I've had similar experiences I know what you're talking about. That still doesn't mean you can establish as an absolute understanding of how all that plays out.
Upvote
0
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.
I've had similar experiences I know what you're talking about. That still doesn't mean you can establish as an absolute understanding of how all that plays out.I happen to know, from a lot of personal experience personally, because He has shown me over and over again, many, many times, etc, that He always knows where everything is going to be/what it's going to be doing/what way it's going to be choosing, everywhere at all times personally, etc.
I know many say God knows the future. I believe he does but for a certain reason many have not considered. But many say God is in the future for the reason that if he didn't that would to them mean God has a limitation.....so they default to a position that would be impossible.God simply "sees" everything - past, present and future - which is an alien concept to us, especially the future. We all have a known past and present but not a known future.
Like us the devil can't see the future either but God can.
I'm not sure you could say that as an absolute.That’s the opposite to what I meant. But going with that approach: if a being could model everything perfectly or simply being aware of the future (but unable to affect it) then the universe would be deterministic and free will would not exist.
‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day...
Ludicrous question. It's the same as "if a tree falls in the forest and no one notices it, did it really fall, or does it make no noise? Laws of physics aren't determined by someone "noticing".Here's a couple questions you may find intriguing:
i) What does it take to notice 'a series of changes' or 'iterations' in a physical universe?
ii) If that 'noticing thing' there doesn't exist, would time exist? Why?
Sounds to me like you can't see the forest for the trees.Perhaps one could say that, but I would then ask you to define, without a trace of ambiguity, "series" and "change".
The definition of series might include the idea that events (we would need to define "event" also) either follow or precede each other. However, we know from relativity that the order (definition please) in which events seem to occur is dependent upon reference frame (more definitions) and the like. As I said, it's well above my pay grade.
Time is not a Law of Physics.Ludicrous question. It's the same as "if a tree falls in the forest and no one notices it, did it really fall, or does it make no noise? Laws of physics aren't determined by someone "noticing".
I don't agree with you. Time is fundamental to physics, and is included in such things as the general theory of relativity. In the basic Newtonian laws of physics, time is assumed.Time is not a Law of Physics.
If there are no observers, then there's nothing supporting any such notion now, is there?
Certainly. I much prefer acknowledging the complexity of a problem that has been debated and discussed for centuries with no firm resolution, than go with a simplistic definition that ignores that complexity and appears to make use of a "common sense" approach, by disregarding what facts we do appear to know about time.Sounds to me like you can't see the forest for the trees.
The most simplistic definitions or explanations that cannot be refuted by logic or reason are usually the most correct ones, no matter how hard others try to deny them, or not take notice of them, etc.Certainly. I much prefer acknowledging the complexity of a problem that has been debated and discussed for centuries with no firm resolution, than go with a simplistic definition that ignores that complexity and appears to make use of a "common sense" approach, by disregarding what facts we do appear to know about time.
I have refuted the simplistic explanation by logic and reason. The non-simultaneity of events in difference reference frames takes care of that.The most simplistic definitions or explanations that cannot be refuted by logic or reason are usually the most correct ones.
Post #37 & #38 of this thread.
God Bless.
Agreement is irrelevant. What I've said is based on the results of abundant objective tests using the scientific method.I don't agree with you.
Time is fundamental to physics, and is included in such things as the general theory of relativity. In the basic Newtonian laws of physics, ..
Nope .. the scientific method deliberately starts out by making no assumptions .. otherwise it immediately ceases being science, and becomes something completely different.tdidymas said:.. time is assumed.
Good question. So if God is in the past, present and future....that would have to mean I have three physicals bodies in what we could call right now. Does any of that make rational sense. For sure not. So what is the future. If it's not real until it occurs then never could it be said there's a limitation in God to say he's not in it. If something is not real it's not real period. So where does that leave us?Bobber posted the following paragraph above - "But what is the future? If it exists, as we might say, that would mean I am in that place we could say RIGHT NOW. So there's a physicals body of myself in two places at the same time? Or we could ask.....is it a limitation for God not to be in a place that's not a reality? If I asked is God in the world or universe of Star Wars right now.....If I said no I would be right to say no for such a place is a fictional concept.....it's not a reality. Is the future a reality BEFORE it occurs. I'd say not. (more could be said)"
If it comes to that "But what is the past?" For us it's just a sequence of choices or events that led to our present.
No, it doesn't, because it is impossible for all events to all happen simultaneously, etc.The non-simultaneity of events in difference reference frames takes care of that.
So, 'If a tree falls in the forest and no one notices .. does it make noise?'Ludicrous question. It's the same as "if a tree falls in the forest and no one notices it, did it really fall, or does it make no noise?
I did not state that all events happened simultaneously. ***No, it doesn't, because it is impossible for all events to all happen simultaneously, etc
Events are right now separated by time and space, what time they are happening matters not, because they are still separate events still separated by time and space.I did not state that all events happened simultaneously. ***
I noted that the apparent timing of events depends on the reference frames of the two events. This refutes the claim that time is just the passage of a series of events. As I also noted, discussion of time is really above my pay grade, so I'm not surprised you misinterpeted my statement. This wikipedia article may make more sense to you.
*** Although you haven't considered the possibility that all events happen/happened/will happen/will have happened/are happening simultaneously, but that we perceive them in sequence. This seems a good match for your pondering of God perceiving the past, present and future at the same time. (You see our vocabulary imposes the belief that time is just that simple sequence of events in series. It is not constructed to deal with time as it is. I imagine that's why physicists use mathematics to talk about it.)
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?