Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute
- Thread starter Bob Enyart
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
Lon
Well-known member
A 'construct' can be relative. Think buildings: 'relative to climate.' They are different. So is measurement (time is a measurement).
Well, there goes the tangent.... The talking point here: A 'foot' is a construct. When is it 'relative?' When I (or one of my other relatives in construction) go away from a particular tape measure: Not all tape measures are created equal. In construction, it doesn't matter as long as we are consistent. I can measure 8 foot and 3/16 inch to accommodate another's '8 feet.' Wet lumber also is measured differently from dry lumber etc. etc. etc. What it means is that measurement is only particular and consistent to the immediate need, it is a baseline so that any particular group can build a plane that works, or a car that goes down the road. The size of a piston only matters in relation (relative) to the chamber it slides in on the block. When rebuilding an engine, the pistons become oversized relative to the new bore, it might make a 350 a 351, but you still call it a 350, someone who knows would know what you meant by a 351 relative to their job. There you go: A construct (like an engine, something 'constructed') is relative, not always consistent.
Einstein argued the same for time: It is relative, because time isn't consistent (I linked to a proof regarding 24 hours days: doesn't actually exist, is a construct that makes a meaningful consistency, but we delude ourselves at that point and often in regard to time et al, that such is reliably consistent. It is only that way for one reason: 'it works for us.' That's what relativity means.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
Except God. Certainly relationship with relative beings engages on a relative level, but He is forever the same, as scripture tells us Hebrews 13:8
God is relational to us, as 'we' experience time, but because He is the only constant in the universe, it means necessarily (and Augustine and Einstein are correct, it does necessarily follow): God is relational to, unrestricted by our 'relative' experience. You and I have a 'relative' tape measure. When God 'measured out' the expanse, it was parsing from what is infinite, the exact same way a 24 hour day is parsed: it is a constructed (created) segment of measurement within what is immeasurable:
Ephesians 3:17so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. Then you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 will have power, together with all the saints, to comprehend the length and width and height and depth 19of the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
Lon
Well-known member
Summary: Einstein did math on a train that made him realize that 'time is relative' from Newton and Maxwell's observations. Newton believed time was a constant, thus a constant property of/for God. Einstein discovered from Maxwell's theory, that there was a discrepancy: the mathematics of time, from Newton (and Enyart) didn't work. What he proved with his theory of relativity, is that time isn't a constant like Newton thought. It isn't simply that 'gravity affects clocks' because the same experiment was done in space with no gravity and has been repeatedly duplicated. It is as simple and complicated as this: Einstein's math SHOULD always add up to the exact same difference if time dilation is true, regardless: and here is the thing: it does! Anyone can prove this themselves btw. Simply follow the instructions and then do Einstein's math. It always adds up exactly on all these experiments. It wouldn't if 'gravity' affected clocks. You'd have random numbers never being consistent. It means Newton wasn't correct. Einstein loved Newton's theories, he just realized either Newton or Maxwell was wrong and found it to be Newton.
You want the construct you favor to be relative?
Fine. The construct I adhere to is not relative.
I don't think you have quite grasped the crux of the debate.
Lon
Well-known member
Concerning time? Einstein disagrees with you. Concerning kilometers or miles? You have to remeasure in Canada.
Sure I have: it literally has to do with a preconceived paradigm from Open Theism (and a smattering of physicists, not many). There is a need, an agenda for time to be absolute. That is, the crux of the debate. Einstein's theory proves out, over and over and over, just like any other measurement, that the concept of it is based on constructs: Like the sun crossing the sky then moon. It is called 'a day' but it isn't 24 hours. God can understand (is relational to) an hour. He used something else to measure out the heavens and earth incredibly better than my foot.
gack
New member
Isn't the crux of the debate whether or not God lives "inside or outside of time"?
If there is a common timeline (which is my assertion, yours too I believe), that implies that God lives in time and can relate to us directly. God does not live in the future, nor the past, nor all times at once. He lives here (everywhere He wants to be) and now - because now is all there is.
The amount of time experienced at different vantage points presents no contradiction here. God can spend 24 hours a day with the man at the base, and 24.000001 hours per day with the man at the summit.
If I asserted a variable timeline (which I think you believe that I am doing), that would be a different matter and I would be wrong. If the clock (and person) at the summit gained 24 hours of time over the eons and that moved them into the FUTURE, then the timeline would be variable. Bob's observations demonstrate that this is not the case, and I agree. The summit clock/man experiences more time per day, but there is no "ripple in time" caused by these relative time differences.
Lon
Well-known member
Yep
Depends if time is a observation,construct,property of the physical universe. I believe it necessarily has to be. While Open Theists would talk about 'time' in heaven, they {may} forget that heaven is created. Time is a matter of parsing: it chops what already exists into segments the same way a ruler does. It is a grasp of a measurement for forward momentum from one point to another the same way a segment artificially (constructed) crosses a line. Because of that, your 'eternal now' actually is against Enyart and Open Theist's premise. They believe time is linear and can only move forward and is an absolute.
gack
New member
Lon, thanks for the thoughtful commenting. This thread was starting to feel like Twitter.
I'm not well versed in the finer points of the predestination position, so without some study I'd likely get cornered debating it.
I've taken the position that "if God knows my destiny, then the answer is none of my business" which allows me to live relationally regardless.
I would, however, like to comment as it relates to the topic at hand. Here is what I currently believe:
*) I don't think that "eternal now" is my position. From my understanding "eternal now" asserts that the past, present, and future are all aspects of existence. My position would be that the past and the future are mental constructs (in our minds and in God's mind) and the present is the only objective reality. The "clock/ruler/parsing" that measures time can only measure the past and future - which are merely recordings and plans, not aspects of reality itself. As a result, time does not "move" so there's no context for linearity (another mental image, the shape is for convenience). Reality is simply the present.
*) I believe that God operates only in the present and that he does not know the future, as the future is a construct of the mind for Him and us. God knows what's going to happen in the future (free will notwithstanding) because He is all-powerful and all-knowing about reality - not because He has already created the future nor because the future already exists.
*) God relates to me by granting me the freedom to choose. This freedom is necessary for a loving relationship to be possible, and in my opinion is the reason He created us.
These ideas were introduced to me by Bob about 20 years ago, and since they work for me I consider them my default position. So, I think I'm an open theist - or at least I choose to live that way.
First, I'd like to point out that heaven is where God "lives."
Second, I will direct your attention to https://opentheism.org/verses#28, which deals directly with the topic of time in heaven, and point out that the idea of an "eternal now" does not exist in the Bible, but rather that those concepts were incorporated into the Bible from greek philosophy, as explained here: https://kgov.com/is-god-outside-of-time#greek.
Third, I'd like to point you to the other 5 (in addition to the one above) of the 33 categories of verses that support Open Theism that directly deal with God being in time.
God exists in time: https://opentheism.org/verses#2
God has Qualities that can Only be had if He Exists in Time: https://opentheism.org/verses#3
God acts externally in sequence: https://opentheism.org/verses#4
God experiences sequence internally: https://opentheism.org/verses#5
God did things before the creation: https://opentheism.org/verses#21
Rather, time flows backwards from the future into the past...
So what?
So what?
The units of measurement are incidental to the debate. Pick a unit and stick with it, and we'll be fine.
It looks like you, too, have no idea what is being discussed, or what Einstein believed.
No. this thread is to point out the absurdity of believing that speed or gravity bend spacetime.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
Except John went to heaven, in the future... Such walks all over assertions and I'd much rather err taking God at His word without some theology "I" prefer (or not) getting in my way of Him. It is essentially that.
Disagree here too: "Freedom" super sloppy to start with, most mean 'autonomy' which is true: We are born in that sinful state, but scripture records over and over: Not my will, but thine; take up my cross and follow; Lord; deny self; consider others better....
Totally, irrevocably disagree. It is a platitude. It is literally saying Adam and Eve weren't capable of love until AFTER they Fell. It is tainted theology because of it. It is the same lie Satan believed(s) and peddles: "you will not surely die, you will be like, love like God." Careful of it lest you find yourself on the wrong side, no?
To fall? To be independent? John 15:5 Colossians 1:15-20 James 4:13-17 I just cannot agree. Scripture screams at me to eject this teaching.
It'd seem you are correct.
Lon
Well-known member
Well two things: 1) His IQ is higher than yours and mine. 2) NOBODY to date has 'been able' to disprove him. Nobody. Nice answer to 'so what?' no? You choose to be Open true enough but is it assailable with facts? If not, you are correct: "So what?" would be the response and nobody getting anywhere
The "so what" here is that theology you chose (not necessarily true) is shaping your truth and 'openness' to it. In that sense I'm an 'open' theist. If I have to change I will, but everything on the planet is against the small smattering of Open Theists at this present time, on this particular.
Good, let's take 'minutes:' They are physically measured. Interesting, yeah? Should be because it means time is a property then of created things and it doesn't matter if they are consistent or not, except relationally like a need to drive under the speed limit.
Go ahead and try to unpack it for me? I'm actually fairly brilliant. I'm sure I'll pick it up.
Einstein and I are 'absurd.' Got it? Prove it. Until then I'll simply think he was brilliant (along with physicists everywhere). An assertion at this point doesn't have my respect, you really do have to prove it. Everything in scripture AND Einstein's proofs tells me that the static one directional grasp of time is limited, elementary, pertains only to what is made, and untrue. I've literally posted a scripture that said 'time started.' Here is the thing: I believed the scripture ever before I even knew what Open Theism was. It literally is THE reason I cannot be one. Scripture and science are against it. So far, I find Open View's 'objection' of Revelation and 'since time began' not even a logical constraint. It is simply a desperation caused by a paradigm 'one wants to believe.' I will change based on what scripture actually says. To date, "Open Theism" nope.
Lon
Well-known member
Scripture. It is "His throne." He is 'in' His creation, but the whole of Him is Spirit.
It was Gack's assertion. He is an Open Theist. What I assert is well beyond the eternal now. God is relational to, and fully unrestricted by time.
Incorrect, it is a platitude. I don't care if Greeks believe such or not, I care if it is Biblical, and it is. 1 Timothy 1:9 "From all eternity" meaning no specific time. It would at LEAST suggest an eternal now <cough, ahem, "not Greek!" ahem> "Before Abraham was, I am." The verbs are incongruent, it means time is superseded. Any 'no it doesn't' is special pleading for and ONLY for an Open paradigm. My theology MUST be must stronger than that, it has to adhere to biblical language without a weak construct or we are just 'making it up as we go.' I don't want to follow that guy (or gal). You've always known I find the 'blame it on those pesky Greeks' a terrible excuse for nonengaging theology. It is simply scapegoating, and while it WAS done in the Bible, it isn't the way to actually do theology. It simply doesn't work and is smoke and mirrors, often done on purpose because one doesn't know their bible well enough to argue from it. I realize other Open T's can't, you can. Please do.
It doesn't help: A line does cross two segment points. It is 'relational' to the segment but well beyond so it doesn't help if you show God acting within time. That isn't the argument: The argument is that your teachers don't recognize that a line is bidirectional and by association, so time must be, at the very least.
The future has no segment starting point, you are discussing a ray at that point which has a 'start up' date. God has none. He, by definition (and NOT Greeks but incidentally) is already beyond the time scale.
Because it's not in the future that the point exists. It's the present.
Indeed I am.
Time flows into the past from the present. The future doesn't exist yet, never will.
Never said he did. But He DOES exist in the present.
<------------------------------------------------------*
Past______________________________________________Present_____________________Future
God has existed through the everlasting past, exists in the Present, and looks forward to the Future.
Lon
Well-known member
2 Points: Only an Open Theist NEEDS the future not to exist. It literally isn't any other theology or observational-time paradigm. It means, necessarily "thin ice." Moreover, John interacted with the future that "hasn't happened yet" (temporal terms need extra expression to try and convey the intent of meaning). It means scripture even says that the future exists/will exist/existed (however best one conceives).
Excellent, because before Abraham, He still 'is.' He said so. John 8:58 and Colossians 1:17 "is" (not was) before all things. Such is incredibly important and well beyond the scope of any Greek scapegoating discussion.
You changed scripture wording: He 'is' before all things existed scripture says in more than one place. Do I expect you to cease being Open? No, but I do conceive of Open Theists becoming more Biblical as they go.
2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before chronology existed/even perpetuated: Literally before Time began.
Tit 1:2 in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages even perpetuated Literally before any kind of 'age' even existed.
Not "needs." "Concludes."
John saw a vision, "in the Spirit." He didn't interact with the future. He interacted with the vision.
Well, no. Jesus said: "Before Abraham was, I AM," saying that He was God before Abraham existed.
It was a statement of His deity, not a statement about his relationship to time.
Don't lose the forest for the trees, Lon. You know better.
Which is talking about His preeminence, not "when" He exists.
Hypocrite.
Colossians 1:17 "And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist."
[/QUOTE]
No. NOT "literally before time began" or "literally before any kind of 'age' even existed."
As explained here:
| "Before time began" (2 Tim. 1:9 & Titus 1:2) is widely quoted yet in the Greek text of the New Testament there is no verb "began" in the original language. And the singular word "time" does not appear. Instead, Paul wrote, "before the times of the ages," which is very different from the way many of our Bible versions render this phrase, which translations do not flow from the grammar but from the translators' commitment to Greek philosophy. |
Lon
Well-known member
Disagree, 'needs.' It is literally the only reason they got involved in this experiment.
Contrivance, of course not. He was there and talked to real people. Read the book.
"Well no" he also used a verb that didn't agree, and here is the thing: Obfuscation, I literally posted more than that verse that ALSO meant the same thing: a demonstration of the verb 'is' given for 'past tense.' Come on, JR, you always follow scripture where it leads, follow this one too!
Again, obfuscation. You are better than this.
Both: "Before" "is" Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things (now) hold together.
Colossians 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. (so true, but not to the exception)19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Hmmm, so you'd admit with me at that point that you are driving your theology by an agenda! Good! It is right there in your accusation! See it? All I have to do now is show mine is scripturally driven. I can't be an open theist because I literally read 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2 correctly: Before time was started. And btw, no, I didn't misquote scripture: "He is before" is exactly what it says and as I said, in more than one place. I can't be a hypocrite if I quoted it verbatim at least once. You are the one who said 'was' before not me.
Yep, see?
Er, no. The first is Chronos, the second aeon. You know, I know this.
Obfuscation. I quoted it verbatim and translated verbatim for you. Sorry, this is special pleading. It says literally (word for word) what I translated.
Agenda. I'd simply tell him the same thing: Wrong. You cannot appeal to authority on this one. Two scriptures. S-C-R-I-P-T-U-R-E-S say 'pro (before) Chronos (time) aeonios (even started): Literally. 2 Timothy 1:9
His article is found wanting 1) because clearly scripture does says so and 2) because he cannot obfuscate, blame Greeks, or Augustine, or anybody else for what is C-L-E-A-R-L-Y seen in scripture. Enyart also doesn't seem to understand that I agree God is involved with us in time. He is involved with His creation BUT by argument, he inadvertently argues God is 'part' of His creation and must live in what He created or cannot exist. Insisting God is bound by time does exactly that. Further, he builds his own strawman: All any Open Theist ever needs to do is not try and attempt a 'Greek tainting debate' but literally just discuss scriptures. It literally does not matter what Greeks thought. It matters what God says. All of this is obfuscation and a huge unnecessary rabbit trail. Simply deal with scriptures that DO show He is beyond our understanding of time: Like an eternal non-beginning. So, we see God is relational to time, that 'when' He interacts, He does so with the only thing we know: Time. It doesn't however, relegate Him there. It doesn't matter if Richard Hollman believes scripture says God is 'outside of time.' It matters if scripture says 'before time began' and it does. That is ALL that matters. All this article does is tries to distance FROM scripture. Just deal with scriptures. At times I'll mention Einstein simply because he proved time is relative, but It isn't an 'appeal to authority.' I provided an experiment likely any Open Theist can do with two clocks, that will show a discrepancy when taped to a car. It works and Einstein's theory and math are shown true. So, while the BBC may 'admit that a time before there was time may be a logical contradiction' it isn't. It is a language inadequacy, but scripture says exactly that.
Enyart, in article, goes off on further tangent: Can God think a new thought. Was Jesus eternally flesh, etc. He asserts with no evidence "of course he can" to the former with nothing but a glimpse inside of his own reasoning. If we cannot sufficiently explain our position, we are showing the extent of our prowess.
He goes into other proofs for other ideas rather than simply talking about God and time so it isn't relevant to this thread at this time (nor even his own article).
The one point I've addressed from Open Theists is 'was Jesus flesh 'before?' Answer, no. They then declare victory, but incorrectly. I always use Colossians 1:15-20 and John 1-18 to show that 'without Him, nothing came to be.' It means flesh came from Him. The incarnation, however is ALSO a shot in the dark. All we have to discuss is whether or not 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2 say 'before time began.' They do. Why oh why, would ANY honest Open Theist then run to any other passage (if even scripture at that point) or a long treatise of whether God can write a new song? It is clear: Because without doing so, the logic of Open Theism breaks down quickly. It doesn't hold up. 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2 say 'before time began.' There is absolutely NO WAY Greek philosophy gets blamed for that. It simply and clearly says, exactly that. As I've repeatedly said, no Open Theist has ever been able to deal with the clear teaching of scripture at this point. A long treatise about who said what, obfuscating away from these two scriptures does nothing. It says what it says in both passages: Before time began. It is just this simple. No Greeks. No problem with some odd idea trying to inform my theology, just and exactly what the scripture says. It is just this clear: "Before Time Began...." No more. No less.
Last edited: