|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God the father | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3966 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
PD writes: A parent can only do so much to help their child survive or succeed in life.Rahvin writes: Not when the parent is supposed to be omnipotent.PD writes:
An omnipotent parent would be able to do whatever is needed to ensure their child survives and succeeds in life. Why does that make a difference?An omnipotent parent is not limited to "only do[ing] so much". Edited by Panda, : No reason given.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3966 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
PD writes:
No it doesn't. As I said in Message 47: Ultimately the child has to want to. A child will want to play with fire.As a human parent, you try (and probably fail) to prevent your child from playing with fire. As an omnipotent parent, you successfully prevent a child from playing with fire. Their 'wants' are irrelevant. It is a parent's duty/responsibility to ensure the well-being of their children.Omnipotent parents wouldn't find that a difficult task. An omnipotent parent would ensure that their children were restored to life. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3966 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
PD writes: Do you really not know the difference between a human parent and an omnipotent parent? You still haven't explained why. Why does omnipotence make a difference? This is the second time I've asked.Do you really not see a difference between them? Do you really not see how 'being omnipotent' would be different from 'not being omnipotent'? PD writes: Your sentence contradicts itself. I didn't say their "wants", I said they have to want to. IOW, people have to want to change their behavior. You say you aren't talking about their 'wants' and then you start talking about what they have to want. PD writes: Answer: Why would an omnipotent parent ensure that all their children were restored to life?Panda writes: It is a parent's duty/responsibility to ensure the well-being of their children. PD writes: A human parent can only do so much to help their child survive or succeed in life. You're moving away from the original point I was addressing in Message 47. An omnipotent parent can do all that is needed for their child to survive and succeed in life. Perhaps it would help if you could give an example of something that an omnipotent parent would not be able to do... Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3966 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
PD writes: I have already addressed these questions: That doesn't answer the question. Saying that doesn't mean that they can or explain what an omnipotent parent would do that a human parent wouldn't. You're the one that says there's a difference. What is the difference? This is my third request.PD writes: A human parent can only do so much to help their child survive or succeed in life.An omnipotent parent can do all that is needed for their child to survive and succeed in life. So - in summary:
PD writes: A human parent can only do so much to help their child survive or succeed in life. Why does omnipotence make a difference?But an omnipotent parent can do all that is needed for their child to survive and succeed in life. PD writes: A human parent could only do so much to help their child survive or succeed in life. explain what an omnipotent parent would do that a human parent wouldn't.Whereas an omnipotent parent would do all that is needed for their child to survive and succeed in life. PD writes: A human parent can only do so much to help their child survive or succeed in life. What is the difference?In contrast. an omnipotent parent can do all that is needed for their child to survive and succeed in life. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : Hopefully increased the clarity of the obvious.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3966 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
PD writes:
Ah - I see you were knowingly using an uncommon definition of the word 'omnipotent'. Pantokrator deals more with ruling authority, supreme authority.Perhaps if you had explained that you weren't using the normal meaning of the word we could have got to this point sooner. Why were you being deceitful?If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3966 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
PD writes:
Then you should have used his definition. Excuse me, but I'm not the one who brought up omnipotence. Rahvin did.But instead you decided to dishonestly attempt a juvenile 'gotcha' where you use a definition completely different to everyone else. But you knew this - which is why I accused you of deceit. PD writes:
Since you knew you were using an 'alternative' definition, the onus was on you to give the meaning. I asked you three times to explain the difference and you provided no support or meanings.But you were too busy giggling at your stupid word-game to debate honestly. PD writes:
I did not insinuate anything. How dare you insinuate that I'm being deceitful because you didn't read carefully. You had your chance to explain and didn't.I stated it very clearly. I even explained how you were being deceitful. PD writes:
I cannot be certain of what you mean. Since you insist on using obscure definitions of words - but intentionally keep that from us - I have no confidence that you are using normal parlance. Well, Pot, perhaps if you had explained what definition you were using we could have made some headway.You will need to explain every single word as you cannot be trusted not to switch meanings half way through the discussion. PD writes:
And when it comes to discussions you value stupid semantic tricks over honesty or accuracy. Since it pertains to God, I look to see how it is used in the Bible when referring to God. So - why were you being deceitful? This is the second time I have asked. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3966 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
PD writes:
Maybe you should read the 2 similar accusations that Theodoric and Rahvin made.
You were not deceived.There was no definition given in Message 48 and the definition in Message 77 doesn't deal with what an omnipotent parent would do. You were not lead down a garden path concerning the meaning of omnipotent and there was no gotcha. PD writes:
And this would be a confession of disingenuous debating. As for omnipotent, I didn't make a claim to it's meaning, so there was nothing to switch from. I just hadn't given my opinion on the issue yet. There is no point discussing anything with you because you don't decide the meaning of words until you need to win the argument and then you find an obscure meaning so that your previous claims don't look wrong.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3966 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Jon writes:
And I am sure that you think that is relevant to something.
Oh stop. Any all-powerful being has the power to control, at the very least, its own actions. Jon writes:
And there is no logic at all in there being a god - go figure.
And there is no logic in construing omnipotence as also being control over the actions of others. Jon writes:
I am going to call 'Bullshit' on your clearly false assertion.
Absolutely no Christian whatsoever takes it to mean that. Jon writes:
And since googling the phrase "superbly omnipotent God" returns no results, it would actually seem to only be popular with you.
Besides, few Christians even take to the notion of an superbly omnipotent God; the idea seems, ironically, more popular with Atheists. Jon writes:
Oh don't be stupid. There are no "powers and restrictions" applicable to the role of being a father. This thread is about the Christian God, in particular the characterizing of him as a father with all the powers and restrictions such a role entails.Any powers and restrictions are due to the 'species' of the father. Your laughable implication that a 'deity' father has the same powers and restrictions as a 'human' father is blatantly false. If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3966 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
PD writes:
Deny your culpability all you want but...
When I make my argument I present the meaning of words or the basis for my opinion. It's difficult to make the point before I express my opinion or have an argument to make.Panda writes: Maybe you should read the 2 similar accusations that Theodoric and Rahvin made. ___
PD writes:
What?!? You expect me to read your entire 8 years of posting history to know what you mean? Hahahaha! Actually I've presented my opinion of omnipotent long before now. Message 277 No.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3966 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
AdminPhat writes:
I have not asked for evidence and the only time I mentioned 'winning the argument' is when I was criticising PD 'gotcha' technique.
The goal here is understanding through discussion. Evidence is not required, nor is winning the argument the goal. AdminPhat writes:
It was PurpleDawn who was framing the argument for the mere sake of winning.
Please refrain from trying to frame the argument for the mere sake of winning it AdminPhat writes:
This makes little sense to me - but whatever. if you have any faith and belief in support of it, please make your point. If you are simply against the concept of faith and belief, you have no purpose participating.Since you are basically telling me to leave, I will. Cya. If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024