The Final Stage of Creation

[Tassman]

that's what I said. there could be no paradox because you can't go back if you don't exist. It is self-canceling. It is a contradiction that can't happen. That just means that if someone could go back in time that they could not cause a paradox, not that they could not go back in time.

Even without a glaring paradox, such as murdering your own grandfather, backward time travel will of necessity interfere with, or eliminate, the future path of the person who travelled. The inherent impossibility of this makes backward time travel impossible in our own universe.

[Sparko]

I've answered all of your questions Sparko, but in asking me questions you have failed to answer my own questions to you. So I will ask again and see if you can answer it directly instead of asking a different question. So, here we go. If all of time exists , including the future, which is your argument, and that means that all of time, the entire history of the created world has always existed since its inception, then how can you yourself effect any change via free will within that which has always been? Even with your magical theory of a time machine and travel to the past, you would still be within, according to your own theory, an all existing time where all events have always existed, including your time travel to the past. So, according to your own theory of all of time having always existed, which is why god can see it all from being outside of it, explain to me how in that scenario you have free will to choose as you please?

I did answer it. The actions that "time recorded" were due to the free will actions taken in that time. Just like in the past. We can look at the past and see that Booth shot Lincoln. It is fixed and can't be changed. It is "recorded" in time. From our point of view, it has always been that way. Yet it IS that way because Booth freely chose to shoot Lincoln. If he had not chosen to shoot Lincoln then that is what would have always been recorded in time from our perspective. That is what I was trying to get you to see with my questions to you, which you completely ignored because you know it shows you are wrong.

If you went back in time, and did not change anything, then you would see Booth freely shoot Lincoln because that is what Booth chooses to do. He will never choose to do otherwise because if he did, then that is what you would remember as having happened, and you would never have gone back to watch him shoot Lincoln. So he will "always" choose to shoot Lincoln, and it will "always" be a free will choice, and it "always" was that way when viewed from an outside or future perspective.

That you can't accept that shows the limitation of your mind, not of time. Everyone but you and Tassy seems to understand it. You need to think 4 dimensionally. I have tried giving you analogies to help you understand, like time travel, or viewing a film, but I guess your imagination is too limited. So discussing this idea with you is pretty much a waste of time for me and the others. It is like discussing multiplication with a 1 year old. They just won't get it.

[JimL]

I did answer it. The actions that "time recorded" were due to the free will actions taken in that time. Just like in the past. We can look at the past and see that Booth shot Lincoln. It is fixed and can't be changed. It is "recorded" in time. From our point of view, it has always been that way. Yet it IS that way because Booth freely chose to shoot Lincoln. If he had not chosen to shoot Lincoln then that is what would have always been recorded in time from our perspective. That is what I was trying to get you to see with my questions to you, which you completely ignored because you know it shows you are wrong.

If you went back in time, and did not change anything, then you would see Booth freely shoot Lincoln because that is what Booth chooses to do. He will never choose to do otherwise because if he did, then that is what you would remember as having happened, and you would never have gone back to watch him shoot Lincoln. So he will "always" choose to shoot Lincoln, and it will "always" be a free will choice, and it "always" was that way when viewed from an outside or future perspective.

That you can't accept that shows the limitation of your mind, not of time. Everyone but you and Tassy seems to understand it. You need to think 4 dimensionally. I have tried giving you analogies to help you understand, like time travel, or viewing a film, but I guess your imagination is too limited. So discussing this idea with you is pretty much a waste of time for me and the others. It is like discussing multiplication with a 1 year old. They just won't get it.

Sparko, Sparko, Sparko, you just don't get it. Please try to focus on what I am saying. Your argument is that all of time, past, present and future all exist, and that all of time has existed since the beginning of time itself, since its creation. Do you understand what that argument entails? It means that all events in time have also always existed since the beginning of time, it means that when time was created, it was created whole, i.e. all of time, and all events in time have all existed from the beginning of time. Thats why god, according to your argument can see all of time and all events in time, correct, because its all there. What you seem to be confused about is that all of time can exist, but not necessarily all events in time exist, but it doesn't work that way, if all of time exists then all events in time exist as well, and that being the case, so too would the event of you travelling to the past have always existed. So again, if all of time exists, and has always existed, and if god from outside of time can see all of time, its past, present and its future, then how are you freely choosing anything? Try to remember in answering what your own argument is, your argument is that all of time exist, and if it all exists, then nothing can change within it, its all already there and always has been which is why you contend that god can see it all.

[Sparko]

Sparko, Sparko, Sparko, you just don't get it. Please try to focus on what I am saying. Your argument is that all of time, past, present and future all exist, and that all of time has existed since the beginning of time itself, since its creation. Do you understand what that argument entails? It means that all events in time have also always existed since the beginning of time, it means that when time was created, it was created whole, i.e. all of time, and all events in time have all existed from the beginning of time. Thats why god, according to your argument can see all of time and all events in time, correct, because its all there. What you seem to be confused about is that all of time can exist, but not necessarily all events in time exist, but it doesn't work that way, if all of time exists then all events in time exist as well, and that being the case, so too would the event of you travelling to the past have always existed. So again, if all of time exists, and has always existed, and if god from outside of time can see all of time, its past, present and its future, then how are you freely choosing anything? Try to remember in answering what your own argument is, your argument is that all of time exist, and if it all exists, then nothing can change within it, its all already there and always has been which is why you contend that god can see it all.

I completely understand what you are saying. You are wrong. You can't think 4-dimensionally. To even say "all of time has existed since the beginning of time" shows you have no clue what you are even talking about. How can time NOT have existed from the beginning of time?

Jim, at this point it is as useless to talk to you about time, as it is to talk to you about physics, or even the speed of light. We all remember how that went.

[JimL]

I completely understand what you are saying. You are wrong. You can't think 4-dimensionally. To even say "all of time has existed since the beginning of time" shows you have no clue what you are even talking about. How can time NOT have existed from the beginning of time?

No you don't know what I'm talking about Sparko. It has nothing to do with a fourth dimension. Time either unfolds from the present to future or all of time, including the future, already exists. Its one or the other, you can't have it both ways, and that is what you can't seem to grasp. But since that is your argument, why don't you try to explain in logical terms how that argument works. Bet you can't do it!

Jim, at this point it is as useless to talk to you about time, as it is to talk to you about physics, or even the speed of light.

Of course it is useless for you to talk, because you have no idea what you are talking about. If you did know what you were talking about then i'm sure that you would give a logical explanation as to how your future could be open for you, but closed to god. Ever hear of the law of non-contradiction?

We all remember how that went.

Yes we do, apparently you had no understanding of the block universe either.

[Sparko]

No you don't know what I'm talking about Sparko. It has nothing to do with a fourth dimension. Time either unfolds from the present to future or all of time, including the future, already exists. Its one or the other, you can't have it both ways, and that is what you can't seem to grasp. But since that is your argument, why don't you try to explain in logical terms how that argument works. Bet you can't do it!

Of course it is useless for you to talk, because you have no idea what you are talking about. If you did know what you were talking about then i'm sure that you would give a logical explanation as to how your future could be open for you, but closed to god. Ever hear of the law of non-contradiction?

Yes we do, apparently you had no understanding of the block universe either.

Yet time is the fourth dimension, and has been shown to be so experimentally. In fact time moves at different rates depending on your speed. Even you know that. It is not some mystical thing that suddenly comes into existence and "unfolds" as you put it. The universe is a total artifact, including all of space-time. If it were not, then you would be claiming that an entire new universe of mass pops into existence at every "instant" and disappears at every instant. Magically, for no reason. And you call yourself an atheist. LOL.

I have explained it in logical terms, dumbed down for your level of understanding. I don't think you would understand special relativity.

[JimL]

Yet time is the fourth dimension, and has been shown to be so experimentally. In fact time moves at different rates depending on your speed. Even you know that. It is not some mystical thing that suddenly comes into existence and "unfolds" as you put it. The universe is a total artifact, including all of space-time. If it were not, then you would be claiming that an entire new universe of mass pops into existence at every "instant" and disappears at every instant. Magically, for no reason. And you call yourself an atheist. LOL.

I have explained it in logical terms, dumbed down for your level of understanding. I don't think you would understand special relativity.

No you haven't. Tell me how your future can be both always opened to you, and always closed to god? Bet you can't do it?

[37818]

Wrong, what we can't accept is the concept of omniscience along with free will, and you have yet to give a logical explanation in support of it. When you can do that, rather than just asserting your belief in its validity, let me know.

The reason you do not accept omnipresence along with "free will" is as stated.

. . . Their idea is causal. Finite concept of a god.

[Tassman]

The reason you do not accept omnipresence along with "free will" is as stated.

[Sparko]

No you haven't. Tell me how your future can be both always opened to you, and always closed to god? Bet you can't do it?

assume that everything is "fixed" in time.

Now explain WHY a decision was 'fixed' - Why did I decide to buy a bagel for breakfast instead of eating cold cereal at home? Why did Bob decide to ask Betty to marry him? If there is no free will, then why are these things done? Whether "fixed" or not from an external view (or a future viewpoint looking at the past as we can experience ourselves) the decisions were done freely and not just some random event as you seem to think it would be. All freewill choices and decisions can only be made once and are "fixed" into time. Time RECORDS our choices. When viewed from the far future, or externally, the choices are all visible to us as one "fixed" space/time unit. Just like looking at a DVD disc. The disc contains an entire recording that is "fixed" - yet the video it contains (assuming it is of home movies) is actually showing free will decisions made by the people in the video. It is a recording of time. The past in this case. The things it shows is fixed, yet the decisions were done freely. When the people were making the decisions that were recorded, they could have made different decisions, which were "open" to them. And if they did, the video would have recorded THOSE decisions. Yet you as the holder of the completed DVD would still know what those decisions were because they are "fixed" on the DVD.

That is what you cannot seem to grasp, and why it is a waste of time to continue this discussion with you.

[JimL]

assume that everything is "fixed" in time.

Now explain WHY a decision was 'fixed' - Why did I decide to buy a bagel for breakfast instead of eating cold cereal at home? Why did Bob decide to ask Betty to marry him? If there is no free will, then why are these things done? Whether "fixed" or not from an external view (or a future viewpoint looking at the past as we can experience ourselves) the decisions were done freely and not just some random event as you seem to think it would be. All freewill choices and decisions can only be made once and are "fixed" into time. Time RECORDS our choices. When viewed from the far future, or externally, the choices are all visible to us as one "fixed" space/time unit. Just like looking at a DVD disc. The disc contains an entire recording that is "fixed" - yet the video it contains (assuming it is of home movies) is actually showing free will decisions made by the people in the video. It is a recording of time. The past in this case. The things it shows is fixed, yet the decisions were done freely. When the people were making the decisions that were recorded, they could have made different decisions, which were "open" to them. And if they did, the video would have recorded THOSE decisions. Yet you as the holder of the completed DVD would still know what those decisions were because they are "fixed" on the DVD.

So, what you are saying is that all of time, all events in time, including what we from our internal perspective would call future events, from an external perspective are fixed. Now, would you care to tell me whether or not, from that external perspective, i.e. from gods perspective, all of time and all events in time were fixed at the instant of creation? Put it this way, when god created Adam on the sixth day and god saw it, and thought it good, was Adams entire life span there for god to see at that instant, or did Adam have to act before god could see what Adam would do?

That is what you cannot seem to grasp, and why it is a waste of time to continue this discussion with you.

An argument, has to make sense in order for one to grasp or understand it, and your idea, in so far as you have labored to piece it together, just doesn't make sense. What you fail to understand is that in your DVD analogy, the whole DVD exists, and has always existed whole. It wasn't filmed one take at a time. So what you would need to explain is that if the movie were filmed one take at a time, how then can the acts that have yet to be filmed be seen from any perspective?

[Sparko]

So, what you are saying is that all of time, all events in time, including what we from our internal perspective would call future events, from an external perspective are fixed. Now, would you care to tell me whether or not, from that external perspective, i.e. from gods perspective, all of time and all events in time were fixed at the instant of creation? Put it this way, when god created Adam on the sixth day and god saw it, and thought it good, was Adams entire life span there for god to see at that instant, or did Adam have to act before god could see what Adam would do?

An argument, has to make sense in order for one to grasp or understand it, and your idea, in so far as you have labored to piece it together, just doesn't make sense. What you fail to understand is that in your DVD analogy, the whole DVD exists, and has always existed whole. It wasn't filmed one take at a time. So what you would need to explain is that if the movie were filmed one take at a time, how then can the acts that have yet to be filmed be seen from any perspective?

how can something be fixed at the "instant" of creation, since that instant is just one instant in the timeline of the universe? Your question makes no sense. If you mean from an external view, then it still makes no sense because how can you have an "instant" external to time itself?

No analogy is perfect, JimL, so you trying to pick apart the DVD analogy based on the fact that it was recorded in time itself, is just baseless and irrelevant to the point I was making. Try harder.

Like I said, it is useless to discuss this with you because you just can't grasp the concepts nor the terminology. I am done here for now.

[37818]

God being infinite, omnipotent and omniscient. The creative act is finite and a limitation of power and a limitation of omniscience. God's infinite, omnipotence and omniscience did not cease upon those placed limitation upon creation and the act of creating. There is the heresy of open theism on account of the latter limitations God chose. Open theists are wrong just as you are in this.

The Son of God is both God and the Son. But He is not His own Father. The Son took on the limitations even being eternally the Son. The Son is God the being the Creator, John 1:2-4, 9-14.

They are not the same Person, Mark 13:32; Acts 1:7.

The Son is how God appeared to men. John 1:18; Genesis 22:12, saying ". . . for now I know . . . ." God is omniscient, but that statement is not. Yet it was God who said it.

Other theist Christians choke on this too. So you do not accept it. OK.

[Tassman]

God being infinite, omnipotent and omniscient. The creative act is finite and a limitation of power and a limitation of omniscience. God's infinite, omnipotence and omniscience did not cease upon those placed limitation upon creation and the act of creating. There is the heresy of open theism on account of the latter limitations God chose. Open theists are wrong just as you are in this.

The Son of God is both God and the Son. But He is not His own Father. The Son took on the limitations even being eternally the Son. The Son is God the being the Creator, John 1:2-4, 9-14.

They are not the same Person, Mark 13:32; Acts 1:7.

The Son is how God appeared to men. John 1:18; Genesis 22:12, saying ". . . for now I know . . . ." God is omniscient, but that statement is not. Yet it was God who said it.

Other theist Christians choke on this too. So you do not accept it. OK.

Scriptural quotes are only useful for those who believe them to be more than folk tales about myth and magic.

[JimL]

God being infinite, omnipotent and omniscient. The creative act is finite and a limitation of power and a limitation of omniscience. God's infinite, omnipotence and omniscience did not cease upon those placed limitation upon creation and the act of creating. There is the heresy of open theism on account of the latter limitations God chose. Open theists are wrong just as you are in this.

The Son of God is both God and the Son. But He is not His own Father. The Son took on the limitations even being eternally the Son. The Son is God the being the Creator, John 1:2-4, 9-14.

They are not the same Person, Mark 13:32; Acts 1:7.

The Son is how God appeared to men. John 1:18; Genesis 22:12, saying ". . . for now I know . . . ." God is omniscient, but that statement is not. Yet it was God who said it.

Other theist Christians choke on this too. So you do not accept it. OK.

If the son is how god appeared to men then why did the son say "why do you call me good, there is none good but the father." Apparently Jesus didn't believe in that trinity nonsense either.