»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
How can omniscience exist independently of a predetermined future?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
How can omniscience exist independently of a predetermined future? |
|
Allan Riverwood
since 2001-01-04
Posts 3502Winnipeg 
|
I've been discussing this with a friend of mine as of late. He's agnostic, I'm atheist (you can imagine we have some really good debates)... and one day I came up with something I'd like to share... Let's theoretically say that something is omniscient. It knows absolutely every bit of knowledge that is known. It knows the past, present, and future. And it has a 0% rate of error. Let's take the obvious example of God... He created the universe with complete and total knowledge of all things that would transpire in that world. So the future was known to him. Bill, a 20-year-old agnostic, is told that he is given the chance to repent from his sins before God and accept Christ into his heart. God already knows whether or not he will, however, so the choice is not his. Let's say for example that God knows he will never be converted to Christianity. If Bill suddenly converts, then God will have been wrong. And therefore will not have been omniscient. An omniscient creature can never be wrong, or it will not have been omniscient to begin with. If it is never wrong about the future, then the future must be pre-determined. Any thoughts or refutations?  All images begin in mirrors and end inside our subconsious. |
||
| © Copyright 2002 Brian James Lee - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Silver Streak Member Elite
since 2002-01-02
Posts 3625FL, USA |
Allan, I believe in God and I believe that God is omniscient, in the sense that, as man tries to measure, he simply cannot go there. I also believe that in that omnicience, there is a Wisdom God has that we lack, simply because God is all life and we are not all life, but merely one life form. And the theoretical case that you suggest, may or may not even exist, and if it does exist, or it does not exist how could we even know with our limited perceptions. Rene Descarte suffered the same quandry. And concluded I think therefore I am. And I would like to add that if I believe that if I am, the reality of my awareness of this fact is life enough to be defined as God. I define God simply as the connection of all life. And this mutual attraction between life forms I call Love, and I interchange the terms God and Love, as is done in certain Scripture. And when life forms are attracted to each other in Love, there seems to be a helping spirit that builds the bigger life form from the smaller life forms, and intergrates all life for the benefit of the total life creature. And destroys non cooperating life forms with disease and death. Man has been studying this phenomonon for thousands of years, and over time has intercoursed with the spirits of these realities, concluding and writing of God as he, man, interpreted life presence spiritually and physically. And terms like omniscience, infinity and zero were simply created by man, defined as tools to study our existence in God and God in us. Whether you believe in God or not is irrelevant, and whether omniscience applies or not is irrelevent, what is relevent is that we live and have spirits which give us sadness and joy. And I believe that the life in all of our integrated spirits is the essence of a One and Only Living God, regardless of terminology man creates to prove or disprove man's question. According to Scripture God is simply, I Am. So the question is simply Does "I am" exist? And the fact that you can ask it would say, Yes! I Am, I exist, I am in God, God is in Me. QED. -newell Sharing God's Love through perfectlovepoetry.com |
||
|
Silver Streak Member Elite
since 2002-01-02
Posts 3625FL, USA |
Allan, A postscript addressing your posed question: How can omniscience exist independently of a predetermined future? Omniscience is man's term for an infinity of means. Infinity is another term invented by man for something beyond man's ability to understand. A predetermined future is simply a hypothesis posed by other men who lack the intelligence and analytical skills to be able to accurately define reality and so, in a sweep of genius or illusion, man simply, impatiently creates hypothesizes, he accepts as truths, that an infinite (man's term) God naturally, by definition knows it all. But a living God exists in reality, not a set of hypotheses based on questions. In reality, the question you pose doesn't even make sense. -newell Sharing God's Love through perfectlovepoetry.com Copyright: 2002 Newell Elsworth Usher [This message has been edited by Silver Streak (02-26-2002 10:51 AM).] |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
hmmm...well I look at it this way. Just because I have knowledge of a situation does not necessitate a burning desire to DO anything about it. But in truth, what I believe is actually a little more complicated. Will be back later, after more coffee and the boyfriend is asleep.  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I don't think you can dismiss the questions as nonsensical quite that easily. The terms were created by man, but what those terms represent was not. You might as well argue that five plus seven has no answer, because after all, five and seven are terms that were simply created by man. You can't show me a five, you can't point at a seven, because both are abstract constructs. Yet in spite of that, the right answer is still twelve. The terms, though invented by man, still have real meaning. Following your argument to its logical conclusion, one could just as easily say that God is a term invented by man, so any questions about God don't make sense. Is that really where you wanted to go with this? How much is half of infinity? Can God create a stone so heavy He cannot lift it? Is there more than one kind of determinism? Is there any kind of determinism? Can God tell a lie? These are all legitimate questions. Not knowing the answer doesn't necessarily make them nonsensical. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
"Bill, a 20-year-old agnostic, is told that he is given the chance to repent from his sins before God and accept Christ into his heart. God already knows whether or not he will, however, so the choice is not his. Let's say for example that God knows he will never be converted to Christianity. If Bill suddenly converts, then God will have been wrong. And therefore will not have been omniscient." --I don't understand this. Knowledge doesn't interfere with free will, force (widely defined) does. You may not like the idea that I can predict what you're going to say but that doesn't mean you're not free to say it. --Someone next week will know what you do tomorrow (providing that there is a tomorrow and a next week and a person). In that sense, the future person has knowledge that you don't now, does that make your decision any less free? --The future person can't interfere. God doesn't interfere. --Am I missing something? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I was just thinking the same thing,Brad, I don't see why foreknowledge impedes the man's choices in any way. I don't see the connection. p.s. not that this is the point but repenting and asking Jesus into your heart is not what the Bible teaches for salvation...just wanted to clear up that very popular misconception. |
||
|
Allan Riverwood
since 2001-01-04
Posts 3502Winnipeg |
Brad - What I'm saying is that knowledge would HAVE to interfere with free will, otherwise it would be incorrect knowledge. It's kind of a difficult concept to grasp, I admit, and I'm trying hard to word it just correctly. Just give it a little thought, you might see what I'm saying... another simpler example... I am omniscient, which we will assume to mean that I know all that is, that will be and that ever was. You flip a coin. If I am omniscient, I know that the coin will turn up heads. If it can be known beyond any doubt that it would turn up either heads or tails, then that means that there is no other option than the one that is known. So it cannot turn up tails, otherwise the omniscient being's knowledge of the result would have been incorrect. Which is impossible, assuming that the being is omniscient beyond any doubt. If any one thing can know the turnout of any event, without possibility of error, then that turnout must occur. What you were saying, Brad, I will agree with... just because he has knowledge of what our free choices will be, doesn't make them any less free, of course. But if he has knowledge of what the choices will be, then there is no chance that your choice itself will be any different. On a side note... I'm really trying to discuss both omniscience and randomness/free will as concepts. It was probably an error of mine to go into any religious discussion as a branch of either of these. (However, the omniscience vs free will argument is something that I use a lot when arguing religion )All images begin in mirrors and end inside our subconsious. ~Genesis P-Orridge, "Thee Reversal of Fate" [This message has been edited by Allan Riverwood (02-26-2002 05:09 PM).] |
||
|
Allan Riverwood
since 2001-01-04
Posts 3502Winnipeg |
and Silver Streak... "Omniscience is man's term for an infinity of means. Infinity is another term invented by man for something beyond man's ability to understand." If all worldly concepts are simply imperfect and unreliable conclusions of the flawed human logic, what makes you so accepting of the teachings of your doctrine? Whether you like it or not, those things all exist as concepts as well. While you propose that they exist "in reality," the concepts of them exist in your mind, they are human concepts. So if you willingly reject inconvenient concepts due to unreliability, why do you so willingly accept anything you are taught from scripture? The scriptures were written by hands as human as yours. |
||
|
Silver Streak Member Elite
since 2002-01-02
Posts 3625FL, USA |
I restate the question: How can omniscience exist independently of a predetermined future? May I ask two questions? Is there a reality such as omniscience? Or is this just an assumption? Is predetermination a reality? Or is this simply another assumption? Because that there are many Worship Templates that define God in man configured ways, why should we accept their definitions of God? If God is the true, "I am", then God is reality, as I describe above. And so I still discount the question as being a hypothetical with no possible answer in reality. Unless you can prove the existence of your two premises. Othewise, this is simply a fun exercise in opinion ping pong. -newell Sharing God's Love through perfectlovepoetry.com |
||
|
Allan Riverwood
since 2001-01-04
Posts 3502Winnipeg |
Silver Streak, I refuse to accept that argument unless you can, beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, completely and accurately prove that each word you used in that statement exists as a concept, and isn't simply another assumption. Every concept you just used to argue me must be proven fully, otherwise I will not even waste my time. Yep. All images begin in mirrors and end inside our subconsious. ~Genesis P-Orridge, "Thee Reversal of Fate" [This message has been edited by Allan Riverwood (02-26-2002 05:40 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I sure hope it's not one of your stronger arguments. Take a look at your last post, Allan. Read it carefully. Is that the ONLY way you could have written it? Were you forced, through omniscience, to use exactly those words in that specific order? If you feel you had any choice at all, you've pretty much blown your own argument out of the water. You've implied omniscience includes the ability to know the future, and have concluded that knowing something is going to happen means it MUST happen. By your argument, if I knew you were going to type those exact words, then you had no choice but to type those words? Well, believe it or not, Allan, I'm about half-omniscient. No, I don't know the future. But I do know the past. I know you typed those exact words, otherwise I wouldn't have read them, and therefore you had no choice but to type those words. You didn't have free will, because if you had typed anything else they wouldn't be sitting there for me to read right now. If that sounds far fetched (and it does), it's only because we're trapped in a linear time line. We think in terms of things that have happened, are happening, or will happen. Omniscience, however, would necessarily yank you right out of that linear trap. We see the past as immutable because we know it happened. If you could know future events with the same certitude, it would be equally immutable. Time would cease to exist, at least in any kind of linear fashion. But if knowing the past doesn't violate free will, why then should knowing the future violate it? Omniscience exists outside of time. There is no past, no future, only certain knowledge. |
||
|
Allan Riverwood
since 2001-01-04
Posts 3502Winnipeg |
"But if knowing the past doesn't violate free will, why then should knowing the future violate it?" Simple, Ron.. our free will is our ability to change the future, not our ability to change the past. It's not hard to grasp the idea of future and past being different.... and for a half-omniscient person, I can't say I'm impressed. Don't treat past and future as though they were the same thing. I admit that I assume the ability to know the future when I use the term "omniscience." Your argument doesn't have a lot of relevance. We have the ability to know the past because the past determines the present. The difference between past and future is that the future has yet to happen. Could you change the past if you wanted to? No, of course not. Our free will is based on our ability to determine the future alone, not the past. That is why knowledge of the future and predeterminedness are interlocked. Total and unwavering knowledge of the future cannot exist without universal predeterminedness, otherwise there would always be a chance that certain knowledge of future events is incorrect. This possibility of incorrect knowledge defies that something is omniscient. "By your argument, if I knew you were going to type those exact words, then you had no choice but to type those words?" Yes, but only if you had total and unwavering knowledge with a 0% chance of being incorrect. If you knew for certain (which we as human beings are obviously incapable of) what I was to type, without possibility of error, then of course I had no choice than to type it. (can someone tell me how to quote someone else? this italics method is getting tedious) [This message has been edited by Allan Riverwood (02-26-2002 06:55 PM).] |
||
|
Allan Riverwood
since 2001-01-04
Posts 3502Winnipeg |
Just to clarify: When I say "no choice" but to do something, I really mean no possibility. It's what we choose that is beyond our control. Theoretically, if there's a 100% chance I'll choose chocolate chip cookies over oatmeal cookies, then although it's my choice to have chocolate chip, there's still zero chance of me having oatmeal. And if there is zero chance of me choosing something else, then what is my choice must be beyond my control... because there is only one possible choice I could make without the pre-knowledge of my choice having been wrong. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
well... lol, allan - there is a LARGE difference between choice and possibility. |
||
|
Allan Riverwood
since 2001-01-04
Posts 3502Winnipeg |
Yep. But if our choice is predetermined, isn't choice just an illusion anyways? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
But, Allan, I have total and unwavering knowledge with a 0 percent chance of being incorrect of what you DID type in the past. I think we agree that doesn't in any way violate your choices. If you had typed something different ten minutes ago, I would STILL have unwavering knowledge now - it would just be different knowledge. You admit that me knowing what you did in the past doesn't forsake free will. Why? Because the past, you say, cannot be changed. But if I KNOW what you're going to do ten minutes from the now, the future is JUST as unchangeable. No matter what you did in the past, no matter how you exercised your free will, my knowledge of what you did in the past is perfect. You have the same exact free will in the future - even if the knowledge of what you do is already perfectly known. You accuse me of treating the past and future the same, and you're absolutely right. Because they are the same. Your future is someone else's past. The "me" of six hours from now knows exactly what your next post is going to be - because that me has already read it. If it helps, think of omniscience as someone who sits at the very farthest reaches of time and remembers everything that has ever happened. The past. That's not any more inaccurate than thinking of omniscience as someone sitting at the beginning of time and knowing everything that will eventually happen, nor is it any less unlikely than someone sitting at this precise moment and knowing both. Your problem is that you're trying to cram omniscience into a time line, and it ain't gonna fit. By its very nature, omniscience exists outside of time. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
predetermination, in my mind, is a closed loop - it negates choice and yet requires choice. a cancelling affect if i've seen one. |
||
|
Allan Riverwood
since 2001-01-04
Posts 3502Winnipeg |
"Your problem is that you're trying to cram omniscience into a time line, and it ain't gonna fit. By its very nature, omniscience exists outside of time." This is great, as an assumption. Can you prove that omniscience exists outside of time, or maybe just say why it does? By its very nature? How does total knowledge of all things exist outside of time, when all things themselves exist inside of time? All images begin in mirrors and end inside our subconsious. |
||
|
Allan Riverwood
since 2001-01-04
Posts 3502Winnipeg |
Ahh.... gotcha... Yes, I agree that given enough time anything is possible. Even the collapse of time itself? Hmm... that would be a stinker... OK Ron, let's run with this then... omniscience is independent of time. Which means that time already must exist in all states, if you can be independent of it and observe it at any place. So the future already exists, you are saying? And can be observed from outside of time? I'm not being skeptical, I'm trying to clarify what point you are making. All images begin in mirrors and end inside our subconsious. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Actually, you've already done that, Allan. If any meaningful definition of each precludes the other, that leaves us exactly three possibilities. We can conclude that past/time/future doesn't exist as we perceive it (which is a definite mathematical possibility), we can conclude omniscience doesn't exist (which is obviously where you wanted to go), or we can conclude they must exist separate from each other. Stephen Hawking has said that if you stand next to a black hole long enough, you will eventually see a dragon emerge. Because the mathematical forces at play guarantee that anything is possible given sufficient time. Based on that, and given his success rate, I'm reluctant to lightly deny the existence of anything. Besides, how could you possibly know everything there is to know and still not know how to escape the constraints of time? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Yes. And before you jump all over that, Allan, remember it is equally true of the past… Indeed, the edge between past and future gets a little blurry. |
||
|
Allan Riverwood
since 2001-01-04
Posts 3502Winnipeg |
Well now I am going to get skeptical. Pardon me for being unwilling to accept that the future already exists, without reasonable backing to the statement. You can't just state it is so and expect me to believe it fully, of course. But for the sake of brevity, let's use it as an assumption... if the future already exists, then all that we are doing is sliding along a panel on the way to the future, aye? Which would mean that the future is predetermined. And if the future is predetermined, then although we choose our actions... there is no escaping the inevitability of what our choices will in fact be. So there is no randomness, only events that already exist, that we move into. To be omniscient is to step outside of time, as you say. And to be able to step outside of time is to say that the future exists already, and is simply waiting for us, as you stated. I'm going to have to interperet this as you agreeing with me, that omniscience (which exists outside of time) and universal predeterminedness (which is implied by your statement that the future already exists) are like peas in a pod. "The future already exists" is just another way to say that "all things are predetermined." You linked the concept of omniscience to this as something that exists independent of and examines time. So with no predetermined future, there is nothing to step away from and examine. That's my original point. Glad you agree.All images begin in mirrors and end inside our subconsious. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, no, that's not your original point. Your original point is that this has a connection to free choice but a determinate or indeterminate future is irrelevant to free choice. As Christopher said, choice and possibility are two different things. Your assumption is that if one being knows what you're going to do with a 100% certainty (predetermination)you, in fact, have no choice at all but you're confusing your own perspective with someone else's. You can't know what will happen with a 100% certainty unless you are no longer in the four dimensional space/time continuum. This limitation forces us to look at our choices as free or forced. If we see, free choice as merely 'the possibility of changing the future', you can put a gun to my head and my hand tell me to kill my daughter or myself (easy decision given these strict parameters actually) and still call it free choice. Because you leave out intent. Your assumption, again and again, is that you can get outside yourself in order to determine any of these things -- you have become God (don't worry, a lot of people do this.). The question then is not whether a determinate or indeterminate future has any relation to our free choice but whether God has free choice. From our perspective in the time line, you would have to say no -- God defined as omniscience at any rate and a certain manifestation of God at any rate. From God's perspective (a contradiction in terms), the question has no meaning. God has both no perspective and an infinite amount of perspectives. Freedom is not an objective value, it's a value solely concerned with beings that we ascribe intent to. Does a rock have free will? Brad |
||
|
Silver Streak Member Elite
since 2002-01-02
Posts 3625FL, USA |
What a ping pong game. Gee this is fun! "Pardon me for being unwilling to accept that the future already exists, without reasonable backing to the statement. You can't just state it is so and expect me to believe it fully, of course." Well let's see. Let's take the beginning of time. And subtract one from it. Hmmmmm! Well let's see. Let's take the end of time. And add one to it. Hmmmmmm. Would this infer that time is circular? Well if time is circular, I guess we could travel back in time and see what tomorrow brings. Hmmmmmmmm. Just a thought. -newell Sharing God's Love through perfectlovepoetry.com |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
 If the future is predetermined, Allan, wouldn't that be even more true of the past? You made your choices, they can't be changed? Therefore, everything you just wrote was forced upon you by time. It's not even your own thoughts, but was the result of everything that went before it. It was predetermined. No free will. Geesh, you started out trying to disprove omniscience and ended up showing us there's no free will. How's that for a touch of irony? Forget all about past and future, Allan. Forget about Now. Think outside the box. You're already accustomed to moving through three-dimensional space, freely and without restriction. Indeed, there's every mathematical reason to believe that your very movement through space (acceleration) determines your relative time. If you could go fast enough, time would effectively stop for you (though not your perception of it). Go even faster (or do it within a sufficiently intense gravitational field), and time reverses its flow. We've known the math for a hundred years. We've seen it in action countless times, if only on a micro scale. And it's still completely non-intuitive, a truth so far removed from our every day experience as to be invisible to us. But, still, it is a truth. Time is not limited to what we perceive. There's a delightful book called Flatland, by Edwin A. Abbott, that details a mathematical fantasy about life in a two-dimensional world. The inhabitants of this world are unable to even think about the possibility of moving in a third dimension. Imagine living on a piece of paper, unable to perceive anything outside that tiny world. Now, imagine someone pressed their finger against that paper. What you would perceive would be something miraculously appearing, not from the left, nor from the right, not from any direction you could perceive. Very, very non-intuitive. You should see if you can find a copy, Allan. Or just watch a couple episodes of Star Trek? No one really knows, of course, whether past or future exist as entities, as destinations we might one day visit. The math is there, but the power source is very elusive. When you walk down a hallway you don't normally think in terms of what's behind you, what's in front of you, or give any special significance to that point where you currently stand. If time turns out to not be a one-way street, then the terms "past" and "future" and "present" really won't have any more meaning than those corresponding spots in the hall. Of course, that's where things will really get messy. I see no conflict with omniscience and free will as long as I'm on only one side of that fence. Straddling that fence changes things, and the thought of knowing what I'm going to do before I do it gives me a headache. But then, as I think Brad pointed out, that's where you've been trying to be all along. (Adding or subtracting one from infinity is still infinity, not a circle. Maybe you're think of pi?) |
||
|
Allan Riverwood
since 2001-01-04
Posts 3502Winnipeg |
I'll take a look at it. Thanks for the reference, Ron. |
||
|
Silver Streak Member Elite
since 2002-01-02
Posts 3625FL, USA |
Ron, I think you're getting closer to the truth. I have a theory that all time and space are concentrated at a single point and all of our perceptions are only frequencies emanating through a set of mirrors giving us our own perceptions. And that all information exists perfectly in frequency bands whereby everyone can know what everyone else knows in any time or space dimension, by receiving and decoding frequencies. And there is really only one life form, God, and we are all just little jig saw piece workstations, cells in God's body, which can peek into a very narrow band of frequencies. And as we do we can link thoughout God-space and select and filter the light energy from a very small portion of the God-space frequency band. Given this were true, then omnicescience would allow all knowledge of all future determination. But then free choice only becomes free choice of observation not detemination. And as we observe the illusion that we create, we think that we have free choice, and are fooled into thinking that what we perceive is what we are responsible for. Like I said, it's just theory. Any comments? -newell Sharing God's Love through perfectlovepoetry.com Copyright: 2002 Newell Elsworth Usher [This message has been edited by Silver Streak (02-26-2002 11:25 PM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
I'm confused as how to actually see "thinking outside the box" as a reality. Yeah, I can imagine... instead of: "Fifteen minutes ago I was writing a reply to a thread about adolescence. Now I am writing a reply to a thread about omniscience. In ten more minutes I will be turning off my computer and going to bed." It would be: "Fifteen minutes ago I am writing a reply to a thread about adolescence. Now I am writing a reply to a thread about omniscience. In ten more minutes I am turning off my computer and going to bed." All happening at once. Hmm. But supposing that is a real possibility outside the real of speculative fiction, we suppose the scenario is possible from and point in time: "Fifteen minutes prior to 12:13 AM EST I will be writing a reply to a thread about adolescence. At 12:13 AM EST I will be writing a reply to a thread about omniscience. Ten minutes past 12:13 AM I will be turning off my computer and going to bed." Of course, the data left out in this version is, am I writing this at 12:02 AM EST? Tonight? A year ago? Obviously it's in the past, but with the knowledge of what will be happening in the future. I could use "was", and speak from the future, or screw things up more and say "will have been," and project myself into a future me who is reflecting on what has become the past.  I'm just trying to make this "outside of linear time" idea work in my brain, and it won't. If somebody doesn't mind toddling along with someone whose brain isn't quite as efficient with abstract (or maybe just inadequately explored?) ideas... could you clarify? "Love is a piano |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
hush, I've been thinking inside the box a whole lot longer than you have. I'm pretty much stuck in here, I'm afraid. Sometimes, I think Einstein was the only scientist truly able to get out of the box, or at least to lift the lid high enough to see past the obvious. Except he called them thought experiments. I think even Hawking, for all his mathematical genius, can't match Einstein's mental flexibility. Part of the deficiency, of course, is language. Ignoring the trite, we can't seem to talk about people without referencing gender, and we can't talk about events without referencing time. But I don't know if we're limited BY language, or if language is limited because that's just the way we think. One of the nice things about mathematics is that there are no past participles to dangle and no present past tense to drop. Math is at once more and less descriptive, at once more and less imaginative. More, because it allows us to work in dimensions we can't possibly perceive, and less because it leaves little room for Lewis Carroll's "Jabberwocky" or Silver Steak's "God-space frequency band." Mathematically, we know it's possible to reverse the flow of time. Given sufficient energy (and we're talking about enough to make our sun look like a feeble match stick), we could travel into the past. So far, there's no corresponding math to move in the other direction, though quantum particles suggests there might be one someday. (The infamous quantum jump, moving from point A to point C without ever going through point B, is synonymous with time travel. But at a pretty miniscule level.) From a scientific standpoint, I can't be sure, but from an ascetic standpoint, I'm convinced the math will eventually happen. After all, if there's any discernible pattern to our Universe, it's symmetry. For every particle there's an anti-particle, for every spin there's a counter-spin, for every positive charge there's a negative charge, and I think for every past there must be a future. But maybe that's just the poet speaking. I'm also convinced, however, that we will never go any farther than a mathematical understanding of time. We won't ever travel into the past, or the future, because the amount of energy required will always be prohibitive. But maybe that's just the skeptic speaking. Omniscience, however, would have little trouble finding energy and even less utilizing it. And contrary as it might sound, that's the pragmatist speaking. |
||
|
Silver Streak Member Elite
since 2002-01-02
Posts 3625FL, USA |
Ron, you say: After all, if there's any discernible pattern to our Universe, it's symmetry. For every particle there's an anti-particle, for every spin there's a counter-spin, for every positive charge there's a negative charge, and I think for every past there must be a future. But maybe that's just the poet speaking. Wow! Do I ever agree with this!!! And I believe it is the poet's responsibility to write about it all. And all truth is verifiable. And mathematics is the language of God's chosen poets. This is why, in answer to some who think I am a religious freak, I shout with all of my being, NO! All doctrine is man-made to control us. Be free! Seek God in freedom of choice! Observe God's reality. skies, birds, dirt, bugs, plants, all matter, all imaginations, all thoughts. Use all SEVEN senses, sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste, intuition, and Gifts from the Comforter, The Holy Spirit, promised by Christ to the Apostles, language, interpretation, knowledge, wisdom, and healing Remember the true message of Christ that goes with His Command, LOVE: NIV Mathew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you." And Passions and this forum is a wonderful place to do learn both Love and seeking. "I'm also convinced, however, that we will never go any farther than a mathematical understanding of time. We won't ever travel into the past, or the future, because the amount of energy required will always be prohibitive. But maybe that's just the skeptic speaking." I respectfully disagree. I believe that all God's Power is available to us, through us, in Christ. And so in God through Christ we have free access to all God's energy to discover and enjoy all things. And matter is nothing more that converted energy. (Spirit Residue) As we are merely cells living in God awaiting the opening and cleansing of our windows to receive pure Love. And this is what true Salvation is all about. Seeking God in Love to receive gifts of all good things. Silver Streak. Sharing God's Love through perfectlovepoetry.com Copyright: 2002 Newell Elsworth Usher [This message has been edited by Silver Streak (02-27-2002 09:48 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Heisenberg would disagree. And therein, perhaps, lies the true secret of free will. quote: Then you just saved me about 20 minutes of typing. With that kind of power available to you, you already know my response. Faith can never be dependent on logic. But I personally believe it need not be divorced from logic, either. |
||
|
Silver Streak Member Elite
since 2002-01-02
Posts 3625FL, USA |
Your wisdom is showing! God bless you. I love you, Ron. ((Ron)) -newell Sharing God's Love through perfectlovepoetry.com |
||
|
Interloper
since 2000-11-06
Posts 8369Deep in the heart |
Allan, You said, in part, "God already knows whether or not he will, however, so the choice is not his." As Brad alluded to this I will only say that this sentence is the total fallacy of your argument. Knowledge by another has nothing whatever to do with one's choice as long as you do not know what the other knows. |
||
|
Interloper
since 2000-11-06
Posts 8369Deep in the heart |
Ron, If you want "thinking outside the box," read Napoleon Hill. You might find it interesting |
||
|
Silver Streak Member Elite
since 2002-01-02
Posts 3625FL, USA |
Allan, yesterday, in my impatience, I neglected to properly address some of your remarks. I apologize and will attempt to do so now. ""and Silver Streak... "Omniscience is man's term for an infinity of means. Infinity is another term invented by man for something beyond man's ability to understand." If all worldly concepts are simply imperfect and unreliable conclusions of the flawed human logic, what makes you so accepting of the teachings of your doctrine? Whether you like it or not, those things all exist as concepts as well. While you propose that they exist "in reality", the concepts of them exist in your mind, they are human concepts. So if you willingly reject inconvenient concepts due to unreliability, why do you so willingly accept anything you are taught from scripture? The scriptures were written by hands as human as yours. "" End of Allan's quote. You rightly point out that concepts are important. And I believe that it is useful to work with two domains in the universe of our discourse. First we have the domain of truth which I call reality, which leads to spirit freedom. And secondly we have the domain of selfish illusion" The use of misinformation to create illusions for selfish purposes. This leads to an enslaving of spirits in man's bondage. A loss of freedom. And life on earth, as I perceive it is a spirit living in a flesh (matter) container seeking a destiny being forced to choose between truth, and selfish illusion. Wallowing in bondage, searching for freedom and purpose. And the war of good and evil, I see is the war between freedom and selfish illusion. And concepts, I believe are a gift from God, which help us visualize ways to look at Creative Wonders receiving magnificent joys and pleasures by receiving and relishing beautiful musical/poetic frequencies of Love and beauty, in full freedom of spirit. So, for the record, please understand that I do not accept any teaching of any doctrine. If you read my writings you will soon find that I suggest that all doctrine is flawed, written by men, and is always to be distrusted! I do however study many Scriptural writings and use many scriptural references to validate my hypotheses of understanding, and I freely use Scripture to illustrate, emphasize and complement my thoughts and writings in poetry. I freely scan a half dozen versions of The Holy Bible, use translations of The Holy Qu'ran, Indian Poetry and writings by people known as Saints and Apostles of God from many sources. To a lessor degree I use writings of philosophers, scientists and men and women of notoriety. And on occasion I may even use sayings, off the street. But I accept no works of man, no matter how inspired, or pure, the claim! The reason for this is obvious, If God's Word is Omniscient, as I hypothesize, no written human words in any one language, let alone a finite number, could ever accurately translate The Word in completeness and fullness. Infinite Wisdom cannot be forced into a finite space. Also, God is a loving God, as I hypothesize, and most doctrine is used counterproductively by men of cloth to control the minds and souls of man, placing women in bondage, teaching partitioning, hate and favoritism. As Christ said, they are Pharisees! Vipers! Secondly, I hypothesize that God is in all life, and have yet to find Scripture, which is inclusive of life forms beyond man. I view this as a necessary requirement to a full understanding of God. So I fully believe that man's translated, though inspired works can only be a shallow bridge to God's Word. Although I do believe that man has access to God's Full Omniscient Word through what I call the seventh sense, God Sense, in the Holy Spirit spoken of as The Comforter, by Christ. And this Window opens to God's Power and Energy when a spirit (our real existence) is pure enough to receive clear reception. And I believe that Jesus Christ was the flesh container for The Christ, God's Spirit of Love, which continues to live in all life forms, connecting all life forms together in a spiritually nurturing way as blood, cleansing and purifying God's Body of Life. I believe that Scripture and much doctrine may have begun with inspiration received from The Holy Spirit, although man has always been quick to corrupt God's purity in True Words of God that would upset the bondage order of man's authority. As man seeks always to use his powers of selfishness to fulfill selfish desires in a world of illusion and deception. And the churches are man's biggest allies in this ongoing deception. Although the vision of God's Candle of Light is carried and perpetuated by the churches. So I do believe that concepts and tools of logic and mathematics are highly valuable provide we use them to search for truth and not misuse them to justify opinions that we selfishly cling to. Forgive me if I came across differently. Silver Streak. Sharing God's Love through perfectlovepoetry.com |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
What you are talking about, in one word, is predestination. A topic that has been debated for centuries. Let me see, from what I have read and from what I have been taught by christians is this... 1. The only way to be saved is by repenting from your sins, (which means to quit sinning), accept Christ as your saviour, become baptised with water, then the person will receive the Holy Spirit become born again, and then and only then will they become saved.... yet... I read on here where christians welcome their Islam (among other religions) brothers and sisters...which therefore leads to them being either hypocrites or misinformed on their own religious dogma/doctrines. Now God does predestine any person for the fiery torments of hell, yet how many people have died without ever having the chance to accept Jesus as their saviour? And yes, I have heard the counterarguments - at some point and time they had the chance or God will not hold them accountable, in which both of those arguments don't hold any water and can be refuted quite easily... more later. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Not quite sure where this thread is going anymore (thought it was a philosophical point being made, not a doctrinal one). Nevertheless, I would argue the exact opposite of this: "1. The only way to be saved is by repenting from your sins, (which means to quit sinning), accept Christ as your saviour, become baptised with water, then the person will receive the Holy Spirit become born again, and then and only then will they become saved.... yet... I read on here where christians welcome their Islam (among other religions) brothers and sisters...which therefore leads to them being either hypocrites or misinformed on their own religious dogma/doctrines." --A Christian, as I understand it, would definitely accept Muslims as brothers and sisters. --A Christian hypocrite would create an 'us v. them' situation. --Or a Christian hypocrite would preach love of mankind but not practice it. --I think this is Ron's point in Serenity's Alley thread: the confusion between people and individuals. --Interestingly enough academic socialists, quite often, do the same thing. They stand for the working class, but when actually dealing with the working classes, they often become quite classist. Brad |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
This certainly does seem to have strayed way off topic, doesn't it, Brad? I confess that there is much in this thread that I can't even begin to fathom, but I can certainly understand Allan's question as I've heard it argued numerous times in the past, but I find that the basic premise of it is faulty. Foreknoweldge in no way interfere's with free will. In the interest of not taking this further off topic, I will start a new thread to address some pressing issues on my heart. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Allan, Interesting that you brought up omniscience... I assert that anyone who claims to be an atheist must be omniscient. You would have to know everthing in order to say with complete honesty "There is no God". For isn't it possible that you having finite knowledge have missed him somewhere, or that he has hidden himself from you? The more honest answer is "I don't know", which is basically the position of the agnostic. But even the agnostic isn't quite as honest as seems. His favorite saying is "God is unknowable". But how can he know this unless he himself is omniscient? He would have to be capable of entering the minds of every person who ever lived throughout the past, present, and future, and determine by direct experience that they did not know God. And even if they did not, does this equate that they might not have? The best he can say here is "I do not know God". Seeing that he is stripped of feigned knowledge concerning everyone else (including God)... I interpret this ultimately as "I need God". And this place of humility is the best place any of us can Get... I know it's true of me. Perhaps more on the free will thing later. Stephen . |
||
|
Allan Riverwood
since 2001-01-04
Posts 3502Winnipeg |
Stephanos Nice argument... so because our knowledge is finite, we cannot disbelieve in the existence of God? By your very logic, we cannot disbelieve in the existence of anything. Nor can we truly believe in the existence of anything. Human logic is inherently flawed, therefore any proposition made cannot be refuted or disproven. I propose that the Invisible Hamburger-Man from the Abyss is real. Now, using your human logic, can you disprove his existence? No. Does that mean you cannot disbelieve in him? Of course it doesn't. Nothing can be disbelieved 100%. But that doesn't mean it can't be disbelieved. ~Allan All images begin in mirrors and end inside our subconsious. ~Genesis P-Orridge, "Thee Reversal of Fate" [This message has been edited by Allan Riverwood (03-02-2002 12:08 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Allan, I never meant that you do not disbelieve in God... I'm just trying to penetrate something... I think God has given much more credence to belief than the "hamburger man from the abyss". The reasons to even suspect his existence are myriad. It's funny isn't it that millions and millions believe in God (who are sane and intelligent), but not many believe in "hamburger man". Just saying that to say there is a difference between the assertion of God's existence, and the absurdly implausible. Another point here... I myself know this to be true from personal experience ... No one wholly doubts God's existence. The most rigid atheist doubts his doubts. Sure these intimations of God may get calloused over and painted into a corner as the years go by... But they will always come out eventually in one form or another. There is a deep and inescapable knowledge in every individual that we will face him. You may say that I'm resorting to scare tactics, but it's just the truth. I just believe that everyone knows... Romans 1:19 bears this out, saying "what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them". That's why often my plea is not so much "Believe", as "Be honest". Don't get me wrong, I do think the knowledge of God can be buried so deep that a person has decieved even himself... but this is a temporary situation with everyone. Not trying to be rude or argumentative, becuase I was self deceived for a long time myself. Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Stephan, That's just a strange way of looking at things. Initial assertions and assumptions are necessary for thought, not for God. You're confusing certainty and possibility. Brad |
||
|
Allan Riverwood
since 2001-01-04
Posts 3502Winnipeg |
Yeah, "Scare Tactics" came to mind. Stephen, my example wasn't meant to be applied literally. I meant theoretically, if you were to use the argument that you gave, you couldn't disprove the existence of anything proposed. And that's isolating the argument that disproving of anything is impossible. You can't use that argument to support any single standpoint above any other. And as for your statement that everyone believes, deep down inside, in the existence of God? Well, the thing is, there are people who aren't intelligent enough to realize that nothing is concrete. Many atheists or agnostics lack the mental capacity or capability to doubt themselves, because they don't understand the concept of 100% sureness being an impossibility. I don't agree that everyone is willing to doubt themselves, because not everyone knows that they should. Furthermore, just because a notion is popular, doesn't mean I'm going to adapt to it. Millions and millions of people worldwide are Christians, so how could they possibly all be wrong? Well, millions and millions of people worldwide are also rascist and sexist. It doesn't make it the most logical selection of lifestyle, nor does it even make either option seem more plausable. I'm intelligent enough to realize that I cannot be 100% sure of anything. But that doesn't mean I should be skeptical of absolutely every aspect of my life. The reason I disbelieve is that I refuse to accept things as fact just because they are indesputable notions. If you told me there was a dinosaur waiting outside of my house to eat me... despite the fact that I can neither prove nor disprove your statement, I would still disbelieve you. If there's room for reasonable doubt, I will make it. If it outweighs reasonable proof, I will disbelieve. That's just how it works, at least for me. ~Allan All images begin in mirrors and end inside our subconsious. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
The whole issue of humanity's free-will and God's sovereignty has been wrestled with for centuries. Impossibly we have tried to comprehend the data of God (who BTW as Ron mentioned is not limited to time, as he created it) within a mortal mind. So what do we get? One or the other. But God affirms both, his foreknowledge, and man's choice. Two sides of a coin that we cannot hold in order to turn it... So we see it as an enigma and have no understanding of it's worth. Debates like this always have an underlying current leading somewhere else. Not saying that this is the case here, but I've seen the Justice of God as the real issue. If God is all-knowing and all sovereign, then he is to be blamed for all of this evil, and also for my rejection of him (denying my freewill). Or if God was all-knowing why did he allow all of this bad stuff to happen? Or He can't be all knowing in light of all humankind has done... so he's not really God. (denying his sovereignty). Not saying this is the case here, but I have seen people more than ready to question his benevolence and goodness, but slow to question their own intents. God is love, and if we could only see his perfect design (which we will someday) we would be at peace about his character, despite such mind-boggling questions. (I still have to admit they can be great fun to ponder!) Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, I'm talking on a couple of different levels here. When I speak of assertions... yes I am speaking on the human plane of thought, reason, and concept. But when I speak of everyone deep down believing in God... I am speaking of HIS work in the humanity that he created. He has placed a seal of ownership in everyone. This transcends "assertion". He himself will confirm that He "is". However, in our finite, imperfect, and sinful state, he condescends into to the realm of thought and reason, and urges us toward himself. "Come let us reason together saith the LORD". So yeah, I am dealing with "possiblity" in the mind of those not yet sure, but from the eternal mind of God, there is absolute "certainty". Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-02-2002 01:05 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Allan, You said... "Furthermore, just because a notion is popular, doesn't mean I'm going to adapt to it. Millions and millions of people worldwide are Christians, so how could they possibly all be wrong?" I wasn't even implying that you should believe in Christ because of numbers. Actually most of the world at present doesn't believe. I just mentioned the "millions" to contrast your example of a totally implausible assertion (the hamburger man from hades) with that of God. Very few believe in this hamburger man and those who do are incarcerated. I never urge anyone to believe just because others do... You must know it's true for yourself... we are in agreement here. You also said... "the thing is, there are people who aren't intelligent enough to realize that nothing is concrete. Many atheists or agnostics lack the mental capacity or capability to doubt themselves, because they don't understand the concept of 100% sureness being an impossibility." First of all, I don't believe this statement... that nothing is 100% knowable. I've heard it many times, but I see no basis to actually believe it. First of all if nothing is knowable, then doubt is cast on the fact that "nothing is knowable". How are you so sure that "nothing is 100% sure". If that's true, then it's probably not true. I know the lame sort of answers that come... well we can be 99.94% sure like Ivory Soap. Well isn't that saying the same thing as 100%? This type of thinking is more widespread in recent years. And there are many intelligent men and women who don't believe it. Here's one for you... Don't you know for certain that you exist Allan? Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-02-2002 01:22 AM).] |
||
|
Allan Riverwood
since 2001-01-04
Posts 3502Winnipeg |
quote: Probably not true? Try possibly not true. Just because something is possibly not true, doesn't mean that we can't believe it for ourselves. quote: You say this of God like it's not true of anything else. The impossibility of 100% sureness goes far beyond just God. What we see in the world is a product of our own interperetation of sensory stimulus, which means that everything that we see and hear is translated in our brain. And the human brain is imperfect. Were it perfect, all of our brains would have to be identical (as to differ from perfection is to be imperfect). Basically, human reasoning is flawed. And as such, no, we can't be 100% sure even that we exist. There is no such thing as absolute sureness, except for in people too idiotic to doubt themselves. ~Allan All images begin in mirrors and end inside our subconsious. ~Genesis P-Orridge, "Thee Reversal of Fate" [This message has been edited by Allan Riverwood (03-02-2002 12:16 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Allan and Stephan, Guys, play nice. No doubt everyone knows that I side with Allan in this, but I have to point out that Stephan is not idiotic and he's absolutely sure of his beliefs. Allan, We are taking a position but there are people smarter than you or I (and smarter than you and I combined) who absolutely believe in absolute certainty. The weakness of our position is that we can't simply assert we are right (because that would be a contradiction); no, the only thing we can do is keep talking, keep looking, keep thinking that there might be something better out there. The only way we can do this is to apply it and see what happens. It's easy to throw this into the mix (the against certainty argument), it's hard to keep it up. Brad |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Thanks Brad, that needed to be said. I appreciate the honesty. Allan, I never said I didn't doubt anything. I just don't doubt everything. I do believe in absolute certainty. It is possible, and in the pragmatic sense, inevitable. You can say from some philosophical/ metaphysical standpoint that nothing is certain, but as you yourself said, you don't live that way. You at least "pretend" that some things are certain for practical reasons. But what I am saying turns this concept... I believe there are things that you believe absolutely (your own existence being one example), but you "pretend" it isn't absolutely certain only in a metaphysical sense. But You see that this is completely theoretical. Never do you practically doubt your existence in every day life... do you? And logic says that for you to doubt your existence, you MUST exist. Any argumentation against this is merely metaphysical pedantics... no matter how "enlightened" it sounds. If we disagree here, this is no big thing... I am still glad you practice day to day as if you surely believed certain things to be true. The subject of God comes to this in my mind... If a life preserver is thrown to you while drowning, I don't think you will doubt the need of it, much less the existence of it. God is kind of like this ... it is not ridiculously implausible that he may exist (to some it is quite implausible, even unthinkable that he does not), so when a moment of spiritual crisis arises, and the need for salvation presents itself (and it will for everyone), he is sometimes called upon and sought. And it has been the testimony of many that he turned out to be very real indeed. And yet this is a matter of faith... until he is revealed to a person's heart by faith, he remains a stumbling block, an enigma, and something to be shunned. But the testimony of God's reality is merely a witness to the truth by those who have seen it. I can no sooner prove God to you than make the moon disappear by wishing it to be gone. Even logic cannot prove God to anyone. Though I believe that logic lends to the credence of God's existence, the best it can do is make it seem worthy of serious consideration... to suggest it is plausible. That's why Christianity is ultimately based upon faith and then revelation. A revelation that will be given for those who honestly seek (with no self-dictation) the truth. Jesus says to Peter "Who do you say that I am?". Peter answers "The Christ, the son of the living God". Jesus replies, "Blessed are you Peter... for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you". Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-04-2002 12:41 AM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Stephen stated, "That's why Christianity is ultimately based upon faith and then revelation. A revelation that will be given for those who honestly seek (with no self-dictation) the truth." I honestly sought the truth and not for my own glory or for my own selfishness, but because I wanted to know the truth in order to live the way the creator desired me to live. But my truth that I found is different than yours. So who knows the truth? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jesus said... " . . .For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice". (John 18:37) |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Stephanos quoted Christ, "For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice". - But what I believe to be what Christ taught as the truth isn't the same as what you believe Christ taught to be the truth...so whose truth is the true truth? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Stephan and Opeth, And you guys wonder why I argue that the search for TRUTH is an impossible game? The only way out of the game is revelation but then you have the problem of two different revelations in opposition to each other and then you're in exactly the same game again or/and we end up killing each other. Stephan said: I never said I didn't doubt anything. I just don't doubt everything. I do believe in absolute certainty. It is possible, and in the pragmatic sense, inevitable. --How so? Absolute certainty is a concept. In the pragmatic sense, we neither worry about certainty nor contingency. We simply do what we do do and these two ideas remain unthought in our daily lives. Only at certain points, do they move to the forefront. Does anybody really sit in front of a computer screen and think, "I am absolutely certain that I am typing on my computer right now."? --It is simply not an issue pragmatically. "You can say from some philosophical/ metaphysical standpoint that nothing is certain, but as you yourself said, you don't live that way. You at least "pretend" that some things are certain for practical reasons." --You don't have to pretend anything because you don't think about it. When you drive a car, do you really think about turning the wheel a certain many degrees will result in the car turning a certain direction? Neither side of this coin is pragmatic, they are both questions of philosophy. In fact, the moment you do begin to think about it, the might begin to doubt it. Don't confuse the way we consciously think about living our lives and the way we actually live our lives. "But what I am saying turns this concept... I believe there are things that you believe absolutely (your own existence being one example), but you "pretend" it isn't absolutely certain only in a metaphysical sense." --Doubting one's existence is simply doubting one's previous ways of thinking about existence. It's the difference between believing in permanence and contingency. If you stare at the snow on a broken television for a long time, shapes begin to appear. Do they exist? Do they exist on the screen? Do they exist in my mind? That they exist is irrefutable from your point of view, and the same can be said for my personal existence. But that doesn't mean much, does it? My self may have no more substance than that jumping rabbit I see on the screen. --Does that mean existence in the way that you want to imply, Stephan? "But You see that this is completely theoretical." --Both sides are completely theoretical. Metaphysical pedantics slices both ways. Brad [This message has been edited by Brad (03-05-2002 03:39 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, you said, "you guys wonder why I argue that the search for TRUTH is an impossible game? The only way out of the game is revelation but then you have the problem of two different revelations in opposition to each other" I never meant that merely personal revelation is the whole answer. I believe a great part of it is one's experience with Christ... hence personal revelation. This is always balanced with revealed truth in scripture. You may say that anyone can interpret it any way they wish? Perhaps, but it will be obvious for anyone who reads it for themselves. Go ahead Brad, read the scriptures (especially the New Testament Gospels, and the epistles), and tell me how far you can scripturally go (without absurdity) from the simple truth that Salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ. Maybe it can be argued, but not very well from scripture. Scripture has it's own message... it's not as cloudy as some would make it. I'll respond to your "uncertainty argument" a little later (don't have the time now). Opheth, your "different" truth, I am still unsure of. I merely know that salvation comes through Jesus Christ and only through him. The scriptures do not vary from this, regardless of doctrines about Hell, the Sabbath, the trinity, or whatever. Wranglings are useless if we don't get this foundation right. The question is, have we trusted Christ Jesus unto salvation? Are you saved? If you are saved, then there is no such thing as a different truth. He is the truth incarnate. Truth is a person... Know him and then doctrines have their important secondary place. My prayers are that you and I both may know him ... Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Stephan, "You may say that anyone can interpret it any way they wish?" Hmmmm, when did I say or imply that? The only way that would be possible would be to assume that we are the ones outside of time and space -- playing God again -- and that's certainly not what I want to say. Humans are historically situated creatures, we are limited to our background, our situation, and to those around us. This necessarily means that we can't interpret things anyway we want. Or put another way, if somebody wants to say we can interpret it anyway we wish (and many do, I agree), it is the wish that can't be wished for. Brad |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, I think you may be taking this out of context... When I spoke about people not being able to interpret scripture "any way they want" ... I meant that they cannot do so and still be right with God. The sad part is that multitudes do interpret the way they want. I myself am subject to bending the truth of God through my own lens. Now I feel that you'll say that we're more than merely subject to this, but bound to do it. It's the same existential argument that goes as such... everything we perceive is filtered through ourselves... imperfect vessles... Imperfect sensory receptors. And I agree to a point. But in my mind it is less of an infirmity and more of a rebellion in us all... it's called sin. By nature we twist and distort truth (and I readily admit our culture and environment play a large part). Romans chapter one describes it as "supressing the truth in unrighteousness". Now I do agree that apart from God's intervention we are trapped in our own paltry understanding of God, life, and reality. Here is where I disagree... the final outcome. I believe that God is able to give us adequate revelation unto salvation. I believe He can (and does) show us things that are TRUE. We can know them from his vantage point, by faith. It all ties in to what you said about the inadequacy of "pedantics". This knowledge of God (for those who attain it) does become second nature. It becomes a point of doing and not merely knowing. It far exceeds intellect. Only when we pull back can it be discussed as "certainty of knowledge"... and we Can do this. But we can do this about anything. I can tell you, even write an essay on how certain I am that I exist. But every morning I just get up and I already exist. (As you do). The knowledge of God is like that. The only purpose of getting into didactics at all is to stir some to search. His truth is a knowledge he gave me and I no sooner question it than I question that the sun is in the sky. But it even goes further than that, the sun itself may be transient and contigent on conditions, but not the eternal God. He is the first cause. I know this gibberish can never convince you that God is real. But perhaps you will meet someone in your day to day walk who knows him in such a way that you will see his light and radience through them. I know it gets tricky with the idea that we can know things from God's vantage point. Because people can always get it wrong and say (with full belief) that they are speaking from his truth. There are those who make great boasts of their own ideas about God. There are those who make great claims of the true things God has said, but do not walk in them, nor in humility. But there are those who walk in truth. I am desirous to be more and more in this last category of those who live it. I just don't want to see you reject truth because there are so many "private" versions of it. As with some differences with Opeth and me... It doesn't matter what either of us say, but what is confirmed by God. I am not pointing you to believe like me, but to search for him. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-07-2002 04:39 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Fair enough, but while you're right that what you say doesn't prove God's existence for me, I certainly don't think what you write is gibberish. I feel pretty confident that I understand your view. I think you would have to say I don't, not really, because I don't feel the way you do. Nevertheless, I can see it as a possibility. But I'm not sure you understand my point yet. People CAN'T believe or interpret what they want because that already implies that they have control over that wanting. Whether you want to call it the unconscious, instinct, genetics, cultural conditioning or whatever, that wanting is outside the control of the conscious self. They say they do, they say they can control it, but practice indicates otherwise. Think of the teen-ager who whines, "Why can't I just do what I want?" but completely oblivious that what they want is determined by an explosion of hormones. I don't think adults ever really escape this oblivion. It just may not be hormones. Again, you use existence without defining a certain type of existence and without defining a certain type of existence, existence just doesn't mean all that much. I am not taking a half-way position here. If I give up God (even tentatively), I give up the soul, on a fully coherent, unified self, on even a lens from where 'I' can see, because that self-image of the 'I' comes into question (the 'I' becomes the effect, not the cause of other factors, but that 'I' can then cause things to happen. I'm redescribing the everyday world, not positing a different one). I can show how this position works, I can show how the things we do everyday backs this up, and I can show how a certain historical movement has attempted to cover it up (de-emphasize -- no one really denies that these things don't happen), but the examples I give will be so obvious, so completely common sensical, that most people will think I'm being silly. And will necessarily cover up (de-emphasize)other aspects that give credence to your view. So, while I believe this, I still believe that there's no way to be certain. I can't prove it to you because our beginning assumptions are different. What I'm not convinced of is that this is a bad thing. A good example would be poetry and the endless arguments between form and content. It always seems that you have to choose one or the other: content is more important than form (the more common position) or form is more important than content (the 'elitist' position perhaps), but why do we have to choose either? Does it really matter when you are actually reading a poem? Yes, it does. But we forget that the poem is a poem and the form/content distinction is an abstraction. I think we should read the poem in multiple ways and thereby read multiple poems and, if it's any good, gain multiple thoughts and experiences from these multiple readings. TRUTH, the right answer, gets in the way of that. ============================ If this makes any sense (Stephan, I bet I can out-gibberish you any day of the week), you can see that I'm not interested in convincing you of my position (though I wouldn't mind if you conceded its plausibility), I want to talk and discuss things precisely because you work from different assumptions, I can gain from these discussions even if nobody ever convinces anybody of anything. How can I gain? By reading the poem again and again and again. Brad |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ha, if you want to read a few examples of what I'm talking about (the idea of self-control, self-determination, lack of soul etc.), take a look at Ron's post in P. Gloom's facade thread. The only difference is that Ron still implies and I think still believes that there's something underneath all those masks. I don't. Maybe. Brad |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
