"Can God create a rock..."

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What if the whole thing is hogwash and its a sqaure?

You don't have to worry about that because context
has determined it to be a circle.

But what if it's in the shape of an ass gasket? LOL

What context is supposed to tell me it is a circle? The only information I got was a bunch of groups telling me it is a circle with each one differing in the adjectives used. I was never provided with a picture, the actual object, or any other sort of evidence. Just the text in question, where most of the descriptions build off of the original point by trying to describe the circle further even though nothing has shown that the statement that the object is a circle is true.

At no point did any of the information tell me that it was a circle then provide me a way to verify this myself. That would be INTENSELY more helpful and believable than just telling me the object is a circle.

See this exercise requires me to make a few assumptions without evidence to back them up: the object is indeed a circle or that the person telling me so is telling the truth. That is the problem with the bible. It tells you all these "truths" and just says to believe them with out backing any of its claims up or providing a means to back them up. All questioning starts and ends with the bible. It's true. End of story. No I don't agree. I think the bible should be torn apart and EVERY detail carefully analyzed for veracity. Until everything is verified to be truth, it shouldn't be taken as anything CLOSE to a valid source of information.

You do this in most of the threads you post in don't you?

Do what? Play word games with semantics? That's whats fun about semantics, you can play word games with them. The reason I do that is to show why using words like that is a flimsy way to get the truth across and if you want to get your point across correctly, being succinct and precise with your wording and meanings is the best way to do it.

NO...a mythical man-made being cannot create anything, including a rock.

a reply to: jimmyx

But these beings who may not of even called themselves GOD ARE from the ancient past observations by ancient man as are some of the DATA within the current GREAT BOOKS related to them... So even if the Bible was eliminated the data is still here that THEY WERE HERE and perhaps that's a sign that no matter what when data is meant to be shared it WILL be no matter how much tampering goes on.

Further with the circle lets say a shape instead of circle and then... Still data is transferred that a shape was observed.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The reason I do that is to show why using words like that is a flimsy way to get the truth across and if you want to get your point across correctly, being succinct and precise with your wording and meanings is the best way to do it.

Why sure, not to mention conveniently deflective.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13

Further with the circle lets say a shape instead of circle and then... Still data is transferred that a shape was observed.

That still makes an assumption that it exists without telling us how to verify the shape exists. This is still putting us at the mercy of someone else'e information when the best way to learn information is to learn it yourself. Where are the instructions to detect this shape, so that any doubters can verify it themselves? What I'm describing here actually has a name and is the reason it makes science the most credible form of knowledge we have. It's called peer review. Being able to independently verify someone's claim allows for greater believability.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The reason I do that is to show why using words like that is a flimsy way to get the truth across and if you want to get your point across correctly, being succinct and precise with your wording and meanings is the best way to do it.

Why sure, not to mention conveniently deflective.

Deflective? No. It is done to show you the errors in your reasoning. If you think I'm deflecting then you aren't reading what I'm typing correctly. When you do things like substitute a vague word for a precise word then make a precise claim using that vague word, you are creating a flawed argument that is open to semantic wrangling. But see, many religious arguments hinge on these vague words trying to be used in a precise manner. You see it as deflecting because you are blinded by the confirmation bias of your religion which predisposes you to ignore glaring errors in your reasoning.

This is my favorite example of this vagueness being used precisely that Religious types try to come at me with:
Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over empty space And hangs the earth on nothing.

This passage is used to try to show that the bible has accurate accounts of how the earth behaves in space. Except there is some problems here (first that, that passage is out of context, but I'll skip that for now). Space isn't empty nor does earth hang (or is suspended depending on the bible version you read). Earth flies through space at millions of miles per hour. Space is filled with all sorts of cosmic debris that is too small to detect at times. Reading that as a precise definition, it has two or three glaring errors depending on how you read it. It may be a decent observation of earth's behavior in the universe for some goat herders pre-telescope days, but it isn't anything close to an accurate statement.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes Krazysh0t and perhaps the verification process w/ learning yourself is with recognizing when the species (yourself) you are part of shares data from the past. I am not here to FORCE you to believe for that causes ripples elsewhere.

But what 1 as are others is/may be trying to do possibly is just save another SOUL that doesn't recognize its a soul first. Or what may prey on those who don't acknowledge their souls who only attach to this reality and nothing more which again can be manipulated by higher advanced beings...

But some will say I don't need help sadly

So you allow them the opportunity to EXPERIENCE EXISTENCE w/ free will (you have eternity) and acknowledge if their souls do end up in the grasp of the other they WILL eventually call home for help from the that was doubted to exist once the other shows them that of which they can see...

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Verification is verification. If the evidence can be put together to show that it is true, then I'll believe it, but until then, I make little if any assumptions.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The use of semantics in a discussion is pointless,
non productive and just rude IMO. But if you come
away with a feeling of vindication, who am I?
Carry on.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The use of semantics in a discussion is pointless,
non productive and just rude IMO. But if you come
away with a feeling of vindication. Who am I?
Carry on.

aye, using words according to their definitions is just so cumbersome, isnt it. so inconvenient i tells ya.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Its your WILL to do so.
@ times I wonder is the WILL associated with ascension movements beyond each Learning center as 1 shall call them. And so based on WILL you ascend and learn and the more or less will you possess on certain relevant or non relevant topics keeps you in cycles of life but as your will increases you outgrow last learning center automatically. Therefore you w/o me saying are free to think as you wish do as you wish even believe as you wish. Existence circumstances WILL chisel away what's subjective and objective w/ the more experience you gain.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The use of semantics in a discussion is pointless,
non productive and just rude IMO. But if you come
away with a feeling of vindication. Who am I?
Carry on.

Don't be mad because you misuse words and I call you out on it. If you didn't use vagues words in a precise manner, there would be no need for me to do the semantics thing. It may not matter to you, but to a logical person and someone honestly trying to reach the truth, precision is EVERYTHING. Vagueness is a quick way to have your argument dismissed.

a reply to: TzarChasm

aye, using words according to their definitions is just so cumbersome, isnt it.

I'm sorry, was that a question?

Krazy

Don't be mad because you misuse words and I call you out on it.

You mean don't be angry?
You don't really think I'm angry do you?

Personally my experiences within the phases of Life and Death within EXISTENCE cause me to do my best to stay near the who Created 1 as its just what is sent thru from my consciousness from experiences of past and present...

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

aye, using words according to their definitions is just so cumbersome, isnt it.

I'm sorry, was that a question?

if it was it was a rehtorical one.

my username is also an important clue. doesnt always apply, but when it does...

originally posted by: randyvs
Krazy

Don't be mad because you misuse words and I call you out on it.

You mean don't be angry?
You don't really think I'm angry do you?

I see what you are trying to do there, but angry and mad are synonyms and interchangeable. There is a difference there that I'm sure you understand (as I've already explained it) but you did this anyways to try to show turnabout being fair play. Just a heads up by the way, if you want to get me at my own game, you'll have to do a better job than that.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I see what you are trying to do there, but angry and mad are synonyms and interchangeable. There is a difference there that I'm sure you understand (as I've already explained it) but you did this anyways to try to show turnabout being fair play.

Well I think that's a brilliant deduction there young man.
But mad? No I'm not mad.

When he tried to make Christian rock that didnt go so well.

Anyway the answer to the riddle is yes if he perminently or momentarily gives up infinite powers then a rock can not be lifted.

originally posted by: Aural
When he tried to make Christian rock that didnt go so well.

Anyway the qnswer to the riddle is yes if he perminently or momentarily gives up infinite powers then a rock can not be lifted.

he can do that?

a reply to: TzarChasm omnipotent means infinitely powerful if i remember right so why not a power to revoke ones own power? Even humans have that power.