| Subject: My representation |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06/30/02 12:50am
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Time is..." on 06/29/02 9:02pm
My argument and point is a rather simple one.
If something is known, then the thing that is known must be unshakeable. It must not be subject to change; it must be as Socrates put it "something that stays put". If it doesn't stay put, then it isn't something that encapsulates that which is knowledge; it doesn't represent the Form of Knowledge by Platonic thought, and though something can still be knowledge that isn't the Form of Knowledge, it is not as close as real knowledge is to the idea of ultimate truth. Knowledge that doesn't stay put but that may be true is alikened to a reflection in a mirror of an object, the reflection is less real, the object is what stays put, it doesn't change.
Having said that, I don't think it is a drastic jump to say that God should represent the Form Of Knowledge. When he says he knows something it should be something supremely known, something very much like the Form of Knowledge, that which stays put.
Hence, if God says he knows you are going to do action X, if he truly knows it, it must not be subject to change, it must stay put. We must perform action X, or it was never known to begin with.
If you have a better defintion of knowledge that you'd like to use for your point, I'm all ears.
On your example you say that just because we know something doesn't mean it's predestined. I can only assume that is because your defintion of knowledge has some malleability that mine does not. In order to converse about this any further, you're going to have to define what definition it is that you think fits.
In reference to my last point about your analogy you assume that we can travel back in time. I pointed out that this example wasn't very good and you replied that it was no big deal. Well, here is why it's a big deal.
In reality as we experience it, there is only one timeline of which we are aware in which events occur and it happens in a forward motion. If we were to travel back and time and vote for the other candidate and God knows that, then the previous event of our voting for another candidate is overriden; it never happened. Only one timeline exists. We don't have the choice for voting for both of them because we cannot. It is one or the other even if we go back in time. Can we travel back in time and God still know which choice we ultimately will pick? Surely, but that isn't the point. The point is that whether we can travel back in time and the first time through we vote for Al Gore and then we travel back and vote for George Bush it is if the Al Gore vote never happened, and the ultimate timeline that we know of that prevails is one that God knew would prevail.
Since we can't travel back in time, it's a moot point anyway. We have one timeline of which God says he knows what we are going to do. If he truly knows it I ask you or anyone else if there is some way (even with a time machine) or some circumstance in which only one known choice doesn't prevail.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 