Most vile concept/aspect of christianity?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Nothing in your "rebuttal" makes the analogy inappropriate.

You're incredibly stubborn and thick. Your argument was/is (I don't know; you never actually seem to stick to your original versions) that since I'm not "all-knowing" like your pretend God, I can't possibly understand and judge his workings. But if the nuclear scientist can explain why he's turning the knobs, I can understand and judge his workings. I could even say "Well, you're turning the wrong knob; that's not the one for starting the generator, that's the self-destruct button".

So your analogy IS a poor one; your claim is that no matter what information your mythical God gives me, I am in "no position" to make an independent assessment of his workings. Clearly that is not true in the case of the nuclear scientist.

EDIT: LH: As "I told no1 - you cannot judge an all-knowing all-powerful being without at least being all-knowing yourself."

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're incredibly stubborn and thick. Your argument was/is (I don't know; you never actually seem to stick to your original versions) that since I'm not "all-knowing" like your pretend God, I can't possibly understand and judge his workings. But if the nuclear scientist can explain why he's turning the knobs, I can understand and judge his workings. I co ...[text shortened]... an all-knowing all-powerful being without at least being all-knowing yourself."

But if the nuclear scientist can explain why he's turning the knobs, I can understand and judge his workings.

And that's my point - for you to adequately judge his workings, you would have to attain a certain level of knowlege. For instance, he could say that he's conducting an experiment involving the collision of two particles, that this knob releases a particle into the accelerator etc. You know a little bit more about what he's doing, but you're still really in no position to judge whether he's doing the right thing, or whether this knob really does release the particle he wants, or whether his experiment will work as he wants it to etc.

You can either take his word for these things and let go; or (as you are doing) can ask him to explain how each of these factors work. And again. And again. By the time you're done, and no longer have to take his word for anything, you should've gained knowledge equivalent to at least a Master's in nuclear physics. If the experiment is far more complex than that, then you might need to gain knowledge equivalent to a PhD.

At which point you know as much about the experiment as, probably, the scientist himself.

So your analogy IS a poor one

On the contrary, I think it's a pretty good one, as I've explained above.

your claim is that not matter what information your mythical God gives me, I am in "no position" to make an independent assessment of his workings.

Now you're misrepresenting my position ("LYING" - as you'd put it). I never said "no matter what information" etc.

Clearly that is not true in the case of the nuclear scientist.

Clearly, for you to make an independent assessment of the nuclear scientist's actions, you would need to be a nuclear scientist yourself. So my analogy is a reasonably good one.

Here's another example: Roger Penrose is said to be one of only three or four people alive who can visualise an object in four dimensions. How much "information" do you think you'll need before you can do the same?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]But if the nuclear scientist can explain why he's turning the knobs, I can understand and judge his workings.

And that's my point - for you to adequately judge his workings, you would have to attain a certain level of knowlege. For instance, he could say that he's conducting an experiment involving the collision of two particles, that [i/]thi much "information" do you think you'll need before you can do the same?[/b]

WTF??????? Talk about goalpost moving!!!

LH1: LH: As "I told no1 - you cannot judge an all-knowing all-powerful being without at least being all-knowing yourself."

LH2: Now you're misrepresenting my position ("LYING" - as you'd put it). I never said "no matter what information" etc.


Please reconcile these two statements.

EDIT: Sometimes I get the impression that you don't even read your prior posts.

Originally posted by no1marauder
WTF??????? Talk about goalpost moving!!!

LH1: LH: As "I told no1 - you cannot judge an all-knowing all-powerful being without at least being all-knowing yourself."

LH2: Now you're misrepresenting my position ("LYING" - as you'd put it). I never said "no matter what information" etc.


Please reconcile these two statements.

Does someone else want to have a go at this before I reply?

And yes, I do reread my own posts (and did, in this case).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Does someone else want to have a go at this before I reply?

And yes, I do reread my own posts (and did, in this case).

More insufferable snotnosery, your trademark. I'm sure "cannot" will magically transform into some concept that is no longer impossible. Please, begin the backpedaling.

Originally posted by no1marauder
More insufferable snotnosery, your trademark. I'm sure "cannot" will magically transform into some concept that is no longer impossible. Please, begin the backpedaling.

More random abusing, your trademark.

Look at the following statement:

"You cannot understand Special Relativity without understanding Newtonian mechanics."

Now do you get it?

EDIT: Just because you don't understand (or misunderstand) something I say the first time around doesn't mean I'm backpedaling when I explain it later.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I can't argue with/for/against it because it is unintelligible. You assert that something
was decreed from the beginning of time to happen (no choice) and simultaneously that
that same thing occurred by the product of the choice of an individual.

You are asserting A and ~A -- choice and no choice.

You either fail to understand basic principles of lo ...[text shortened]... l to understand precisely what
free will means.

Or both.

I vote for the last.

Nemesio

Both you and Dave are misunderstanding the meaning of the decree. There is an entire thread dedicated to the idea, which I am adding to later today.

The decree does not 'give people their lines,' force them to read them and then condemn them for doing so in the end. The decree makes all of creation certain. I suggest your vision needs to expand in order to properly understand the concept. Read the thread for the expanded version which includes the particulars both you and Dave cite.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
More random abusing, your trademark.

Look at the following statement:

"You cannot understand Special Relativity without understanding Newtonian mechanics."

Now do you get it?

EDIT: Just because you don't understand (or misunderstand) something I say the first time around doesn't mean I'm backpedaling when I explain it later.

More idiocy. When interpreting a statement, you don't look merely at its form; you look at what is asserted. In your present example, it is perfectly possible for one to "understand Newtonian mechanics" and thus be able to "understand Special relativity". However, here's your original statement:

LH1: LH: As "I told no1 - you cannot judge an all-knowing all-powerful being without at least being all-knowing yourself."

Since it is utterly impossible for anyone to be "all-knowing", "cannot" means just that. So both your analogy and this statement are simply irrelevant to your initial claim.

Originally posted by lucifershammer


"P happened at time T"

and

"P will happen at time T with 100% probability"?

In my world view, the former can be known; the latter can only be believed.

In your world view, there is no difference. This is why your world view is absurd.

Originally posted by no1marauder
More idiocy. When interpreting a statement, you don't look merely at its form; you look at what is asserted. In your present example, it is perfectly possible for one to "understand Newtonian mechanics" and thus be able to "understand Special relativity". However, here's your original statement:

LH1: LH: As "I told no1 - you cannot judge an all ...[text shortened]... So both your analogy and this statement are simply irrelevant to your initial claim.

1. "Since it is utterly..." is your claim - I didn't make such a statement in this thread. Let's be clear about that. That I might agree with it does not change the fact that you are misrepresenting my expressed views in this thread when you say something to the effect of "LH claims that no matter how much information ..."

I thought a lawyer would be more careful about such things.

That said, I do, in fact, agree with that statement. Now you're free to go "LH claims that..."

2. Nevertheless, the analogy is still good for my initial claim. It does not fit the secondary deduction you've obtained above - but that's not what you're claiming, is it?

If you still don't get how, I'll detail it for you.

Originally posted by lucifershammer

EDIT2: How do you know real fortune tellers don't exist? For all you know, your choice of tea or coffee this morning could have been predicted by some seer in India about 300 years ago - making your choice (according to your logic) not-free.

I don't know it. I only believe it. So what? Are you suggesting that I incorporate every conceivable but unjustified fantasy into my world view?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
In my world view, the former can be known; the latter can only be believed.

In your world view, there is no difference. This is why your world view is absurd.

Don't jump the gun. First answer the question, then we'll talk about worldviews.

The first statement is equivalent to

"P happens at time T" (1) and "The observer of (1) is at time T+t" (2).

The second is equivalent to

"P happens at time T" (1) and "The observer of (1) is at time T-t" (2'😉.

You're effectively claiming that the truth value of (2'😉 changes the truth value of (1) (if P is an event involving free will) while the truth value of (2) does not.

I say that's absurd. If (2'😉 changes the truth value of (1), then so should (2) - in which case all free will is illusory (all-knowing God or no). If (2) does not change the truth value of (1), then neither should (2'😉 - in which case the mere fact of God's foreknowledge of our actions do not make them less free.

Do you dispute this?

EDIT: The only difference between (2) and (2'😉 is the perspective of the observer.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Don't jump the gun. First answer the question, then we'll talk about worldviews.

The first statement is equivalent to

"P happens at time T" (1) and "The observer of (1) is at time T+t" (2).

The second is equivalent to

"P happens at time T" (1) and "The observer of (1) is at time T-t" (2'😉.

You're effectively claiming that the truth valu nly difference between (2) and (2'😉 is the perspective of the observer.

I dispute that. The truth values of 2' and 1 are unrelated. Neither affects or changes the other.

I can make a claim "P happens at 9/11/01" with the auxiliary claim "I am speaking from 9/11/02", or with the auxiliary claim "I am speaking from 9/11/00."

The truth of neither auxiliary claim affects the truth of the main claim. I never claimed it did.

What I claimed has to do with knowledge of propositions, not their truth. I can make the claim, "Another attack will happen on 9/11/08." That claim may be true. Its truth does not indicate that I know it.

Using your framework, I claim that the truth of claim 2' precludes the observer's knowledge of claim 1. It does not preclude or affect the truth value of claim 1. The truth of claim 2 permits but does not imply knowledge of claim 1; it is a necessary condition of the observer's knowledge of claim 1.