Not time travel, "only" time viewing?

[Farien]

Actual traveling into the past would create a truckload of paradoxes, so let’s consider something else.

Asimov wrote a wonderful short story The Dead Past about a - seemingly - much less problematic subject, namely just “viewing” the past, without being able to interfere with it, and so bypassing all the paradoxes which would emerge from such interference. Of course he presented a very problematic scenario, by asking: “when does the past begin?”, and the answer was very troubling. (The plot is described in the link, but the whole story is worth to read.)

Let’s consider something else. What if we could view the past? What if we could go back and wanted to see Jesus and maybe the crucifixion? The alleged miracles? And what if there would be nothing to see? If it turned out to be all legends? How would that effect your belief?

 

[sowinskija]

Whole lot of what-ifs dude. Plus, none of us are worthy to witness the Crucifixion of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We must and always will, have to accept Christ’s presence with faith, the same way that you accept what you have heard about the past before your birth. How do we know that Christopher Columbus came to America or that Lewis and Clark reached the Pacific? Time-viewing would be cool, but it does not seem like a viable scientific possibility. Until then, we must accept what we know about the past on faith.

God Bless

 

[meltzerboy]

Actual traveling into the past would create a truckload of paradoxes, so let’s consider something else.

Asimov wrote a wonderful short story The Dead Past about a - seemingly - much less problematic subject, namely just “viewing” the past, without being able to interfere with it, and so bypassing all the paradoxes which would emerge from such interference. Of course he presented a very problematic scenario, by asking: “when does the past begin?”, and the answer was very troubling. (The plot is described in the link, but the whole story is worth to read.)

Let’s consider something else. What if we could view the past? What if we could go back and wanted to see Jesus and maybe the crucifixion? The alleged miracles? And what if there would be nothing to see? If it turned out to be all legends? How would that effect your belief?

I’m sure the ingenious mind of man would find a way of reconciling what they perceive with what they previously believed. They might not even perceive the events in that way in the first place since, as psychologists are fond of saying: “believing is seeing,” rather than “seeing is believing.”

 

[sowinskija]

Also, Miracles are not a thing of the distant past. Here’s one from 1917 - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun#The_event- , and the page that disproves many of the “scientific” theories proposed by doubters, and the critical analysis of the Wiki page- creativeminorityreport.com/2007/10/scientists-explain-away-miracle-of-sun.html

Here is another example (just a little over two minutes) youtube.com/watch?v=da5iVUZzpPo

God Bless, and may Christ be with you always, even until the end of time

 

[Jerusha]

I’m sure the ingenious mind of man would find a way of reconciling what they perceive with what they previously believed. They might not even perceive the events in that way in the first place since, as psychologists are fond of saying: “believing is seeing,” rather than “seeing is believing”

Interesting perception from your POV. Watching Abraham and Moses could be disconcerting for all of us. Of course, confirmation bias could lead the observer to say “it was the devil that made me see it that way.” I would rather watch the events surrounding the Joseph Smith family, myself.

 

[Rolltide]

Actual traveling into the past would create a truckload of paradoxes, so let’s consider something else.

Asimov wrote a wonderful short story The Dead Past about a - seemingly - much less problematic subject, namely just “viewing” the past, without being able to interfere with it, and so bypassing all the paradoxes which would emerge from such interference.

We’ve been able to do that for 124 years now, thanks to Thomas Edison… :

 

[MilesVitae]

Let’s consider something else. What if we could view the past? What if we could go back and wanted to see Jesus and maybe the crucifixion? The alleged miracles? And what if there would be nothing to see? If it turned out to be all legends? How would that effect your belief?

Obviously, if they never happened, Christianity would be false - and I would abandon it.

 

[Bradski]

Obviously, if they never happened, Christianity would be false - and I would abandon it.

Which leads to an interesting question: how many people of faith (not just Christians) would take the opportunity of finding out if what they believed was actually true?

I’ve often thought what would be better…to have the option of heading into the future to see where we go, or back throughout the past to see where we all came from.

Going back, we’d have the opportunity to discover if Christianity was true. In my case, if it wasn’t then I’d feel vindicated in my ‘unbelief’. But if it was, then you’d get another convert quick smart.

But if you’re a Christian, would you take the chance to discover if you were wrong or would you prefer to stay with your faith?

 

[thistle]

Actual traveling into the past would create a truckload of paradoxes, so let’s consider something else.

Asimov wrote a wonderful short story The Dead Past about a - seemingly - much less problematic subject, namely just “viewing” the past, without being able to interfere with it, and so bypassing all the paradoxes which would emerge from such interference. Of course he presented a very problematic scenario, by asking: “when does the past begin?”, and the answer was very troubling. (The plot is described in the link, but the whole story is worth to read.)

Let’s consider something else. What if we could view the past? What if we could go back and wanted to see Jesus and maybe the crucifixion? The alleged miracles? And what if there would be nothing to see? If it turned out to be all legends? How would that effect your belief?

You are wasting your time trying to shake people’s faith. Don’t you have anything better to do!!!

 

[Nan_S]

Actual traveling into the past would create a truckload of paradoxes, so let’s consider something else.

Asimov wrote a wonderful short story The Dead Past about a - seemingly - much less problematic subject, namely just “viewing” the past, without being able to interfere with it, and so bypassing all the paradoxes which would emerge from such interference. Of course he presented a very problematic scenario, by asking: “when does the past begin?”, and the answer was very troubling. (The plot is described in the link, but the whole story is worth to read.)

Let’s consider something else. What if we could view the past? What if we could go back and wanted to see Jesus and maybe the crucifixion? The alleged miracles? And what if there would be nothing to see? If it turned out to be all legends? How would that effect your belief?

Well, let’s take a look at this tale, since it is an SF classic. If we could view the past, what would we look at first? And how closely could we view it?

“Foster soon proves that no chronoscope can see more than about 120 years into the past. In any attempt to observe an earlier time, the inevitable noise totally drowns out the signal. The government’s reports of chronoscope observations of earlier years are thus clear fabrications.”

Oohhh… I guess we’d have a pretty hard time viewing the crucifixion then. It seems you’re (ahem) seriously mis-stating the story plot.

How about something else? Could we look at you last night? Could we see what you were doing behind locked doors when you thought you were unobserved? Are you sure you want that much exposure?

“…the resulting plague of voyeurism would effectively eliminate the concept of privacy. Even the government workers now assigned to the chronoscope, Araman says, sometimes transgress regulations and use it to spy for personal purposes.”

Nice try, but your idea doesn’t work the way you hoped. It backfires on you.

One thing is almost certain. If everyone knew that everything they did, anytime and anywhere, could be CNN Headline News in 15 minutes, you’d probably have a lot more people in church on time every Sunday, maybe even you, and a lot fewer people committing crimes.

Going along the classic historical lines of Pandora’s box, pushed down a slippery slope, I think Isaac Asimov summed it up best:

Araman is resigned to the exposure of the chronoscope, and leaves the three academics with the insightful line: “Happy goldfish bowl to you, to me, to everyone, and may each of you fry in hell forever.”

 

[Farien]

Well, let’s take a look at this tale, since it is an SF classic. If we could view the past, what would we look at first? And how closely could we view it?

Oohhh… I guess we’d have a pretty hard time viewing the crucifixion then. It seems you’re (ahem) seriously mis-stating the story plot.

I did not mis-state it. The thought experiment did not copy the exact plot, it only went along a similar line. There is no known reason why such a device would only have a limited “peek” into the past.

Nevertheless, Bradski understood my real purpose: I would like to understand how people would react to the possibility of making sure that their view is real, or make-belief? Would they dare to risk that they are wrong? Now that would be real Pascal’s wager… All you would have to do is take a peek… but you would risk whole whole worldview crasing down on you, or have it confirmed.

Also as Bradski pointed out - and I concur - atheists have nothing to lose by investigating the reality. If it would turn out that we are mistaken, then we could just admit it, and become … well, not actually “believers”, but “knowers”.

It is true that the story is very unlikely to come real, but at least it is not impossible (like time travel), so it is a legitimate question for a thought experiment.

---

It is also very revealing to see what thistle posted. Why do people always assume that atheists have a nefarious purpose like “shaking people’s faith”? Can’t they understand that there is genuine wish to gain knowledge about the thought process of the believers, especially since there is only a difference in the matters of their faith? (In everyday matters there is no difference at all.)

 

[Kathrin]

I think one beautiful thing about faith is that it is so strong that we need not question it like this… of course, we are all humans and I guess it is normal that sometimes doubts come, but I have learned that it is best to overcome that in prayer.

I know you didn’t mean to say that you doubt and want proof (like St. Thomas?), that wasn’t your point, but I think we as people of faith probably… well, personally I think I don’t really want to even imagine such a thing, a world without our faith… how bare and dry and dark it would be? If God never came to save us?

Kathrin

p.s me being scrupulous, I hope it was ok to mention St. Thomas here, that is not talking bad about somebody, right? I mean the story is well-known and it is a story of LOVE and I believe it needed to happen this way

 

[Nan_S]

It is true that the story is very unlikely to come real, but at least it is not impossible (like time travel), so it is a legitimate question for a thought experiment.

Very unlikely but not impossible? Based on what? “The Dead Past” is a work of pure speculative fiction. There is absolutely zero science behind it, meaning that there is also zero legitimacy in the thought experiment.

You can what-if all day long, but imagining a chronoscope is a pointless exercise and waste of time.

 

[Pug]

Which leads to an interesting question: how many people of faith (not just Christians) would take the opportunity of finding out if what they believed was actually true?

I think it would take an act of faith to believe in what I saw through the chronoscope. If it showed me something from 10,000 years ago, how would I know it was what actually happened (and not, perhaps, something from a different dimension or universe, or something that is altered by the observer observing it)? So, pitting faith against faith, I’ll take the long established one. It is not like this scenario pits truth against faith.

The one thing that might tempt me, though, would be my own past, to see what happened to me when young. But again, the same problem applies.

 

[Farien]

Very unlikely but not impossible? Based on what? “The Dead Past” is a work of pure speculative fiction. There is absolutely zero science behind it, meaning that there is also zero legitimacy in the thought experiment.

Looks like you have a special definition for what is the “legitimacy” of a thought experiment. Anything and everything is “fair game”, as long as it is not excluded by what we know for certain. For example it would be a senseless thought experiment to ponder: “what if lead and feather would fall at a different rate in vacuum?”. Of course you are not under any “obligation” to participate if you find these mind-games a “pointless exercise and waste of time”.

You can what-if all day long, but imagining a chronoscope is a pointless exercise and waste of time.

Are you aware that every scientific discovery started with a “what-if” question?

 

[Kathrin]

But Faith is different. Faith has at its core also trust. It seems a bit like not trusting, just playing this game. If your faith is not firm, the evil one may use it to give you all kinds of thoughts in your head.

 

[Farien]

But Faith is different. Faith has at its core also trust. It seems a bit like not trusting, just playing this game. If your faith is not firm, the evil one may use it to give you all kinds of thoughts in your head.

Unfortunately, I cannot even think of trusting someone, whose very existence is questionable. I would be unable to have “faith” that God exists, and then to have “more faith” that he is like the believers describe him. Of course to have “faith” that an all-good, all-loving God would allow the “evil one” to play games with us, to allow him to confuse us and mis-direct us, now that is the epitome of “unbelievable” propositions. (The story of Job is one of the most despicable stories in the bible. That God would play a game with Satan, and offer up all the family of Job as “chips” in the game is so horrendous, that I am lost for words.)

After all, if we are already “fallen”, and our predisposition is tainted by concupiscence then we don’t “need” a special “evil one” to “help” us to go astray. If God’s “love” (agape) is to act in our best interest, then there is no logical reason NOT to smite the “evil one”, who only wants our demise. He could just simply get rid of the “evil one”, and we still could make free and incorrect choices.

As for the thought experiment I offered, you can answer it without reservations, since it is very unlikely that you will have to “play the game” in reality. The question is exactly what you alluded to: “is your faith strong (blind!) enough to withstand a proof to the contrary?”.

 

[Kathrin]

i really hope that my faith would be strong enough even in such a scenario

 

[Farien]

i really hope that my faith would be strong enough even in such a scenario

I am very sure that your faith will not be exposed to this particular test. Best wishes to you.

 

[Kathrin]

best wishes to you as well May God bless us all