 | | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
Just popping in with another plausible take on the issue of free will vs. God being omniscient-- I like mathematics. I like looking at fractals and examining complex system behavior. I made an algorithm for playing the brickgame at (URL) . I like (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Why not? Omnisicence is commonly defined as "knowing all things." What if the set{all things} changes? Where is it writ in stone that omniscience implies or requires knowledge of the future at all? I've been allowing for that assumption so (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
In response to "Tom Stangl" <toms@netscape.com> in message news:3A3E5530.B9A803...ape.com... Tom, Recently you responded to something I wrote as follows: (...) I agree completely with your assessment, Tom, in that it raises a "larger question" as (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Then it is no longer omniscience. (...) Not to the true definition of omniscience. And if you state God is not omniscient, he really can't be considered God anymore. A creator that does not know his work is not a very good creator. Same goes (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
Steve Thomas wrote in message ... (...) the (...) You're right that I have a problem with (1). However, even leaving that aside, I see a missing step (or implied assumption) between 2 and 3, which is that procreation is the *only* purpose of sex. If (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Agreed. (...) Out of curiosity, how does one show that and to whom does one make such an appeal? Use the example of strategic nuclear holdings. (And as an aside, do you feel differently about tactical nuclear weapons?) (...) I think that this (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: I'm gonna correct myself really quick here, cause I realized I should restate this-- it kinda sounds like I'm going against other things I've already said: (...) Instead I'll say: ALL humans have a (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) See, I knew it had holes. :) Hmm. I don't necessarily hold to the philosophy of predetermination. How does the knowledge of the results of a choice render that choice non-existent? An example of that is that we all know that I replied to Tom's (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Idunno, it's kinda comforting knowing your weird can't be avoided and all there is is to grip your broadsword and have a cry of Valhalla on your lips. Time is an illusion. :-) Bruce (been playing with Castles too much, methinks) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More changes at Paypal
|
|
(...) Money is the accepted measure of value. Sure, you could go back in time to and trade commodities - but that would be crazy. We use money as it a stable measure of value - even better than gold these days. If I look and my bank account over a (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
