by Christ Alone 317 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
*sigh*.... Time travel again? Really? Depending on which sci fi show you are watching, it's yes, no, either or neither. Fiction is a poor substitute for a true thought experiement.
Maybe we should travel back in time and let Einstein know. His gedankenexperiments were all fictional situations. Throw in Schrodinger and his fictional cat. That's what a thought experiment is.
God as a being outside of time can witness all of our free choices simultaneously, from the beginning to the end of time. It isn't foreknowledge or prediction, it's seeing the entire picture at once. "Future" is relative to us.
But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call "tomorrow" is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call "today." All the days are "Now" for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday; He simply sees you doing them, because, though you have lost yesterday. He has not. He does not "foresee" you doing things tomorrow; He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow's actions in just the same way-because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already "Now" for Him.
http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt
This is an interesting conversation. One would hope it could progress as a way of feeling out the possibilites rather than become a contentious discussion. I can see some truth and overlap of ideas from both sides. (Of course, that is my fallible opinion.)
If I may throw a few ideas into the pot (in connection with ideas already expressed):
'God created time.' (I used single quotes as I don't want to focus on who said what)
I would think it would be more accurate to say that God created a way for humans to reference time (stars, planets, etc). But by extension, his creating actual things made possible the existence of "time" as an idea or 'something' that was now possible to be measured. But time wouldn't 'exist' by itself. It would only come into existence when other things came into existence. And, if everything else went back out of existence, time would also, since it would no longer be possible to measure it.
(This statement (about God and creation) is made from a Biblical perspective. I know others here might not use the Bible as a reference.)
'God exists outside of time.'
I would agree with this, especially when thinking of God before he created anything. With nothing else existing, there would be no reference with which to measure the passage of time. Thus, before creation, God wasn't a million years old (or any other figure), since there were not "years" that could be measured against the movement of anything.
And if God is eternal and indestructable, then, he would continue to 'exist outside of time' in the sense that 'time' and/or its passage would not affect him personally. (That is a hard idea to put into words.)
'God "knows all things" '
That is actually what 1 John 3:20 says. I think it would prove difficult to take any Biblical statement to the n th degree since the writer may have been making statements within a particular context. And language often allows the use of superlatives within only a given context.
Having said that. I do think God "knows all things" in the sense that, if he has perfect memory, then, he certainly "knows" everything that has transpired in the past. He would also know everything about the state of everything that presently exists. From that knowledge he would also be able to surmise many of the things that were to come, simply based on his present knowledge and understanding of how everything works.
Added to that mix would be his "purpose" as someone mentioned. Since he is "almighty," he has the ability to bend events to his liking. From our standpoint, however, unless he actually said he did so, we would never know whether he simply foreknew that it would end that way, or if he had a hand in the outcome.
Here is the catch, though. The 'heisenberg uncertainty principle' maintains that as you move farther back towards the "planck level," things become more and more random or uncertain. At the "planck level" randomness would be complete.
(For those reading, the "planck level" is the theoretical level at which nothing can be further subdivided. It is where the "creation" buck would stop. Everything that exists would have come from energy as it exists at this level. Energy at this level is [theoretically] infinite and everywhere at the same time. This neatly fits how God is described in the Bible, but the formation of this theory was not intended to describe God "Planck" is the name of the physist who formulated this idea.)
Theoretically speaking, if you place God at the "planck level," then, he becomes the only one able to create something that is truly random, and thus, unforeknowable to some degree.
As a possible example, if Adam were created "perfect,"that is, fully capable of making a free will choice about eating from the tree, then, God's statement in Genesis 2:17 about what would happen if he ate from the tree would represent everything that could be known about Adam's future choice. He could eat it or he could refrain from it. If he eats from it then events are set in motion that end with his death.
My granddaughter just got in my lap, so my immediate future of typing just changed.
Take Care.
Tell that to Einstein. His gedankenexperiments were all fictional situations. That's what a thought experiment is.
Based on actual math and observation. Time travel and God seeing the future has none of those attributes that confer validity.
It's still a valid thought experiment, in my view. There are plenty of thought experiments along these lines.
There is a basic misunderstanding caused by ignorance of Logic.
Logic prohibits self-reference. It is a convention like not multiplying by zero. Live with it!
Advance knowledge of an event that hasn't happened is a form of self-reference.
I know, that sounds counter-intuitive.
Consider the difference between taking a poll about an upcoming election and the actual vote itself on the day of the election.
The information gathered about what the vote WILL BE is provisional. The vote on the day of the election is ACTUAL.
Now, carefully ask yourself what the specific difference--if any--there is between the poll information and the election result as an identical knowledge of fact.
The organization taking the poll--it can be said--has the information IN ADVANCE (foreknowledge) of the election day vote.
Yet--it DOESN'T. Even though the tally may match the poll number exactly---it isn't the same information.
Why?
The poll measures provisional INTENTION and not actual occurance. Actual occurance can only exist at the time it happens and not before!
Let's explore this in the form of a thought experiment.
You are a prisoner in Guantanamo being torturend for information about an imminent planned terrorist explosion of a nuclear device.
Your interrogators want specific information in Advance of the actual occurance in order to PREVENT the actual occurance.
You might well say the torturers want to keep the terrorist explosion "provisional" only and not "actual", could we not?
IF you divulge the day and hour and location of the event IN ADVANCE you insure the event will NOT occur.
This means, logically speaking, you have a kind of special opportunity to possess knowledge of something that will not take place simultaneous to possessing its very opposite!!
This is self-reference.
This is the inherent problem with Foreknowledge as a rational discussion. It cannot both BE and NOT be without violating the Law of the Excluded Middle.
Something either IS or IS NOT. It cannot be BOTH at the same time.
God as a being outside of time can witness all of our free choices simultaneously, from the beginning to the end of time. It isn't foreknowledge or prediction, it's seeing the entire picture at once. "Future" is relative to us.
There is nothing is the Bible that says God IS outside of time. That is pure conjecture and extra-biblical.
It's still a valid thought experiment, in my view. There are plenty of thought experiments along these lines.
It's not valid because there is nothing to back it up, no observation that leads you to it, no idea on how time travel might work, etc. It's not an experiment with conclusions, it's a "pick your favorite version of sci-fi and go".
There is nothing is the Bible that says God IS outside of time.
Even if that is true....so?
It's not valid because there is nothing to back it up, no observation that leads you to it, no idea on how time travel might work, etc. It's not an experiment with conclusions, it's a "pick your favorite version of sci-fi and go".
