Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If we aren't seeing time travelers then they're either really good at hiding, it was never discovered, or it's impossible.
We are. At least, if we want to remain unattached to God.Why are we not “allowed” to be ignorant of “what caused all this”?
A fifth: Time travel happens all the time, but nobody, not even the travelers, remember what came "before".There's a fourth possibility. Time travel is possible, but you can't go back to a point before time travel was invented. For example, if you create a wormhole through which people from the future can travel back to the point when the wormhole was created, but they can't go back any further.
"...equate the first one with the second one." What are you talking about? And, "a cogent argument for either" —either what? If God is God, he is omnipotent; therefore, First Cause. Definition. No need to prove. I simply refuse to call any other being "God" or to consider any other to be God. Superhumans —gods, perhaps— but not God.I must admit, I'm certainly curious.
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.
I should think that would depend on what "free will" means, there.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.
You repeatedly seem to assume that God and First Cause are not necessarily the same thing. I'm sorry, but God is not God, if he is not First Cause.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."
Why God's? What makes a human think he would know what it is for God to decide anything? Why assume that God even has options? Things come FROM God —they don't happen TO him.In other words the First Cause establishes the illusion of choice. Both ours and God's.
Are you familiar with the phrase (CS Lewis —Til We Have Faces) —"...the babble we think we mean"? We have this monstrous habit of considering our concepts worthy, nearly reality themselves, and certainly fully representative of reality. WE come up with something by which to describe God, then hold him to our notions of those things.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.
Ah, we've barely scratched the surface on the first one.
I thought that God was completely “outside” of this universe?We are. At least, if we want to remain unattached to God.
I believe that this is explained as “Last Thursdayism”.A fifth: Time travel happens all the time, but nobody, not even the travelers, remember what came "before".
I'm not a physicist, but I know a bit about time dilatation. Suppose I traveled around the Milky Way galaxy in a spaceship capable of going 0.99c. On the time clock in my ship, I've been gone 5 years. But when I come back to Earth, more than 30 years have passed. According to special relativity, time passes more slowly for an object in motion as opposed for one that's stationary. But I wouldn't be someone coming from the future. I'd be coming from the past.
0.99c compared to what?I'm not a physicist, but I know a bit about time dilatation. Suppose I traveled around the Milky Way galaxy in a spaceship capable of going 0.99c. On the time clock in my ship, I've been gone 5 years. But when I come back to Earth, more than 30 years have passed. According to special relativity, time passes more slowly for an object in motion as opposed for one that's stationary. But I wouldn't be someone coming from the future. I'd be coming from the past.
That would fit the description, but that wasn't what I was talking about. By the way, I don't believe in Last Thursdayism. I believe God can actually make the world in six days AND also actually in billions of years, if he wishes, both. The only deception being our lack of understanding of time and his sovereignty as first cause —the creator of time and of very fact, itself.I believe that this is explained as “Last Thursdayism”.
Hardly. But a proper notion of his immanence, while contrasting with his transcendence, does not oppose it, both being our poor words to describe him.I thought that God was completely “outside” of this universe?
Or are you asserting that the universe can contain God?
How nice for Him!Hardly. But a proper notion of his immanence, while contrasting with his transcendence, does not oppose it, both being our poor words to describe him.
God does not answer to form. Thus, measurements, boundaries and logical structures are not descriptive of him. To say "within" or "contain" or "outside of", are only ways for us to put handles on thoughts. When I say he is outside of this universe, I certainly mean that it cannot contain him, but also that its laws are made by him, and do not apply to him.
Yes, for an omnipotent God both these time-frame-references are possible.That would fit the description, but that wasn't what I was talking about. By the way, I don't believe in Last Thursdayism. I believe God can actually make the world in six days AND also actually in billions of years, if he wishes, both. The only deception being our lack of understanding of time and his sovereignty as first cause —the creator of time and of very fact, itself.
The whole basis of special relativity is that there is no one frame of reference that is standing still. All inertial frames of reference are equal and the observer in any such frame of reference is 'standing still'.Standing “still”, though, in our expanding universe, this has yet to be observed.
Standing “still”, though, in our expanding universe, this has yet to be observed.
'Existence', as we understand it, hardly describes him. 'Existence', in fact gets its meaning from him. He is not subject to the principle we know of as existence. That is just our word.How nice for Him!
It’s almost as if He needn’t actually “exist”.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?