Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: aeo6 (aeo6_at_cornell.edu)
Date: 02/23/05 

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:35:16 -0500

Albert said:
> Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
> > Albert said:
> >
> >>Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>Oh, this is a singularly unpopular position I take, nevertheless, I am
> >>>unswayed.
> >>
> >>LOL. Not even when you have been proved wrong by your own words.
> >>
> > Albert, I would love to hear your definition of "proof". It's bound to
> > be very entertaining.
>
> It's certainly been entertaining to me. I suppose in this
> instance a simple legal definition is adequate: Your public
> written confession, when you said:
>
> "In this case the foreknowledge was accurate, and is explained by
> the traveler having gone into the future and returned with
> foreknowledge. This is the source of the Traveler's knowledge,
> and it turns out to be correct. No contradiction there (except
> with realtivity of course)."
>
> The only contradiction seems to be your belief that what is
> possible for a time traveler is impossible for God.
>
>
>
>
Dear God, you're dense.

You had tried to change the subject by turning the problem into one
where the Traveler, or God, was right. There is absolutely no
contradiction demonstrated when God knows what you are going to do. The
foreknowledge and predetermination are the same and in agreement, and
can be explained by God's omniscience.

The problem comes in when you try to introduce this fairy tale called
"free will". The assertion that we are "free" to choose what actions we
take is in direct contradiction to the idea that all is already known by
God, including the actions we will take.

I am not attacking God. Atheists hate this idea as much as anyone else.
I am chipping away at the hubris that humans cling to in their infantile
desire to be at the center of the universe, when there really is no such
thing.

By the way, you didn't define what you consider to constitute proof, but
then I don't expect you to rigorously define any of your terms, for fear
you may uncover contradictions in your thinking. Heaven forfend!! 

-- 
Smiles,
Tony

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... > It's certainly been entertaining to me. ... > The only contradiction seems to be your belief that what is ... > possible for a time traveler is impossible for God. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... > It's certainly been entertaining to me. ... > The only contradiction seems to be your belief that what is ... > possible for a time traveler is impossible for God. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>foreknowledge. ... >>possible for a time traveler is impossible for God. ... > contradiction demonstrated when God knows what you are going to do. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >> where the Traveler, or God, was right. ... The subject was whether absolute foreknowledge can ever ... If you don't see the difference between the Traveler being ... >> contradiction demonstrated when God knows what you are going to do. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >>foreknowledge. ... >>possible for a time traveler is impossible for God. ... > contradiction demonstrated when God knows what you are going to do. ...
    (sci.cognitive)