100 is average, from what I understand. And while I do not know mine exactly it is closer to yours than it is to average.
As you rightly say, it isn't that much of a thing to be overtly concerned about. Forgive me for the overemphasis, I just wanted you to stop and think about your name-calling. It seems to have no effect so I'll drop it.
Seeing as how I'm a very talented artist and poet I'm fairly certain you're way off about how I think.
I've no doubts here and would like to see some. You can see some of mine over
here (ignore the photos, maps, and charts, those aren't my work).
And 2+2=4 is not complicated. So not everything is. Time is not complicated, either.
This is absolutely not true. If you can explain to me how a past goes on forever 'without stopping' in durative terms, I'll acquiesce and relent.
Do what? My comment had nothing to do with foreknowledge. It was about present knowledge. I was right, you are an idiot.
Hmmm, the idiot comment again.....
I was overambitious, the proof was that with God having perfect foreknowledge, He'd also consequently have perfect present knowledge.
It was a two birds with one stone kinda thing.
Yes, God knows me that well. So what?
You're problem is that you are trying to solve basic math using Calculus.
"God never had a beginning." Sounds pretty simple to me.
Really? Explain it to me? As we look at our past, it is finite. We can think of the time we were born. We can think of a time God created everything.
I personally have a hard time with a past that has no reference point.
If you could explain that, you'd be my hero (this can be rhetorical if you wish).
You're definitely off on that. This was not a physical human trait. So it does not qualify as a anthropomorphism. And even if it is an anthropopathism, just saying that it is does not explain why He said it. It does not answer the question I asked.
Not sure what your criteria is for negotiating the two. What is your criteria for it?
you just got done telling me it's more complicated than I know, and then you go and try to simplify to the fullest extent possible. And it just seems to me that you're trying to dumb it down so that you can try to understand it.
"Time." We were talking about time. This isn't the same topic.
This is another problem with the "high IQ" crowd. Not only do they think everything is too complicated for the average person to understand it, they think a great many things are too complicated for even them to understand, so they never try.
You suffer from the same problem as someone who was always told they were stupid growing up.
You can't prove that it is impossible, can you?
And you're not trying very hard to explain this to me either.
P.S.
I used to believe the same thing you do, regarding this.
I've addressed this concern again in the post above. If you explain the simple answers to these questions and those above in a way that takes care of all of my questions and concerns, I'll acquiesce that time consideration is as simple as you assert.
