Here Today... Gone To Hell!

I know there are alot of paradoxes concerning the issue of time travel. And most people don't think it will ever be achieved. Hell, isn't time travel itself the ultimate paradox?      Since GNR fans are just as smart, if not smarter, than everyone else, I have a question. If a major breakthrough was made concerning the issue of time travel, do you think that would prove that God doesn't exist?                  Because I cant imagine God allowing something as insane as time travel to occur. You could in effect become Christ-like, by going back and erasing your sins. And also, if you went back, just meeting one different person would set off a chain reaction that could never be changed. If you tried to change it, you would just create a new chain reaction from the chain reaction you created the first time you went back.                                    And as another example, let's say there's a girl from your past that you always liked, but were afraid to ask her out. So you go back in time and wind up having a relationship with her. By doing this, you have changed everything. You altered the course of the girl's life, and you altered the course of every person's life who would have met her if you hadn't gone back in time. So basically, your desire to have sex with a high school crush would, in effect, destroy thousands of destinies.  Time Travel would allow one man to play the role of God. And doesn't it say somewhere in the Bible about man being beneath God? That we can't aspire to anything God-like? Do you think proving the existence of time travel would, at the same time, disprove the existence of God??

1. Mortal man, in his current fallen state, is subject to time.? God, however, dwells in eternity.? There is no past or future for all things are present before Him.? God lives in an eternal "now."

2. For any number of reasons, some of which you listed above, man will never have the ability to time-travel.? It is not in "the plan," so to speak.? ?

3. Man is beneath God in the sense that we are fallen, mortal, and imperfect.? God is exalted , immortal, and perfect.? However we indeed can aspire to be God-like.? In fact, as impossible as it seems, we are commanded to - in the only way given - through Christ.

Not really. It would, however, be more evidence that this 'God' has created an even more imperfect world than at first believed.


There's a great quote that I can't remember...

...Only the human ego makes us believe that this 'God', this 'Creator' should he exist would give a fuck about us and what we do with our lives...

Oh, I don't know, something along those lines.

Hell, maybe in God's first draft for the world, time travel was possible. But by this, being obviously the seventh draft of our world, she has made it impossible.

The will to power? Dude, God is dead.*





*Anybody get that?

Anyone who is familiar with the Plan of Salvation (where we come from, why we are here, where we are going) knows why God does indeed care what we do with our lives.


Seventh draft??

She?

Since when?

But how could God exist in a world where you could go back and erase your mistakes and change other people's lives? You could even go back to right before Jesus is crucified, and right before he has to carry the cross, and shoot him in the head. Not only altering the death of Jesus but changing the writings in the Bible. I do believe in God, but if time travel is achieved, I think it will prove he doesn't exist.

You're basically answering your own question.

Once again, for any number of reasons, man will never be capable of time-travel. 

Not least of which is humans would likely destroy themselves long before they attained that kind of knowledge and technology.

Nutjob, maybe you're right. I have read Revelations, and it doesn't mention anything regarding humans able to travel through time. But if achieved, wouldnt the fact that it isn't mentioned in the bible make you change your mind? And you shouldn't say it will NEVER occur. Scientists have noticed a miniscule anomaly concerning time travel. If a supersonic jet leaves New York and flies to a far away country, it arrives to its destination a millionth of a second quicker than it should have. Scientists have yet to explain this anomaly.

For the record, while I believe the Bible, I don't believe it contains all truth that God has - or could - reveal to man.

It's not that I believe time-travel is impossible in itself.? I just do think man will ever be capable of it.? Especially considering the fact that we and this earth don't have a whole lot of time left as it is.

Hypothetically speaking, even if man could travel through time, I don't think that would automatically prove or disprove anything.?

For those who believe in God, whatever man becomes capable of, it must be remembered that it is only because God has allowed him that knowledge and ability, and already knows the consquences of such in advance.

Time travel, eh?

Can't be done, to go back and change an event in the past would then erase that event from history - as a consequence you would be unable to go back and change what in the new timeline had never actually occured :nervous:

As for God...please, one daft idea at a time.

I wish I could go back in time and not read this thread.

Time is a concept, a state of mind. You can time-travel through memory only.

That I believe is called the Grandfather Paradox (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/G/Grandfather_Paradox.html).

Your opinion. Don't flare catholics if your athiest.

Maybe this has already happened.... maybe someone from an alternate future, where they have things like sandals that can walk on water and small pills that dissolve into water and change it into wine, decided he wanted to be the most famous person in history.  So he travelled back in time and called himself the Son of God, and we now refer to him as Jesus?

Pretty lame if you ask me... I would've just taken all of the greatest songs ever recorded, travelled back to the 40s or 50s, and released ALBUM after ALBUM of the best music ever.  Then, once I'd retired, I sit back and watch all the kids of the next generation bitch and moan about how "there's nothing good on the radio today".

Man, obviously none of you 'got it'.

Didn't you work out from my 'did anybody get it?' that it was a joke, kind of.

Nietzsche wrote about the will to power, mans innate desire to become God-like. Well, in not so few words. It overrides even our desire to survive...to become the Superman, and such.

Anyway...Nietzsche believed that God was 'dead' because man no longer had any need for him.

I'm studying the bastard at the moment.

And nutter...

...'Seventh draft' was, likewise, a joke...Not a funny one, but a joke all the same. It was a play on the seven days...Oh never mind.

And, 'she'? You'll find a lot of philosophers refer to God as she, because it gets people like you who go *WHAT?!?! SHE?!?!* to actually think about it...

God ain't no man. Or at least, she may not be....But then again, he may be. Also, they may be neither.

God is a big black woman....

She's pissed and will be here soon.....

Oh, don't worry, I knew what you meant.? But as it is fully clear that the "seven days" were periods of creation then rest, rather than drafts, you really didn't have much of a basis for making your joke to begin with.


As I've said before, the related identity of God and man can be summed up in the following couplet -

"As man now is, God once was.
As God now is, man may be."

God is indeed "a man."? A glorified, immortal, and exalted one.? And we are His children, He being our Father.? Of course, there was never a father without a mother.? You might be surprised to learn that we also have a Mother in Heaven, just as we have a Father in Heaven.

first rule of comedy...dont assume everyone has an IQ of 180, they have read nietchse and to remember the exact quote you quoted.

:P

time travel, if it is indeed possible would be only possible across different timelines in a infinite timeline universe...one could go back from one timeline into another timeline but they cannot go back to the same timeline to disturb it...or so i heard

I fully realize many here loath all talk in relation to religion and God.

Nevertheless, being as the original post mentioned God as much as it did time-travel, it is warranted I think.

Look...

Shut up.

Locked!

And actually, fool, this:


Wasn't a joke.

So therefore your rules of comedy don't apply here.  :P

Nutjob, how about this scenario: Take some kind of a superweapon, go 15 billion years into the past, and destroy the matter that became the Big Bang. Not only would you destroy yourself, but you would also destroy God as well. I know, its kind of far fetched, but no one's ever thought of that. And to the person who said they wanted to go back in time and not read this thread, I have a question: Why did you read it in the first place if you're not interested in time travel?

is that a quote from neitsche too? was he an amnesiac? cos you forgot to lock the thread...

"As man now is, God once was.
As God now is, man may be."

Written by a man of course.

Do you believe the bible is the ultimate truth, word for word?

Or do you only pick out parts that think apply to you?

I picked the part in the bible that mentions the end times and pointed out the fact that it doesn't mention time travel.

lol

What a man speaks or writes, when under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is scripture.

Damn. I must have forgotten that I was being serious.

Locked! ?:P

And oi, no one word replies. No laughing out loud posts on my watch.

Something tells me I'm walking into a trap here but I'll answer anyway.

I believe the Bible to be the word of God as long as it is translated correctly. ?

At the same time I also believe in continuing revelation; i.e. that the heavens are not closed and all that God can reveal is not contained in the Bible alone when there are those on the earth with the proper authority to receive divine revelation.

So when they wrote about slavery (among other rotten human traits) being ok in the bible, was with or without the influence of the Holy Ghost?

Can you translate this for me?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 )

How about this one?

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.  (Exodus 21:7-11 )

These are straight out of the bible. So if your bible is the absolute truth then you claim that slavery is ok. Maybe I am translating this incorrectly?

I can give you more barbaric acts from the bible if you'd prefer.

It seems to me that if you hold the bible to be the one true path, then you must embrace passages as those above as well. If not, then you are a hypocrite and you only pick what you think is ok, and then judge others with it.

Who-da-thunk?

 

How do you know it's not his ego talking? A man (bishop) told me that my baptism was no longer valid and the Holy Ghost wasn't present in my soul, because I didn't wanna go to his church anymore. I told him that my relationship with God was valid to me, and that's all that mattered. If I could travel back in time, I would've told him to find a different hobby.

If i could go back in time I wouldnt have let my over eager GF dye my hair Fire Engine Red


I have a lot of dogs trying to piss on me now

Yea, but look at all the action you get whenever you go out now.....


(http://tinypic.com/548y39)

Where the fuck did u find that pic?

fuckin hilarious by the way! gotta give u credit! Im laughin my ass off at that one

that one will be hard to top! :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

 :rofl:

Gods not that stupid, humans/life couldn't exsist before the big bang so they couldn't stop it. If you went back that far you'd just die

 :smoking: Izzy? :smoking:

u guys will argue about absolutely anything

God cannot be destroyed cause the Big Bang didnt create God.


If u hate God, guess what

just stop believing and he will cease to exist to u.

U dont need a time machine for that : ok:

all I can say to the God haters is

"u better hope u are right!"

I was laughing at SLC and D by the way, not at the thread. I like god and time-travel

 :smoking: Izzy? :smoking:

(http://img212.echo.cx/img212/2457/retard0wm.jpg)



wasnt SLC a cute child? :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:


I went in my time machine back to when SLC was running in this race, I was cheering so loud while he was running, I was his biggest fan like that fat bitch in "Misery"

You guys are crackin' me up with these pictures? :hihi:

 :smoking: Izzy? :smoking:

oh wow look at me im the grammer police.... lol... yes im one to be talking.


wouldnt interpertation be a better concept to explore. it could be translated properly and we jsut dont read it correctly


but as Q said the only way for time travel to exist is for a multiverse to exist. that is where ever possible outcome sets off its own timeline from those points. If i went back in time i would be simply travelling back to a point in the past and existing in that time line as though it was my own. and on a different path that would not alter your existance in travelling back in time.... what time travel actually becomes i more along the lines of dimensal travel.... if that makes sence at all...... the following is somethign that i replied to back in april on some relative questions which have some need here .

---

On reality glitches;  Aside from proving anything, I have a question or three;
1)   Can the past be changed?  (or does time have more than one dimension?)
2)   If so, can it be changed so that two or more people have differing
memories?
3)   What effects do recording have?
___________________________________________________________________________




I went into some relative areas before about this, not dealing with reality in its self, though it can be easily expanded into. I?m not sure if I ever covered this on the list but ill do one up here now.


Reality:
1.   The quality or state of being actual or true.
2.   One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: ?the weight of history and political realities? (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.).
3.   The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4.   That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality.
Truth:
1.   Conformity to fact or actuality.
2.   A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3.   Sincerity; integrity.
4.   Fidelity to an original or standard.
5.   
a.   Reality; actuality.
b.   often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.
Time:
a.   ?  A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
b.   An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.
c.   A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes.
d.   A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 A.M.
e.   A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time.
a.   ?  An interval, especially a span of years, marked by similar events, conditions, or phenomena; an era. Often used in the plural: hard times; a time of troubles.
b.   times The present with respect to prevailing conditions and trends: You must change with the times.
?  A suitable or opportune moment or season: a time for taking stock of one's life.
a.   ?  Periods or a period designated for a given activity: harvest time; time for bed.
b.   Periods or a period necessary or available for a given activity: I have no time for golf.
c.   A period at one's disposal: Do you have time for a chat?

Human memory is a very interesting and deceitful thing. Though we may believe that what remember is the exact and unaltered truth of what we saw, done, read, in the past it does not make it so. It has been documented through several experiments that over a given time the suggestibility of human memory will cause a change in our long and short term memory. Sometimes the most unreliable thing to have in a police investigation is an eyewitness. Dealing with memories of a event with multiple eyewitnesses comes down in some terms that of having to use the process of observation defined in quantum astronomy. Where an object must be viewed by several different observing devices and combined in order to see the actual object for what it is.  i.e. We take 100  people and get them to look at a basket ball bouncing on a court. Then take tem in separate rooms and get them to describe the ball and its actions, you will get 100 different observations of the ball. Combing these 100 different observations we will get a more complete and accurate observation of what the basketball actually looked like while bouncing on the court.

To observe is to change the object in question by adding the observer to the observation then a more accurate image can be created. Simple enough right. Nope. No matter how many observations are done we will never get a complete and fully accurate picture of the ball, let alone what the ball was doing. Was it bouncing? Was it rolling? The entire problem is that of those 100 people 1 person could accurately see and describe the ball, and another the way the ball bounced. The other 98 people will have varying observations that will distort the purity of the image of the combined 2 observers.

Truth, I heard it once being described as, ?As long as the subject believes that what he says is the truth then to him it will be the truth, regardless to what everyone else has seen, and what the tape shows.?

It reminds me of Plato?s Cave theory. I found a relatively good explanation of it here http://theosophy.org/tlodocs/AllegoryoftheCave.htm . i have  included a excerpt below.

The allegory begins with a graphic picture of the pathetic condition of the majority of mankind. We are like chained slaves living in an underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den. Here we have been from our childhood, unable to move or to see beyond, being prevented by the chains from turning round our heads. Above and behind us a fire is blazing at a distance, but between the fire and ourselves there is a low wall like the screen which marionette players have in front of them to foster the illusion necessary for a puppet-show. We are like the strange prisoners in this den who see only their own shadows or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave. To them the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images, and they cannot distinguish the voices of one another from the echoes emanating from the surrounding darkness.

Given this allegory, we might think that if only the prisoners were released from their chains by some external agency, they would cease to mistake shadows for realities and would be automatically disabused of their former errors. The allegory points out that no such simple deliverance from illusions is possible. At first, when any of the prisoners is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains. Further, the glare will disturb him and he will be unable to see the realities he formerly identified with their mere shadows. If he is now told that what he saw before was an illusion and that now he is approaching real existence and has a clearer vision, he will be perplexed. He will continue to fancy that the shadows he saw for so long were truer than the objects which are now shown to him. If he is compelled to look straight at the light, the pain in his eyes will induce him to turn away to take refuge in the objects of vision that have acquired a false but greater reality than the things which are now being shown to him. If he is dragged up a steep ascent and forced into the presence of the sun, his eyes will be dazzled and he will not be able to see anything at all.

The liberated prisoner will obviously require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. He will first see the shadows best, then the reflections of men and objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; and then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars by night. At last he will be able to see the sun. He will come to see that the sun is the guardian of all that is in the visible world and in a certain sense the cause of all that he and his fellows had been accustomed to behold. He would remember his old habitation and the delusions of his fellow prisoners, pity them and felicitate himself on the change in himself and in his position. He would no longer care for the honors conferred upon one another by the ignorant prisoners on the basis of who were the quickest to observe the passing shadows.

The first test that the liberated prisoner has to face is to get accustomed to his new condition and to forsake his long-cherished illusions. The second test is to see the unity of all things. The third is to show compassion towards his fellow prisoners and not merely revel in his own happiness. The fourth is to detach himself completely from the false valuations and hierarchical distinctions made by the men in the den. His fifth and much more difficult test comes if he is then made to re-enter the cave of darkness, for he would appear ridiculous to the prisoners who still cling to their former illusions centered on the shadows. They would say that he had become blind to realities since leaving the cave, that it is better not even to think of ascending, that they would be entitled to put to death anyone who tried to free another and lead him up to the light.

The allegory then explains that the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and the journey upwards is the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world. In the world of knowledge the archetypal idea of Good appears last of all and is seen only with an effort. It is only then inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, the lord of light in this visible world and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual world, the power upon which the eye must be fixed in private and public life in order to act rationally. It is not surprising, we are told, that those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell. Those who do descend from divine contemplations to the underground den will not find it easy to deal with those who have never yet seen Absolute Good or Justice.

I think Plato's sample reaction is rather accurate. Most people would adjust to the light and then try to understand the light, and then go on what you'd call a converting mission. And you lose people on every step... People who are too afraid to even look at something different, people who die instead of accepting it, people who're too selfish and keep it for themselves, or don't know how to persuade others. And then you have the question of what the light is, and if it's really there... There's always something like this with contrasting ideologies, politics, and then you come to a bigger picture, with God or something similar. You can get a lot out of it - it depends on what you're looking for. I agree with it, and then I don't - it works for some things and not for others.


There is a definite parallel with the matrix concept. The multi-verse concept that Gary put forth is a little different IMO. However its something that has personally bounced on my court a few times as of late. The best that I could come up with, was almost word for word what ahs been brought up by Gary. Though in mine once we do carryover into the new universe we, overall we forget what the other universe was about and only remember the past of the universe that we are now apart of. However there are a few that tend not to accept the new ?reality? that they are thrust into, though they do not remember the reality that they have departed, they feel as though some things just don?t fit in the puzzle that they live in now.

Time in its self is a conceptual construction of the conscious mind of man. It is an observed occurrence and to observe means that we are now part of the observation. And because of that our perception of time exists. With out us time would still exist. Time is fluid and is able to change, however to change time no matter how small will have a ?butterfly effect? on your own future, which would be your past, and would cause you not ever coming back into the past, so the change would not occur. The only way for temporal tampering to occur would be in a multi-verse concept, and what would occur would be your ?present? would be moved to the universe of the path that was chosen by the temporal tampering that was conducted. And if this is the case then reality glitches as they have been used, would simply not exist in a manner that could be recorded unless you could devise a way to travel between universes.

Well im not sure if this at all helps.. I think my head ran away with my hands there for a bit?.

here are 3 relative threads too for you all to read back on.... beating a dead horse?....... not much eh?

does time exist

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=11890.0

do you beleive in god

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=13286.0

Do you think religion will eventually become extinct

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=10371.0


heck maybe a mod can merge some of these threads when they start up... casue its nothign worse the beating the dead horse with these new people coming into the board... not my fault they wont go back and look and see if somethign relevent has been done before




oh and to teh  "through christ is teh onlly path to salvation" crap.... try reading some other relgious texts and see if you notice the similarties.... fucking relgion..... wish ye would all just work together instead of agnist oneanother...... your tring to get tot eh same spot..... but just cant seem to understand that if we are all equal then all relgion must be as wellll..... and all science cause as "nut sack" or what ever his name is has said its only through god that we have any knowledge..... funny didnt we eat the "bad" fruit?

The Church of Satan? :D

Seriously though, good points by Prometheus

 :smoking: Izzy? :smoking:

Prometheus, there has never been a thread anywhere on the net about God's existence related to time travel. You picking a few different threads to say mine is old news is the lamest attempt I've seen at labeling something a dead horse. Take your dead horse bullshit somewhere else.

I dont think time travel could work due to all the paradox's

By goin back in time u may accidentally fuck up something and when u get back to your own time everything could be completely different and even your family may not exist which would mean u didnt exist

total paradox

If there were a potential of time travel, u may be able to go forward, but u couldnt go back due to the paradox.

Aaahh....and the trap is sprung!

OK, SLCPUNK, fair enough.? I'll attempt to answer your questions (more like objections) as best I can, knowing full well we still won't come to any sort of mutual understanding or agreement.

Although the words are of the more "modern variety," your renditions of Leviticus 25:44-46 and Exodus 21:7-11 are basically correct.

First off, we must remember that God gives laws and commandments to a people only as quickly as they can receive them.? He gives His children "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little," as fast as they are willing to hearken unto Him.

Originally God desired to offer the higher law, i.e. the fullness of the gospel covenant, to Israel through Moses.? The people of Israel quickly showed that they were unable to live the higher law, and so, were given a lower law insted - the Law of Moses.

In light of the higher law that given (actually re-offered) by the Savior Himself some 2,000 years ago, the Mosaic Law indeed does seem very backwards, harsh, and extreme.? However it was a law that the people were willing to live, and one designed as a "schoolmaster" in order to prepare them for the higher law and the coming of Christ.

Although there are many elements of the Old Law or Covenant which are eternal principles, such as the ten commandments, there were others that were fulfilled through the New Law, i.e, Covenant or Testament.

I said I believe in the Bible, and I do.? However, I also believe in continuing revelation through the Lord's appointed servants.

As such, just as the principles of the New Covenant fulfill and supercede the Old, so do further revelations given since the New Testament was compliled fulfill, supercede, and expound those books.? ?

?

lol

your right..... but not knowing the nature of the way that people on this forum tend to hit every point or at least discuss teh aspects that are mentioned.... I think you miss the point here.... just because you call it "I am the Greatest" and you had one called "do you think I am the greatest", most points will ahve been covered in the previous thread. If you have new and amazing info based in that same line of thinking then add it to that thread...... making needless rewrite threads are a waste of time. Just you think that your ideas are so profound that no one has thought of it before just remeber that there are alot of more people out there that have thought of it too. your jsut a hack like everyoneelse including me.... we are unorgional..... always remember that.

You bring up an excellent question.

If someone is truly speaking by the proper authority and under the influence of the Holy Ghost, that same Spirit will witness to the one reading or hearing that what the person is saying is true.

However, for that "Spirit to spirit" communication to work, one must be open to some extent for the Holy Ghost to operate. ?

Many are not. ?

That's why, for many today, the holy scriptures are nothing but words on a page.

Hmmm seems to me that you are judao-christan is the only bus............. ever think that maybe jsut maybe that your god... our god has enlightened others in a manner that they understand and accept so that at some time they will all come together to futher the human race.... not the 100,000 that reside in zion to have the freeride to the next round

we are nothing more then vessels by which the holy spirit operates, and interacts with everyone to spread itself to the masses. (the willing) What you fail to realise that god working though us makes what we do no matter what correct and a function of God... so long as your spirit to spirit connection occurs.... doesnt that work with cults that are not based toward you relgion?

I try not to get caught up in the whole "this religion vs. that religion" thing.

What you're saying is totally correct. ?All are children of God and He desires the salvation of each one.

I think there is truth and relative value in most, if not all, religions.

However, make no mistake about it. ?The "one true Gospel," so to speak, does exist. ?

Some have been blessed to have more of it than others.

Everybody has the gift of free agency, free will, etc.

That is what the war in Heaven was fought over after all.  Lucifer wanted to take it away while the Father and the Son both knew that free agency is an eternal principle and one that could not be dispensed with if this period of mortal testing we call "life" was to work.

Both the Spirit of God and the Adversary have the ability to influence us for either good or evil. 

It's how we respond to those influences, as well as using our own reasoning as best we can, that makes us responsible for our actions and the choices we make.

"However it was a law that the people were willing to live"

haha, who? The slaves?

Crack me up with your bullshit man.

See you around.

has any1 seen the episode of south park when they got a time machine and they wanted to go back to the 3rd grade. it was funny cartman said "kiss my ass" and noone else did and then the time machine didnt work.  :hihi: matt stone and trey must read alot about time travel and crap cause there was also an episode about a parellel universe

I got it.

All these paradoxes never cease to amaze me. I am writing a trilogy, and the second novel in the trilogy deals with the issue of time travel. I haven't finished it, but I know how the story ends. And of course, it creates a damn paradox. In the story, the character goes back in time and completes his mission. End of story, right? Wrong! This is where a paradox occurs. If the guy goes back in time and completes his mission, wouldn't he be stuck in the past? By completing the mission, it would mean that the mission never existed in the first place, so there would have been no reason to go back in time. Confusing shit. Have you guys noticed how books and movies dealing with time travel always conveniently bypass these paradoxes?

the resulting timeline would be a different one...in theory, any elements that are unresolved would return to its new timeline...ie if you were not meant to be there at the oldest split of the timelines then you wont be...you would be returned to where you should be in the new timeline with no knowledge of the previous one but the oldest split would still remain....of course thats just my theory lol

You know what? I thought you might.

And I'm glad that somebody did.? : ok:

thats what should happen.... if you watch stargate SG1 moebius part 1 and 2 they deal witht eh paradox of the eventual change in the timline that they are then made aware of  in the present from their future seleve in a msg from the past. telling them what it is that they had to do and why so because of that there is no need to go back in time to do the mission again.....and the purpose of the message is only to enusre that the time line is as it should be, remaining relatively unchanged on all the main points that they have used for verification..... in regards to small things we dont know.. lol

Prometheus, interesting way of dealing with a paradox. But it doesn't work. How would you read the message in the past without knowing it was coming?

see the way that they dealt with it was... they knew of a location and a time that a certain area would be escavated at teh giza plateau and knew that it was from the period they would have to go too. so they found the tomb and burried the items in the tomb that would needed to prove that it was true (DV camera sealed in a stasis jar and a zpm what the mission was for) then by the tomb being escavated it was found and everything worked out ..... though that was on try #2 the orgional attempt ended in disaster and a alternate future was forged.......but it was fixed thourgh going back in time again a few weeks later and making everything occur correctly.

u should read "Lightning" by Dean Koontz

it deals with time travel and the paradoxes are amazing, u have to read over certain sections 2 or 3 times to really figure out how it would be possible.

That book is mindblowing the way it does the time travel.

a brief summary of it

a guy from the 1940's named Stefan is part of a Nazi experiement to invent time travel so they can go into the future and see if they won the war and if not they can bring things back from the future to make sure they succeed.

While in the future he meets Laura Shane *the main character* she is an author and is handicapped but he sees such a purity and admirable strength in her that he wants to make her life better.

so he intervenes in pivotal moments of her life and it changes her existence but destiny has a way of making what was meant to be how it shouldve been.

Its an amazing novel. Pick it up if u love time travel and weird fucked up mindbending shit.

Just looking at this thread again briefly, I can't believed I missed this:


Now, I am in no way anti-religion. Not in the way that some clearly are. In all honesty, I like the Catholic church. For me, anyway, it all comes down to a simple question...Would the world be better without the Catholic church? Maybe...

...I'm inclined to think not.

But the above is just....Well. It's kind of people like that ^ who tick all the boxes required to have a heated argument with the guy sitting on this post.

Prentious? Check. Self righteous? Check. Patronising? Check. Left the board...

...Oh, hang on. You bastards made him run away.

Kentucky Fried, I'm definitely going to buy that book. I've read some of Koontz's books, but never heard of that one. And Prometheus, that tv show still has a paradox to deal with. By completing a successful mission, it means that the mission never existed to begin with. To me this is the ultimate paradox. Unless you go back in time and just be a tourist and not interfere with people's lives. I think some people who watch movies or read books dont think about the paradoxes that the stories leave unanswered. But i'm one of those people that does think about it. I may just scrap my 2nd novel because I just cant get over the paradox factor.

I promise u will love that book if u buy it. it is definitely one of koontz' best!

You've been hanging with the Doc way too much!

funny thing is that most of my convos dealing with time travel adn movies/shows deal witht eh failure of their preventing teh paradox, to me the way that it was dealt with leaves fewer internal paradoxes then if they had to go back afterwards because they never returned to the future they existed in teh past to attempt to maintain teh timeline as best as possible.

with ST: timetravel....er i mean enterprise the show called "regeneration" dealt with the borg an wreckage that was found in the artic that was left over from the movie first contact.... it created a major paradox.... as no mention of the borg was known until the time our friend "q" sent the enterprise out into teh delta quadrent to encounter them..... and agin @ wolf 359 there was no mention of these beings being simlar to that of some beings encountered and destroyed by captain archer and crew pre formation of the federation.


so all and all the easiest way to deal witht eh paradox is to accept that they exist, and follow the line of SG... or simply make it into a multivers of reality and go from there

Prometheus, what show do you think deals with this issue the best? I would like to see the tv show you mentioned earlier. I think Back to the Future part 2 does a pretty good job at it. But even it has discrepancies. Haven't seen it in years so I cant judge it completely LOL!! Another question: Do you think it would be possible to travel into the future since it hasn't happened yet?

haha.... well i have those 2 parts of the stargate show here on my computer... so if you want to get them let me know


but for traveling intot he future since you used bttf:2 ill use that one.... if time travel was possible you could travel into the future though the future that you travel to would be the one that was set in motion based on your lif upto that point, and what would happen accordingly.... so the whole bit of MJF getting into an accident that casue a life change within him that was witnessed by his gf/wife in the futrue resulting in his getting fired(future self) the knowlege and lessons learned by MJF in BTTF:3 allowed him to make a more evolved choice and change his future. in essence he took a different path of divergence then orgionally so anything that was based upon him and his life would be altered to his new future. sort of like changing your own past so that you would win the lotto..... the one thing to remember with winning the lotto is that for teh most part as long as you ahve no direct contact with anyone other then what you normaly would have the same numbers would still be drawn for the lotto.... so those remaning static would allow you to give your past self every winning lotto ticket number the world over up till the point that you went back in time and so long as teh process was not changed those numbers would come up and you could win the lotto every week... in theory of course

You can 'travel' forward in time if that helps in any way in this tread?
 :)