|
Post by gadreel on Sept 7, 2022 23:55:13 GMT
Ok, maybe I just agree with you, then. Whatever. When someone asks if you believe in God, it would be wise to enure that they aren't asking if you believe there's a magical sky fairy floating around on a plate of spaghetti, because that could very well be what they had in mind when they asked. Similarly, if the question didn't presume that God "can do anything," but instead presumed he's omnipotent, I would respond by saying, "That depends on what you mean by omnipotent." So... If God can do anything, can he- Yes. hahhahahahhaaa Seems strange you would need to reiterate your stance if we agree.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 8, 2022 0:03:24 GMT
Ok, maybe I just agree with you, then. Whatever. When someone asks if you believe in God, it would be wise to enure that they aren't asking if you believe there's a magical sky fairy floating around on a plate of spaghetti, because that could very well be what they had in mind when they asked. Similarly, if the question didn't presume that God "can do anything," but instead presumed he's omnipotent, I would respond by saying, "That depends on what you mean by omnipotent." So... If God can do anything, can he- Yes. hahhahahahhaaa Seems strange you would need to reiterate your stance if we agree. Oh, are we going to be children now? What, specifically, do you disagree with?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 8, 2022 0:08:01 GMT
hahhahahahhaaa Seems strange you would need to reiterate your stance if we agree. Oh, are we going to be children now? What, specifically, do you disagree with? Have a great day.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 8, 2022 0:09:06 GMT
Oh, are we going to be children now? What, specifically, do you disagree with? Have a great day. Thanks! You do the same.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Sept 8, 2022 4:10:04 GMT
Omnipotence/heavy rock is a loaded question; it has no correct answer because it's illogical. How is it illogical? I feel like it presents two options, and asks you to choose one based on your definition of omnipotence. Both possible answers void the question.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 8, 2022 5:45:30 GMT
How is it illogical? I feel like it presents two options, and asks you to choose one based on your definition of omnipotence. Both possible answers void the question. What do you think the purpose of the question is? And how do the answers void that?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 8, 2022 6:38:37 GMT
Both possible answers void the question. What do you think the purpose of the question is? And how do the answers void that? What's the question? Is it... 1. If God can do anything, can he make a rock he cannot lift? 2. If God is omnipotent, can he create a rock he cannot lift? or simply... 3. Can God create a rock he cannot lift? I've been referring to #1. It seems you've been referring to #3. Funny thing is, the answer to both of those is simply "yes." Only #2 requires further information, namely what the person asking the question means by "omnipotent." But whatever the case, it's a loaded question, and its purpose is to "prove" that God is as impotent as we are, if he exists at all. And anyone who struts after asking it needs to go back to atheism school.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Sept 8, 2022 20:30:10 GMT
Both possible answers void the question. What do you think the purpose of the question is? And how do the answers void that? The purpose is to make the person asking look clever by pointing out the paradox of omnipotence. I believe it was you that said there are 2 answers: 1) No, therefore god is not omnipotent. 2) Yes, therefore god is not omnipotent.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 8, 2022 22:24:29 GMT
What do you think the purpose of the question is? And how do the answers void that? The purpose is to make the person asking look clever by pointing out the paradox of omnipotence. I believe it was you that said there are 2 answers: 1) No, therefore god is not omnipotent. 2) Yes, therefore god is not omnipotent. No I said there were two answers but not those. My contention is that the paradox is not about god, but in fact about the definition of omnipotence. Either situation is correct depending on what you define omnipotence as. Exactly what I said was
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 9, 2022 0:48:30 GMT
In the end the question simply asks the listener to define omnipotence. Then why not just ask that? Seems unnecessary to involve God.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 9, 2022 1:36:06 GMT
In the end the question simply asks the listener to define omnipotence. Then why not just ask that? Seems unnecessary to involve God. It's a pretty common way to phrase philosophical questions, put them into a scenario.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 9, 2022 1:39:11 GMT
Then why not just ask that? Seems unnecessary to involve God. It's a pretty common way to phrase philosophical questions, put them into a scenario. But why God?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 9, 2022 1:56:33 GMT
It's a pretty common way to phrase philosophical questions, put them into a scenario. But why God? I guess applying the question of omnipotence to Sasha Grey seemed a bit disingenuous??
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 9, 2022 2:28:13 GMT
I guess applying the question of omnipotence to Sasha Grey seemed a bit disingenuous?? If Sasha Grey can do anything, can she make a rock she can't lift? Nothing changed. So, why God?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 9, 2022 2:42:15 GMT
I guess applying the question of omnipotence to Sasha Grey seemed a bit disingenuous?? If Sasha Grey can do anything, can she make a rock she can't lift? Nothing changed. So, why God? If you think it seems reasonable to assign the quality of omnipotence to Sasha Grey, far be it from me to stop you. Who knows that alone might get you tenure.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 9, 2022 3:06:45 GMT
If Sasha Grey can do anything, can she make a rock she can't lift? Nothing changed. So, why God? If you think it seems reasonable to assign the quality of omnipotence to Sasha Grey, far be it from me to stop you. Who knows that alone might get you tenure. If the purpose of the question is simply to define omnipotence, it can be assigned to anything, as I just demonstrated. Are you saying it's only reasonable to presume omnipotence before defining it as long as it's being assigned to God? If so, then I reckon we have an answer to the question of why God: Because God is omnipotent, and Sasha Grey is not.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 9, 2022 4:37:56 GMT
If you think it seems reasonable to assign the quality of omnipotence to Sasha Grey, far be it from me to stop you. Who knows that alone might get you tenure. If the purpose of the question is simply to define omnipotence, it can be assigned to anything, as I just demonstrated. Are you saying it's only reasonable to presume omnipotence before defining it as long as it's being assigned to God? If so, then I reckon we have an answer to the question of why God: Because God is omnipotent, and Sasha Grey is not. So since you have assigned omnipotence already, the only thing left to do is define that omnipotence, which is the point of the argument.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 9, 2022 5:36:55 GMT
If the purpose of the question is simply to define omnipotence, it can be assigned to anything, as I just demonstrated. Are you saying it's only reasonable to presume omnipotence before defining it as long as it's being assigned to God? If so, then I reckon we have an answer to the question of why God: Because God is omnipotent, and Sasha Grey is not. So since you have assigned omnipotence already, the only thing left to do is define that omnipotence, which is the point of the argument. Omnipotence was assigned in the question.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 9, 2022 9:58:15 GMT
So since you have assigned omnipotence already, the only thing left to do is define that omnipotence, which is the point of the argument. Omnipotence was assigned in the question. Yes, although I still enjoy an omnipotent Sasha Grey.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 9, 2022 10:05:22 GMT
Omnipotence was assigned in the question. Yes, although I still enjoy an omnipotent Sasha Grey. What do you mean by omnipotent?
|
|