The logical consequences of omnipotence

[fr0d0]

Thank you again for your support. You have already accepted the logic I presented, yet are in denial of it.

You're, maybe deliberately, forgetting the part where I said that you will not understand my position from a position of disbelief. Read back a bit and get back to me.

[Esquilax]

Well, congratulations: that is the most childish non-answer I've ever read.

Come back when you're ready to have a big boy conversation, Frodo.

[fr0d0]

Imitation it's the most sincere form of flattery

[Violet]

The point is that Frodo's only method of responding to an argument is "nuh-uh".

It's an easy response to a dogpile of stupidity, I really can't fault him on it.

---

Seriously... God cannot be understood from a position of unbelief, it is completely not possible.

[fr0d0]

Seriously... God cannot be understood from a position of unbelief, it is completely not possible.

*climbs onto that life raft*

Thank you sis

[Esquilax]

It's an easy response to a dogpile of stupidity, I really can't fault him on it.

---

Seriously... God cannot be understood from a position of unbelief, it is completely not possible.

I was raring up to argue against this, not let you off the hook so easily, but... what's the point? If we've progressed to a point where demanding evidence for assertions counts as "a dogpile of stupidity" to you, then your position is beyond hope.

Oh, and "you wouldn't understand," is not an answer. Especially not when the bible charges all believers with being ready to provide that answer. It's kind of what witnessing is all about, no?

[fr0d0]

It's a different subject EQ. You're on a lost ticket on this tack. Best retreat now and start from somewhere logically viable.

[Violet]

I was raring up to argue against this, not let you off the hook so easily, but... what's the point? If we've progressed to a point where demanding evidence for assertions counts as "a dogpile of stupidity" to you, then your position is beyond hope.

Oh, and "you wouldn't understand," is not an answer. Especially not when the bible charges all believers with being ready to provide that answer. It's kind of what witnessing is all about, no?

If it was one person, that'd be one thing... but when a whole bunch of people are demanding the impossible from you, I rather don't think 'nuh uh' is a poor reaction.

As a non Christian you lose it. You cannot rationalise a just reality made possible with God without God.

This is simply true... sure, one can rationalise a just reality without God. but one CANNOT rationalise a just reality made possible with God... without God. That is logically contradictory

It has nothing to do with understanding, only to do with that which was stated. One cannot have something made by God, without God. There's actually a fairly deep philosophical depth this statement has, going so far as to suggest that 'without God, one cannot have things made by God'.

Which is to say... 'One must have a pure faith in God before one can have God.'

---

It's a different subject EQ. You're on a lost ticket on this tack. Best retreat now and start from somewhere logically viable.

I'm working on getting him there And you're welcome for the life raft, just hope it's enough to calm the raging sea for some slow floating as far as one can see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8grw0aTWzs

I miss hearing Rhythm sing~

[Esquilax]

This is simply true... sure, one can rationalise a just reality without God. but one CANNOT rationalise a just reality made possible with God... without God. That is logically contradictory

It has nothing to do with understanding, only to do with that which was stated. One cannot have something made by God, without God. There's actually a fairly deep philosophical depth this statement has, going so far as to suggest that 'without God, one cannot have things made by God'.

I agree on that point. Still feels like a semantic shell game to avoid discussing anything with substance, but yes, I'll acknowledge that god can't make things without existing.

Although, mind you, I at least wasn't discussing that. And even without believing myself, I find other people's justifications of their beliefs to be interesting, and worth examining. Something about being told I just wouldn't understand feels unsatisfying and, beyond that, contradictory to the spirit of religion as a replicating meme. That's why I feel uncomfortable just leaving the discussion there; it feels unfinished.

[Violet]

Ah, gotcha. Well some people were saying they didn't understand that

Ultimately, if someone doesn't first have faith in the truth of anything, they'll never believe in anything, as justifications themselves would be suspect, as would reason and logic themselves... Ultimate Nihilism, if you will... not even going so far as to believe in some form of the self

I think religion as a 'replicating meme' is empty, devoid of the spirit of it... absent the very faith it would need to be a meaningful observance of the world. As such, I'm rather against raising children as deliberately any one thing... whether it be scientist or theist or to be 'the best they can be', I'm all about the human spirit... and training a being whose nature is not yet known to the being or declared by that being shows a lack in faith that the person will be fantastic, whatever their path.

Religion isn't spiritually satisfying or philosophically eye-opening as a contagion... and I do dislike seeing people approach it as such.

---

Please note: I'm talking about psychologically and mentally training people, not about potty training