Does God know the future?

[eccl3_6]

eccl, but what did you think of the eternity writeup.

Actually, Clete I couldn't care less what you or Enyart have to say becuase you simply don't know what your talking about. Quit listening to Bob and think for yourself.

Its actually really surprising how well science and religion can go in hand in hand, one seems to support the other. The catholic concept of eternity can certainly be appreciated from my standpoint. I do however have some issues elsewhere though regarding Catholicism. But by an large I can see a lot of good in all religions. The looming spectre of this Bob Enyart that Ive been hearing about is a tad concerning though.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

eccl, but what did you think of the eternity writeup.

Actually, Clete I couldn't care less what you or Enyart have to say becuase you simply don't know what your talking about. Quit listening to Bob and think for yourself.

Gee, nancy isn't it a bit hypocritical for you to say that? Especially in light of your recent appeal to Catholic explanations? :think:

 

[nancy]

Eccl, he has some scary concepts.

 

[Clete]

eccl, but what did you think of the eternity writeup.

Actually, Clete I couldn't care less what you or Enyart have to say becuase you simply don't know what your talking about. Quit listening to Bob and think for yourself.

Have I quoted Bob on this thread? I don't think I have. While Bob does teach this stuff the fact of the matter is that I hold him to the same standard to which I am holding you. That standard being the simple reading of the Bible and taking it for what it seems to say and not relegating vast quatities of it to the "figure of speech" column. That along with sound reason is all I base my beliefs on.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Eccl, he has some scary concepts.

Ooooo scary..... :shocked:

:chuckle:

 

[elected4ever]

Eccl, he has some scary concepts.

:blabla: :darwinsm:

 

[Clete]

Okay,

I was just doing a little more browsing around on the internet to see what could be found of the several theories out there that discount the existence of time altogether since I have been unable to locate my magazine articles that I've collected over the years (I hate moving for that one reason alone!).
I found a site which is promoting a book about one such theory and the following a telling what the differences are between two different books this guy wrote. He doesn't get into any details here (I think he wants you to buy the book for that) but this will still serve as another excellent example of what I am trying to get at when I say that the Theory of Relativity does not prove the existence of time.

About the book Gravimotion.

The book 'Does time exist?' followed the book 'Gravimotion' by only a few months.
The idea that gravity should not be considered as a by product of mass, and that its origin is instead energy filling space, has been first introduced in the web site 'TheTruthOfTheMatterIs.com' early in 2001, and in print in the book 'Gravimotion' late in 2002.
The main differences between the two books are as follows:
Style and text presentation

Gravimotion was my first book and the style and text format are not the easiest to read.
Furthermore in 'Gravimotion' I use the words 'in this unified theory' (or similar expressions) several times.
By contrast in the book 'Does time exist?', I removed any such reference, and I refer to the book from within itself as 'in this book' or in this 'essay' or this 'proposal'. Sometimes I use the words 'this timeless theory', as I did in 'Gravimotion'. The book 'Does time exist?', within its own chapter-two is referred as a new, different 'image of reality'.
Space energy relation

In the book 'Gravimotion', energy is interpreted as being a fourth dimension, besides the three dimensional space. In a similar fashion as time is considered to be a fourth dimension in physics, and more specifically in the space-time of the theory of relativity.

By contrast in 'Does time exist?', the concept of 'geometrical space' is shown to be 'virtual', and an 'extended concept' of energy, 'physically implements' (takes the place or replaces) space. The important point in 'Does time exist?' is that space is now 'physically' implemented by the non material but physical entity energy.
In the book 'Does time exist?' there is NO FOURTH dimension. Energy altogether replaces the concept of space, energy itself becomes three dimensional.
The concept of field is dropped in 'Does time exist?'

In the book Gravimotion, I was still honoring the concept of field, as a continuous medium.

By contrast in 'Does time exist?' , fields do no longer exist. Every thing is made of quanta. Space is made of quanta of energy, which can arrange themselves in various configurations, to implement gravity, mass, motion, electric charge and electromagnetic waves.
Disappearance of mass while in motion

In the book 'Does time exist?', a process is provided for the physical disappearance and reappearance close by of the 'subatomic particles' when in motion.
This process allows for the demise of anti-particles, as this new principle of motion extends the phenomenon of motion into domains which would be labeled 'negative times' or 'faster than speed of light' in conventional physics.
The common denominator between the two books is gravimotion

In both books time is disregarded to start with. The title 'Does time exist?', has been chosen to attract the public, as the question is actually answered in the title! The full title is 'Does time exist? An energetic implementation of motion..', which obviously shows motion is implemented without time in the book.
The value of the book Gravimotion

If one keeps in mind the above distinctions, the book Gravimotion can be read after the book 'Does time exist?'. Gravimotion contains many factual interesting details not specifically repeated in 'Does time exist?' Yet one would have to apply the above comments (on field etc..) as to distinguish what in Gravimotion is consistent with "Does time exist?'

The fact is the two books do not coincide and they might be interpreted as the products of a rather inconsistent mind ... please be forgiving, evolution is taking place.​

From Does Time Exist?

Again, I do not offer this as a direct answer to Einstein's theories or as proof or even evidence that he was wrong. I only present this information to demonstrate that his theories are far from proven. All of the experimentation with airplanes and satelites and whatnot will all show the same results but be explained in altogether different ways with this guys theory than with Einstein's. He may be wrong, but the point is so might Einstien and none of you guys have 1 billionth of the expertise it would take to prove either.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[eccl3_6]

Ok Clete similiar thing happened with Godrulz wey back were he was quoting an author....I need to know his qualifications and where they were gained. In Godrulz's case he was quoting a metaphysical philosopher in a physical arguement. Prof. Lucas himself (the author of Godrulz's book) who attended the same university as myself (edinburgh) would never have knowingly done this. So to keep it in context we need this information before we can assess/refute/accept.

Alarmingly though it is described in the link you provide as embrionic thought. I would never describe my own published thought as embrionic.....it means it has not been ratified by his peers (although he suggests that some physicists agree - although these could be phantoms). This risks ruining his reputation as a respected scientist assuming he has that reputation to start with at all.


If you want to keep barking up this tree you can do but its getting tired. Its not just that relativity and our understanding of time has evidence supporting it to the rafters, from practical experiments not just theory but we actually have technology which could only have been developed and made to work with the application of this theory. We have practical appliances for this knowledge that works which we use.



Its like sitting on a horse and saying, "the combustion engine doesnt work!" when everybody else is driving around in cars.

 

[justchristian]

Its like sitting on a horse and saying, "the combustion engine doesnt work!" when everybody else is driving around in cars.

that's awsome :crackup:

 

[eccl3_6]

that's awsome :crackup:

I'm slowly getting less subtle but I'm trying to stay the gent.

:juggle:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It turns out nancy was a dude.

 

[Clete]

Ok Clete similiar thing happened with Godrulz wey back were he was quoting an author....I need to know his qualifications and where they were gained. In Godrulz's case he was quoting a metaphysical philosopher in a physical arguement. Prof. Lucas himself (the author of Godrulz's book) who attended the same university as myself (edinburgh) would never have knowingly done this. So to keep it in context we need this information before we can assess/refute/accept.

Alarmingly though it is described in the link you provide as embrionic thought. I would never describe my own published thought as embrionic.....it means it has not been ratified by his peers (although he suggests that some physicists agree - although these could be phantoms). This risks ruining his reputation as a respected scientist assuming he has that reputation to start with at all.


If you want to keep barking up this tree you can do but its getting tired. Its not just that relativity and our understanding of time has evidence supporting it to the rafters, from practical experiments not just theory but we actually have technology which could only have been developed and made to work with the application of this theory. We have practical appliances for this knowledge that works which we use.



Its like sitting on a horse and saying, "the combustion engine doesnt work!" when everybody else is driving around in cars.

Are you reading my posts at all? Are you so thick headed as to not be able to see the point? I literally don't know how else to make this point in any other way!

Knight, am I making any sense at all or am I going crazy? I need someone whom I trust to give an honest opinion to tell me that I'm not turning into a raving lunatic here!

Look ecc, the point had nothing to do with my presenting a different idea about how to explain what we see happen in these time dialation experiments. The point was to show that there are viable theories extant in the scientific community. I've spent all of maybe ten minutes searching on the internet for some of these theories and I've posted literally the first two I found. I don't know anything about them except that one can tell that they're not total nincompoops who don't know their butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to physics. I could go on present more if I wanted to and perhaps I will but the point has been made. If there are any existing viable theories concerning any issue of science then it cannot be said that any one of them has been proved. So it is not necessary for you to know anything at all about the author of this particular theory because there are literally dozens like it, many of which do away with not only the insane, self-contradictory predictions that modern physicists are so fond of making these days but also get rid of the countless number of dimensions which no one can or will ever observe or confirm the existence of, never mind the existence of time. (Ever heard of Occam's razor?). So all that is needed is for you to acknowledge that such viable theories exist at all (even one single viable theory would be enough) and my point is proven and the coffin nailed firmly shut on this line of reasoning in regards to Relativity's impact on Open Theism.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight, am I making any sense at all or am I going crazy? I need someone whom I trust to give an honest opinion to tell me that I'm not turning into a raving lunatic here!

Clete you are not going crazy you are making far more sense than anyone else on this thread. :up:

 

[eccl3_6]

no one can or will ever observe or confirm the existence of, never mind the existence of time.

WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED, EXPERIMENTED, CONFIRMED THE EXISTENCE OF TIME;
BUILT TECHNOLGY AROUND IT,
RECONFIRMED IT,
BUILT NEW THEORIES AROUND IT,
FELL IN LOVE WITH,
TAKEN IT HOME TO MEET THE PARENTS,
PROPOSED,
MARRIED,
HAD LOTS OF CHILDREN WITH AND WELCOMED THE EXISTENCE OF TIME!

HOW MUCH PROOF DO YOU NEED?????
WE HAVE DONE IT ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Im not going to acknowledge or endorse anybody's theories until I know what they are and who they are made by. It could be the ravings of a complete lunatic....it sounds like they are. Look if I thought Relativity was wrong I would say so, its not my religion!!! The fact is we have actual applications of time dilation in every day life. We have numerous experiments which we can use to proove it works. It works. it works IT WORKS!!!! Time is quantifiable I can tell you how it works....If you tell me how fast something is travelling at I can tell you now what time dilation it will experience and then we can get in a plane and try it out timing ourselves with atomic clocks or even neutron stars if it makes you any happier.


:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

 

[justchristian]

Look ecc, the point had nothing to do with my presenting a different idea about how to explain what we see happen in these time dialation experiments. The point was to show that there are viable theories extant in the scientific community. I've spent all of maybe ten minutes searching on the internet for some of these theories and I've posted literally the first two I found. I don't know anything about them except that one can tell that they're not total nincompoops who don't know their butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to physics. I could go on present more if I wanted to and perhaps I will but the point has been made. If there are any existing viable theories concerning any issue of science then it cannot be said that any one of them has been proved. So it is not necessary for you to know anything at all about the author of this particular theory because there are literally dozens like it, many of which do away with not only the insane, self-contradictory predictions that modern physicists are so fond of making these days but also get rid of the countless number of dimensions which no one can or will ever observe or confirm the existence of, never mind the existence of time. (Ever heard of Occam's razor?). So all that is needed is for you to acknowledge that such viable theories exist at all (even one single viable theory would be enough) and my point is proven and the coffin nailed firmly shut on this line of reasoning in regards to Relativity's impact on Open Theism.

Would you hold that IF relativity is true, Open Theism would have to change significantly?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED, EXPERIMENTED, CONFIRMED THE EXISTENCE OF TIME;

Please do not post in ALL CAPS and please don't act like an idiot.

Is this your 3rd warning?

Or your 4th warning???? :think:

 

[eccl3_6]

Clete,
If this is your way of getting me to buy you Sat Nav for your car just to prove the technology exist,its not going to work!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Clete,
If this is your way of getting me to buy you Sat Nav for your car just to prove the technology exist,its not going to work!

It's as if you almost speak English. :noid:

 

[eccl3_6]

Would you hold that IF relativity is true, Open Theism would have to change significantly?

No not at all in fact. If they believe God is infinite and created the universe which they do there is no need whats so ever with physics and open theism. Physics meaning nature in greek is just that; a study of nature since it came into existence. God created existence and so need not comply to the rules of nature/physics because it predates them. Time is a product of physical existence but (and this is where the confusion has kicked in) 'physical' time (the time we experience) is not the same as 'metaphysical time' (meta meaning before or after or outside if in Greek and is a philosophy not a science).

Clete is arguing that physical time does not exist because it can never be proved. This is wrong. Physical time can be proved and has been but 'metaphysical time' cannot be proved by physics because by definition it exists outside the realm of physics. One is a product of physics(nature) the other is a product of Faith(before creation).

In this way time can be infinite like clete likes to think and unquantifiable but also works perfectly well in the physical realm with the theories that have been built around it through scientific observation and experiment.

You can't argue against metaphysics with physics and you cant argue against physic with metaphysics.

There is no reason why relativity should be at odds with 'open theism' . But time is real (PHYSICS)

 

[justchristian]

But my understanding of open theism states the time we experience is the same as God experiences, even before creation? or am I mistaken.