A Time Traveller's Sexual Ethics

[Olorin]

There are clearly things in the future that God sees and/or determines will take place. Can we say that prior to Israel's doing it, offering children to Baal was one of them? How is this verse consistent with the idea that 'outside of time' is a thing.

Perhaps another way to phrase what Olorin is saying is that God is not "bound" by time. He is able to see all of spacetime and every physical action (from the interactions of the largest galaxies to the smallest fundamental particles) from the birth of the universe onwards.

In other words God is not limited to the physical universe and spacetime.

Another perspective is that time might be some aspect of God's nature that we partake of. I don't see any hints of 'outside of time' or 'bound by time' as being a concept taught in scripture or consistent with scripture. I've heard Hugh Ross and other science apologetic type arguments that, as Hugh Ross puts it, 'the God of the Bible' is outside of time. I don't know what the Biblical basis for this is supposed to be. That idea doesn't seem to fit with certain scriptures, and I don't really see anything endorsing his physics-based concepts of time in the Bible when I read it.

That's not to say that there aren't some amazing aspects of creation that are not in the Bible. Probably many things are beyond our comprehension.

do believe in time travel, and I am a time traveler. But I only believe it is possible for us to go in one direction, the direction I am going, forward, at a constant rate.

While I agree that time travel to the past is not possible you could theoretically travel to the future if you were on a spacecraft capable of relativistic speeds. After traveling at 95% of the speed of light for 10 years you would end up 32 years in the future according to Earth's clock.

That's based on one of Einstein's theories. I don't think anyone has ever done this particular experiment to prove it, though.

Let me start with your last comment first. An experiment was conducted in 1971 (Hafele-Keating experiment) to test some of the predictions of relativity theory. Specifically, a set of atomic clocks were synchronized; some of them were put on an airplane that flew around the earth and the rest remained on the ground (i.e. they did not fly around the earth). The time on the ground clocks disagreed with the time on the ones flown around the earth by an amount predicted by relativity theory.

Relativity theory has been confirmed whenever it has been tested. While it is true that scientific theories can change in light of new evidence, any new theory of space and time will have to agree with special and general relativity in the relevant limiting cases, just as special relativity reduces to Galilean relativity at speeds much less than the speed of light (Galilean relativity was the theory prior to Einstein).

To beat this horse a bit further, another prediction of the 'old' relativity theory (Galilean Relativity) is that velocity transformations between moving frames can be done simply through addition. What this means is that if I drive by you in a car and you see me throw a ball, you will measure the total velocity of the ball to be the sum of the speed of my car and how ever fast I throw the ball (total ball speed = car speed + ball throw speed). Seems reasonable, however, the problem is that if instead of a ball I turn on a flashlight the old theory would say the stationary observer would see the photons of light traveling at the speed of light plus the speed of my car! This can't be right, since experiments have shown light has the same speed in every inertial (non accelerating) frame. The Lorentz transformations (the equations of special relativity) correctly predict that when transforming velocities between reference frames, nothing ever moves faster than light.

Sorry for the long discourse, but my point here is that general and special relativity theory are on pretty firm experimental ground.

It may not be possible to get a clear picture of God's relationship to time from reading the Bible. I recognize this is not a proof, but it would seem that for God to be omnipotent and omniscient He would have to be free of any of the restrictions we experience from living in 'time' (or space-time).

As I said, there are lots of ways to think about this, and I don't think anyone will have a 'final' answer to this problem, at least on this side of eternity.

[MrMarried]

There are clearly things in the future that God sees and/or determines will take place. Can we say that prior to Israel's doing it, offering children to Baal was one of them? How is this verse consistent with the idea that 'outside of time' is a thing.

Perhaps another way to phrase what Olorin is saying is that God is not "bound" by time. He is able to see all of spacetime and every physical action (from the interactions of the largest galaxies to the smallest fundamental particles) from the birth of the universe onwards.

In other words God is not limited to the physical universe and spacetime.

Another perspective is that time might be some aspect of God's nature that we partake of. I don't see any hints of 'outside of time' or 'bound by time' as being a concept taught in scripture or consistent with scripture. I've heard Hugh Ross and other science apologetic type arguments that, as Hugh Ross puts it, 'the God of the Bible' is outside of time. I don't know what the Biblical basis for this is supposed to be. That idea doesn't seem to fit with certain scriptures, and I don't really see anything endorsing his physics-based concepts of time in the Bible when I read it.

That's not to say that there aren't some amazing aspects of creation that are not in the Bible. Probably many things are beyond our comprehension.

do believe in time travel, and I am a time traveler. But I only believe it is possible for us to go in one direction, the direction I am going, forward, at a constant rate.

While I agree that time travel to the past is not possible you could theoretically travel to the future if you were on a spacecraft capable of relativistic speeds. After traveling at 95% of the speed of light for 10 years you would end up 32 years in the future according to Earth's clock.

That's based on one of Einstein's theories. I don't think anyone has ever done this particular experiment to prove it, though.

Let me start with your last comment first. An experiment was conducted in 1971 (Hafele-Keating experiment) to test some of the predictions of relativity theory. Specifically, a set of atomic clocks were synchronized; some of them were put on an airplane that flew around the earth and the rest remained on the ground (i.e. they did not fly around the earth). The time on the ground clocks disagreed with the time on the ones flown around the earth by an amount predicted by relativity theory.

I've heard of this experiment. Of course, there is no way to test if it doesn't break down when you get to certain superfast speeds.

To beat this horse a bit further, another prediction of the 'old' relativity theory (Galilean Relativity) is that velocity transformations between moving frames can be done simply through addition. What this means is that if I drive by you in a car and you see me throw a ball, you will measure the total velocity of the ball to be the sum of the speed of my car and how ever fast I throw the ball (total ball speed = car speed + ball throw speed). Seems reasonable, however, the problem is that if instead of a ball I turn on a flashlight the old theory would say the stationary observer would see the photons of light traveling at the speed of light plus the speed of my car! This can't be right, since experiments have shown light has the same speed in every inertial (non accelerating) frame. The Lorentz transformations (the equations of special relativity) correctly predict that when transforming velocities between reference frames, nothing ever moves faster than light.

I recall hearing someone in a discussion of science/Christian apologetics type show saying there was some evidence from old experiments that the speed of light may not be constant over time. A lot of scientific experimentation is based on the idea that constants are constant. I wish I would have written down the name of the program so I could find it and reference it.

But I am not a specialist in this type of literature, nor am I a hobby physicist. I don't really have an interest in that. Understanding and interpreting the Bible is over interest to me. And I see scripture is sometimes interpreted through the lens of modern physics plus some assumptions. When that doesn't really fit a text of scripture, that concerns me. More often, I hear assertions about God that are based on physics that scripture. Not from most Christians or preachers, but from certain science-focused apologists, and it bothers me a bit hearing physics-philosophy taught as doctrine..

It may not be possible to get a clear picture of God's relationship to time from reading the Bible. I recognize this is not a proof, but it would seem that for God to be omnipotent and omniscient He would have to be free of any of the restrictions we experience from living in 'time' (or space-time).

The Bible doesn't say that God is 'omnipotent' or 'omniscient.' These are terms medieval theologians came in to, in general terms, describe some of the trains expressed about God in scripture. The scriptures are what are inspired. If the actual wording of scripture is not consistent with what a philosopher-theologian or physics-philosopher-theologian thinks that 'omniscient' means, then that doesn't mean these philosophers are right. I see a tendency to reinterpret scriptures that do not seem to fit with these assumptions. One approach is to say a verse is anthropomorphization, to say that God was just trying to relate to humans in a particular verse and didn't mean exactly what the verse said.... things like that.

I recognize there can be details and aspects of God's creation that are not discussed in scripture. I don't see the science behind the combustion engine discussed, for example. My concerns are whether physics-philosophy should be taught as doctrine, whether this belongs in the teaching of Christians in the church/assembly, and if so should it be made clear that the ideas are from physics and philosophy not specifically from scripture.


As I said, there are lots of ways to think about this, and I don't think anyone will have a 'final' answer to this problem, at least on this side of eternity.
[/quote]

[Irnmyk]

I'm quoting more than one previous poster here:

I recognize there can be details and aspects of God's creation that are not discussed in scripture. I don't see the science behind the combustion engine discussed, for example. My concerns are whether physics-philosophy should be taught as doctrine, whether this belongs in the teaching of Christians in the church/assembly, and if so should it be made clear that the ideas are from physics and philosophy not specifically from scripture.


As I said, there are lots of ways to think about this, and I don't think anyone will have a 'final' answer to this problem, at least on this side of eternity.

And, I think that that is because God wants us to accept Him based on faith, not facts or science. If He had wanted us to accept him based on the physics, He would have given us the formulae. Plus, He would have had to have given us MUCH better brains than we currently have to be able to comprehend what He has created.

I liked the comment in the quote above about the combustion engine. Us mere mortals sitting around having a discussion like this reminds me of a couple of people in a auto dealership show room discussing how cars are designed. Yeah, right.

[Olorin]

The Bible doesn't say that God is 'omnipotent' or 'omniscient.' These are terms medieval theologians came in to, in general terms, describe some of the trains expressed about God in scripture. The scriptures are what are inspired. If the actual wording of scripture is not consistent with what a philosopher-theologian or physics-philosopher-theologian thinks that 'omniscient' means, then that doesn't mean these philosophers are right. I see a tendency to reinterpret scriptures that do not seem to fit with these assumptions. One approach is to say a verse is anthropomorphization, to say that God was just trying to relate to humans in a particular verse and didn't mean exactly what the verse said.... things like that.

I would like to understand more about your thoughts concerning what the Bible says about God's omnipotence and omniscience, but I realize that this topic is far outside the scope of this thread and will resist the urge to write more and perhaps post a question in the 'Off Topic' section of the forum.

[MrMarried]

The Bible doesn't say that God is 'omnipotent' or 'omniscient.' These are terms medieval theologians came in to, in general terms, describe some of the trains expressed about God in scripture. The scriptures are what are inspired. If the actual wording of scripture is not consistent with what a philosopher-theologian or physics-philosopher-theologian thinks that 'omniscient' means, then that doesn't mean these philosophers are right. I see a tendency to reinterpret scriptures that do not seem to fit with these assumptions. One approach is to say a verse is anthropomorphization, to say that God was just trying to relate to humans in a particular verse and didn't mean exactly what the verse said.... things like that.

I would like to understand more about your thoughts concerning what the Bible says about God's omnipotence and omniscience, but I realize that this topic is far outside the scope of this thread and will resist the urge to write more and perhaps post a question in the 'Off Topic' section of the forum.

I assume if you tag me in the new thread, I'll get a notice.

[Olorin]

The Bible doesn't say that God is 'omnipotent' or 'omniscient.' These are terms medieval theologians came in to, in general terms, describe some of the trains expressed about God in scripture. The scriptures are what are inspired. If the actual wording of scripture is not consistent with what a philosopher-theologian or physics-philosopher-theologian thinks that 'omniscient' means, then that doesn't mean these philosophers are right. I see a tendency to reinterpret scriptures that do not seem to fit with these assumptions. One approach is to say a verse is anthropomorphization, to say that God was just trying to relate to humans in a particular verse and didn't mean exactly what the verse said.... things like that.

I would like to understand more about your thoughts concerning what the Bible says about God's omnipotence and omniscience, but I realize that this topic is far outside the scope of this thread and will resist the urge to write more and perhaps post a question in the 'Off Topic' section of the forum.

I assume if you tag me in the new thread, I'll get a notice.

I will be glad to tag you when I start the new thread....first I have to learn how to 'tag' someone!

[MrMarried]

The Bible doesn't say that God is 'omnipotent' or 'omniscient.' These are terms medieval theologians came in to, in general terms, describe some of the trains expressed about God in scripture. The scriptures are what are inspired. If the actual wording of scripture is not consistent with what a philosopher-theologian or physics-philosopher-theologian thinks that 'omniscient' means, then that doesn't mean these philosophers are right. I see a tendency to reinterpret scriptures that do not seem to fit with these assumptions. One approach is to say a verse is anthropomorphization, to say that God was just trying to relate to humans in a particular verse and didn't mean exactly what the verse said.... things like that.

I would like to understand more about your thoughts concerning what the Bible says about God's omnipotence and omniscience, but I realize that this topic is far outside the scope of this thread and will resist the urge to write more and perhaps post a question in the 'Off Topic' section of the forum.

I assume if you tag me in the new thread, I'll get a notice.

I will be glad to tag you when I start the new thread....first I have to learn how to 'tag' someone!

In most forums @ plus the name does it. I'll see if this works for you @Olorin.

Uh-oh. That didn't work.

Maybe you can quote me here, write a post, and cut and paste the whole thing in a new thread, or just reply to me, quoting me in this thread with a link to the new one.

[SLS]

That's based on one of Einstein's theories. I don't think anyone has ever done this particular experiment to prove it, though.

Well not that exact experiment of course but the impacts of time dilation from both special and general relativity have already been observed. In fact we use relativity everyday with the GPS system.

https://physicscentral.com/explore/writ ... 20minutes.

Maybe you can quote me here, write a post, and cut and paste the whole thing in a new thread, or just reply to me, quoting me in this thread with a link to the new one.

I know for sure that the former will work and should notify you.

[Olorin]

That's based on one of Einstein's theories. I don't think anyone has ever done this particular experiment to prove it, though.

Well not that exact experiment of course but the impacts of time dilation from both special and general relativity have already been observed. In fact we use relativity everyday with the GPS system.

https://physicscentral.com/explore/writ ... 20minutes.

Maybe you can quote me here, write a post, and cut and paste the whole thing in a new thread, or just reply to me, quoting me in this thread with a link to the new one.

I know for sure that the former will work and should notify you.

I was thinking of mentioning GPS uses corrections from SR and GR, but you beat me to it!

Also, SR impacts the design of high-energy accelerators. They are much longer than they otherwise would be absent relativistic effects.

[LBD]

Perhaps it would be better said that “God exists outside of our human conceptualization of time.” The scripture makes the statement that “a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day” to God. I don’t doubt that God has some concept of time as we experience it, but He also transcends that to some level we can’t - even with the most advanced physics we can imagine.

Another thought I just had, that may or may not apply to this “time and space” concept, but I think about the travel of a bullet vs the speed of sound. The bullet arrives a bit sooner than the sound, but that doesn’t mean the bullet was fired some time in the future, it just traveled faster than the sound. Nor does it change when the bullet was fired because the sound lagged. I understand how this explains the light/time idea, but it doesn’t mean if you travel backwards at the same speed you can go back to when the “bullet was fired”. That itself takes time…