10 Jan '07 19:30>
Originally posted by LemonJelloI suppose you believe that it's impossible to actually know anything at all.
Yeah, I get it. God holds knowledge without holding beliefs, according to you and Freakster.
😵🙄
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHe cannot say this because the past , future and present do not exist , they are concepts or ways of describing other things. A "past" is not an object and it's not made of anything so God cannot be something if that something doesn't exist...phenomenologically speaking.
Why not say that God is the future, present and past?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhen the word 'necessary' is used to desribe events within the framework of that unit, I take that to be a description of God's knowledge.
I think I'm just not being specific enough for the conversation. When I say the words are used to describe God's knowledge, I have in mind the fact that God sees all of time as one comprehensive and cohesive unit. When the word 'necessary' is used to desribe events within the framework of that unit, I take that to be a description of God's knowledge.
...[text shortened]... actual' or 'certain' is exchanged, a closer approximation of God's knowledge is found.
Originally posted by LemonJelloIt may be hard to get your mind around, but the formulas you are wrestling with are necessarily (ha-ha) from God's perspective, i.e., from the standpoint of one who objectively stands outside of the entire situation and then defines the same.
[b]When the word 'necessary' is used to desribe events within the framework of that unit, I take that to be a description of God's knowledge.
Like I said, I'm worried about your comprehension skills. This is one reason why I find "debating" you profoundly unproductive. Another reason would be the horde of idiosyncrasies you exhibit.[/b]
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHey do you control or belong to a horde. . . Do you rampage, or embark on the occasional pillage in foreign lands.
It may be hard to get your mind around, but the formulas you are wrestling with are necessarily (ha-ha) from God's perspective, i.e., from the standpoint of one who objectively stands outside of the entire situation and then defines the same.
You are seeking to describe a truth, the domain of God. The terms you employ must therefore comply wit ...[text shortened]... y horde is by no means threatened by your horde; why should the inverse be a matter of concern?
Originally posted by EAPOEFor the most part, I keep the horde under wraps. Every so often they get a taste of the demon water, wander into town and have their sport with the locals, but they always pay for any real damages incurred.
Hey do you control or belong to a horde. . . Do you rampage, or embark on the occasional pillage in foreign lands.
What do you spend the spoils on??
Is it profitable. . .or not worth the bloodthirsty bother?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm "wrestling with formulas"? The argument is "necessarily from God's perspective"? Truth is the "domain of God"? The terms used must "comply with some standard commensurate with the given attributes of God"?
It may be hard to get your mind around, but the formulas you are wrestling with are necessarily (ha-ha) from God's perspective, i.e., from the standpoint of one who objectively stands outside of the entire situation and then defines the same.
You are seeking to describe a truth, the domain of God. The terms you employ must therefore comply wit ...[text shortened]... y horde is by no means threatened by your horde; why should the inverse be a matter of concern?
Originally posted by LemonJelloFor the purpose of precision, philosophical arguments are typically expressed as word/letter formulas--- similar to what you employed in the first post of this thread. As you expressed dissatisfaction with the first argument (to the point of including an "aside" of an additional argument) one could reasonably assume you have not conquered the concept and were thus "wrestling" with either the expression, the concept and/or both. I don't think the term is unwarranted, nor is it as opaque as you protest.
I'm "wrestling with formulas"? The argument is "necessarily from God's perspective"? Truth is the "domain of God"? The terms used must "comply with some standard commensurate with the given attributes of God"?
I marvel at the amount of nonsense that you continuously trot out. It's a pretty straightforward argument, Freaky, and I even tried to put i ...[text shortened]... rstand, even proximately, what your primary objection(s) to the argument really are.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm sorry but I still don't understand what exactly your objection to the argument really is.
For the purpose of precision, philosophical arguments are typically expressed as word/letter formulas--- similar to what you employed in the first post of this thread. As you expressed dissatisfaction with the first argument (to the point of including an "aside" of an additional argument) one could reasonably assume you have not conquered the concept and ...[text shortened]... f you studied His integrity your petty formulas and arguments would be unnecessary.
Originally posted by LemonJelloBoy, now I'm really worried about your comprehension skills.
I'm sorry but I still don't understand what exactly your objection to the argument really is.
[b]In your not-so-subtle attempt to prove that free will does not exist
Boy, now I'm really worried about your comprehension skills. I stated way back in the first post that I don't consider the argument sound. In fact, I've noted at least two premi ...[text shortened]... ief is enough) about the future -- here we presume that it originates from some God.[/b]
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe premises which define events as 'necessary' are characterizing the reality that God created, as well as characterizing His knowledge. He doesn't see anything as 'necessary.' Instead, He knows perfectly all things, both possible and actual.
Boy, now I'm really worried about your comprehension skills.
That makes (at least) two of us. In my haste, I skimmed over some of your post and simply read the formula. My bad. But the argument is one which posits that free will is illusory.
I'm sorry, but I just think you're shockingly bad at communicating your thoughts in any sort of eff his by no means eliminates free will, as proven by our every thought and action.