(November 5, 2013 at 4:37 am)bennyboy Wrote: These are not variants of the idea of what it means to think. They are variants in the different concepts the word may represent.
If I say, "I think that boy's name is John," I'm not really formulating ideas about his name. I'm just stating an idea I hold about the person as the name pops into my mind.
If you are arguing that God is basically a name for platonic ideals, then you can use that definition. If you are arguing for a Judeo-Christian God who interacts with people in any way, you cannot.
you only show one use of the word think. there are others that don't imply ignorance. for example:
anticipate- to have as an expectation: we think we won't have any trouble.
reason- to exercise judgment, conception, or inference.
to have a view or opinion- God thinks of himself as supreme over all things.
approve- to view with satisfaction: God doesn't think highly of your actions.
all these are uses of the word think, as a verb BTW.
(November 5, 2013 at 6:28 am)Chas Wrote: No, no, and no.I was attributing certain properties that would debunk his claim to impossibility. he said it is impossible for a timeless God to think, and I showed certain properties he can possess to show he's wrong. when someone makes a claim "God can't do this..." I need only make a claim showing "God can do this" which in turn can only be refuted by showing that's impossible.
You made the following claim: "unlike with us, his knowledge is perfect. he is omniscient."
Provide evidence.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo
-Galileo
