ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Clete]

Forgive me for not reading the first 98 pages of the thread, but the original post merely asks for my opinion, so I shall now give it.

First, I shall summarize my points, because I know that many will be unwilling to read all of this.

1. The understanding of time that we get from physics falsifies the claim that the future is not real.

2. Relativity accurately states that there is no absolute time, just as there is no absolute length, no "origin" in the universe (Notice that I said "in" and not "of." I use the term in the sense of a coordinate system).

3. Quantum mechanics demonstrates that the future can, through the non-locality of spacetime, influence or "clarify" the past.

Note: You should not expect for these claims to conform to the "common sense" you have formed from daily life. They do not, but they are true nonetheless.

To claim that the future is nonexistent is to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of time. I regret that I missed out on the absolute time discussion, as my remarks are pertinent to that thread as well.

Einstein's special relativity tells us that the speed of light is invariant in all inertial reference frames -- in all "laboratories" or places that are moving with constant velocity with respect to one another. As a result, we discover that many of the things we once thought were invariant. For instance, SR implies the relativity of simultaneity -- two events that take place simultaneously in one reference frame do not necessarily take place simultaneously in a different frame. Allow me to provide a particularly fun example.

Imagine a train traveling in a certain direction at a certain speed. To amplify the effect, let the speed be a significant fraction of c, the speed of light (say, 0.866c). Now, imagine that there is a light bulb precisely in the center of the train. On each end of the train is a set of photoreactive explosives. The light bulb releases a single pulse of light, which travels outward in both (and all other) directions at c. Alice, who is standing on the train, would see the light pulse hit both sets of explosives at the same time, and she would see both ends of the train explode at the same time. You see, to Alice, the train is not moving, because it is not moving relative to her own motion. Bob, however, is standing on the ground near the tracks, and in his reference frame, the train is moving. Therefore, he sees the front of the train "running away" from the light pulse and the back end getting closer to it. Therefore, he would argue that the back end explodes first, because the speed of light is invariant. Because there are no special or correct inertial frames, both people are right. One cannot categorically state that two things separated by space happen at the same moment in time.

I say all of that to say this: time cannot be absolute. The problems that Mr. Enyart and others have with relativity seem to me to stem from his refusal to abandon absolute time. Let's examine time dilation without clocks, to avoid undue confusion. Muons are a kind of subatomic particle with a certain, very short half-life. That is, it does not take very long at all for them to decay into other, more stable particles. In experiments, scientists have measured this half-life when the particle was at rest in the lab frame. They have also measured the half-life when the particle was moving at very high speeds in the lab frame. They found in all cases that the muons "lived" longer when they were going faster. If you still don't believe me, believe this: the GPS system, which can determine your position within a few meters, takes General and Special Relativity into account in the calculations that govern its operation.

This may all seem to be beside the point, but now we have established, I hope, that we cannot speak of such things as absolute time, and thus what I see as the future is the past to some observer. For further and more lucid discussion of this and more exciting relativistic consequences on a technical level, see any entry-level physics text that includes modern topics. For a lay approach, see The Fabric of the Cosmos, The Elegant Universe, or A Brief History of Time, to name a few.

Even more bizarre is what we learn from quantum mechanics. Let's consider what is widely known as the double-slit experiment. Set up an opaque screen in which two small slits have been cut very close together. Shine light (preferably a laser) at the slits, and you will get an interference pattern -- there will be light and dark regions. Cover one of the slits, and the interference pattern goes away and you get a normal distribution of photon impacts on the sensor. Now, turn down the intensity of the laser so that it is only emitting one photon at a time. When you leave both slits open, you still get the interference pattern. That's right, the photon doesn't just go through one slit or the other, there is interference. Now, add a sensor that does not interfere with the path of the photon but does record whether it travels through one or the other. The interference vanishes. Turn off the sensor, and it reappears. Finally, create an experiment in which sometimes the sensor is on and sometimes it is off. Make sure that the sensor decides this after the light has supposedly passed. If the sensor is on, there will be no interference. If it is off, there will be. Scientists expect that this will hold true, even if the "decision" to go through one slit or the other is made many years prior to the action of the sensor.

The preceding is not intended to be an argument; I am reporting results from actual experiments, as described in FotC. What can we infer from these experiments? The future shapes the present and the past.

Finally, there is the simple fact that time is no more than one of the dimensions of the universe, just like length or width. Therefore, time is a part of the universe. I doubt that anyone here would argue that God is bound by location in space. He is omnipresent. Why, then, should we believe that God experiences time in the same way that we do? He is not a physical part of this universe. He created the universe and time with it (however He chose to do so).

As a final note, many (particularly those who don't really believe in God) claim that things like quantum uncertainty (the fact that it is impossible to know certain related quantities with complete accuracy) suggest that determinism is completely fictitious, that even God cannot know with complete certainty what will happen, although he could know the exact probabilities involved. I do not have a satisfactory answer to this challenge, but I believe there is one, and my belief is not unfounded. There are some scientists who are beginning to wonder whether or not quantum mechanics can be made deterministic again through certain esoteric methods.

Is Time Absolute or Relative: Bob Enyart argues it's absolute...

If you think you're qualified and would like to debate Bob on this issue, PM Knight and see about doing so via a one on one. Bob was trying to set up a one on one with someone else but they chickened out. :Zimster:

 

[docrob57]

Is Time Absolute or Relative: Bob Enyart argues it's absolute...

If you think you're qualified and would like to debate Bob on this issue, PM Knight and see about doing so via a one on one. Bob was trying to set up a one on one with someone else but they chickened out. :Zimster:

I second that emotion!!! :spam:

 

[seekinganswers]

Is Time Absolute or Relative: Bob Enyart argues it's absolute...

If you think you're qualified and would like to debate Bob on this issue, PM Knight and see about doing so via a one on one. Bob was trying to set up a one on one with someone else but they chickened out. :Zimster:

A Layman Questions Gravitational Time Dilation

● Einstein’s theory of General Relativity is presented as indicating that gravity influences time, in that time flows relatively more slowly in a stronger gravitational field as compared to time in a weaker field.

These are not correct assumptions with regard to the theory of relativity. Gravity does not influence time. Time does not slow down according to the theory of relativity.

You have to understand, when Einstein proposed his theory of relativity, he wasn't just talking about revising our understandings of gravity and time. He was actually proposing a whole new way of understanding the cosmos. He proposed that space was more than just height, depth, and width, but in fact he posited that time was also a dimension of space. In this sense, Einstein was not making time relative as Bob posits above, but was in fact making it much more absolute. He suggested that fabric of space was four-dimentional, and that gravity was evidence for this fourth dimention.

You see, orbits of large celetial bodies could not be explained by the physics handed down to us by Newton. There was no explanation for where the energy that holds the planets around the sun, and the stars within a galaxy was coming from. Newton's laws of motion state that an object in motion will continue in motion unless acted upon by another force. Well, we could calculate what the force of gravity should be with Newton's theories, but we could not explain where that energy was coming from. So Einstein had to ask, was Newton's understanding gravity as a force correct? People had tried to explain the source of the energy through a number of theories, but none of them could be supported through empirical evidence.

This is where Einstein comes in. He posited that space was not truly three-dimensional, but was in fact four-dimensional in nature. And this invisible fourth dimention he posited, was time. And what happens in the presence of matter in this space, is that matter will warp the very fabric of this four-dimentional space-time continuum. So the more mass you have, the more warped space becomes, and what in fact occurs with the orbits of the planets is not the work of any force, but is simply the expression of this warp in space-time. The planets are continuing their motion (since no force acts upon them), but the continuation of their motion must follow the fabric of space. So, if space-time is acted upon by a massive object, then objects of lesser mass (seeing how they cannot warp space as much as the object with greater mass) will follow the curvature of space-time produced by the massive object. Planets still travel in a "straight" line, but that line placed on a curved space becomes on orbit.

So how does Einstein give empirical evidence for this theory? Well, he goes to light. You see, light is the propogation of electro/magnetic fields through space. In a vacuum (like outer-space) light propogates at a finite speed, and another added bonus is that light has no mass. So, if Newton's theory of gravitational force acting upon mass were correct, then light should not be affected by gravitational pull. On the other hand, if Einstein's theory is correct, than light (though it has no mass) will propogate along the very curvature of space, and so, gravity will affect light. And he found this evidence through a solar eclipse, because the light eminating from the sun to the earth that passed along the horizon of the moon's disk was affected by the moon's gravity and "bent" towards the earth.

So Einstein's theory of relativity in fact is a statement about the very cosmos in which we find ourselves. We are not in a three dimentional space, but are, in fact, located in a space-time continuum (4-dimensions). What this means is that massive objects do not only warp space, but also time. That is why you will find a slowing of time as you go closer and closer to a massive object. It is not that it is "slowing" time; what is happening is a warping of the space-time continuum, the affects of which causes an object to pass through stretched time (kind of like the straight motion of a moving object is warped or curved when it passes through warped space). Of course, these affects are not great enough to make a huge difference (unless you're in a black-hole, and you would not live long enough to see those affects).

Now I haven't even touched Einsteins conversation on motion, because an object in motion also warps space-time similarly to the mass of an object. But what I want to stress is that Einstein is not relativizing time. When you measure time in a frame of reference, it is always going to propogate at the same rate. What Einstein discusses in relativity is the difference between measurements of time when you are in two separate frames of reference. He gives us some simple examples to understand this as well. When a person on the earth observes another person in a train, how will things be different? And what Einstein proposes (which has been empirically measured) is that objects in two different frames of reference will have differing experiences of time and space. It's not that time slows down in those frames of reference, but our experience of time and space is drastically altered.

So our friend Bob needs to actually understand the theory of relativity before he decides to give commentary on it, for otherwise he only reveals his foolishness. The theory of relativity has huge practical applications in our current world. All of our space program would be nonexistant without Einstein. And with the space program goes many of the technologies we take for granted today.

Peace,
Michael

 

[godrulz]

Speculative, contradictory theoretical astrophysics does not change the fact that time is a fundamental aspect of reality, not a 4th dimension. Time is simply duration, sequence, succession and is experienced by any personal being, including the eternal God. Before creation, God experienced duration in the relations of the Godhead. Creation and incarnation happened at a different 'time' for God than trillions of years ago. Simultaneity or 'eternal now' is incoherent. Relativity or physical phenomenon after creation do not deal with the fundamental aspects of duration experienced by God before creation. Time is more philosophical than physical. We should also not confuse the subjective measures or experiences of time by humans with the simple aspect of succession in God's reality (with or without creation).

 

[Clete]

These are not correct assumptions with regard to the theory of relativity. Gravity does not influence time. Time does not slow down according to the theory of relativity.

I'm sorry but you're just very simply wrong on this.

Gravitational Time Dilation
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity predicted that time does not flow at a fixed rate: moving clocks appear to tick more slowly relative to their stationary counterparts. But this effect only becomes really significant at very high velocities that app roach the speed of light.

When "generalized" to include gravitation, the equations of relativity predict that gravity, or the curvature of spacetime by matter, not only stretches or shrinks distances (depending on their direction with respect to the gravitational field) but also w ill appear to slow down or "dilate" the flow of time.

In most circumstances in the universe, such time dilation is miniscule, but it can become very significant when spacetime is curved by a massive object such as a black hole. For example, an observer far from a black hole would observe time passing extremely slowly for an astronaut falling through the hole's boundary. In fact, the distant observer would never see the hapless victim actually fall in. His or her time, as measured by the observer, would appear to stand still. The slowing of time near a very simple black hole has been simulated on supercomputers at NCSA and visualized in a computer-generated animation.​

From General Relativity

 

[Letsargue]

I'm sorry but you're just very simply wrong on this.

Gravitational Time Dilation
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity predicted that time does not flow at a fixed rate: moving clocks appear to tick more slowly relative to their stationary counterparts. But this effect only becomes really significant at very high velocities that app roach the speed of light.

When "generalized" to include gravitation, the equations of relativity predict that gravity, or the curvature of spacetime by matter, not only stretches or shrinks distances (depending on their direction with respect to the gravitational field) but also w ill appear to slow down or "dilate" the flow of time.

In most circumstances in the universe, such time dilation is miniscule, but it can become very significant when spacetime is curved by a massive object such as a black hole. For example, an observer far from a black hole would observe time passing extremely slowly for an astronaut falling through the hole's boundary. In fact, the distant observer would never see the hapless victim actually fall in. His or her time, as measured by the observer, would appear to stand still. The slowing of time near a very simple black hole has been simulated on supercomputers at NCSA and visualized in a computer-generated animation.​

From General Relativity

---All of that is utter and total nonsense. You must break Physical Law after Law, to explain that junk. -- That is pure Science dribble that gains them their funding. Those bone heads have to keep coming up with their stupid marvels to live in their nice homes.
---If you stop, and actually think, You can’t help but see the fallacy in all that junk. -- But we can't do that now can we?? -- We'll just keep swollowing their trash.
*
-------------Paul---
*

 

[koban]

---All of that is utter and total nonsense. You must break Physical Law after Law, to explain that junk. -- That is pure Science dribble that gains them their funding. Those bone heads have to keep coming up with their stupid marvels to live in their nice homes.
---If you stop, and actually think, You can’t help but see the fallacy in all that junk. -- But we can't do that now can we?? -- We'll just keep swollowing their trash.
*
-------------Paul---
*

So speaks the spelling-challenged Professor Marvel! :chuckle:

Tell me Paul, do you accept the nonsense those boneheads keep talking about regarding splitting the atom and getting unlimited energy from nuclear foces?

Sounds like a "bunch of dribble" to me!

 

[Clete]

---All of that is utter and total nonsense. You must break Physical Law after Law, to explain that junk. -- That is pure Science dribble that gains them their funding. Those bone heads have to keep coming up with their stupid marvels to live in their nice homes.
---If you stop, and actually think, You can’t help but see the fallacy in all that junk. -- But we can't do that now can we?? -- We'll just keep swollowing their trash.
*
-------------Paul---
*

Well I agree that it is untrue but I don't think I would go as far as to say that its "utter and total nonsense". Einstein was a pretty smart guy, he just wrong.

Keep in mind that I didn't post that in order to say that I agree with it but only to show that General Relativity does in fact say that gravity effects time.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Philetus]

Godrulz: “Does anyone else find seekings' posts hard to follow and hard to respond to?”

Yes, but I’m always looking for somebody to talk with.
He didn’t address his post to me ... but, with (or without) permission, I would like to respond. I’m emailing this by way of my home computer relying on others to post it for me so I may not see any reply for a few days, if then.

Finally, someone who posts longer posts than I do if not more than you, Godrulz.

SEEKING (post #1469 I think)
“I continue to have qualms with Open Theism because it continues to understand God from the perspective of the Creation.“

From what perspective then do you suggest creatures can know anything about God? The Open View is an honest reconsideration of the self-revelation God has made known to us, what is said of God in scripture (all that is said of God in scripture) and what is caused or allowed to be seen in the person of Jesus as opposed to starting with Augustine’s exaggerated view of immutability. The insistence that God is unaffected by creation as a notion that he obviously brought to the table from his earlier association with Greek Philosophy and (inspite of his many good writings) is not a week argument to be dismissed lightly. Augustine has become so idolized in much of the church that even to question his starting point is seen as paramount to heresy. I commend THEOLOGYONLINE for allowing this discussion. It seems to be so threatening to many that the topic has been banned on some ‘Christian Forms’.

Is there danger in personalizing God? Yes! It is risky for both God and us. Creatures love things and make images or representations of god in to objects of worship. Yet, that can not be justification for hiding our heads in the sand and dismissing even part of what we read in scripture. I agree that the god who relates to us on our terms alone is not god. But, what point is there in a god who does not relate to us as persons at all? Is he is any more than an object to be worshiped ... an idol that neither hears nor helps?

You seem to fail to recognize that scripture is full of God’s terms for personal relationships. Terms God has sovereignly committed to follow. These terms for governing relationships are what keeps personal relationships from degenerating into idolatry. This is for me at least what distinguishes the God who created us in His own image from the god created in the image of the Greeks, theologians or common panhandlers seeking to manipulate God for goodies. Much of the Open View makes us uneasy because it requires us to be much more responsible in allowing God to be the God who allows us to be us and suffers when we are not the us he created us to be.

Open View is not attempting to redefine God but rather to allow the self revelation of God in scripture and in Jesus to break free of the hindrances to relationship that have crept into our understanding of God. If the bible is not the revelation of God’s attempt at relating to humanity, what is it? If Jesus was doing anything other than making the heart, mind and will of God known in order to relate, what was he doing? If God was not in Christ reconciling the world unto himself for the purpose of relationship, what is the purpose of reconciliation? I see God in Christ as redeeming and refashioning me in His image for the purpose of relationship that involves me; something a Closed view either does not allow for or frustrates beyond comprehension. The danger of misrepresenting God is not new.

“If God is merely the object out of which we form an image of God, then our God is nothing more than an idol; he may not be fashioned from stone or wood, but he has become an idol nonetheless.”

My point exactly, only I would say a god fashioned from pen and ink or a popular trend is no less an idol, even if the paper has been recycled or the ink spilled could fill an ocean or the trend has lasted centuries.

My answer also is let God be God. Still, those who fail to attempt to understand God will ultimately remain in danger of idiolatry, and this is not necessary. The mystery has been made known to us (and is being made known) in scripture and in Jesus. Yes, we must worship God in "spirit and in truth" but we do not worship an unknown God. We worship the father of Jesus Christ. I would argue that rather than “define your relationship with God” ... just have one. I think you will find that God is far more loving, redemptive and even personable than any theology can imagine let alone define. He is even more competent than our idols will allow him to be. He is in control of himself.

As for the bad guys playing catch with live babies on bayonets, (an evil you used to illustrate your point that makes me shudder) I cannot idolize God out of that one. I refuse to make God responsible for such evil. I only have to believe that God is competent and will deal with them in keeping with the terms he has spelled out both in the book and on the cross. He is in ultimate control and yet allows such evil. He has the last word and he is faithful.

So where do we begin to understand God? We must start with the God on the cross in creation relating to God’s creatures. Why the cross? After all , it is mere foolishness to the Greeks But, the cross is the wisdom of God for those being saved from using bayonets on babies. Though it does not always save the victims from the acts of evil men, it has the power to save and make new the men capable of such acts. The cross is the only remedy for evil I find in the scripture: a personal loving God who suffers at the hands of evil men in order to restore relationships that reflect his unchanging character. The cross is God’s terms. The cross is the power behind “Go and sin no more.”

The cross does not define God. The cross reveals the true nature of God. It defines us! It does not even defend God, as the problem of evil often assumes. The cross holds no defense only offence. The cross exposes us and evil for who’s it is and reveals God as the greatest risk taker for loves sake.

I too, am horrified at a God who allows evil ... horrified at God for allowing evil. And my horror is intensified when I come to the cross where God suffers as I do, but more importantly suffers because of me and still desires to relate to me. At the cross, I am horrified because I see evil for what it is ... my own. Not God’s. My horror turns to brokenness not because God could have stopped evil, but precisely because he did not. He who said do not repay evil for evil confronts evil on his own terms and in keeping with his own rules at great expense and risk in order to relate to me ... on his terms!

That changes men and that changes everything. And that is no whim.

“I find very few who were willing to accept God's call (Mary and Joseph would be examples of the few); and I have yet to find anyone that was able to resist God's call (for God is quite persistent and very persuasive).”

How can you have it both ways? Either few are willing to accept God’s call or no one is able to resist it. You just can’t have both. Resisting God’s will does not make God any less than God. Men with books and baronets are no more a threat to God than men with nails. And no theology will ever make God smaller than he was when we nailed him to the cross. God allowed himself to become 'small', Jesus emptied himself of all the big definitions that we have come to idolize so that we could really know the Father. Maybe your God is still too big to love. Dump the big definitions. Clean the idols from your book shelves. Get to know God in the face of Jesus.

Philetus

 

[godrulz]

Well said, wise one. Love and holiness are key, not hyper-sovereignty and strong immutability. God is dynamic, responsive, creative, providential, not static and manipulative.

 

[seekinganswers]

Speculative, contradictory theoretical astrophysics does not change the fact that time is a fundamental aspect of reality, not a 4th dimension. Time is simply duration, sequence, succession and is experienced by any personal being, including the eternal God. Before creation, God experienced duration in the relations of the Godhead. Creation and incarnation happened at a different 'time' for God than trillions of years ago. Simultaneity or 'eternal now' is incoherent. Relativity or physical phenomenon after creation do not deal with the fundamental aspects of duration experienced by God before creation. Time is more philosophical than physical. We should also not confuse the subjective measures or experiences of time by humans with the simple aspect of succession in God's reality (with or without creation).

Well then, Godrulz, you ought to get on board with all those conspiracy theorists who speculate that the US and every other government has failed to develop any sort of space program, because I assure you that ours and other space programs are entirely dependant upon the theory of Einstein in which time is a dimension of space, it is not merely a philisophical concept. You should reject the science text books and their images of the heavenly bodies, because if Einstein's theory is false, then our space program never took us to the planets.

Time is not a subjective thing; it is embedded in the fabric of space and can be manipulated by mass in the same way that other objects can be caught up in the distortion of space caused by even more massive objects. And I suppose if you reject Einstein, you will have to revert to the theories of Newton, and call the mysterious force that holds the planets around the sun the force of God, because no other scientist has yet been able to account for that mysterious source of energy other than through Einstein's theories (now you might be thinking of dark energy at this time, but that only deals with things on the scale of galaxies and how they are affecting one another). Please explain to me how light can bend through the affects of gravity when it has no mass? Because unless you come up with another explanation for that, then you'll have to take Einstein at his word.

Time is a dimension of space and can be manipulated by mass and objects in motion in the same way as any other dimension of space.

Peace,
Michael

 

[godrulz]

I did not say the theories are totally false or not applicable to physical issues. They cannot be applied to the eternal God in the same way you apply them to space travel. Perhaps Clete could respond to your concerns.

 

[seekinganswers]

I'm sorry but you're just very simply wrong on this.

Gravitational Time Dilation
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity predicted that time does not flow at a fixed rate: moving clocks appear to tick more slowly relative to their stationary counterparts. But this effect only becomes really significant at very high velocities that app roach the speed of light.

When "generalized" to include gravitation, the equations of relativity predict that gravity, or the curvature of spacetime by matter, not only stretches or shrinks distances (depending on their direction with respect to the gravitational field) but also w ill appear to slow down or "dilate" the flow of time.

In most circumstances in the universe, such time dilation is miniscule, but it can become very significant when spacetime is curved by a massive object such as a black hole. For example, an observer far from a black hole would observe time passing extremely slowly for an astronaut falling through the hole's boundary. In fact, the distant observer would never see the hapless victim actually fall in. His or her time, as measured by the observer, would appear to stand still. The slowing of time near a very simple black hole has been simulated on supercomputers at NCSA and visualized in a computer-generated animation.​

From General Relativity

Umm, Clete,

This is what I was explaining in my short summary of Einstein's theories above. This doesn't prove me wrong, it is just a more eloquent rendering of what I gave above. Time does not slow down in the Special Theory of Relativity. The key to understanding Einstein's theory about time dilation is that you have two frames of reference. So an observer on our planet who is able to look at a person situated on the event horizon of a black hole will see what appears to be a freezing of time. Notice what it states above, "would appear to stand still." This does not mean that time actually stands still, but as observed from a different frame of reference (i.e. the earth) it does stand still. The person who is able to get very near to the event horizon of a black hole does not experience a slowing down of time, but, in fact, will experience time flowing at the same rate as it flowed on earth. But when this one observes the earth from his position near the event horizon, he will actually see what appears to be a speeding up of time on earth. It is not the speeding up or slowing down of time, but it is the distortion in time that is caused by massive objects or objects in motion.

These theories have been supported through empirical evidence. So a clock that is placed at different distances from the earth, or that is taken in a ship that travels really fast, really and truly does loose units of time as compared to clocks on the earth. Now we're talking about affecting atomic clocks here that measure miniscule amounts of time, because the effects of gravity on the earth to time dilation are minimal (and the speeds of the space shuttle are no where near the speed of light). Does this mean that time actually slowed down? No. It just means that time is manipulated along with the distortions of space caused by gravity and acceleration. You want to know what else is distorted by gravity and acceleration? Einstein also predicted that a person who observes another moving at nearly the speed of light will observe a lengthening of things in that person going really fast. So if the person on earth could measure something in that spaceship going really fast, it would appear to grow longer than it had been standing still on the earth. And the reciprocal of this is true as well (i.e. eveything seems to get shorter for the person inside the spaceship). It really isn't that complicated to understand. When a person in a train drops a ball, it looks like it is going from the hand straight to the floor. And we can measure that distance. But if we observe the same experiment on the train from a stationary place on the earth, we will see the ball travel along a curve from the person's hand to the floor, and the distance will appear to "lengthen." On the train the person's experience is the same as if the experiment were performed from a stationary place on the earth. But when we take two different frames of reference we see that motion and gravity affect space-time.

You don't know what you're talking about, Clete. You're talking to a person who when he was a little boy fell asleep reading science articles from the Encyclopedia, and who was obsessed with science. I do know what I'm talking about with regards to this theory (though I haven't mastered it in such a way as to be able to convey it easily to others). Before you post something, you should actually decide whether you understand what it says or not, otherwise you just show yourself to be a fool.

Peace,
Michael

 

[Clete]

Yes, but I’m always looking for somebody to talk with.
He didn’t address his post to me ... but, with (or without) permission, I would like to respond. I’m emailing this by way of my home computer relying on others to post it for me so I may not see any reply for a few days, if then.

Finally, someone who posts longer posts than I do if not more than you, Godrulz.

SEEKING (post #1469 I think)
“I continue to have qualms with Open Theism because it continues to understand God from the perspective of the Creation.“

From what perspective then do you suggest creatures can know anything about God? The Open View is an honest reconsideration of the self-revelation God has made known to us, what is said of God in scripture (all that is said of God in scripture) and what is caused or allowed to be seen in the person of Jesus as opposed to starting with Augustine’s exaggerated view of immutability. The insistence that God is unaffected by creation as a notion that he obviously brought to the table from his earlier association with Greek Philosophy and (inspite of his many good writings) is not a week argument to be dismissed lightly. Augustine has become so idolized in much of the church that even to question his starting point is seen as paramount to heresy. I commend THEOLOGYONLINE for allowing this discussion. It seems to be so threatening to many that the topic has been banned on some ‘Christian Forms’.

Is there danger in personalizing God? Yes! It is risky for both God and us. Creatures love things and make images or representations of god in to objects of worship. Yet, that can not be justification for hiding our heads in the sand and dismissing even part of what we read in scripture. I agree that the god who relates to us on our terms alone is not god. But, what point is there in a god who does not relate to us as persons at all? Is he is any more than an object to be worshiped ... an idol that neither hears nor helps?

You seem to fail to recognize that scripture is full of God’s terms for personal relationships. Terms God has sovereignly committed to follow. These terms for governing relationships are what keeps personal relationships from degenerating into idolatry. This is for me at least what distinguishes the God who created us in His own image from the god created in the image of the Greeks, theologians or common panhandlers seeking to manipulate God for goodies. Much of the Open View makes us uneasy because it requires us to be much more responsible in allowing God to be the God who allows us to be us and suffers when we are not the us he created us to be.

Open View is not attempting to redefine God but rather to allow the self revelation of God in scripture and in Jesus to break free of the hindrances to relationship that have crept into our understanding of God. If the bible is not the revelation of God’s attempt at relating to humanity, what is it? If Jesus was doing anything other than making the heart, mind and will of God known in order to relate, what was he doing? If God was not in Christ reconciling the world unto himself for the purpose of relationship, what is the purpose of reconciliation? I see God in Christ as redeeming and refashioning me in His image for the purpose of relationship that involves me; something a Closed view either does not allow for or frustrates beyond comprehension. The danger of misrepresenting God is not new.

“If God is merely the object out of which we form an image of God, then our God is nothing more than an idol; he may not be fashioned from stone or wood, but he has become an idol nonetheless.”

My point exactly, only I would say a god fashioned from pen and ink or a popular trend is no less an idol, even if the paper has been recycled or the ink spilled could fill an ocean or the trend has lasted centuries.

My answer also is let God be God. Still, those who fail to attempt to understand God will ultimately remain in danger of idiolatry, and this is not necessary. The mystery has been made known to us (and is being made known) in scripture and in Jesus. Yes, we must worship God in "spirit and in truth" but we do not worship an unknown God. We worship the father of Jesus Christ. I would argue that rather than “define your relationship with God” ... just have one. I think you will find that God is far more loving, redemptive and even personable than any theology can imagine let alone define. He is even more competent than our idols will allow him to be. He is in control of himself.

As for the bad guys playing catch with live babies on bayonets, (an evil you used to illustrate your point that makes me shudder) I cannot idolize God out of that one. I refuse to make God responsible for such evil. I only have to believe that God is competent and will deal with them in keeping with the terms he has spelled out both in the book and on the cross. He is in ultimate control and yet allows such evil. He has the last word and he is faithful.

So where do we begin to understand God? We must start with the God on the cross in creation relating to God’s creatures. Why the cross? After all , it is mere foolishness to the Greeks But, the cross is the wisdom of God for those being saved from using bayonets on babies. Though it does not always save the victims from the acts of evil men, it has the power to save and make new the men capable of such acts. The cross is the only remedy for evil I find in the scripture: a personal loving God who suffers at the hands of evil men in order to restore relationships that reflect his unchanging character. The cross is God’s terms. The cross is the power behind “Go and sin no more.”

The cross does not define God. The cross reveals the true nature of God. It defines us! It does not even defend God, as the problem of evil often assumes. The cross holds no defense only offence. The cross exposes us and evil for who’s it is and reveals God as the greatest risk taker for loves sake.

I too, am horrified at a God who allows evil ... horrified at God for allowing evil. And my horror is intensified when I come to the cross where God suffers as I do, but more importantly suffers because of me and still desires to relate to me. At the cross, I am horrified because I see evil for what it is ... my own. Not God’s. My horror turns to brokenness not because God could have stopped evil, but precisely because he did not. He who said do not repay evil for evil confronts evil on his own terms and in keeping with his own rules at great expense and risk in order to relate to me ... on his terms!

That changes men and that changes everything. And that is no whim.

“I find very few who were willing to accept God's call (Mary and Joseph would be examples of the few); and I have yet to find anyone that was able to resist God's call (for God is quite persistent and very persuasive).”

How can you have it both ways? Either few are willing to accept God’s call or no one is able to resist it. You just can’t have both. Resisting God’s will does not make God any less than God. Men with books and baronets are no more a threat to God than men with nails. And no theology will ever make God smaller than he was when we nailed him to the cross. God allowed himself to become 'small', Jesus emptied himself of all the big definitions that we have come to idolize so that we could really know the Father. Maybe your God is still too big to love. Dump the big definitions. Clean the idols from your book shelves. Get to know God in the face of Jesus.

Philetus

POTD! :first:

 

[Clete]

Umm, Clete,

This is what I was explaining in my short summary of Einstein's theories above. This doesn't prove me wrong, it is just a more eloquent rendering of what I gave above. Time does not slow down in the Special Theory of Relativity. The key to understanding Einstein's theory about time dilation is that you have two frames of reference. So an observer on our planet who is able to look at a person situated on the event horizon of a black hole will see what appears to be a freezing of time. Notice what it states above, "would appear to stand still." This does not mean that time actually stands still, but as observed from a different frame of reference (i.e. the earth) it does stand still. The person who is able to get very near to the event horizon of a black hole does not experience a slowing down of time, but, in fact, will experience time flowing at the same rate as it flowed on earth. But when this one observes the earth from his position near the event horizon, he will actually see what appears to be a speeding up of time on earth. It is not the speeding up or slowing down of time, but it is the distortion in time that is caused by massive objects or objects in motion.

These theories have been supported through empirical evidence. So a clock that is placed at different distances from the earth, or that is taken in a ship that travels really fast, really and truly does loose units of time as compared to clocks on the earth. Now we're talking about affecting atomic clocks here that measure miniscule amounts of time, because the effects of gravity on the earth to time dilation are minimal (and the speeds of the space shuttle are no where near the speed of light). Does this mean that time actually slowed down? No. It just means that time is manipulated along with the distortions of space caused by gravity and acceleration. You want to know what else is distorted by gravity and acceleration? Einstein also predicted that a person who observes another moving at nearly the speed of light will observe a lengthening of things in that person going really fast. So if the person on earth could measure something in that spaceship going really fast, it would appear to grow longer than it had been standing still on the earth. And the reciprocal of this is true as well (i.e. eveything seems to get shorter for the person inside the spaceship). It really isn't that complicated to understand. When a person in a train drops a ball, it looks like it is going from the hand straight to the floor. And we can measure that distance. But if we observe the same experiment on the train from a stationary place on the earth, we will see the ball travel along a curve from the person's hand to the floor, and the distance will appear to "lengthen." On the train the person's experience is the same as if the experiment were performed from a stationary place on the earth. But when we take two different frames of reference we see that motion and gravity affect space-time.

You don't know what you're talking about, Clete. You're talking to a person who when he was a little boy fell asleep reading science articles from the Encyclopedia, and who was obsessed with science. I do know what I'm talking about with regards to this theory (though I haven't mastered it in such a way as to be able to convey it easily to others). Before you post something, you should actually decide whether you understand what it says or not, otherwise you just show yourself to be a fool.

Peace,
Michael

I know what you said and you are wrong. Time dialation, according to relativity is not merely an illusion. It isn't that my time simply appears to run more slowly to an observer traveling at a slower speed than I, its that my time actually does in fact run slower than does his. The fast I go the slow my time runs and at the speed of light time stops all together. It doesn't just seem to stop it does stop. That's what Relativity says, period. You are simply attempting to say otherwise because Bob has presented a puzzle you can't solve based on this obviously self-contradictory peice of "science".

As for me, I've debated this issue until I'm blue in the face and see no reason to rehash it again. As I said before, if you think you're qualified then speak with Knight and see about debating Bob on it. He would do a better job than I could anyway.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[docrob57]

I know what you said and you are wrong. Time dialation, according to relativity is not merely an illusion. It isn't that my time simply appears to run more slowly to an observer traveling at a slower speed than I, its that my time actually does in fact run slower than does his. The fast I go the slow my time runs and at the speed of light time stops all together. It doesn't just seem to stop it does stop. That's what Relativity says, period. You are simply attempting to say otherwise because Bob has presented a puzzle you can't solve based on this obviously self-contradictory peice of "science".

As for me, I've debated this issue until I'm blue in the face and see no reason to rehash it again. As I said before, if you think you're qualified then speak with Knight and see about debating Bob on it. He would do a better job than I could anyway.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Actually, the person you said that to was my son, NewStenographer. I think, if prompted, he would be happy to debate Mr. Enyart on the issue. And yes, he does know enough. I think it would be good to have a debate featuring someone who is not contemptuous of Mr. Enyart. I got him his first "Do Right and Risk The Consequences" hat at the tender age of 12!

 

[Clete]

Actually, the person you said that to was my son, NewStenographer. I think, if prompted, he would be happy to debate Mr. Enyart on the issue. And yes, he does know enough. I think it would be good to have a debate featuring someone who is not contemptuous of Mr. Enyart. I got him his first "Do Right and Risk The Consequences" hat at the tender age of 12!

If he really is qualified to debate the issue please talk with Knight and see if Bob would be willing to debate him on this specific issue. I really think that Bob's position is iron clad and I'd really love to be able to have a thread to point someone too when this issue comes up, as it seems to always do.

 

[Philetus]

SEEKINGANSWERS,

Wow! I missed some good stuff while I was gone.

As for all this time talk, I was the kid who didn’t fall asleep often enough while reading about it and I’m paying for it in my old age. Augh! Jet lag. But, the plane is a great place for reading.

I am less concerned with theories of time themselves and am more concerned that the theories of time are being used as an argument to define the kind of God we can know while much of what the scripture says about God is being dismissed as anthropological.

Time is a most fascinating topics of interest and has much to teach us about the universe we find ourselves in. However, how is starting with ‘time’ to define God different than starting with a philosophical theory of omnipotence or omnisciency? Even if we prove that it is possible to ‘time travel’ is that just cause to dismiss the scriptural indication that God may choose not to? I don’t think the nature of time is the first question.

What is the starting place for understanding the nature of God? Time? Sounds all to creation centered for my small mind. What say you, Seekinganswers?

Let us fall asleep tonight reading the bible.
Philetus

 

[docrob57]

SEEKINGANSWERS,

Wow! I missed some good stuff while I was gone.

As for all this time talk, I was the kid who didn’t fall asleep often enough while reading about it and I’m paying for it in my old age. Augh! Jet lag. But, the plane is a great place for reading.

I am less concerned with theories of time themselves and am more concerned that the theories of time are being used as an argument to define the kind of God we can know while much of what the scripture says about God is being dismissed as anthropological.

Time is a most fascinating topics of interest and has much to teach us about the universe we find ourselves in. However, how is starting with ‘time’ to define God different than starting with a philosophical theory of omnipotence or omnisciency? Even if we prove that it is possible to ‘time travel’ is that just cause to dismiss the scriptural indication that God may choose not to? I don’t think the nature of time is the first question.

What is the starting place for understanding the nature of God? Time? Sounds all to creation centered for my small mind. What say you, Seekinganswers?

Let us fall asleep tonight reading the bible.
Philetus

These are good points, but I don't understand how open theists can say that God's omnipotence is extra-Biblical, i.e. derived from philosophy rather than the Bible (if they do say that, but I think they do). For example, as I'm sure you know, one of God's many names is El Shaddai, which means God Almighty. I think Almighty is pretty synonymous with omnipotent.

 

[Philetus]

docrob57,

"Do Right and Risk The Consequences" hat at the tender age of 12!

Where can I get a hat like that? Sounds Godly.
Philetus