vedaxcool: Some times atheists create the illusion that they have some sort of clairvoyant ability which is really not the case, the thread somehow assumes to much (athiest thrive with assumption) that it knows the state of mind of people, this is really far from the truth, these people could be lying or saying the truth, you are not in the position to actually know whether they are lying or trueing , because it is a matter of perception! My perception about an issue remains largely in my head beyond your ability to know if not stated! And somehow, on a face value we assume people to tell the truth unless they are known to tell, hence the thread was in bad faith indeed, a better way of knowing whether they are lying is by asking how? From the how we might eventually know true or false! But I believe there is a greater tendency for people to hold tightly to their religion whenever it comes under criticism, like the story of a muslims man and his christian wife I read, both weren't quite religious but as soon as the man started going to mosque and he hinted to his wife he would like her to be a muslim, she immediately fortifide herself with the holy spirit and held her bible up and charge to the church . . . LB sometimes this apparently is the case with your criticism, instead of people following it they go anti - clockwise and enter hyper space jump mode . . . Moving ever closer to God and being light years away from materialism etc!

Guy,

To the left!




NEXT!!!

^

Guy to the Dustbin


Next!

ckkris:
Verifiable citation needed. Not story story telling unscientific lies. Babylon ko, Bob Marley ni.

You're online. I presented you with a link that all you had to do, ALL YOU HAD TO DO was to click that link and be informed but you chose to wallow in ignorance. Why?

ckkris:
Says who? Another Babylon bull nonsense. Next you will ask for 10 billion years to prove, and call speculation a science.

You read my quote now answer. Can you actually choose to believe that? Please answer with a yes or no.

Logicboy03:


Just as there is nothing stopping you from curing your ignorance about the definition of the two words by looking at a dictionary.


Go back to school if you're looking for a teacher in basic english and vocabulary

But I think that you are the one ignorant here, so what shall we do?

Let me embarrass help you a bit, mm.

We reason things out to attain as perfect knowledge of them as possible. So reasoning ideally leads to perfect knowledge.

If God is seeing the whole sequence of time at once such that He sees John as he attended university in the past and sat among a bunch of other humans taking classes with him and He sees him in the present being a medical doctor and is faced with your question, "did John have classmates?" in the future all at once, His "reasoning" would be remarkably different from ours, would it not?

In fact, I think we can safely say that He skips the whole reasoning process altogether to get to the perfect knowledge part, can we not?

That's part of the meaning of omniscience, my friend, possessing perfect knowledge so that you don't need to process things linearly like mere human beings like Lb need to do in order to arrive at decisions. In fact, the decisions of a being possessing omniscience are absolute rather than relative, you see.

That means that they don't have to select best possible answers from an array of options. They have the right answers all the time and at the same time as they have the "problem" because they possess all knowledge.

Let me guess, none of that made any sense to you, right, Lb?

Ihedinobi:

But I think that you are the one ignorant here, so what shall we do?

Let me embarrass help you a bit, mm.

We reason things out to attain as perfect knowledge of them as possible. So reasoning ideally leads to perfect knowledge.

If God is seeing the whole sequence of time at once such that He sees John as he attended university in the past and sat among a bunch of other humans taking classes with him and He sees him in the present being a medical doctor and is faced with your question, "did John have classmates?" in the future all at once, His "reasoning" would be remarkably different from ours, would it not?

In fact, I think we can safely say that He skips the whole reasoning process altogether to get to the perfect knowledge part, can we not?

That's part of the meaning of omniscience, my friend, possessing perfect knowledge so that you don't need to process things linearly like mere human beings like Lb need to do in order to arrive at decisions. In fact, the decisions of a being possessing omniscience are absolute rather than relative, you see.

That means that they don't have to select best possible answers from an array of options. They have the right answers all the time and at the same time as they have the "problem" because they possess all knowledge.

Let me guess, none of that made any sense to you, right, Lb?

I usually shout EPIC FAIL!!! at this point in time but I will try to reason with you.



Using John, the medical doctor.......If I asked God "why and how did John spend six years in university?"

The answer would be "because he went to medical school and in medical school you spend six years moving from one level to the other before finishing"

In this case, there is no difference between an omniscient being and me (I know John because my cousin was his classmate) because we both know the university life of John but we both have to reason out sequentially the answer. That answer is quite sequntial

Why?
step 1; because he went to medical school
step 2; and since they spend six years in medical school
step 3; he spent 6 six years in university


So, knowing is different from reasoning. You know things because you see, or you are taught or you deductively reason it out. You reason by adding different pieces of the puzzle together.


Now, we both know that there is no reasoning, especially sequentially when there is no time.


#debunked

Smh. Really? Lb!

First off, the question was 'what is the difference between reasoning and knowing?' not "is there a difference between reasoning and knowing?"

Second, you obviously missed this part of my post:

Ihedinobi: We reason things out to attain as perfect knowledge of them as possible. So reasoning ideally leads to perfect knowledge.

That part showed what the difference between the two is. One is a journey undertaken to arrive at the other.

Third, you also missed this part:

Ihedinobi: In fact, I think we can safely say that He skips the whole reasoning process altogether to get to the perfect knowledge part, can we not?

Now, had you actually paid attention to what I said, you wouldn't havr bothered to repeat my arguments.

If I knew everything at once, I would not need to "reason it out", would I?

Also, the answer given is not the same as the process engaged to obtain it, my friend.

Really, I'm leaving things at this point. My time is being wasted pursuing this.

Take care, Lb. And pay attention.

Ihedinobi: Smh. Really? Lb!

First off, the question was 'what is the difference between reasoning and knowing?' not "is there a difference between reasoning and knowing?"

Second, you obviously missed this part of my post:



That part showed what the difference between the two is. One is a journey undertaken to arrive at the other.

Third, you also missed this part:



Now, had you actually paid attention to what I said, you wouldn't havr bothered to repeat my arguments.

If I knew everything at once, I would not need to "reason it out", would I?

Also, the answer given is not the same as the process engaged to obtain it, my friend.

Really, I'm leaving things at this point. My time is being wasted pursuing this.

Take care, Lb. And pay attention.

How silly, do you reason to get "perfect knowledge"? What kind of nonsense is that? You have nothing abeg. just lies and sophistry. Pefect knowledge? Does that exist?

We reason to explain or learn things. You sneak in "perfect" in "perfect knowledge" so that you can relate it dubiously to omniscience.


To explain something, you must

a) Know about it
b) Reason it out


If I ask God; "why"? He must have to reason it out in order to explain. You must answer sequentially to a why question;

"This is this because of this"

That is the nature of reasoning out an answer. Even if you know everything, you answer must come out in an intelligible and logical way for another to understand.


==========================================

Either your God doesnt exist or he exists within time and with reasoning.


For you to say that God skips the reasoning process, you have claimed something that is extrabiblical

Worse off, for you to arrive at the conclusion that god is outside time, you have;

1) Destroyed basic logic and facts because existence is based on time. There is no being outside time because to exist means that you are currently in the present. No time, no present.

2) Destroyed science because science itself can not work or exist without time.

3) Reduced time itself to only a dimension when it is far more than that.

4) Claimed something contrary to the bible- God rested on the 7th day/period in the bible. How can someone rest in a period and be outside time?

5) made so many assumptions to reach the conclusion that god is outside time

a) that god does not reason
b) that god doesnt have memories
c) that god doesnt have preceeding and succeeding thoughts
d) that to be outside time is even possible


================================================



Considering my above post, do you ever think that you can win someone over to your belief with such foolishness?

Lb, anyone who actually falls for all the patent nonsense in your post above is someone who doesn't want to be helped.

Ihedinobi: Lb, anyone who actually falls for all the patent nonsense in your post above is someone who doesn't want to be helped.

You were thoroughly debunked....i see u got no reply