Holy spirit

Originally posted by Scriabin
well, thats where you lose me, of course.

what do you mean by "interacting with us?"

KM believes at least some of the stories in the Bible really happened.

For example, Simon Peter's denial of Jesus, after Jesus told him he would do it. [I think he believes in a Divine Jesus also.]

In another thread, he presented a story where a man claimed that God told him to do cartwheels in front of another person who had asked for a sign from God. He believed that story was true and that God, even today, actually comes down and speaks to people.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
There is not enough information in your question to make a determination.

The idea being, of course, that past thoughts or actions which are considered conscious and unrestrained do not lose their status as such simply because their existence is known.

That God knows perfectly the past as well as the future in no way takes away from the freedom of our thoughts and actions, any more than my knowing what I am about to do takes away from mine. If I determine in my mind to undertake a certain course of action, does that determination now render such action any less free?

When we see LeBron streak down the court unmolested, stop his dribble as he takes two giant steps toward the basket while gaining elevation toward the same, most students of the game will rightly predict that his next act will be one of slamming the ball through the opening of the rim without leaving any room for the ball to bounce back out. In other words, a slam dunk. Does the collective knowledge of Lebron’s slam dunk prior to the occurrence of the same in any way diminish the freedom of his act?

Granted, the collective knowledge of the act is not infallible, but whether in part or whole, the act is foreknown by the crowd and by him. Such knowledge neither takes away nor adds to the freedom of the same.

If we were not free will agents, we could never determine to act and then proceed on such determination.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
….How would you know anything about “God’s” knowledge?
The Word of God provides us with everything we need to know about God’s knowledge ..…

How do you know what the word of “God” is?
-and before you answer “the Bible” -how do you know that the Bible is the word of “God”?
-I mean, doesn’t this make the irrational assumptions that there ...[text shortened]... most fundamental assumptions (such as there is a god) is the reason.
Would you deny this fact?[/b]

-and before you answer “the Bible” -how do you know that the Bible is the word of “God”?
The Bible has been tested, poked, prodded, torn apart, critiqued, derided, and in every way possible, put to the acid test. It has yet to fail.

-I mean, doesn’t this make the irrational assumptions that there is a god and only one god and the Bible just happens to say what “he“ said?
The only rational explanation for things is that there is but one God.

And before you answer that you know that the Bible is the word of “God” because it says so in the Bible:
-that answer would be a circular argument. I could write on a sheet of paper:

“Everything that is written on this sheet of paper is the word of God. God did NOT create anything”

And say that is ‘evidence’ that “God” didn’t create anything!
And if you say that what is written on that sheet of paper was not the word of “God” then I would say wrong! -because, just look! -it says on that sheet of paper that this is the word of “God”
For starters, your piece of paper lacks a competent source.

Nope -the total and complete absence of any premise (i.e. either evidence or logic) of the Bible’s most fundamental assumptions (such as there is a god) is the reason.
Would you deny this fact?
It’s difficult to deny what I don’t understand. What are you trying to say?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Granted, the collective knowledge of the act is not infallible...
<snip>

This is the key difference. If there is a chance, no matter how slight, that the crowd can be wrong in its prediction of LeBron's choice - then that allows for the possibility that he can choose to do otherwise.

If the crowd stands absolutely no chance of being wrong in its prediction, then it is impossible for him to do otherwise, and his choice is not free in the Libertarian sense.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
This is the key difference. If there is a chance, no matter how slight, that the crowd can be wrong in its prediction of LeBron's choice - then that allows for the possibility that he can choose to do otherwise.

If the crowd stands absolutely no chance of being wrong in its prediction, then it is [b]impossible for him to do otherwise, and his choice is not free in the Libertarian sense.[/b]

After the dunk, the crowd cannot be wrong in its knowledge that the dunk occured.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
After the dunk, the crowd cannot be wrong in its knowledge that the dunk occured.

God can't implant false memories in people then I guess. So much for omnipotence.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
After the dunk, the crowd cannot be wrong in its knowledge that the dunk occured.

Actually - human memory is known to not always be accurate, and human observation has been shown to be less than perfect. So yes, they can be wrong, even if the odds that they're wrong are low.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
God can't implant false memories in people then I guess. So much for omnipotence.

Neither will God force someone to choose other than what they want.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Actually - human memory is known to not always be accurate, and human observation has been shown to be less than perfect. So yes, they can be wrong, even if the odds that they're wrong are low.

You're avoiding the issue.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You're avoiding the issue.

As I see it, fallibility is at the very center of the issue. I can hardly avoid an issue by addressing a key point of it head-on.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Neither will God force someone to choose other than what they want.

You're avoiding the issue.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]-and before you answer “the Bible” -how do you know that the Bible is the word of “God”?
The Bible has been tested, poked, prodded, torn apart, critiqued, derided, and in every way possible, put to the acid test. It has yet to fail.

-I mean, doesn’t this make the irrational assumptions that there is a god and only one god and the Bible just ...[text shortened]... eny this fact?
It’s difficult to deny what I don’t understand. What are you trying to say?[/b]

….-and before you answer “the Bible” -how do you know that the Bible is the word of “God”?
The Bible has been tested, poked, prodded, torn apart, critiqued, derided, and in every way possible, put to the acid test. It has yet to fail.
..…

I don’t understand what you mean; in what sense has it “yet to fail”?
I mean, “yet to fail” in doing what? -proving that there is a god? 😛 (it has “failed” there)

….-I mean, doesn’t this make the irrational assumptions that there is a god and only one god and the Bible just happens to say what “he“ said?
The only RATIONAL explanation for THINGS is that there is but one God.
..… (my emphasis)

Without referring to quotes in the Bible (to avoid making a circular argument for a premise), in what way is it a “RATIONAL explanation for THINGS” that there is only one god? Which particular kind of “THINGS” are you referring to?
And is there any rational premise that you can give to believe that the Bible just happens to say what “he“ said?

….It’s difficult to deny what I DON’T understand. What are you trying to say?.… (my emphasis)

Reminder of your original assertion:

…The Word of God provides us with everything we need to know about God’s knowledge ..…
..…

I take it that you are implying here that you and anyone else can understand “Gods” knowledge -yes?
are you now saying that this is not the case because there is no denying what we DON’T understand about “Gods” knowledge (which must be all of it even if “he” exists)?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
….-and before you answer “the Bible” -how do you know that the Bible is the word of “God”?
The Bible has been tested, poked, prodded, torn apart, critiqued, derided, and in every way possible, put to the acid test. It has yet to fail.
..…

I don’t understand what you mean; in what sense has it “yet to fail”?
I mean, “yet to fail” in doing ...[text shortened]... g what we DON’T understand about “Gods” knowledge (which must be all of it even if “he” exists)?[/b]

I don’t understand what you mean; in what sense has it “yet to fail”?
I mean, “yet to fail” in doing what? -proving that there is a god? (it has “failed” there)
The Bible doesn’t attempt to prove the existence of God; it begins with the assumption of the same. Only in man’s more recent history did the wisps of doubt enter into the conversation.
The Bible hasn’t failed in the sense that despite some people’s intense desire to expose its supposed failure on the grounds of reliability, said desires have gone unsatisfied.

Without referring to quotes in the Bible (to avoid making a circular argument for a premise), in what way is it a “RATIONAL explanation for THINGS” that there is only one god? Which particular kind of “THINGS” are you referring to?
Life in general.

And is there any rational premise that you can give to believe that the Bible just happens to say what “he“ said?
What do you mean by this?

I take it that you are implying here that you and anyone else can understand “Gods” knowledge -yes?
There are some prerequisites.

are you now saying that this is not the case because there is no denying what we DON’T understand about “Gods” knowledge (which must be all of it even if “he” exists)?
Huh?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
As I see it, fallibility is at the very center of the issue. I can hardly avoid an issue by addressing a key point of it head-on.

The key phrase in this scenario is "after the dunk." Can't really avoid this one on the grounds of uncertainty.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The key phrase in this scenario is "after the dunk." Can't really avoid this one on the grounds of uncertainty.

Of course you can.

Some of the crowd is sitting behind the backboard, and their angle of view is obstructed. Some of the crowd is distracted and not really paying attention.

Or perhaps the crowd are all just minds in a simulation - and there is no real dunk, but only the requisite audio and optical signals sent to the brains to simulate a dunk. There is no real stadium, but only the simulated sensations of sitting on bleachers, etc.