Omnipotence does not go well with relativity. Relativity says that if you are not stuck in one frame of reference then there are going to be lots of time paradoxes. I wish I was omnipotent.
Do paradoxes pose a problem for someone omnipotent? I doubt it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-06 4:43
>>7
Logic was here first. If the being doesn't fit within them, the most logical conclusion is that he does not exist.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-06 22:39
>>8
Logic was here second. If the logic doesn't fit within the omnipotent being framework, the most logical conclusion does not exist.
Fixed for counter argument
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-07 4:08
>>9
You fail. If you're going to modify a sentence to change its point, at least leave the damn thing coherent when you're done.
Also, logic has already proven itself by being the foundation of all your goddamn thoughts. The hypothetical omnipotent being is the one on trial here.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-07 4:13
There's no fucking proof of it besides someone pulling it out of their ass. Why would we even debate such a thing?
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-07 5:00
>>10
NO U, at reading comprehension. If god (for example) came first and made logic then logic comes second. Yet the logic cannot explain god, so therefore there is no logical solution.
Also logic can't prove itself.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-07 22:42
It's like, once the Hubble Horizon decides to abandon the gold standard, you know, we can again resume passenger travel to the omega point.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-10 6:15
nothing can simulate faster than the universe
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-10 14:23
>>12
You have nothing to substantiate that if, so it fails. Logic is all you have; even when you delve into nonsensical God-ramblings, you're using it.
Also, it sure as fuck can explain God. He's 6 billion people's imaginary friend, since he hasn't been proven to be anything else.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-11 8:12
>>15
I can't prove you're not a dipshit, you must be a dipshit. Tell me, are you a dipshit?
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-11 10:35
I THINK THEREFOR YOU ARE
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-11 10:42
p -> q <==> ¬p V q
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-11 15:05
>>16
If you can't prove that I am a dipshit, then one must assume that I am not (assuming one decides to rely entirely on your logic rather than reaching one's own conclusions). You cannot prove that I am not a dipshit, since proving a negative requires testing every last one of the infinite cases, which would require... you know what. gb2 basic formal logic.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 16:43
"G"od: a particle of near-infinite density that exploded and created the universe as we know it.
Thread over.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-13 18:04
>>20
Calling it God doesn't give it the slightest similarity to what most people associate with that name.
Everyone who believes in Kansas idea of creation might as well believe in unicorns, griffins, and harry fucking potter. Seriously creationists, grow up.