Yeah? Then why the am I reading the following B.S. from you:
"1. A particle/object that can travel backward in time IS at that location and at that time."
Apparently it's OK for you to wander into naturalistic pseudo-philosophical speculation but not for me to show you why your speculation is erroneous?
Tell it to Marlowe -he apparently needs to get he nose out of Stephen Hawkings and into his Bible.
Quantum Physics at its best:
The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.
[Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.]The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?
[Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]
It should be obvious, then, xzins. Arminianism has to be true. For how could an Arminian God "inspire" the writers of the Scriptures? That would be interfering with their "Free-Will" -now wouldn't it???? It must be, then, that mere fallible men wrote a fallibe book called the Bible.
Jean
The fact of the matter is that the theory of relativity has been confirmed in scientific experiments. So the fact of the matter is that we have to deal with the theory of relativity as a fact and then deal with the theological implications.
I obviously disagree with Hawking's philosophical and theological implications. To me the theory of relativity confirms my belief in God inhabiting eternity and gives me insight into what that means and why God would have identified himself the title of "I AM".
Your attempt to poison the well by linking my theories about God's nature to Hawking's theories of God's non-existence is a "guilt by association" logical fallacy combined with a false analogy and a Non Sequitur. "Since Atheists believe the sky is blue and they believe this proves that there is no God, therefore anyone who believes the sky is blue must be an atheist. Jean believes the sky is blue, therefore Jean is an atheist."
I had assumed you were above that. I'm not so sure anymore. But when you resort to irrelevant logical fallacies to prove your point, you provide evidence that you have no point to make.
BTW, prior to your post, I don't think I've never read even a word from a Steven Hawking book.
Just outside the boundary controlling it as He wills. Perhaps it might be known to man as a higher heaven.