Mirrored Reality

The whole point of the Boethian solution was that God’s timeless knowledge is partially comprised of what happens within time, what is temporal in part constitutes what is timeless. Since we can plainly see from the above counter-example that current action can make something timelessly true, I would counter we have no reason to think that God couldn’t base His timeless knowledge on what occurs within time. This is not our reaching into a timeless realm to affect God, but rather He reaching into His creation with and for His understanding. “…for the Lord searches all hearts and understands every … Continue reading Mirrored Reality

Derrida, Foucault, and the Bible

Dr. Christopher Watkins walks you through an introduction to the ideas of these famous postmodernist philosophers. It provides powerful observations that call for Van Tilian solutions about the ultimate context of reality.  https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/course/derrida-foucault-bible/#course-introduction He also had an interview with Dr. James Anderson about his books on these thinkers: Continue reading Derrida, Foucault, and the Bible

Thibo Dabble

I’ll comment on the things Thibodaux asked: [“You can see his additional commentary here, though I’d recommend it for entertainment purposes only. On why he thinks choices are random:] Yes, other than the irony that some of these words apply to each article he has written in response to me. I appreciate his ability to be wrong.  [@But his article gives no explanation for why they aren’t blips of chance. Besides the fact that there’s no reason to buy his counter-intuitive assertion in the first place, free will being random (as I point out in the article) would imply that … Continue reading Thibo Dabble

Innate vs Self-Imposed Dependencies

I am responding to this response to one of my articles from Thibodaux, again: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2019/08/19/innate-vs-self-imposed-dependencies/ Does God depend upon anything in creation? Everyone agrees that God has no need of things like food, water, shelter, rest, etc. We often refer to this as God’s aseity –His independence of His creation. I suppose that his readers blindly accept his view on the issue of aseity. I’m sure that his dictionary definition is compelling but the topic is a proper philosophical understanding of aseity. Aseity is broader than God being independent of creation. If Thibodaux was correct, then God could be dependent upon many things. … Continue reading Innate vs Self-Imposed Dependencies

Hive Mind

Jimmy Stephens tackles a worldview where comprehensive knowledge is had amongst an infinite amount of minds.  TheQuestioner:  Yeah, the I mean the former of replacing an omniscient mind with the idea of a societal distribution of comprehensive knowledge. Essentially, in this case, each proposition is known. Jimmy Stephens: 1.) It would be a fallacy of division to suppose that because all propositions belong to the whole of human society that each individual inherits the comprehensive set. In fact, that sounds like a good skeptical scenario: one where humanity might, as a sort of hive mind, know things, but no human … Continue reading Hive Mind