If no one comes from the future to stop you doing it how bad of a decision can it really be?

[ican'tthinkofausername]

If no one comes from the future to stop you doing it how bad of a decision can it really be?

 

[Desk trauma]

If no one comes from the future to stop you doing it how bad of a decision can it really be?

Potentially bad enough to preclude humans being around, or at a high enough technology level, to achieve time travel in the future.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If no one comes from the future to stop you doing it how bad of a decision can it really be?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Do you believe in the Creator? The answer could be found there.

 

[anetazo]

Wont happen. God won't interfere with those who have free will. John chapter 3, every one must decide to follow satan or Jesus. They can walk in the flesh and self destruct. Or be led by the spirit, and succeed in life.
Galatians chapter 5 will lay out that the flesh is in conflict against the spirt.

Look at jail tv shows. People walk in the flesh and are headed for sheol. It's holding place for the spirtualty dead or wicked. They wont repent and conform to God's standard. Thier content leaving God out of their life.
If someone robs bank. Gets caught. They will go to prison. Galatians chapter 6, you reap what you sow. Get the picture.
Jesus can resolve problems and fix broken life. Sadly, many people choose to walk in the flesh. That's their downfall.
So great granny isn't coming from heaven to stop fool from breaking the law.
The only one who can help you is God !!.

 

[Stephen3141]

If no one comes from the future to stop you doing it how bad of a decision can it really be?

As far as I know, EVERYONE who is condemned at the final judgment,
had no one come back in time to stop them from doing evil.

Having free will, means that in most cases, no one will stop you from doing evil.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If no one comes from the future to stop you doing it how bad of a decision can it really be?

Or, and you should really think about this for a second, traveling backward in time to stop things is physically impossible. If that is the case, there are no time travellers to fix our problems for us.

 

[Mark Quayle]

As far as I know, EVERYONE who is condemned at the final judgment,
had no one come back in time to stop them from doing evil.

Having free will, means that in most cases, no one will stop you from doing evil.

But then, how would you even know, if, let's say, God, stopped you from doing evil? By the very fact of creation, all that comes to pass, (or fails to come to pass), is, in one sense at least, by God's doing.

The TULIP point of Total Depravity teaches, not that man is as bad as he could become, were God to withdraw his hand of restraint, but that everything man does is tainted.

 

[partinobodycular]

Or, and you should really think about this for a second, traveling backward in time to stop things is physically impossible.

Or time travel is possible, but the cumulative effect is indistinguishable from no time travel at all. In other words if one person can use time travel to stop me, then somebody else can use time travel to stop them, either intentionally or accidentally, and so on, and so on. The net affect being that the only reality that's stable enough to persist over time is the one in which time travel doesn't happen. All the rest are just a muddled mess of incoherent chaos.

It's the same reason as to why light always travels in a straight line. Light is perfectly free to take every possible path from the source to the observer, it's just that destructive interference guarantees that the only path that'll survive is the one that takes the least amount of time, and all things being equal, that path is most often the straight one.

This might also explain how a randomly fluctuating quantum field can manage to produce a stable, coherent reality... because all other possible configurations of the field cancel each other out, and the only thing that you have left... is us.

In other words, what you end up with is seemingly intelligent design, without the need of a designer.

 

[Mark Quayle]

A barely related, very relatable, link, and funny:

International Association of Time Travelers: Members’ Forum
Subforum: Europe – Twentieth Century – Second World War
Page 263

Wikihistory - Reactor

Wikihistory by Desmond Warzel

www.tor.com

 

[Mark Quayle]

Or time travel is possible, but the cumulative effect is indistinguishable from no time travel at all. In other words if one person can use time travel to stop me, then somebody else can use time travel to stop them, either intentionally or accidentally, and so on, and so on. The net affect being that the only reality that's stable enough to persist over time is the one in which time travel doesn't happen. All the rest are just a muddled mess of incoherent chaos.

It's the same reason as to why light always travels in a straight line. Light is perfectly free to take every possible path from the source to the observer, it's just that destructive interference guarantees that the only path that'll survive is the one that takes the least amount of time, and all things being equal, that path is most often the straight one.

This might also explain how a randomly fluctuating quantum field can manage to produce a stable, coherent reality... because all other possible configurations of the field cancel each other out, and the only thing that you have left... is us.

In other words, what you end up with is seemingly intelligent design, without the need of a designer.

Or consider the notion that the designer is capable of more miniscule and more complex design than anybody supposes. After all, doesn't history demonstrate that nothing ever happens besides what does happen? At least, as far as coherence applies.

 

[partinobodycular]

Or consider the notion that the designer is capable of more miniscule and more complex design than anybody supposes.

But why posit the existence of a designer when none is needed?

Plus the very notion of a conscious designer comes with a boatload of logistical problems, for example... how does one integrate free will with predestination?

 

[Mark Quayle]

But why posit the existence of a designer when none is needed?

Plus the very notion of a conscious designer comes with a boatload of logistical problems, for example... how does one integrate free will with predestination?

Existence itself begs explanation. The Creator, First Cause, is the most reasonable explanation. And, if so, then The Creator is default fact.

What free will? You mean, willed choice? First Cause establishes choice, and, in fact, establishes all fact. —What other logistical problems?

 

[Robban]

But why posit the existence of a designer when none is needed?

Plus the very notion of a conscious designer comes with a boatload of logistical problems, for example... how does one integrate free will with predestination?

"All is foreseen and freedom of choice is granted."

Ethics of the Fathers 3:15

 

[Pommer]

Existence itself begs explanation. The Creator, First Cause, is the most reasonable explanation. And, if so, then The Creator is default fact.

What free will? You mean, willed choice? First Cause establishes choice, and, in fact, establishes all fact. —What other logistical problems?

Why are we not “allowed” to be ignorant of “what caused all this”?

 

[partinobodycular]

Existence itself begs explanation.

I must admit, I'm certainly curious.

The Creator, First Cause, is the most reasonable explanation.

I see that you've taken Aquinas' lead and summarily equated the first one with the second one. With all due respect to Aquinas, Aristotle, and Kalam I'd be surprised if you could make a cogent argument for either.

And, if so, then The Creator is default fact.

The First Cause, as per metaphysical arguments, and a conscious Creator with free will, while not mutually exclusive, can't possibly be one and the same thing.

What free will? You mean, willed choice?

The good old "Men freely will what God wills them to will." argument. Hardly convincing, and a tad hypocritical. After all we could make the exact same argument for God, "God freely wills what the First Cause wills Him to will."

First Cause establishes choice, and, in fact, establishes all fact.

In other words the First Cause establishes the illusion of choice. Both ours and God's.

If God has no choice in what He creates, then He's merely acting in accord with something greater than Himself. On the other hand if He does have a choice, then He's not the First Cause because something has to influence Him to choose one thing over another... in other words there has to be a cause for what He chooses. Whenever God chooses to do one thing rather than another it demonstrates that He's not the First Cause. On the other hand if He has no choice in what He does then there's something greater than He is.

—What other logistical problems?

Ah, we've barely scratched the surface on the first one.

 

[Pommer]

My time machine can whisk me 3600 seconds into the future for every hour I sit in it!

 

[Mark Quayle]

My time machine can whisk me 3600 seconds into the future for every hour I sit in it!

Ha! Well, can it bring you back???

 

[Pommer]

Ha! Well, can it bring you back???

No, I’m stuck there.

 

[Runningman]

If no one comes from the future to stop you doing it how bad of a decision can it really be?

If we aren't seeing time travelers then they're either really good at hiding, it was never discovered, or it's impossible.