to know about something that actually doesn't exist?

So what is time really? I think time is nothing but an invented measurement for what is really "change". And change is really "movement" of some sort. No change can happen without movement, so we'll stick with the word movement. A day is based on the speed at which the earth rotates. And hour is based on the speed at which the hands of the clock move. So time merely kicks in as a measurement tool AFTER there is first movement.

Now, I know any physics students are going to scream bloody murder about this theory and offer me all sorts of equations designed to debunk this theory. But before you do, just ask yourself the following simple question which physics people that I have corresponded with have never been able to sufficiently answer. If there is no movement in the universe, and I mean NO movement, not even the movement of your braincells so that it can tick away time in it's head, then could there possibly be elapsed time? I say no. Now, as soon as something moves, something has changed and time and speed kick in as measuring tools for that movement and/or change

Let the scoffing begin !!!  Laughing  Laughing See ya' in the funny farm funny papers  Laughing
All_Brains

Now we're talking! Smile

going to bed now and will respond to you in the very near future, but when that moment comes it will be a mere present...
and when I am done it would be in the past! Laughing
Mutley

Well, before you do, ask yourself at what moment does something become the past? What is the exact measuring tool? Also, does the past still exist? Was it the past when it existed or the present moment?
All_Brains

Re: Time

Mutley wrote:
I don't know where else to put this, so I thought I would put it here. Everyone is obviously familiar with the logical contradiction between free will, and God being all knowing. It causes the thorny problem of God knowing before he creates someone that he will torture that someone in hell, but God goes ahead and creates that person anyway. Very bad. and, it also begs the question of how we could possibly change our fate through free will, when doing so would end up making God's prediction about us wrong, but yet, God can never err if he is all knowing. A thorny problem indeed.

So how could God be all knowing, and yet, simultaneously not know the future? How could God be all knowing, and yet not be certain that he will send said person to hell and therefore the person's actions will be the determiner? There is only one possible answer. God does know all things but doesn't know the future for sure, because there is no such thing as the future, and therefore God is not required to know it. The future is a mental construct invented by the human mind. It is an expectation of the mind. I want to be very clear here. I am not saying that our mental construct is inaccurate, as often it ends up being quite accurate (but not always). What I AM saying, is aside from the accuracy of this mental concept, it is nothing more than a mental concept, which means it only exists in the mind. A guy at a seminar asks people to raise their hand when it's the future. So sure enough, a few minutes later, someone raises their hand, to which the guy replies "why are you raising your hand, it's not the future, it's the present moment?". When the future arrives, it is not the future, it is the present moment. So, based on that understanding, there actually is no such thing as the future, the future never arrives. It is only an expectation or mental construct existing soley in the mind. The only thing that actually ever exists is the present moment which goes on and on and on and on......

But let's even go deeper. Take the word "moment". What does it mean? Is it a second? A minute? A nanosecond? Two minutes? It's unspecified. It is a word that does not correspond to any measurement unit of time. Units of time do not exist either. They are merely mental constructs invented by the mind for measurement, but there really is no such thing as nanoseconds, as time does not click like a fake Rolex watch, time moves in a seamless, smooth, continuous fashion like the hand of an authentic Rolex. What is the dividing point between one "moment" and the next? In actuality, there is no dividing point unless we decide to arbitrarily designate one. So really, there isn't even any such thing as the "present moment" as that too is merely a mental construct of ours.

Now, here's where it gets weird. If time, in reality, is seamless and not fragmented into any units or even moments, then time has to be one thing, not multiple things. It's one seamless thing. So if we see it as the whole that it really is, rather than fragmenting it with our mental concepts, then there is really no past, present or future. Pretty weird if you think about it.

So why is God supposed to know about a mental idea that we create? Why is God, in order to be all knowing, supposed to know about something that actually doesn't exist?

So what is time really? I think time is nothing but an invented measurement for what is really "change". And change is really "movement" of some sort. No change can happen without movement, so we'll stick with the word movement. A day is based on the speed at which the earth rotates. And hour is based on the speed at which the hands of the clock move. So time merely kicks in as a measurement tool AFTER there is first movement.

Now, I know any physics students are going to scream bloody murder about this theory and offer me all sorts of equations designed to debunk this theory. But before you do, just ask yourself the following simple question which physics people that I have corresponded with have never been able to sufficiently answer. If there is no movement in the universe, and I mean NO movement, not even the movement of your braincells so that it can tick away time in it's head, then could there possibly be elapsed time? I say no. Now, as soon as something moves, something has changed and time and speed kick in as measuring tools for that movement and/or change

Let the scoffing begin !!!  Laughing  Laughing See ya' in the funny farm funny papers  Laughing


Hello Mutley

I actually agree with what you said above. As you may be aware by now, I am a big fan of Einstein.

Some angles of the infamous "relativity" has already addressed your thoughts. Physically and mathematically what you said above is highly probable, however and this where I disagree with you, the above has nothing to do with God whatsoever....

Because if he lives outside the 4th dimension where time does not exist "and hence eternity", he is still omniscient and therefor has the knowledge of our "relative" time measure which dissects time into past, present and future...

And since we have no grasp whatsoever of eternity then God would be quite unjust to deal with us or not to deal with us based on these terms!!!! Therefore he's still wicked, does not exist  and merely a creation of man!

Quote:

A guy at a seminar asks people to raise their hand when it's the future. So sure enough, a few minutes later, someone raises their hand, to which the guy replies "why are you raising your hand, it's not the future, it's the present moment?". When the future arrives, it is not the future, it is the present moment.


The guy tricked th students by using verb to be in its present tense "when it's the future".....!!!!

Like tell me when it's tomorrow!!! A deceptive play on words, no brainy should fall in!!!

The reality is future does still exist in our relative terms as we need to measure time...

I will add another response after 24 hours...this is future...relative one...but one nevertheless!

Please read this, you will fascinated: Eternity
Mutley

Re: Time

All_Brains wrote:
Mutley wrote:
I don't know where else to put this, so I thought I would put it here. Everyone is obviously familiar with the logical contradiction between free will, and God being all knowing. It causes the thorny problem of God knowing before he creates someone that he will torture that someone in hell, but God goes ahead and creates that person anyway. Very bad. and, it also begs the question of how we could possibly change our fate through free will, when doing so would end up making God's prediction about us wrong, but yet, God can never err if he is all knowing. A thorny problem indeed.

So how could God be all knowing, and yet, simultaneously not know the future? How could God be all knowing, and yet not be certain that he will send said person to hell and therefore the person's actions will be the determiner? There is only one possible answer. God does know all things but doesn't know the future for sure, because there is no such thing as the future, and therefore God is not required to know it. The future is a mental construct invented by the human mind. It is an expectation of the mind. I want to be very clear here. I am not saying that our mental construct is inaccurate, as often it ends up being quite accurate (but not always). What I AM saying, is aside from the accuracy of this mental concept, it is nothing more than a mental concept, which means it only exists in the mind. A guy at a seminar asks people to raise their hand when it's the future. So sure enough, a few minutes later, someone raises their hand, to which the guy replies "why are you raising your hand, it's not the future, it's the present moment?". When the future arrives, it is not the future, it is the present moment. So, based on that understanding, there actually is no such thing as the future, the future never arrives. It is only an expectation or mental construct existing soley in the mind. The only thing that actually ever exists is the present moment which goes on and on and on and on......

But let's even go deeper. Take the word "moment". What does it mean? Is it a second? A minute? A nanosecond? Two minutes? It's unspecified. It is a word that does not correspond to any measurement unit of time. Units of time do not exist either. They are merely mental constructs invented by the mind for measurement, but there really is no such thing as nanoseconds, as time does not click like a fake Rolex watch, time moves in a seamless, smooth, continuous fashion like the hand of an authentic Rolex. What is the dividing point between one "moment" and the next? In actuality, there is no dividing point unless we decide to arbitrarily designate one. So really, there isn't even any such thing as the "present moment" as that too is merely a mental construct of ours.

Now, here's where it gets weird. If time, in reality, is seamless and not fragmented into any units or even moments, then time has to be one thing, not multiple things. It's one seamless thing. So if we see it as the whole that it really is, rather than fragmenting it with our mental concepts, then there is really no past, present or future. Pretty weird if you think about it.

So why is God supposed to know about a mental idea that we create? Why is God, in order to be all knowing, supposed to know about something that actually doesn't exist?

So what is time really? I think time is nothing but an invented measurement for what is really "change". And change is really "movement" of some sort. No change can happen without movement, so we'll stick with the word movement. A day is based on the speed at which the earth rotates. And hour is based on the speed at which the hands of the clock move. So time merely kicks in as a measurement tool AFTER there is first movement.

Now, I know any physics students are going to scream bloody murder about this theory and offer me all sorts of equations designed to debunk this theory. But before you do, just ask yourself the following simple question which physics people that I have corresponded with have never been able to sufficiently answer. If there is no movement in the universe, and I mean NO movement, not even the movement of your braincells so that it can tick away time in it's head, then could there possibly be elapsed time? I say no. Now, as soon as something moves, something has changed and time and speed kick in as measuring tools for that movement and/or change

Let the scoffing begin !!!  Laughing  Laughing See ya' in the funny farm funny papers  Laughing


Hello Mutley

I actually agree with what you said above. As you may be aware by now, I am a big fan of Einstein.

Some angles of the infamous "relativity" has already addressed your thoughts. Physically and mathematically what you said above is highly probable, however and this where I disagree with you, the above has nothing to do with God whatsoever....


Yes it does. It attempts to answer the contradiction between omniscience and our ability to change our fate through free will. If we regulate the future do be no more tan a creation of our mind (an expectation), then God would not be required to know it. God could be said to predict it better than we can, but we would still be able to alter it.

All_Brains wrote:

Because if he lives outside the 4th dimension where time does not exist "and hence eternity", he is still omniscient and therefor has the knowledge of our "relative" time measure which dissects time into past, present and future...


He has knowledge of the method we use in creating our mental construct, but it is nothing more than a mental construct, not a reality, or what I like to call an "actuality".

All_Brains wrote:

And since we have no grasp whatsoever of eternity then God would be quite unjust to deal with us or not to deal with us based on these terms!!!!


Ahhh, here comes that justice thingee again. Justice is a mental concept that we create in order to get what we want.

All_Brains wrote:

Therefore he's still wicked, does not exist  and merely a creation of man!


Wicked for who?

All_Brains wrote:

Quote:

A guy at a seminar asks people to raise their hand when it's the future. So sure enough, a few minutes later, someone raises their hand, to which the guy replies "why are you raising your hand, it's not the future, it's the present moment?". When the future arrives, it is not the future, it is the present moment.


The guy tricked th students by using verb to be in its present tense "when it's the future".....!!!!

Like tell me when it's tomorrow!!! A deceptive play on words, no brainy should fall in!!!


Then rewrite the sentence correctly and tell me the big difference.


All_Brains wrote:

The reality is future does still exist in our relative terms as we need to measure time...


You mean the future is a physical thing that exists rather than an expectation of the conceptualizing mind?

All_Brains wrote:

I will add another response after 24 hours...this is future...relative one...but one nevertheless!


And where will your response reside when you write it? In the future or the present?

All_Brains wrote:

Please read this, you will fascinated: Eternity


I'll comment on that later. Long article.
Tvebak

Re: Time

Hmm one of my braincells is currently having another braincell in for a yearly check-up, so my last braincell tried to contemplate this discussion, but he meet a thing which made him selfexplode...

Mutley wrote:

Yes it does. It attempts to answer the contradiction between omniscience and our ability to change our fate through free will[ie. our future] . If we regulate the future do be no more tan a creation of our mind (an expectation), then God would not be required to know it. God could be said to predict it better than we can, but we would still be able to alter it.


[...my words...]
So Mutley you are arguing that we have an ability to alter our future, which itself, the future, is a creation of our mind?

Now I have to meditate some to get the two remaining braincells back, and convince them to work on making a third one. Phew.

Cheers
Tvebak

Re: Time

All_Brains wrote:

Please read this, you will fascinated: Eternity


Fascinating website. Interesting indeed, thanks for the link.

Cheers
Mutley

Re: Time

Tvebak wrote:
Hmm one of my braincells is currently having another braincell in for a yearly check-up, so my last braincell tried to contemplate this discussion, but he meet a thing which made him selfexplode...

Mutley wrote:

Yes it does. It attempts to answer the contradiction between omniscience and our ability to change our fate through free will[ie. our future] . If we regulate the future do be no more tan a creation of our mind (an expectation), then God would not be required to know it. God could be said to predict it better than we can, but we would still be able to alter it.


[...my words...]
So Mutley you are arguing that we have an ability to alter our future, which itself, the future, is a creation of our mind?

Now I have to meditate some to get the two remaining braincells back, and convince them to work on making a third one. Phew.

Cheers


You inserted the word future where it was not there. I said "fate" for a very good reason, because fate is something that happens in the present.

1. something that unavoidably befalls a person; fortune; lot: It is always his fate to be left behind.

You can understand that complex article but you can't understand the simplicity of what I'm saying?
Mutley

From the article

Quote:
Feynman’s Sum over Histories theory led him to describe time simply as a direction in space


Wow, I didn't know physics got into stuff like this. I've never taken a physics course so it's nice to be exposed to this. This seems to correspond to my idea that time is actually a mere measurement of movement and that movement must first exist before time can. When one mentions a direction in space, it implies a direction of movement.

Quote:
Sum over histories indicates the direction of our ordinary clock time is simply a path in space which is more probable than the more exotic directions time might have taken otherwise.


But it is the one that appears to be chosen. So the rest are mere ideas created by our imagination.

Quote:
“Some people make a great mystery of the multi universe, or the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum theory, but to me, these are just different expressions of the Feynman path integral.”  


If I understand this correctly, this comes from the electron, which I've read a little bit about by reading these "consciousness creates reality" crackpots.. The wave represents all the possible positions that an electron could be in, and the particle represents the position it is actually found in when we go to observe and test our theory or prediction about where the electron will be. So this is the wave, particle thingee of QP. The problem is that people abuse and misunderstand this. They go further into it by saying that everything truly is a wave until it is observed. This is wrong. It is always a particle and the wave is merely a mathematical formula for showing possibilities and probabilities. But there is no actual wave that turns into a particle, it is always a particle. And, they also make the logical flaw of saying that since it can be in any position, it IS in every position simultaneously. Again, this is the classic mistake of treating a mental concept as actual physical reality. A math formula is not an actual physical reality, it merely points to a physical reality or represents it. Just because something can be in an infinite amount of possible positions, doesn't mean that it IS in an infinite amount of positions simultaneously. There's simply no solid, logical reason to take it this far and make this assumptive deduction.

Quote:
I further explain that it is possible in an objective way to understand the universe to be like a book or a movie film. Each moment is a separate universe just like each frame of a movie or page of a book is separate. Yet those separate states simultaneously form the larger whole of the movie or the book


Ahhh, I can't believe what I'm seeing. I thought of this on an acid trip 20 years ago. I thought of it like me watching a movie, and if I moved at the same speed as the projector, then I would always see the same frame, and therefore time would stop. I also thought that it would make time travel possible because all frames of a movie all exist, and that we only experience one frame at a time. But, later on, when I grew up, I rejected this for the very reason i mentioned in my OP. What is the delimiter between moments? In actuality, there is none as I showed, we just arbitrarily invent a delimiter. So are infinite universes supposed to depend on an arbitrary delimiter we invent? Obviously not, so this is clearly flawed. If time is seamless, as I proposed, then this scenario is actually impossible and there must only be one, seamless universe.

Quote:
Seeing each moment as a continually existing place sheds light on why particles would then travel as a quantum wave, rather than linearly from point a to point b. This is explained better elsewhere, but if each moment of ordinary time is a solid, static, "block of now", or field of space, then time each new moment is a distinctly different universe. What we call time is a spatial direction that travels through many static three dimensional universes.


I think I showed the flaw in this. Scientists tend to use measurement tools so much, that they begin to no longer distinguish between the tool and actual reality, which is a very important distinction to make in order to prevent us from making errors such as this.

Quote:
One can imagine oneself smoothly traveling a direct and interconnected path through time


Yes I can, and here, he contradicts his earlier fragmentation of time. Time is analog, not digital

Quote:
Unfortunately it wasn't until Einstein died that scientists began to consider the a Many Worlds Theory in science


Yes the many worlds. If we say that all possibilities exist simultaneously, then it begs the question of "where do they all live?". So a "Many Worlds" theory had to be created to answer that. But, once again, what is the delimiter that creates these many worlds? And if there is no delimiter, then there can't be a "many" and there must be a "one".
Tvebak

Re: Time

Mutley wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
Hmm one of my braincells is currently having another braincell in for a yearly check-up, so my last braincell tried to contemplate this discussion, but he meet a thing which made him selfexplode...

Mutley wrote:

Yes it does. It attempts to answer the contradiction between omniscience and our ability to change our fate through free will[ie. our future] . If we regulate the future do be no more tan a creation of our mind (an expectation), then God would not be required to know it. God could be said to predict it better than we can, but we would still be able to alter it.


[...my words...]
So Mutley you are arguing that we have an ability to alter our future, which itself, the future, is a creation of our mind?

Now I have to meditate some to get the two remaining braincells back, and convince them to work on making a third one. Phew.

Cheers


You inserted the word future where it was not there. I said "fate" for a very good reason, because fate is something that happens in the present.

1. something that unavoidably befalls a person; fortune; lot: It is always his fate to be left behind.

You can understand that complex article but you can't understand the simplicity of what I'm saying?


Hi Mutley

Yes I inserted the word "future" because you wrote "change our fate". The "fate" in this context implies something which is in the "future" from the present time. You are making a change which inflect on your future. Well that just my opinion

Cheers
Mutley

Fine. I clarified.
Tvebak

Mutley wrote:
Fine. I clarified.


ok but I still see it as problem in your argumentation.

Your argument as I understand it was about "the future" being "a creation of our mind" and therefore there's nothing to "predict". right?

you said wrote:
Yes it does. It attempts to answer the contradiction between omniscience and our ability to change our fate through free will. If we regulate the future do be no more tan a creation of our mind (an expectation), then God would not be required to know it. God could be said to predict it better than we can, but we would still be able to alter it.


But anyways "an omniscient god" should still know every dimensions and therefore also know the outcome of "free will".

Cheers
brainout

Tvebak:  imagine you are standing in front of a canvas.  Before your eyes, dots form.  You know in advance what those dots will be, but instead of causing them, you AUTHORIZE them to be freely whatever they are.  So they play, like fractals.  You GAVE them the 'life' to do that.  You know what the picture will become (kinda like that Jesus Painting video you can see on Youtube).  You don't stop it.

Over time, the dots grow and grow and propagate on their own.  Dots of time.  STILL on the same canvas, like a Georges Seurat painting.  And no matter how many dots there are, they are all still on the same canvas, and you like what you see, even all the horror.  Because, what you ordained, was TRUTH BE FREE.

No matter how long time lasts -- forever -- the dots will just keep on being on the canvas, the picture being completed more and more, never-ending.

Welcome to Omniscience.  No forcing of free will.  Instead, love of Freedom, and Truth.
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

But those dots won’t form without your specific authorisation, will they!?
brainout

No, Pazuzu, they won't.  And if I LOVE, I will ALWAYS provide that authorization, Hebrews 1:2-3, Isaiah 52:13-14, 54:1. Smile
Tvebak

brainout wrote:
Tvebak:  imagine you are standing in front of a canvas.  Before your eyes, dots form.  You know in advance what those dots will be, but instead of causing them, you AUTHORIZE them to be freely whatever they are.  So they play, like fractals.  You GAVE them the 'life' to do that.  You know what the picture will become (kinda like that Jesus Painting video you can see on Youtube).  You don't stop it.

Over time, the dots grow and grow and propagate on their own.  Dots of time.  STILL on the same canvas, like a Georges Seurat painting.  And no matter how many dots there are, they are all still on the same canvas, and you like what you see, even all the horror.  Because, what you ordained, was TRUTH BE FREE.

No matter how long time lasts -- forever -- the dots will just keep on being on the canvas, the picture being completed more and more, never-ending.

Welcome to Omniscience.  No forcing of free will.  Instead, love of Freedom, and Truth.


Sorry it might be late at night. And I have a lot of other things on my mind, but what on earth are you talking about?

Cheers
brainout

I'm trying to describe how Time looks to Omniscience.  It's ok, if you don't get the analogy just ignore it.  I thought you'd enjoy it. I meant it to please you.
Tvebak

brainout wrote:
I'm trying to describe how Time looks to Omniscience.  It's ok, if you don't get the analogy just ignore it.  I thought you'd enjoy it. I meant it to please you.


Alright, well a painting has limits. There goes the omniscience.

I think brainout that you and I think very different. My guess is that we have a completely different set of ways to expres ourselves and have a different view on how logic works. We definitly make our thoughts about the world in a completely different matter, so we might "shoot" past eachother quite a few times.

Cheers
brainout

Tvebak, yeah, we might keep shooting over each other, but we'll enjoy it, just the same. Smile

This thread on Time begs the question of what constitutes Infinity.

I'm trying to answer it by a metaphor of a huge canvas which gradually piles up with dots that make a beautiful picture, analogous to how Georges Seurat painted.  Dots adding atop each other, each one slightly different, deepens the image or fills it out, but still all the dots are on the same canvas.  That's how time (each dot being a bloc of time) can keep on going, yet stay the same.

  • Infinity is a stasis, One Big Now.  
  • It's a CHARACTER, so neither mass nor energy.  
  • We misname as "infinity" the constant progression or regression (development and downfall), whether of numbers, or of a lifetime.  And it keeps on going.  
  • But look:  that's merely a FUNCTION of FINITY, and itself is a continual cycle of beginnings and endings.  
  • In the larger structure, taking into account the everlasting soul (which I know you don't believe in, humor me here), the soul keeps on being alive in time, so there always are more dots it lives in, as it were.


So the dots gradually fill out the canvas.  But the canvas remains the same.  The One LOOKING at the canvas, is Omniscient.  Knows how the picture will turn out in advance, insures its freedom to fractalically (sp) make itself.  That's why free will and Divine Sovereignty co-exist.  All this presumes God, of course, but if God then God loves FREEDOM AND TRUTH the most.  Else, no god exists at all.

The hard thing to accept is that if God Who Loves Freedom and Truth, then that HAS to mean bad is free to exist, too.  No shaving of any truth, whether good truth, bad truth, any truth, BECAUSE truth.  Now an Omnipotent God can 'decide' what will be truth.  But look:  if He decides that Truth be anything but Free, then it's no longer really truth.

I'll stop here.  Either the concept begins to make sense by now or does not.  If not, forget it, np. Smile
Mutley

Tvebak wrote:
Mutley wrote:
Fine. I clarified.


ok but I still see it as problem in your argumentation.

Your argument as I understand it was about "the future" being "a creation of our mind" and therefore there's nothing to "predict". right?



No, the key distinction here is that I said that the concept of the future is not necessarily inaccurate at all, it just isn't real. It's always a mental construct, an prediction or an expectation. Remember, when the future comes to fruition, it is the present moment. so in that respect, the future can never exist except as a mental expectation, regardless of how accurate the expectation is or not.

Tvebak wrote:

you said wrote:
Yes it does. It attempts to answer the contradiction between omniscience and our ability to change our fate through free will. If we regulate the future do be no more tan a creation of our mind (an expectation), then God would not be required to know it. God could be said to predict it better than we can, but we would still be able to alter it.


But anyways "an omniscient god" should still know every dimensions and therefore also know the outcome of "free will".

Cheers


Every actual existing dimension, but the future doesn't exist. It's a mental construct. So we can say that God would be an unbelievably good predictor, but that doesn't mean that free will can't alter that prediction.
Mutley

Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
But those dots won’t form without your specific authorisation, will they!?


Thank you.
Mutley

brainout wrote:
Tvebak, yeah, we might keep shooting over each other, but we'll enjoy it, just the same. Smile

This thread on Time begs the question of what constitutes Infinity.


Well, that wasn't my intention.
Tvebak

Mutley wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
Mutley wrote:
Fine. I clarified.


ok but I still see it as problem in your argumentation.

Your argument as I understand it was about "the future" being "a creation of our mind" and therefore there's nothing to "predict". right?



No, the key distinction here is that I said that the concept of the future is not necessarily inaccurate at all, it just isn't real. It's always a mental construct, an prediction or an expectation. Remember, when the future comes to fruition, it is the present moment. so in that respect, the future can never exist except as a mental expectation, regardless of how accurate the expectation is or not.


Sure and then there's nothing to change since it always present.

Quote:
Tvebak wrote:

you said wrote:
Yes it does. It attempts to answer the contradiction between omniscience and our ability to change our fate through free will. If we regulate the future do be no more tan a creation of our mind (an expectation), then God would not be required to know it. God could be said to predict it better than we can, but we would still be able to alter it.


But anyways "an omniscient god" should still know every dimensions and therefore also know the outcome of "free will".

Cheers


Every actual existing dimension, but the future doesn't exist. It's a mental construct. So we can say that God would be an unbelievably good predictor, but that doesn't mean that free will can't alter that prediction.


I still disagree. Even if we would go along your argument, as I won't, "god" would not be omniscient if there's something he does not know.

Cheers

       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Truth, Goodness and Beauty
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home