Comment Re:Knowledge (Score 1) 1037
And to be clear, when I said "prewritten" I do not mean commanded. I meant it was known or prophesied, as if going back in time and writing about the future as if it were history.
And to be clear, when I said "prewritten" I do not mean commanded. I meant it was known or prophesied, as if going back in time and writing about the future as if it were history.
Everything is prewritten means no choice is possible? That's not a logical conclusion; that's an assumption.
I have no basis to conclude that my understanding is great enough to fit everything into a box I can describe, but that's what your statement does. It pretends that God has limitations we would have if, say, we were designing a simulation. Such a simulation would be bound by the concepts we understand, but wouldn't such a God live outside of how we understand time?
We don't even fully understand how to interpret quantum mechanics, but such a God would not only understand and be able to manipulate those properties, he would likely be at a much, much deeper and fundamental level than we have yet discovered or may even be able to discover. Perhaps the secret to free will is much deeper than the level the human race has grasped? I don't know, but more importantly, I don't pretend that I know.
What I'm more confused about, how is this sort of thing even legal? Isn't this bribing a public employee to perform outside duties while on the clock?
And I'm sure this sort of thing would go over very well if it were a religious group pushing their ideals in a similar fashion.
Monsanto is the reason my grandfather was diagnosed with prostate cancer several years ago (and why he received a nice settlement as part of a class action suit).
You obviously missed the part where I said
where it is on rerun
There's nothing to predict. It happened.
In any universe where it is possible to know someone MUST do X with 100% absolute certainty, then by definition, there is ZERO possibility that that person will choose to do Y instead.
Absolutely.
And I know that UConn beat Kentucky for the 2014 NCAA men's basketball championship. I can walk into a sports bar where it is on rerun, and predict with "100% absolute certainty" that UConn will beat Kentucky. There "is ZERO possibility" that Kentucky would beat UConn.
But that doesn't mean I caused UConn to beat Kentucky.
Nonsense. I know that a baseball pitcher is going to try to throw the ball, but that doesn't mean it is impossible for him to make a different choice.
Sure, God is never surprised. He knows what will happen. That doesn't mean he directly causes everything to happen.
that there's no difference
That's not the original claim. It was:
There are people who insist that they can hear the difference
This assumes Satan did not have free will, but scripture points out that he did. He will be held responsible.
Likewise, people who lead other people away from God will be held responsible, since they have free will.
if someone loses their religion because of the wealth of information on the internet that refutes their belief system then they were clearly lacking in the faith department.
Indeed. Or perhaps faith existed, but was not in God but in traditions, customs, or assumptions that substitute and detract from real faith in God.
Tomayto, tomahto.
F# was originally designed to be somewhat compatible. That goal has obviously faded but the point remains: it has its roots in OCaml and its current syntax draws from it.
But I agree that F# is better in many ways
Also, I don't know that list comprehension is the "selling feature". It's a feature, no doubt, but F# has quite a few tricks up its sleeves that are much more impressive than that.
It's essentially a port of OCaml. It is intended to be somewhat compatible with OCaml, hence the "let".
F# adds features like
Microsoft is closed source. Slashdot hates.
Microsoft goes open source. Slashdot hates.
Don't they check bathrooms?
If they don't... maybe they should.
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
