Go Back   AFA Forums > Atheism > Debate Forum

Debate Forum The AFA Debate forum. Set up your debate or join the peanut gallery in here.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 3rd June 2010, 05:47 AM
Lion IRC Lion IRC is offline
Raptured!
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 129
Default Re: An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo

Wow Davo, that was a short post. You have heaps of time. Don't rush it.
This is what short and sweet looks like if you are debating in a Tweet-like fashion - or Internet Relay Chat

Verbs.
To Walk
To Run
To Fly
To Remember
To Forget
To Recall
To Know
To Think
To Regret
To Smite
To Want
To Love

These verbs are all actions - abilities.

The essential meaning of the word "omnipotent" is total ability.

Are there any of these verbs which God cannot do?

No. The alleged "paradox" itself compels us to accept that God can DO anything. If we abandon the notion that God can do ANYTHING then we must throw 50% of the Iron Chariot Wiki false dilemma in the trash can.

It asserts that the verb "to know" and "All Powerful are mutually exclusive.

To claim that there is something an ALL powerful Being cannot do is Illogical.

To claim (as I do) that an All Powerful Being CAN do anything He wants IS logical.

Lion (IRC)
PS- Now you made me waste one of my posts! The next one will last longer. Reminds me of a joke about the wife who grabs her husband one morning and says make love to me right NOW! Afterwards the husband says that was nice. The wife says yeah thanks, the egg timer is broken and goes back to making her breakfast.
  #12  
Old 3rd June 2010, 12:45 PM
davo's Avatar
davo davo is offline
SIR Vacuous cunt
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 3rd Planet from the Sun
Posts: 8,767
Default Re: An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo

Quote:
Wow Davo, that was a short post. You have heaps of time. Don't rush it.
Oh I'm not going to rush it. As the saying goes, I'm not stuck here with you ... you are stuck here with me

Quote:
These verbs are all actions - abilities.

The essential meaning of the word "omnipotent" is total ability.
Indeed, as is omniscience.

Quote:
Are there any of these verbs which God cannot do?
I wish I could ask this god, unfortunately considering there is a remarkable lack of evidence at all for one, simply assertions, we can only go by what those people here in reality claim their gods properties are.

Quote:
No. The alleged "paradox" itself compels us to accept that God can DO anything.
And know all at the same time. All. Don't forget that bit.

Quote:
If we abandon the notion that God can do ANYTHING then we must throw 50% of the Iron Chariot Wiki false dilemma in the trash can.
I'm not abandoning any notion, I am placing the two parts of the claim together and pointing out it is impossible for these states to occur at the same time, omnipotence AND omniscience is illogical, (let alone the problems with each on it's own).

You are begging the question, an error of reasoning and a logical fallacy claiming that because your god has both these properties, then it must be true that these properties can exist together.

In other words, you are using an error in logic to try and prove that an omniscient and omnipotent god is logical.

Quote:
It asserts that the verb "to know" and "All Powerful are mutually exclusive.

To claim that there is something an ALL powerful Being cannot do is Illogical.

To claim (as I do) that an All Powerful Being CAN do anything He wants IS logical.
Again, you are begging the question here. You are the one saying that these properties are mutually exclusive, not me. You are asserting one side and saying therefore the other side is not an error in logic. You are simply claiming because your god has both properties because it is omnipotent, therefore it is logical without confronting both properties in an omniscient AND omnipotent being.

Can this omnipotent being create a stone it cannot lift? A problem so great it cannot solve it? Omnipotence itself is not a logical property.

But you must bring the properties together for this debate, not simply assert because a god can do anything, there is no problem with being omniscient as well as omnipotent.

I have clearly stated what the problem with omniscience is. Since this being knows everything, it is illogical to state for instance, it can do something it didn't expect, because it is all powerful. This would mean in doing so, it was not omniscient as it did not know of it.

It is a logical contradiction between the two properties.

Quote:
Lion (IRC)
PS- Now you made me waste one of my posts!
Not really, you have wasted your posts pretty much from the start. Most everything you have said in the past you should have placed succinctly in your opening statement, instead you have openly admitted you have to try and 'persuade' people to your point of view.

That's a damning indictment on the quality of the 'logic' you are presenting isn't it?

Quote:
I am using a mixture of persuading TOWARDS my proposition and persuading AGAINST my opponents position. Of course I am attacking the alleged paradox and proposing an alternative. Imagine a defense lawyer being told by the prosecution that any evidence that “someone else did it” is inadmissible.
The problem here Lion IRC is that you think you can sway people to your position, and you are not really attacking the paradox, you are trying to find a way around it as you obviously haven't really thought about the claims of your own god too much before. You have just taken it for granted. You are also using the only technique you know to defend your position, and that is to try and muddy what the other person is saying, not defend what you are claiming.

It’s like watching some bad actor playing Ceasar on stage giving some kinda over the top speech, prancing around and it’s really hard to understand what they are saying as it’s heavy Shakespearean-type language. But they think they are on top of the world.

Classic creationist mindset to be honest, it's not about logic or facts, it's about how many people you can sway to your position by making it appear to be valid. The Gish Gallop is the weapon of choice normally.

It's amusing to watch you attempt to use these tactics in something so clearly black and white, logic.

Logic should be obvious and independant of the need to sway someone to your opinion. There is no grey in it as you are trying to play. You stated this yourself.

Feeling a little out of your depth without being able to just sit and pick holes in a large body of evidence?

good.

Quote:
What would God do if He wanted to experience the feeling of “surprise” He would take that magic wand of His and wave it.
Ahh yes, again, having to resort to a fallacy, a logical error. Again Begging the Question.

But really that is the only option you have isn't it, trying to convolute what is a clear, illogical claim regarding a god having both the properties of omniscience and omnipotence?

He has a magic wand and waves it?

LOL
__________________
Spearthrower: "There are words like vacuous & cunt that are applicable."

(delta p)*(delta q) >= h/(4*pi) ----- An explanation of Logical Fallacies : http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies ----- ferox deo vacuus vinco ----- How do I post video etc here?
  #13  
Old 3rd June 2010, 04:32 PM
Lion IRC Lion IRC is offline
Raptured!
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 129
Default Re: An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo

Post # 5

I say Omnipotence is “total ability”
Davo agrees

I provide a list of verbs all of which an Omnipotent Being LOGICALLY can do.
Does Davo challenge this LOGIC? – (the logic he asked me to bring forth in support of my proposition)

No he does not. He cannot. He dare not.

I say that there is nothing God is unable to do if He wishes.
Davo demurs. Davo suddenly says he needs to “ask God”. Suddenly we have ditched the inconvenient truth incorporated in the wiki and upon which the entire alleged “paradox” rests.

Davo is admitting that he really does not understand Gods Omnipotence. He concedes that he (and the person at Iron Chariot Wiki) have a LIMITED capacity to understand the VERY subject they claim….”must do this and cannot do that”.

And THAT’S my point. If you are going to ascribe to a conceptual being the ability to wave His magic wand and make ANYTHING happen it is perfectly logical that that Being CANNOT be restrained or compelled.

Knowing is just another verb God can do if He wants.

Davo doesn’t like the “woo” which “comes with the territory” where Gods Omnipotence and Omniscience are concerned. He appeared ready to throw in the towel in this debate when he said “I pretty much call the debate over.” So soon? So few words? So much….”you have to prove everything…I have to prove nothing…mods can you please stop Lion from using italics and make him answer me in a way I find acceptable…

Well “woo” is EXACTLY what you asked for when YOU challenged me to a debate about the “ne plus ultra” of magic wands. You made the error of proposing a paradox exists – that’s YOUR baby fella. And it is an illogical baby.

You invented an Omnipotent God (“woo”, “woo”, and more “woo”) and then presumed to lay out the “rules” that God has to follow when it comes to the “Zen of knowledge” – the "Quantum Weirdness of knowledge”. The "Chaos Theory" of knowledge.

An all powerful God can know everything and an all knowing God has the power to do anything. Knowledge is POWER. Who says that?

John Locke, whom I regard as the founder of empiricism and natural opponent of most forms of dogmatism, was really bothered by metaphysics in most things – except for God. Why? Because logically, God is the only concept to which metaphysics is apt. He was troubled* by the “fiddling” done by the likes of Leibniz in relation to the natural world but he could not “argue the toss” empirically, in the philosophical matter of what a Divine all powerful being might be shown to do.

In other words you cannot argue with or about a magic wand. Much of what Locke writes about God affirms that, in his mind, God is “nominal” just as the topic of this debate is nominal. The nominal Being we are discussing can do anything and know anything or everything there is to know.

And God decides what there is "to know" - not wikipedia.

The nominal Gods magic wand consists in His “pleasure”. And it is the “nominal” God about Whom Davo and Lion are arguing.

“For men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business, they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed to be any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses.”* Locke

*See “The Sceptical Mind and The Liberal Constitution – Locke and the glorious revolution – Ian Ward’s Introduction to Critical Legal Theory
and John Locke. An Essay concerning Human Understanding and 2nd Treatise on Government

Even Locke would have conceded that metaphysics is the ONLY applicable discipline which could answer a question like…”Can God create a stone God cannot lift”? In metaphysics, all things are theoretically possible. God and metaphysics are like red wine and cheese. In metaphysics, God can know all things and God can completely destroy all things so there is nothing about which knowledge is needed - the tabula rasa.

Having shown that the definition of “to know” is not a concept so foolishly simple as to be summed up by the single word “omniscience”, I wanted this post to focus primarily on the theme now of Omnipotence. Power.

If Davo still insists that it is a simple concept, then all the Zen masters and “theory of knowledge” philosophy wizards like Abelard won’t help. Davo’s dogmatic approach to God’s use of knowledge would, I suspect bother Locke. It is also disingenuous given that he himself concedes…”I really wish I could go and ask God”.

So let us leave Davo back where he has been since the start of this debate and continue on regardless. Even if he feels a little impotent because Lion, (the one who is supposed to be doing all the proactive affirmative posting) is serving up more content than expected and some of it includes attacks on the logic of his position which he didn’t expect. Even if he feels ready to throw in the towel (call the debate over) because not ONE of his counter arguments does anything other than state what I already knew to be his position – he thinks Omniscience and Omnipotence are mutually exclusive. He thinks knowledge and power can’t go hand in hand.

“In a time of turbulence and change, it is more true than ever that knowledge is power”
John F Kennedy (What? Turbulence and change? Not dogmatism?)

“Science investigates religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power religion gives man wisdom which is control.”
Martin Luther King, Jr. (NOMA anybody?)

“Knowledge comes by eyes always open and working hands; and there is no knowledge that is not power.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson (Eyes open – Observation. I wonder if the actual observation itself affects the outcome.)

“Knowledge is power.”
Francis Bacon (A fine Baconian principle!)

“Knowledge is power. Information is liberating. Education is the premise of progress, in every society, in every family.”
Kofi Annan (What a shocking Ad Populam! – oh wait….I suppose the UN is the Zenith of ad pop)

How is it that such LOGICAL “authority figures” to so many people can think that knowledge can be used to empower. How could anyone dream up a concept of knowledge as manacles which compel an omniscient Being to conform to the subjective opinion of a wiki writer?

Let us consider POWER in mechanical terms and see if there might be some way Davo could unshackle it from Omniscience. I don’t think there are any LOGICAL grounds to think so but lets crash test the idea of POWER in non-philosophical terms – just to cover all the bases and keep Davo happy.

According to….(Dear God please help me find a non-wiki source)
…according to every mechanical engineering handbook I have read* power is the rate at which work is performed or energy is converted. Force, distance, time.
Now this is interesting. Apparently, power is related to energy and time and distance. Look away now Davo. We are blasting off and headed for space. Space/time.
*Including "Belt Selection and Application for Engineers" - Wallace D. Erickson

You see there is an intricate connection between matter and energy not just in mechanical engineering but even deeper in physics and still deeper into quantum physics and still deeper again into metaphysics, thence onward to philosophy and soon we aren’t just talking about James Watt or torque or Reynolds numbers or Pascals or Newtons.
Power and energy – chaos theory – noise and light – space and time – singularities – information encoded in systems - DNA - random and non-random – which of these is information? How much time needs to pass between two events before they are no longer connected in the way Abelard would understand?

We are talking about time and energy and information. What does God have a LOT of?

How the HELL can you have omnipotence without omniscience?

They are the two most logically related ideas in the history of philosophy and the conceptual Being we are talking about can make space/time dissappear so that He has nothing to think about...if thats what He.......
...wishes.

Lion (IRC)
PS - Here is how an irresistable force can co-exist with an immovable object. Put on your whacky quantum weirdness aluminium helmets and let your omnipotent imagination run free. Look everybody. God just turned Himself into an in immovable rock. He made Himself "at one" with the thing He created.

Last edited by Lion IRC; 3rd June 2010 at 05:18 PM. Reason: that/there - red highlighted Mr Locke fixed. Syntax
  #14  
Old 3rd June 2010, 07:33 PM
davo's Avatar
davo davo is offline
SIR Vacuous cunt
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 3rd Planet from the Sun
Posts: 8,767
Default Re: An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo

Quote:
I provide a list of verbs all of which an Omnipotent Being LOGICALLY can do.
It's also a waste of time.

Quote:
Does Davo challenge this LOGIC? – (the logic he asked me to bring forth in support of my proposition)

No he does not. He cannot. He dare not.
You are again using a Red Herring argument here. I don't doubt the concept that these coud be done even by just a powerful being, or by myself.

It's irrelevant to the actual topic of the claims of purity you put forward. Omniscience and Omnipotence.

It's just not logical that a being can be both these things. They contradict. I've explained how, but you won't approach the flaw in my argument you keep claiming. But really, claims is all you are used too.

Quote:
I say that there is nothing God is unable to do if He wishes.
So you keep claiming, but I don't see any logic to the claim. Let alone the fact little old you is standing there claiming you know the properties of your supposedly omni-max god better than I.

Can he create a rock so large that he could not ever possibly lift it?

Can he make 1 + 1 = 3?

The nature of what you are claiming of your god is a paradox. a statement of logic that contradicts itself. ie: It is ILLOGICAL.

You use the term magic. Well magic may be all gooey and nice warm fuzzy feeling in your fairy tales, but it's not logical.

If it's not logical, what is it? illogical. You have said it yourself.

Quote:
Davo demurs. Davo suddenly says he needs to “ask God”.
umm no, because your god as you defined it to me could not exist. I don't have to ask anything. Your claims are illogical.

While your god's promise of eternal life is very persuasive, the Papua New Guinean mud god, Pikkiwoki, is promising a pig and as many coconuts as you can carry. I even joined his facebook group.

Pikkiwoki is at least logical so my chances of getting it right out of millions of concepts of god is a little better than what you have presented.

Quote:
Suddenly we have ditched the inconvenient truth incorporated in the wiki and upon which the entire alleged “paradox” rests.
huh? The paradox is quite clear. I used my own brain and put it forward to you as best I could. I went in depth to try and explain the facets of it. You won't even ATTEMPT to approach what I laid out very simply for you.

Why? Because you obviously can't.

The logic of my argument rests on the inherant contradiction of the properties you claim of your god. Your god is illogical, it is impossible.

All you have as you tried in your first post is attempt (yet another) logical fallacy of Appeal To Ridicule

Quote:
Davo is admitting that he really does not understand Gods Omnipotence. He concedes that he (and the person at Iron Chariot Wiki) have a LIMITED capacity to understand the VERY subject they claim….”must do this and cannot do that”.

And THAT’S my point. If you are going to ascribe to a conceptual being the ability to wave His magic wand and make ANYTHING happen it is perfectly logical that that Being CANNOT be restrained or compelled.
I'm not claiming anything other than what you claim is illogical. It couldn't exist. I am not restraining it or compelling it anything. It's illogical your claims.

Let's make an assumption that an omnipotent being exists .. let's humour you and try and work on this logic.

1/ An omnipotent being can create any type of rock.
2/ There are no rocks too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift


whoa! fair enough, but this means an omnipotent being cannot create a rock too heavy to lift up, as there are no rocks too heavy for it to lift, it's a messy contradiction and .. illogical

it's contradictory and you haven't shown me how this is at all logical.

Here is what what your saying :

1/ An omnipotent being exists
2/ The omnipotent being can create any type of rock
3/ There are no rocks too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift
4/ The omnipotent being can create a rock too heavy for it to lift because it is omnipotent, but it can lift it because it's omnipotent

Now, number 4 is illogical ... can you spot it?? one each side of the comma, you might have to squint.

This is what you are saying in this debate. You might think using all your fancy name dropping and reading and big words can smother the logic and make this fact kinda just not show up .. but it aint working in reality.

Quote:
Knowing is just another verb God can do if He wants.
Yea? so you say, but you both have no evidence whatsoever, and your claims of your god are simply illogical, so excuse me if I look sideways at you with a slightly raised eyebrow when you stand there all high and mighty claiming stuff that is impossible.

Quote:
Davo doesn’t like the “woo” which “comes with the territory” where Gods Omnipotence and Omniscience are concerned.
You just claim it tho. I have cleary showed it is illogical.

Quote:
He appeared ready to throw in the towel in this debate when he said “I pretty much call the debate over.” So soon? So few words?
meh

you know I wasn't throwing in the towel, I was stating the obvious, you got serious pwned. You are here for the duration, so ramp up the word spaghetti as much as you like, avoid the points I have made as much as you like. Your just one of many that don't think for themselves.

Quote:
Well “woo” is EXACTLY what you asked for when YOU challenged me to a debate about the “ne plus ultra” of magic wands. You made the error of proposing a paradox exists – that’s YOUR baby fella. And it is an illogical baby.
LOL So how exactly is your god going with creating a pizza so big he couldn't possibly eat it? What about drinking so much beer he couldn't have another?

Quote:
An all powerful God can know everything and an all knowing God has the power to do anything. Knowledge is POWER. Who says that?
Knowing what it is going to do tomorrow, can it do something it didn't already know instead?

Can an omnipotent being make some thing which it cannot then control?

Quote:
John Locke, whom I regard as the founder of empiricism and natural opponent of most forms of dogmatism, was really bothered by metaphysics in most things – except for God. Why? Because logically, God is the only concept to which metaphysics is apt........
blah blah maybe if you drop names you can avoid what is being presented to you.. Appeal to Authority .. and no actual logic to show for it. Just a reference to someone in 1600's.

Quote:
The nominal Being we are discussing can do anything and know anything or everything there is to know.
You LOVE these constant claims with no evidence don't you? "I'll just claim it hurr durr"

For the umpteenth time you are using the Begging The Question logical fallacy as your 'proof'

Quote:
And God decides what there is "to know" - not wikipedia.
I'd like you to show me the evidence for your claims Begging The Question

Quote:
The nominal Gods magic wand consists in His “pleasure”. And it is the “nominal” God about Whom Davo and Lion are arguing.
Begging The Question

conitinued ..
__________________
Spearthrower: "There are words like vacuous & cunt that are applicable."

(delta p)*(delta q) >= h/(4*pi) ----- An explanation of Logical Fallacies : http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies ----- ferox deo vacuus vinco ----- How do I post video etc here?
  #15  
Old 3rd June 2010, 07:33 PM
davo's Avatar
davo davo is offline
SIR Vacuous cunt
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 3rd Planet from the Sun
Posts: 8,767
Default Re: An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo

Quote:
Even Locke would have conceded that metaphysics is the ONLY applicable discipline which could answer a question like…”Can God create a stone God cannot lift”? In metaphysics, all things are theoretically possible. God and metaphysics are like red wine and cheese. In metaphysics, God can know all things and God can completely destroy all things so there is nothing about which knowledge is needed - the tabula rasa.
Seems like you are saying metaphysics means nothing is illogical as everything is possible ie: your god is not subject to logic.

If this is true, then even the best reasons for god's existence are only a matter of opinion. You cannot assert anything about a god that is not subject to logic, let alone the fact you seem to be yet again refuting yourself.
To claim your god is beyong logic means it is merely a hypothetical being with no logical support. All the assertions you make from 'this realm' mean nothing in a world with no logic.

There are plenty of arguments along these lines, bring it on, but if you are claiming that, you just lost the debate.

Quote:
Having shown that the definition of “to know” is not a concept so foolishly simple as to be summed up by the single word “omniscience”, I wanted this post to focus primarily on the theme now of Omnipotence. Power.

If Davo still insists that it is a simple concept, then all the Zen masters and “theory of knowledge” philosophy wizards like Abelard won’t help. Davo’s dogmatic approach to God’s use of knowledge would, I suspect bother Locke. It is also disingenuous given that he himself concedes…”I really wish I could go and ask God”.
I think you are the one that has the simple concept of it. I explained thoroughly what it means to know all in my first post. Everything. Not only what is, but what could have been and every possibility along those paths. It also includes the experiential knowledge, like having experienced being something with absolutely no power and no omniscience.

But how would it 'get back'? If it laid a plan to come back, it would not have the true experiential knowledge of having been truly powerless and truly dumb.

There's heaps of problems with your claims. You think naming big names will get around the stark expression of what I am saying.

Quote:
So let us leave Davo back where he has been since the start of this debate and continue on regardless. Even if he feels a little impotent because Lion, (the one who is supposed to be doing all the proactive affirmative posting) is serving up more content than expected and some of it includes attacks on the logic of his position which he didn’t expect.
lol mate, I am loving this more and more. This thread is epic

I expected more actually. I expected way more, but you don't seem to have thought about your claims really at all in the logical sphere.

Quote:
Even if he feels ready to throw in the towel (call the debate over) because not ONE of his counter arguments does anything other than state what I already knew to be his position – he thinks Omniscience and Omnipotence are mutually exclusive. He thinks knowledge and power can’t go hand in hand.
Well show us how it can logically do that. I have asked repetatively.

You seem to think knowing all and being all powerfull are gradiated levels of this 'being'. I'm realistic in the claim that when something is omniscient, it KNOWS ALL, and when something is omnipotent, it is ALL POWERFUL.

it is not logical for an omniscient being to do something it didn't already know it was going to do, regardless of how powerful it is. If it's powerful enough to do something it didn't already know it was going to do, it would not be omniscient.

Quote:
“In a time of turbulence and change, it is more true than ever that knowledge is power”
John F Kennedy (What? Turbulence and change? Not dogmatism?)

“Science investigates religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power religion gives man wisdom which is control.”
Martin Luther King, Jr. (NOMA anybody?)

“Knowledge comes by eyes always open and working hands; and there is no knowledge that is not power.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson (Eyes open – Observation. I wonder if the actual observation itself affects the outcome.)

“Knowledge is power.”
Francis Bacon (A fine Baconian principle!)

“Knowledge is power. Information is liberating. Education is the premise of progress, in every society, in every family.”
Kofi Annan (What a shocking Ad Populam! – oh wait….I suppose the UN is the Zenith of ad pop)

How is it that such LOGICAL “authority figures” to so many people can think that knowledge can be used to empower. How could anyone dream up a concept of knowledge as manacles which compel an omniscient Being to conform to the subjective opinion of a wiki writer?
Besides the Appeal to Authority fallacy method you are approaching the discussion with here, they are humans, we are talking about TOTAL knowledge of a supposedly omnipotent being. JFK, King etc etc was talking about gradiated knowledge, the build up of knowledge and specifically when dealing with war, famine, medical issues etc etc.

Can an omniscient being have the experiential knowledge of not being able to be omniscient?
What about the experiential knowledge of pure unadulterated malice, say the knowledge of exactly what it was to be Hitler?
What about the experiental knowledge of being absolutely powerless with no way back?
What about the experiential knowledge of a friend who is your equal?


All knowledge is all possibilities of all things that could possibly happen ever, this would mean the knowledge of the various differing paths a fly could have taken from every single atom distance it flies in a never ending chain of possibilities and everything in between, forever branching out in possibilities from there.

I don't think you really DO have an idea what omniscient means, it's a buzz word for you.

Quote:
We are talking about time and energy and information. What does God have a LOT of?

How the HELL can you have omnipotence without omniscience?
So you are just refuting yourself yet again, what you just said above is that your omnipotent god could not forget.

Quote:
They are the two most logically related ideas in the history of philosophy and the conceptual Being we are talking about can make space/time dissappear so that He has nothing to think about...if thats what He.......
...wishes.
Yea that's what you keep saying. lol

Quote:
Lion (IRC)
PS - Here is how an irresistable force can co-exist with an immovable object. Put on your whacky quantum weirdness aluminium helmets and let your omnipotent imagination run free. Look everybody. God just turned Himself into an in immovable rock. He made Himself "at one" with the thing He created.
definitely would have to be a whacky hat.

Can god make a force that he could never control?

Can God create a rock so heavy that he will never be able to lift it?


the whole concept is illogical and your word play isn't really achieving much, cept logging you here for the future to look at
__________________
Spearthrower: "There are words like vacuous & cunt that are applicable."

(delta p)*(delta q) >= h/(4*pi) ----- An explanation of Logical Fallacies : http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies ----- ferox deo vacuus vinco ----- How do I post video etc here?
  #16  
Old 4th June 2010, 04:21 PM
Lion IRC Lion IRC is offline
Raptured!
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 129
Default Re: An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo

Post # 5
(no...make it last longer...I dont want to get banned as soon as its over)

*sigh*

I said Locke would have conceded that metaphysics is the ONLY applicable discipline which could answer a question like…”Can God create a stone God cannot lift”? In metaphysics, all things are theoretically possible. God and metaphysics go together like red wine and cheese. In metaphysics, God can know all things and God can completely destroy all things so there is nothing about which knowledge is needed - the tabula rasa.

To which Davo replied…

“Seems like you are saying metaphysics means nothing is illogical as everything is possible ie: your god is not subject to logic.”

No – I am saying (as was Locke) that in pure logic, you can conceive of a Being such as God – a magic wand is not illogical if you invent the words “magic wand” and use them in your dialectics.

This is the fundamental point Davo.

You don’t have to think God is real in order to conceive the logical proposition that “if God is all powerful He can do anything.”

If you contemplate whether God can make Himself appear non-existent, you must qualify whether your definition of God includes Omnipotence. And then you might qualify what you mean by “appear”. And then you might qualify “appear to whom?”

But if your starting premise (conception) is “God can do anything” (Omnipotent) then there is nothing that conceptual Being could do which is illogical. You devised the conceptual being that way yourself.

That, Davo, is why I was so happy to accept your challenge to debate the “ne plus ultra” of magic wands. You can’t win. I am convinced that in logic or dialectics nobody could win this argument in your place – well…except God of course. I bet He could win. He could play chess by Himself and win or lose or win or lose…..


(That reminds me of a chess anecdote about the visiting Grand Master who was playing an amateur old-timer at a local chess club who always dreamed of one day playing against a Grand Master. It was the old timer’s birthday and the GM thought he would graciously let the birthday boy – who wasn’t really a very strong player, win. The game went on for ages and ages and in spite of the GM’s best efforts to lose, the old boy refused to cooperate and finally resigned admitting that he could never beat a Grand Masters of chess.)

I’m so glad Davo said he is “…loving this more and more. This thread is epic…”

I thank him for accommodating me. He above everyone else at AFA so far, has made me feel the most welcome. I hope I am allowed to remain a guest here at AFA and we can have many more enjoyable discussions. (My new best friend - who struggles with the God concept.)

Davo poses still more questions about the conceptual Being proposed by his wiki source. Strange considering Davo is the one claiming to know what this conceptual being can and cannot do. It’s his baby. He conceived it. He has obviously spent nine months in contemplation of its gestation. He is the one asserting it has a birth defect (which I can’t even see)

Davo wants his baby to grow up just like any normal omnipotent Being. That’s reasonable. A concerned parent perhaps? Thinks there is something wrong with his baby? Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy? Hmmm. I wonder.

Davo wants to consult Doctor Lion IRC.

Will my baby grow up to have the experiential knowledge of not being able to be omniscient?
Yes – if He wants.

What if my baby wants the experiential knowledge of pure unadulterated malice, say the knowledge of exactly what it was to be Hitler?
Yes – if He wants.

What about the experiental knowledge of being absolutely powerless with no way back.
Yes – if He wants.

What about the experiential knowledge of a friend who is your equal?
Yes – if He wants.

I don't think you really DO have an idea what omniscient means, it's a buzz word for you.
Yes – if He wants. (God can even make me do what Davo wants)

Can my omnipotent baby make a force that he could never control?
Yes – if He wants.

Can my baby create a rock so heavy that he will never be able to lift it?
Yes – if He wants.

And so forth and so on..............

As this is my penultimate post (second last) I have a one final line of argument I would like to introduce

I have spoken on the matter that, in this debate, we are talking about an atheist conceptual Being to whom WE have ascribed the abilities.

I have touched on the theory of knowledge in philosophy – Zen, Abelard, Locke, memory, information, recollection, etc.

I have demonstrated that the most efficient argument is the shortest possible distance between two points and therefore, all I need do to prove my case “LOGICAL,” is to challenge the illogical basis of my opponents. This I have done by simply asking – “show me the verb which an ALL powerful Being cannot do

I have attempted a quasi post mortem of the concept of power and even drilled down to the plain mechanical definition but alas we cannot avoid the quantum indivisibility of matter and energy.

Now for the money shot - Abstraction

A bit of pure sophistry. Aristotle! Is there an Aristotle in the house?

I would like an ancient Greek here to look at this rhetorical device and see if it qualifies as a method of fighting fire with fire. Because what the Iron Chariot wiki presents is mere sophistry it cannot surely object to the same treatment in reply. It is built on a DIY timber platform and of course the logical thing I attack it

Does the word “dust” mean to remove dust using a feather duster or does it mean to apply dust as when someone is searching for fingerprints?

When I say “left” do I mean “some are still remaining” or “some left and are longer remaining”?

Protium might “sanction” me and my participation in this forum but what does that mean? On Monday I am “sanctioned” and on Tuesday I am “sanctioned”. One prevents me from posting the other means I have his official blessing to use the PM function again.

Is Davo’s invitation to me to debate this topic a “quantum leap” into the unknown or just a “quantum” leap – a very small increment?

Davo is valiantly holding “fast” to the ugly little baby he found abandoned at Iron Chariot wiki but I think he should drop that illogical little creation and see how “fast” it falls. Because fast can mean moving fast and it can also mean fixed.

If the all knowing, all seeing God, is responsible for the universal “oversight” does that mean He would notice a typo in the univurse and that no one would have to point out His “oversight”?

You see, what we are arguing here is nothing more than what Davo wants a word to mean. And that would dilute the debate into an argument about linguistics and semantics.

But that’s not the debate Davo wants to win or lose is it? Altering the interpretation of a word so you can win an argument? Growling at anyone who suggests the word might have a broader application than than Davo wants?

Here’s the argument I want to win.

Is Davo brave enough to consider the paradox free from the artificial semantic meaning of the word “Omniscience” to which he is clinging so tight and with so much desperation that it is pitiful?

Can he let go of the one part of his false dilemma - either Omnipotence or Omniscience – and take on a conceptual Being whose Omniscience extends as far as the meaning which I claim is logical?

Is he really going to gamble ALL his poker chips on the hope that God’s Omniscience means what wiki says rather than what God says?

(Cont...)
  #17  
Old 4th June 2010, 04:24 PM
Lion IRC Lion IRC is offline
Raptured!
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 129
Default Re: An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo

(Cont...)

Here is my final point.

Humans can construct a paradoxical Being or a logical one.

A logical being would have the semantic form of Omniscience I advocate and an illogical being would have the type of Omnipotence in which there are some things God cannot do (as the paradox claims)

But what sort of hollow victory would that be in a debate? A punctuation error is not philosophy! Contranyms can be made of any word and we can play “cutsie” little semantic games back and forward – but that’s NOT philosophy!

Restricting the meaning of the verb “to know” so that you can claim some bingo word game prize holds no honor in the lofty world of Abelard and Locke and Plato and Rousseau.

Digging your heels in and “dogmatically” insisting that your conceptual God has a unique form of Omnipotence which prevents God from doing certain verbs is not an honorable contribution to the forward momentum of human thought.

It is a petty quibbling.

The all power Being who conceptually can do ANYTHING and who has the knowledge needed for this VERY ability is logical.

Of course I can modify the abilities of God “to know” and to “be able” and I can put him in a little straw puppet robe and make fun of the paradoxical shoes which I made him wear. And I can travel around the blogosphere saying “Look everybody” I made a little wiki doll and it has its very own internal contradiction."

The debate I wish to win fair and square is the one where Omniscience is the unlimited use of the verb “to know” and Omnipotence is the unlimited ability to use the verb “to know” any way God wishes.

If my opponent can only win this debate by forcing readers into a myopic and illogically restricted view of the theory of knowledge then he can keep his little wiki doll with its man-made handicap of not being able to do certain things that the real God of the infinite can and who does not need our semantic and pedantic approval.

Lion (IRC)
  #18  
Old 4th June 2010, 08:08 PM
davo's Avatar
davo davo is offline
SIR Vacuous cunt
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 3rd Planet from the Sun
Posts: 8,767
Default Re: An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo

Quote:
I am saying (as was Locke) that in pure logic, you can conceive of a Being such as God – a magic wand is not illogical if you invent the words “magic wand” and use them in your dialectics.
So your down to arguing the 'magic wand' I see. Getting kinda embaressing really isn't it?

"A unicorn is not illogical! if you invent the word Unicorn and use them in your dialectics!"

Ok show us it spelt out in pure logic, rather than just claiming it is both without ANY evidence whatsover. Show us the evidence of your claims. At the moment I have continually put forward the paradoxes presented in logic, I have spelt out and numbered the logical progressions to try and get you to respond and show us logically how this is not a contradiction.

And here you are basically saying 'if I can think of it without it conflicting in my head, so long as I can concieve it, it is logical'

what utter tripe.

Quote:
This is the fundamental point Davo.

You don’t have to think God is real in order to conceive the logical proposition that “if God is all powerful He can do anything.”
You now seem to be saying this omniscient and omnipotent god is a metaphysical construct and as such logic does not apply, so long as Lion IRC can concieve of it, it must be logical.

Effectively you are just trying to win the debate by saying that this omniscient and omnipotent being is just a concept, and concepts are logical as we all have them .. so TA DAA!!

hurr durr the theist refutes his own god as a concept lol

I have refuted your claim simply, knowing what your god is going to do tomorrow (being omniscient), means it cannot change that, or it would not actually have been omniscient in the first place. Not being able to change it's future, means it would not be omnipotent. If it changed that 'immutable' future, it would not have been omniscient in the first place REPEAT (and round and round we go)

And btw I have read up on your claims, I just find that you have picked and chosen a concept that fits what you want to say, effectively "that god can do anything even the logically impossible, and since he can, therefore it is logical" Which is TOTALLY Begging the Question, but really you have been doing this all along. You are not arguing the logic of an omniscient and omnipotent god, you are just asserting everyone has to accept it.

In other words you just effectively assuming it is true in your assertion. It's circular reasoning, just like saying 'The bible is true because the bible says it's true.

Locke's concept of knowledge was refuted by Berkeley in 1710, Leibniz published one too in 1765 then on to Hume and scepticism.

Scientists have almost universally rejected Lockes concept of 'tabula rasa', a simple example is in the fact the brain is born with the ability to learn language.

I submit solid evidence that refutes the concepts of knowledge as presented by Locke and put forward by Lion IRC in medical evidence of the brain having knowledge from birth :

"The neocortical microcircuit as a tabula rasa.". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.. January 18, 2005
Kalisman N, Silberberg G, Markram H. - Department of Neurobiology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Isreal
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630093

"Specification of cerebral cortical areas.". Science. July 8, 1988.
Rakic P. - Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3291116

"Spontaneous and evoked synaptic rewiring in the neonatal neocortex.". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.. August 29, 2006
Le Bé JV, Markram H. - Brain Mind Institute, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16924105

Locke said that only a thinking thing, can give rise to a thinking thing. He stated that first he perceives himself and then works from there using a version of the principle of sufficient reason which is again Begging the Question, that nothing cannot produce anything, then puts forward that there must be 'something' that has been around for eternity to stop the infinite regress and that something is god. he then claims this thing must be all powerful, without any reasoning built on the foundation of the existence of himself, but totally sidesteps the problem presented that the being need only be as powerful as it takes to have created the world. There is NO requirement even for his postulated god to be omnipotent, even in the scope of things at best the logic says it only needs to be of a certain power.

This is just like creationists which claim everything is so complex it requires a designer, so postulate an even more complex thing and just ASSERT that their thing (god) does not require a designer while the universe does.

Quote:
But if your starting premise (conception) is “God can do anything” (Omnipotent) then there is nothing that conceptual Being could do which is illogical. You devised the conceptual being that way yourself.
So your saying this being is a conceptual being, I don't disagree with you at all on that one. It's all in your head and you are just ignoring the logical problems those two properties present, and just claiming it is logical.

Quote:
That, Davo, is why I was so happy to accept your challenge to debate the “ne plus ultra” of magic wands. You can’t win. I am convinced that in logic or dialectics nobody could win this argument in your place – well…except God of course. I bet He could win. He could play chess by Himself and win or lose or win or lose…..
You have totally argued now that since your god is a conceptual being, it's ok that it can be a paradox.

LOL

Quote:
I thank him for accommodating me. He above everyone else at AFA so far, has made me feel the most welcome. I hope I am allowed to remain a guest here at AFA and we can have many more enjoyable discussions. (My new best friend - who struggles with the God concept.)
No problem. This thread will stand testament to your logic

However I wouldn't bet on staying here after this, we tend to value reason and logic, and you effectively just claim 'the magic man can do anything regardless' It gets tiring that level of inanity. You were given your chance on the board to represent your 'god' and that's more than anyone could ask. I must say, you didn't dissapoint

Quote:
Davo poses still more questions about the conceptual Being proposed by his wiki source. Strange considering Davo is the one claiming to know what this conceptual being can and cannot do.
LOL It's not my wiki source. Have a look and search and you will find these issues people have thought about since before your god supposedly came to earth to kill himself, so that he could forgive people for what their ancestors did to an apple.

You are the one telling us what this thing can and can't do. I am just putting forward what is logically possible given the properties you define of your god. And it isn't logical, all you can end up doing is saying 'because I can conceive of it, it must be so'

Do you also believe in leprechauns? I hear they can just magically appear at the end of rainbows. I can conceive of it so it must be true?

Sorry, that methodoloy is not logic however you want to word it up as that.

Quote:
Davo wants to consult Doctor Lion IRC.
I don't think so, all you would do is pray and conceive medical help rather than give it.

continued ...
__________________
Spearthrower: "There are words like vacuous & cunt that are applicable."

(delta p)*(delta q) >= h/(4*pi) ----- An explanation of Logical Fallacies : http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies ----- ferox deo vacuus vinco ----- How do I post video etc here?

Last edited by davo; 4th June 2010 at 08:17 PM. Reason: principle of sufficient reason which is again -FAILED due to ' instead of " in link
  #19  
Old 4th June 2010, 08:09 PM
davo's Avatar
davo davo is offline
SIR Vacuous cunt
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 3rd Planet from the Sun
Posts: 8,767
Default Re: An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo

Quote:
Will my baby grow up to have the experiential knowledge of not being able to be omniscient?
Yes – if He wants.

What if my baby wants the experiential knowledge of pure unadulterated malice, say the knowledge of exactly what it was to be Hitler?
Yes – if He wants.

What about the experiental knowledge of being absolutely powerless with no way back.
Yes – if He wants.

What about the experiential knowledge of a friend who is your equal?
Yes – if He wants.

I don't think you really DO have an idea what omniscient means, it's a buzz word for you.
Yes – if He wants. (God can even make me do what Davo wants)

Can my omnipotent baby make a force that he could never control?
Yes – if He wants.

Can my baby create a rock so heavy that he will never be able to lift it?
Yes – if He wants.

And so forth and so on..............
No see, there is a difference between logic and assertion. They are not the same thing. You just assert it.

This is where you are claiming that your god is omniscient, but only if he wants to be, which is a hell of a lot different than being omniscient.

I have clearly stated that knowledge includes experiential knowledge. If he has not been in the situation and has not done it, he is not omniscient

hurr durr whats so hard about that to understand?

Quote:
I have demonstrated that the most efficient argument is the shortest possible distance between two points and therefore, all I need do to prove my case “LOGICAL,” is to challenge the illogical basis of my opponents. This I have done by simply asking – “show me the verb which an ALL powerful Being cannot do”
We are talking about an omniscient and omnipotent being. You are simply stating that the omniscient part doesn't count as it's 'covered' by omnipotence.

Humans have the greatest power in the world to destroy all living things, but do we have the knowledge to create a simple one? (not yet)

Power does NOT mean knowledge. They are related but they are not the same thing.

I may know a bird is flying over my head, but I am powerless to do anything about it, oops it's gone too late!

You are the one claiming that these abilities, pure, and total in definition, can exist in one being logically. I've shown over and over again the same argument as to how this is simply impossible.

Quote:
Now for the money shot - Abstraction
Lock who rejects all innate ideas, which you seem to love, has a problem right here now you mention it.
Abstraction is only possible if we have some innate faculty of recognizing resemblances.
Hume, went on later to posit resemblance as an innate "principle of association of ideas."

Quote:
If the all knowing, all seeing God, is responsible for the universal “oversight” does that mean He would notice a typo in the univurse and that no one would have to point out His “oversight”?

You see, what we are arguing here is nothing more than what Davo wants a word to mean. And that would dilute the debate into an argument about linguistics and semantics.
Oh I thought we were focussing on logic, which you haven't even put forward yet, all the paradox I have put forward which is just the tip of the iceberg, you are saying is just semantics and linguistics

Quote:
But that’s not the debate Davo wants to win or lose is it? Altering the interpretation of a word so you can win an argument? Growling at anyone who suggests the word might have a broader application than than Davo wants?

Here’s the argument I want to win.

Is Davo brave enough to consider the paradox free from the artificial semantic meaning of the word “Omniscience” to which he is clinging so tight and with so much desperation that it is pitiful?
What? Let go of what? I explained fully how omniscience means all there is to know, all there could be to know into the future, all the possibilities from every thing that ever happens and the branching out from there, the SUM OF ALL KNOWLEDGE.

What are you trying to make it mean? Omnipotence.

let's look at your quotes:

How the hell can an Omnipotent Being NOT possess all knowledge?

How the HELL can you have omnipotence without omniscience?

Both these seperate comments as ending points of 2 of your posts sum up your position.

See, if this thing can't have omnipotence without omniscience, it is not omnipotent. Omnipotent means for instance it could choose to be dumb (feeel the logic ..)

You contradict yourself all the time. None of it is logical however much you claim you just have to conceive of it and it's logical. Doesn't make sense sorry, you have gone around and around in loops in this debate.

Quote:
Can he let go of the one part of his false dilemma - either Omnipotence or Omniscience – and take on a conceptual Being whose Omniscience extends as far as the meaning which I claim is logical?

Is he really going to gamble ALL his poker chips on the hope that God’s Omniscience means what wiki says rather than what God says?
Begging the Question again. You are also just asserting a proof that you could not have knowledge of, without being omniscient yourself. Does god tell you all about this stuff does he?

Quote:
Restricting the meaning of the verb “to know” so that you can claim some bingo word game prize holds no honor in the lofty world of Abelard and Locke and Plato and Rousseau.
for the umpteenth time, I am not restricting it. I have stated all the way thru knowledge means knowing EVERYTHING. I have gone to great lengths to explain that.

Quote:
Digging your heels in and “dogmatically” insisting that your conceptual God has a unique form of Omnipotence which prevents God from doing certain verbs is not an honorable contribution to the forward momentum of human thought.
Nah actually you're digging your heals in and saying 'My omniscience and my omnipotence can mean whatever I want and my o+o god is logical even tho it's illogical so nyah'

Quote:
It is a petty quibbling.
Nope it's called critical thinking, not trying to shovel everything into a box defined by dogma. Unchained reasoning.

Quote:
The all power Being who conceptually can do ANYTHING and who has the knowledge needed for this VERY ability is logical.
Ahh no .. not conceptually, but in reality. See that's the claim of omniscience and omnipotence as a logical god. It's not the knowledge needed, it's ALL KNOWLEDGE, or else it is not omniscient.

Quote:
Of course I can modify the abilities of God “to know” and to “be able” and I can put him in a little straw puppet robe and make fun of the paradoxical shoes which I made him wear. And I can travel around the blogosphere saying “Look everybody” I made a little wiki doll and it has its very own internal contradiction."
lol or you can do it claiming something totally illogical exists, jump on a board full of people that use their brains and try and tell them your magical man is logical hehehe

Quote:
The debate I wish to win fair and square is the one where Omniscience is the unlimited use of the verb “to know” and Omnipotence is the unlimited ability to use the verb “to know” any way God wishes.
I was wondering, how did this omniscient god get back from having the experiential knowledge of being a powerless ant?

Quote:
If my opponent can only win this debate by forcing readers into a myopic and illogically restricted view of the theory of knowledge then he can keep his little wiki doll with its man-made handicap of not being able to do certain things that the real God of the infinite can and who does not need our semantic and pedantic approval.
Yea you keep saying wiki, but most all of my arguments bar one line in the debate have even referenced it, and that was only because you mentioned it to start, and I asked for an answer.

How did your god go with having the experiential knowledge of making a stone so large that he could never move it?

lol
__________________
Spearthrower: "There are words like vacuous & cunt that are applicable."

(delta p)*(delta q) >= h/(4*pi) ----- An explanation of Logical Fallacies : http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies ----- ferox deo vacuus vinco ----- How do I post video etc here?
  #20  
Old 4th June 2010, 09:47 PM
Lion IRC Lion IRC is offline
Raptured!
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 129
Default Re: An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo

I would like to thank Protium and Davo for allowing me to take part in a discussion on AFA.

Davo was a fine debating opponent and a true humanist for letting me put my side of the debate.

Next time me and Davo might pick a simpler topic to debate...like... perhaps ...oh I dont know...maybe...."Whether Jesus' humanity was a fraud - in which case His divinity would also be fraudulent and therefore, etc etc"

In this debate I wanted to show that the wiki paradox Davo was presenting was a "human construction" which defined God in a paradoxical way. I wanted to show that it is equally possible (for humans) to define God in a non-paradoxical way. A nil-all-draw if you like.

Naturally, I presented a subjective argument about my own human point of view in contrast to another HUMAN point of view about God. Fortunately, this debate was not about whose view was empirically verifiable. Simply, whether or not Davo can have HIS view of God - paradox. And I can have my point of view about God - logical.

If the reader walks away thinking it is a nil-all-draw I will have done better than I expected. I have a few peanut gallery posts I would like to pursue but thats about it from me.

As many of you know, the contest of ideas isnt necessarily about winning or losing or getting one single debating opponent to admit or concede some point. It is more likely to be about the one single person in the audience who never said anything or commented in the peanut gallery but who went home and in bed that night "thought more deeply" about the topic than they otherwise would have.

I recently finished re-reading Bryce Courtenay's The Power of One and it speaks loudly about having your mind for the "map" but your heart for the "will". Are we going in the right direction and are we "driven" to get there?
The Power of One! Mind and Heart. Omnipotence and Omniscience.

"Dear Peekay,
Here is the money you won. We showed that big gorilla who was boss. Small can beat big. But remember, you have to have a plan- like when I hit Jackhammer Schmit with the knock out punch when he thought I was down for the count Ha Ha. Remember always, first with the head, then with the heart! Without both, I'm telling you...plans are useless.
Your friend in boxing,
Hoppy Groenveld."

PK thinks about Herr Hitler and the "Lord" and Hoppy Groenveld and Mifro and Jack hammer Schmidt and the Zulu shaman Inkosi Inkosi Kasi and he sees them through innocent eyes, but ultimately, he has to decide his own world view independently of them.

Debates like these are just Davo's and Lion's world views and the reader can take it or leave it. The reader might even have a superior argument than both of us put together. But we ALL have to face life and death and bullies and "the journey" like PK. Alone with the Power of One.

Lion (IRC)
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 12:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.