|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Omniscience, Omnipotence, the Fall & Logical Contradictions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4782 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
jar writes: Found out that IBibleNano is under 16. They're all children. The only difference is in how well they hide it. Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4782 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
RAZD writes: Earth can be defined as a cage for all life on earth: does that make us caged? An unlimited "free" is self-contradictory.Check yourself. Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
An unlimited "free" is self-contradictory. Check yourself. I don't need unlimited. ONE "free" means unlimited "caged" is false. We gots nottink to lose but our chainz. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4782 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
RAZD writes: I don't need unlimited. ONE "free" means unlimited "caged" is false. An unlimited caged is self-contradictory. Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
oh?
quote: quote: Thus "anything that confines or imprisons" "without qualification or exception" would be unlimited caged. What's the contradiction? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : bbcode we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4782 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
RAZD writes: Thus "anything that confines or imprisons" "without qualification or exception" would be unlimited caged. What's the contradiction? It would have to cage itself (as not to would be an exception), while not caging itself (as it's unlimited -- uncaged).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The universe is such a cage.
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
The universe is such a cage.
If the universe is expanding, maybe it isn't really a cage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4782 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
Thus it is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
If the universe is expanding, Thus it is unrestricted.
maybe it isn't really a cage It still contains everything it had in it each instant before without exception. It still contains itself. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
you were the one brought up unrestricted, when the discussion was relative restriction and freedom.
I take it you agree that there are spectrums of freedom and spectrums of restrictions. whether you accept the argument about the universe or not. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4782 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
RAZD writes: you were the one brought up unrestricted, when the discussion was relative restriction and freedom. They're always limited and, due to practical considerations, nearly always relative. (By binding to a subject, any direction that doesn't apply to that subject doesn't need to be addressed. If you don't bind it to a subject, you have to completely enclose it; and determining whether you're at the end of the concievable directions, and whether there are any inconceivable directions, tends to be problematic.) You're the one who brought up unrestricted in your attempt to sound Zen, as that's what you used to disassociate Cage(1) from Cage(2) so that you could have a Cage(A) and Cage(NOT Cage A). I have an addition for your signature:"Enlightenment is in confusing your terms."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You're the one who brought up unrestricted in your attempt to sound Zen,... Actually it was you:
Message 212 An unlimited "free" is self-contradictory. ... as that's what you used to disassociate Cage(1) from Cage(2)... I have an addition for your signature: "Enlightenment is in confusing your terms." You are, of course, completely free to believe that. Enjoy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4021 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Y'mean I can enjoy free will, or not enjoy free will-----at will?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dogrelata Member (Idle past 5340 days) Posts: 201 From: Scotland Joined: |
iano writes: Nobody is reasoned into Christianity. It can only make sense from the perspective of having insights currently closed to you. The catch-22 of faith. "Faith is the evidence of things not seen" - but you don't get that faith (evidence) until you have faith (belief) A little further on in another post we read:
iano writes: Faith adds another dimension to single dimension reason. Reason it remains but it is expanded upon. Whereas standard reason views a plan view of a house and can take you so far, faith adds glimpses into the 3D solid model. Unless you see it yourself of course it will seem unreasonable. It is unreasonable from your perspective. You know that the bible talks constantly of this blindness (to this other dimension). I think the idea of who has the greater insight, the believer or non-believer, is an interesting one. So I’d like to start with my own humble, faithless view of knowledge and understanding. In very broad terms, it appears to me that knowledge falls into two categories - imparted knowledge and knowledge by experience. Imparted knowledge is gathered by reading, for example, or talking with friends or watching our favourite news channel, or any source we consider trustworthy. Knowledge by experience is perhaps a more personal knowledge. For example, I guess most of us have stubbed our toe at some time or another, and those of us that have will have knowledge of what it is to have done so. Those who have been lucky enough never to do so do not have the knowledge of what it is to do so, but can gain a degree of knowledge and understanding of the experience by reading about it or talking to a friend - if they are so inclined To these two categories, iano proposes the addition of a third - knowledge by faith or through faith. This third category is open only to those who choose to embrace faith, so it seems, which is why the insights it offers are beyond the likes of me I’m afraid Which is probably why I come up with clumsy analogies like this one: I assemble a number of people together in a darkened room with a beam of light being projected against one of the walls. I then place my hands in front of the light source and manipulate them in such a manner as to produce an image in shadow that looks just like a rabbit. I then ask everybody what he or she sees. They all reply that they see a rabbit. So I further ask if what they see is actually a rabbit or a shadow that just happens to look like a rabbit. Again they all reply that they see a shadow that looks like a rabbit - apart from one individual who says he actually sees a rabbit. When pressed to tell why he sees an actual rabbit as opposed to just a shadow on the wall, he replies that he has faith that this is actually a rabbit, and hence possesses the additional insight required to see what we cannot, using our ”single dimension reason’. So who should I conclude has the greater insight, the individual who actually sees a rabbit, or those that don’t? iano says, ”You know that the bible talks constantly of this blindness (to this other dimension).’ So are we to give credence to every piece of knowledge or understanding that emanates from the ”greater insight’ offered by faith(s), or are those of us blundering around blindly with our ”single dimension reason’ entitled to employ just a smidgeon of scepticism when faced with any claim of this nature?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024