tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post115733391330561121..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The only objections are stupid objectionsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12333970100675459762008-07-14T16:57:00.000-04:002008-07-14T16:57:00.000-04:00As to Paul (Monata), who wants to have his cake an...As to Paul (Monata), who wants to have his cake and eat it, too:<BR/><BR/><I>I take it on God's say-so. It's an argument from ultimate authority.</I><BR/><BR/>You realize, of course, that you are asserting (or presupposing) both god's existence and that the say-so you perceive is indeed his, yes?<BR/><BR/>You also realize, that even were these assertions true, you'd be committing the fallacy of arguing from authority, right?<BR/><BR/>How does this help your case?<BR/><BR/><I>Well, even if true, this commits the genetic fallacy. The above does not mean that I'm *wrong.*</I><BR/><BR/>No, but appealing to authority doesn't make you <B>right</B>, either. Tit for tat?<BR/><BR/><I>Secondly, where's the proof, or is assertion all you got?</I><BR/><BR/>Is that the only form of argument which can be found on this site? It seems that the most popular objection to any non-believer's post is that everything in it is an assertion.<BR/><BR/>Look, people, if both parties in a debate agree with a particular assertion, it is acceptable to use. It's silly and juvenile to constantly cry foul that everything your opponent says is an assertion. Paul made two assertions in one breath in my first quote of him above, but it is irrelevant -- I pointed it out only to demonstrate that Paul, too, was guilty of assertions. The failure of that first quote was the appeal to authority:<BR/><BR/><I>So, again, I know because an all-knowing being, who is never wrong and never lies, told me so.</I><BR/><BR/>You "know" because you attribute the perception of another being as having declared itself to be all-knowing and always true ('never wrong' is redundant) as the being your perceptions of its declarations describe.<BR/><BR/>Too confusing? You "know" because you believe, not because you actually know. You presuppose that the voices in your head (or however you perceived this "divine" communique) are who they say they are, and you presuppose that their statements are true.<BR/><BR/>Your statements belie the truth that Apollyon asks that you admit:<BR/><BR/><B>You don't know what you claim to know</B>.<BR/><BR/>Steve's petulant interjections regarding Apollyon's lack of knowledge regarding the number of aliens inhabiting Steve is both asinine and apt. Sure, we don't know how many aliens it takes to present the spruced-up arguments of a retard, but we also don't <I>claim</I> to know.<BR/><BR/>It is both entirely possible, and not awfully unlikely, that 'Paul' (under the moniker 'Klaatu'), 'Steve', and 'Apollyon' are all one individual typing away using multiple profiles.<BR/><BR/>The fact that I can understand the statements from each, and engage them, indicates that I accept some risk in things about which I do not know, but which I am satisfied to assume. I assume that at least one person typed these statements, and I admit that I know nothing about any such individual.<BR/><BR/>A reciprocal admission regarding your claims to divine knowledge seems to be in order.<BR/><BR/>(Of course, I also admit that no one is likely to read and/or respond to this, since it is so old, and that even if someone does, I am unlikely to engage in any resulting discussion, for much the same reason -- I reached this and a few other older posts through Steve's (unclickable) URL offerings in other archived posts. Drive-by blogophilia, if you will)<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32907838752491606102008-07-14T16:38:00.000-04:002008-07-14T16:38:00.000-04:00It’s secularism or naturalism or atheism (whatever...<I>It’s secularism or naturalism or atheism (whatever you want to call it) which degrades human beings, stripping men, women, and children of all inherent dignity or worth.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sorry -- I must've misread my bible. I'm pretty sure I saw several instances in which degradation of human beings (slavery), stripping men of inherent dignity (murdering them for living in a land god decreed belonged to someone else), stripping women of inherent dignity (keep your traps shut in church, equating women with property in the tenth commandment), stripping children of inherent dignity (slay all the young males and non-virgin women, taking the virgin women and girls as slaves and concubines)...<BR/><BR/>Oh -- I see what you're getting at. You're saying that "secularism or naturalism or atheism (whatever you want to call it) [implicitly] degrades human beings, stripping men, women, and children of all inherent dignity or worth", whereas Abrahamic religion <I>explicitly</I> "degrades human beings, stripping men, women, and children of all inherent dignity or worth."<BR/><BR/>That is a position from which you may argue. The subject of that particular debate would be the assertion that secularism implies the degradation of humanity.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157573364220949332006-09-06T16:09:00.000-04:002006-09-06T16:09:00.000-04:00know = justified true beliefgut feelingintense fee...know = justified true belief<BR/><BR/>gut feeling<BR/><BR/>intense feeling of knowledge<BR/><BR/>I know, cuz I know.<BR/><BR/>Boo yeah!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157568323336327182006-09-06T14:45:00.000-04:002006-09-06T14:45:00.000-04:00what do you mean by 'know?'what do you mean by 'know?'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157562354791882592006-09-06T13:05:00.000-04:002006-09-06T13:05:00.000-04:00Guys, enough.I'll be the first to admit, I don't *...Guys, enough.<BR/><BR/>I'll be the first to admit, I don't *know* if I'm saved. But that doesn't change the fact that I think I am.<BR/><BR/>duh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157556710844702642006-09-06T11:31:00.000-04:002006-09-06T11:31:00.000-04:00Steve,You're right, Apollyon is wrong. Actually h...Steve,<BR/><BR/>You're right, Apollyon is wrong. Actually he's a lab experiment gone awry. We will destimulate his artificial consciousness and put him back on "the bus". Thanks for putting up with him...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157512916723149882006-09-05T23:21:00.000-04:002006-09-05T23:21:00.000-04:00Steve, you do know that Cary Grant "played for the...Steve, you do know that Cary Grant "played for the other team," right?<BR/><BR/>Not that there's anything wrong with that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157511945003607102006-09-05T23:05:00.000-04:002006-09-05T23:05:00.000-04:00Apollyon said:That's cute, Steve.But you still hav...Apollyon said:<BR/><BR/>That's cute, Steve.<BR/><BR/>But you still haven't answered.<BR/><BR/>Tough for your pride to admit you don't know something, isn't it?<BR/><BR/>********************<BR/><BR/>Well, in order for me to admit that I don't know something, I'd have to know that I don't know something.<BR/><BR/>But according to you, I can't know what I know, in which case I can't know what I don't know.<BR/><BR/>So if I were to say I was wrong, I might be wrong to say I was wrong.<BR/><BR/>Those pesky aliens might make me believe I was wrong when I was really right all along.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, you've made it impossible for me to answer you question in the negative.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157501517797542922006-09-05T20:11:00.000-04:002006-09-05T20:11:00.000-04:00Hiraeth said:"Equally, I note, Apollyon, that I di...Hiraeth said:<BR/><BR/>"Equally, I note, Apollyon, that I did not say I didn't know. In fact, I said I was as sure as I could be. That I cannot be 100% sure is neither here nor there, as one cannot be 100% sure of anything, only reasonably certain."<BR/><BR/>Tell that to the drones here at t-blogg. They think they KNOW with 100% certainty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157501073077442832006-09-05T20:04:00.000-04:002006-09-05T20:04:00.000-04:00Equally, I note, Apollyon, that I did not say I di...Equally, I note, Apollyon, that I did not say I didn't know. In fact, I said I was as sure as I could be. That I cannot be 100% sure is neither here nor there, as one cannot be 100% sure of anything, only reasonably certain. <BR/><BR/>'If somethings seems that way to me it's acceptable.'<BR/><BR/>If the evidence seems to point in that direction and a suitable argument can be constructed, yes.Hiraethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08745527476050999805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157499893608048262006-09-05T19:44:00.000-04:002006-09-05T19:44:00.000-04:00Steve did answer, and you admitted he was correct ...Steve did answer, and you admitted he was correct and that you wanted to massage his feet while he sipped Mai Tai's on the beach.<BR/><BR/>Remember, you said Steve was the man and he answered your question with brilliance.<BR/><BR/>You think not?<BR/><BR/>How do you KNOW that he didn't? Maybe an alien is deceiving you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157491792501973012006-09-05T17:29:00.000-04:002006-09-05T17:29:00.000-04:00That's cute, Steve.But you still haven't answered....That's cute, Steve.<BR/><BR/>But you still haven't answered.<BR/><BR/>Tough for your pride to admit you don't know something, isn't it? Especially something so important.<BR/><BR/>Why do you care what I know? You can't even answer simple questions!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157489158231788062006-09-05T16:45:00.000-04:002006-09-05T16:45:00.000-04:00Apollyon said:Paul, I mean Klaatu said:"lots of bl...Apollyon said:<BR/><BR/>Paul, I mean Klaatu said:<BR/><BR/>"lots of blather....."<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>"One last thing, so yuou say!"<BR/><BR/>You can't even spell correctly in an insult. Classic Manata.<BR/><BR/>*********<BR/><BR/>But how does apollyon KNOW that Klaatu misspelled the word?<BR/><BR/>Maybe an alien made apollyon misperceive the word? <BR/><BR/>BTW, how does apollyon KNOW that I didn't answer his question? Maybe I did answer, but the alien made apollyon forget the answer?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157480473286146872006-09-05T14:21:00.000-04:002006-09-05T14:21:00.000-04:00Step aside g-unit...I don't converse with admitted...Step aside g-unit...I don't converse with admitted losers, or their sidekicks...from this post foreward.<BR/><BR/><BR/>YOU LOOSE!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157478322635791772006-09-05T13:45:00.000-04:002006-09-05T13:45:00.000-04:00Apollyon,I'm sticking with Klaatu's answer. So fa...Apollyon,<BR/><BR/>I'm sticking with Klaatu's answer. So far, it's not been refuted by you.<BR/><BR/>But, why are you blathering on while you don't know either? Boom!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157477091569699712006-09-05T13:24:00.000-04:002006-09-05T13:24:00.000-04:00g-unit - you don't know either.BOOM!g-unit - you don't know either.<BR/><BR/>BOOM!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157475992759933922006-09-05T13:06:00.000-04:002006-09-05T13:06:00.000-04:00Is that Apollyon blathering on again, even though ...Is that Apollyon blathering on again, even though he doesn't know.<BR/><BR/>Hey Apollyon, could you catch Klaatu's sarcasm? It was pretty thick.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunatley for you, you just got worked in this thread.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157475677660401962006-09-05T13:01:00.000-04:002006-09-05T13:01:00.000-04:00BOOM!!!You heard it here folks. Paul admits what ...BOOM!!!<BR/><BR/>You heard it here folks. Paul admits what many have already learned...he is a loser.<BR/><BR/>(however, he will be a winner come judgement day!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157475174598649062006-09-05T12:52:00.000-04:002006-09-05T12:52:00.000-04:00Apollyon wrote: You can't even spell correctly in...<I>Apollyon wrote: You can't even spell correctly in an insult. Classic Manata.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>Klaatu: Above, post 9/04/2006 9:14 PM, Apollyon wrote,<BR/><BR/><I>"God is not all knowing ("Adam, where are you?" and God can lie, ableit indirectly, according to the Bible, so there goes that argument."</I><BR/><BR/>Notice he can't even close his parenthesis out. Classic Apollyon.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Also notice that he blathers on. <BR/><BR/>Above at 9/04/2006 10:55 AM Apollyon wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>Everyone take note:<BR/><BR/>Steve still can't claim to KNOW that his god isn't an advanced alien race.<BR/><BR/>And yet he blathers on.</I><BR/><BR/>But at 9/05/2006 4:15 AM he wrote,<BR/><BR/><I>"Neither of us KNOWS, but I am honest enough to admit it, and most believers are not."</I><BR/><BR/>So, Apollyon gets to "blather on" but Steve doesn't, even though eh says they *both* don't "KNOW."<BR/><BR/>You see, I don't even need to argue anymore, there's enough fodder here in this combox to tie Apollyon up like a pretzle.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Apollyon wrote: In the words of Manata: "You loose!"</I> <BR/><BR/>K: How does the fatc that I made a typo translate to the fact that "I loose?" Care to tie that together for us?<BR/><BR/>Okay, I'll cut you some slack. Yes, Apollyon, I lost. You defeated me. I made a typo and so that means my argument is wrong. You're the big winner. Hip hip, hooray. Hip hip, hooray. Three cheers for Apollyon, the big winner.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157473910242319962006-09-05T12:31:00.001-04:002006-09-05T12:31:00.001-04:00Paul, I mean Klaatu said:"lots of blather....."and...Paul, I mean Klaatu said:<BR/><BR/><I>"lots of blather....."</I><BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>"One last thing, so yuou say!"<BR/><BR/>You can't even spell correctly in an insult. Classic Manata.<BR/><BR/>In the words of Manata:<BR/><BR/>"You loose!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157473868337985192006-09-05T12:31:00.000-04:002006-09-05T12:31:00.000-04:00Apollyon said: "Steve likes to blather on and on, ...Apollyon said: "Steve likes to blather on and on, but he still doesn't KNOW that his "God" isn't simply an alien."<BR/><BR/>And,<BR/><BR/>"Neither of us KNOWS, but I am honest enough to admit it, and most believers are not."<BR/><BR/><BR/>K: So, since you admitted that *you also* don't KNOW, then I assume you won't be "blathering on?"<BR/><BR/>If you continue to "blather on" while not knowing then why mention Steve "blathering on" while not knowing? <BR/><BR/>Are you a self-refuter?<BR/><BR/>Isn't that the worst, when you refute yourself?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157471299584420722006-09-05T11:48:00.000-04:002006-09-05T11:48:00.000-04:00Apollyon,I'm sorry you're getting so emotional ove...Apollyon,<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry you're getting so emotional over this. Acting like this makes me think you used to be a fundamentalist preacher who didn't know his Bible but held to the motto: Scream loud and wave your hands if your points are weak.<BR/><BR/>Again, Apollyon is A and Klaatu is K.<BR/><BR/><I>A: You can twist words to mean anything you want them to mean,</I> <BR/><BR/>K: Well alert the media.<BR/><BR/>Guess what, you can also.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, so you say.<BR/><BR/><I>A: as you obviously are doing with the words in the Bible.</I><BR/><BR/>K: Well, if it's so obvious, why not show everyone?<BR/><BR/>I gave an argument, you made, yet another(!), assertion.<BR/><BR/>Since arbitrariness is a fickle friend I'll respond thusly: You obviously have twisted the words in the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Oh, one more thing: so you say.<BR/><BR/><I>A: You start out with a theology you want to achieve, based on what you've been told to think by others, and VOILA, that is what you find in the Bible!</I><BR/><BR/>K: Well, even if true, this commits the genetic fallacy. The above does not mean that I'm *wrong.*<BR/><BR/>Secondly, where's the proof, or is assertion all you got?<BR/><BR/>Third, let me perform a reversal again: You start out with a atheology you want to achieve, based on what you've been told to think by others, and VOILA, that is what you find in the Bible!<BR/><BR/>Fourth, so you say.<BR/><BR/><I>A: The believer then blurts...<BR/><BR/>"But you must read the text in context."<BR/><BR/>"Exegesis is key!"</I><BR/><BR/>K: Oh, so you shouldn't read things in context and you shouldn't apply exegetical principles? Okay, I think I like that. Well, I grant you that if you take the Bible out of context you can find many errors, so I guess you've defeated me, how can I fight against someone who can take things out of context, supply no meaning as to why he understands the text to be saying what it is saying, and then accuse the other person of not reading it properly!<BR/><BR/>Second, if exegesis and context are unimportant, than how can you criticise *my* reading? You can't. So, you've gained a pyrrhic victory.<BR/><BR/>Third, so you say.<BR/><BR/><I>A: You flounder and blather, but still do not know.</I><BR/><BR/>K: No, I do know. You've still not even so much as put a dent in my argument. We'll be waiting.<BR/><BR/>And, so you say.<BR/><BR/><I>A: The best you can offer up is to ask someone else how THEY know what the say. Kind of like the creationist whining about evolution.</I><BR/><BR/>K: No, I offered an argument and the best you can do is to say that we shouldn't read things in context and showing how you draw the meaning out of the text is unimportant.<BR/><BR/>The best you can do is to print in caps and say things like: BBBZZZZZTTTT.<BR/><BR/>The best you can do is shout and hope people will think more of your argument.<BR/><BR/>The best you can do is not interact with my argument.<BR/><BR/>I gave an argument. I then asked what you mean by the word "know." For example, if you think that the only way to 'know' something is when pink faries whisper sweet nothings into your ear, then I grant I don't 'know' that God is not an alien.<BR/><BR/>Are you applying an internalist constraint. Is knowledge JTB? What counts as J?<BR/><BR/>So, the best you can do is not define the words *you use.*<BR/><BR/>Oh, one more things, so you say.<BR/><BR/><I>A: "I'll nitpick over people's "worldviews," that makes mine true! But if they nitpick mine, they are wrong! I'll presuppose I'm right!"</I><BR/><BR/>K: You're still in grade school, aren't you?<BR/><BR/>You asked how *I* know, and I told you how *I* know. Then, when you can't beat my argument, you engage in schoolyard tactics. Well, nee ner nee ner nee ner, you don't have a weener.<BR/><BR/>So, so you say.<BR/><BR/><I>A: The point is, you don't KNOW what you claim to know, Paul.</I> <BR/><BR/><I>K:</I> The point is, I do. And, I gave an argument to back it up.<BR/><BR/>And, so you say.<BR/><BR/><I>A: What "I" know has no bearing on this. </I><BR/><BR/><I>K:</I> I asked you to *define* a term. You don't think you need to define terms? If you mean 'know' like how I said above, then you're right. So, Apollyon is saying that a pink fairy never whispered sweet nothings into my ear. How uninteresting. If you don't meant that, then care to define what 'know' is?<BR/><BR/>Secondly, so you say.<BR/><BR/><I>A: Neither of us KNOWS, but I am honest enough to admit it, and most believers are not.</I><BR/><BR/>K: Oh, so you don't KNOW that I don't KNOW that God is not an alien? If so, how do you KNOW that I don't KNOW.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, Romans 1 says that you do KNOW who God is. So, to say you don't KNOW who God is is to say that Romans 1 is false. Do you KNOW Romans 1 is false? If not, why hold a position that implies that it is false. So, you don't even KNOW that you don't KNOW.<BR/><BR/>Third, so you say.<BR/><BR/><I>A:So take your vitamins, read some more Van Til, keep spending fruitful time interacting with 'fools' online, and continue to pat yourself on the back like a good t-blogger.</I><BR/><BR/>K: So, offer some more ad hominems, that's what you're best at.<BR/><BR/>One last thing, so yuou say!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157457441128156662006-09-05T07:57:00.000-04:002006-09-05T07:57:00.000-04:00You know, Apollyon, you're right. That's how it se...You know, Apollyon, you're right. That's how it seems to me. I can only tell it as it seems to me.<BR/><BR/>I have also explained why it seems that way to me.<BR/><BR/>Your point is?Hiraethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08745527476050999805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157451358316740492006-09-05T06:15:00.000-04:002006-09-05T06:15:00.000-04:00klaatu -You can twist words to mean anything you w...klaatu -<BR/><BR/>You can twist words to mean anything you want them to mean, as you obviously are doing with the words in the Bible. You start out with a theology you want to achieve, based on what you've been told to think by others, and VOILA, that is what you find in the Bible!<BR/><BR/>Hardly amazing.<BR/><BR/>The believer then blurts...<BR/><BR/>"But you must read the text in context."<BR/><BR/>"Exegesis is key!"<BR/><BR/>"Ah, you're reading the wrong version."<BR/><BR/>"Heresy!"<BR/><BR/>:::YAWN!::::<BR/><BR/>You flounder and blather, but still do not know.<BR/><BR/>The best you can offer up is to ask someone else how THEY know what the say. Kind of like the creationist whining about evolution. <BR/><BR/>"there's a fossil missing!"<BR/><BR/>"Where did matter come from?"<BR/><BR/>"Ha! Evolution is destroyed, therefore biblical creation is true!"<BR/><BR/>"I'll nitpick over people's "worldviews," that makes mine true! But if they nitpick mine, they are wrong! I'll presuppose I'm right!"<BR/><BR/>:::YAWN!:::<BR/><BR/>The point is, you don't KNOW what you claim to know, Paul. What "I" know has no bearing on this. Neither of us KNOWS, but I am honest enough to admit it, and most believers are not.<BR/><BR/>So take your vitamins, read some more Van Til, keep spending fruitful time interacting with 'fools' online, and continue to pat yourself on the back like a good t-blogger.<BR/><BR/>You still don't know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157431718658533072006-09-05T00:48:00.000-04:002006-09-05T00:48:00.000-04:00Apollyon is A, Klaatu is K.Klaatu said:"I take it ...Apollyon is A, Klaatu is K.<BR/><BR/>Klaatu said:<BR/><BR/>"I take it on God's say-so. It's an argument from ultimate authority."<BR/><BR/>A: So you say.<BR/><BR/>K: Well, you asked how *I* know that God is not an alien. How else could *I* tell you how *I* know other than *me* saying how I know.<BR/><BR/>And, for the record, "so you say" is not a defeater of an argument. if it is, "so you say." ;-)<BR/><BR/>A: Reading words in a book doesn't equate with "an all knowing being told me so," especially in a book so obviously written by ignorant morons who thought the sky was a hard dome holding back the water.<BR/><BR/>K: And begging the question, poisoning the well, attacking straw men, misrepresenting the data, and giving false analogies, coupled with ad hominems does not suffice to refute someone.<BR/><BR/>A: God is not all knowing ("Adam, where are you?" <BR/><BR/>K: God is all knowing. Her certainly knew where Adam was:<BR/><BR/>Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such a one as thyself: (but) I will reprove thee, and set (them) in order before thine eyes." (Psalm 50:21)<BR/><BR/>"The eyes of Jehovah are in every place, keeping watch upon the evil and the good." (Proverbs 15:3) <BR/><BR/>And there is no creature that is not manifest in His sight: but all things are naked and laid open before the eyes of Him with whom we have to do." (Hebrews 4:13) <BR/><BR/>“If I say, Surely the darkness shall fall on me, even the night shall be light about me; indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You, but the night shines as the day; the darkness and the light are both alike to You.” (Psalm 139:11,12) <BR/><BR/>"Where art thou" need not be talking about where you are physically, especially when the rest of the Bible is taken in to context.<BR/><BR/>For example, a man may cheat on his wife and then loose her and his family. A friend might ask him, "where did that get you?" Is he asking "where were you latitudinally?"<BR/><BR/>Frequently in Genesis God uses language like this prior to judgment, cf. Gen. 3:11-13; 4:9, 10; 11:5; 18:21; etc.<BR/><BR/>So, God investingating the situation as a judge would do, prior to handing out judgment. "Where are you" refers to the *state* Adam was in (i.e., the sinful state).<BR/><BR/>A: and God can lie, ableit indirectly, according to the Bible, <BR/><BR/><BR/>K: No he can't. Causing someone to believe a lie is not lying.<BR/><BR/>A: so there goes that argument<BR/><BR/>K: Sorry, mere assertions and fallacious question begging epithets aside, you didn't touch diddly.<BR/><BR/>Care to try again? Oh, and before you do, would you care to define what you mean by "know?" What is it to "know" something in your worldview?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com