time travel & eschatology

[George Murphy]

99.9% of the posts in this forum seem to deal, in one way or another, with origins. How about the other end of things for a change?

Relativistic cosmologies don't seem to offer much room for the "new heavens and new earth" spoken of in the NT. They offer the unappealing option of "fry or freeze" with the universe either collapsing on itself or continuing to expand, thin out & cool down forever. The latter seems now to be supported by the observational evidence, with the expansion even accelerating. Of course one can always say that God breaks in, abolishes the old creation & makes a new & completely different one but then there's no continuity with the old. What happens to the "glory and honor of the nations" that are supposed to be brought into the heavenly city? (Rev.21:26)

Beyond the details, there's an even more fundamental question of how anything genuinely new can emerge in a universe in which the future develops simply out of the past (either in a classical or a quantum sense).

Some modern theologians have used the concept of prolepsis, explained by Ted Peters (in GOD - The World's Future [Fortress, 2000]) as "the invasion of the present by the power of what is yet to come." The future, he suggests, is not merely futurum, the future as it unfolds causally from the past, or even adventus, the future as bringing something absolutely new, but also venturum, the future as it "has an impact on us before its full advent," literally the future which is coming.

If the future could actually influence the past then genuinely new things could happen. In addition, the assumptions that lead to the conclusion that the universe must continue to expand forever might come into question.

So what does this have to do with "natural science"? There are a number of ways in which, without violating any of our present laws of physics, signals might be sent from the future into the past. Some of them are:

1) The advanced potentials of classical electrodynamics.

2) Tachyons.

3) Various "time machine" solutions of the Einstein equations (the first being the Goedel universe).

4) Faster-than-light hydrodynamic waves in some models of dark energy.

For further discussion see Paul J. Nahin, Time Machines (Springer-Verlag, 1998) or Kip S. Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps (W.W. Norton & Co., 1994).

These possibilities might help us to understand - or at least provide analogies for - the belief that the risen Christ is the prolepsis of God's ultimate future.

I hope these comments can provoke some worthwhile discussion. But please don't bother to chime in just to say that I'm prying into things that we aren't meant to know or anything of that sort.

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

Since there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in this topic among natural science afficionadoes, I'm going to post it also in Eschatology 201 & see if there's any theological interest. It would probably be simpler if all responses, if there are any, were included in one forum or another.

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

I started this same thread in the Natural Science 301 forum but since there didn't seem to be a lot of interest in the science I thought I'd see what it might provoke among those with a theological interest in eschatology.

99.9% of the posts in this forum seem to deal, in one way or another, with origins. How about the other end of things for a change?

Relativistic cosmologies don't seem to offer much room for the "new heavens and new earth" spoken of in the NT. They offer the unappealing option of "fry or freeze" with the universe either collapsing on itself or continuing to expand, thin out & cool down forever. The latter seems now to be supported by the observational evidence, with the expansion even accelerating. Of course one can always say that God breaks in, abolishes the old creation & makes a new & completely different one but then there's no continuity with the old. What happens to the "glory and honor of the nations" that are supposed to be brought into the heavenly city? (Rev.21:26)

Beyond the details, there's an even more fundamental question of how anything genuinely new can emerge in a universe in which the future develops simply out of the past (either in a classical or a quantum sense).

Some modern theologians have used the concept of prolepsis, explained by Ted Peters (in GOD - The World's Future [Fortress, 2000]) as "the invasion of the present by the power of what is yet to come." The future, he suggests, is not merely futurum, the future as it unfolds causally from the past, or even adventus, the future as bringing something absolutely new, but also venturum, the future as it "has an impact on us before its full advent," literally the future which is coming.

If the future could actually influence the past then genuinely new things could happen. In addition, the assumptions that lead to the conclusion that the universe must continue to expand forever might come into question.

So what does this have to do with "natural science"? There are a number of ways in which, without violating any of our present laws of physics, signals might be sent from the future into the past. Some of them are:

1) The advanced potentials of classical electrodynamics.

2) Tachyons.

3) Various "time machine" solutions of the Einstein equations (the first being the Goedel universe).

4) Faster-than-light hydrodynamic waves in some models of dark energy.

For further discussion see Paul J. Nahin, Time Machines (Springer-Verlag, 1998) or Kip S. Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps (W.W. Norton & Co., 1994).

These possibilities might help us to understand - or at least provide analogies for - the belief that the risen Christ is the prolepsis of God's ultimate future.

I hope these comments can provoke some worthwhile discussion. But please don't bother to chime in just to say that I'm prying into things that we aren't meant to know or anything of that sort.

Shalom,
George

[rogero]

Since there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in this topic among natural science afficionadoes, I'm going to post it also in Eschatology 201 & see if there's any theological interest. It would probably be simpler if all responses, if there are any, were included in one forum or another.

Shalom,
George

George,

This is a very fascinating topic, and it's a shame it hasn't generated interest as of yet. One would think that some Bible-believing Christians would latch on to this thread as a "scientific" way of explaining (inter alia) prophecy.

I mention "Bible-believing Christians" since the search for a "scientific" explanation of prophecies should interest them, in a similar manner to how a "scientific" explanation of their narrow interpretation of origins (however ad hoc that might be) seems to interest them greatly. Of course, if they thought for half a minute, why would they be interested in "scientific" explanations of origins or prophecy? This conflation is symptomatic of the muddling of science and revelation, the natural and the supernatural, Creation vs. Evolution, and all that jazz.

For my own benefit, I would like to hear about some of these scientific inquiries of the motility of the arrow of time. Time travel has always been a favorite topic of mine. (This may not be the proper place for this, but I was always fascinated by C.S. Lewis' unfinished work "The Dark Tower" which deals with parallel time -- not only backwards and forwards, but "eckwards" and "andwards". Perhaps a lively discussion of that could be had somewhere on TWeb? Has anyone else read that book?)

R

[grmorton]

George,

This is a very fascinating topic, and it's a shame it hasn't generated interest as of yet. One would think that some Bible-believing Christians would latch on to this thread as a "scientific" way of explaining (inter alia) prophecy.


I think the possible reason for the lack of interest, at least from my part, is that science has struggled with the time symmetric form of the laws, but the obviously non-symmetrical flow of time. One can't derive the arrow of time from the symmetrical laws of nature.


“Yet this dilemma is really just a new manifestation of the problem that the physics of time asymmetry has been faced with since Boltzmann's time: How is it possible to derive the asymmetric world we find around us from the symmetric laws we find in physics? Transposed to a cosmological key, where the puzzle is to explain the low entropy of the big bang, this old challenge confronts us with a uncomfortable choice: it seems that we have to accept either that entropy must decrease toward a big crunch, as well as a big bang, or that the low-entropy big bang is simply not explicable by a time-symmetric physics.”

“Perhaps the only contemporary writer who fully appreciates the force of
this dilemma is Roger Penrose, whose numerical estimate of the "specialness" of the big bang I mentioned earlier in the chapter. Penrose's own preference is for the second horn of the dilemma. Accordingly, he concludes that the underlying physics of the universe must be asymmetric in time-that there must be an additional asymmetric law of nature, to the effect that the initial extremities of the universe obey what amounts to a smoothness constraint.
(In technical terms, his hypothesis is that the so-called Weyl curvature of spacetime approaches zero in this initial region.) In effect, Penrose's argument is that it is reasonable to believe that such a constraint exists, because otherwise the universe as we find it would be unbelievably improbable.”

There simply must be some unknown law which forbids advanced solutions, tachyons and the like. Maybe the CPT violation is part of the reason the world is time-asymmetric, but that asymmetry would seem to be incompatible with many of the things you are suggesting.

I will freely acknowledge that you are a MUCH better physicist than I, so I might be going astray.

[rogero]

I think the possible reason for the lack of interest, at least from my part, is that science has struggled with the time symmetric form of the laws, but the obviously non-symmetrical flow of time. One can't derive the arrow of time from the symmetrical laws of nature.


“Yet this dilemma is really just a new manifestation of the problem that the physics of time asymmetry has been faced with since Boltzmann's time: How is it possible to derive the asymmetric world we find around us from the symmetric laws we find in physics? Transposed to a cosmological key, where the puzzle is to explain the low entropy of the big bang, this old challenge confronts us with a uncomfortable choice: it seems that we have to accept either that entropy must decrease toward a big crunch, as well as a big bang, or that the low-entropy big bang is simply not explicable by a time-symmetric physics.”

“Perhaps the only contemporary writer who fully appreciates the force of
this dilemma is Roger Penrose, whose numerical estimate of the "specialness" of the big bang I mentioned earlier in the chapter. Penrose's own preference is for the second horn of the dilemma. Accordingly, he concludes that the underlying physics of the universe must be asymmetric in time-that there must be an additional asymmetric law of nature, to the effect that the initial extremities of the universe obey what amounts to a smoothness constraint.
(In technical terms, his hypothesis is that the so-called Weyl curvature of spacetime approaches zero in this initial region.) In effect, Penrose's argument is that it is reasonable to believe that such a constraint exists, because otherwise the universe as we find it would be unbelievably improbable.”

There simply must be some unknown law which forbids advanced solutions, tachyons and the like. Maybe the CPT violation is part of the reason the world is time-asymmetric, but that asymmetry would seem to be incompatible with many of the things you are suggesting.

I will freely acknowledge that you are a MUCH better physicist than I, so I might be going astray.

No, Glennn, I'm not a much better physicist than you -- in fact I'm not a physicist at all (although I've played one on TV :lol:). Oops! Are you referring to George as the physicist?

I do like the "unknown law" concept -- it's a bit like "God of the Gaps."

R

[{Undersecretary of Internal Affairs}]

Rogero,

This may not be the proper place for this, but I was always fascinated by C.S. Lewis' unfinished work "The Dark Tower" which deals with parallel time

I haven't read it (or heard of it until now in fact). Do you have any idea where I might be able to find it?

:smile:,
Tim

[James Peter]

Well the view I arrived at shortly before deciding that doing a degree in Physics was pointless was basically that Quantum Mechanics pretty much requires the existance of God - or rather its the simplest explanation by far. In a simple, newtonian universe its easy to be highly deterministic but when you realise that there really is no reason for an atom to stay an atom etc. and that for a ball to be thrown through the air trillions and trillions of subatomic particles have to make the same 'decision' at the same time... (I probably should explain that better but its been a few years now)

It makes a thousand times more sense that God really does hold everything in the palm of his hand, really does literally sustain all life and that 'God does not play dice with the universe' - because he determines which numbers are rolled.

The flaw is that it seems very much to be a 'God of gaps' theory and to an extent it is - it is simply a theory and it does try to explain something that we otherwise can't. The merits of the argument though is that every alternative I've seen isn't that convincing and that it restores God to His place as ruler of the universe. He didn't just create it and then let it tick away like a piece of machinery, He actively sustains it and gives it order. Any 'natural laws' that we have are simply the result of God's consistant nature and His decision that things should occur in a certain way. Such a view allows for miracles, or rather sees miracles as no less miraculous than the fact that the universe still is coherant. New Heaven and New Earth? Work of a moment's desire and if you feel the need for consistency between the old and the new you can simply convert all the mass into energy then back into mass again in an entirely different form.

Time Travel? I don't think so. If you accept the theory of the universe that I'm suggesting then it is only possible if God chooses to allow it and I can see no reason why He would. Do we really need all that paradox floating around?

[George Murphy]

I think the possible reason for the lack of interest, at least from my part, is that science has struggled with the time symmetric form of the laws, but the obviously non-symmetrical flow of time. One can't derive the arrow of time from the symmetrical laws of nature.


“Yet this dilemma is really just a new manifestation of the problem that the physics of time asymmetry has been faced with since Boltzmann's time: How is it possible to derive the asymmetric world we find around us from the symmetric laws we find in physics? Transposed to a cosmological key, where the puzzle is to explain the low entropy of the big bang, this old challenge confronts us with a uncomfortable choice: it seems that we have to accept either that entropy must decrease toward a big crunch, as well as a big bang, or that the low-entropy big bang is simply not explicable by a time-symmetric physics.”

“Perhaps the only contemporary writer who fully appreciates the force of
this dilemma is Roger Penrose, whose numerical estimate of the "specialness" of the big bang I mentioned earlier in the chapter. Penrose's own preference is for the second horn of the dilemma. Accordingly, he concludes that the underlying physics of the universe must be asymmetric in time-that there must be an additional asymmetric law of nature, to the effect that the initial extremities of the universe obey what amounts to a smoothness constraint.
(In technical terms, his hypothesis is that the so-called Weyl curvature of spacetime approaches zero in this initial region.) In effect, Penrose's argument is that it is reasonable to believe that such a constraint exists, because otherwise the universe as we find it would be unbelievably improbable.”

There simply must be some unknown law which forbids advanced solutions, tachyons and the like. Maybe the CPT violation is part of the reason the world is time-asymmetric, but that asymmetry would seem to be incompatible with many of the things you are suggesting.

I will freely acknowledge that you are a MUCH better physicist than I, so I might be going astray.

Glenn -

You may be right that there are laws that forbid the kinds of things I mentioned but until we know that with more certainty the possibilities are worth exploring.

A basic time asymmetry (which I think has some grounding in theology as well as physics) might indeed rule out advanced potentials. But I don't see why it would forbid tachyons or the other things I mentioned. Those would still show an asymmetry. You could send signals into the past but not into the future any faster than we normally travel into the future. You could build a time machine to go back to A.D. 1963 & keep JFK from being assassinated, but then the only way you could get back to 2005 would be to live the intervening 42 years.

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

George,

This is a very fascinating topic, and it's a shame it hasn't generated interest as of yet. One would think that some Bible-believing Christians would latch on to this thread as a "scientific" way of explaining (inter alia) prophecy.

I mention "Bible-believing Christians" since the search for a "scientific" explanation of prophecies should interest them, in a similar manner to how a "scientific" explanation of their narrow interpretation of origins (however ad hoc that might be) seems to interest them greatly. Of course, if they thought for half a minute, why would they be interested in "scientific" explanations of origins or prophecy? This conflation is symptomatic of the muddling of science and revelation, the natural and the supernatural, Creation vs. Evolution, and all that jazz.

For my own benefit, I would like to hear about some of these scientific inquiries of the motility of the arrow of time. Time travel has always been a favorite topic of mine. (This may not be the proper place for this, but I was always fascinated by C.S. Lewis' unfinished work "The Dark Tower" which deals with parallel time -- not only backwards and forwards, but "eckwards" and "andwards". Perhaps a lively discussion of that could be had somewhere on TWeb? Has anyone else read that book?)R

Roger -

A discussion of Lewis's unfinished book would indeed be worthwhile. For that matter, I think his space trilogy deserves more attention than it often gets. (I'm interested in it for the Arthurian motifs of the 3d book as well as for other reasons.) One question might be how (if at all) Lewis intended to connect the trilogy with The Dark Tower other than through common characters.

In answer to Tim, the volume in question is C.S. Lewis, The Dark Tower and Other Stories (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977).

I'd like to call attention to my mention of "analogies" in the original post.
In I Cor.15 Paul gives several analogies from nature (different kinds of flesh among living things, different earthly & celestial bodies, seed growing into plant) in answer to a question about the resurrection. They are analogies, not explanations: Paul didn't picture corpses sprouting & growing into new bodies. Later Christian tradition developed other analogies - the Phoenix, butterflies, &c. Again none of these are explanations or proofs, but they are attempts to show, in the context of knowledge of the natural world of the time, that belief in the resurrection made some kind of sense. & of course they are culturally limited: Terrestrial & celestial bodies aren't basically different & there is no Phoenix. But I think it's legitimate, if we know what we're doing, to use ideas like virtual reality, cloning & (maybe) sending signals back in time to present contemporary analogies for the resurrection, & for the resurrection of Christ in particular - as long as we recognize the limitations of such arguments.

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

Well the view I arrived at shortly before deciding that doing a degree in Physics was pointless was basically that Quantum Mechanics pretty much requires the existance of God - or rather its the simplest explanation by far. In a simple, newtonian universe its easy to be highly deterministic but when you realise that there really is no reason for an atom to stay an atom etc. and that for a ball to be thrown through the air trillions and trillions of subatomic particles have to make the same 'decision' at the same time... (I probably should explain that better but its been a few years now)

It makes a thousand times more sense that God really does hold everything in the palm of his hand, really does literally sustain all life and that 'God does not play dice with the universe' - because he determines which numbers are rolled.

We all know that one of the basic rules of gambling is that, in the end, the house always wins. God's sovereignty can be eschatological without controlling every fall of the dice.

The flaw is that it seems very much to be a 'God of gaps' theory and to an extent it is - it is simply a theory and it does try to explain something that we otherwise can't. The merits of the argument though is that every alternative I've seen isn't that convincing and that it restores God to His place as ruler of the universe. He didn't just create it and then let it tick away like a piece of machinery, He actively sustains it and gives it order. Any 'natural laws' that we have are simply the result of God's consistant nature and His decision that things should occur in a certain way. Such a view allows for miracles, or rather sees miracles as no less miraculous than the fact that the universe still is coherant. New Heaven and New Earth? Work of a moment's desire and if you feel the need for consistency between the old and the new you can simply convert all the mass into energy then back into mass again in an entirely different form.

Time Travel? I don't think so. If you accept the theory of the universe that I'm suggesting then it is only possible if God chooses to allow it and I can see no reason why He would. Do we really need all that paradox floating around?

But does sending signals into the past necessarily imply paradoxes? Nahin's book, to which I referred earlier, argues that it need not.

Shalom,
George

[James Peter]

We all know that one of the basic rules of gambling is that, in the end, the house always wins. God's sovereignty can be eschatological without controlling every fall of the dice.


I know but Proverbs 16:33 supports the argument for there being no such thing as 'chance'.

[George Murphy]

I know but Proverbs 16:33 supports the argument for there being no such thing as 'chance'.

Yes, but remember that to speak of God "playing dice" in connection with quantum theory is metaphorical. The Prov. passage refers to things like the casting of lots for division of the land (Josh.18:8 & ff) or to determine the replacement for Judas - or the use of the Urim & Thummim. Those are cases in which people are seeking a decision & cast lots with the belief that God's will make his will known by determining the outcome. It's far from obvious that that idea can be extended to say that in the same way God determines when every single U-235 nucleus will decay. I don't think that such issues were thought of by the writer of Proverbs & there's no reason to think that the Holy Spirit was trying to teach about quantum mechanics.

The way a die falls can be described by classical mechanics & I doubt that even chaos theory considerations are significant, let alone quantum correction - though I could be wrong. (There was an article in Physics Today a few years ago about factors that affect the toss of a coin. I should see if I can come up with it.)

Shalom,
George

Shalom,
George

[rogero]

Rogero,

This may not be the proper place for this, but I was always fascinated by C.S. Lewis' unfinished work "The Dark Tower" which deals with parallel time

I haven't read it (or heard of it until now in fact). Do you have any idea where I might be able to find it?

:smile:,
Tim

The Singleton Set Containg Tim,

Here's (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0156027704/qid=1111184014/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7132338-1044125?v=glance&s=books) a link to the Amazon.com offering of the work as part of an anthology.

It's certainly not Lewis' best work, and there is controversy about whether it's his work at all (some propose that Walter Hooper may have written it in mimicry of Lewis' style!). It's frustrating because it's unfinished and the plot gets twisted into a gordian knot. Perhaps Lewis didn't finish it because either lost interest or simply couldn't figure out a good resolution.

The premise of the book is fascinating, and I always thought it would be a hoot to sit down with a group of "Inklings" and figure out a suitable conclusion.

God's Peace,

Roger

P.S. George, I wrote this post before I read your reply to {Tim}. I concur with your views on the Space Trilogy, and note that the McPhee and Ransom characters from That Hideous Strength appears in The Dark Tower. I also am fascinated by the Arthurian theme, but alas know little in that area.

Apologies for this post being off topic!

[rogero]

This is an interesting topic to me. I was hoping there would be commensurate interest among those who profess to look for concordance with Scripture and science.

To wit, why is the discussion of the standard literalist interpretation of origins as per Genesis vis-a-vis the consensus of modern science so interesting to the folks (in fact it has spawned numerous organizations with their websites, like www.answersingenesis.org (http://www.answersingenesis.org%29?))?--- While, on the other hand, the science of eschatology is ignored in favor of the preferred views (and putative scriptural interpretations) of the participants?

George is offering some science that may allow for communication from the future. If you think that this is a futile, or even an heretical, pursuit, why do you insist on a particular interpretation of Genesis that contradicts the scientific consensus that indicates a vastly contrary interpretation? I would think you would be interested in scientific support and explanations for prophecy, just like you want scientific support for a particular interpretation of Creation.

R

[George Murphy]

This is an interesting topic to me. I was hoping there would be commensurate interest among those who profess to look for concordance with Scripture and science.

To wit, why is the discussion of the standard literalist interpretation of origins as per Genesis vis-a-vis the consensus of modern science so interesting to the folks (in fact it has spawned numerous organizations with their websites, like www.answersingenesis.org (http://www.answersingenesis.org%29/?))?--- While, on the other hand, the science of eschatology is ignored in favor of the preferred views (and putative scriptural interpretations) of the participants?

George is offering some science that may allow for communication from the future. If you think that this is a futile, or even an heretical, pursuit, why do you insist on a particular interpretation of Genesis that contradicts the scientific consensus that indicates a vastly contrary interpretation? I would think you would be interested in scientific support and explanations for prophecy, just like you want scientific support for a particular interpretation of Creation.R

There are tensions within the NT itself between various aspects of eschatology. The end is yet to come but in some sense already present ("realized eschatology", especially in John.) There will be "new heavens and a new earth" but the old is not just annihilated. (Polkinghorne speaks of creatio ex vetere.) The end will break in suddenly - but there is also continuity, as with various NT images of growth.

People have a lot of trouble holding together both aspects of these pairs & consciously or (more likely) unconsciously junk one. So if you emphasize exclusively continuity, development from the old &c you end up trying to do the sort of thing Tipler did & have a purely "scientific" eschatology. But if you stress the "thief in the night" image unduly you have Jesus suddenly breaking into a world from which he had been to all intents & purposes absent before.

Unfortunately a lot of the stuff in the eschatology forum seems to focus on people arguing for their favorite end-times scenarios, constructed from naive readings of the Bible, without much attention to what eschatology means theologically & how it's connected with doctrines of creation, christology & other theological loci - let alone any consideration of how our scientific knowledge of the old creation might help to give some partial (N.B.) understanding of how God will bring about the new.

Shalom,
George

[rogero]

There are tensions within the NT itself between various aspects of eschatology. The end is yet to come but in some sense already present ("realized eschatology", especially in John.) There will be "new heavens and a new earth" but the old is not just annihilated. (Polkinghorne speaks of creatio ex vetere.) The end will break in suddenly - but there is also continuity, as with various NT images of growth.

People have a lot of trouble holding together both aspects of these pairs & consciously or (more likely) unconsciously junk one. So if you emphasize exclusively continuity, development from the old &c you end up trying to do the sort of thing Tipler did & have a purely "scientific" eschatology. But if you stress the "thief in the night" image unduly you have Jesus suddenly breaking into a world from which he had been to all intents & purposes absent before.

Unfortunately a lot of the stuff in the eschatology forum seems to focus on people arguing for their favorite end-times scenarios, constructed from naive readings of the Bible, without much attention to what eschatology means theologically & how it's connected with doctrines of creation, christology & other theological loci - let alone any consideration of how our scientific knowledge of the old creation might help to give some partial (N.B.) understanding of how God will bring about the new.

Shalom,
George

Thanks, George -- that's a good cogent analysis of popular Christian eschatological views. Personally, I never worried much about eschatology, since whatever God wants to do is up to Him. But, I am concerned about Origins, since presumably, God is not a deceiver and allows us moderns to study the record He left behind in Creation.

I am concerned about the prurient interest in eschatology by many Christians. Why is the indeterminate future more relevant than the present where Christians can show their love of humanity through Christ in tangible ways? Why is the indeterminate future more interesting than the deep time of the past made manifest in God's creative work, that can be studied and about which at least tentative conclusions can be drawn? Is it that the completely uncertain is more satisfying than the vaguely uncertain?

Anyway, the idea of detectability of signals from the future (and its potential relationship to eschatology) is fascinating.

Off-topic, but do you think there is any possible credibility to C.S. Lewis' idea of Othertimes --- that time is more than one-dimensional and that one could deduce the possibility of "parallel" times with the same space dimensions?

God's Peace,

R

[rogero]

:bump:

I'm disappointed with the lack of interest in this thread, since one would think that the possibility of combining observable science and eschatology in the form of signals from the future would be of interest to some on this forum.

I guess that observable facts mean nothing to eschatologists? They apparently only care to bang on about their own particular interpretation of Scripture, with a few archaelogical factoids thrown in. :pot:

R

[George Murphy]

:bump:

I'm disappointed with the lack of interest in this thread, since one would think that the possibility of combining observable science and eschatology in the form of signals from the future would be of interest to some on this forum.

I guess that observable facts mean nothing to eschatologists? They apparently only care to bang on about their own particular interpretation of Scripture, with a few archaelogical factoids thrown in. :pot:

R

Roger -

Part of the problem is that people who get fascinated by eschatology are generally those who think about it as figuring out a timetable for the future.
The whole concept of "last things" as "ultimate things" rather than just "last things in a list" usually hasn't occurred to them.

Shalom,
George