Hall of wit and epicness.

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

I have noticed this on occasion.

[Cyberman]

I was just making a joke, that's all. I won't bother again.

[RoadRunner79]

I was just making a joke, that's all. I won't bother again.

I don't think the issue is with what you said.... if it wasn't for the cheer squad making it out to be much more, I would have likely not said anything.

[Edwardo Piet]

What makes it epic?  Is it; because, it wasn't concerning any point, that Neo was making.   Also the analogy, seems to completely miss the point!

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!

^^^This guy gets it^^^

And,
Yeah, it was a knock down argument and hilarious all at once.

[Catholic_Lady]

I was just making a joke, that's all. I won't bother again.

I don't think the issue is with what you said.... if it wasn't for the cheer squad making it out to be much more, I would have likely not said anything.

Yeah same here. I get Stimbo was just joking around.

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

Nope. Playing word games with Eternalism won't do Neo any good. Cyberman's analogy was spot on. Remember,  Neo literally said the following:

One possible way of looking at it is this. If all of time is fully present to God then God doesn't know now what you will do in the future because he already knows it then. That means he is only aware of the choice you make exactly at the time you make it. It's kind of a mind bender, I know but it has a certain sense about it.

My bold. But those are his own words. He literally said the part I bolded.

All of time being fully present is just the same thing as saying the present is all that exists... which means God can't predict a thing.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

Nope. Playing word games with Eternalism won't do Neo any good. Cyberman's analogy was spot on. Remember,  Neo literally said the following:

One possible way of looking at it is this. If all of time is fully present to God then God doesn't know now what you will do in the future because he already knows it then. That means he is only aware of the choice you make exactly at the time you make it. It's kind of a mind bender, I know but it has a certain sense about it.

My bold. But those are his own words. He literally said the part I bolded.

All of time being fully present is just the same thing as saying the present is all that exists... which means God can't predict a thing.

That's because he doesn't have to predict anything. He already knows it. Because our past, present, and future are to Him all present. Besides, I wasn't even advocating that position.

[Edwardo Piet]

That's because he doesn't have to predict anything. He already knows it.

That's just playing with semantics again... because the whole point is that He doesn't know the future though. Like you said He ONLY knows the future when it's present to Him... which means He only knows the future when it isn't the future. It's like having the 'amazing' ability to 'know' the lottery numbers when you see the results on TV...... it's literally identical to not knowing the future.

---

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.

That's not very fair.

I, for example, am not trying to continue to ridicule a point that is not being made. I am just of the opinion that Neo isn't able to make the point he's trying to make because it's not as logically coherent as he thinks it is... and what he's actually saying (rather than what he's trying to say) is indeed what I have been saying he is saying.

[Aoi Magi]

hmm, this is all very interesting and all, but I was just wondering why you people are hijacking this particular thread when the discussion can very well be carried out in the original thread?