For Tackattack

[colubridae]

For tackatack


In an earlier thread I offered you some evidence supporting big G.

It concerns omnipotence.

The babble gives god the attribute almighty. Every theologian since whenever quotes this as omnipotence. As you know, this means the logical absurdity that god can bake a cake so large he can’t eat it.

Your arguments that god is all powerful as long as what he does is possible don’t hold water, and you know it. They are the merest semantic sophistry. Legerdemain.


I have genuine scientific evidence that will support full blown omnipotence.
(not proof – I’m scientific… so proof is not in my purview)


I can let you have it. The cost will be – your soul!
If you genuinely consider I’ve sold you a lemon then I will go to a church service! Twice!

With best regards Lucifer.

This is a genuine offer. AFAIK no-one else has spotted it.

[Tiberius]

The babble gives god the attribute almighty. Every theologian since whenever quotes this as omnipotence. As you know, this means the logical absurdity that god can bake a cake so large he can’t eat it.

Loaded question alert.

You have an error in your logic...please try again.

[colubridae]

The babble gives god the attribute almighty. Every theologian since whenever quotes this as omnipotence. As you know, this means the logical absurdity that god can bake a cake so large he can’t eat it.

Loaded question alert.

You have an error in your logic...please try again.

errrr. That's the point of my post.
This logic flaw is embedded in scripture.
It’s not my logic flaw.

But… I am offering real physical evidence that 'negates' this logical fallacy which causes xtians such trouble.
(yeah yeah I know “It doesn’t cause us trouble” blah blah)
If anyone wants it of course.

[Violet]

It's okay... even I once fell prey to using loaded questions.

Example: "Can god make a rock heavier than he can lift?"

Not a good plan.

[Tiberius]

But… I am offering real physical evidence that 'negates' this logical fallacy which causes xtians such trouble.

I don't see how it causes Christians any problems in the first place. The question "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?" is a loaded question, as is "Can God create a cake so large he cannot eat it?".

Omnipotence does not result in any logical absurdities to my knowledge.

[lilphil1989]

But… I am offering real physical evidence that 'negates' this logical fallacy which causes xtians such trouble.
(yeah yeah I know “It doesn’t cause us trouble” blah blah)
If anyone wants it of course.

OK, I'll bite.
Go ahead.

Although why you couldn't just have put it in your OP instead of playing the silly "Shall I tell you? Shall I tell you? I'm going to tell you..." game is beyond me.

[colubridae]

I don't see how it causes Christians any problems in the first place. The question "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?" is a loaded question, as is "Can God create a cake so large he cannot eat it?".

What the fuck are you drivelling about.

"Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?" is not a loaded question. It's a perfectly valid question displaying the logical absurdity of an omnipotent god.
It’s not my claim that god is omnipotent! It’s xtianity’s claim!

BTW a loaded question would be “Have you muslims stopped stoning females yet?”
(strictly speaking it’s not loaded, because we all know that muslims do stone women. But you get the point)

Omnipotence does not result in any logical absurdities to my knowledge.

You need to examine the question. The answer is:-
If god is omnipotent then he can create a cake so big he can’t eat it.
If he can’t eat it that is something he can’t do.
Ergo he is not omnipotent. See logical fallacy.
Before you try and weasel out of it, omnipotent is omnipotent. It’s not my choice of word it’s theirs.

OK, I'll bite.
Go ahead.

Although why you couldn't just have put it in your OP instead of playing the silly "Shall I tell you? Shall I tell you? I'm going to tell you..." game is beyond me.

For fun.

For being rude, I will tell you if you apologise and of course pay with your soul.
Pip pip.

[Shell B]

He wasn't being rude. He was pointing out that your silly game is a nuisance.

My guess is that whatever you have to say is not worth this runaround. I will be seriously disappointed if anyone decides to play your game.

Here is an idea: Why don't you simply state whatever nonsense you have brewing in the OP of a different thread instead of dragging this out as if you have some life altering surprise for tack?

[colubridae]

He wasn't being rude. He was pointing out that your silly game is a nuisance.

Who died and made you pantocrator!

My guess is that whatever you have to say is not worth this runaround.

Runaround! Fuck me 8 posts is a runaround. You need to learn some inner peace.hock:

I will be seriously disappointed if anyone decides to play your game.

Shame. Games are what make life interesting. And you can’t get the answer to this from google. (I think).

Here is an idea: Why don't you simply state whatever nonsense you have brewing in the OP of a different thread instead of dragging this out as if you have some life altering surprise for tack?

I have not offered any life altering surprise. I’m offering physical experimental evidence that supports the rebuttal of the omnipotence fallacy. (I think that makes sense). I’m pretty sure it won’t change the world’s view of religion. Even though I can see it’s valid, it’s only negative evidence in the way that Olber’s paradox denies the steady state universe. It’s certainly hasn’t changed my view.

[Shell B]

Who died and made you pantocrator!

Don't be fucking ridiculous. You misused that phrase, even with your 'clever' wording. I wasn't bossing anybody around, which is when that phrase comes in handy. I was telling you that lilk was not being rude. So, you have the authority to call him rude, but I can not say the opposite without you implying that I think I am the boss? That is interesting, in a juvenile way.

Runaround! Fuck me 8 posts is a runaround. You need to learn some inner peace.hock:

Yes, eight posts is a runaround. State your piece from the get go or you are wasting people's time. This "I know something you don't know" stuff only takes one post to be a runaround.

Shame. Games are what make life interesting. And you can’t get the answer to this from google. (I think).

Well, if you can't get this from google, it isn't worth getting. I am willing to bet that whatever you have to say is some ludicrous babble about pseudo-logic, much like your posts in this thread thus far. However, don't let me stop you from spewing it. I encourage it. It would just behoove you to spit it out already. It is kind of like when someone acts all excited about something they want to show you, but they make you wait to see it. Then, when you see it, it is lame, but all the lamer for the pomp and circumstance that surrounded it.

I have not offered any life altering surprise. I’m offering physical experimental evidence that supports the rebuttal of the omnipotence fallacy. (I think that makes sense). I’m pretty sure it won’t change the world’s view of religion. Even though I can see it’s valid, it’s only negative evidence in the way that Olber’s paradox denies the steady state universe. It’s certainly hasn’t changed my view.

I knew it was going to be lame.