Not time travel, "only" time viewing?

[NeedImprovement]

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]

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.

Faith, eh? What kind if “faith”? If such a gadget would be presented, the first requirement would be to calibrate it, along with the mathematics describing its workings. The calibration would happen against those times which you personally could recall and thus verify whatever the machine presents to you. There would be absolutely no “faith” involved in it, as long as you rely on your memory. If you cannot trust your own memory, then you are in deep trouble anyhow.

Then you could continue to calibrate by pointing it to events that your parents and grandparents can remember - possibly supported by pictures. Further on, you could examine truly well-documented historical events. Well-documented, mind you is not just a hearsay “evidence” for some unbeliveable story, told and re-told by unknown strangers.

The poor word: “faith” is so horribly abused. Some people assert that one needs “faith” to assume that a stone will fall down, when dropped. This expectation is not “faith”, not by a long shot. Check out Hebrews 11:1 for the proper definition of faith.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I’ve always thought it a funny thing that those who do not share our Christian faith , don’t have any problem writing the date or referring to this year as 2012 .

Now we are supposed to make-believe that someone actually owns a kaleidoscope where we can look into it and view the past . . . and if we look through the other end, maybe we can view the future too !

I do not envy the non believer , but would rather pray for him or her - even for those types who like to deride our Christian faith. Our faith is really not a concept they are able to wrap their minds around. It is something foreign to their intellects . . . to their souls.

Faith untested is no faith at all . In the book *Augustine On Prayer *,St. Augustine says :

Faith is belief in those things we cannot see, but the reward of our faith is that we shall see everything we have believed.

John 20: 27-29

Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.”

Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”

The way some questions have been worded in this thread has to leave one wondering . . . a least a little. For example :

. . . 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?

That’s like asking:
*" Let’s say you believed there was water in a lake back in (whatever date) and I took you back to that lake, at that date, to look and you found was no water in the lake - How would that affect your belief that there had been water in the lake at that time . *"

I mean, Duhhh - .

Then, a most logical response : You would need to verify your flight of fancy kaleidoscope against the time-tested testimony of Christianity before it could be granted any credibility - given in simplified terms which should’ve been easy enough to understand.

The argument is sound . -

When an argument is so sound it can’t be challenged, I suppose the one who is protesting can only resort to attacking the terminology.

. . . Looks like the rules quite possibly might be changing as we go here .

 

[Pug]

Faith, eh? What kind if “faith”? If such a gadget would be presented, the first requirement would be to calibrate it, along with the mathematics describing its workings. The calibration would happen against those times which you personally could recall and thus verify whatever the machine presents to you. There would be absolutely no “faith” involved in it, as long as you rely on your memory. If you cannot trust your own memory, then you are in deep trouble anyhow.

Then you could continue to calibrate by pointing it to events that your parents and grandparents can remember - possibly supported by pictures. Further on, you could examine truly well-documented historical events. Well-documented, mind you is not just a hearsay “evidence” for some unbeliveable story, told and re-told by unknown strangers.

The poor word: “faith” is so horribly abused. Some people assert that one needs “faith” to assume that a stone will fall down, when dropped. This expectation is not “faith”, not by a long shot. Check out Hebrews 11:1 for the proper definition of faith.

I do accept that if there were a confrontation with the unvarnished, indisputable truth and a belief of mine, then I would give way. That is the nature of things. Catholics believe such a moment will happen, when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, etc. Even if I didn’t believe in that particular moment, I would accept that the truth itself holds reign over a mistaken belief. But you did not ask about truth verses faith.

I don’t think you understood the point behind my remark that the one thing I’d like to see through the device would be my youth. I fully expect that what I would see would differ from my memory.

I can’t imagine you need an example of this, but just in case, we argued this Christmas Eve over how my brother got his name. My father has one story and I have another. I am sure I am right. He is sure he is right. The only thing we agree upon is that it happened in the car. Anyway, my brother loves his name and has given it to both his sons.

 

[Farien]

I don’t think you understood the point behind my remark that the one thing I’d like to see through the device would be my youth. I fully expect that what I would see would differ from my memory.

Interesting. There are many events where my memory is crystal clear about what happened. And I trust my memory, since it has been tested millions of times.

I can’t imagine you need an example of this, but just in case, we argued this Christmas Eve over how my brother got his name. My father has one story and I have another. I am sure I am right. He is sure he is right. The only thing we agree upon is that it happened in the car. Anyway, my brother loves his name and has given it to both his sons.

What about some more important things? Do you really think that your memory is “totally” unreliable when it comes to past events? Obviously we tend to forget not so important events, or our memory becomes hazy about them. But everything?

 

[Kathrin]

Reminds me of a psychology class long ago.
The professor (I suppose it must have been a professor) gave the example of two people remembering an event differently, but both are convinced that they are right. And so, both - for them? - ARE right. Like, their brains “saved” the event that way.

 

[meltzerboy]

Reminds me of a psychology class long ago.
The professor (I suppose it must have been a professor) gave the example of two people remembering an event differently, but both are convinced that they are right. And so, both - for them? - ARE right. Like, their brains “saved” the event that way.

Your professor was probably referring to encoding variations based on a number of influences: differences in perception, attention, cognitive expectations, motivational preferences, prior social experiences, and so on. And in the process of reconstructive memory in the course of development, the recall of that saved event will also change for both people.

 

[Kathrin]

What really stuck with me is that he said, they are both telling the truth, or they are both right, or something like that.
But maybe now my own memory has saved it wrong.

Anyway, as Christians, I think we believe in an objective truth that is God’s truth… I don’t remember how far I thought that time, but the thought of there being no objective truth (if that is what he meant?) would be kind of scary… just realizing now, that is one thing that is so beautiful about being a person of faith: Knowing (believing) that there is something - I mean SOMEONE - Who is all Truth and the perfect Truth in Whom there is no doubt and not any kind of lie…

 

[Pug]

Interesting. There are many events where my memory is crystal clear about what happened. And I trust my memory, since it has been tested millions of times.

What about some more important things? Do you really think that your memory is “totally” unreliable when it comes to past events? Obviously we tend to forget not so important events, or our memory becomes hazy about them. But everything?

I am crystal on some overall trends, like how many siblings I have (that I know of, clearly) and where I lived, that I joined the Catholic Church at a certain age and in a certain town, etc. But to tell you fine detail, well, I wouldn’t guarantee it, like maybe I did drive a different car across the country and I’ve simply forgotten the last minute switch and the photo was taken before the switch, reinforcing me in my mistake. From a memorable speech I could tell you a few details, particularly if they said something like, “They couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance.” Then I would probably have them exact. Or if I met the pope or something. Then I’d remember the six words he’d said to me.

I accept that many people are more reliable at this sort of thing than me. I don’t accept that they are as right as they often think they are. I think interpretations can get in the way, and we don’t always account for what other things have influenced what we recall.

 

[Kasmalim]

Actually, you cannot change time. The grandfather paradox has been mis-proven, even if we went back in time we wouldn’t be able to change the future. So the past is fixed, no amount of time traveling will change that.

 

[shahidsaif]

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”.

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

you have sent the nice replay.thanks

 

[Kathrin]

What is the Grandfather Paradox and how has it been proven wrong? Did people before feel they could go back in time and change the present? That is more something like in science fiction movies…

 

[Farien]

I am crystal on some overall trends, like how many siblings I have (that I know of, clearly) and where I lived, that I joined the Catholic Church at a certain age and in a certain town, etc. But to tell you fine detail, well, I wouldn’t guarantee it, like maybe I did drive a different car across the country and I’ve simply forgotten the last minute switch and the photo was taken before the switch, reinforcing me in my mistake. From a memorable speech I could tell you a few details, particularly if they said something like, “They couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance.” Then I would probably have them exact. Or if I met the pope or something. Then I’d remember the six words he’d said to me.

I accept that many people are more reliable at this sort of thing than me. I don’t accept that they are as right as they often think they are. I think interpretations can get in the way, and we don’t always account for what other things have influenced what we recall.

Some people have photographic memory, others do not. But this is not the point. As you say, there are certain things that you recall in detail, others not so clearly. You certainly can recall things which happened an hour ago. As such you can “calibrate” the hypothetical device - and as such there is no need to have “blind faith” that the device works as intended.

And so the question comes: “would you care to use the device if it might show that your whole religion was built on legends?”. Would you be willing to take that risk?

 

[Farien]

What is the Grandfather Paradox and how has it been proven wrong? Did people before feel they could go back in time and change the present? That is more something like in science fiction movies…

Of course it is fiction. Basically it says that you go back to the past and kill your grandfather before your father would be conceived, and thus you will not be born, and as such you cannot go back… and as such you are born, so you can go back… etc. A dog chasing its tail. The paradox cannot be resolved, though there are some nifty attempts.

 

[TarkanAttila]

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?

It seems an unlikely situation, given the evidence.

But, if it by some odd chance I happened to travel back in time and somehow find out that Christ was lying, what could I do but denounce Him as the worst liar in all of history? Not a “good teacher”. A “good teacher” does not say he is the son of God, and that is why he has the authority to say things. A “good teacher” does not attribute his philosophy to himself. A God does that - or an impostor.

Therefore, if I could not keep Christ’s divinity, I would have to reject Christ’s morality wholesale, as His morality is bound up completely in His divinity. If He is not divine, it doesn’t matter whether you agree with him. He was bulling, plain and straight, and you cannot call Him a good man.

That said, I think it highly unlikely, again, given the logical evidence against it. And until I have reason to believe otherwise, I’ll take Christ’s divinity, along with His morals.

But you will never find me supporting Christ as “a good man, but only a man”. He made quite sure He wanted to be thought of as God. Probably has nothing to do with your point. But I am tired of people saying “Jesus was a good teacher, but he was only a teacher, not a divine being”. Anyone who believes this has made up his own Jesus, not the one that speaks from the Gospels.

Rant over.

 

[Ghosty]

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”.

You wouldn’t be a “knower” just because you saw the events of Scripture played out in real time; the people that witnessed it didn’t all become “knowers”, even by seeing it with their own eyes, so why would you? Atheists have nothing to gain nor lose by seeing the events play out, since skepticism is always a viable approach. The believers would have nothing to lose except falsehood, so they’re the real winners in such a wager.

I honestly don’t understand the reasoning behind this question. Is it merely a survey?

Peace and God bless!

 

[Farien]

It seems an unlikely situation, given the evidence.

We could talk in detail about the so called evidence, but that is not the point here and now. Just one remark about it. The usually presented “liar, lunatic of lord” is incorrect. There is the forth one: “legend”, which is scrupulously ignored by the apologists. Remember the chinese tea-room experiment?

But, if it by some odd chance I happened to travel back in time and somehow find out that Christ was lying, what could I do but denounce Him as the worst liar in all of history? Not a “good teacher”. A “good teacher” does not say he is the son of God, and that is why he has the authority to say things. A “good teacher” does not attribute his philosophy to himself. A God does that - or an impostor.

Again, no one assumes an impostor. What if you would find no evidence that there was a “Jesus” as descrbed in the bible?

Therefore, if I could not keep Christ’s divinity, I would have to reject Christ’s morality wholesale, as His morality is bound up completely in His divinity.

Interesting. I do not reject “all” of what he (allegedly) advocated.

The question is: “if such a device existed, would you dare to peek into it, and risk that what you see makes your faith null and void?”. As I said, I certainly would take the risk. I have nothing to lose by a proof that my world-view is false and incorrect.

 

[Farien]

You wouldn’t be a “knower” just because you saw the events of Scripture played out in real time;

I usually accept the testimony of my senses.

…the people that witnessed it didn’t all become “knowers”, even by seeing it with their own eyes, so why would you?

Did they really witness anything? Or maybe it is just a story passed down the ages? What you said is one of the most convincing pieces of evidence that it is all just a bunch of legends.

Atheists have nothing to gain nor lose by seeing the events play out, since skepticism is always a viable approach.

If you see a traffic accident, you might not recall all the details, but you could not deny the basic facts. No amount of skepticism can convince you that nothing happened, when you just saw a car running down a person.

I honestly don’t understand the reasoning behind this question. Is it merely a survey?

Just idle curiousity.

 

[Kathrin]

Of course it is fiction. Basically it says that you go back to the past and kill your grandfather before your father would be conceived, and thus you will not be born, and as such you cannot go back… and as such you are born, so you can go back… etc. A dog chasing its tail. The paradox cannot be resolved, though there are some nifty attempts.

Ok now I get it why it is called the grandfather paradoy; thanks for explaining

 

[TarkanAttila]

We could talk in detail about the so called evidence, but that is not the point here and now. Just one remark about it. The usually presented “liar, lunatic of lord” is incorrect. There is the forth one: “legend”, which is scrupulously ignored by the apologists. Remember the chinese tea-room experiment?

The “legend” seems rather unlikely. It’s one thing to claim some vague man in some vague time did some vague thing to represent some vague emotion. It’s one thing to write a lengthy parable, as Jesus was accustomed to.

It’s entirely another to say, as the authors did, that “if Christ did not rise from the dead, our faith is in vain”, or that “we did not follow cleverly devised myths… we were eyewitnesses of His majesty”, or that He is “what we have heard… which we have looked upon, and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life - the Life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it”. You cannot claim there were eyewitnesses alive at the time these things happened. You cannot cite sources in a legend.

You cannot say that the first Christians believed that Jesus was a myth. You may believe it to be a myth if you like, but you can’t quote the authors as believing or propagating that notion. Either they were witnessing to that which had actually happened, or they concocted the most ingenious lie of all time. (Or ancient people were even stupider than even modern secularists would like to imagine. Much stupider.)

Again, no one assumes an impostor.

There’s no way anyone could pull that **** off 20 years after He supposedly lived, died, and rose from the dead. It would have been an amazing fraud, unprecedented in history. Highly unlikely except in some kind of twisted, unrealistic Hollywood movie script. You only wish real life were so exciting that 12 men could somehow conjure in the heads of thousands of people that a man who never was, and his mother who never existed, had been around for 30 years, had been executed in public and no one knew about it, and rose from his non-existent death.

There is absolutely no room to SENSIBLY interpret the Bible as being anything but a telling of something they believe actually happened. The parables and the miracles, sure. The claims of Jesus to be God, quite possibly. The virgin birth and the finding in the temple and Simeon and the Prophetess, not at all undoubtable. But the claim that they somehow had the power to “bind and loose”? That they now had authority over the people of Israel? Come on. Be serious. No one risks eternal unhappiness on a myth (except a very credulous man, like yourself).

The followers of Joseph Smith are quite sure he really saw Jesus and God in flesh and bone. Mohammedans are quite sure Mohammed really saw the Angel Gabriel. Jews are pretty sure Moses isn’t just a metaphor - in Jesus’s time and today. And the Christians are no less sure that Christ crucified really and truly rose from the dead.

My point being: the “Christ myth” argument is, when you take a look at it, crazy.

I really suggest you give this link a good once over, particularly the refutation of the myth theory.

Interesting. I do not reject “all” of what he (allegedly) advocated.

How can I accept, on his authority alone, the words of a liar? Or, if you like, the words of a non-existent man coined by a liar? The entire verity of those words rests on His authority as God-made-man. If He is not what He claims to be - if He does not even exist - there is no reason to trust Him at all.

Now, if anything that is said in the Gospels is within natural reason, or within some other verifiable religion (of which, I do not believe there is any, except perhaps Judaism), I will accept it as true. Just because Hitler likes babies does not mean babies are evil. But I can’t accept Jesus as a good teacher, even if his moral teachings are good, because his authority as a teacher is bound up in his being the Son of God, who rose from the Dead.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but a man is no authority on morals if His authority is neither natural, logical, nor divine. He’s just expressing his personal tastes if he is illogical, out-of-tune with natural law, or simply a man. You have no reason to trust Jesus’s word if He is not divine, because His Divine Sonship was as much a part of His teachings as loving your neighbor and picking up your cross and the rest. If He was what He claimed, He is in tune with natural law, logical, and divine. If He is not the Son of God, He is none of those, as His premises rest on a faulty authority: his own.

The question is: “if such a device existed, would you dare to peek into it, and risk that what you see makes your faith null and void?”. As I said, I certainly would take the risk. I have nothing to lose by a proof that my world-view is false and incorrect.

Nor do I. If Catholicism is true - as I have no doubt is the case - I should have no problem knowing it to be so. If it’s not, I should have no problem knowing I have no reason to be alive.

But I’m not sure what I would do after that. Most likely I would look for something else meaningful and verifiable. Judaism would probably be a good start, for much the same reasons as Christianity. (Who is going to claim that some guy went up a mountain with your ancestors and gave them a law that you never heard about until you said it happened?)

But if they proved that false… I would still know there is a God, and that He did love us into existence. And as He exists before time, a time machine could never verify nor falsify that. You would need… some other kind of machine.