iano writes:
That isn't my approach. Someone says "Gods omniscience means no free will". But they cannot escape the fact that such comments rely, at their root, on the presumption that God is limited to operating within the confines of our logic. By definition this cannot be the case. We are made like God. We are not God ourselves. So absolutes such as those statements are out.
Arguing based upon 'what might be' is unproductive and does not contribute in any way... we get into the realms of fantasy here, FSM, IPU, all that stuff enters the debating room as soon as you say "we cannot understand".
iano writes:
In suggesting the age old idea of timeless existance for God I give a possible (not proven) way whereby he could know all choices that will ever be made before they are made (by observation) without determining that they be so.
But when you reply with the "god's logic is not ours" you are merely throwing the argument open to any and every wild fantasy or imaginative hallucination, worth nothing other than 'It might be' as back up. not necessarily wrong untill proven so, but uncontructive and distractionary (is that a word?).
iano writes:
Its an apologetic - not a proof. Apologetics is the business of preventing doors shutting/opening doors. I might not do it well but that is what I attempt. So we may conclude...
To the reader (well... me anyway) you seem to use these apologetics as if they were truths/proofs. It comes across as being somewhat dishonest and devicive.
iano writes:
I might well be the dumbest sighted man in the world.
you may well be blind.
™ Version 4.2
