(May 18, 2017 at 3:31 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(May 18, 2017 at 7:38 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Because it means God is not omniscient. Neo was claiming that omniscience means knowing stuff just after it's happened and that's an internally self-refuting definition.
Sti... Cyber's analogy was witty, funny, elegant, relatable and exposed a flaw that I don't think Neo (and certainly not you) realised was there.
Epic win!
Perhaps Neo can clarify, but I do t think that Neo holds anything against the orthodox and classic understanding of omniscience. What he was discussing was the how God can know the future, in which he was postulating a theory of time, where God is present and knows all points in time. That was my understanding anyway, so as per the norm, I believe the atheist victory dance is pre-mature.
I already explained that same thing to them on the thread where Neo's post came from, but it doesn't matter. Sometimes people would rather continue to ridicule a point that wasn't even the one being made, just for the sake of doing it.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh