I've just had an apostrophe!
Vegas-Rex
15-04-2005, 03:40
After starting numerous threads to try to find anything that would motivate an omnipotent being and annoying the heck out of the few NSers who saw my posts I am now prepared to reach my conclusion.
It is (Dundananandundundundunnnnnn!) an omnipotent being cannot exist!
However (and getting closer to the point of this thread) it seems to me that all of this stuff would work if there were merely a few, simple limits placed on an otherwise all-powerful entity. The question is, what are said limits?
As this part is totally up to other's belief (and, in many cases like mine, imagination) I will not tear apart anyone's responses. Just tell me what you think God's limits are or should be if there was one.
I think you mean "epiphany" :p An Apostrophe is this: '
Vegas-Rex
15-04-2005, 03:52
I think you mean "epiphany" :p An Apostrophe is this: '
He who recognizes the movie quote will earn a prize of something....
And so far you haven't. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Cristoforium
15-04-2005, 03:55
It's from "Hook" of course :)
As this part is totally up to other's belief (and, in many cases like mine, imagination) I will not tear apart anyone's responses. Just tell me what you think God's limits are or should be if there was one.
I think you mean, "the gods' and goddesses'".
Capital letters and singular abstract pronouns representing undefined/nonexistent beings can only be used when talking about IT.
He who recognizes the movie quote will earn a prize of something....
And so far you haven't. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Then, sorry I assumed you were having one of those days. You know, the ones where you always seem to say something stupid no matter how hard you try to get it out right?
Vegas-Rex
15-04-2005, 03:58
It's from "Hook" of course :)
And a prize for Christoforium! Not sure what the prize is, but that's OK.
Vegas-Rex
15-04-2005, 04:01
I think you mean, "the gods' and goddesses'".
Capital letters and singular abstract pronouns representing undefined/nonexistent beings can only be used when talking about IT.
Yes, I know you intentionally missed the point, but I'll respond as if you hadn't.
You're right. Multiple non-omnipotent beings would be a potent check on omnipotency. Such universes work, which is why I don't usually debate them.
The Cat-Tribe
15-04-2005, 04:07
After starting numerous threads to try to find anything that would motivate an omnipotent being and annoying the heck out of the few NSers who saw my posts I am now prepared to reach my conclusion.
It is (Dundananandundundundunnnnnn!) an omnipotent being cannot exist!
However (and getting closer to the point of this thread) it seems to me that all of this stuff would work if there were merely a few, simple limits placed on an otherwise all-powerful entity. The question is, what are said limits?
As this part is totally up to other's belief (and, in many cases like mine, imagination) I will not tear apart anyone's responses. Just tell me what you think God's limits are or should be if there was one.
I'm pretty sure She has trouble touching her toes.
And she might be a tad nearsighted.
Incenjucarania
15-04-2005, 04:13
Actually.
An apostrophe is a valid literary term.
It's essentially an 'aside'.
Such as:
"And lo, Roberts, I demand your flesh." *turns to the audience* "Flabby as it is, haha!"
It's great to learn, 'cause knowledge is power! (So long as you can't say the word 'because' properly!)
http://www.answers.com/apostrophe&r=67
Vegas-Rex
15-04-2005, 04:19
Actually.
An apostrophe is a valid literary term.
It's essentially an 'aside'.
Such as:
"And lo, Roberts, I demand your flesh." *turns to the audience* "Flabby as it is, haha!"
It's great to learn, 'cause knowledge is power! (So long as you can't say the word 'because' properly!)
http://www.answers.com/apostrophe&r=67
Yeah, but I was using it incorrectly for the sheer fun of it.
An apostrophe is a valid literary term.
It's either, and it's originally a theatrical term.
Possible rules:
1. "God" isn't wholly omniscient or "he" can't predict the future
2. "God" isn't wholly omnipotent or "he" can't have an arch-nemesis (Satan)
3. "God" doesn't need praise, respect, or worship, or "he" has human qualities
Vegas-Rex
15-04-2005, 04:28
It's either, and it's originally a theatrical term.
Possible rules:
1. "God" isn't wholly omniscient or "he" can't predict the future
2. "God" isn't wholly omnipotent or "he" can't have an arch-nemesis (Satan)
3. "God" doesn't need praise, respect, or worship, or "he" has human qualities
Hmm...
Well the first would need some other stuff to make it actually give God motivation (if he's still omnipotent he can give himself omniscience or just cause the future) but with something setting his scope it could work...
The second is basically the whole "what if there's more than one?" approach, which seems to work....
And the third...are you trying to say needing respect, praise, etc, would be a limit, or that not needing it would be a limit?
The Cat-Tribe
15-04-2005, 04:49
It's either, and it's originally a theatrical term.
Possible rules:
1. "God" isn't wholly omniscient or "he" can't predict the future
2. "God" isn't wholly omnipotent or "he" can't have an arch-nemesis (Satan)
3. "God" doesn't need praise, respect, or worship, or "he" has human qualities
I like mine better.
Oh, and She doesn't like tomato juice. Gazpacho, yes. Tomato juice, no.
Secluded Islands
15-04-2005, 05:33
An omnipotent being cannot exist because the term omnipotent is in contradiction to reality and existance. There can be a maximally powerful being, which means it can do anything that can be done.