User talk:Birdman/PS

What I have received is the typical "base level" to "high level" debate progression that I always receive whenever I offer this counter-paradoxical solution. People jump to conclusions early on without doing any research. It starts out with the basic, "Well, this just doesn't work" and then when I offer responses. Then it moves up to more technical challenges. Arguments become more like "God is failing to do (fill in the blank)" and then I address these issues as well. Then it escalates to even higher level arguments dealing with simultaneous activities, the nature of omnipotence, the validity of omnipresence and whether or not my CGCP can be expressed in a logical syllogism or some other form.

Whatever the case, the debate has evolved a hell of a lot farther than when it was first deemed as something that seems stupid. If it were stupid, it wouldn't have made it this far. I cannot keep answering challenges from an endless stream of people and never have a determination made. There has to be a way to reach a determination.

What I propose is that you elect one member to represent all of you who do NOT want this Circular God Counter-Paradox contribution added to the rationalwiki page. I will agree to a time-limit based email debate and make my case for this counter-paradoxical response. You can send this elected person your questions and have s/he ask them for you if you choose. If I am able to offer plausible answers to all of the questions that are asked, then you must agree to include my contribution to the rationalwiki page. If I am not able to answer the questions, then I will agree to let the issue drop.

I will also agree to document the entire exchange in a .PDF file and make this available to all interested parties. .....Agreed?--Birdman (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I have offered a logical compromise. Please respond so that this issue can be resolved in a timely manner.--Birdman (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)--Birdman (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

No. Christopher (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

What I have proposed is what is outlined in the Etiquitte[[1]] page associated with the rationalwiki Community Standards page. If you do not feel this is an effective method for reaching a decision, then what other method do you suggest?--Birdman (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Lay out your arguments on the omnipotence paradox talk page, no one will see it here plus everyone here's forgotten about you. Christopher (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I cannot find such a page and I was directed to this talk page by the people deleting my contribution. It is not rational to delete the contribution of a link that provides a great deal of information regarding the Paradox of the Stone and the Omnipotence Paradox--Birdman (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Link. Christopher (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I added a section to the talk page. I received one emotion-based reply that doesn't even address what has been proposed and provided incorrect information. You have once again deleted my contribution and placed a block on me with no supplied reason as to why you deleted the contribution. I even asked on the talk page what needed to be done to get the link included and nobody seems to want to reply. So tomorrow you can once again dedicate your life to deleting my contribution without any basis. Rest assured I'm documenting everything that is happening.--Birdman (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Try explaining in terms of 'pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps' (rather than football and Q&A sessions). Anna Livia (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Anna, I could certainly do what you suggest, however "'pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps' is in no way similar to the concept of "offsetting penalties." I can tell by your strange preoccupation with Yahweh's genitalia that you have no idea what offsetting penalties are or its correlation to my CGCP response. I use the football analogy for people who want a simple-to-understand analogy on what happens when a paradox encounters a counter-paradox. I also provide a "challenges" page on the website so that anyone offering rudimentary challenges (as was clearly demonstrated here) can see that it's probably already been addressed by someone else. Oh,and by the way... I found a "typo" on your Stanford EoP link. Do you want to remove the link yourself or would you rather I do it?--Birdman (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Birdman (a) #You# started the footballing analogy - and 'the offside rule' is a subject of much debate in UK footballing circles (and those of us not in the US have no idea what offsetting rules you use). (b) You say that your footballing analogy is simple and I do not understand it - this implies that you are using the wrong analogy. (c) #You# have an obsession with God's genitalia - I merely say that the Deity's/Deities' gender(s) will be complex and automatically referring to a single God of the male human persuasion is lazy etc. (d) On your website you list what you define as challenges - who are the 'someone elses' who made them (or did you create them all yourself?)

And - 'documenting everything' can work in many ways. Take care. Anna Livia (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Anna, to be frank with you, you have offered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that is related to the concept that this counter-paradox deals with. The highest degree of intellectualism you have brought to the table is pointing out a typo, arguing about an analogy not being "universal enough" for you (which no analogy can ever really be), quizzing me about which football sport I'm referencing, questioning if I have a degree in something and questioning if God has a pee-pee. Other than that, you really have nothing more to add.

I've already spent far too much time with others who have actually offered a "intellectual challenge" to this CGCP response to which I know will never EVER allow for the stoneparadox.org link to be added anyway... so why in the hell should I waste a single second on someone who can't even offer up one single intellectual challenge at all?--Birdman (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Learn succinctness (and there are other spelling mistakes on your website and comments here) - and who are these people who have offered an 'intellectual challenge' to your theory.

You have a problem with God's body parts - I am addressing something quite different.

Be courteous, do not use unnecessary capitals or swearwords - and accept that people can disagree because they have different approaches to a particular problem.

If people state they cannot understand your theory/they feel that your website does not presently meet the criteria for a link, consider that the problem may be your end rather than theirs. Anna Livia (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)