Atheists revenge. Persecution of theists.

[Dywyddyr]

No. Learn to read. If you don't apply to natural rules then you are either above or below nature.

And again you appear to be applying your own definition of god to the question.

how is my initial postulate violated?

Er, try again. MY Initial postulate.
If a plan is (omnisciently) perfect then it will also account for "supernatural" and "unnatural" occurrences.
Otherwise it's neither perfect nor omniscient.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

There is no audience.
Any introduction of an "audience" is an irrelevancy.

What? The audience is the limit to all that is known about this thread.. And really should be relevant. We wouldn't want to totally explain omniscience to a first grader would we?

 

[Dywyddyr]

What? The audience is the limit to all that is known about this thread.. And really should be relevant. We wouldn't want to totally explain omniscience to a first grader would we?

Still wrong.
We have a definition of omniscience. That definition is the one we're working to.
Not one single step of initial argument relies on what we do or do not know.

It isn't about what WE know but about omniscience and its fallibility (or not).

 

[NietzscheHimself]

Er, try again. MY Initial postulate.
If a plan is (omnisciently) perfect then it will also account for "supernatural" and "unnatural" occurrences.

yes but do these occurrences exist in nature? What makes you think your initial postulate invalidates mine specifically?

Otherwise it's neither perfect nor omniscient.

Sure if it doesn't know everything, it doesn't know everything. But it is still everything.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

Still wrong.
We have a definition of omniscience.

How? Where?

 

[Dywyddyr]

yes but do these occurrences exist in nature?

What does that have to do with the questions as posed?

What makes you think your initial postulate invalidates mine specifically?

Well for one thing, because I asked the question and the conditions are specified. You, however, are attempting to introduce extraneous factors without justification.

Sure if it doesn't know everything, it doesn't know everything. But it is still everything.

Nothing to do with the question as posed.
Please try to stay on-topic.

 

[Dywyddyr]

How? Where?

There's this wonderful invention. It's called a dictionary.
I believe you can buy them from places called "book shops", and, surprise surprise, they are also accessible on-line. If you have a computer you may be able to find some.

One way is to use something called "Google" and type in "omniscience definition".

 

[NietzscheHimself]

Well for one thing, because I asked the question and the conditions are specified. You, however, are attempting to introduce extraneous factors without justification.

I posed a simple truth. Something your logic never had. A term both thiest and atheist agree with. That you can fail to formulate some aspect of reality before making assumptions is philosophically beyond me.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I posed a simple truth.

No. You made an unjustified claim.

Something your logic never had.

Still to be shown.

A term both thiest and atheist agree with.

That too would be wrong.

That you can fail to formulate some aspect of reality before making assumptions is philosophically beyond me.

And once more you side track. I made no assumptions. I posed a simple logical problem.
And, as we have seen, many things are beyond you, philosophically and otherwise.

Now, can you address that logic or not? Because I'm not in the slightest bit interested in reading your non-sequitur diversions nor your unsupported claims.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

No. You made an unjustified claim.

How? Reality is term that gives unwarranted limitations to your personal freedom?

Still to be shown.

shown above.

That too would be wrong.

You disagree with nature? Oh I would love to hear this. Please continue.

I made no assumptions. I posed a simple logical problem.

No you made logical assumptions with problems. One of which is that it has no "truth" for any assumption to bridge a gap between your two desired outcomes.

 

[Dywyddyr]

How? Reality is term that gives unwarranted limitations to your personal freedom?

You're rambling again.

shown above.

No. it doesn't address my initial post (you know, the one with the question in it) and it relates nothing else I have claimed or stated.

You disagree with nature? Oh I would love to hear this. Please continue.

So you claim that your statement is nature? Intriguing.

No you made logical assumptions with problems. One of which is that it has no "truth" for any assumption to bridge a gap between your two desired outcomes.

Pardon? Can you address the logic? I made NO assumptions. At all.

Evidently your entire "contribution" to my question was contained in your post #359.
And that "contribution" was to introduce extraneous and irrelevant factors.
Thank you for your time.
Goodbye.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

You're rambling again.

Gazuntight

No. it doesn't address my initial post (you know, the one with the question in it) and it relates nothing else I have claimed or stated.

So you claim that your statement is nature? Intriguing.

The term was term.

Pardon? Can you address the logic? I made NO assumptions. At all.

right two truths in your eyes resting on nothingness.

Evidently your entire "contribution" to my question was contained in your post #359.
And that "contribution" was to introduce extraneous and irrelevant factors.
Thank you for your time.
Goodbye.

How are they irrelevant? Post 346 was my initial contribution.

"If I were to claim god was supernatural it would show he did not exist in nature."

"Yes a natural plan will include and cater for all contingencies.(ie nature is perfect) But if you don't follow them it simply means you are unnatural or supernatural."

And how does "all science" negate god?

 

[kx000]

you were not.

Then I assume you were, correct?

 

[Dywyddyr]

right two truths in your eyes resting on nothingness.

"Truths"?
What are you talking about?

How are they irrelevant?

Because you didn't address the logic given.

Post 346 was my initial contribution.
"If I were to claim god was supernatural it would show he did not exist in nature."

The slight problem there is that your "initial contribution" was A) before I gave (restated) the question (and therefore didn't address it and B) didn't refer in any way to the question as stated.

"Yes a natural plan will include and cater for all contingencies.(ie nature is perfect) But if you don't follow them it simply means you are unnatural or supernatural."

And how does "all science" negate god?

More off-topic waffle.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

"Truths"?
What are you talking about?

No person in their right mind disagrees with nature.

Because you didn't address the logic given.

how did I not address the logic given?

The slight problem there is that your "initial contribution" was A) before I gave (restated) the question (and therefore didn't address it and B) didn't refer in any way to the question as stated.

oh ok it was before you changed your mind but after I apologized and after you said we were going to start over.

More off-topic waffle.

really? What does omniscience mean in Latin?

 

[Dywyddyr]

More waffle.
What "truths" were you referring to?

Originally Posted by NietzscheHimself
right two truths in your eyes resting on nothingness.