|
Post by Isapop on Sept 9, 2022 13:42:57 GMT
Yes, although I still enjoy an omnipotent Sasha Grey. What's that? A variety of English tea?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 9, 2022 20:18:16 GMT
Yes, although I still enjoy an omnipotent Sasha Grey. What do you mean by omnipotent? I've already told you on which side of the fence I fall.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 9, 2022 20:18:44 GMT
Yes, although I still enjoy an omnipotent Sasha Grey. What's that? A variety of English tea? Yes, exactly that.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Sept 9, 2022 20:48:04 GMT
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 My mistake, I thought it was you that said there were two answers. I did say it points out the paradox of omnipotence, so we are probably in agreement about that. The question isn't that deep, it attacks the classic religious claim that god is omnipotent.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 9, 2022 21:07:14 GMT
What do you mean by omnipotent? I've already told you on which side of the fence I fall. It was a rhetorical question. The point is that it's not up to me to decide what you mean when you say it. Likewise, it's not up to me to decide what someone means when they ask if God is omnipotent. In fact, there are two things that need to be determined before the question can be answered: What the person asking the question means by "omnipotent," and what they mean by "God."
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 11, 2022 18:38:38 GMT
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 My mistake, I thought it was you that said there were two answers. I did say it points out the paradox of omnipotence, so we are probably in agreement about that. The question isn't that deep, it attacks the classic religious claim that god is omnipotent. I dis say there are two answers, I even quoted me saying that. I dont think it does attack the claim god is omnipotent, it never adresses god it simply uses god as an example and asks what is omnipotence
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 11, 2022 18:39:59 GMT
I've already told you on which side of the fence I fall. It was a rhetorical question. The point is that it's not up to me to decide what you mean when you say it. Likewise, it's not up to me to decide what someone means when they ask if God is omnipotent. In fact, there are two things that need to be determined before the question can be answered: What the person asking the question means by "omnipotent," and what they mean by "God." Why would you need to define that, it's the whole point of the question. Or Sasha Grey, best enjoyed with a spot of milk.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 11, 2022 21:49:28 GMT
It was a rhetorical question. The point is that it's not up to me to decide what you mean when you say it. Likewise, it's not up to me to decide what someone means when they ask if God is omnipotent. In fact, there are two things that need to be determined before the question can be answered: What the person asking the question means by "omnipotent," and what they mean by "God." Why would you need to define that, it's the whole point of the question. Or Sasha Grey, best enjoyed with a spot of milk. So you'll know what you're being asked. Sometimes more information is needed to answer a question. If I were to ask you if you believe in flarbles, would you not first need to know what flarbles are? Fortunately, in this case, 'omnipotent' is a real word that means "having unlimited power." If you mean something else when you ask the question, you should probably clarify lest the literal definition be incorrectly assumed. Otherwise, the only correct answer is... "If God is omnipotent, can he make a rock he can't lift?" That depends on what you mean by omnipotent. I'm not sure why this even needed to be explained, let alone several times, but I'm guessing it has something to do with your assertion that it's not a question at all, or at least one that isn't to be answered.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 12, 2022 1:35:45 GMT
Why would you need to define that, it's the whole point of the question. Or Sasha Grey, best enjoyed with a spot of milk. So you'll know what you're being asked. Sometimes more information is needed to answer a question. If I were to ask you if you believe in flarbles, would you not first need to know what flarbles are? Fortunately, in this case, 'omnipotent' is a real word that means "having unlimited power." If you mean something else when you ask the question, you should probably clarify lest the literal definition be incorrectly assumed. Otherwise, the only correct answer is... "If God is omnipotent, can he make a rock he can't lift?" That depends on what you mean by omnipotent. I'm not sure why this even needed to be explained, let alone several times, but I'm guessing it has something to do with your assertion that it's not a question at all, or at least one that isn't to be answered. That is not the correct answer, that is THE WHOLE THING. The whole thing is talking about the nature of omnipotence. I never asserted it was not a question, in fact I answered the question.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 12, 2022 2:35:34 GMT
So you'll know what you're being asked. Sometimes more information is needed to answer a question. If I were to ask you if you believe in flarbles, would you not first need to know what flarbles are? Fortunately, in this case, 'omnipotent' is a real word that means "having unlimited power." If you mean something else when you ask the question, you should probably clarify lest the literal definition be incorrectly assumed. Otherwise, the only correct answer is... "If God is omnipotent, can he make a rock he can't lift?" That depends on what you mean by omnipotent. I'm not sure why this even needed to be explained, let alone several times, but I'm guessing it has something to do with your assertion that it's not a question at all, or at least one that isn't to be answered. That is not the correct answer, that is THE WHOLE THING. The whole thing is talking about the nature of omnipotence. Then what's all that crap about God and rocks? Your answer was that it depends on what omnipotence means. Funny, that.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 12, 2022 2:45:37 GMT
That is not the correct answer, that is THE WHOLE THING. The whole thing is talking about the nature of omnipotence. Then what's all that crap about God and rocks? Your answer was that it depends on what omnipotence means. Funny, that. Well at least you are reading what I wrote I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 12, 2022 2:53:35 GMT
Then what's all that crap about God and rocks? Your answer was that it depends on what omnipotence means. Funny, that. Well at least you are reading what I wrote I guess. You also said that was not the correct answer. So what happens now? More Sasha Grey jokes? Exit stage left, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 12, 2022 3:01:13 GMT
Well at least you are reading what I wrote I guess. You also said that was not the correct answer. So what happens now? More Sasha Grey jokes? Exit stage left, perhaps? You will need to be more specific, I have explained it very clearly to you, and you even finally admitted you understood a few posts back. Im not convinced I want to explain it all over again, can you be more forthright with your questions?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 12, 2022 5:00:52 GMT
You also said that was not the correct answer. So what happens now? More Sasha Grey jokes? Exit stage left, perhaps? You will need to be more specific, I have explained it very clearly to you, and you even finally admitted you understood a few posts back. Im not convinced I want to explain it all over again, can you be more forthright with your questions? I said the answer to the question depends on what omnipotent means. You said that was incorrect. Then I pointed out that you had said the same thing and openly wondered how you were going to respond. And now I know: You feigned ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Sept 12, 2022 10:13:12 GMT
Getting back to the question about "what if God is evolving too"....
The Jewish view is that God lives outside of the process of time that exists for the physical world that He created.
As mentioned earlier, all of time is like a spreadsheet to God. He isn't actually experiencing time Himself.
So He is seen to be in an eternal state where He does not evolve.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 12, 2022 16:48:57 GMT
You will need to be more specific, I have explained it very clearly to you, and you even finally admitted you understood a few posts back. Im not convinced I want to explain it all over again, can you be more forthright with your questions? I said the answer to the question depends on what omnipotent means. You said that was incorrect. Then I pointed out that you had said the same thing and openly wondered how you were going to respond. And now I know: You feigned ignorance. I am not understanding you, I have been very very clear, the whole question is about what is the definition of omnipotence, perhaps I misread a question somewhere and you are taking that to be a contradiction in my claim. Do you want me to spell it out one more time?? The paradox of the rock is not a question of if the subject (god) is omnipotent, it is assumed that the subject IS omnipotent, the question is what does omnipotent mean, and the paradox gives two possible answers: That omnipotence must follow logical rules, so the subject (again god, being the only thing we ever attribute omnipotence too, although it could be a popular porn star if you think that works) is NOT able to create a rock that it cannot lift (or make a square triangle, or divorce an unmarried person), however that does not affect their omnipotence as they are still omnipotent within logical rules. OR That omnipotence has NO rules, and god (or whomever you think can be omnipotent) is perfectly able to create a rock it cannot lift, and moreover can lift it (and can make a square triangle or divorce an unmarried couple) because there are no rules to omniopotence. I am not convinced I can make it any clearer, and this has been my stance the entire time, I apologise unreservedly if somehow I confused that notion in your head, this has been my consistent stance though.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 12, 2022 22:34:35 GMT
I said the answer to the question depends on what omnipotent means. You said that was incorrect. Then I pointed out that you had said the same thing and openly wondered how you were going to respond. And now I know: You feigned ignorance. I am not understanding you, I have been very very clear, the whole question is about what is the definition of omnipotence, perhaps I misread a question somewhere and you are taking that to be a contradiction in my claim. Do you want me to spell it out one more time?? Those are some crazy bookends you have there. Perhaps you aren't understanding me because you're too busy explaining yourself. And yet you disagree with me when I say the premise of the question is that the subject is omnipotent. It's interesting how it's okay to replace "God" with a generic "subject," but it's just sarcasm when it's replaced with "Sasha Grey." That's just another long-winded way of saying the answer depends on what omnipotence means. I guess it's only wrong when I say it. I think at this point, you're just arguing for the sake of argument. I may be wrong, but I can't think of any other reason why you would begin a post about how you don't understand what I've been saying, then "spell out" what you've been saying, as if I'm not understanding you.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 12, 2022 23:04:29 GMT
I am not understanding you, I have been very very clear, the whole question is about what is the definition of omnipotence, perhaps I misread a question somewhere and you are taking that to be a contradiction in my claim. Do you want me to spell it out one more time?? Those are some crazy bookends you have there. Perhaps you aren't understanding me because you're too busy explaining yourself. And yet you disagree with me when I say the premise of the question is that the subject is omnipotent. It's interesting how it's okay to replace "God" with a generic "subject," but it's just sarcasm when it's replaced with "Sasha Grey." That's just another long-winded way of saying the answer depends on what omnipotence means. I guess it's only wrong when I say it. I think at this point, you're just arguing for the sake of argument. I may be wrong, but I can't think of any other reason why you would begin a post about how you don't understand what I've been saying, then "spell out" what you've been saying, as if I'm not understanding you. I think we are talking at such phenomenal cross purposes that there is confusion. lets have one more go No I disagreed that you needed to define omnipotence first, the point of the question is the definition of omnipotence It can be anything at all, clearly the argument works better if the subject has a chance of being omnipotent, I am not sure I refuted you saying that, the answer is a conversation on omnipotence, that is the point, perhaps I misread something you said, I would love you to quote me so I can clear it up I said I could not understand the last post you made, so I reiterated my stance so that you could maybe point out how related. Honestly I think you are either not understanding me or there is a wire crossed. I feel like I have been pretty clear on my stance and yet you seem to keep on coming back with responses that question what I say. Honestly as I intimated before I have covered this as much as I am able unless you can tell me clearly where I am wrong or what you dont understand about my stance I feel like this is as much as I can deliver for you.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 13, 2022 3:58:37 GMT
The purpose of the question isn't to define the premise. If the premise isn't understood, then it needs to be defined before the question can be answered. That's why it depends on what the person asking the question means by "omnipotent." (See 'flarbles' analogy above.) And yet it works just as well with a generic "subject." Just replace "God" with "X" as I replaced it with "Sasha Grey." Nothing changes because the question doesn't ask if X is omnipotent; it presumes it. Me: [The correct answer to the question is:] That depends on what you mean by omnipotent. You: That is not the correct answer. imdb2.freeforums.net/post/5598604/threadI'm sorry, but I don't understand what I just read. You're right when you say it depends on what omnipotence means, but you're wrong when you say it doesn't depend on what the one asking the question means. Every time you list both possible answers, you are effectively saying, "If you mean this, then X; if you mean that, then Y."
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 13, 2022 4:50:03 GMT
The purpose of the question isn't to define the premise. If the premise isn't understood, then it needs to be defined before the question can be answered. That's why it depends on what the person asking the question means by "omnipotent." (See 'flarbles' analogy above.) And yet it works just as well with a generic "subject." Just replace "God" with "X" as I replaced it with "Sasha Grey." Nothing changes because the question doesn't ask if X is omnipotent; it presumes it. Me: [The correct answer to the question is:] That depends on what you mean by omnipotent. You: That is not the correct answer. IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/5598604/threadI'm sorry, but I don't understand what I just read. You're right when you say it depends on what omnipotence means, but you're wrong when you say it doesn't depend on what the one asking the question means. Every time you list both possible answers, you are effectively saying, "If you mean this, then X; if you mean that, then Y." FUCKCING THISI(ISISISISISIS!!!S!S!S!S!S!!!!!!!!1111!!
the whole question asks the question what is omnipotence, it DOES NOT need to be defined prior to the question, IT IS THE QUESTION. The two answers are the the possible definitions of omnipotence. The person asking the question does not need to define omnipotence, they are ASKING FOR THE DEFINITION OF OMNIPOTENCE.
when you let me know you understand the difference, then feel free to ask me another question.
|
|