Is God omniscient? Start Over.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Jim Dandy said:

I may agree with your statement if I add a little nuance to what I think you are saying.  The sentiments expressed by Brigham Young popped in my mind, back when he was expressing how he felt about dead prophets in relation to Joseph as living then. 

But mostly I feel an deep and abiding appreciation for former prophets, which I think is a little bit strange when considering the little I know about them.   Mostly all I know is that they lived and said something close to our translations of their statements.  I'm sure they all had some weaknesses and flaws, as most mortals do, but from their statements I can see that they learned a lot and shared their knowledge which they received from God in the name of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Ghost.  They wrote mainly to share their testimony of him, as I am sure you know.  They didn't write to boast of themselves or their own personal thoughts and accomplishments.  They spoke for the Lord in the name of the Lord.  Real people.  True people.  Not some writers making up stories from their imaginations.  

It's interesting to me that you chose to reference Psalm 115.  A statement written by someone who lived many, many years ago to praise the Lord and extol others to praise him too.  Why that particular testimony?

⁹ All you Israelites, trust in the Lord—    he is their help and shield.
¹⁰ House of Aaron, trust in the Lord—    he is their help and shield.
¹¹ You who fear him, trust in the Lord—    he is their help and shield.

¹² The Lord remembers us and will bless us:    He will bless his people Israel,  he will bless the house of Aaron,
¹³ he will bless those who fear the Lord—    small and great alike.

¹⁴ May the Lord cause you to flourish,  both you and your children.
¹⁵ May you be blessed by the Lord,   the Maker of heaven and earth.

¹⁶ The highest heavens belong to the Lord,  but the earth he has given to mankind.
¹⁷ It is not the dead who praise the Lord,  those who go down to the place of silence;
¹⁸ it is we who extol the Lord, both now and forevermore.

Praise the Lord.

 

May we all praise the Lord both now and forevermore.

Yeah, I meant to edit that post, and forgot, it was unfinished. Busy day and waning enthusiasm 

PSALM 115

³ But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

⁴ Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.

⁵ They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:

⁶ They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:

⁷ They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.

⁸ They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.

 

History addiction does not rely on human testimony, it relies on the works of men: ie history, it is an idol made filtered through someone else's mind, not your own testimony.

Direct experience can be unfiltered, LIKE surprise.  It just happens and we KNOW it is from God, it is not literature. We know it is wrong to kill people for fun without asking or finding it in history, or looking it up somewhere

We know a testimony is from outside our minds or it is not a testimony.

Our church, based on personal revelation is based on living testimony, not dead history.

It is TRUE and LIVING and from God, not in man made HIS STORY

History speaks, but it is dead.

Truth is not based on dead events, but living experience and testimony. All else is seeing reflections of ourselves, in dark mirror, as dead idols, seeking objectivity instead of living experience 

Catch ya later dude! 

Too late for me.

 

[mfbukowski]

It's not like I make this stuff up.

Here's a fabulous article we could discuss if anyone wants to.

Til then!

https://www.religion-online.org/article/empirical-theology-a-revisable-tradition/

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, Jim Dandy said:

Can you see why someone would choose to NOT believe something they haven't seen with their mortal eyes?

This is a category error. You are looking for the "University" and only seeing a collection of buildings. You see people playing instruments but don't see the "band".

Want a list of "things" I have NOT seen with my mortal eyes in which I KNOW are true? (They are beneficial paradigms which people call "true")

Church doctrine 

10 commandments

The prodigal son

All humans are created with equal rights.

The later philosophy of Wittgenstein,  Dewey, James, Heraclitus and others

E=MC 2

Light is both a wave and a particle depending on the observer 

Beethoven's music is "beautiful".

I know Jesus died for me, but I have never seen him

I could go on forever

[mfbukowski]

56 minutes ago, Jim Dandy said:

Yes, I can see that.  Can you see why someone would choose to NOT believe something they haven't seen with their mortal eyes? 

And yet apparently you tried Moroni's promise.  Why?

Everyone has a list of things they believe which they have never seen.

What does that have to do with anything?

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Jim Dandy said:

I was talking about people who don't believe in things they have never seen. 

You've been talking about believing in things you have never seen.

This thread is about how much God knows.  I think it's safe to say God believes in whatever and whoever he knows, whether he sees those things now or in the future.

Sorry I guess we got off on the wrong foot.

I have no clue what you are talking about, but at least know that I am vastly comforted that YOU concede that I have "faith in something".

How wonderful.

We have had no communication and I think this last round is absurd.

If anyone else can translate this into a question that THEY could understand and re-ask me the question, I will respond.

I have no clue how sentence one and two above relate to sentence three.  That's just the beginning.

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, Jim Dandy said:

I was talking about people who don't believe in things they have never seen. 

You've been talking about believing in things you have never seen.

Isn't that great!!   We were talking about ME the whole time!! 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by mfbukowski
I was being a jerk

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Jim Dandy said:

hit enter before i was finished with that last sentence.  sure would be nice to have an Edit button to be able to edit my posts.

25 posts and you will

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, Jim Dandy said:

My apologies.  It must be at least partially my fault that you didn't follow my train of thought.  I would like another opportunity to try to share my thoughts as they relate to your thoughts as I understand them from your statements.  I will now start over.

I am now beginning by stating that I believe God knows every thing, and because of this belief I was intrigued by this thread when I saw it and began to read through it. I wondered what others would say on this topic.

When I got to your posts wherein you were explaining your sig regarding Rorty I was further intrigued with curiosity and wonder with how you could believe "Things are not true or false- only descriptions or statements or sentences can be true or false" 

I asserted that was a false premise according to what I have been taught about truth.  I said you seem to believe that premise is true.  I then asked how do you propose we reach a consensus about whether or not that premise is true and I said that until we agree (I meant on that point) we will not agree on that point. 

I was primarily interested in understanding how you could believe that statement, and I shared some thoughts which I believe showed how that belief could not be true from some other perspectives. You then shared some other thoughts that I did not understand in relation to what I had asked you and told you.  From my perspective as I view reality or what is real I see that things ARE either true or false.  Things either exist in reality or they do not exist in reality.  There is both fiction and non-fiction in reality as well as in literature.  The Book of Mormon is true because it is a work of non-fiction rather than fiction.  They people mentioned in that book were real, true, living people rather than fictitious characters created in someone's imagination.

So I will now re-ask you the question I really wanted you to answer when I created my account on this website to communicate with you:  Do you really believe "only descriptions or statements or sentences can be true or false" ?

If you still really believe that, I think you should give that some more thought, and I would be happy to see you express some more thoughts as you think more about that.  Who knows, maybe all of our perceptions of reality are true.

Hi Ahab!

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Jim Dandy said:

My apologies.  It must be at least partially my fault that you didn't follow my train of thought.  I would like another opportunity to try to share my thoughts as they relate to your thoughts as I understand them from your statements.  I will now start over.

I am now beginning by stating that I believe God knows every thing, and because of this belief I was intrigued by this thread when I saw it and began to read through it. I wondered what others would say on this topic.

When I got to your posts wherein you were explaining your sig regarding Rorty I was further intrigued with curiosity and wonder with how you could believe "Things are not true or false- only descriptions or statements or sentences can be true or false" 

I asserted that was a false premise according to what I have been taught about truth.  I said you seem to believe that premise is true.  I then asked how do you propose we reach a consensus about whether or not that premise is true and I said that until we agree (I meant on that point) we will not agree on that point. 

I was primarily interested in understanding how you could believe that statement, and I shared some thoughts which I believe showed how that belief could not be true from some other perspectives. You then shared some other thoughts that I did not understand in relation to what I had asked you and told you.  From my perspective as I view reality or what is real I see that things ARE either true or false.  Things either exist in reality or they do not exist in reality.  There is both fiction and non-fiction in reality as well as in literature.  The Book of Mormon is true because it is a work of non-fiction rather than fiction.  They people mentioned in that book were real, true, living people rather than fictitious characters created in someone's imagination.

So I will now re-ask you the question I really wanted you to answer when I created my account on this website to communicate with you:  Do you really believe "only descriptions or statements or sentences can be true or false" ?

If you still really believe that, I think you should give that some more thought, and I would be happy to see you express some more thoughts as you think more about that.  Who knows, maybe all of our perceptions of reality are true.

These ideas come out of hundreds of years of thought by the best minds God has given us

They are not from a couple of yahoos sharing a beer.  I decided I did not not want to teach philosophy 101 for the rest of my life, and I have kept that promise.  I have now been studying these issues for about 60 years.

Read up on the mind/ body problem

Yes truth or falsity only applies to statements

Edited September 3, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

19 minutes ago, Jim Dandy said:

I'm thinking that maybe the words true and false have an extra special meaning to you.  Do you think the same way about the words fiction and non-fiction?  Suppose true = non-fiction and false = fiction, or convey the same ideas in principle.

Suppose you saw something physical in reality, did not know what it was, and made no statement about it.  Would you think that was a true experience if it actually happened to you?  

You are confused by words here.  "Physical in reality" concludes what the image is, and is question begging,  and depends on what "reality" is and how that thing is "physical" while our church postulates and already concludes that everything is "matter", even energy.   Is lightening physical?   Is light bouncing off a red car "RED"?

Is the experience RED and "physical"??

Experiences are not statements, and therefore cannot be true or false.   Suppose you are driving in the desert and saw WHAT APPEARED TO BE a pool of water on the road, but it turned out to be a mirage.  This is a false interpretation of an experience or optical illusion- your conclusion that the experience indicated water was false..

I am not sure this will make sense to you, but this will say it all better than I can and teach you something about contemporary philosophy, I hope.   These guys are superstars in my world.

If you don't understand it I cannot help you- I suggest philosophy classes or lotsa videos! 

This stuff is not easy for novices-  I wish you well.   I just don't have time to teach you philosophy right now, and it may not be worth it for you.   Wittgenstein himself gave up and believed he had "solved all the possible problems" at one point.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Jim Dandy said:

No, I think you are simply p[laying some other language game than I am.  When communicating I think it's important to try to see from the other's perspective, and I do try to do that with you.

Nice clip of 2 philosophers talking about some other philosopher, by the way.  Overall I'll say I think Wittgenstein had a lot of good ideas and made a lot of good points but, like one of those other philosopher's said, he barely scratched the surface.

When asking what if you saw something physical in reality I was hoping you would understand what I meant within the language game I was in.  I meant something other than a mirage or hallucination. My point was that everything physical is true in the same sense that what is true is non-fiction   I think we are both playing different language games.

"RED" ???  What do you mean by RED ?

That is not true in my language game, but I think I understand what you mean. 

If I chose to play your language game by your rules I can see how I might agree with your statement stating experiences "cannot be true or false", but that is a game I prefer not to play because I like my language game better.  

True, but I didn't ask you what if you saw something like that, which is why I used the words "physical in reality".  Will you answer my question now or, like Wittgenstein, would you think that was nonsense and not understand my language game.

They spoke clearly and I understood what they meant when sharing their perspectives about Wittgenstein.  I think that to understand Wittgenstein we should play the same language games that he did.  I think he would like that.

 

Yes, as I have said we are not communicating due to different language games.  I am glad that seems a bit more clear 

in order to do that we would have to had years of similar experiences

That would take a while.

I am working on a major project at the moment, but this could be a start

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Varieties_of_Religious_Experience

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by mfbukowski