Originally posted by debbiejo
We only have some knowledge of the sciences at our disposal. If it was proved that this certain theory was correct? One cannot say for sure how things ultimately work now can they....That's why it's good to be open minded Mr. Chanting Spam....lol 🙄
😆 According to Relativity, time is space. That is why it is called space-time.
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/GenRelativity.html
Chanting Spam
We don't have all the answers. At one time Newton was correct in all things just as at one time Einstein was correct in all things. 😄
We are now finding out that with knowledge things work much differently just as we could find out that what we believe to be true is not so.
Hmm, but this is OT.......this is a predestination thread for gods sake.......hahahaha
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Albert Einstein absolutely tried to console the surviving son and sister of Michele Besso by indicating the relative nature of time, i.e. while their deceased loved one does not exist in their time frame, that he still exists in earlier time frames.
😆
Aside from you obviously having already misrepresented exactly who/what Einstein was referring to in the initial quote, I strongly advise you not to attend any funeral, nor to make any such similar convoluted consolation to friends of loved ones upon their passing.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, you do not understand what is being stated, otherwise you would not continue with these ignorant arguments.[list=1][*]Time is not an abstract concept, it is a dimension that can be measured. The curvature of spacetime around an object is as much a feature of that object as its mass and volume.
[*]It does not follow from being able to control a property that one understands it, nor does it follow from being able to understand a property that one is able to control it, e.g. it does not follow from being able to control a motorvehicle that one understands how it operates; it does not follow from understanding how gravity works that one is able to manipulate it, etc.[/list]
So many ways to respond to this one. For now I'll just list a few.
Time is an "abstract" within the context of this argument, based on the fact that it does not express a characteristic, which is representative of a specific object or instance.
Time is also an "abstract" within the context of this argument, based on the facts of its true nature being difficult to understand, individuals having little control over it, and most of our knowledge of it being primarily based off of "theoretical" data.
And finally, Time is an "abstract" within the context of this argument, as it exists apart from concrete realities, specific objects or actual instances..i.e., "instances" which involve one speculating what happens "outside of time", an "instance" which now makes time neither an experienced nor a measurable quantity.
If you still have problems understanding how time definitionally qualifies as an abstract concept, specifically within the context of this argument; then I advise you to pick up a dictionary and study the meanings of both "time" and "abstract."
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you have one foot in a room, and one foot outside of the room, are you inside or outside of the room?
It all depends on the perpection of the observer, however, if one has never been outside of the room their entire life; they can only use the limited knowledge they've aquired from inside of it, to speculate what's possible to do on the outside.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[b]ap·point verb[list=1][*]To name or assign to a position; designate.
[*]To determine by authority; fix; set.
[*]To order or establish by decree or command; ordain; constitute.[/list][/B]
* sigh... just admit you can't refute the argument i gave, and this is over...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Why would God send "upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they may be judged who did not believe the truth," if they had already rejected the love of the truth so as to not be saved?It follows from rejecting the love of the truth so as to not be saved, that they did not believe the truth, or believed what is false.
Surely, God is not redundant.
No, they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved, because God sent "upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they may be judged who did not believe the truth."
* firstly, the conjunctions that tells us which is which... "because" tells us of the cause and "therefore" tells us of the effect...
* secondly, the act of refusing is a very big proof of possessing the power of free will...
* thirdly, they did not believe what is false in the first place, they REFUSED to love the truth... it means that they DO know what is true and what is false... what they did was refused to love the truth... refusing to love the truth is different from believing what is false, so God is surely not redundant...
* fourthly, you still cannot refute the argument i gave...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
One cannot exist inside and outside of time simultaneously, but can exist inside and outside of time intermittently.
"But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
II Peter 3:8
* humans, nope... God, yes... 😉
Originally posted by debbiejo
Israel the people not a church..."Let my people go", IsraelThis does not mention Israel as the first born church and it's not in the OT.
* read between the lines... the verses i gave says it all...
Originally posted by debbiejo
This is not Moses speaking. I said that Moses didn't teach about hell.
* of course, it's not Moses... this is a part of my premise... the time element... the law of Moses and the prophets in the Old Testament were until John the Baptist...
Originally posted by debbiejo
This is not Moses speaking. And contempt doesn't mean hell either.
* of course, it's not Moses... hell according to the Bible does not equal to the hell according to you...
Originally posted by debbiejo
Putting the whole chapter in context shows that this is metaphorical language for war against another people.
* grasping for ropes, my friend?
Originally posted by debbiejo
Hell only means death of the body, grave..etc.
* hell is not according to your own definition...
Originally posted by debbiejo
And again Moses never taught hell. And why not? He is the giver of the law, surely he would have mentioned it.
* and he did mentioned it, you're just ignoring it... and Moses is not THE giver of law, the law is from God... 😉
I believe that man does not have a free will and the God is all powerful and controls everything. God controls everything for the glory of His name. The free will that man claims they have implies that they control there own life and God just reacts to there decisions. But this cannot be because if God just reacts to mans actions than that makes man more powerfull than God and that man has the final say and not God.
People say that God loves everyone but I dont think this is true. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God loves everyone. If there is please show me. Im also gonna say the Jesus did not die for everyone. Because if he did than everyone would go to heaven. If Jesus did indeed die for everyone but not everyone goes to heaven than Christs blood means nothing.
I hope that made sense. 🙂
Originally posted by Thundar
😆Aside from you obviously having already misrepresented exactly who/what Einstein was referring to in the initial quote, I strongly advise you not to attend any funeral, nor to make any such similar convoluted consolation to friends of loved ones upon their passing.
It is your argument that it is the belief of Albert Einstein that it is impossible for man to understand the true nature of time, and that “time is an illusionary concept put in place by a supreme being to assist man.”
Originally posted by Thundar
One of the most brilliant scientists of the century(perhaps one of the most brilliant minds ever), Albert Einstien, has even alluded to the impossibility of man being able to understand the true nature of time, and that time itself is most likely an illusionary concept, put in place by a supreme being to assist man.
When asked to substantiate your argument, you deliberately misrepresented a quote by Albert Einstein to suit your argument.
Originally posted by Thundar
“For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, even if a stubborn one.” —Albert EinsteinRather famous quote that's used quite often over arguments involving time.
By all means, indicate how the quote, "For us believing physicists the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, even if a stubborn one," supports that it is impossible for man to understand the true nature of time, and that “time is an illusionary concept put in place by a supreme being to assist man.”
Originally posted by Thundar
So many ways to respond to this one. For now I'll just list a few.Time is an "abstract" within the context of this argument, based on the fact that it does not express a characteristic, which is representative of a specific object or instance.
Time is also an "abstract" within the context of this argument, based on the facts of its true nature being difficult to understand, individuals having little control over it, and most of our knowledge of it being primarily based off of "theoretical" data.
And finally, Time is an "abstract" within the context of this argument, as it exists apart from concrete realities, specific objects or actual instances..i.e., "instances" which involve one speculating what happens "outside of time", an "instance" which now makes time neither an experienced nor a measurable quantity.
If you still have problems understanding how time definitionally qualifies as an abstract concept, specifically within the context of this argument; then I advise you to pick up a dictionary and study the meanings of both "time" and "abstract."
It is your argument that time exists only as an abstract concept, and that any measurements thereof “are strictly derived from one's speculative-faith based assumptions and visual observations.”
Originally posted by Thundar
The above statement is particularly true if one has no true means of controlling a stated concept, or if all of the "fundamental quantities" used to measure such an abstract, are strictly derived from one's speculative-faith based assumptions and visual observations.
As I stated previously, this is not the case. Time does not exist only as an abstract concept; it is a dimension that is measurable. The curvature of space-time around an object is just as real as the mass or volume of the object. Just because this concept is abstruse to you, does not mean that it is abstract.
Originally posted by Thundar
It all depends on the perpection of the observer, however, if one has never been outside of the room their entire life; they can only use the limited knowledge they've aquired from inside of it, to speculate what's possible to do on the outside.
By this reasoning, prior to April 12th 1961, it was impossible for scientists to know anything about what exists outside of the atmosphere of the planet, but this did not prevent them from sending a man to space.
Originally posted by peejayd
* sigh... just admit you can't refute the argument i gave, and this is over...
Just explain how one has free will if he is appointed, i.e. named or assigned; designated; determined; fixed; set; ordered or established by decree or command; ordained; or constituted to eternal life by God.
Originally posted by peejayd
* firstly, the conjunctions that tells us which is which... "because" tells us of the cause and "therefore" tells us of the effect...* secondly, the act of refusing is a very big proof of possessing the power of free will...
* thirdly, they did not believe what is false in the first place, they REFUSED to love the truth... it means that they DO know what is true and what is false... what they did was refused to love the truth... refusing to love the truth is different from believing what is false, so God is surely not redundant...
* fourthly, you still cannot refute the argument i gave...
Again, it follows from rejecting the love of the truth so as to not be saved, that they did not believe the truth, or believed what is false as one would not reject the love of the truth so as to not be saved if he recognizes it as the truth.
Originally posted by peejayd
"But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
II Peter 3:8* humans, nope... God, yes... 😉
The verse, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day," does not indicate that God exists inside and outside of time simultaneously.
To the contrary, this verse indicates that God exists inside of time as time is relative to the observer.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is your argument that it is the belief of Albert Einstein that it is impossible for man to understand the true nature of time, and that “time is an illusionary concept put in place by a supreme being to assist man.”When asked to substantiate your argument, you deliberately misrepresented a quote by Albert Einstein to suit your argument.
By all means, indicate how the quote, "For us believing physicists the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, even if a stubborn one," supports that it is impossible for man to understand the true nature of time, and that “time is an illusionary concept put in place by a supreme being to assist man.”
Tautological - convuluted nonsense, used for the sake of confusing others into believing you've made a valid point. It's fairly apparent that you're lying about this, and anyone who reads the prior pages can clearly see this to be the case. I won't engage you in it any further since my initial point has already been made.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is your argument that time exists only as an abstract concept, and that any measurements thereof “are strictly derived from one's speculative-faith based assumptions and visual observations.”As I stated previously, this is not the case. Time does not exist only as an abstract concept; it is a dimension that is measurable. The curvature of space-time around an object is just as real as the mass or volume of the object. Just because this concept is abstruse to you, does not mean that it is abstract.
The concept of something existing "outside of time" is neither measurable, observable, nor has it been experienced by man. This makes it abstract or "abstruse." Even despite our abilities to measure it within this life; it is not entirely tangible to us, as we have no ability to completely grasp or control it, however, we are still subject to either its compassionate or ravaging control over us.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By this reasoning, prior to April 12th 1961, it was impossible for scientists to know anything about what exists outside of the atmosphere of the planet, but this did not prevent them from sending a man to space.
Scientists can and should speculate on the non-observable, and it is necessary for one to keep an open mind about all possibilities when seeking truth. However, when one can only make theoretical and faith-based speculations about what occurs "outside of time"; then of course in keeping an open mind, it is wise to not definitionally state what can and cannot be done wiith such an abstract.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Just explain how one has free will if he is appointed, i.e. named or assigned; designated; determined; fixed; set; ordered or established by decree or command; ordained; or constituted to eternal life by God.
* when? time element, my friend...
"Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God."
I Cor 6:9-11
* when a sinner was baptized, he would be washed, sanctified and justified... he would be a candidate for salvation i.e. eternal life... but can salvation be lost?
"Look to yourselves, that ye lose not the things which we have wrought, but that ye receive a full reward."
II John 8
* Saint John had adviced the brethren to be careful not to lose the things they (Saint John and the disciples) had worked very hard for... what is an example of this?
"For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
But a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries."
Hebrews 10:26-27
* if the sin was done deliberately, even if you are appointed to eternal life, you're salvation can be lost... another proof?
"For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
And have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
If they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt."
Hebrews 6:4-6
* the people in verse are once saved... they have been enlightened, they have tasted heavenly gift, they have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, they have tasted the goodness of the word of God, etc... but they committed apostasy, they fell away... it is impossible for them to be restored again to repentance...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Again, it follows from rejecting the love of the truth so as to not be saved, that they did not believe the truth, or believed what is false as one would not reject the love of the truth so as to not be saved if he recognizes it as the truth.
* my friend, refusing to love the truth is far different from believing what is false...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The verse, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day," does not indicate that God exists inside and outside of time simultaneously.
* God is not in the boundaries of time... He cannot be bored... He is eternal... but He can also be within the boundaries of time when interacting with humans... like for example, the downpour of rain and the rising and setting of the sun...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
To the contrary, this verse indicates that God exists inside of time as time is relative to the observer.
* how can God exist only inside of time if one day and a thousand years are the same for God? if God is inside time, He should have aged... but nope...
"Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change."
James 1:17
* God does not change...
"Before the mountains were brought forth, and thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from eternity to eternity thou art God."
Psalms 90:2
* God is still God from eternity to eternity... 😉