21 Feb 09
2 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitBest question so far , from anyone.
If God tells me that I will drink a cup of tea at 11:00am tomorrow, am I able to refrain from doing it?
I see where you are going with this one. The difficulty with this one is that God has contaminated the timeline by sharing information. This is basically the Simon Peter question (thrice denying Christ) and you are into pre-destination and prophecy.
If God tells you something like that there would be a damn good reason for it. You also could say that God would only say this to a solid Christian and so he would also know that that Christian would be obedient to that prophecy in his life. In short , he wouldn't want to refrain from it , so in one sense couldn't. You could also say that he was able to refrain from it but God knew that he wouldn't.
There is also the issue of whether free will choices are made at all times. My personal belief is that many choices are not fully free and that we lived in a world mixed with determinism and free will. Your drink could be one of them.
Simon Peter was perhaps pre-determined by his fearful nature to deny Christ (knowing the consequences of not doing so).
Not a complete answer I know , but I'm tired right now. Remind me if I forget about it.
22 Feb 09
4 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisternot as many apple trees as you given the amount of cider you must be drinking 😞
But you would know about something before I would know it due to relativity of time so your assertion is not true. Relativity implies that it's not really possible to say that something has "happened" at a specific time as if there was a big newtonian clock in the sky. Do you not see this?
This whole debate is about how God can know about your cho as if Einstein had never lived. How many apple trees do you have in your garden? 😴
Relativity does not imply that
I'm not a physicist (certainly neither are you) and don't want to talk above my station which is undergrad maths, but I challenge you to demonstrate with credible sources that relativity supports your arguments. When invoking relativity you are discussing the differences in perception of time with respect to position/speed/acceleration/etc... of one observer from another. when invoking
Cue standard KM accusation of me not understanding him because I bind myself to newtonian time
22 Feb 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterPeter denied Christ because of his obedience?
If God tells you something like that there would be a damn good reason for it. You also could say that God would only say this to a solid Christian and so he would also know that that Christian would be obedient to that prophecy in his life.
In short , he wouldn't want to refrain from it , so in one sense couldn't.
Still trying to hold onto a freedom that isn't there aren't you?
The key to all this is:
God has contaminated the timeline
It raises a paradox for God. If God had not told SwissGambit to drink his tea, would SwissGambit have drunk it? If SwissGambit's action is a result of Gods input then how could God have known about it before telling SwissGambit? On the other hand how does God know that by telling SwissGambit he wont change SwissGambit's mind causing him to do something else thus resulting in Gods 'memory' of the event changing.
22 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergRelativity does not imply that
not as many apple trees as you given the amount of cider you must be drinking 😞
Relativity [b]does not imply thatfrom one persons perspective, X has happened whilst from anothers X has yet to happen.
I'm not a physicist (certainly neither are you) and don't want to talk above my station which is undergrad maths, but I challenge you to demon ...[text shortened]... Cue standard KM accusation of me not understanding him because I bind myself to newtonian time[/b]
------agerg---------------------
Well , this is the one that we have to sort out then don't we. You are right in one sense and wrong in another.
The jeff/Bob scenario is theoretically possible and predicted by relativity . It also has precedent in observed experiments.
For Jeff Bob's retirement happnes in 2 years time . For Bob it happens 18 years after that.
Clearly , from Jeff's perspective he knows in 2 years what Bob knows in 20 years. So when did it "actually" happen? 2 years or 20 years?
The answer is both and neither because the point at which Bob and Jeff BOTH experience his retirement is where there time frames intersect after Jeff gets back. But it would still be true to say that Jeff only had to wait 2 years to see it.
It's not a complete analogy because Jeff would have to re-visit earth previous to Bob's retirement and tell him about his retirement "in advance" so to speak . But then again jeff is not eternal and is trapped in time as is Bob.
What it does show is that if time is not experienced as a constant newtonian clock even by individual created creatures within space/ time then what would it be like for an eternal timeless God.
22 Feb 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn short , he wouldn't want to refrain from it , so in one sense couldn't. KM
Peter denied Christ because of his obedience?
[b]In short , he wouldn't want to refrain from it , so in one sense couldn't.
Still trying to hold onto a freedom that isn't there aren't you?
The key to all this is:
God has contaminated the timeline
It raises a paradox for God. If God had not told SwissGambit to drink his tea, would Swis ...[text shortened]... causing him to do something else thus resulting in Gods 'memory' of the event changing.[/b]
Still trying to hold onto a freedom that isn't there aren't you? WHITEY
The point I am making is that swissgambit might still be able to refrain from it but God knew that he would choose not to.
The issue is not whether Swiss Gambit does actually drink his tea but whether he could ever have not drunk it. The fact that God knows that in the end swiss drinks his tea is no proof of the fact that there never was any other possibility.
One could say that he is able to refrain and could refrain (if he wanted to) but chooses not to.
22 Feb 09
3 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterWell , this is the one that we have to sort out then don't we. You are right in one sense and wrong in another.
Relativity does not imply thatfrom one persons perspective, X has happened whilst from anothers X has yet to happen.
------agerg---------------------
Well , this is the one that we have to sort out then don't we. You are right in one sense and wrong in another.
The jeff/Bob scenario is theoretically possible and predicted by relativit ed creatures within space/ time then what would it be like for an eternal timeless God.
The jeff/Bob scenario is theoretically possible and predicted by relativity . It also has precedent in observed experiments.
No! the scenario you discuss here does not correspond to the scenario you espouse where X has happened for one object whilst it hasn't happened for another...you are getting yourself all muddled up!
For Jeff Bob's retirement happnes in 2 years time . For Bob it happens 18 years after that.
For Bob it doesn't occur 18 years after that!!! you're mixing up two timelines
Clearly , from Jeff's perspective he knows in 2 years what Bob knows in 20 years. So when did it "actually" happen? 2 years or 20 years?
The answer is both and neither because the point at which Bob and Jeff BOTH experience his retirement is where there time frames intersect after Jeff gets back. But it would still be true to say that Jeff only had to wait 2 years to see it.
It's not a complete analogy because Jeff would have to re-visit earth previous to Bob's retirement and tell him about his retirement "in advance" so to speak . But then again jeff is not eternal and is trapped in time as is Bob.
NO!!!!!!! You fail to see that at such point it has happened for Jeff it has also happened for Bob. There exists no point where it has happened for Jeff and it has not happened for Bob, and so Jeff won't be able to tell Bob a damned thing.
What it does show is that if time is not experienced as a constant newtonian clock even by individual created creatures within space/ time then what would it be like for an eternal timeless God.
Given you haven't the foggiest notion of what you're jabbering on about, addressing this point is useless
22 Feb 09
Originally posted by AgergFor Jeff Bob's retirement happnes in 2 years time . For Bob it happens 18 years after that. KM
[b]Well , this is the one that we have to sort out then don't we. You are right in one sense and wrong in another.
The jeff/Bob scenario is theoretically possible and predicted by relativity . It also has precedent in observed experiments.
No! the scenario you discuss here does not correspond to the scenario you espouse where X has happened for ...[text shortened]... ggiest notion of what you're jabbering on about, addressing this point is useless[/b]
For Bob it doesn't occur 18 years after that!!! you're mixing up two timelines AGERG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So when does it occur then clever clogs? If you say that it occurs in 20 years then you are denying jeff's perspective , if you say 2 you are denying Bob's. If you invoke the idea that there is some set time at which the event occurs then you are being newtonian.
The point in space/time where jeff returns is where their timelines intersect. At that point one could say that it happens simultaneously for both of them. However , they will both have differing perspectives. Jeff will only have aged 2 years.
What exactly is your problem with all of this?
22 Feb 09
Originally posted by AgergYou fail to see that at such point it has happened for Jeff it has also happened for Bob. There exists no point where it has happened for Jeff and it has not happened for Bob, and so Jeff won't be able to tell Bob a damned thing.
[b]Well , this is the one that we have to sort out then don't we. You are right in one sense and wrong in another.
The jeff/Bob scenario is theoretically possible and predicted by relativity . It also has precedent in observed experiments.
No! the scenario you discuss here does not correspond to the scenario you espouse where X has happened for ...[text shortened]... ggiest notion of what you're jabbering on about, addressing this point is useless[/b]
-----------------------------agerg--------------------
You think I am saying something that I am not. I have not said that Jeff would be able to say anything to Bob. I admitted this in the post. Stop putting words into my mouth. I have only said that for Jeff 2 years would have passed and for Bob 20 years.
22 Feb 09
5 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterTo say that "For Jeff Bobs retirement happens in 2 years time. For Bob it happens 18 years after that" is to imply that the events that have occured in Jeff's 2 years have a correspondence only with 2 years from Bob's perspective. This is not true. Even if this is not what you mean to imply, it seems to be the equivocation you make when forming your conclusions about how X can have been done A's perspective whilst X has yet to be done from B's perspective.
For Jeff Bob's retirement happnes in 2 years time . For Bob it happens 18 years after that. KM
For Bob it doesn't occur 18 years after that!!! you're mixing up two timelines AGERG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So when does it occur then clever clogs? If you say that it occurs in 20 years then you tives. Jeff will only have aged 2 years.
What exactly is your problem with all of this?
22 Feb 09
Originally posted by AgergEven if this is not what you mean to imply,
To say that "For Jeff Bobs retirement happens in 2 years time. For Bob it happens 18 years after that" is to imply that the events that have occured in Jeff's 2 years have a correspondence only with 2 years from Bob's perspective. [b]This is not true. Even if this is not what you mean to imply, it seems to be the equivocation you make when forming your con ...[text shortened]... how X can have been done A's perspective whilst X has yet to be done from B's perspective.[/b]
-------agerg------------------
It's not what I meant to imply. I'm simply showing how different perspectives are relative and not static on time.
Even though Jeff is not technically travelling into Bob's future as such there is a difference in perspectives that would seem very strange and maybe illogical to Bob (especially when he sees jeff has not aged much).
If distortions like these can occurr with just a bloke in a space ship then what kinds of distortions might we expect if there really is a fifth dimension of eternity to existence?
Surely you see my point?
22 Feb 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterIf my drinking tea at 11:00am is not a free choice, then doesn't that present problems for moral accountability? And what does it say about God's free will?
Best question so far , from anyone.
I see where you are going with this one. The difficulty with this one is that God has contaminated the timeline by sharing information. This is basically the Simon Peter question (thrice denying Christ) and you are into pre-destination and prophecy.
If God tells you something like that there would be a damn g ...[text shortened]... .
Not a complete answer I know , but I'm tired right now. Remind me if I forget about it.
And Hazael said, Why weeps my lord? And he answered, Because I know the evil that you will do to the children of Israel: their strong holds will you set on fire, and their young men will you slay with the sword, and will dash their children, and rip up their women with child.Question 1) Was Hazael morally culpable for attacking the children of Israel, given that he could not have done otherwise?
-2 Kings 8:12
Question 2) If God knows he will tell me that I will drink tea at 11:00am tomorrow, can God refrain from telling me?
22 Feb 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitIf my drinking tea at 11:00am is not a free choice, then doesn't that present problems for moral accountability?
If my drinking tea at 11:00am is not a free choice, then doesn't that present problems for moral accountability? And what does it say about God's free will?[quote]And Hazael said, Why weeps my lord? And he answered, Because I know the evil that you will do to the children of Israel: their strong holds will you set on fire, and their young men will you sl ...[text shortened]... e will tell me that I will drink tea at 11:00am tomorrow, can God refrain from telling me?[/b]
-----------------swiss----------------
Your drinking tea might be a free choice - it might not. If it is not then you can't be held morally accountable although if it is a sinful act it still needs rectifiying in the eyes of God. Your actions will be judged but you will be forgiven.
It's late and I don't want to get into the old free will v compatabilist thing right now. I have enough to contend with.
23 Feb 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterWant to re-try this post?
If my drinking tea at 11:00am is not a free choice, then doesn't that present problems for moral accountability?
-----------------swiss----------------
Your drinking tea might be a free choice - it might not. If it is not then you can't be held morally accountable although if it is a sinful act it still needs rectifiying in the eyes of God. Your ac ...[text shortened]... get into the old free will v compatabilist thing right now. I have enough to contend with.
23 Feb 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitI think I would say that even if God tells you that you will drink tea at 11am tomorrow it could still be a free choice. The fact that you "will" do it does mean that you cannot not do it (because that's what you will freely choose) , but it does not mean that you could never have not done it.
Want to re-try this post?
Knowing the future free choice X in advance shows that there's only one thing that you will choose , but it's not the same thing as saying that choice Y was never possible.