Page 25 of 39 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 387

Thread: B Theory Of Time...

  1. #241
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    18,043
    Amen (Given)
    2250
    Amen (Received)
    1751
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    You think the ruler only exists at one of the lines at a time, but then the next line comes into existence and the last one disappears. Constant creation and destruction.
    What you are descibing there is A-theory, Sparko, not B-theory.

  2. #242
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,662
    Amen (Given)
    5603
    Amen (Received)
    23888
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    What you are descibing there is A-theory, Sparko, not B-theory.
    I know Jim. Learn how to read.

  3. #243
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,336
    Amen (Given)
    5419
    Amen (Received)
    3952
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    No, that wouldn't be omniscient. He would just be just really good at guessing. It would also mean your actions are entirely predictable and you have no free will.
    No, I'm pretty sure that would still count as being omniscient. If the future does not even exist to be known you're not any any less omniscient because you don't know something for which there is no knowledge to be had. Omniscient simply means having all possible knowledge. If the future is not part of the domain of "possible knowledge" God wouldn't be less omniscient for lacking that "knowledge".

  4. #244
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,336
    Amen (Given)
    5419
    Amen (Received)
    3952
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    You think the ruler only exists at one of the lines at a time, but then the next line comes into existence and the last one disappears. Constant creation and destruction.
    That would only be true under certain views of A-theory. But if you believe that "time" is not a real thing in itself, but simply a way of describing the rate of change at various locations in the universe, then there's no need to speak about any sort of "constant creation and destruction". It wouldn't be the case then that we move from one moment of time into the next, instead there would be one single constant moment, which we could call the "now", that is in constant flux.

  5. #245
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,662
    Amen (Given)
    5603
    Amen (Received)
    23888
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    No, I'm pretty sure that would still count as being omniscient. If the future does not even exist to be known you're not any any less omniscient because you don't know something for which there is no knowledge to be had. Omniscient simply means having all possible knowledge. If the future is not part of the domain of "possible knowledge" God wouldn't be less omniscient for lacking that "knowledge".
    Except the bible says God knows the future. Heck, prophesy relies on it. Unless we don't have free will so God knows exactly what we will do because we are just puppets.

  6. #246
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,662
    Amen (Given)
    5603
    Amen (Received)
    23888
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    That would only be true under certain views of A-theory. But if you believe that "time" is not a real thing in itself, but simply a way of describing the rate of change at various locations in the universe, then there's no need to speak about any sort of "constant creation and destruction". It wouldn't be the case then that we move from one moment of time into the next, instead there would be one single constant moment, which we could call the "now", that is in constant flux.
    You can imagine that if you will, but then all of current scientific knowledge would be wrong. Including relativity. Which has by the way already been tested.

  7. #247
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,336
    Amen (Given)
    5419
    Amen (Received)
    3952
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    You can imagine that if you will, but then all of current scientific knowledge would be wrong. Including relativity. Which has by the way already been tested.
    Nah, what it would mean is that a different interpretation of relativity, like Lorentz Ether Theory, which is experimentally identical to SR, would be true. SR is preferred over LET, not because it has greater experimental support, but because of other, philosophical, considerations.

  8. #248
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,336
    Amen (Given)
    5419
    Amen (Received)
    3952
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Except the bible says God knows the future. Heck, prophesy relies on it. Unless we don't have free will so God knows exactly what we will do because we are just puppets.
    My point was simply that God not knowing the future under A-theory, wouldn't mean that He was not omniscient. The actual extent of God's knowledge in the actual world is a different thing from theoretical considerations of what would count as actual omniscient in different versions of reality. I'm also not sure if knowing the future is impossible under all versions of A-theory, or just some of them.


    Your claim is that A-theory makes it impossible for God to know the future unless He manipulates everyone like puppets, but I'm not sure what argument you're basing that claim on. It can't be that A-theorists can't explain how God would know the future unless everyone is a puppet, because being unable to explain how something is the case is not a good argument that something isn't true. If that were the case then atheists would actually have a point when they brought up all of the evil in the world and claimed that unless the theist can explain the existence of evil in a satisfactorily manner if it means a good God can't exist together with evil. Not being able to explain how X is possible is not an argument against the possibility of X.

  9. #249
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    18,043
    Amen (Given)
    2250
    Amen (Received)
    1751
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    I know Jim. Learn how to read.
    Right, but we're discussing the nature of B-theory. It's not about what I think, it's about what the theory posits. B-theory posits that you are real at every point in time, that the past and future "you's" are just as real as the present "you." Not only that, but like the markers on a ruler, and the cells on a reel of film, those "you's" at different locations in time have been real as long as the universe has been real. It seems that you are somehow trying to fit A-theory into B-theory, but they are contradictory theories, in the latter all of time, and all of space for that matter, is real, in the former, only the present is real.

  10. #250
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    919
    Amen (Given)
    30
    Amen (Received)
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    No, that wouldn't be omniscient. He would just be just really good at guessing. It would also mean your actions are entirely predictable and you have no free will.
    No, that's not the omniscient part. What I mean is that God would know all past and present facts and in that sense, if the future is not real, assuming some version of A-Theory, then He would still be omniscient. He would know all that is knowable. It would not mean our actions our entirely predictable, just probabilistically knowable to varying degrees.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •