Hi Mike,

You know.. It's going to be fun some day to meet you F2F and really give this discussion the time it deserves. <g> Plus we may be a little better at avoiding the problematical misreadings of each others responses..

>>There are not enough books, shelves, libraries or whatever to hold the knowledge.
>
>Knoweldge <> Intelligence.

True enough. I know a lot of dumb smart guys. <g>

However, it also holds that you can be intelligent and yet devoid of knowledge in some areas. I 'know' God in an experiential sense (gnosko). Someone else may be more intelligent or may have more knowledge about God, yey not 'know' Him. I've had dinner at Bill Gates (old) home - (1992 first Database Summit) I 'know' what that house loos like. I can tell you about it but unless and until you go into that house you don't know it as I do.


>
>Unlimited Intelligence <> Knowing everything.

I'd disagree with this, looking at it from God's pov. From that viewpoint there is no difference. He knows everything and is supremely intelligent. From man's pov it is a moot point as there really is no individual who fits this definition with the exception of Jesus, who, the Bible unequivocably asserts, was God in the form of man.

What I'm attempting to do here is point out that infinity = both 'unlimited knowledge' and 'Knowing everything' and that man, being intrinsically finite, simply can never totally 'get there'. Can mankind grow and learn far far beyond where he presently is? Absolutely! Should he? You bet! Will he (mankind) ever become infinite in this sense? Nope. It will take an eternity for a finite being to learn all that the infinite God knows. The cool thing is that God wants us to know it. It will just take an eternity to gret there, which BTW deals IMO rather effectively with the whole issue of being bored. <g>

>
>HTH.

It did.

>
>>God, being defined as existing outside of space, time and matter doesn't have this trouble as all 'time' to Him would be simultaneously occurring if you get my drift.
>
>Thats what kills me about xtianity, what would a god that is all knowing bring ot people? He would just be that annoying guy at parties who thinks he knows it all (and, strangly enough does). A profound creative intelligence on the other hand, I would rather have as a diety, and would be a lot more believable than an all knowing, all seeing god.

You're anthropomorphising heavily here.. And in public too! <g>

>
>>So, no, mankind is absolutely limited by his humanity and cannot ever gain unlimited understanding.
>
>Of course. I don't think anyone perception and understanding of reality will ever be perfect. But that doesn't mean that one day we will hit a limit of our understanding.

Well, as I've said, I think that man has nowhere near reached his capacity to learn - just that he (mankind) will never reach the infinite 'level'.

>
>You brought up infinity. You can never write down infinity, yet, it has no limits. Thats how I view intelligence.

I think that's fairly close but I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'write down'. I'm presuming that you mean cataloguing in a book? In that case we agree.

>
>>What you apparently are failing to ascertain is that just because you don't know something doesn't mean it isn't true.
>
>Why would you say that? I try very carefully to be open minded about such subject, but skeptical and reasoning at the same time. Did I ever say that "God exists" is false? No.

Well, here the differences between Greek and English cause us troubles. There are two primary Greek words that are both translated 'know'; gnosko and ouides. Gnosko is experiential knowledge and ouides is more like knowledge about. Some people 'know' God while some 'know about' God. After you and I have had the opportunity to sit down F2F you will find that future conversations will be much richer as will I. Why? We've had a chance to meet each other and that's what I'm trying to get across to you here.

>
>>>Like I said, whats wrong with living for today the best you can?
>>Define 'best'.
>
>Good question. I don't think I can right now. That deserves some more thought, thanks.

No problemo. Remember, how people define 'best' is oftentimes defined for them by Madison Avenue. We're literally bombarded with the junk each day but what most people don't have is a clear understanding of some of the philosohpihcal underpinnings contained in those ads. It's there if you look closely.

>
>>You simply cannot logically assert on one hand 'nothing is definite' and then on the other make an assertion that something is 'right'.
>
>I have never asserted that "nothing is definite". I have asserted that untestable theories should be viewed with great skepticism.

The logical problem with this is that the assertion is intrinsically contradictory to the assertion. <g> IOW, how can one make an statement absolutely asserting they know nothing is definite? More properly, as I previously stated, you can only assert that you think maybe that 'nothing is definite' as the statement 'nothing is definite' is an absolute. Yet the content of the statement is the exact opposite! <g> Your statement may not be definite as nothing (including your statement) is definite.

>
>>Well, you did use that term in relation to yourself.
>
>No, I said "And I'm supposed the be the dreamer here?" Sarcasm, implying that you're more of a dreamer than I am.

Ahh.. I misread you then.

Well, as to whether or not I am more of a dreamer than you I'd like your definition of the word. I do take a more naps these days on the couch on Saturdays and/or Sundays. <g>

However, don't confuse my expresisons of confidence and hope as dreams. Perhaps they look that way from your pov but I can assure you they are not that way from mine. IOW, be careful to not project yourself onto me and then criticize me for that. Common boo boo we all do from time to time...

>
>>But here I thought mankind could understand everything.. Hmm..
>
>Lets take mankind of the picture and focus strictly on intelligence throughout the universe. I'm simply saying that while somethings will be difficult to understand and downright impossible for just about everyone you and I know, there will never be a point in time where thought can go no further. Which means, there are no limits. Just like infinity, it will go and go and go. Never quite reaching any end, but never quite staying where it is.

Ok.. In this case we agree, and it clarifies your prior assertions tremendously. THanks. Here's the rub.. Omniscience (omni - all, science - knowledge) is the technical definition of God's level of knowledge. IOW, at no point can God learn anything new as He knows everything all at the same time - even those bits of knowledge lost to mankind. At no time would he ever say, "Gosh, I didn't know that about you!". <g> We, as member of humanity, will never reach that point. We are finite, He is not.

>
>>Or let me ask you this. In the above paragraph you assert that we have a lack of knowledge of some things and yet you assert that mankind's understanding isn't limited?
>>??? <g>
>
>Why are you grinning? DOn't you understand the difference between intelligence and knowledge? Do you not understand that even if we didn't understand something now it doesn't mean we never will?

I do understand the differences. I wasn't trying to insult you and sorry if it came across like that. It's just that there is SO much to this that our conversation struck me as partucularly humorous at the time.

>
>You must have meant somethign other than what you said cause thats awfully weak, Doug.

Probably a misunderstanding on my part. NBD..

>
>>You don't really know if all of what you have been taught is true, now do you..
>
>No I don't. And thats why when evidence is shown to prove what I was tought, or contradict it, I won't let hard personal beliefs prevent my analysis of that evidence. Great point, I've been saying it all along.

Well, I think what I've been asserting Mike is that there's a LOT more but that where I'm coming from is gnosko-based and where you're coming from is ouides-based. They are both 'knowing' but they are intrinsically different.

>
>>since I am now officially an old fart. (My 50th was last week. <g>)
>
>Happy Birthday! What did you do to celebrate?

I had a nice, quiet evening. Smoked chicken, BBQ beans, potato salad and a lemon merangue pie.

My birthday has always been something of a huge swirl of emotions. Mom died on the day on my 9th birthday. Jonathan was born on the 20th so had he lived he would have been 15 this year so the day, while thoroughly enjoyable and enjoyed, does have some other sides to it that always cause me to be a little introspective.

But thank you for the kind words!

>
>>There are parts of me that will be lost to that assembledge of understand forever so therefore the assembledge will be incomplete - therefore understanding can never be complete.
>
>Which does not mean "understanding is limited".

By our finiteness v God's infiniteness.

>
>>If by the phrase 'believing anything' you are also asserting 'believing everything', sure, you're rationalizing since believing everything includes believing lies. If I've misunderstood you here please clarify, would you?
>
>You misunderstand because the point of my reply was to say that I have made no claims of my own in this thread, there fore, have nothing to rationalize. I'm simply trying to understand your claims.

Ahh.. But you have made some claims now haven't you? <g> "nothing is definite" comes to mind. Remember, we all bring the prism of our own presumptions to the table. < s >

>
>>Thanks again Mike. I enjoy these little exercises.
>
>Me too.

Great.