|
Anybody here open to Tarot cards? | by EnzoMatrix | 2007-07-03 01:29:06 |
|
What force is supposed to act upon the cards? | by jeff_uk | 2007-07-03 01:37:36 |
|
Self interpretation. | by EnzoMatrix | 2007-07-03 02:05:38 |
|
So they're just dead organic matter? | by jeff_uk | 2007-07-03 02:11:40 |
|
And yet still... | by EnzoMatrix | 2007-07-03 02:38:30 |
|
For Enzo: a non-secular perspective | by zeitnot | 2007-07-03 04:10:57 |
|
IMO the definition of god | by EnzoMatrix | 2007-07-03 04:57:11 |
|
here's why. [again, non-secular perspective] | by zeitnot | 2007-07-03 05:08:17 |
|
He threw Adam and Eve out of Paradise. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-03 05:21:12 |
|
You're interpreting a metaphor literally | by MatthewDBA | 2007-07-03 05:35:22 |
|
God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-03 05:40:38 |
|
Again you're using the word "would" | by MatthewDBA | 2007-07-03 06:04:42 |
| So, I'm using the word "would". |
by CynicalRyan |
2007-07-03 06:20:38 |
Since God is a hypothetical entity, the usage of "would" is perfectly appropriate, according to the defintion of "subjunctive".
Besides, your argumentation throws one of three attributes the Christian God has, and define Him as God: Omniscience. And as soon as an entity is omniscient, your argument falls apart. He doesn't have to make a distinction between "knowing" and "happening" (not to mention that these aren't necessarily connected), since he does know a given event will happen, and even the point in time this event will happen. That is the very meaning of omniscience: All-knowing. All. Everything. Every little one of our dirty, little secrets. The exact knowledge, when we breathe our last breath. A knowledge that leaves no possibility of "if", "when", or other rhetorical constructions on your or my part, no matter if I use "would" or not. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
If he knows it as it's happening | by MatthewDBA | 2007-07-03 06:30:08 |
|
The German saying would equivalent | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-03 06:39:31 |
|
Offcourse we DO realise | by EnzoMatrix | 2007-07-03 06:49:13 |
|
Written and passed on by man, right | by MatthewDBA | 2007-07-03 06:59:56 |
|
And are probably quite distorted in the Old | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-03 07:06:28 |
|
Quite possibly | by MatthewDBA | 2007-07-03 07:10:36 |
|
That, we do. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-03 07:14:58 |
|
The fact that there is a god maybe... | by EnzoMatrix | 2007-07-03 07:25:13 |
|
Yes, there can. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-03 07:30:12 |
|
Now I see | by MatthewDBA | 2007-07-03 06:50:58 |
|
Not a word, but a saying. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-03 07:05:16 |
|
Again, my interpretation would not | by MatthewDBA | 2007-07-03 07:09:40 |
|
No, I didn't refer to God as all-loving. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-03 07:18:56 |
|
God *wants* people to act | by MatthewDBA | 2007-07-03 07:38:20 |
|
Yes, you made this clear. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-03 07:51:39 |
|
A few nitpicks | by MatthewDBA | 2007-07-03 08:14:41 |
|
A few clarifications: | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-03 08:28:18 |
|
That's a really good question | by MatthewDBA | 2007-07-03 09:07:50 |
|
RE language: Yes, it does. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-03 09:35:18 |
|
You *really really* | by MatthewDBA | 2007-07-03 09:49:24 |
|
*notes down books* | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-03 10:01:23 |
|
If you're "not in that habit" | by MatthewDBA | 2007-07-03 10:08:08 |
|
Well, I'm too fond of certain pleasures | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-03 10:10:39 |
|
*dares CynicalRyan* | by esbita | 2007-07-03 10:17:07 |
