Could this be the death of Christianity ?

Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Could this be the death of Christianity ?

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2000/07/20/speedlight000720.html

In brief scientist are playing around with stuff that travels backwards in time

Q ? why should this effect Christianity

A. causality. traveling backwards in time. means the future has already happened

Christianity is based on choice. but if the future has already happened there is no choice. you're own life and death is predetermined.

ie you're not reading this out of choice. you were predetermined to read this

I'm sure this has provoked some interesting responses in the future


 


Tyl3r04
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
That doesn't make any sense.

That doesn't make any sense. Just because you can travel back in time wouldn't mean the future is already set in stone?

"Why would God send his only son to die an agonizing death to redeem an insignificant bit of carbon?"-Victor J. Stenger.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
"That doesn't make any

"That doesn't make any sense. Just because you can travel back in time wouldn't mean the future is already set in stone?"

While traveling back in time. to say two weeks ago there you are. do you have any choice but to end up where you are today from that point ? back in time were from your perspective and future hasn't happened yet


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
If traveling back in time

If traveling back in time doesn't change any event then yes the future is set in stone, however if you change something that causes a different future, then have you not just disproven that.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Actually if I'm not

Actually if I'm not mistaken, the article says that the light pulse traveled *forward* in time, rather than back.  It left the test chamber before it had finished entering.

That's a big difference: traveling forward in time is common.  We're all doing in now.  They just found a way to go faster. 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Christianity is based on choice.

That would depend on how you define all-knowing. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote: If traveling

Magus wrote:
If traveling back in time doesn't change any event then yes the future is set in stone, however if you change something that causes a different future, then have you not just disproven that.

Hypothetically if the future is set. and you go back in time to change something then that was predetermined in itself


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: Actually if

Textom wrote:

Actually if I'm not mistaken, the article says that the light pulse traveled *forward* in time, rather than back. It left the test chamber before it had finished entering.

That's a big difference: traveling forward in time is common. We're all doing in now. They just found a way to go faster.

Probably a typeo faster than light = back in time . It left the test chamber before it had finished entering, ie the train travels to its destination before it had left the station


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I think the idea of choice

I think the idea of choice in christianity is just one of their contradictions. As other pointed out their god is all-knowing. If god is all knowing then there is no choice because god would know what is going to happen. Even if you want to argue god's knowledge has no effect the only choice that is offered in christianty is the choice to do as you're told.

There are a lot of christians that say its based on choice or that there is a free will, but that is because without god becomes rather unpleasant with sending people to hell and all.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Ophios wrote: Rev_Devilin

Ophios wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Christianity is based on choice.

That would depend on how you define all-knowing.

As a human. you're supposedly given a choice to accept Christianity Jesus ect. or not. 

With the future set in stone you have no choice 

 


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
*thinking about ftl=back in

*thinking about ftl=back in time*  Oh, yeah okay.  I see that.

But the train might not be the best analogy.  I mean, if the light had exited the chamber *before it entered,* that would have some implications for causality.

From this description it sounds more analagous to a train suddenly getting a whole bunch of extra cars that allow the front of the train to arrive at the destination before the caboose has left the station. 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
"From this description it

"From this description it sounds more analagous to a train suddenly getting a whole bunch of extra cars that allow the front of the train to arrive at the destination before the caboose has left the station."

Or could possibly be a local distortion in space time. thinking about it. the tracks to the destination crumpled up to nothing. time for some more reading it seems like my destiny


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10360
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
A strange thing to point to

A strange thing to point to for disproving a religious belief.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devlin, Please use the

Rev_Devlin,

Please use the quote function instead of quotation marks.  It sure would make things a lot easier to read and keep straight - especially knowing whom you are quoting.

If you don't know how to use the quote function, I wrote a tutorial that you can find here.

Thanks!

 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Susan

Susan wrote:

Rev_Devlin,

Please use the quote function instead of quotation marks. It sure would make things a lot easier to read and keep straight - especially knowing whom you are quoting.

If you don't know how to use the quote function, I wrote a tutorial that you can find here.

Thanks!

My apologies Susan it's just laziness on my part. thanks for the link

Susan wrote:
here.
Smiling

 


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Lazy?  Tee hee!  I think

Lazy?  Tee hee!  I think it's a lot more work to put quotes on everything.

 


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Forget the time

Forget the time paradox/freewill stuff, if you could see back in time, you could clealy then find the points where people just made this stuff up.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote: Forget

stuntgibbon wrote:
Forget the time paradox/freewill stuff, if you could see back in time, you could clealy then find the points where people just made this stuff up.

And that is why the world needs free thinkers. 


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote: Ophios

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Ophios wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Christianity is based on choice.

That would depend on how you define all-knowing.

As a human. you're supposedly given a choice to accept Christianity Jesus ect. or not.

Again, that would depend on how you define all-knowing. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


jive turkey
Theist
jive turkey's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin

Rev_Devilin wrote:
traveling backwards in time. means the future has already happened

Christianity is based on choice. but if the future has already happened there is no choice.

This 'unfathomable' is already built into Christianity with the ideas of election and free will. Somehow we have free will AND God knows (and ordained) the beginning and end. It's one of those things that can drive atheist crazy about theistic belief…we accept that there will be aspects of God's infinite nature that we will not be able to understand. (That does not mean we do not strive to understand or to gain understanding in general, it just means that when our understanding comes to an end, we rely of faith.)

I see the preordination/election vs. free will question as a worthwhile version of the common god quandary question, "Can God create a rock so large that He can't lift it?" The absurd answer to the absurd question is clearly "yesno".

The better answer to the rock question is to discuss what it means to say that God is 'all-powerful' (Does not mean that God can do anything….God can't do anything that is against His nature, like lie.)

The Christian theological discussion (since that was how the topic was introduced) might be to discuss what it means to say that God is 'all-knowing'.

Perhaps God gave up some of his omniscience (I know, "then it's not really omniscience&quotEye-wink in order to give us the gift of free will. At the same time He knows us individually and completely and, therefore, what the major plot development of our lives will be and what will happen in history. Sort of like how you basically know what will happen when you watch a romantic comedy (they meet, fall in love, a misunderstanding occurs, they break up, they realize love each other, they get back together) but still you watch and you care.

Will this mean the end of Christianity? Please. You know the answer to that.

/peace


Icebergin
Icebergin's picture
Posts: 121
Joined: 2007-04-18
User is offlineOffline
We need to harness this

We need to harness this technology, learn Aramic, Greek, and whatever ancient language we need and travel back in time with a video camera and interview the real Jesus Christ.

Or prove he doesn't exist.

But the locals would probably just crucify us.

YOU shut the fuck up! WE'LL save America!


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Quote: This 'unfathomable'

Quote:
This 'unfathomable' is already built into Christianity with the ideas of election and free will. Somehow we have free will AND God knows (and ordained) the beginning and end. It's one of those things that can drive atheist crazy about theistic belief…we accept that there will be aspects of God's infinite nature that we will not be able to understand.

This idea that there are things you shouldn't try to understand really bugs me. It's one of the things that originally drove me away from Christianity.

There's a very easy way to understand the free will/omniscience paradox: it's a mistake.  Two humans living in different times/cultures with different immediate needs wrote or adopted versions of God with incompatible powers. 

It took awhile for people to notice the inconsistency, but when they did, instead of doing the logical thing and recognizing the error, they made up horrifically convoluted excuses for why it must be true.  Then you get puritans and Calvinists destroying their lives and the lives of each other obsessing over who is one of the "elect" and endless tracts and pamphlets and murders and riots and flogging of Quakers and all the worst things that people can possibly do to each other, all because nobody is willing to admit that there's a mistake in the theology.

 And this isn't the only one.  It makes me sad to think of all the countless innocent people who were dispossessed, exiled, imprisoned, tortured and burned at the stake over the incoherent illogicality that is the Doctrine of the Trinity. 

So at least people (mostly) aren't killing each other over the interpretation of these non sequiturs anymore.  But I'm with Dawkins that it is not a good thing when religion makes a virtue out of believing  something that runs counter to the best evidence (and the more unreasonable or illogical the belief, the greater the virtue).

I have no problem with not knowing something, particularly when there's not enough evidence to go on.  But I personally could never find any fulfillment in calling what is clearly an error or contradiction a "mystery" and then walking away from the attempt to understand it.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


jive turkey
Theist
jive turkey's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: This idea

Textom wrote:
This idea that there are things you shouldn't try to understand really bugs me. It's one of the things that originally drove me away from Christianity.

You did not quote me accurately. I stated, in plain, unambiguous English, that not being able to understand something does NOT mean one "shouldn't try".

jive turkey wrote:
This does not mean we do not strive to understand or to gain understanding in general, it just means that when our understanding comes to an end, we rely of faith.

In the future, please quote me in context. If you want to find theist who support your view, you shouldn't have too much trouble. But please don't try to turn me into one because it suits you.

Textom wrote:
Two humans living in different times/cultures with different immediate needs wrote or adopted versions of God with incompatible powers.

But the ideas of free will and election (ideas that relate directly to the topic) appear in the same books, often close to each other.

Textom wrote:
I have no problem with not knowing something, particularly when there's not enough evidence to go on. But I personally could never find any fulfillment in calling what is clearly an error or contradiction a "mystery" and then walking away from the attempt to understand it.

To be fully transparent and honest I must say that I can relate to the frustration and doubt caused by particular passages in the bible. However, what I have found some fulfillment in is looking at the purpose of a given text. Genesis 1 for example, was it intended to be a science lesson or to state the intentionality and involvement of God in our creation. I think the latter.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You did not quote me

Quote:
You did not quote me accurately. I stated, in plain, unambiguous English, that not being able to understand something does NOT mean one "shouldn't try".

Allow me to rephrase.  The idea that bugs me is that "when our understanding comes to an end, we rely on faith." 

The phrase "when our understanding comes to an end, we rely on faith" would work pretty well as a dictionary example of the argument from ignorance fallacy. 

I would rather go in the direction that the people making up the Bible stories made mistakes: for example a consistency error (predestination), unsuccessful incorporation of parts of other religions that didn't really fit (the Trinity) or not thinking far enough ahead because they expected the world to end before it could become a problem (salvation by faith, not acts and deathbed confessions). 

These explanations have the virtue of not requiring any convoluted perigrinations to explain away.  Probably more importantly, they also have the advantage that nobody is likely to go to war or burn heretics because of a difference of opinion about the mistakes.

Quote:
To be fully transparent and honest I must say that I can relate to the frustration and doubt caused by particular passages in the bible. However, what I have found some fulfillment in is looking at the purpose of a given text.

The appeal to purpose (or context) is often used as an escape hatch to explain away inconsistencies that conflict with what Bible-readers want the book to mean.  Frustration and doubt are a healthy response to circumstances where your own experience of the evidence conflicts with an existing schema. Maybe your frustration and doubt are signals from your brain that you should pay attention to, instead of repressing them.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Ophios wrote: Rev_Devilin

Ophios wrote:
Rev_Devilin wrote:
Ophios wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Christianity is based on choice.

That would depend on how you define all-knowing.

As a human. you're supposedly given a choice to accept Christianity Jesus ect. or not.

Again, that would depend on how you define all-knowing.

Please elaborate Ophios 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
jive turkey

jive turkey wrote:

This 'unfathomable' is already built into Christianity with the ideas of election and free will. Somehow we have free will AND God knows (and ordained) the beginning and end. It's one of those things that can drive atheist crazy about theistic belief…we accept that there will be aspects of God's infinite nature that we will not be able to understand. (That does not mean we do not strive to understand or to gain understanding in general, it just means that when our understanding comes to an end, we rely of faith.) I see the preordination/election vs. free will question as a worthwhile version of the common god quandary question, "Can God create a rock so large that He can't lift it?" The absurd answer to the absurd question is clearly "yesno". The better answer to the rock question is to discuss what it means to say that God is 'all-powerful' (Does not mean that God can do anything….God can't do anything that is against His nature, like lie.) The Christian theological discussion (since that was how the topic was introduced) might be to discuss what it means to say that God is 'all-knowing'. Perhaps God gave up some of his omniscience (I know, "then it's not really omniscience&quotEye-wink in order to give us the gift of free will. At the same time He knows us individually and completely and, therefore, what the major plot development of our lives will be and what will happen in history. Sort of like how you basically know what will happen when you watch a romantic comedy (they meet, fall in love, a misunderstanding occurs, they break up, they realize love each other, they get back together) but still you watch and you care. Will this mean the end of Christianity? Please. You know the answer to that. /peace

jive Turkey are you subscribing properties to God ?


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: Lazy? Tee

Susan wrote:

Lazy? Tee hee! I think it's a lot more work to put quotes on everything.

Susan I'm so lazy I use talk type. merely the idea of using my fingers that much. makes me want to lie down and sleep


jive turkey
Theist
jive turkey's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: The phrase

Textom wrote:
The phrase "when our understanding comes to an end, we rely on faith" would work pretty well as a dictionary example of the argument from ignorance fallacy.

I show argument from ignorance to be "a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proved false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proved true." So statements like, "No one has proven that God does not exist, therefore God must exist" or "No one has proven that God does exist, therefore God must not exist," would be examples of argument from ignorance.
Textom wrote:
Maybe your frustration and doubt are signals from your brain that you should pay attention to, instead of repressing them.

This statement seems to indicate that you believe my conciseness is separate from my brain which implies the existence of a soul, which implies the existence of God. Smiling But I understand what you mean, my point is that people can and do parse words to get from them what they want. One could use the words of MLK to justify discrimination (in their own mind) if they wanted to. Similarly people use the words of Christ to justify all manner of selfish and destructive behavior. But that's more about what's in the heart (or head) of man than it is about what's in the bible.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
I just realized that the

I just realized that the article is like 7 years old.

If it was the death christianity, shouldn't it have happened already? Could we find a faster acting agent to do the work? 


jive turkey
Theist
jive turkey's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote: jive

Rev_Devilin wrote:
jive Turkey are you subscribing properties to God ?

That's why this username just works! Smiling

I suppose I am…the bible subscribes many properties to God, I think I'm just trying to relay what the bible says rather than pulling stuff out of my rear (not that I'm above that).


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
jive turkey wrote: I show

jive turkey wrote:
I show argument from ignorance to be "a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proved false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proved true.

That sounds like a definition from formal logic (Philosophy).  In the discipline of Rhetoric there's a less-restrictive definition: an argument from ignorance is when you draw any conclusion based on the absence of evidence.

So when you reach the limits of understanding, where there is no evidence to answer a question, the only logical response is "I don't know."  To fall back on faith and say, for example, "there is no evidence, therefore we have to believe God did it," would be an argument from ignorance.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


caseagainstfaith
Silver Member
caseagainstfaith's picture
Posts: 202
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Christianity is based on choice. but if the future has already happened there is no choice. you're own life and death is predetermined.

There's already plenty of problems with "free will".  In short, in my view, Christianity has been long disproved, Christians just don't know it.  I doubt that anything along these lines would be problematic to any Christian that already dismisses nearly infinite problems with their religion. 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
jive turkey

jive turkey wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:
jive Turkey are you subscribing properties to God ?

That's why this username just works! Smiling

I suppose I am…the bible subscribes many properties to God, I think I'm just trying to relay what the bible says rather than pulling stuff out of my rear (not that I'm above that).

 

"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm pretty sure I heard

I'm pretty sure I heard that they made a mistake, but I can't quite remember where I heard that.

Anyway, it is just light. It cannot carry information, and it will not magically transport us to the future. 


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I'm

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I'm pretty sure I heard that they made a mistake, but I can't quite remember where I heard that.

Anyway, it is just light. It cannot carry information, and it will not magically transport us to the future.

Light (as far as I know) won't transport any matter, but it could carry information. It would be useless if it was transported to the future, so unless it can be sent back it doesn't really matter. 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest

Voiderest wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I'm pretty sure I heard that they made a mistake, but I can't quite remember where I heard that.

Anyway, it is just light. It cannot carry information, and it will not magically transport us to the future.

Light (as far as I know) won't transport any matter, but it could carry information. It would be useless if it was transported to the future, so unless it can be sent back it doesn't really matter.

 

No it couldn't the wavelengths distort. 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:

jive turkey wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:
jive Turkey are you subscribing properties to God ?

That's why this username just works! Smiling

I suppose I am…the bible subscribes many properties to God, I think I'm just trying to relay what the bible says rather than pulling stuff out of my rear (not that I'm above that).

"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain"

jive Turkey you have not responded and I am not surprised, dogmatic religious teachings are a self-imposed prison for the mind

free your-self

 

 

 


jive turkey
Theist
jive turkey's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
rev wrote: "Thou shalt not

rev wrote:
"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain"
jive Turkey you have not responded and I am not surprised, dogmatic religious teachings are a self-imposed prison for the mind

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I figured you question was an attempt at some childish trap but I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt...I'll know better next time.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
jive turkey wrote:

jive turkey wrote:
rev wrote:
"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" jive Turkey you have not responded and I am not surprised, dogmatic religious teachings are a self-imposed prison for the mind
I have no idea what you are talking about. I figured you question was an attempt at some childish trap but I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt...I'll know better next time.

Jive turkey there was no trap. I was simply astonished by your use of the gods name. and I was curious to see if you understood the implications of this. in a restricted religious belief system were certain lines of thinking and actions are prohibited

It is reassuring that you don't take the ten commandments literally. and I would surmise from its that you do-not follow the Judaic/christian restricted religious belief system

May I ask as a theist which Gods you do followed ?


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
And no-response again jive

And no-response again jive turkey

 Then you are of the Judaic/christian restricted religious belief system.

And this is a trap

jive turkey wrote:
an attempt at some childish trap
 

Trap ? how can I trap you

And what can I trap you with ?

The truth ? 

jive turkey. this prison for your mind is constructed from fear and illusion. 

If you deny truth. to stay within the comforting walls of this prison then accept the consequences of this choice. and live with this fear and illusion in whatever peace you can.

Accepting that it is neither moral or ethical to perpetuate this fear and illusion by attempting to imprison other minds. however comforting this companionship may seem


 


nonbobblehead
Theist
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Tyl3r04 wrote: That doesn't

Tyl3r04 wrote:
That doesn't make any sense. Just because you can travel back in time wouldn't mean the future is already set in stone?

Yes it does. Time travel means an eternal looping.

In the Terminator, the machines failed and will always fail because they had to (or have to) go back in time to try to destroy their adversary. It can never end.

 

0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.


DewiMorgan
DewiMorgan's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Oh, nonbobblehead, you're

Oh, nonbobblehead, you're awesome Smiling You've invented a brand new logical fallacy! Argumentum ad Schwarzenegger.

T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
DewiMorgan wrote:

DewiMorgan wrote:
Oh, nonbobblehead, you're awesome Smiling You've invented a brand new logical fallacy! Argumentum ad Schwarzenegger.

I'd like to make a new argument (Fallicious but, meh)

Argument ad DeLoreum.

You go back in time, change something, you derail yourself unto a new path of the future, although that whole slowly disapear bit is silly.

Thinking about an argument ad anubis gate.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
The article says nothing

The article says nothing about time travel backwards. They exceeded the speed of light, that is going forwards in time, not backwards! I was actually disappointed there was no time travel going on.

 


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Just a note as I pass

Just a note as I pass through.

Humor is terrific.  I love humor.

But since this is the Kill 'Em With Kindness Forum, please be very careful that it stays on the light side and isn't at all insulting.  (I'm not saying anyone has done this - I'm just throwing the reminder out there.)

Thank you. 

Carry on!

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley

Jacob Cordingley wrote:

The article says nothing about time travel backwards. They exceeded the speed of light, that is going forwards in time, not backwards! I was actually disappointed there was no time travel going on.

Hi Jacob Cordingley

Faster than the speed of light. is time travel

 

(speed of light) you hand a letter to a postman, and you look at the time on your watch 10.15 - 7/7/07

The letter arrives at its destination 1 day later 11.25 - 7/8/07 it has traveled forward in time. at the same speed as you have

(Faster than the speed of light) you hand a letter to a postman, and you look at the time on your watch 10.15 - 7/7/07

The letter arrives at its destination 10.14 - 7/7/07 before you have finished handing it to the postman it has traveled backwards in time

 

 

 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead

nonbobblehead wrote:

Tyl3r04 wrote:
That doesn't make any sense. Just because you can travel back in time wouldn't mean the future is already set in stone?

Yes it does. Time travel means an eternal looping.

In the Terminator, the machines failed and will always fail because they had to (or have to) go back in time to try to destroy their adversary. It can never end.

nonbobblehead is essentially correct

if you traveled back in time to change Destin then it was your Destin to go back and change time

The future has already happened. ie once you are dead and feeding worms. faster than light experiments will still happen. as particles/waves travel backwards in time over your entire life. your existence in this time is fixed, has always been fixed and will continue to be fixed. from which ever point in time you observe it from

 

 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
One can only hope it does

One can only hope it does affect Christianity Rev. I hope it stirs dormant brain cells all over the world. Smiling

It's true that it reverses causality as we understand it, YAY! I'm so over linear causality anyway, it's boring, (next step in my dastardly plan for humanity = dump the whole thing altogether in favour of quantum coherence). But a few theists have adopted many bodies quantum theories on you Reverend, they can still have faith in free will, with the exception of answering the question how did the light know which past to form in, free will is relatively safe for them.

But for literalist christian orthdoxy, free will is violated in a very large way by that experiment. It's simple. The light was sent from the future into the past, the experimenters observed the light appearing in its own past. The future determined the past ergo the future determines the past. No free will allowed in linear terms. Literalist orthodoxy begs to be taken seriously as a linear validity (see: young earth creationism) only for them, if they are right, their God is a mongrel who won't allow them to choose anything. How not nice.. but if this is the death of that stupor more's the happiness in our world, for mine. Hallelujah!  Tongue out

 On the other hand, the idea of two way causality which is raised by this result in 2000, among other things, hasn't gone unquestioned. Though we can't say the answers are sure quite yet, I'm happy we know the question.. aren't you?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
hi Eloise

hi Eloise

The results are still being debated today. so this is still hypothetical stuff. Quantum coherence may offer a potential explanation for this phenomenon, but as they are now using standard lab equipment to conduct such experiments this looks unlikely. it does appear that the results of the experiment are happening before the experiment has finished. there might be a hitherto unconsidered explanation for this. but I doubt this personally.time will tell excuse the pun

http://www.lauralee.com/news/lightspeedbroken.htm

http://www.livescience.com/technology/060518_light_backward.html

I'm happy it has me thinking. and I'll be delighted if this gets other people thinking as well

Although this will probably be more along the lines of. hic I'll be able to watch Super Bowl on TV. before the people or the players in the stadium see it

The cable-TV promoters would have a field day. If they work out a way of sending information. via this phenomenon

The death of Christianity probably not. "there are none so blind as those who will not see". there are people today that still believe the earth is flat and no proof or reason will dissuade them from there beliefs

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum//

If this phenomenon is true. then it might help push Christianity into a small fringe of eccentrics.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin

Rev_Devilin wrote:

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2000/07/20/speedlight000720.html

In brief scientist are playing around with stuff that travels backwards in time

Q ? why should this effect Christianity

A. causality. traveling backwards in time. means the future has already happened

Christianity is based on choice. but if the future has already happened there is no choice. you're own life and death is predetermined.

ie you're not reading this out of choice. you were predetermined to read this

I'm sure this has provoked some interesting responses in the future

Where is your scientific proof that something goes faster then light actually travels back in time? If you go faster then light, you will see old images, but that doesn't mean that you are physically in the past.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: Where

simple theist wrote:

Where is your scientific proof that something goes faster then light actually travels back in time? If you go faster then light, you will see old images, but that doesn't mean that you are physically in the past.

faster than light implies back in time

This has yet to be proven

When the results of an experiment appear before the experiment is finished

How else could you explain this phenomenon ?