"And yet, if you say that a car spins its tires to move" -Ragnell.

Thank you for catching my inconsistency. I retracted the statement in quotes. However, I think the rest of the analogy holds.

"And you listed 'creating ideas' in your post. One does not 'fall back on one's memory' to create, am I wrong?" - Ragnell

You fall back on your memory for everything. Pick up David Hume's "Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding". Also, How would you create a new reflected idea if not with your memory?

Hmm... perhaps you have a point. Let me rephrase myself, now that I've mulled this over. When one creats a new idea, it is more than merely falling back on memory. It is thinking of an option that no one else has seemed to.
Consider the future creation (hopefully, at least) of the jet-pack. No one has found how to create one without lighting the nice Persian rug beneath them ablaze. In order to do so, one must come up with a new idea. Considering I am regretfully short on time (duty beckons), I will say this: The only thing I can think of (off the top of my noggin) that you would fall back on memory for to create such an idea would be to see what didn't, doesn't, can't, and will not work to make this thing (whate'er it may be) possible.
Do you have any more insight on this, Sir de Silentio? I would care to hear it.

"When one creats a new idea, it is more than merely falling back on memory. It is thinking of an option that no one else has seemed to." - Ragnell

It has been so long since I read Hume. I've been sitting here trying to think of how to explain Hume's thought into a few sentences and I cannot. Again, I urge you to read David Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, all of your questions will be answered.

However, I can offer you this. A working jet-pack requires knowledge about many things, like physics, thermodynamics, gravity, certain materials (metal or otherwise), etc. When you take all of these preconcieved ideas and meld them together into a jet-pack, you now have a working jet-pack. The jet-pack ensued from you thinking (very generally) "if I combine A and B, C happens. See, the fact that you knew A and B prior means that they were in your memory. Now you know that A and B make C, you created the Idea that A and B make C, from your memory of A and B (and cause and effect of course plus many other things).

Is this clear?

Are you agreeing with me?
That may sound like a rather dumb question, but considering you said, 'Now you know that A and B make C, you created the Idea that A and B make C, from your memory of A and B.' Which would connote that you had not previously realized (it had not crossed your mind) that C was the exact thing that would happen, which means that you used more than your memory for such a thought process, you used logic and sometimes educated guesswork that you proved to be correct (considering that C=A+B)

{And just so everyone is clear, I have always agreed with 'the fact that you knew A and B prior means that they were in your memory.' I was (and am still) trying to prove that there is more, which you seemed to agree with this}

I think that the God of the Holy Bible has a set way in which it is possible to be saved. As always it is the usual practise that the bible has many interpretations generating all types of denominations. Likewise I think it is also strictly incorrect to claim thet ' you' have all the answers,but i will conseed to say that it is ok to claim that you have the answers to the core and foundation aspects of a religion. Though its been a while since Ive viewed christianity in this way,(i once was to be ordained as an evangelist) I try to show what the scriptures say about 'who is to be saved'.[INDENT]God gave his only begotten son so whoever believes in him shall not perrish but have eternal life-john 3.16,

Whoever calls upon the name of the lord will be saved-romans 10.13

Christ died once for all-hebrews 10.10

Therefore he is able to save completly(forever) those who come to God through him-hebrews 7.25

He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws that man is righteous:he will surly live, declares the sovereign lord. ezekiel 18.9 .

"never will i leave you never will i forsake you"hebrews 13.5 .

"you did not choose me, but i chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit-fruit that will last"-john 15.16


[/INDENT]This is actually jesus talking to the disciples, because he told them later;

[INDENT]"go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned"- mark 16.15,16.

Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anionted us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guarenteeing what is to come- 2 corintians 1.21-22.


[/INDENT]When god gave his instruction to the deciples to convert the gentiles(through paul then peter) it was to share the promise to all.

Yes it does say that God will have mercy on who he will have mercy and he foreknew who would be saved but this is expected, after all it is god we are talking about, and it is also freewill of man to submit to gods authority. Which is the main point of the relationship of us to god (In Christianity)but God shows his mercy to all, and he waits for us to convert, as such. The bottom line is that it is through Jesus alone that we may be saved and no other way.

This piece is rushed and many scriptures are not included but that is the giste of it.

This isnt to anybody in paticular, just related to the descussion about predestination.

Also God does not give anybody the holly spirit until that person has repented and accepted christs sacrifice for their sins, but can 'influence' people to his will supposedly by the act of the Holy spirit, according to the Bible that is- this was to tmeeker.

"you used logic and sometimes educated guesswork that you proved to be correct" - Ragnell

Sorry if it seemed like I was agreeing with you. I would ask next, where does the logic that you used come from? From experience, or perhaps a class or book that you read? If this is the case, it would also come from memory. Now the educated guess work is a little tougher. The free association of ideas is meerly an illusion of our subconscience. I am not qualified at this time to argue this, again, I know I keep falling back on this, but I have not read Hume in a long time.

However, I can use Plato's Allegory of the Cave as an example. Are you familiar with this?

How can we be sure or even presume what deities God even has?After all the Bible doesnt strictly say, it shows his activities and being ' all present' (omnipresent) he can leave a place such as the temple!

"After all the Bible doesnt strictly say, it shows his activities and being ' all present' (omnipresent) he can leave a place such as the temple!" - pilgrim

Can you clarify this statement for me? From the way I am interpreting it, you say that God can be 'all present' and also leave a temple. This seems contradictory, unless you mean something else in the word leave.

Sorry, yes your right, it is bad grammer. What I was trying to say, though it is one of those peculier 'god' situations where all things seem possible ,thus gods nature may seem contradictory; if God is strictly omnipresent, how can we be sure of the full meaning of this in pratical terms. At times in the Bible, God placed his ''shakina'' on a place or in a place or he was absent from a place. maybe it has a more theological aspect to it were it might mean simply his 'attitude' has just changed with the place. This is often the case with the Bible, it tends to have bad translation problems in its meaning.What I mean about 'attitude' is that hes still everywhere but 'turned away' as such. Its hard to explain. Sorry for the late replys, im here at my computer but for some reason new posts are not highlighting to alert me.:mad:

I'm afraid not, de Selentio. My vocation is pure mathematics, and I've only started on philosophy a few months previously; therefore I've not had much time to secure many great works of literature. I am on my first one; 'Exploring Philosophy by Stephen M. Cahn', but that's mostly as far as it has presently gone.

And pilgrimshost, I mean not to be a picky braggart, but could you kindly clean up your writing? I don't know what on earth 'shakina' could be and a few other things I've had to 'interpret'.
Again, sorry if that makes me sound like a snot.

COULD YOU ELABERATE PLEASE-SORRY ABOUT THE CAPITALS BUT ITS ******* ME OFF so i cant keep errasing my text to correct it! ITs 4.48 in england and im nackered, but please continue!

Have you been drinking?

Yes, its friday night and ive had about 4 tinnies. But thats not the point they were only 330ML. just so i dont get in to trouble please could you ellaberate on what you were saying in this thread please:o

Of course, my apologies.

The discussion was... erm... hold on, let me look back...

I believe this was actually a discussion about whom God will choose to save, which then turned out to digress into 'does God really think', then further on into 'Cars spin their tires to move', and yet further still into 'Do you create ideas solely with one's memory?'
Then we went into the whole drinking thing. So, which one do you wish to pick back up on? It matters not to me.

I mean what you were talking about in post 30. ''shakina'' ect!

Also Ive uncovered this old text which I would like others to read and make some sense of;
[INDENT]Now we believe that thou art a being than which none greater can be thought. Or can it be that there is no such being, since 'the fool hath said in his heart, ''There is no God'' '? [Psalm 14:1;53:1] But when this same fool hears what I am saying-'A being than which none greater can be thought' - he understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it exists. For it is one thing for an object to be in the understanding, and another thing to understand that it exists... But clearly that than which a greater cannot be thought cannot exist in the understanding alone. For if it is actually in the understanding alone, it can be thought of as existing also in reality, and this is greater. Therefore, if that than which a greater cannot be thought is in the understanding alone,this same thing than which a greater cannot be thought is that than which a greater can be thought. But obviously this is impossible. Without doubt, therefore, there exists, both in the understanding and in reality, something than which a greater cannot be thought.
[/INDENT]In other words, Something is greater if it exists than if it doesnt. If God is the greatest thing imaginable, he must exist. I may paint an imaginary masterpiece, but that only means I imagine that I paint a masterpiece. In fact, since it does not exist, it is no better than my actually existing 'inferior' paintings. A real masterpiece must always be better than an imaginary one!

In ragards to this would anybody like to discuss it (re: Descartes/Kant)?
And yes, I have correctly copied it, its just written that way.

God is the greatest Thing imaginable, ne??? If He is beyond imagination, than most certainly, your logic still holds. I've no need to challenge this, but it'll be fun to see does.

'Shakina' and the rest, could you please answer my request, I waited days now, Ragnell. Come on, you keep bloody forgetting - Git

Pardon my absence, but I've had pressing matters to deal with.
And for the last time, I've no bloody clew what the heck 'shakina' is! Explain it, will you?

Well, now that you mention it...........

.........Its the Hebrew word for......wait for it.....THE GLORY OF GOD. Its the presence of God that 'sits' above the mercy seat, hence my question about omnipresence and the like.

Ah... and what about shakina?