Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Does an Omniscient Creator Lead to Fatalism?
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by JimL; 01-26-2018, 06:30 PM.
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostI find it odd that athiests, who basically always use "science" as a hammer against religion and claim to be rational, would be arguing for the A-theory of time since everything in physics (General and Special Relativity, quantum mechanics) all show that time is intricately linked with space and space-time is a four dimensional framework of our universe. So time exists just as much as space does. That means the future and past exist. Yet JimL and others insist on using a very old theory of time (a-theory) created by a philosopher over 100 years ago.
Second, you keep coming back to this B-Theory, and I've been doing some reading on it as a result. The concept was new to me - so thanks for introducing me to it. However, I'm not finding it to be what you claim it to be. First of all, it is rooted in McTaggart's work, which dates to 1908, which my math tells me is 110 years ago. Second, it has been largely associated with philosophy and metaphysics, where it now dominates how time is discussed. It is also part of theoretical physics as an offshoot of special relativity (among other things), but nowhere am I finding the implication that all of time exists as you suggest. Rather, it speaks to the reality that "now" or "present" is an illusion (which is kind of obvious if you think about it), and that "present" can be different in different places in the universe as a function of the relationship with space. Linguisticly, the primary difference is that A-Series (or A-Theory) time uses tenses related to past/present/future. B-Series (or B-Theory) does not. Instead, it is relational, citing events as before or after or concurent with one another, rather than the hard language of past/present/future. That fits better with the relativistic model of special relativity.
So far, that is what I have understood from my reading. If you have citations that suggest that past and future "exist" in some kind of eternal now, as you suggest, then I'd like to know what they are. I'm not finding those references.Last edited by carpedm9587; 01-26-2018, 06:50 PM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostFirst - I'm an atheist, so presumably this applies to me? I'm not aware of EVER using science as a "hammer against religion." Can you point out where I have done so? For the record, I find such sweeping statements (i.e., "atheists," suggesting all of them, and "basically always") to usually be wrong. They are simply too absolute - too broad.
Second, you keep coming back to this B-Theory, and I've been doing some reading on it as a result. The concept was new to me - so thanks for introducing me to it. However, I'm not finding it to be what you claim it to be. First of all, it is rooted in McTaggart's work, which dates to 1908, which my math tells me is 110 years ago. Second, it has been largely associated with philosophy and metaphysics, where it now dominates how time is discussed. It is also part of theoretical physics as an offshoot of special relativity (among other things), but nowhere am I finding the implication that all of time exists as you suggest. Rather, it speaks to the reality that "now" or "present" is an illusion (which is kind of obvious if you think about it), and that "present" can be different in different places in the universe as a function of the relationship with space. Linguisticly, the primary difference is that A-Series (or A-Theory) time uses tenses related to past/present/future. B-Series (or B-Theory) does not. Instead, it is relational, citing events as before or after or concurent with one another, rather than the hard language of past/present/future. That fits better with the relativistic model of special relativity.
So far, that is what I have understood from my reading. If you have citations that suggest that past and future "exist" in some kind of eternal now, as you suggest, then I'd like to know what they are. I'm not finding those references.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThe way I understand it is that time, according to the B-theory, is another dimension, and just like the 3 dimensions of space, time is all there. All events that occur in this time have always, and are always occuring, accept that they are each occuring in their own now moment along the time line coordinate. In other words, Washington is crossing the delaware as we speak but in a different location along the time coordinate.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostNo, his knowledge is temporally prior to your choice but logically AFTER your choice. His knowledge is dependent on your choice. If you choose different, he will know different. Logically it is no different than if someone in the future knows what decisions you made in the past. Let's say I know everything you did yesterday. Did I cause you to do it? No. Now suppose I have a time machine and go back to last week. I still have my same knowledge of what you did yesterday but it is now a week in the future to where I am. You will still do what you did, and I "pre-know" it but am not the cause of your actions. And if by some chance you change what you do, that would change what I know before I travel back in time and would change what I know after I travel back in time so I would still know what you will do.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostEver hear of the law of non-contradiction? I'm sure you have, so how is it you ignore it in this case? It's obvious logic. You can't have free will from your own perspective but not have it from anothers perspective at the same time.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostActually, I cannot, Chrawnus. That is a consequence of god's creative action - not the foreknowledge. God created the specific universe where my choices was X. I cannot choose "Y" because that is not the universe god created. I may feel I can freely choose - but I actually cannot.
It has nothing to do with omniscience, except in so far as God used that omniscience to make a creative choice. Gods choice of "what I would choose" is ontologically prior to my choice, and determines my choice. God chooses and creates the universe where I do Y. I can no longer do X, because that is not the universe god created.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Postcannot choose otherwise.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostNOT actually free will...merely the illusion of it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostNo it's not. It's not even close to the same thing. That's two distinctly different statements.
Unsupported assertions does not an argument make.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostJust saying I'm wrong is not good enough. You need to say WHY you think me wrong. Otherwise I have nothing to argue against.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostI find it odd that athiests, who basically always use "science" as a hammer against religion and claim to be rational, would be arguing for the A-theory of time since everything in physics (General and Special Relativity, quantum mechanics) all show that time is intricately linked with space and space-time is a four dimensional framework of our universe. So time exists just as much as space does. That means the future and past exist. Yet JimL and others insist on using a very old theory of time (a-theory) created by a philosopher over 100 years ago.
Really, Sparkles.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI can't say why I think you're wrong until you provide me with an actual argument for your position instead of pure assertions.
Comment
-
There's no logical need for any god to be either omniscient or omnipotent, though those features clearly fulfill philosophical and psychological needs among their followers. All that's actually needed, for even the most exalted being, is to be more knowledgeable and powerful than its followers can imagine.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI don't ignore it. I just don't agree with the statement that I "have free will from [my] own perspective but [do not] have it from anothers perspective at the same time". I have free will no matter what perspective you look at it from.
On the other hand, according to the A-theory, time does flow, only the present is real, the future is open, so there is no way to know that future unless, like in dominoes, what will happen, is built into the creation. In other words, if the future is known by an omniscient being according to A-theory, then the reason it is known is because he engineered it that way, and so, just like in B-theory, free will would be is impossible. Now like Tass said, you can disagree if you want, but unless you can actually refute the logic of the argument with your own counter argument, then your disagreement is of little value to the discussion.Last edited by JimL; 01-27-2018, 08:28 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostBut I don't believe that God created a universe where my choice was X, I believe God created a universe where my choice would be X. I don't hold to a view of time that posits that the future is equally as real as the present. Only the future (and perhaps the past) exists, not the future, except as knowledge in God's mind. In other words, God created a universe where I would eventually choose X, not a universe where a future where I have chosen X already exists.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 06-15-2024, 09:43 AM
|
8 responses
70 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 05:25 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
468 responses
2,122 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-05-2024, 04:09 AM | ||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
254 responses
1,245 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 05-22-2024, 12:21 PM | ||
Started by whag, 01-18-2024, 01:35 PM
|
53 responses
419 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-11-2024, 11:01 AM |
Comment