Nonsense.
You, the theists, are using the objective form. But you apparently take offense when that same objective form is used against you.
Atheists revenge. Persecution of theists.
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
Nonsense.
You, the theists, are using the objective form. But you apparently take offense when that same objective form is used against you.
Oh, wrong.
It's quite simple. I make an effort to write exactly what I mean. Therefore it's best to actually read what I wrote.
Not at all.
NH claims that I'm saying ""If I don't follow omnipotence or omniscience, then god is not omnipotent."
Whereas I have clearly stated, more than once, that IF god is omniscient (note, not a mention of omnipotence) THEN we cannot divert from his plan. This is a simple assumption. Given infinite knowledge any plan will cater for all possibilities of diversion and eliminate them. A plan made by an omniscient being cannot, by definition, be flawed.
If we divert from it then we are doing something unforeseen. This is itself a negation of omniscience.
What IS annoying is that NH seems to prefers sidetracks, diversion and misreading (and lying) rather than actually addressing my actual argument with any form of logic.
I did and I found this:
No point. Just curious to see if you agree with the existence of the concepts.
In future please link to any quotes.
Yup, and you omitted the rest of that part of the discussion. How dishonest of you. (Again).
The "all-powerful" bit was a reference to god's seeming inability to put us back onto the plan after diversion.
I could link a picture of my ding-aling. That would be unforeseen or unforeskinned... Still it is no negation that some part of nature ceased to exist.
I'm sorry if I have misinterpreted you at some point in time, but please refrain from calling me a liar.
What?
But you ARE a liar.
In this post you accused me (falsely) of editing my comments to change the meaning.
An accusation you have failed to support or retract.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
We never derived from the plan, quit talking.
Those are fact to show you made a conclusive assumption of your beliefs. It didnt change the meaning just negated your own statement.
Yes. That you personally do not believe in onmipotence or omniscience. Your mind can not convince itself of these primitive ideas.
Another lie.
From the link previously given.You said:
Please stop lying.
Please stop talking bollocks.
So it is as I expected the entire time. You believe in these concepts but do not believe in their consequences.
One more time: stop making assumptions. (And stop lying).
And read what I write.
My argument is an IF/ THEN argument.
If A then not B.
Yet theists persist that A and B pertain. And have so far provided NO reasoning as a rebuttal.
I haven't made any more assumptions than warranted (left open) by your statements. You have failed to provide answers or realistic evidence of us not following gods plan, omniscience, or omnipotence.
While A is something you can't find an example of in reality, and not only do you say not B, but also not C. It is a wonder no person can question your non sequiter logic. Even you can reworded it in anyway to make it true.
Really? So your accusation that I edited is supported by... what, exactly? I gave quotes from the relevant posts showing that there was no editing done. Therefore you are a liar.
And once again you show that you are failing to read the argument. At no point have I claimed that we are not following the plan. Knowledge91, however, has done so.
BUT, my argument is, as I have stated so many times, an IF/ Then argument. (You do understand what "if" means, don't you?)
Again, wrong. I haven't stated A. Nor have I stated "not C" - that is predicated on god's inability to put us back on plan.
You seem to be incapable of reading as well as following my logic (which is not non-sequitur, and which you have consistently failed to address directly). Otherwise why would you persist in inventing arguments that I haven't made?
And another accusation of rewording.
Tell me, does your personal and peculiar (both senses of the word) form of "logic" rely on lies to make it work?
Yes you did. One statement does not include information found in the original post. ( the part which includes the assumptions of your beliefs)
You stated A...
What situational plan is he unable to guide us toward?
I'm trying my hardest...
yet to be shown by any reasonable example.
Because none of what you say exists as a real concept.
Because I'm addressing the issue in the only realms of reality I can imagine. If there is a different reality I don't know about, please let me know.
yes you have to lie in order for me to show you the truth. Like I would argue against an absolute truth or something...
Then perhaps you will do as I have asked: show where I edited. And show where I have stated a belief of mine.
Did not see the word "if" at the start of the sentence?
What?
By lying, misrepresentation and avoiding the actual argument?
Then show how and where it is non-sequitur.
Oh boy. I haven't claimed that it does. The argument is predicated on CLAIMS by theists.Then, obviously, you are the one having trouble imagining omniscience, omnipotence etc. IOW exactly what you have accused me of.
So, more lies, more obfuscation and still no addressing the argument.
kx000
Valued Senior Member