100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: did knowledge exist before God | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
the bible does not make mention of many things being created funch, it is implied in the words he created the heavens, it does not go on to say he created galaxies,black holes, etc, it implies he created "all" things that exist.That wolud include angels other heavens or other dimensions, etc. "Tribo" just as you ask me to find in the bible where it said that God was not infinite then you have to find where it says that God created the angels ....also the bible made no mentions of the existence of other dimensions .. that would be considered as being witch craft and delusion Psalm 148 beginning in verse 2 "Praise him, all his angels, praise him all his heavenly hosts. Praise him, sun, and moon, praise him, all you shining stars. Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies. Let them praise the name of the Lord, for he commanded and they were created." All references to things created. "Eljay" ..er.. where does it say that God created the angels during Genesis .."Psalm 148" refers to all things that God created to give him praise |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That means nothing to someone who is not a Christian however. What about the secular issue of the Big Bang? I don't feel that required knowledge by anything or anyone because there was no one. "Krimsa" you still haven't explain how the big bang could take place without knowledge being exchanged or retained by the components involved in creating the bang .. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Main Entry: 1in·fi·nite Pronunciation: \ˈin-fə-nət\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English infinit, from Anglo-French or Latin; Anglo-French, from Latin infinitus, from in- + finitus finite Date: 14th century 1: extending indefinitely : endless <infinite space> 2: immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : inexhaustible <infinite patience> 3: subject to no limitation or external determination knowledge 3 entries found. knowledgeknowledge engineeringself-knowledge Main Entry: knowl·edge Pronunciation: \ˈnä-lij\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English knowlege, from knowlechen to acknowledge, irregular from knowen Date: 14th century 1obsolete : cognizance 2 a (1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1): the fact or condition of being aware of something (2): the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge> c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned <a person of unusual knowledge> 3archaic : sexual intercourse 4 a: the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind barchaic : a branch of learning synonyms knowledge, learning, erudition, scholarship mean what is or can be known by an individual or by humankind. knowledge applies to facts or ideas acquired by study, investigation, observation, or experience <rich in the knowledge of human nature>. learning applies to knowledge acquired especially through formal, often advanced, schooling <a book that demonstrates vast learning>. erudition strongly implies the acquiring of profound, recondite, or bookish learning <an erudition unusual even in a scholar>. scholarship implies the possession of learning characteristic of the advanced scholar in a specialized field of study or investigation <a work of first-rate literary scholarship>. need 2 entries found. need[1,noun]need[2,verb] Main Entry: 1need Pronunciation: \ˈnēd\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English ned, from Old English nīed, nēd; akin to Old High German nōt distress, need, Old Prussian nautin need Date: before 12th century 1: necessary duty : obligation 2 a: a lack of something requisite, desirable, or useful b: a physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism 3: a condition requiring supply or relief 4: lack of the means of subsistence : poverty if you want to debate your question then it must be agreed upon that the above is what is to be understood as definitions of the words used by EVERY other sentient being in this reality. if you choose or want to use your definitions which only you adhere to then there is no basis for debate or discussion' tell me - as an outsider - what do you think of the human race? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if you want to debate your question then it must be agreed upon that the above is what is to be understood as definitions of the words used by EVERY other sentient being in this reality. if you choose or want to use your definitions which only you adhere to then there is no basis for debate or discussion' tell me - as an outsider - what do you think of the human race? "Tribo" come on now you are trying to play the "google cut and paste" pantheist Godhead by demanding that that it's either your way or the highway ..truely you know that is not the nature of the debate ...you are suppose to give your definition of knowledge and not hide behind a debatable "google cut and paste" version...I gave my definition of knowledge in one sentence that explained it perfectly ..surely you can do the same knowledge is the retaining and/or exchanging of that which may occur within a given reality ... funches 3:16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That means nothing to someone who is not a Christian however. What about the secular issue of the Big Bang? I don't feel that required knowledge by anything or anyone because there was no one. "Krimsa" you still haven't explain how the big bang could take place without knowledge being exchanged or retained by the components involved in creating the bang .. Yes I have. I have repeatedly stated I do not accept the notion that a ":Grand Creatrix" need be involved as that seems to be the only notion being addressed in the thread thus far. I feel that the components that would have created the Big Bang would not have required your notion of "knowledge" That in my mind is an ego driven assertion and seems to imply that something has to have a concept of knowledge which in this case, would not have happened because humans were still billions of years into the future and were not in existence. It requires "a letting go" of fantasy and illusion or agenda driven premise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That means nothing to someone who is not a Christian however. What about the secular issue of the Big Bang? I don't feel that required knowledge by anything or anyone because there was no one. "Krimsa" you still haven't explain how the big bang could take place without knowledge being exchanged or retained by the components involved in creating the bang .. Yes I have. I have repeatedly stated I do not accept the notion that a ":Grand Creatrix" need be involved as that seems to be the only notion being addressed in the thread thus far. I feel that the components that would have created the Big Bang would not have required your notion of "knowledge" That in my mind is an ego driven assertion and seems to imply that something has to have a concept of knowledge which in this case, would not have happened because humans were still billions of years into the future and were not in existence. It requires "a letting go" of fantasy and illusion or agenda driven premise. my notions of knowledge is that it existed before any form of consciousness ...knowledge is happenstance and circumstance and neither requires consciousness to take place your notion of knowledge seems like you are saying that it need consciousness to take place because you have not explain how the big bang occured if the components that cause it didn't retain the knowledge in the form of happenstance .. so "Krimsa" explain how the bang took place without any knowledge exchanging in the form of actions between the components involved |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Tue 09/02/08 10:03 AM
|
|
if you want to debate your question then it must be agreed upon that the above is what is to be understood as definitions of the words used by EVERY other sentient being in this reality. if you choose or want to use your definitions which only you adhere to then there is no basis for debate or discussion' tell me - as an outsider - what do you think of the human race? "Tribo" come on now you are trying to play the "google cut and paste" pantheist Godhead by demanding that that it's either your way or the highway ..truely you know that is not the nature of the debate ...you are suppose to give your definition of knowledge and not hide behind a debatable "google cut and paste" version...I gave my definition of knowledge in one sentence that explained it perfectly ..surely you can do the same knowledge is the retaining and/or exchanging of that which may occur within a given reality ... funches 3:16 which doesn't concur with any other definitions but those you choose to make up and follow, which is your right, but you'll have to find someone who agrees with your definition of knowledge to be able to debate, for if all cannot agree on the definition, then its "illogical" to debate the question. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if you want to debate your question then it must be agreed upon that the above is what is to be understood as definitions of the words used by EVERY other sentient being in this reality. if you choose or want to use your definitions which only you adhere to then there is no basis for debate or discussion' tell me - as an outsider - what do you think of the human race? "Tribo" come on now you are trying to play the "google cut and paste" pantheist Godhead by demanding that that it's either your way or the highway ..truely you know that is not the nature of the debate ...you are suppose to give your definition of knowledge and not hide behind a debatable "google cut and paste" version...I gave my definition of knowledge in one sentence that explained it perfectly ..surely you can do the same knowledge is the retaining and/or exchanging of that which may occur within a given reality ... funches 3:16 which doesn't concur with any other definitions but those you choose to make up and follow, which is your right, but you'll have to find someone who agrees with your definitionm of knowledge to be able to debate for if all cannot agree on the definition, then its "illogical" to debate the question. I agree with Tribo here. You have the right to just sustain a thread for the sake of it but people's views are being totally ignored here because they are not adhering solely to your concepts and definitions. It is my opinion that you can not have a debate in that manner. It also tends to border on "trolldom" Im not technically accusing you of being a troll but you are clearly NOT legitimizing anyone else's opinion except your own. It just seems like you will argue with anything being said for the sake of continuing the thread. Good luck with that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if you want to debate your question then it must be agreed upon that the above is what is to be understood as definitions of the words used by EVERY other sentient being in this reality. if you choose or want to use your definitions which only you adhere to then there is no basis for debate or discussion' tell me - as an outsider - what do you think of the human race? "Tribo" come on now you are trying to play the "google cut and paste" pantheist Godhead by demanding that that it's either your way or the highway ..truely you know that is not the nature of the debate ...you are suppose to give your definition of knowledge and not hide behind a debatable "google cut and paste" version...I gave my definition of knowledge in one sentence that explained it perfectly ..surely you can do the same knowledge is the retaining and/or exchanging of that which may occur within a given reality ... funches 3:16 which doesn't concur with any other definitions but those you choose to make up and follow, which is your right, but you'll have to find someone who agrees with your definition of knowledge to be able to debate, for if all cannot agree on the definition, then its "illogical" to debate the question. "Tribo" why would it matter what my definition of knowledge is to debate the topic logically ..the question was did knowledge exist before God .. not what is knowledge ..so no matter what anyone concept of knowledge is wouldn't make any different in this debate ... "Tribo" have you notice everytime you try to sneak out of a debate ..you start cut and pasting definitions from the dictionary and then demand everyone agree to follow them ..isn't that the same thing people that cut and paste from the bible demand |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Tribo here. You have the right to just sustain a thread for the sake of it but people's views are being totally ignored here because they are not adhering solely to your concepts and definitions. It is my opinion that you can not have a debate in that manner. It also tends to border on "trolldom" Im not technically accusing you of being a troll but you are clearly NOT legitimizing anyone else's opinion except your own. It just seems like you will argue with anything being said for the sake of continuing the thread. Good luck with that. sorry "Krimsa" but only christians call me a troll ..the fact that you did only indictes why you can't and won't explain how the big bang took place without the exchange of knowledge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Tue 09/02/08 11:15 AM
|
|
Im NOT Christian. I assumed you were? Besides I was simply agreeing with what other poster(s) have already begun to point out that you are creating an argument without legitimizing ANYTHING else that others are bringing to the table. I could just as easily request that YOU prove that my position is faulty in some respect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the bible does not make mention of many things being created funch, it is implied in the words he created the heavens, it does not go on to say he created galaxies,black holes, etc, it implies he created "all" things that exist.That wolud include angels other heavens or other dimensions, etc. "Tribo" just as you ask me to find in the bible where it said that God was not infinite then you have to find where it says that God created the angels ....also the bible made no mentions of the existence of other dimensions .. that would be considered as being witch craft and delusion Psalm 148 beginning in verse 2 "Praise him, all his angels, praise him all his heavenly hosts. Praise him, sun, and moon, praise him, all you shining stars. Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies. Let them praise the name of the Lord, for he commanded and they were created." All references to things created. "Eljay" ..er.. where does it say that God created the angels during Genesis .."Psalm 148" refers to all things that God created to give him praise In Genesis it says he created the heavens and the earth. The angels are listed amoung the things that were created after Genesis 1:1. Your premise that the angels existed before creation is disproved by Psalm 148. So it is not so much that I have shown you that they were created - in as much as Psalm 148 demonstrates - but that no created beings could have existed prior to the creation - which has been what you have been asking. Show how you are wrong. I don't need to prove anything other than that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im NOT Christian. I assumed you were? Besides I was simply agreeing with what other poster(s) have already begun to point out that you are creating an argument without legitimizing ANYTHING else that others are bringing to the table. I could just as easily request that YOU prove that my position is faulty in some respect. "Krimsa" ..so everytime you disagree with someone in this forum you going to call them names like trolls or is that name especially for me alone ...but anyway you are using the rebellious "christian in denial" view of the big bang and treating it like a religious belief ..remember it's only a theory not fact so how do you expect someone to legitimized it if you refuse to discuss how it happen I've asked you to explain how the event could take place without knowledge exchanging between the components to cause the bang ...so can you explain it or not |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Tue 09/02/08 12:07 PM
|
|
if you want to debate your question then it must be agreed upon that the above is what is to be understood as definitions of the words used by EVERY other sentient being in this reality. if you choose or want to use your definitions which only you adhere to then there is no basis for debate or discussion' tell me - as an outsider - what do you think of the human race? "Tribo" come on now you are trying to play the "google cut and paste" pantheist Godhead by demanding that that it's either your way or the highway ..truely you know that is not the nature of the debate ...you are suppose to give your definition of knowledge and not hide behind a debatable "google cut and paste" version...I gave my definition of knowledge in one sentence that explained it perfectly ..surely you can do the same knowledge is the retaining and/or exchanging of that which may occur within a given reality ... funches 3:16 which doesn't concur with any other definitions but those you choose to make up and follow, which is your right, but you'll have to find someone who agrees with your definition of knowledge to be able to debate, for if all cannot agree on the definition, then its "illogical" to debate the question. "Tribo" why would it matter what my definition of knowledge is to debate the topic logically ..the question was did knowledge exist before God .. not what is knowledge ..so no matter what anyone concept of knowledge is wouldn't make any different in this debate ... "Tribo" have you notice every time you try to sneak out of a debate ..you start cut and pasting definitions from the dictionary and then demand everyone agree to follow them ..isn't that the same thing people that cut and paste from the bible demand hmmm? demand everyone agree with me? nah, just that everyone is in agreement with the definition of the words they want to use in their questions.that's mainly aimed at you funch, most other's, if not all, will have no problem agreeing to that which has been held for centuries without change as being a definition for a word used. It's you that have the problem with long held defining of words and their accepted meanings by nearly if not all people from all over the world. when people need to find a word definition they do not call,write,ask,or seek yours, they go to a source that is to be seen held by all to be the correct definition for it's use in speech or writing - or in this case - debate. it matters what the world at large agrees that knowledge is defined as funch. Like i said if that's your definition of knowledge so be it, i cannot argue the universally held definition of what every other sentient being holds as the definition against your singular definition that you want and choose it to mean - sorry. why does it matter? well simply it's futile, i am stating my premises/answers, based on the held definition and your responding with answers based on your singular take on it's meaning for you. That said there can be no legitimate or logical conclusion to the answer. as to copy and paste, whether i did in this circumstance or not is for times sake, i could have typed the same thing out - but it would be no different than what is pasted, the held definitions are as stated - copy/pasted or not. I, unlike you nor anyone else I've met comes up with their own individual meaning/definitions for things/words they want to debate with or about. So as i said - you'll have to find someone who agrees with your definitions to logically debate this issue - good luck with that funch "Tribo" why would it matter what my definition of knowledge is to debate the topic logically ..the question was did knowledge exist before God .. not what is knowledge reply the definition has everything to do with your statement funch - how can i debate did knowledge exist before god if your take/definition of knowledge is different than everyone else"s? the problem is if you use the accepted definition then you already have your answer which is no, the only way you can sustain a debate is by using your own definition to do so. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im NOT Christian. I assumed you were? Besides I was simply agreeing with what other poster(s) have already begun to point out that you are creating an argument without legitimizing ANYTHING else that others are bringing to the table. I could just as easily request that YOU prove that my position is faulty in some respect. "Krimsa" ..so everytime you disagree with someone in this forum you going to call them names like trolls or is that name especially for me alone ...but anyway you are using the rebellious "christian in denial" view of the big bang and treating it like a religious belief ..remember it's only a theory not fact so how do you expect someone to legitimized it if you refuse to discuss how it happen I've asked you to explain how the event could take place without knowledge exchanging between the components to cause the bang ...so can you explain it or not Read what I said Finches. I said I am NOT accusing you of being a troll but simply agreeing with what Tribo, Chaz and a couple others have mentioned already that you are NOT acknowledging ANY points we are making unless it fits within your parameters of what "knowledge" consists of. I have explained that my position is that Knowledge, as it applies to humans, was not required in order for the Big Bang to take place. Now I ask for you to prove my assertion to be fallible in some manner. I have addressed the issue so now the ball is in your court. Prove that it is inconsistent with logic in some respect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the bible does not make mention of many things being created funch, it is implied in the words he created the heavens, it does not go on to say he created galaxies,black holes, etc, it implies he created "all" things that exist.That wolud include angels other heavens or other dimensions, etc. "Tribo" just as you ask me to find in the bible where it said that God was not infinite then you have to find where it says that God created the angels ....also the bible made no mentions of the existence of other dimensions .. that would be considered as being witch craft and delusion Psalm 148 beginning in verse 2 "Praise him, all his angels, praise him all his heavenly hosts. Praise him, sun, and moon, praise him, all you shining stars. Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies. Let them praise the name of the Lord, for he commanded and they were created." All references to things created. "Eljay" ..er.. where does it say that God created the angels during Genesis .."Psalm 148" refers to all things that God created to give him praise In Genesis it says he created the heavens and the earth. The angels are listed amoung the things that were created after Genesis 1:1. Your premise that the angels existed before creation is disproved by Psalm 148. So it is not so much that I have shown you that they were created - in as much as Psalm 148 demonstrates - but that no created beings could have existed prior to the creation - which has been what you have been asking. Show how you are wrong. I don't need to prove anything other than that. "Eljay" you are right ..I can not debate logically past that evidence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hmmm? demand everyone agree with me? nah, just that everyone is in agreement with the definition of the words they want to use in their questions.that's mainly aimed at you funch, most other's, if not all, will have no problem agreeing to that which has been held for centuries without change as being a definition for a word used. It's you that have the problem with long held defining of words and their accepted meanings by nearly if not all people from all over the world. when people need to find a word definition they do not call,write,ask,or seek yours, they go to a source that is to be seen held by all to be the correct definition for it's use in speech or writing - or in this case - debate. it matters what the world at large agrees that knowledge is defined as funch. Like i said if that's your definition of knowledge so be it, i cannot argue the universally held definition of what every other sentient being holds as the definition against your singular definition that you want and choose it to mean - sorry. why does it matter? well simply it's futile, i am stating my premises/answers, based on the held definition and your responding with answers based on your singular take on it's meaning for you. That said there can be no legitimate or logical conclusion to the answer. as to copy and paste, whether i did in this circumstance or not is for times sake, i could have typed the same thing out - but it would be no different than what is pasted, the held definitions are as stated - copy/pasted or not. I, unlike you nor anyone else I've met comes up with their own individual meaning/definitions for things/words they want to debate with or about. So as i said - you'll have to find someone who agrees with your definitions to logically debate this issue - good luck with that oh and to your question no you cannot argue whether knowledge existed before god if you dont agree with the long held definition of what knowledge is. "Tribo" you always saying in threads that the discussion will turn into a 'google cut and paste" attack and then you resort to the same tactic ...I gave you my definition of knowledge but yet you "google cut and paste" a page for the dictionary and then demand that everyone agree to it ..do this mean you can't form a definition on your own the discussion is not about what knowledge is ..knowledge for all we know could be little ghost elves implanting energy into people brains as they sleep ...the question was did knowledge exist before God ..the discussion falls more into the realm of did God have a first thought |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Tribo here. You have the right to just sustain a thread for the sake of it but people's views are being totally ignored here because they are not adhering solely to your concepts and definitions. It is my opinion that you can not have a debate in that manner. It also tends to border on "trolldom" Im not technically accusing you of being a troll but you are clearly NOT legitimizing anyone else's opinion except your own. It just seems like you will argue with anything being said for the sake of continuing the thread. Good luck with that. sorry "Krimsa" but only christians call me a troll ..the fact that you did only indictes why you can't and won't explain how the big bang took place without the exchange of knowledge Funches; Being the self proclaimed JSH/M2 Troll determinator - I have to correct you here. You are not in fact a Troll. There is too much thought and common sense put into your posts, and despite your often unique view of logic, you do more to contribute to the threads than disrupt them. You may be classified as "Trollish" from time to time - an extremely self-defined and specific term on my part - but you are not a "Troll" in the traditional sense. You fall into the same catagory reserved for those special cases, such as Tribo. It could well be said that you and Tribo are the inspiration for my invention of the definition of this term "Trollish". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Tue 09/02/08 12:14 PM
|
|
funches:
my notions of knowledge is that it existed before any form of consciousness reply: notions are not definitions just your thoughts on a given subject. if that's what you desire to conclude be my guest, but you concluding this "notion" is no more than that - a notion - look up the word notion - i wont copy and paste it -  in your case it would be a "personally" held inclination - you can look up inclination also |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read what I said Finches. I said I am NOT accusing you of being a troll but simply agreeing with what Tribo, Chaz and a couple others have mentioned already that you are NOT acknowledging ANY points we are making unless it fits within your parameters of what "knowledge" consists of. I have explained that my position is that Knowledge, as it applies to humans, was not required in order for the Big Bang to take place. Now I ask for you to prove my assertion to be fallible in some manner. I have addressed the issue so now the ball is in your court. Prove that it is inconsistent with logic in some respect. "Krimsa" if you're not going to take responsibility for the words you place in your posts then think before you place them in there ..before that post I never refer to you as being anything but "Krimsa" ..so maybe you should think about showing the same respect as for the big bang theory you said that it became hot and expanded ...how yet you didn't explain how it became hot |
|
|
|
|
