How do Christians comprehend the iconic duo of free will and predestination?

Started by Goon, October 03, 2017, 12:37:53 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Baruch

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 30, 2017, 09:46:00 PM
Omniscience, nor the understanding there of, is limited to word games or parlor tricks.

Is that all you got?  Looks like mere words to me.  Is your living hand all the proof you need?  Works for me.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

popsthebuilder

Quote from: SGOS on October 29, 2017, 08:32:57 PM
Actually, article of faith is correct.  Sincere, maybe.  Truthful?  I don't think that qualifies as truth, unless you define truth as belief, but that's incorrect usage.
I do not define truth as belief and I understand actual belief to be lived out through word and action; not for self placement or benifit, or the sight of man.

Cavebear

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 31, 2017, 07:47:08 AM
I do not define truth as belief and I understand actual belief to be lived out through word and action; not for self placement or benifit, or the sight of man.

Ah, but do you define belief as truth?  That is a question many theists struggle with more.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

SGOS

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 31, 2017, 07:47:08 AM
I do not define truth as belief and I understand actual belief to be lived out through word and action; not for self placement or benifit, or the sight of man.
Cavebear responded to this.  I can't because I don't know what you are talking about: 
QuoteI understand actual belief to be lived out through word and action; not for self placement or benifit, or the sight of man.

How does a grandiose description of a personal ethic justify that truth ≠ belief?  It sounds like a statement of humility, and that's fine and all, but non sequitur in logic is not considered good form.  At a minimum, parts of arguments have to relate to each other.

This sort of argument is typical theism, a bold statement followed by lots of words that sound all highfalutin' draw the observer's attention away from the issue under question, giving the observer something mysterious to ponder as the theist attempts to ward off rebuttal.  Whenever the theist loses his own train of thought, confusion and intellectual chaos is the result.

Cavebear

Quote from: SGOS on October 31, 2017, 09:13:32 AM
Cavebear responded to this.  I can't because I don't know what you are talking about: 
How does a grandiose description of a personal ethic justify that truth ≠ belief?  It sounds like a statement of humility, and that's fine and all, but non sequitur in logic is not considered good form.  At a minimum, parts of arguments have to relate to each other.

This sort of argument is typical theism, a bold statement followed by lots of words that sound all highfalutin' draw the observer's attention away from the issue under question, giving the observer something mysterious to ponder as the theist attempts to ward off rebuttal.  Whenever the theist loses his own train of thought, confusion and intellectual chaos is the result.

Not to get off the subject, but how did you do that not equals sign thing?  Are there still the old DOS numerics available?

But aside from that, the basic style of theistic arguments IS evasion.  They can't get around the facts these days, so they resort to (as my Dad used to say - "Dilly, Dally. Dodge, and Dolittle") which is why I sort of assume they will gradually vanish like flat-earthers. 

And the sooner the quicker...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

SGOS

Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2017, 09:29:47 AM
Not to get off the subject, but how did you do that not equals sign thing?  Are there still the old DOS numerics available?

But aside from that, the basic style of theistic arguments IS evasion. 
Yes, but when I said it, it took more words.

As for the ≠ sign, I will admit I have no clue how it was originally done, so awhile back I scrolled over someone else's, copied it and put in a text file of similar things that I could paste into my own writings.

Here's another one...  "luminiferous æther."  I could never figure out how they squish the a and e together.  For that matter I don't know why the ancients started squishing them in the first place.  What's the point in squishing perfectly good letters together?  Just to seem all intellectual, I suppose.

Cavebear

Quote from: SGOS on October 31, 2017, 09:42:42 AM
Yes, but when I said it, it took more words.

As for the ≠ sign, I will admit I have no clue how it was originally done, so awhile back I scrolled over someone else's, copied it and put in a text file of similar things that I could paste into my own writings.

Here's another one...  "luminiferous æther."  I could never figure out how they squish the a and e together.  For that matter I don't know why the ancients started squishing them in the first place.  What's the point in squishing perfectly good letters together?  Just to seem all intellectual, I suppose.

Copied and saved?  As my Aussie friends would say "gobsmacked"!  I could never keep a file alive for great stuff like that.

The "ae" thing is a slightly different vowel, like "ei" in either. (between "ee" and "ii" if I understand it right.    Picked that up from a linguistics book.  Supposedly there are at least a few dozen different vowels (see the details on the bottom of a good printed dictionary).

There isn't a "purpose" to it any more than there is to evolution, but different places develop slightly different versions in each language.  Which is why it is nearly impossible to "pass" as a native speaker outside your own language.  The vowels give you away.

Eay, govner?



Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

popsthebuilder

Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2017, 07:52:50 AM
Ah, but do you define belief as truth?  That is a question many theists struggle with more.
Warranted belief would indeed be truth to the individual. Faith is indeed in what cannot be readily and easily observed by all; and too is still truth and has been proven to be such on a multitude of levels; all within an individual or personal perspective or experience. Truth of a metaphysical or spiritual sort is, by definition, not physically verifiable through any third party.

Rome form of Quantum mechanics indeed seems true yet is not readily and easily observable to all.

Mr.Obvious

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 30, 2017, 09:46:00 PM
Omniscience, nor the understanding there of, is limited to word games or parlor tricks.

Are you saying that omniscience doesn't apply to what is logically incoherent or paradoxal in nature?
Like, God not being able create a square circle is not a sign of him being omnipotent because its a logical inconsistency embodying two traits that cancel eachother out?
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

popsthebuilder

Quote from: SGOS on October 31, 2017, 09:13:32 AM
Cavebear responded to this.  I can't because I don't know what you are talking about: 
How does a grandiose description of a personal ethic justify that truth ≠ belief?  It sounds like a statement of humility, and that's fine and all, but non sequitur in logic is not considered good form.  At a minimum, parts of arguments have to relate to each other.

This sort of argument is typical theism, a bold statement followed by lots of words that sound all highfalutin' draw the observer's attention away from the issue under question, giving the observer something mysterious to ponder as the theist attempts to ward off rebuttal.  Whenever the theist loses his own train of thought, confusion and intellectual chaos is the result.
No.

I do not mean to draw away from the subject or point.

Ask specific questions and get answers.

Upon receiving answers; ask further questions, or for more specifics.

Do you expect me to be pinpoint precise on a subject that literally encompasses all,  without first pointing out some intended direction?

Don't think I am looking to distract....ever.

Cavebear

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 31, 2017, 10:37:14 AM
Warranted belief would indeed be truth to the individual. Faith is indeed in what cannot be readily and easily observed by all; and too is still truth and has been proven to be such on a multitude of levels; all within an individual or personal perspective or experience. Truth of a metaphysical or spiritual sort is, by definition, not physically verifiable through any third party.

Rome form of Quantum mechanics indeed seems true yet is not readily and easily observable to all.

See?  "warranted".  There always has to be a shade of twist in the argument by theists.

"proven to be such on a multitude of levels"  Really?  prove it.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: SGOS on October 31, 2017, 09:42:42 AM
Yes, but when I said it, it took more words.

As for the ≠ sign, I will admit I have no clue how it was originally done, so awhile back I scrolled over someone else's, copied it and put in a text file of similar things that I could paste into my own writings.

Here's another one...  "luminiferous æther."  I could never figure out how they squish the a and e together.  For that matter I don't know why the ancients started squishing them in the first place.  What's the point in squishing perfectly good letters together?  Just to seem all intellectual, I suppose.

In Windows and Mac, there are "additional characters" available thru Character Viewer etc.  These vary from font to font.  Letters with extra jots and tittles, of scrunched together ... that is French influence ... "dieu sacré!" ... not just "æ" but "Å"".  Technically these are "ligatures" ... and they exist in non-Latin alphabets (arabic).
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2017, 10:15:27 AM
Copied and saved?  As my Aussie friends would say "gobsmacked"!  I could never keep a file alive for great stuff like that.

The "ae" thing is a slightly different vowel, like "ei" in either. (between "ee" and "ii" if I understand it right.    Picked that up from a linguistics book.  Supposedly there are at least a few dozen different vowels (see the details on the bottom of a good printed dictionary).

There isn't a "purpose" to it any more than there is to evolution, but different places develop slightly different versions in each language.  Which is why it is nearly impossible to "pass" as a native speaker outside your own language.  The vowels give you away.

Eay, govner?

Yes, vowels are the key within a given language family (spanish vs portuguese).  Between families, it is often the consonants (arabic).  Other languages use tones.  In Mandarin every syllable can have one of four main tones (or a neutral tone).  The tone changes the meaning in Chinese, and they are still stuck with too many homonyms.

Conjoining adjacent vowels is tricky.  For many languages, you get a diphthong as a result.  In other languages, the vowels stay separate.  In other cases it might go both ways, and you need an apostrophe to identify adjacent vowels that are kept separate.  A, E, AE or A'E.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on October 31, 2017, 01:38:40 PM
In Windows and Mac, there are "additional characters" available thru Character Viewer etc.  These vary from font to font.  Letters with extra jots and tittles, of scrunched together ... that is French influence ... "dieu sacré!" ... not just "æ" but "Å"".  Technically these are "ligatures" ... and they exist in non-Latin alphabets (arabic).

I've looked but I don't have those AFAIK.  And I have looked at a lot of fonts.  But maybe not the right ones.  Thank you, I'll check deeper.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: SGOS on October 31, 2017, 09:42:42 AM
Yes, but when I said it, it took more words.

As for the ≠ sign, I will admit I have no clue how it was originally done, so awhile back I scrolled over someone else's, copied it and put in a text file of similar things that I could paste into my own writings.

Here's another one...  "luminiferous æther."  I could never figure out how they squish the a and e together.  For that matter I don't know why the ancients started squishing them in the first place.  What's the point in squishing perfectly good letters together?  Just to seem all intellectual, I suppose.

And culture (the Irish) ... some are laconic, others are loquacious.  This is sometimes forced by the nature of the language ... Japanese and Chinese are naturally chatty.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.