10 Jan 07
1 edit
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?
10 Jan 07
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.
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.
11 Jan 07
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]
You are seeking to describe a truth, the domain of God. The terms you employ must therefore comply with some standard commensurate with the given attributes of God.
And last time I checked, we all have idiosyncrasies. My horde is by no means threatened by your horde; why should the inverse be a matter of concern?
11 Jan 07
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?
What do you spend the spoils on??
Is it profitable. . .or not worth the bloodthirsty bother?
11 Jan 07
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?
11 Jan 07
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?
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 it in what I think is a particularly perspicuous form. You ought to be able to read it, interpret it, and then express your views on it without reverting to gibberish.
I honestly don't understand, even proximately, what your primary objection(s) to the argument really are.
11 Jan 07
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.
The fact of the matter is, all arguments are an attempt to see things from God's perspective, i.e., to know the objective truth of any situation; to be able to reach the absolute and the unequivocal. That section of knowledge is God's domain (which can be defined as):
the territory governed by a single ruler or government; realm.
Law. land to which there is superior title and absolute ownership.
Therefore, when postulating a formula (oops, you like it when we use the word 'argument' only) which,
1) attempts to illuminate others regarding a truth about reality;
2) incorporates action on the part of God as a contingent; and
3) draws a conclusion regarding both reality and God based on that action,
doesn't it stand to reason (or, better, logic) that the argument conform to what is known about God? Your arguments utilize a portion of God's known characteristics and ignore the rest... within the same field, no less!
In your not-so-subtle attempt to prove that free will does not exist, you necessarily must diminish or exclude aspects of God's characteristics which make such a stance absurd. Instead of trying to disprove God's character, if you studied His integrity your petty formulas and arguments would be unnecessary.
11 Jan 07
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.
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 premises that I would reject. No, my intention here was just to learn a little about what others may think about this argument, as I imagine some probably have not seen this sort of argument for fatalism. And I'm sorry, but I just don't understand your ramblings on the matter. I'm sorry, but I just think you're shockingly bad at communicating your thoughts in any sort of effective way. Maybe it's just me, Freak.
By the way, this isn't about your God, necessarily. We're just hypothesizing some God whose knowledge is infallible -- something which likely aligns with your notion of God. Really, all the argument really rests on is infallible knowledge (or just infallible belief is enough) about the future -- here we presume that it originates from some God.
11 Jan 07
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]
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 effective way. Maybe it's just me, Freak.
Half the time, I don't understand what I'm saying, either. I used to think it's because I am that brilliant, but I'm starting to have second thoughts.
It's pretty simply, though. The argument is rejected because it relies on definitions of concepts in disagreement with reality. The 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.
The argument also relies on progression or development of knowledge. God's perfect knowledge is not subject to development. He isn't waiting for you to finally act in time, part of the crowd watching as it happens and then reminiscing as He looks back upon your act in time. All of time is one unit to Him, one comprehensive whole. It is all actual and--- for lack of a better way of saying it--- all is as though it has already happened (as far as His perspicacity is concerned).
This by no means eliminates free will, as proven by our every thought and action.
12 Jan 07
1 edit
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.
So your main problem is with Premise 2, I'd say -- or more specifically with the idea that past events are necessary. First, I don't think Premise 2 is trying to say nearly as much as you read into it. I'll give you that it's trying to characterize something about reality, but it's not saying anything about the nature of God's knowledge. Throughout the argument, we just take God's knowledge to be infallible: whatever God knows, He knows it in a way that is free from even the possibility of error.
The proponent of Premise 2 is merely trying to say something about the past: that it is in some sense necessary. Most likely, they would mean 'necessary' in the sense that the past is now fixed and, for our purposes, outside our control.
The argument also relies on progression or development of knowledge. God's perfect knowledge is not subject to development.
The argument assumes that it makes sense for us to speak of ourselves as temporal beings, which seems fair enough. The second formulation of the argument does not assume the same for God. It's compatible with the view that God and His knowledge are eternal and thus not subject to temporal development, which should satisfy you.