|
Post by Unbeliever on Jun 8, 2006 18:10:17 GMT -5
It seems to me that even if we humans have free will despite God's omniscience, God himself cannot have free will. If he's always been omniscient, then he's always known everything he would ever do, and he can never change what he's always know that he would do. Even if he changes his mind about an action, he's always known exactly what he would do, and so he's always known that he would change his mind.
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Jun 9, 2006 1:00:29 GMT -5
He wants you to seek him and put your faith in him. So I think he would be happy to change his mind or an action that he may do so that you can start to focus on him. He isn't some big mean guy in the sky trying to trip you up. He loves you and wants the best for you. If he know that by chaning his mind he can set you on the right track he is willing to do it for you.
Well the blood of the animals was not sufficient enough to cover the sins that we commited every day so that is why Jesus came to die for us. Since sin equals death it was human blood that had to be sacrificed to cover the sins of humans. Also before he died he wasn't in heaven being his believers’ liaison to the God the Father. He intercedes on those how believe behalf because he can be empathetic. When he died he went back and released those souls that died before he came that followed his earlier laws. So Christ blood was good enough to release their souls.
All those who came before had to set the stage for him so he would be able to die for our sins.
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Jun 9, 2006 6:11:44 GMT -5
I’m sure others here has asked for god to talk to them or some other action from god. But no action was given. Don’t say we didn’t look close enough or something like that the fact is god has never talked to me. Sure you are talking to me about god. But it is not the same thing as god talking to me. The preachers out there claim that god talks to them why not me or the others here? There is no reason to pick and choose who he talks to.
Animal blood use to be sufficient for human sin for a long time. So what changed about that?
Why would god in the first place need to see blood and see people killed to make him happy so he could forgive us? If that was normal and just then when your child does something you don’t like it shouod be reasonable for you to ask your child to go kill someone so you could forgive them. See how stupid that sounds. There is no reason in the first place that god needs a blood sacrifice to love us. The whole concept is flawed to me. Soundslike god is just a big kid who don’t know better.
So god put man here first so we would sin he told us to give him animal sacrifices so he could still send them to hell because they did what he told them to do but it was wrong anyway. Then after years and years after hell gets full then he sends jesus down to die for our sins so the people that are in hell for giving animal blood instead of human would be able to get out. I hope you see how crazy that sounds. I hope your not making this up as you go. Please tell me where you read this at. Where does it say that animal was not good enough for god when he told us that is what he wanted.
|
|
cantbeatbass
Maverick's Chew Toy
Friedrich von Schiller said it best
Posts: 8
|
Post by cantbeatbass on Jun 22, 2006 18:27:11 GMT -5
I've got a couple of issues to address. First of all, time does exist, it can be measured and it is one dimensional and one directional. Entrapy is always increasing and is the "universe's clock" for lack of a better analogy. It is one dimensional because the laws of thermodynamics state that entrapy is always increasing unless it is at absolute zero, which is impossible. Time can be measured relatively using light over a given distance. Although it is true that it is always relative (there is no independent observer), time can be measured. Second, Eugen put forward that the universe is deterministic because follows the laws of nature. I agree with this idea because particles can be traced back to their position only nanoseconds after the big bang, and it seems that if the laws of nature were followed always, it could only happen one way. The only problem is that it is impossible to know both the location and the momentum of an elementary particle (there is a variable left). This means that mathematicians cannot know where particles really are for two given time periods just from one sampling. Even if they took an infinite samplings, they still could not know for sure where the particle would be in the next nano-second. Therefore, it is still up for grabs whether the laws of physics lock the universe into one possible road to total entrapy. There is a famous gambit by some one I should be able to cite, but i forget the man's name. There are four possibilities in this situation: 1) There is free will--you believe in it-->you feel in control because you are 2) There is free will--you don't believe it-->you feel locked into a world which is really your own 3) There is no free will--you believe in it-->you feel like your in control and it is inevitable that you do 4) There is no free will--you don't believe in it-->you feel locked into fate and there is an unknown irony in your belief In either case, it seems most beneficial to assume you have free will, because if there is no free will, you can't decide to outsmart it by knowing you don't have it; for sanity's sake, just believe that the last variable in the wave equations lets your brain cheat fate, otherwise your thoughts aren't really your own, they might as well be god's, and every piece of art is null because it is just a collection of mass-energy that is predetermined to release endorphans in your brain; life becomes pointless and so does living it.
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Jun 24, 2006 13:22:04 GMT -5
Hello cantbeatbass. Welcome to the boards
First off don’t think I’m off in the head. But I have heard something in the past and it made me think about time. I know what time is. But if someone asked you to explain time and the nature of what it is then it starts to become more difficult to know what it is. If you had to explain what time was to someone who never heard of the concept of time what would you say? You can point to a calendar and say look at the days but does a calendar measure anything? No. if you blacked out for two weeks and 3 days and did not realize it, woke up and looked at a calendar would you be able to know from looking at it what day it was? Of course you wouldn’t, calendars do not measure time. We use them to keep up with our concept of time. Lets take something that keeps a closer eye on time. The good ol pocket watch. The hands move and the gears click. Is time moving the clock? No. it is a spring, or a piece of quartz. The pocket watch is not measuring time. But we can use the watch to find out how long it takes you run one mile. In the same way you could use anything that is constant to measure with. Ok lets say we find some other planet with people on it. Their clocks will be different from our clocks. The time for them will be faster or slower. Our idea of time came from watching the sun. On a different planet it’s going to spin slower or faster and the year will not be the same length as ours. Therefore the time on that planet will be different from ours. Time is only a measure. Time is defined on how we measure it. Its only a concept to keep up with something. But it is one of the most important things in our lives. We need it and would be lost or extinct without the clock.
|
|
cantbeatbass
Maverick's Chew Toy
Friedrich von Schiller said it best
Posts: 8
|
Post by cantbeatbass on Jun 26, 2006 13:04:00 GMT -5
necroshine- I don't think your unbalanced, but denying time leads to some really weird explanations for everyday phenomena. Time as measured by a clock is intangible, but the fact that everything doesn't happen at once is proof that there are displacements in something besides space. The displacement between two objects occupying the same space has to be a completely different axis, which is what we call time. You pointed out that different worlds would lead to different ideas of time, but all that says is that time is relative to how it is measured. Time is analog, so it has no obvious or universal measure, but is still as real as any spacial axis. You also said that a watch doesn't measure time because time doesn't make it run, this isn't exactly accurate. Displacements in time are what let the watch parts occupy the same space. If you wanted to trace everything back to the speed of light (the only known constant in the universe) then you could say that a watch uses a known distance (the circumference of the watch face) and known fractions of the speed of light (the speed of the watch hands) to calculate the passage of the last variable: time.
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Jul 1, 2006 15:02:20 GMT -5
I always liked the question why doesn’t everything happen at once. It’s a good question. One I don’t think I could had ever asked myself, I think. And yes I know that time is real. I’m just thinking out loud here. Glad you are here to chat about it. But if time is real then you have to ask why aren’t people in the future here? What is to stop you from making your own reality? One person could go back in time and change everything for the better or worse for that matter. The nature of that axis might to be to only go in one direction but i would think that if time travel was possible you would see someone. I can not get that resolved except for that time must branch off but that only leads to the possibility that everything that can happen will happen. I’m a bum on the street and the president of the usa and another time where i don’t exist. That seems artificial to me somehow. Do I think about this too much? But if people can use imaginary time in math and it works. Then how many axes are there. How many can you use? Also you said Entrapy is always increasing. I get that I have heard that before. But if the universe starts to collapse in on itself in a big crunch, then would that make the law false? I mean things can not keep getting more unordered if the space it is in keeps getting smaller. What would that do with time? Would time just not be effected? If entrapy starts to decree with time would broken cups just up on a table and put themselves back together? I, myself like the idea of dust bunnies dissolving instead of appearing.
|
|
cantbeatbass
Maverick's Chew Toy
Friedrich von Schiller said it best
Posts: 8
|
Post by cantbeatbass on Jul 5, 2006 13:39:02 GMT -5
necroshine- As far as I know the leading mathematicians do think that time branches off, so there are an infinite number of universes. As I understand it, the difference between the universes is the unknown variable in quantum mechanics (momentum:location). There can be more than one branch of time I guess if you were to plot time in the universes, you would need a two dimensional graph, but each branch (universe) is one dimensional. When entrapy is at maximum and there is total chaos, time is meaningless. It seems weird because there would still have to be displacement between particles occupying the same space, but there is no meaningful definition of time when the universe settles into a simple ball of heat.
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Jul 6, 2006 18:40:25 GMT -5
If time is non-existent but the universe still exists. Then time is not needed for the universe to be. The universe doesn’t need time, time needs the universe. So if time branches off when a choice comes up, and in effect you do both, how is it that everything hasn’t already happened? Like you asked earlier.
If time branches then I would think we are just moving through a branch at our time not the time of the universe in effect everything has already happened. We just move through the branches.
Now cantbeatbass see you got me thinking about this again. But that is one way how I have envisioned time. It just doesn’t feel right. Because if we could ever “jump branches” and get into a better time for us. What kind of problems would that cause? Would it not cause problems and it has happened because its going to happen any way? But then why can’t we “jump branches” now? Surly someone would have jumped on this branch to help show the way. Unless we are totally fucked. Ok I know I’m rambling but still the first half of this post i meant.
|
|