sophie

Kruzkal : You are muddling things. Take for example

This is not what I have implied.

In my argument I say if we agree all powerful means it is exerted at all times, then it means our existence and the physics which controls mass and energy is an exhibition of omniGOD's all powerfulness. I then qualify the contrary position, which is if we do not accept this as a demonstration of omniGOD's all powerfulness.


Kruzkal : what I suggest you should do, is to try to understand what I have written before trying to transcribe my ideas into logic. This may benefit the discussion.


When it is necessary.

sophie

penumbra : You should listen to yourself, you sound like an atheist wood thumper.

We are trying to engage in discussion, or at least I am. Again I am faced with an atheistic position of girl that's the way it is and that's it. The implications of the definitions are one-sided. I am trying to shed light on the matter and I am being blatently refused.

We cannot argue omniGOD's case as if omniGOD already exists without the necessary proof, so we must examine the necessary conditions under which omniGOD can be rationally construed.

Can you please try to follow my logic and please debate the logical points else just say you refuse to argue the points.

sophie

viscousmemories : What happens when someone tries to advance the language?

That's why I believe there is a discussion under way. I prefer to use the term experience, it is a human term. I do not want to be accused of concocting an omniGOD connotation.

But experiences are things we enjoy on Earth. If omniGOD exhibits all powerfullness within every experience, then this should surely include our experiences which exists within the space-time continuum. It's really simple when you think about it on a deeper level.

Quite possible, but the point you are avoiding is whether omniGOD's all powerfulness is existential or expectational or both. This means does omniGOD have latent power (expectational) or existential (always asserted) or both.

penumbra

Well, yes they are, since I am not arguing whether God exists or, if so, what his/her/its true nature may actually be. That's not my point at all. I am only relating what I was taught in church for 20+ years and still hear from Christians every day and pointing out what I see as an inconsistency in the claims taught to and made by most laymen and far too many clergy. If you want to discuss whether those Christians are misled, then have at it, because I would completely agree.

BTW, what's an "atheist wood thumper"? That's a new one on me.

Doctor X

Kruzkal:

Since I could never receive an answer to the Five Choices® for some reason I doubt you will receive an answer to your 14+ Assertions.

--J.D.

sophie

Doctor X : You never did like the way I whittled your choices down to only two rational ones. But please spare me the agony for the moment. I am on to something important, but first I have to get rid of some misconceptions about logic.

Some think they can randomly assign logical variables to ideas and then instantiate them to reflect a logical conclusion. I have noticed you have logical impulses to write tautologies, can you help with the misconceptions in logic. Start with mine if you are hesitant about the others - if you will !

King Rat

Misdirection.

Please do not dodge again. You have work to do, get to it.

the_cave

Hi sophie

Actually, I think it would be best if you began with the "all good" part. It's the most relevant aspect of the theistic God, and the limiter on God's other attributes.

For example, the Christian claims (there is certainly room for disagreement) that an all-good God would not be able to create a world with beings who were not autonomous. Yet an all-good God would also wish to create, for being is better than nothing.

Therefore, God must not be powerful enough, or knowledgeable enough, to create a world without free will--i.e. a world where there were not autonomous beings who could freely decide between futures which God cannot foresee with absolute certainly.

Kruzkal

Rephrase assertion:
11 - God is all powerful (omnipotent) (assertion 3) implies our (human) existence and the physics which controls mass and energy is an exhibition (show) of god's all powerfulness (omnipotentness).

How does 'god is omnipotent' implies 'human existence and physics shows god is omnipotent'? Are you trying to make a new assertion that god has anything to do with human existence and physics? Please provide evidence to prove or at least support assertion 11.

Summary of your assertions:
1 - God exists.
2 - God is omniscient.
3 - God is omnipotent.
4 - God created the possibility of all events that are characteristically bad, evil, sinful, awful, terrible, etc.
5 - One's existence is a big event not laden with possibilities.
6 - Assertion 5 is true because it is real. (???)
7 - Fulfilling existence induces possibilities.
8 - Omnipotent implies the possiblility to assert events.
9 - Omniscient implies the possibility to know events.
10 - An omnipotent and omniscient god cannot be absolved of the ultimate responsibility for creating the possibilities which have led to the all the world’s pain, suffering, agony, evil and sin.
11 - God is all powerful (omnipotent) (assertion 3) implies our (human) existence and the physics which controls mass and energy is an exhibition (show) of god's all powerfulness (omnipotentness).
12 - God exists imply god is not omnipotent.
13 - God is omnipotent but also not omnipotent. (???)
14 - Assertion 13 implies god has all the power between not omipotent and omnipotent. (therefore omnipotent again. . .)

Read the previous posts for where you made each assertions . . .

NOW JUSTIFY (AND CLARIFY FOR THAT MATTER) EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOUR OWN ASSERTIONS!

:boohoo:

I seriously doubt anyone knows WTF you're on about . . .

__________________

Nobody's perfect
I am a nobody
Therefore
I am perfect

Doctor X

Ipse dixit and, unfortunately, incorrect. As noted there were Five Choices® [Director's Cut available on DVD.--Ed.]. The "point" was for individuals to choose. This individual did not "like" some of the choices and then tried to dodge the whole problem. It rather reduced her whole "OmniGod" to five possible things which made further blathering about it rather a waste of time.

It rather stuffed the verbage about the "OmniGod" into a bottle much as Aschelyus did to Euripides in The Frogs. Brek kek kek kex koax koax, indeed.

This individual wishes mercy after wasting everyone's time?

Hide as one will, the truth comes out.

Evidence in her posts indicates rather otherwise.

Pot . . . meet Kettle. . . .

This rather describes what the individual has attempted to do, often against evidence that demonstrates her premises are untenable.

I have, as here, and as before, addressed such without preference. That the individual based her posts on such errors does make her the more obvious target.

I think what need to be understood is that wandering about discussing things without basis, ignoring evidence to the contrary, and falling back onto fallacy only wastes bandwidth. The Readership tolerated this practice to a point. Now, it seems more and more are willing to protest the practice.

--J.D.