By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
timmah on 29 January 2013
Edit Thread
Chrizum said:
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:

If God can view time from a non-fixed perspective (the axiom in the argument I posed), this is simply not the case (just as a theoretical time traveler would not have to pre-determine a choice to witness it, thereby knowing it without pre-determining it). You simply refuse to consider that axiom. Again, I don't know how God works, I'm just posing a theoretical possibility based on one theological perspective.

And please, don't patronize my intelligence on this. Plenty of brilliant men have theorized a ton of different ideas on time as a dimension, spacetime, whether time is fixed in reality, or merely by our perspective of it, whether it flows, or if this is simply our way of interpreting it, whether all things in time exist simultaneously, or if there is one fixed point of existence in time that is absolute, whether time has an arrow, or if it is theoretically possible for travel through it, whether dimensions/realities can exist outside of time, whether time can be bent by gravity or speed, etc. etc. etc.

Once again, it does not matter how God views time. What matters is that all outcomes are known which is predetermination. What is so hard to grasp here? Time travel has nothing to do with God. 

There are things that are no longer speculation in terms of time - 1) You don't move backward. 2) Gravity does indeed bend time - relativity 3) It is absolutely possible to travel through it forward (we do it every day).

Now tell me if you can choose A or C. 

Time travel would be the best humanly understandable analogy to a God who is theoretically outside of time and views time from a non-fixed perspective. If you actually considered the time traveler analogy (which is a core part of the axiom I presented), what I'm saying makes sense.

Obviously, I could chose A or C, I just did not in this scenario. The fact that God observed the choice does not mean I did not make the choice. He didn't make me choose it, I chose it, he observed. The fact that this choice is in the past, present, or future would have no bearing to an observer with a non-fixed perspective of time in either the time traveler analogy, or the frozen river analogy of time.

My problem with your theory, even though it at least brings something new to the table, is that it entirely depends on supernatural powers like observing irrespective of time. If a computer could calculate what choices you make for the rest of your life based on an infinite set of variables, the future would be set and choice would be an illusion. If a time traveler could go to the future and observe all your choices, then it means you really cannot choose anything other than has been observed. You think you can choose whatever you want however it seems to be determined with 0% variation in both scenarios. What is the difference from those scenarios with your God theory?

Any discussion of a God who would be, by definition, supernatural (even in a theoretical sense) could, by definition, bring supernatural powers into the discussion. Anything beyond the dimensions we define as the natural world we observe and define would, by definition, be supernatural (meaning more, ouside, or beyond the fabric of the natural universe as we see it).

I understand what you're saying (and I've had this same discussion with Christian friends on both sides of the debate). My position is that the free-will aspect of the choice in the mind of the individual cannot be fundamentally changed regardless of how or if it is observed, the electrical impulses that took place inside the mind ultimately resulting in the choice are the same regardless of if they are passively observed. Another interesting poing I've heard posed is that the God or 'entity' doing the observing would have the power to influence the choice in order to get a specific outcome, but would choose not to. By choosing not to interfere, the integrity of choice is preserved.

The point where this gets sticky is when you consider uniquely relative perspective of the two individuals involved (the observer and the chooser). From the chooser's perspective, it would appear that the choice was inevitable, because it seems to be 'pre-known' when looking at a fixed-time perspercive. Conversely, from the perspective of the observer, it would appear that the choice was made at the exact moment it was observed without any outside interference. The conundrum is that to the observer, the choice was not made or known until it was observed (from the non-fixed time perspective), and at the same time, the observer seemed to know the choice before it was made when analyzed from fixed perspective of the chooser, even though to the observer, the choice had already been made, had not yet been made, and was being made, depending on 'when' they are observing.