free will and omnipotence

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Oh! How silly of me. Here I thought one was supposed to believe things that are supported by evidence or logic. If you're more comfortable with dogmatic assertions, please don't let me get in the way.

You're the one making subjective and dogmatic assertions here. Essentially your counter-argument boils down to "No one's explained it to me yet so I can understand it, therefore it's wrong". Where's the evidence and logic in that?

A simple analogy might help you. Suppose you had a two-dimensional world where living beings existed but who could only move in two dimensions (it's easy to think of them as ants on a tray, for instance). You're an onlooker, a three-dimensional being. Do you exist outside of their two-dimensional world? Of course. Does that mean you cannot interact with them in their two-dimensional world? Of course not. You can squash some of them, or move them along their way, or block their path, or whatever. Of course, everything you do will be manifested as two-dimensional events in their view, but that doesn't make you a two-dimensional being.

God "outside time" works in pretty much the same way.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You're the one making subjective and dogmatic assertions here. Essentially your counter-argument boils down to "No one's explained it to me yet so I can understand it, therefore it's wrong". Where's the evidence and logic in that?

A simple analogy might help you. Suppose you had a two-dimensional world where living beings existed but who could only you a two-dimensional being.

God "outside time" works in pretty much the same way.

The ants on a tray are not 2D...In this given scenario you have rather large 3D creatures playing games with little 3D creatures that have had only their scope for movement limited to 2 dimensions by a 3D tray(a 2 dimensional world is one that only exists so far in hypothetical conjecture)

God "outside time" does not work in pretty much the same way because in the above analogy the external beings did not operate outside the dimensions of the ant's world....try again 😉

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You're the one making subjective and dogmatic assertions here. Essentially your counter-argument boils down to "No one's explained it to me yet so I can understand it, therefore it's wrong". Where's the evidence and logic in that?

A simple analogy might help you. Suppose you had a two-dimensional world where living beings existed but who could only ...[text shortened]... you a two-dimensional being.

God "outside time" works in pretty much the same way.

Nebulous != wrong

Originally posted by Agerg
The ants on a tray are not 2D...In this given scenario you have rather large 3D creatures playing games with little 3D creatures that have had only their scope for movement limited to 2 dimensions by a 3D tray(a 2 dimensional world is one that only exists so far in hypothetical conjecture)

God "outside time" does not work in pretty much the same way because ...[text shortened]... the external beings did not operate outside the dimensions of the ant's world....try again 😉

If you're going to be pedantic, consider just purely 2D [Edit: flat] beings.

Yes, they "really" inhabit a 3D universe but, from their perspective, they inhabit a 2D universe.

Similarly, we "really" inhabit a 5D universe but, from our perspective, we inhabit a 4D one (three space and one time axes).

Happy now?

Originally posted by Agerg
The ants on a tray are not 2D...In this given scenario you have rather large 3D creatures playing games with little 3D creatures that have had only their scope for movement limited to 2 dimensions by a 3D tray(a 2 dimensional world is one that only exists so far in hypothetical conjecture)

God "outside time" does not work in pretty much the same way because ...[text shortened]... the external beings did not operate outside the dimensions of the ant's world....try again 😉

Are you familiar with the term "analogy"? The ant-scenario was given as an explanatory illustration -- not the foundation of the argument -- your whole attack on it is a lame strawman. Do try and think "out-of-the-tray" as it were.

Originally posted by Halitose
Are you familiar with the term "analogy"? The ant-scenario was given as an explanatory illustration -- not the foundation of the argument -- your whole attack on it is a lame strawman. Do try and think "out-of-the-tray" as it were.

to Halitose and LH

To explain and expect others to be satisfied how *God works outside of time* via this analagy is wrong...I am not mis-representing LH's position, I am merely pointing out that the analogy does not address the issue of how anything works outside the dimensions of something else. A better and more accurate analogy is required...or an explanation that does not rely on these types of analogy.

Finally, I was not trying to belittle or be offensive and shall let you have your little snipe shots gratis

Originally posted by Agerg
to Halitose and LH

To explain and expect others to be satisfied how *God works outside of time* via this analagy is wrong...I am not mis-representing LH's position, I am merely pointing out that the analogy does not address the issue of how anything works outside the dimensions of something else. A better and more accurate analogy is required...or an explan ...[text shortened]... as not trying to belittle or be offensive and shall let you have your little snipe shots gratis

To explain and expect others to be satisfied how *God works outside of time* via this analagy is wrong

I am not expecting to satisfy people, merely make a valid argument. Whether they want to be satisfied or not is up to them.

EDIT: And you're merely saying it's wrong -- you've not shown it's wrong.

I am merely pointing out that the analogy does not address the issue of how anything works outside the dimensions of something else.

That's exactly what it does. What you've done is point out that some of the terminology has been used imprecisely. Which is alright -- but the analogy works fine.

A better and more accurate analogy is required...or an explanation that does not rely on these types of analogy.

There is no need to. The analogy works perfectly well in showing how "higher" dimensional beings can interact with "lower" dimensional beings (or, if you want precision, beings whose perception and action is limited to lower dimensions) without losing their "higher" dimensionality.

Originally posted by Agerg
to Halitose and LH

To explain and expect others to be satisfied how *God works outside of time* via this analagy is wrong...I am not mis-representing LH's position, I am merely pointing out that the analogy does not address the issue of how anything works outside the dimensions of something else. A better and more accurate analogy is required...or an explan ...[text shortened]... as not trying to belittle or be offensive and shall let you have your little snipe shots gratis

...and shall let you have your little snipe shots gratis

Darn. 😛😀

Originally posted by lucifershammer
To explain and expect others to be satisfied how *God works outside of time* via this analagy is wrong

I am not expecting to satisfy people, merely make a valid argument. Whether they want to be satisfied or not is up to them.

I am merely pointing out that the analogy does not address the issue of how anything works outside the dimensi and action is limited to lower dimensions) without losing their "higher" dimensionality.

Sorry LH (and even Halitose) but to me, an analogy is a simplifed model of the idea that you wish to communicate...what you are trying to communicate here is how a being can affect another being outside of it's dimensions by in fact showing how a being that operates within the exact dimensions as it's target can affect that creature...the analogy doesn't work...I am not being pedantic so as to be a troll, I just don't like in any sphere of debate answers that don't address sufficiently the question coupled with the expectation that the question has then been reconciled.

Originally posted by Halitose
Do try and think "out-of-the-tray" as it were.

I think one weakness with the analogy is that some kind of limit on X's dimensionality is implied. How many dimensions does X operate in? More and more and more and more and more? (Now I'm thinking of Krishna's infinite cobra heads, or whatever they were, in the Bhagavad Gita).

Originally posted by Agerg
(and even Halitose)

Halitose has contracted some sort of hopefully temporary smugness virus from some atheists he had an argument with. He's a good fellow though.

Originally posted by Agerg
Sorry LH (and even Halitose) but to me, an analogy is a simplifed model of the idea that you wish to communicate...what you are trying to communicate here is how a being can affect another being outside of it's dimensions by in fact showing how a being that operates within the exact dimensions as it's target can affect that creature...the analogy doesn't work. ...[text shortened]... ently the question coupled with the expectation that the question has then been reconciled.

I apologise for my ill-merited barb. Put it down to my hyperactive-creative mind.

To make up for it, I'll go a bit into how I understand the term "analogy" and let ya have a rip at it.

Basically there are two types of analogy: extrinsic and intrinsic (I'm sure there are more, but these will do for now).

With the former, there are no real similarities between the two parties being compared. Only one party possesses the characteristic in question, while the second bears only a relational resemblance. For example: A body is "healthy" when it is physiologically functional. Food is "healthy" due to its causal capacity to maintain a functional physiology.

With intrinsic analogies, both parties possess the characteristic in question, but in accordance with their own capacity.

For example: "Infinite Good" is to an "Infinite Being" as "finite good" is to a "finite being".

The problem with using this form of analogy (as used here to explain God's transcendence of time) is that it cannot exhaustively explain attributes of which we have only a finite understanding. That however, doesn’t mean that one cannot give useful relational or even attributional analogies of God.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Maybe if he spoke English I'd have a chance of engaging with him.

you cannot rhetorically engage outside of your Christian bubble, you therefore make light of valid comments, re the post-structural post that questioned free will/ self awareness etc........

Originally posted by Vladamir no1
you cannot rhetorically engage outside of your Christian bubble, you therefore make light of valid comments, re the post-structural post that questioned free will/ self awareness etc........

To be honest I made the comment because I find philosophical language often inaccessible and unneccesary . If you look at my posts I make every effort to try and use accessible analogies and I very rarely quote scripture. So I'm not going to go away and read 500 pages of post structuralism if I think that there is another , simpler way of someone making their point. In short , I had little idea what the post was on about! You may have guessed I'm a plain english fan.

Originally posted by Agerg
Sorry LH (and even Halitose) but to me, an analogy is a simplifed model of the idea that you wish to communicate...what you are trying to communicate here is how a being can affect another being outside of it's dimensions by in fact showing how a being that operates within the exact dimensions as it's target can affect that creature...the analogy doesn't work. ...[text shortened]... ently the question coupled with the expectation that the question has then been reconciled.

I'm afraid you are being pedantic. If your objection is that the ants (or whatever) are "really" 3D beings despite their perception and action being limited to 2D then my analogy still works because my counter is that human beings are "really" 5D despite our perception and action being limited to 4D.