User talk:Birdman/TMWT

Holy crap that's a lot of nonsense. Regarding what you originally said:

Christopher and I agree (it looks like other people have pointed this out to you). We are just discussing two separate parts of the response. I am discussing how the omnipotent being is not lifting the rock in one part, Christopher is discussing how the omnipotent being is lifting the rock in a different part. Since the paradox arises when either the rock is lifted or not lifted, it stands in your counter-argument (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm led to believe that that is your site that offers the counter argument?)

You seem to object to the fact that your argument is incorrect in two separate places. I discussed what happens on top of the plane because, in my opinion, that seemed more direct and simpler to understand. You won't be able to watch any atheists arguing with each other here because we are still in agreement. Just because two separate people find two separate flaws in an argument, doesn't mean they disagree. I can't speak for Christopher, but I certainly don't disagree with his argument, because it is also valid.

I agree entirely with this comment: "Kazitor doesn't give a rat's ass about whatever god is doing on Plane (A). Kazitor is focusing his entire reasoning on the fact that god is depicted as failing to lift something... therefore god cannot be omnipotent." Was it you who wrote that? Because if so, then you seem to understand that your counter argument fails. Doublethink maybe?

I fully realise how hypocritical this might sound, but please try to be open-minded about this. When anyone disagrees with your counter-argument to the omnipotence paradox, they are not (necessarily) attacking your god, and that is how I can be very certain that discussion of it can be free from religious biases. This is why I mention "an omnipotent being" rather than "god" or "Yahweh", because it does not in any way refer specifically to any religion.

Anyway, I tried to be civil with you, and your very first response was hostile. I can see what Christopher meant by "just generally being a dick". What'd I say about leaving ad hominems to a minimum? They are counter productive. —Kazitor, pending 04:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Kazitor writes: "We are just discussing two separate parts of the response."  Yes you are, my friend!  Both of you took a single element of a simultaneously-happening event and rendered a judgment based solely on that one event.  So tell me, Kazitor, which #2 is responsible for the (0) outcome in this addition problem:  (2 + -2 = 0).  Let's say you feel its (2) and Christopher says it's (-2).  Although it is true that both #2's play a role in the outcome of reaching (0), it is NOT true that any single #2 is the reason why (0) is reached.  You are logically required to consider the equation as a simultaneously-happening event... unless, of course, you want to go one step farther and claim that "mathematics is flawed!"


 * Go read the example I gave above for RSamys with him being on trail for murder, because that is EXACTLY what you and Christipher did regarding my CGCP resolution.


 * You wrote: "I fully realise how hypocritical this might sound, but please try to be open-minded about this. When anyone disagrees with your counter-argument to the omnipotence paradox, they are not (necessarily) attacking your god"


 * Ohhh, geeze! You're are actually reduced to tossing out a straw man argument now?  .........REALLY?  You've got to be kidding me?  Seriously?  I thought only Theists did this?  God has nothing to do with this at all, my friend.  You can trash god all day long if you want to and I wouldn't care one bit.  But seriously, is that really the very best you can do?  ...a straw man?


 * You wrote "This is why I mention "an omnipotent being" rather than "god" or "Yahweh", because it does not in any way refer specifically to any religion" I don't care if yu use god or not!  You can swap out "Sky Daddy" if that makes your boat float.  I just use god because it saves everyone time.  This is an information exchange and does not require offering respect to a deity.  It's like using black instead of African-American.  It just makes for an easier read.


 * And lastly: "Anyway, I tried to be civil with you, and your very first response was hostile. I can see what Christopher meant by "just generally being a dick".  The truth is that I never become "hostile" with you at all.  In your very first comment (you can go back and read it) you alluded to my supposed "religious beliefs" as swaying my attitude and understanding.  All I did in return is point out to you that your Atheist ideology was preventing you from accepting the truth.  I went on to counter all of your arguments without any slams.  I didn't kiss your ass, but I never insulted you.  Again, go back and read it!  I never called you a dick or anything at all, because you never did that to me.  Well, you never did until just now (by proxy).  That's okay.  It's how you've felt all along anyway, I know that.  It was just a matter of time before you revealed it.  You and your Atheist friends will NEVER allow my link to be added... even to the point of denying reality.--Birdman (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, so you don't see it as a direct attack on your god. That's fine, no need to be so rude about it. Some people can get very defensive about anything pertaining to their religion because it seems like a direct attack on them (see practically anything to do with evolution with regards to creationists). I thought that it might be the same case here. Pardon me for being mistaken, everyone makes mistakes and none of us claim to be 100% right about everything all the time.


 * The point is, in two separate places in your argument, there is a flaw. You said, "Both of you took a single element of a simultaneously-happening event and rendered a judgment based solely on that one event." That's because an omnipotent being would be able to (lift the rock|create the unliftable rock) without the involvement of any of those external components. This is literally the definition of omnipotence: the ability to do anything. By needing a convoluted workaround to lift and not lift the rock, the being in question cannot be omnipotent (hence the paradox stands).


 * Now what I don't get is: where does addition come into this? You keep saying things like 1 + -1 = 0... so? I don't get it. Please explain, as clearly as you can, how that is relevant. I'm all ears, sincerely. Just be direct and don't pepper it with your subtle sarcastic remarks and hyperbole. I would genuinely like to know how -1 + 1 = 0 means that it is no longer a paradox. Then we can be on the same page. —Kazitor, pending 04:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)