That's exactly what you said. I quoted you directly. I literally copied and pasted what you said from your post. As for your question: If x is a hypot...
How am I supposed to engage in a meaningful discussion with someone who believes the following is wrong: >>>Core to the argument: If a given belief/th...
I'm saying Existence is necessarily at least as real as you and me. So if Existence is necessarily Omnipresent (which It is because it exists everywhe...
So what you're saying is this: People can have semantically inconsistent beliefs. People should accept semantically inconsistent beliefs/theories. You...
Either God is Omnipresent, or 'god' is not Omnipotent. You cannot be Omnipotent without having reach and access to all of Existence. And you cannot ha...
The reason I asked you that question was because semantically, Omnipotence is impossible without Omnipresence. Only God/Existence IS Omnipresent. For ...
I agree that the is no 'god' or human that can alter the nature of Existence. I'm not sure if this is the same as saying the laws of the universe cann...
But if we apply your reasoning, it would go like this: I can kill myself and get someone to turn me into ashes. God Can Kill Itself and Get someone to...
Consider prediction. You have the ability to make you predict. God has the ability to make you predict. You cannot make God predict, nor can God make ...
Which is why God is Perfect and Omnipotent. It Handles ALL affairs. You cannot will anything except if it is also Willed by God. God's power absolute....
Precisely my point. You can make YOU commit fallacies. Your power is "you can make YOU commit fallacies". Your power is not "you can make GOD commit f...
Ok, then engage with sincerity to truth and reason. I'm not here defend or criticise the bible. I'm here to discuss the semantic of Omnipotence, which...
It seems to me that you've given this some thought. Here's hoping you will approach the matter with sincerity to truth and reason. Whether you will or...
Omnipotence = being able to do all that is doable. It does not mean being able to do that which is not doable. That's like saying Omniscience involves...
It means that a unicorn is a hypothetically possible being. As in, Existence is such that it can produce unicorns. If Existence couldn't produce unico...
I see. All triangular things are triangular because they have the property of being triangular. All existing things exist because they have the proper...
Mentally ill people believe in wrong hypothetical possibilities. Perhaps they think they've seen a unicorn (and maybe they actually have...who knows) ...
I sort of thought I should tame myself and not say that I'm right and many famous mathematicians and philosophers are wrong. If I am wrong, then I am ...
I am being sincere when I say I have carefully examined his argument. I also don't think I can do more by way of furthering our discussion on this mat...
Ok then. A set is a set and you can have sets within sets. If y is not x, then y is absurd. How can a set that is not a member of itself, contain itse...
We might have to agree to disagree. To me, if something is meaningful, then by definition, it exists. How it exists and what sort/grade of reality it ...
Yes I agree. But please bear in mind that all sets, are members of the set of all sets (including the set of all sets itself). So the set of all great...
The following is proof: I find that if I say x isn't a member of itself, I am being paradoxical because x is a set. I find that if I say x is a member...
If it's an activity, then surely it's a thing, is it not? 0 activity = nothing/non-existence. Thinking activity = something. An omnipresent entity is ...
What you say is true of all non-infinite things. It is not true of that which is actually infinite. The actually infinite has no beginning and no end....
Is there an existing thing that contains all existing things? Is it not blatantly paradoxical to deny that there is an existing thing that contains al...
To my knowledge, Russell's paradox concludes that you cannot have a set of all sets because he fails to non-paradoxically define a set of all sets tha...
Thank you for replying and I understand where you're coming from. I will try to convey to you my understanding more specifically hoping that specifica...
I am not in disagreement with this. The idea of something (even an item of thought or a hypothetical possibility) going out of existence is what I bel...
Hi Charles Here's your article which I found on google now (I don't understand why you didn't post the link yourself, but no worries) https://thephilo...
It's more a case of Existence is Perfect, it exists Perfectly, and we are a part of it. We're a part of Existence, but we are not Existence. Our name ...
No worries about the late reply. I hope I address all your questions effectively. The following statement was inspired from a movie (Anchorman): 1) 60...
Hi Flight747 I'm glad you enjoyed the post. I did have some refutations to some of your premises and ideas, so when you get a chance, it would be nice...
For me, there can be more than one reality (I say this because I can distinguish between virtual reality, dreams, and my waking reality) I cannot howe...
True. Can you give me an example? In similar fashion to how we understand omnipresence. What's your understanding of omnipresence? But we can't imagin...
Some things I'd like to add to my last post to you VagabondSpectre: What does it mean to have the ability/might to do something? Can it be anything ot...
I don't about the Nordic description of God , but the Abrahamic description of God as being Almighty and All-knowing, is pretty much what I'm proposin...
It’s rationally verifiable because A) you could not have omnipresence/Existence emerge from non-existence. Nor can you have something that’s within th...
Comments