An inconsistent triad.
1. It is bad to give a philosophy exam asking questions like "Is there free will?," "Is the soul immaterial?," "Is anything supernatural?"
2. Saying metaphysics matters to providence is like God giving a bad philosophy exam.
3. God is a good philosopher.
@Dispointvet@BBGreatMoments This is the only story that makes any sense. He must have known he lacked elite baseball skills, and who gains elite skills they never had at that age?
@JoshuaLWatson Ok that seems a proof in both senses. There are no proofs of existential judgments is a version of the problem with induction since not-exist = all-not
A man on the left is thinking. You ask him what he is thinking about and he says "God."
Another man is thinking. You ask him what he is thinking about and he says the Universe: everything that is the case.
What is the difference between their thoughts?
@AuerbachBo68067 I admit this has nothing to do with my relationship with God. But I wouldn't say I know that God exists, or that I know things about him.
I have faith which makes knowledge redundant. What matters is my relationship with God. See Pascal. Why confuse faith with knowledge?
@AuerbachBo68067 This makes it seem like GOD - the concept, not the Being - is Platonic, meaning, the same concept for all. Knowledge of God is grasping the concept GOD.
That makes it difficult to explain difference of opinion among intelligent people, including disagreements about the best Way.
Working in philosophy, I often forget that philosophical concepts play an important role in our lives.
An example:
For some Christians, free will MUST oppose determinism. That is an important part, essential to their story.
No set of arguments alone will dislodge that view.
@JoshuaLWatson Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table
David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel