Subject:
|
Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:49:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
912 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> > When dealing with an infinite Creator, the issue is somewhat different, and
> > we may arguably assume that He (It?) has full knowledge of Creation.
>
> Hmm. I'm not particularly convinced that it is necessary, but I'll grant
> the point, since it's a theological underpinning for most christian faiths.
A side thought; what might occur in Creation that is unknown to Him? Is
there somewhere one can go to be out of His view (rhetorical point--not a
real question). Isn't there something in the Bible about noticing the death
of each sparrow (or swallow or something?) Or is that just scholarly musing
not actually in The Bible itself? If it is part of the book, then it suggests
to me that someone envisioned God as being aware of *everything.*
*snip of my ontological rehash*
> Hmm. There's not much I can say to that, because it's a pretty closed loop.
Just for clarity (in the unlikely event that you don't set aside hours of
your day just to read my posts), what I posted isn't actually my view of the
universe; it was more of a thought construct. I agree that it is as
unverifiable as it is provable, and therefore it has little real-world use.
> It doesn't allow the possibility of being wrong. I can conceive (I'm fairly
> certain) of things that our framework of reality can't explain, or denies
> catagorically. I am imperfect. By extension of these two premises, I can
> presumably conceive of things that aren't.
I agree, and that's one of the reasons the Ontological Proof isn't much of
a proof.
> <cutting and pasting from above, to respond to a different aspect of it>
> > To respin the weary ontological argument, a Creator who does not have
> > Absolute Knowledge of His Creation is not as perfect as a Creator who does
> > have such knowledge
>
> Not quite. A Creator who *can not* have Absolute (...)such knowledge. What
> about a Creator who could, and chooses not to?
Agreed, but that comes back to the closed loop problem, since we have no
way to verify or disprove it, and it boils down to the same: whether he
*can* or *can not* have such knowledge, in the situation we're discussing He
*does* not, by choice or otherwise. In any case that sounds sort of like an
escape clause, as if I were playing Trivial Pursuit and missed a question,
and then professed to have known the answer but not to have acted upon it.
This sort of discussion is much more interesting to me than others that
have taken place here recently (along the lines of "I'm right 'cause it's
Science/No, *I'm* right 'cause it's Faith), and therefore I think more can
be learned from this kind of constructive discourse!
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
