Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
There is no need for space-like intervals except if we are dealing with intervals between events that occur now. But God, or whatever presence you try equate with His material omniscience, must surely have been existent and present at the beginning of creation: and all things are connected with that, by definition.
This is certainly true, but it's a one-way connection. For God being the cause of any event in the universe, a time-like path is only required, but all paths that connect the event back to creation time are space-like. If God could already foresee at Big Bang time an event like Adam's fall, and react on it by adjusting the universe constants differently, we had a space-like loop.
Therefore all time-like paths in our universe support the concept that God caused everything, but they do not support the concept that the future is fixed and can be foreseen by God.
Yes, but I don’t agree with Smolin’s idea; this isn’t what I mean when I say I think the future is determined. I think the laws of mathematics aren’t something that exist independently of the universe, so in other words God would have created them along with everything else. Since God could have made the laws of mathematics different if he’d wanted to, it isn’t significant to say that the physics of our universe are the only physics that could be consistent with our universe’s mathematical laws. I think the only reason most people are unable to imagine a universe where the laws of mathematics are different is just because they’ve never inhabited a universe other than this one. Our existence might not be possible in a universe where the laws of mathematics are different, but that doesn’t mean God would have been incapable of creating one.
My math is limited to simple addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. I barely remember how to solve a quadratic equation. So the idea that mathematical laws could be different is mind-boggling to me. I suppose if one is advanced enough in math one may see that possibility.
When I say that the future is determined, what I mean is what my father said in his letter: that God created the entire four-dimensional structure of the universe at once. He had a choice what its structure would be when he was creating it; it’s only now that it exists that the future is set in place. I also don’t consider it a limitation of God’s sovereignty that he isn’t able to alter the future from what he determined originally, since I don’t believe someone both omnipotent and omniscient is capable of making mistakes. When he determined what would happen throughout the universe’s history, he would have made sure that everything that happens in it would be exactly what he wanted, so there’s no need for him to contradict himself by changing what he determined in his original plan.
It would also mean that each and every event in the whole history of the universe was completely pre-planned before creation. Down to whether I boil or scramble my egg for breakfast.
All I can say is if that is the case, the Christian tradition as a whole and its scriptures are dead wrong about God and creation. Mainstream Christian theology (whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, whether conservative or liberal or radical) sees God as interacting with creation in ways that can only be consistent with freedom both on the part of God and of creation.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
It’s a very common misconception that something in one of Einstein’s Relativity theories doesn’t allow anything to travel faster than light, but this actually isn’t true; this is explained in this article.
As long as the article does not back this strange claim with arguments, I have to stay with the current state of science that says that information can not travel faster than light in our universe.
Originally Posted by Aggie
I think the laws of mathematics aren’t something that exist independently of the universe, so in other words God would have created them along with everything else. Since God could have made the laws of mathematics different if he’d wanted to, it isn’t significant to say that the physics of our universe are the only physics that could be consistent with our universe’s mathematical laws.
Physics can of course be different in different universes, but mathematics is independent of properties of universes. I do not know of any scientific or mathematical consideration that would support the idea that 1+1=3 in some world.
All I can say is if that is the case, the Christian tradition as a whole and its scriptures are dead wrong about God and creation. Mainstream Christian theology (whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, whether conservative or liberal or radical) sees God as interacting with creation in ways that can only be consistent with freedom both on the part of God and of creation.
First of all, I’m not a Christian, so even if this isn’t consistent with the Bible that doesn’t really bother me. But I think the Bible also supports the idea that God chose many of our actions in advance for us, such as Romans 8:29-30.
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Ephesians 1:11 says something similar.
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will[…]
Before Einstein’s theories of Relativity existed, the concept of predestination was based entirely on scripture. Ironically, the term “free will” does not appear in the Bible anywhere.
Originally Posted by ClearSky
As long as the article does not back this strange claim with arguments, I have to stay with the current state of science that says that information can not travel faster than light in our universe.
This isn’t the “current state of science”. It’s just what you learned in whatever course you took about astrophysics, isn’t it? An undergraduate physics textbook probably isn’t going to cover all of the most unusual conclusions that Einstein’s theories lead to.
I linked you to an article at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. If you look up this topic at the other technical website that deals with this topic professionally, it will say the same thing. Is your entire argument about this based on the assumption that there’s no more to astrophysics than what you learned in college?
Originally Posted by ClearSky
Physics can of course be different in different universes, but mathematics is independent of properties of universes. I do not know of any scientific or mathematical consideration that would support the idea that 1+1=3 in some world.
As I said, this is because our mental functioning is based completely on the laws of mathematics being what they are. I don’t believe God has that limitation.
As odd as this may seem, I think the best way to understand the ways in which the laws of mathematics could theoretically be different is through fantasy fiction, since in many cases this sort of fiction describes completely consistent fictional universes where they are different. For example, in The 13 Clocks the converse of a true statement is always true, but not necessarily the contrapositive, which is the opposite of how it is in our universe. In my opinion, one of the best examples is in The Longest Journey, a 2001 video game that plays more like a novel. That game describes an entire parallel universe, Arcadia, where science simply isn’t possible because there is NO logical operation humans can perform which is capable of predicting the results of a physical process.
It’s difficult to describe all of the ways I can imagine the laws of mathematics possibly being different, since a lot of these concepts don’t have any words that exist for them, so I think my fantasy fiction analogy is the best way for me to make this point. If an author or game designer is capable of creating a hypothetical world where the laws of math and logic are different, don’t you think God would be able to accomplish the same thing?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
First of all, I’m not a Christian, so even if this isn’t consistent with the Bible that doesn’t really bother me.
OK. Part of faith is taking the risk that one may be wrong. I believe in the God worshipped by Christians. I believe creation is consistent with this God as creator.
If it turns out I am wrong, then all of Christianity is wrong.
But I think the Bible also supports the idea that God chose many of our actions in advance for us, such as Romans 8:29-30.
Common error. You are confusing predestination with predetermination. Predestination has nothing to do with predetermining our actions. It is an action/decision of God, not of ourselves.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
Common error. You are confusing predestination with predetermination. Predestination has nothing to do with predetermining our actions. It is an action/decision of God, not of ourselves.
In this case, what’s the difference? These verses refer to God predestining which people will end up becoming Christians. Isn’t becoming a Christian still an action of ours, so for God to predestine it would be the same as him predetermining one of our actions?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
In this case, what’s the difference? These verses refer to God predestining which people will end up becoming Christians. Isn’t becoming a Christian still an action of ours, so for God to predestine it would be the same as him predetermining one of our actions?
Not according to Reform theology. God chooses to save and if God predestines you to salvation, God's grace will/has save(d) you. There is nothing you can do to contribute to God's saving work. Salvation is God's action, not yours.
However, within the framework of salvation Paul says "For freedom Christ has set us free." (Galations 5:1)
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
This isn’t the “current state of science”. It’s just what you learned in whatever course you took about astrophysics, isn’t it? An undergraduate physics textbook probably isn’t going to cover all of the most unusual conclusions that Einstein’s theories lead to.
I linked you to an article at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. If you look up this topic at the other technical website that deals with this topic professionally, it will say the same thing. Is your entire argument about this based on the assumption that there’s no more to astrophysics than what you learned in college?
I think we covered everything about Special and General Relativity in our course. After all, the theory is about 100 years old and in essence rather simple. So I don't think there's something fundamental that I missed in the course.
Of course I can still be wrong, but don't you agree that it is difficult to discuss such a topic without exchanging any substantial arguments? The article you linked me to consists of just one single page with no scientific content. So if you want to discuss whether information can travel faster than light, please bring forward some arguments, such as a theoretical or practical example for the claimed effect. I promise to seriously look into it and respond.
Last edited by ClearSky; 19th March 2008 at 07:56 AM.
It’s kind of hard for me to find a source about this beyond what I linked to, since most popular articles about Special Relativity (that’s what this is mostly about) don’t cover its more unusual effects. But I can describe my understanding of how this works, based on what I’ve read about the theory:
As you probably know, as an object approaches the speed of light, the amount of energy required to accelerate it a certain amount steadily increases. The speed of time for that object also slows down relative to stationary observers, so if a stationary observer were observing a clock on a spaceship traveling ¾ the speed of light, it would appear to be running more slowly than a clock that’s standing still. Accelerating something to exactly the speed of light would require infinite energy, so for all practical purposes it isn’t possible. But according to Special Relativity, if someone hypothetically managed to do this, any clock traveling exactly the speed of light would appear to not be running at all.
But even though for something to go exactly the speed of light would require infinite energy, for something to go faster than the speed of light would not—beyond that point its kinetic energy decreases as its speed increases. I don’t recall exactly how this is calculated, but I think it might be because objects traveling faster than the speed of light behave as though they have negative mass. Although the equations of Special Relativity allow for this, there’s a fairly obvious practical consideration that makes it impossible to accelerate an object to past-light speed with any known technology. We have no way of accelerating an object instantaneously, so accelerating something beyond the speed of light would have to involve accelerating it to the speed of light first.
That doesn’t mean no one will ever find a way around this barrier, though, or that there can’t be matter that’s been traveling at beyond the speed of light since the beginning of the universe. And as stated in the article I linked to, for something traveling at beyond the speed of light, time will flow in reverse relative to stationary observers.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It’s kind of hard for me to find a source about this beyond what I linked to, since most popular articles about Special Relativity (that’s what this is mostly about) don’t cover its more unusual effects. But I can describe my understanding of how this works, based on what I’ve read about the theory:
As you probably know, as an object approaches the speed of light, the amount of energy required to accelerate it a certain amount steadily increases. The speed of time for that object also slows down relative to stationary observers, so if a stationary observer were observing a clock on a spaceship traveling ¾ the speed of light, it would appear to be running more slowly than a clock that’s standing still. Accelerating something to exactly the speed of light would require infinite energy, so for all practical purposes it isn’t possible. But according to Special Relativity, if someone hypothetically managed to do this, any clock traveling exactly the speed of light would appear to not be running at all.
But even though for something to go exactly the speed of light would require infinite energy, for something to go faster than the speed of light would not—beyond that point its kinetic energy decreases as its speed increases. I don’t recall exactly how this is calculated, but I think it might be because objects traveling faster than the speed of light behave as though they have negative mass. Although the equations of Special Relativity allow for this, there’s a fairly obvious practical consideration that makes it impossible to accelerate an object to past-light speed with any known technology. We have no way of accelerating an object instantaneously, so accelerating something beyond the speed of light would have to involve accelerating it to the speed of light first.
That doesn’t mean no one will ever find a way around this barrier, though, or that there can’t be matter that’s been traveling at beyond the speed of light since the beginning of the universe. And as stated in the article I linked to, for something traveling at beyond the speed of light, time will flow in reverse relative to stationary observers.
Not quite. Think of it this way:
Let's say we're traveling on a train at v = 3c/4. (And we've cleared all the pesky interstellar dust out of the way, and the train is infinite, and all cows are spherical, that kind of stuff.) I start walking forward at my own v = c/2, and you sit and observe me. How fast am I moving in your frame? Not 5c/4.
That's what the speed limit of light is. It's not a technological limit, it's a limit due to the structure of the universe. It pops out from the way you add velocities together, and energy/mass considerations pop out from that, not the other way around. To get over the speedbump you'd have to learn to add velocities differently.
Either that, or you can start at over the speed of light. You can't accelerate past the speed of light, but if you spontaneously create a particle that comes into existence already moving faster than light, it can go as "fast" as you like - although the physical meaning of familiar properties like mass, energy, momentum etc. start becoming a bit fuzzy.
Now that I think a bit more about it I can't really see any way around what ClearSky and Paul365 are saying, at least within the physical universe. If we consider God's omniscience as some kind of process depending on the nature of the spacetime paths involved, then there cannot be any way for God to influence the past based on knowledge of the future. However God's omniscience is a Biblically declared truth and one of the foundations of His theistic eminence, so it therefore cannot possibly be a physical process.
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
Linear Mode
