sophie

Doctor X : I believe rational thought is quite an adequate starting point. I have made reasonable assumptions :

If an all powerful god exists and the all powerfulness is always exerted then by virtue that the only thing we as humans always experience is existence, then surely we must conclude that our own existence is related in some way to the omniGOD's all powerfulness always being exerted.

There are 3 if's here. If onmiGOD exists and if omniGOD is asserted as all powerful and if omniGOD's all powerfulness is always exerted.

However if you wish to claim that omniGOD's all powerfulness is not always exerted, then you must agree that omniGOD's all powerfulness is expectational. This means it is not particularily evident.

However you may try to twist things Doctor X, I have covered all the branches of the proposed if statements. Failure to follow the logical progression is somewhat in your ball court. None of the conclusions assert the existence of omniGOD since this was never my intention.

Try again. If you cannot grasp this simple explaination then it will be futile for me to advance some of my more complex arguments, except of course if we create a tautology and leave you and the others out of the discussion.

viscousmemories

Okaaaaay...

Well, that’s a bit more like a rephrasing than a completion of my thought, but I will accept it as an attempt on your part to clarify your point. Let me see now. You are theorizing an all-powerful god that is constantly exerting all its power. Then you assert that the only thing humans always experience is existence. Somehow you conclude, based on those suppositions, that our existence must somehow be related to the constant exertion of all the all-powerful god’s power. Huh? I mean, I don’t necessarily disagree with you. Surely if there is a force that encompasses all existence, and we exist, then our existence is related to that force. What I don’t really get is what you think that suggests, and how it relates at all to penumbra’s OP.

The lesson was my distinct pleasure. Anything I can do to help a poster as prolific as yourself create more comprehensible contributions to the fora is time well spent. I’m sure you have coined many beautiful words, and you’ll be glad to know I’m not at all worried on your part, I just thought you should know that communication with others is much more effective when you restrict yourself to the words you didn’t make up.

LOL. Good one.

vm

sophie

Kruzkal : Do you even know what is an assertion? It stands to reason. All powerful. Is it expectational, existential, both or some other thing? There are 5 choices, only five choices. Can you come to terms with this simple advancement of reason?

Construct a proper logical translation and see your numbers drop.

Doctor X

Which brings us right back to the Five Choices, thereby ending this without so much pomposity.

No. The second does not follow from the first. Indeed, in reality, one is unable to "expect" the demonstration of this "powerfulness." Nevertheless, the first statement leads one right to the Five Choices and, yes, ends the discussion right there.

Incorrect again. An earthquake is rather evident, if one wishes to attribute such to a deity.

Poisoning the Well. I have, as always, along with others here, demonstrated the results of these assertions.

Non sequitur I will leave it to Kruzkal to correct that.

I have played it rather well, as indicated above.

See Kruzkal's delineation of the assertions above.

Which brings us to the question: "what it the point?"

Now note the dodge:

I have taken appart the dodges and I am given yet another dodge.

Poisoning the Well and incorrect as demonstrated above. Since the individual has yet to form a true argument she should not try for anything more complex.

Best to learn to walk before attempting swimming. . . .

The individual has been perhaps happy with blathering to herself for whatever gratification it provides. This does not prevent the audience from recognizing it as such.

--J.D.

sophie

viscousmemories : Not quite. I am making a reasonable assumption that all powerful could entail the all powerfullness always being exerted. It does not necessarily mean all of the all powerfulness is exerted all the time. It just means all powerfulness is always exerted.

It seems as if expectational all powerfulness is necessary to complete the choices under the premising of omniGOD's all powerfulness. (I use the term omniGOD so as to not offend anyone except the philosophers). The important point to catch hold of here is the expectational possibility of any event due to premising all powerfulness. (I have deference to terms like expectational possibility because of the unknown nature of the premised omniGOD, or the premised nature of the premised omniGOD).

To preview the next step, would be to address the possibility of all powerfulness encompassing the realm of all knowing. This means rather than being disjunct premises they can be premised simultaneously and as such could be examined in tandem.

viscousmemories

*sigh* Okay. So you aren't saying that your hypothetical omniGOD does exert all its power all the time, but it could.

If you are not referring to all of the 'all powerfulness', then you could mean any amount of power. So you're saying that in your hypothetical universe, your omniGOD is always exerting some power. So now we have "sophie's omniGOD could exert all its power all the time, but at least exerts some power all the time."

This makes no sense to me at all. What choices are you referring to?

That makes no sense. Why offend the philosophers? And how is talking about a hypothetical superbeing called "omniGOD" not going to offend someone who believes in a real god?

How is it that you venture to discuss a hypothetical being that you refuse to define? if your premised omniGOD has an unknown nature, it's not much of a premise, is it?

Is there some reason you have chosen to expound on your extremely convoluted omniGOD philosophy on this particular thread? Or do you really feel that you are making a point that is somehow relevant to penumbra's OP?

vm

sophie

However if you wish to claim that omniGOD's all powerfulness is not always exerted, then you must agree that omniGOD's all powerfulness is expectational.

Doctor X : This is why we part ways. Under the premise of all powerful, one has to rationally examine the choices reason places before us. The real question is where does this powerfulness lie? Ignoring reason may be suitable to you, since you prefer reality to base your arguments. Indeed because one may be unable to expect the demonstration of the powerfulness does not necessarily mean the expectational possibility of powerfulness is voided.


I was merely demonstrating through reason the two modes of all powerfulness, existentional and expectational. After my demonstration, you can argue for your choice based on the reality you percieve. Another may argue differently concerning all powerfulness. Some may not even premise omniGOD which leaves the reasoning vacuous,


In the analysis through reason of all powerful these are the 5 choices :

• existentional
• expectational
• existentional & expectational
• some other thing unknown
• none of the above

you can argue your case from these 5 choices. Now do it.

Kruzkal

Yes. Somthing that you have made 14 of within this thread.

You have provided no reasoning for your 14 assertions to stand by. Prove me wrong. Address each and every one of them sequentially e.g. something like this:

1: (Assertion here) - (Reasoning here)

Omnipotent.

Then enlighten me, Dotor X, viscousmemories and many others which of the five possible choices you are referring your god to (with logical reasonings).

Not yet, you need to provide which of the five possible advancements are you referring to.

As I have pointed out many times your statements contain contradictions. They do not make sense due to your contradictions and not my translation. If anyone else don't my statements please say so now!

Now . . . back to your 5 choices and 14 assertions.

__________________

If Adam & Eve were real
We are all inbreeds

Kruzkal

How about you clearly declare all your assertions and assumptions, followed by the point you are trying to make?

This can ensure we only need to reference to a number rather than unnessisary quotes.

Something like this:

My assertions:

1. God exists
   Blah blah blah, therefore god exists.
2. . . .

My assumptions:

1. . . .

Now the point I am trying to make is . . .

__________________

Have you ever worked on Sundays?

Doctor X

No.

See above. Earthquakes do not always happen . . . unless the individual believes she can predict the future.

Nevertheless "expectational" or "nonexpectational," "always exerted" or "not always exerted," we are still left with the Five Choices [All Rights Reserved.--Ed.]

Which rather makes all of this "important" dodging and weaving rather unnecessary.


Ipse dixit and wrong since such a question proves irrelevant.

That an "all powerful" deity has not acted to alleviate the unjust extreme suffering leads . . . once again . . . to the following possible conclusions:

1. No deity exists
2. A deity exists and he is Evil.
3. A deity exists and he is Incompetent.
4. A deity exists and he is Irrelevant.
5. Some Combination of 2-4.

which, again, rather saves us all a lot of verbage. Why consider the number of feathers per each wing of the angels that dance on a head of a pin if no angels exit?

The individual has ignored the reason above, ignored the requests that she justify her assumptions and assertions, and she dares to comit such an argumentum ad hominem? The individual previously justified the title Hypocrite.

At least at this she proves consistent.

Thus:

Non sequitur. Expected or not expected nothing happened. See above.

whether such proved successful or even involved any approximation of reason, it proves irrelevant as demonstrated above.

Why wash the deck on the Titantic?

I have no need to waste my time or the patience of The Readership, for I have already done so without such irrelevant considerations before and above.

If the individual wishes to continue with her arrangements, she is cautioned that the icy water is rising rather quickly. . . .

--J.D.