sophie

You seem to have encountered difficulties with translating my ideas into logical form. I never said I was showing omniGOD was anything. I will provide no evidence.

It stands to reason. Existence is real. I am a human, not the possibility of a human.

Try again.

sophie

Doctor X : your baffle is for another thread. I am in the middle of something important here. If you please.

viscousmemories

I would guess that they usually fail unless they are somehow able to introduce a new word or phrase that has a particular form and value that is adopted by the majority of English speakers. For your 'omniGOD' word to succeed, it would probably have to meet those conditions. As 'omni' is a prefix which means 'all', your word is essentially 'allGOD' (which makes no sense) and the last three letters are capitalized, which (unless your use of GOD is an acronym for something else) does not follow the form of every other English word.

For these reasons it likely isn't going to find a large audience, so you are not likely "advancing the language" by using it. However, it is undeniable that as it is a word you made up and which you don't define every time you use it, it obfuscates the meaning of your statements and so it is probably the case that, for the sake of discussion and debate here, we would all be better off if you stuck to words that are in current use.

I believe there's a discussion underway because I see it with my own eyes. What do you mean that 'experience' is a human term? Are there terms which aren't human? Or do you mean you are referring to the particular experience of humans when you say 'experience'? Every connotation of your 'omniGOD' is your own concoction, because there is no such thing as an 'omniGOD', as I have already explained. If you don't want people to ascribe a meaning to your words that you don't intend, you should really try to speak in a language they understand and stop using words you made up in your arguments.

No matter how deeply I think about this (whatever, exactly, that means) I don't seem to be able to grasp your point. Let me see if I can rephrase for you: Humans exist on Earth, which exists in space and time. Humans experience things. If an all powerful god exists and we are able to experience its existence, then surely we must conclude that... this is where I'm losing you.

I'm not sure why you're asking me to define your omniGOD. You made up the word, you tell me if the imagined creature your made up word describes is existential or expectational or both. I'm not avoiding the point, I have no idea. You created omniGOD, you tell me about it.

vm

Kruzkal

I have encountered difficulties due to the pure fact that your statements contain logical contradictions.

Nope. You never 'showed' anything at all. You claimed, without providing any evidence what so ever.

Rational thinking requires evidence and logic. You seems to lack both . . . Funny that you've claimed to be a 'full-time thinker' in your user profile . . .

Remember this? See below:

Your assertions:
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 in assertion 5.

Care to tell me how this makes any sense? Oh no you are not gonna provide any evidence? Oh well . . . So much for a 'full-time thinker' . . .

Consider it done, your turn . . .

:boohoo:

__________________

Assumption is the mother of all F ups

sophie

viscousmemories : Let me finish that for you.

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.


Thanks for the lesson in word creation. I have coined many a private word, so don't be too worried on my part.

Doctor X

It is unfortunate that one would find rational discourse "baffling" though it is not surprising.

Dodging questions, engaging in fallacy, and blathering is not "important" on a discussion board.

Nevertheless, Kruzkal, it appears my prediction proved correct.

--J.D.

Mageth

this is where I'm losing you.

She lost me at "hello".

sophie

Doctor X : Can you please keep you mind focused? Address the topic at hand? I say address the topic at hand, or please refrain from participating. You are begging for a Moderator to butt in. Please act with a little bit of decorum.

Doctor X

I seemed to have focused quite well on the tactics of the individual . . . as well have others.

We have. That the individual does not like it remains her error.

I am afraid I do not have the backhoe necessary to descend to her level of decorum.

On the contrary, the individual has, again, dreamed up a concept she wishes to elevate with a "new word" like so much gilding on the rotten hobby-horse. She then makes, as noted by other posters here, wild assumption and assertions without any basis for them.

The other posters and I are merely calling her bluff to attend to her assertions. Until she does, no progress will come from her, unless viewers enjoy free-form performance art.

--J.D.

Kruzkal

You are absofcukinglutely correct.

"What is there to discuse? I make an assertion. It is true. No evidence needed. I speak the truth and nothing but the truth. I am lecturing you on the nature of 'omniDog', whatever the fcuk it might be. Its true I'm telling ya."

She has yet to address her 14 assertions . . .

:boohoo: Looks like I am playing music to deaf ears.

__________________

On the 7th day
Man created god in his own image