|
Post by Admin on Sept 13, 2022 5:05:20 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.
No, they're asking if God can make a rock he can't lift. Asking for the definition of omnipotence looks like this: What is the definition of omnipotence?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 13, 2022 5:54:21 GMT
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.
No, they're asking if God can make a rock he can't lift. Asking for the definition of omnipotence looks like this: What is the definition of omnipotence? ok grouse, have a great day.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 13, 2022 6:39:49 GMT
No, they're asking if God can make a rock he can't lift. Asking for the definition of omnipotence looks like this: What is the definition of omnipotence? ok grouse, have a great day. Thanks! You do the same.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 21, 2022 10:43:16 GMT
Regardless of whether there is a God or not, religion has clearly evolved. The Bible went from "an eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek", and circumcision and various other prohibitions going from mandatory to no longer relevant as the religion adapted to fitting non-Jews. As I understand it...the 'an eye for an eye' was in itself progressive at the time. link It was to counter the 'when someone hurts you you hit back ten times harder' mentality.
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Sept 23, 2022 21:56:00 GMT
Regardless of whether there is a God or not, religion has clearly evolved. The Bible went from "an eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek", and circumcision and various other prohibitions going from mandatory to no longer relevant as the religion adapted to fitting non-Jews. As I understand it...the 'an eye for an eye' was in itself progressive at the time. link It was to counter the 'when someone hurts you you hit back ten times harder' mentality. Oddly enough even today, 2000 years later, nation states run almost exclusively by Christians use something even worse than "when someone hurts you, hit back 10 times harder". Namely "if you suspect someone might hurt you in the future, invade/destroy their country".
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 24, 2022 16:15:36 GMT
As I understand it...the 'an eye for an eye' was in itself progressive at the time. link It was to counter the 'when someone hurts you you hit back ten times harder' mentality. Oddly enough even today, 2000 years later, nation states run almost exclusively by Christians use something even worse than "when someone hurts you, hit back 10 times harder". Namely "if you suspect someone might hurt you in the future, invade/destroy their country". If there's anything Christian's hate it's being progressive.
|
|