God would be in need of neither theory or experience.

The academic nature of debates like this is exactly why UMGRAD is so annoying

With perfect experience... i.e, you've experienced everything and absorbed all of the knowledge from that experience, there is no need for theory. Everything would be known for a fact, and no experimentation would be necessary

Theoretical experimentation is often merely a way of cutting down on the need for actual experience. If something is so unlikely to be moot, then there is little need to experience the unlikely event.

The reason UM likes discussions like this is because he THINKS he can have so much theory that experience is less important. While the opposite is true... one can have so much experience that theory is less important, I don't think his position would be true.

The martial arts example could be extended to hundreds of examples... Would you rather have a mechanic with 15 years of experience fixing your problem, or someone who has never touched the equipment, but has read lots of books about it?

I'm sure they exist... but few readily pop to mind of times I'd rather have someone who has read a lot about something, but never experienced it over the latter. The ones that come to MY mind are a matter of opinion at best.

(01-18-2012 06:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The academic nature of debates like this is exactly why UMGRAD is so annoying

With perfect experience... i.e, you've experienced everything and absorbed all of the knowledge from that experience, there is no need for theory. Everything would be known for a fact, and no experimentation would be necessary

Theoretical experimentation is often merely a way of cutting down on the need for actual experience. If something is so unlikely to be moot, then there is little need to experience the unlikely event.

The reason UM likes discussions like this is because he THINKS he can have so much theory that experience is less important. While the opposite is true... one can have so much experience that theory is less important, I don't think his position would be true.

The martial arts example could be extended to hundreds of examples... Would you rather have a mechanic with 15 years of experience fixing your problem, or someone who has never touched the equipment, but has read lots of books about it?

I'm sure they exist... but few readily pop to mind of times I'd rather have someone who has read a lot about something, but never experienced it over the latter. The ones that come to MY mind are a matter of opinion at best.

As usual, you apply your dull wit and come the wrong conclusion.

I wasn't aware there is a right conclusion...

(01-18-2012 06:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The academic nature of debates like this is exactly why UMGRAD is so annoying

With perfect experience... i.e, you've experienced everything and absorbed all of the knowledge from that experience, there is no need for theory. Everything would be known for a fact, and no experimentation would be necessary

Theoretical experimentation is often merely a way of cutting down on the need for actual experience. If something is so unlikely to be moot, then there is little need to experience the unlikely event.

The reason UM likes discussions like this is because he THINKS he can have so much theory that experience is less important. While the opposite is true... one can have so much experience that theory is less important, I don't think his position would be true.

The martial arts example could be extended to hundreds of examples... Would you rather have a mechanic with 15 years of experience fixing your problem, or someone who has never touched the equipment, but has read lots of books about it?

I'm sure they exist... but few readily pop to mind of times I'd rather have someone who has read a lot about something, but never experienced it over the latter. The ones that come to MY mind are a matter of opinion at best.

Makes sense to me. When I had my open heart surgery I wanted a guy who had done thousands of them successfully, not someone fresh from anatomy class. Once again Hammy, good post.

(01-18-2012 06:50 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(01-18-2012 06:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The academic nature of debates like this is exactly why UMGRAD is so annoying

With perfect experience... i.e, you've experienced everything and absorbed all of the knowledge from that experience, there is no need for theory. Everything would be known for a fact, and no experimentation would be necessary

Theoretical experimentation is often merely a way of cutting down on the need for actual experience. If something is so unlikely to be moot, then there is little need to experience the unlikely event.

The reason UM likes discussions like this is because he THINKS he can have so much theory that experience is less important. While the opposite is true... one can have so much experience that theory is less important, I don't think his position would be true.

The martial arts example could be extended to hundreds of examples... Would you rather have a mechanic with 15 years of experience fixing your problem, or someone who has never touched the equipment, but has read lots of books about it?

I'm sure they exist... but few readily pop to mind of times I'd rather have someone who has read a lot about something, but never experienced it over the latter. The ones that come to MY mind are a matter of opinion at best.

As usual, you apply your dull wit and come the wrong conclusion.

Why ask the question when you've made up your mind the answer you want?

As expected, some are having a really hard time staying on topic. There are many disciplines that lend themselves naturally toward experiential knowledge and many that lend themselves naturally towards theoretical knowledge, but that isn't the point. The point is that complete knowledge requires both.

Are you trying to get us to answer a question for a test you're having in school?

(01-18-2012 07:55 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  As expected, some are having a really hard time staying on topic. There are many disciplines that lend themselves naturally toward experiential knowledge and many that lend themselves naturally towards theoretical knowledge, but that isn't the point. The point is that complete knowledge requires both.

As expected yo walked in with a made up mind, and are pouting because you didn't get the answers you wanted.

(01-18-2012 08:22 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(01-18-2012 07:55 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  As expected, some are having a really hard time staying on topic. There are many disciplines that lend themselves naturally toward experiential knowledge and many that lend themselves naturally towards theoretical knowledge, but that isn't the point. The point is that complete knowledge requires both.

As expected yo walked in with a made up mind, and are pouting because you didn't get the answers you wanted.

As expected, you can't even figure out what I'm talking about. Ham is way offbase because he thinks this has something to do with me, then he runs off on some tangent based on that incorrect conclusion. And of course, none of you can figure that out without me telling you.

Get back on topic, do you agree or disagree that complete knowledge requires a complete theoretical and complete experiential knowledge?

I agree.

You're a pompous bastard.

Back to the topic at hand, anyone disagree that complete knowledge requries both complete theoretical and complete experiential knowledge?

(01-18-2012 08:26 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(01-18-2012 08:22 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(01-18-2012 07:55 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  As expected, some are having a really hard time staying on topic. There are many disciplines that lend themselves naturally toward experiential knowledge and many that lend themselves naturally towards theoretical knowledge, but that isn't the point. The point is that complete knowledge requires both.

As expected yo walked in with a made up mind, and are pouting because you didn't get the answers you wanted.

As expected, you can't even figure out what I'm talking about. Ham is way offbase because he thinks this has something to do with me, then he runs off on some tangent based on that incorrect conclusion. And of course, none of you can figure that out without me telling you.

Get back on topic, do you agree or disagree that complete knowledge requires a complete theoretical and complete experiential knowledge?

Everyone on here thinks your posts always have something to do with you. There are numerous posts by many people asking you to be honest about what you are really asking and simply get to the point you've obviously already made up. If you don't like the reputation you've so richly earned, then deal with it.

As to the topic... I was pretty clear. I'm sorry you can't multi-task in conversation but need it spelled out for you.

If you have perfect experience, you don't need perfect theory. You've experienced everything and learned all that there is to know about the event. The opposite isn't true.

Respond to that.

and if you come back with, I am somehow ignoring the value of theoretical education... then you absolutely ARE making it about yourself, since this is what you posses, without the other... while most of the people you debate with possess both to varying degrees. Personally, I learned MUCH more about business by experience than by theory, but my theoretical background was certainly valuable in cutting corners and selecting the most likely experiences.... but that isn't what you asked.

If you don't like my tangent, then ignore it. My answer to your question is pretty clear.

(01-18-2012 05:06 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-18-2012 04:48 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Does god have perfect knowledge? Both theoretical and experiential? If he lacks either, then his knowledge can't be complete, can it?

I don't think bringing God into this is constructive...

That's what this whole thread is about. He wanted to lulls the "religious" people on this board into talking about people, when he doesn't understand God (heck, no one really does other than him), and get them to question their beliefs by comparing God to Man. They don't compare.

(01-17-2012 11:30 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(01-17-2012 11:16 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  They're wrong. But I can't be sure, because one can't know perfectly...

Those who believe in an all-knowing god believe in perfect knowledge. Of course, the need for perfect theoretical and perfect experiential knowledge presents some serious difficulties for these people.

I think my answer was a bullseye.

(Now you come back and say something about how I'm an idiot, so of course I'd think that. Insult where I went to school. I walk away because, you know, "fighting a pig" "arguing with an idiot/people watching won't know who's who" etc. and then you feel like you've won because you got the last word, only to start another inane thread 2 weeks later.)

/thread

Then let's find the area where we agree - complete knowledge is not possible without all possible experiential knowledge.

complete knowledge, like perfection is (in general) impossible


can we move on now?

(01-18-2012 09:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  complete knowledge, like perfection is (in general) impossible


can we move on now?

You believe that perfection and complete knowledge is impossible?

(01-18-2012 10:25 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(01-18-2012 09:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  complete knowledge, like perfection is (in general) impossible


can we move on now?

You believe that perfection and complete knowledge are impossible?

I'm not normally a grammar Nazi, but when the absolute perfect situation comes along...

(01-18-2012 10:25 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(01-18-2012 09:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  complete knowledge, like perfection is (in general) impossible


can we move on now?

You believe that perfection and complete knowledge is impossible?

Anyone who believes either is possible is capable of performing, or supporting awful things..

The quest man based Utopia has always ended in horror and the quest for 'perfection' of knowledge has made many a person do unspeakable things.

I get the feeling he wants us to agree on something then he's going to drop a bomb on us.