|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Free will vs Omniscience | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
Really? I thought you were just asking a silly question because you couldn't be bothered to understand the arguments.
Even the subthread title says "knowing" - and guessing is not knowing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
Two points. First phrasing a point so obvious that it's hardly worth saying as a question is not a good way to get productive conversation. Second it's up to you to make progress to meeting your point. And so far I see no sign of any effort in that direction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
Guessing and knowing (neither of which is purely a mental state) are different in ways directly relevant to the arguments of this thread. Pointing out a similarity, even if it were correct would not change that.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: No, just your ignorance. To count as knowledge in the full sense, in the sense used in this thread a belief has to be true.
quote: An erroneous belief doesn't count as knowledge. And the fact that the Earth goes around the Sun is not part of anyone's mental state. Now if you had just got down to the point straight away all this could have been cleared up much faster. Instead you chose to waste time talking about guessing when it wasn't even relevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: And obviously assumed that "knowledge" could not be wrong. And it must also be pointed out that the possibility of error has been already dealt with sufficiently.
quote: So please explain why it's worth taking 8 posts to get to a trivial point which has already been covered - by way of an equivocation (whether based in error, ignorance or whatever).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: That's not my idea. The idea that God prescribes the future is derived from God's role as Creator, as I have argued, not from mere foresight.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: Which is, apparently: "Ignore what the stupid Bible says and worship Faith's idols instead."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Which you get by quote-mining the Bible. As we already know from previous discussions. Message 487 quote: In other words exactly what I said. Your idols proclaim the Bible as the "Word of God" so that they can abuse it to put words in his mouth. And when they get their congregation used to covering up the disagreements through distortion and invention they legitimise abuse of the Bible. If you want to reduce God to a stupid sock-puppet, that's up to you. But you can hardly complain that people who take the idea of God seriously are "dragging God down" Edited by PaulK, : Added link to past discussion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: There are two problems with this. First, sometimes your difficulties - as with Isaiah 7 - are mainly because you are looking for a way to make the text say what you want, rather than taking it as it is. And second, where there are genuine difficulties - and these are often because the book in question was not written for modern readers, such as Ezekiel's use of Babylonian symbolism - evaluating interpretations purely on whether you like the theology is not a good way to get to the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: No you don't.
quote: You certainly did until you found a commentary that allowed you to believe that Isaiah 7 meant what it said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Wrong. At best the New Testament assigns a secondary meaning not present in the text of Isaiah 7. And if you understood the Bible you'd know that. But thank you for proving my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
Clearly you have no idea what Isaiah 7 says.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
I see no mention of Israel, Aram or the Assyrians, all central to the prophecy of Isaiah 7
Nor do I see any explanation of what sense it makes to send a sign centuries after the events it is supposed to portend. Ignoring virtually all of a prophecy is not a good way to understand it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Yes, it points out that there is a whole lot more to Isaiah 7. As I have been saying. I should know you now to never trust your assessment of anything you link to.
quote: Which relies on taking a part of the prophecy out of context.
quote: Which is your way of politely admitting that you were wrong. Charming.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
i'd say that there is only one prophecy in Isaiah 7. If you choose to take the Assyrian conquest of Judah as a separate prophecy then obviously the Assyrians are still a central part of that.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024