[SERIOUS] Is Kidicious getting dumber?

[Jon Miller]

2) we have no faculty to distinguish natural and supernatural events

Yes, this is obvious. I am always amazed that people don't understand this.

There is no way for a pure empiricist to do this at least.

God appearing to you and speaking to you as a not repeatable event would be disregarded as not part of reality for a pure empiricist.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Well, then it would mean that he is not all-powerful.

I believe that what you just expressed is a thesis that can be consistent, however not with omnipotence.

Yes with omnipotence. There is nothing stopping God from changing this universe for another.

JM

[Kidlicious]

If God is beyond the law, then

1) there is no restriction on what can be said about him

Agreed, but what if God makes his truth known to us through the subjective? You put unwarranted importance on what people say and not what they can know subjectively, which can't be explained with language.

2) we have no faculty to distinguish natural and supernatural events

Sorry, please explain. Are you saying we don't know the laws?

[Aeson]

How so?

What does 'going back in time' mean?

Quite obviously in his case he is referring to going to a point in time where you now know what is going to happen. I am simply saying you couldn't go back to that hypothetical point in time unless the entire timeline (or at least the portion he's moving around in) is predestined.

[Fake Boris]

Yes with omnipotence. There is nothing stopping God from changing this universe for another.

JM

So:

1) God has made decisions in advance concerning everything, but:
2) He can change them.

You might as well say the universe is deterministic...

[Fake Boris]

Sorry, please explain. Are you saying we don't know the laws?

No, this is what you're saying.

[Jon Miller]

So:

1) God has made decisions in advance concerning everything, but:
2) He can change them.

You might as well say the universe is deterministic...

No, because there is no evidence that He has changed the universe.

And even this doesn't mean that the universe we live in is completely determined (obviously it is somewhat determined).

JM

[Kidlicious]

No, this is what you're saying.

Um ... no. I'm using language, so I know that using the words conveys meaning in a conversation. What are you talking about. I'm also familiar with what Jon said. Is that what you mean? What's your point?

[Fake Boris]

No, because there is no evidence that He has changed the universe.

And even this doesn't mean that the universe we live in is completely determined (obviously it is somewhat determined).

JM

Before we even get into the topic of what would be evidence of a divine intervention (something we have already mentioned), it does follow from what you said that whatever happens has been decided by God. You're begging the question; he made all decisions in advance, but if something changes, it's still his decision.

As I said, any theory about God that is not entirely deterministic requires to postulate layers of reality that don't pass Occam's razor.

[loinburger]

Um ... no. I'm using language, so I know that using the words conveys meaning in a conversation.

You mean the words that you arbitrarily redefine, often using contradictory definitions?

[Kidlicious]

Boris,

In a sense there is no difference between natural and supernatural. But what is your point about maintaining consistancy?

[Jon Miller]

Before we even get into the topic of what would be evidence of a divine intervention (something we have already mentioned), it does follow from what you said that whatever happens has been decided by God. You're begging the question; he made all decisions in advance, but if something changes, it's still his decision.

As I said, any theory about God that is not entirely deterministic requires to postulate layers of reality that don't pass Occam's razor.

Huh? That doesn't pass Occam's razor? How in the world are you trying to misuse it?

Just because all of God's actions were determined when the universe existed, doesn't mean that our actions are without choice on our part.

Try to view time as a another dimension instead only as a series of causes/effects.

JM

[Kidlicious]

You also said "if god is beyond the laws ..." Are you suggesting that he's not? How then could he create the laws?

[Elok]

Ah well humans shouldn't judge God. You're asking for trouble.

Did I say I was the one judging God?

I still don't understand why you don't accept the lesson that you shouldn't oppose God and/or his prophet. Care to explain?

When did I say that? You said Loin was being dishonest when he said "they were only making fun of his baldness." I said that on the contrary, Loin was giving a very fair reading of the text; I don't believe that the text provides good support for an argument that they were doing anything but insulting him for being bald. I don't believe that one should oppose God and/or a prophet thereof, but the passage doesn't indicate they were opposing him as a prophet. It's possible the kids in question didn't know he was a prophet at all. I imagine that, had they known he was a genuine prophet with the power to call down the wrath of God in ursine form, they would have been a bit more respectful.

Otherwise I still consider this a troll by loinburger who is on my ignore list. So please put whatever you got on the table, because my intererest is limited.

I posted in Loin's defense largely because he was on your ignore list, concerning only the narrow distinction I just elaborated on above. It's only fair, I think, to defend a true statement, regardless of who makes it.

[Elok]

Huh? That doesn't pass Occam's razor? How in the world are you trying to misuse it?

Just because all of God's actions were determined when the universe existed, doesn't mean that our actions are without choice on our part.

Try to view time as a another dimension instead only as a series of causes/effects.

JM

Within this context only: Boethius