 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I think this is a specific instance of a more general principle, one we've stumbled over repeatedly on vastly different topics. A says "I tolerate/enjoy X" B says "I don't tolerate/enjoy X" So far so good. As long as X doesn't intrude on B, B (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I agree with you to an extent, but surely if one wanted discuss, say, God should one not have a more fruitful discussion at alt.god? All lot of the posts in .debate really belong in a .opinion. (...) Fustrated - yes. Mad - No. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: More changes at Paypal
|
|
(...) The ONLY way for two people to exchange wealth without a middle man is to do a direct goods or services for goods or services trade. If you use cash, there is a middleman (the guy who minted the money, and whose guarantee you are depending (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I'm not sure that you're actually wanting an answer to this, since you go on to sarcastically point out things that we all consider negatives, not positives, but I think it's worth exploring. The value to _me_ of .debate is a place to civilly (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: More changes at Paypal
|
|
(...) You are correct, too many of the e-business get treated by consumers as "make hey while the sun shines" type deals. Despite that, I think there is a need for what paypal is providing. However, I see no reason why individuals should not be able (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | respect... (was Re: Polyamory)
|
|
True to form Larry, you have resorted to personal insults. I think one of your countrymen once said: "When people do not respect us we are sharply offended; yet deep down in his private heart no man much respects himself." I largely agree with that (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More changes at Paypal
|
|
(...) Advertising, sure... good idea, but what do you mean when you say "an IPO"? That they should find some sucker investors to buy stock in a company that doesn't have a revenue model and fund operating expenses out of capital, forever? Or did you (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.market.services, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) I haven't failed to answer your point, I merely refuse to play your game. Think about the difference. (...) By the way, in order for me to be concerned about what a person thinks of me (in a particular area), I have to have respect for that (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Yep, that about pegged it. If you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent God, you're kidding yourself if you don't think the ENTIRE game is rigged from femtosecond one to the end. Free Will is nothing but an illusion in that case. Personally, (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Polyamory
|
|
(...) OK. That is, I think, the 3rd time you have abjectly failed to answer that point. I would have thought more of you if you had just not replied - rather than adopt this "holier than thou" attitude. I can't say I'm surprised though. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
