Does an Omniscient Creator Lead to Fatalism?

[Sparko]

My suggestion would be to provide such links, directed to an individual, in a PM. When you post links to articles, claim they provide responses to objections stated in the thread, it very much appears that you are "arguing by web link."

Of course, that's just my opinion. I'm a visitor and you're a mod, so the call is clearly yours.

He wasn't arguing, he was providing more information. Arguing by weblink is when you let a link do the arguing for you. And you were fine in your use in the other thread. We just want people to make their own arguments and not just trade links back and forth. If you want to use a link to give further information that is ok, or if you want to use it as part of your argument, as long as you provide a summary of what the point is being made by the link. Best use is to use the part of the link that makes your point as a citation with the link as a source.

Like "Stephen Hawkings says that 'black holes smell like badger farts' (link) so your claim that they all smell like cinnamon is ludicrous!"

[Zymologist]

He wasn't arguing, he was providing more information. Arguing by weblink is when you let a link do the arguing for you. And you were fine in your use in the other thread. We just want people to make their own arguments and not just trade links back and forth. If you want to use a link to give further information that is ok, or if you want to use it as part of your argument, as long as you provide a summary of what the point is being made by the link. Best use is to use the part of the link that makes your point as a citation with the link as a source.

Like "Stephen Hawkings says that 'black holes smell like badger farts' (link) so your claim that they all smell like cinnamon is ludicrous!"

I'm so glad you provided this lucid example.

[carpedm9587]

I understand what they (and you) are thinking, but you are not understanding me. What we call "now" is no different from yesterday or tomorrow. every single moment of your life from the time you could think about such concepts till today, you have considered every moment of your life as "now" - in 5 minutes you will be thinking of that time as "now" - the future is as real as the present. If you could travel back in time to before Booth shot Lincoln, the even would be in the "future" for you and Booth, but you know what he is going to do because it is in your personal "past" knowledge. That doesn't mean he doesn't do it of his own free will. Because if he decided NOT to shoot Lincoln that would be what you know from your personal "past" knowledge of 2017. His actions determines your knowledge. Whatever he does is what you will remember. And since you remember him shooting Lincoln you know he will do so, and it will be of his own free will.

What the future you knows about what you are going to do later today is in the past to him and you will do exactly what he remembers you doing. And it will be your own free will and you can't do anything that your future self doesn't 'already' know.

I do not see how this escapes the problem, Sparko. If it works for you, then so be it. It definitely doesn't work for me.

[carpedm9587]

Yeah those are good articles. I encourage Carpe and the others to read them.

I've read the first, and found essentially the same...approach...I've seen here. I simply don't find it compelling.

[carpedm9587]

He wasn't arguing, he was providing more information. Arguing by weblink is when you let a link do the arguing for you. And you were fine in your use in the other thread. We just want people to make their own arguments and not just trade links back and forth. If you want to use a link to give further information that is ok, or if you want to use it as part of your argument, as long as you provide a summary of what the point is being made by the link. Best use is to use the part of the link that makes your point as a citation with the link as a source.

Like "Stephen Hawkings says that 'black holes smell like badger farts' (link) so your claim that they all smell like cinnamon is ludicrous!"

I have already noted to Adrift that my post was improper. I made it solely because I thought he was a mod and I thought the policy was being inconsistently applied. Given that he is not a mod, my post was inappropriate and I have apologized for making it. I'm not sure there is much else I can do.

[JimL]

I have already noted to Adrift that my post was improper. I made it solely because I thought he was a mod and I thought the policy was being inconsistently applied. Given that he is not a mod, my post was inappropriate and I have apologized for making it. I'm not sure there is much else I can do.

I guess the rule is that so long as we address the weblink to someone who is defending our side of the argument then its okay to argue by weblink.

[Sparko]

I'm so glad you provided this lucid example.

Well it's true! it's badger farts all the way down!

[Sparko]

I have already noted to Adrift that my post was improper. I made it solely because I thought he was a mod and I thought the policy was being inconsistently applied. Given that he is not a mod, my post was inappropriate and I have apologized for making it. I'm not sure there is much else I can do.

I wasn't snipping at you, just explaining the rules that you said you were not clear on and why we have a rule against argument by weblink.

As to the forum leaders, we have tweb set up on a "college" theme
Reds are the Chancellors - owners (4 of us)
Orange is Bill the Cat, he is the Dean
Green are the Department Heads
Blue are the Professors

others are:
Light blue - Emeritus Professors (previous mods that still discuss things with the other mods on occasion - retired but still useful) I think Adrift could ask for that if he wanted since he used to be a mod years ago.
Purple - IT/Nerds R Us.

[Sparko]

I guess the rule is that so long as we address the weblink to someone who is defending our side of the argument then its okay to argue by weblink.

no. as long as you are not using the link as your argument they are OK.

[carpedm9587]

I wasn't snipping at you, just explaining the rules that you said you were not clear on and why we have a rule against argument by weblink.

As to the forum leaders, we have tweb set up on a "college" theme
Reds are the Chancellors - owners (4 of us)
Orange is Bill the Cat, he is the Dean
Green are the Department Heads
Blue are the Professors

others are:
Light blue - Emeritus Professors (previous mods that still discuss things with the other mods on occasion - retired but still useful) I think Adrift could ask for that if he wanted since he used to be a mod years ago.
Purple - IT/Nerds R Us.

Thanks.

Maybe that's why I thought Adrift was a mod. He might have been one when I was here last.

Anyway - the color thing helps. I had no clue.

[Sparko]

Thanks.

Maybe that's why I thought Adrift was a mod. He might have been one when I was here last.

Anyway - the color thing helps. I had no clue.

comprehensive list of the forum leadership and what areas they work.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showgroups.php

listed on a link at the bottom of the site's forum listing (click FORUM at the top menu bar)

[carpedm9587]

comprehensive list of the forum leadership and what areas they work.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showgroups.php

listed on a link at the bottom of the site's forum listing (click FORUM at the top menu bar)

[rogue06]

I'm obviously far more important than that list implies.


And don't forget that I much more humble than anyone as well.

[crepuscule]

Yeah those are good articles. I encourage Carpe and the others to read them.

I did, and have found nothing in them that counters what I said about Molinism.

[Adrift]

Emeritus Professors (previous mods that still discuss things with the other mods on occasion - retired but still useful) I think Adrift could ask for that if he wanted since he used to be a mod years ago.

I'm sure I'm more a pain in the butt than useful.