Jonathan H. B. Lobl

The more irrational a belief is -- the more a true believer will fight for it. This should not be so, but it is. That is why it's belief and not facts. Yes. Weary is a good word. I used to enjoy arguing for Atheism and sanity. The wind has gone out of my sails. People who are not concerned with evidence, facts, reason or reality -- are not going to be persuaded by anything I have to say. So, I have to ask myself. Why am I arguing? I know it won't do any good. I don't enjoy it. Maybe it's time to just let it go and walk away. Somebody has to walk away. It might as well be me.

All true. The question is -- Now what? Argue about it forever? Whether we are passionate for or against the Bible -- we are being passionate about the Bible. I think it is the passions that are keeping Biblical religion alive -- for or against. Time to let go. Time to release the passions. Time to be free. It's not worth it. In my opinion.

Are you sure you want to open this can of worms? I think this will produce a major argument, with much heat and little light. Religious passions burn hot. I expect you will regret.

More about the structure of time.

I see that you are as gracious as always. I have gotten to the point where I can't take the Bible seriously, long enough, even to argue about it. I don't care any more. I'm really, really tired of arguing with you. A man who cares nothing about reason, facts or reality. I don't care what you believe. Much joy may your faith bring you. I don't care. Argue with someone else. I'm done.

At this point, I'm simply arguing with your beliefs and your faith. I'm done.

And the alcoholic? A person who has damaged or weak impulse control? Would you forbid him to take a drink -- leave a bottle for him to find -- then punish him forever? You understand his weakness. You know he will fail the obedience test. But it's worse. Allow someone with evil intent to tell him how wonderful the bottle is. It's the good stuff. It will make him happy. Would you set him up for failure -- then punish him for ever? In the analogy, I stress poor impulse control. Before eating the fruit, Adam and Eve did not yet understand the idea of Good and Evil. That came after.

More Brain Issues

Brain Issues in Free Will

With that same reasoning, God the parent, would have predicted how Adam and Eve would react to the forbidden fruit. Would you leave the ice cream for your daughter to find, then punish her forever when she was tempted? Would you leave the bottle for the alcoholic to find? Then punish him forever?

That is changing the subject. Do we have free will?

Uh-huh. Then the Fall was supposed to happen?

I started this thread with an analysis of the properties of time. Including duration and sequence. Do you have anything to add?

Alright. You are asserting that God can change the future. Can God change the past? Be careful how you answer. If God can change the past, then the Fall can be undone. If God can not change the past, then God is not all powerful. You are the one who insisted on dragging God into this. Not me. Is the book complete, or are the future chapters full of blank pages? In other words, does the future exist in the same way that the past exists? That was the question.

I think it would be more accurate to say -- "Once upon a time, God created the Heavens and the Earth."

Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning,” that’s time, “God,” that’s force, “created,” that’s energy, “the heavens,” that’s space, “and the earth,” that’s matter. That looks like William Lain Craig's line. Is it? I think that you have lost sight of the topic. We were talking about free will. We can get an inkling as to how Jesus changed space, time, matter and energy Inkle all you like. That is pure, unsupported theology.

I was speaking of time dilation as established by Einstein. As things move faster, they gain mass and (relative) time slows down. We can not go faster than light speed, because moving mass faster would require infinite energy. Technology has proven time dilation to be true. Our satelite system, which GPS is based on, has to take the time dilation of the satelites into account because of their speed. If they did not, GPS would not work. In addition, in a sense, we are already advancing through time. At the rate of one hour, per hour. Going into the past would require reversing entropy. At least, that is what I understand to be the obstacle.

Maybe. That is a commonly held opinion of the nature of time. There are other ideas on the subject. I'm working with a different idea. I think that if I go back into the past -- I become part of the past. Things work out as they already have -- because it has already happened. In any event, that was only a thought experiment. In reality, I'm fairly certain that travel into the past is not possible. Into the future, yes. But not the past.

I have been watching the You Tube videos on the physics of time. I'm out of my depth. My questions remain the same. Does the future already exist, in the same way that the past exists? If the future does exist -- and it is unchanging -- that seems to kill free will. It would still leave the illusion of free will. If the past exists, but the future does not exist -- yet -- that would have different implications. I'm only raising the questions. I don't know the answers.

It looks like a nice meal on your plate. Prepared and placed to be attractive. My suggestion is that you practice with an empty plate. Should the plate drop or tilt, there is no reason to put your meal at risk. Of course, your dog is there, just in case.

You are using "duration" in a different sense than I am. I am not talking about patience. Or endurance. I'm talking about the passing of time. Without "duration", there is no existence. It would stop.

This is a thought experiment. That's all it is. I get into my time machine and go back twenty years. Everybody that I encounter will think that they have free will. I know that they don't. The past will continue as it always has. I return to my starting point in time. Now, I go twenty years into my future. Everybody that I encounter thinks that they have free will. Maybe nobody has free will. Maybe free will is an illusion. I'm not saying that this is the case. I'm saying that nobody really knows. Well -- I don't know. I suspect it comes down to a question. Does the future already exist, in the same way that the past exists? I don't know. In the meantime, there is the pragmatic approach. I choose to live as though I have free will. Even if it is an illusion.

The moment we say that God knows everything; that's the end of God's free will. Christian's like to say that "God" has a plan. Plans are for creatures under time. There is no planning for someone outside of time. Someone outside of time also can't be surprised. Or disappointed. Sentience itself might be a problem. How do you put one thought in front of another, without sequence or duration? This is what comes of creating doctrine without understanding. Which brings us back to my physics question. If the past is unchanging, how do we know the future can be changed? I don't know.

The understanding of time is a human invention. The existence of time is objective. Measurement is another matter. Time gives us duration. Time gives us sequence. Time gives us causality. Without time, everything happens in the same moment. Since time is part of space/time, we need to consider the properties of space. Without space, no division or separation of anything is possible. No separation or division at all. Everything is a single point. So, space/time is why existence is more than a single moment and a single point. What happens in a singularity? Space collapses. Time slows to a stop. Notice, we got here without Scripture.