Things that god can't do!

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think the definition of omniscience you mention is something Einstein would've been comfortable with.

That is the problem with a lot of the "proofs" of god as well--all they can "prove" at most is something very unlike the personal god most believers claim. (I can remember the first time exposed to Aquinas' prime-mover argument. First, I didn't get why "infinity" was suddenly off limits. Second, all they ostensibly proved was a first cause--certainly not the god of Judeo-Christianity.)

But to continue: another issue I have is with dualism in general (the ghost in the machine that is the soul, but it fits in with the "omnipresence" aspect of most god definitions): how does something with no material reality (no mass, no matter, no energy, no anything measurable at all) affect material things?

I guess to phrase this to fit this thread: can god be immaterial and material at the same time?

[tsg]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Debates are not allowed to be over until at least one of us has questioned the heritage, cleanliness, and fashion decisions (particularly in regards to footwear) of the other. I'm pretty sure it;s in the membersip agreement somewhere.

And Nazi's. Don't forget Nazi's.

[Klaymore]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Debates are not allowed to be over until at least one of us has questioned the heritage, cleanliness, and fashion decisions (particularly in regards to footwear) of the other. I'm pretty sure it;s in the membersip agreement somewhere.

Your mother, unwed at the time of your conception or at any time thereto subsequent, while wearing unfashionable shoes, "did" me, and was a dirty Nazi.

[tsg]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

I can think of one way to resolve this.

To be omniscient is to know all things which it is possible to know. As such, God knows everything about the present and the past, but His knowledge of the future is limited to knowledge of the probabilities of future consequences for present actions. He cannot know for certain. Still, He has the most complete knowledge possible, i.e greater than any other being does or can possess. (Note that this definition demands a non-deterministic universe.)

I do not wish to defend this position because it is a definition of omniscient I have never actually heard a theist use. They seem to insist on God's perfect knowledge of the future. By that definition, I see no possible reconciliation with human free will.

The Catholic Encyclopeida attemps to explain this, although I find it very hard to follow.

It seems to be claiming (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that through Divine Knowledge (ie omniscience) god knows what any person, through free will, will do in any given set of circumstances. And through Divine Will, engineers those circumstances so the outcome of the person's decision is all according to the Master Plan. So, apparently, god's omniscience is not simply limited to perfect knowledge of what could happen, but is indeed perfect knowledge of what will happen because he has, through Divine Will, caused the circumstances to generate the outcome.

This seems to me to be claiming a deterministic universe that is not in conflict with free will. Except that it is now an argument of what "free will" actually is. If you tell a person he is free to choose any door he likes, and then only offer him one door, is that still free will? If the circumstances are designed so that the person can only really make one choice, regardless that he is technically free to make any choice, does that still count?

And, if he has perfect knowledge of what any person will do in any given set of circumstances and then engineers the circumstances, is he not now responsible for the actions of the person? If this person sins as a result of the designed circumstances, isn't that now god's responsibility?

[The Grave]

Originally Posted by Klaymore

Well, say what one might about lordcow's punctuation, ability to use the "Shift" key(s), and apprehension of sarcastic nuance, one has to hand it to the dude that he knows how to come out swinging!

WELL I would agree with that, but as my grandpappy would have said:" A swinger always goes down in the first round!"

For all those 'struggling' to understand...For hundreds of yrs the bible has been {and still is for many} THE WORD OF GOD - to be obeyed, or else!

My 'point' henceforth is childishly simple...if it is wrong then IT, to, is wrong...But as usual we are seeing {witnessing} a complete abandonment of 'faith' in the good book. Why, 'cos science is showing it for what it is...rubbish!

'I'm standing in the Earth's shadow and it's night...' This quote from Lordcow (which at first glance I thought was an anagram of coward) shows how 'unscientific' people think...e.g. "Oh, water is wet because it's, well, water!"

You can take a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead...

Oh yeh, and the classic...their language has changed sooo much that we can't correctly interpret what they said in the bible...oh well then we may as well throw it away...hang on, what a good idea!

As for "is the bible the word of god"....Answer - of course not, if it were, do you think ANY of us could cross examine it?

My point. What's my point? Come on horsey...giddee up...

So Lordcow, in your new role as inquisitor royal, would you like to tell us all...are you pointing UP or DOWN ...? Since you appear so certain you know it is night, then up/down should be no problem.

Answer these also...If a THING can create everything, what created the THING? To create uses energy and the THING would deminish, so to create EVERYTHING means there'd be none of IT left...So where's god?

IT 100% doesn't exist, only in your mind...

Griff...

[The Grave]

While I'm here...

One of those "Things that god can't do!".....Lecture anyone about morals!

Apart for being what we should think of as an extraterrestrial (ET), this THING is prone to Zoophilia as IT likes to bed animals (Mary). Not only that, the offspring of this misbegotten match was ILLEGITAMATE (born out of wedlock)...Being an IT showing Zoophilism, IT also ABDUCTS people. It's area 51 all-over-again!


Griff...Oh. Now where's that damn sheep got to?

[lordcow]

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

WELL I would agree with that, but as my grandpappy would have said:" A swinger always goes down in the first round!"

and lemmie guess, you're gonna be the one to take me down.

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

For all those 'struggling' to understand...For hundreds of yrs the bible has been {and still is for many} THE WORD OF GOD - to be obeyed, or else!

don't project your shoddy logic and inability to articulate onto me struggling. why don't you rather reply to the points in my posts?

at least now that you say this i know that you are trying to dispove the christian fundamentalist's god and this god only, which wasn't clear.

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

'I'm standing in the Earth's shadow and it's night...' This quote from Lordcow (which at first glance I thought was an anagram of coward) shows how 'unscientific' people think...e.g. "Oh, water is wet because it's, well, water!"

i am honoured, as a physicist, to be called unscientific for the first time. you said there is no such thing as night, which is absurd as again it is night where i am according to the global understanding of the term, and i asked what your point was other than trying to be cute.

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

You can take a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead...

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

Oh yeh, and the classic...their language has changed sooo much that we can't correctly interpret what they said in the bible...oh well then we may as well throw it away...hang on, what a good idea!

i never said we. my question was quite specifically directed at you, and was politely implying you were jumping the gun. you also conveniently ignore the 1st part of that paragraph of mine.

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

As for "is the bible the word of god"....Answer - of course not, if it were, do you think ANY of us could cross examine it?

i was trying to help you construst a proper logical argument, but suit yourself.

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

My point. What's my point? Come on horsey...giddee up...

thanx for clearing that up.

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

So Lordcow, in your new role as inquisitor royal, would you like to tell us all...are you pointing UP or DOWN ...? Since you appear so certain you know it is night, then up/down should be no problem.

i guess up according to the colloquial definition. are no now going to tell me that noone is up but everyone is infact down as you did with night?

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

Answer these also...If a THING can create everything, what created the THING?

i'll agree that invoking god as an explanation for existence doesn't actually serve any explanation.

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

To create uses energy and the THING would deminish, so to create EVERYTHING means there'd be none of IT left...So where's god?

not at all, since if god created the universe he is necessarily in a different realm. i'll reproduce my example from http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81853 :

"its like a cosmologist firing up a computer simulation of the early universe that consists of particles and the time dependent laws they must obey and watching it evolve. this is a completely consistent scenarion, it happens all the time. god, in this case the cosmologist, brought into being matter, from which point on followed the laws he decreed."

the cosmologist was perfectly able to create another world without destroying himself.

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

IT 100% doesn't exist, only in your mind...

Griff...

straight back at ya i guess

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

Griff...Oh. Now where's that damn sheep got to?

referring to me? would you mind backing that up?

[lordcow]

Originally Posted by Klaymore

One other thing you said did intrigue me, though. You said that the bible only mentions the word "omnipotent" once. How many times does the bible have to say something before it is true?

i meant that more along the lines of there's only one case we need to concentrate on. and as you say the only thing we have left to debate is what that actually meant. omnipotent was a translation and i think its difficult to maintain that the original meaning included the ability to perform paradoxes or logical impossibilities, which is never explicitely stated. can't go into more detail or the rest've your post, have to run ..

[The Grave]

If anyone here can act as an interpreter for Lordcow, I'd pay for a transcript of what ever is supposedly written above...Come to think of it, no I wouldn't.

Quote of the Century!
Lordcow...
"its like a cosmologist firing up a computer simulation of the early universe that consists of particles and the time dependent laws they must obey and watching it evolve. this is a completely consistent scenario, it happens all the time. god, in this case the cosmologist, brought into being matter, from which point on followed the laws he decreed."

How quaint!

Not a very good meta-for god I think. So what's going to be next? Scrambled eggs on toast, by Chef!

Your digital dictum is dilatory, not to mention a fallacy.

The computer programme, as written by the creator, would 'mimic' IT's world, and in such fashion IT would be bounded by the self same laws in IT's program. Unless IT decided to make up = down...

But all of which would be predictable...measurable.

And anyhow, what created the programmer??? Coming back at ya!

And as for the threat of taking you down....please....act your age, not your IQ.

Griff...ps. in your quote, I corrected your spelling; your grammer is another matter.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

Griff...ps. in your quote, I corrected your spelling; your grammer is another matter.

"Grammar".

(Sorry, I can't help it, it was just too obvious!)

[Piggy]

God can't pick up the tab.

Ever notice that?

What's with this guy? I mean, yeah, he's good for a smite, maybe a blessing or two, but you'd think he'd drop a dime into the collection plate sometime, send a check to the Christmas fund, something.

Not a drop. Guy's tighter than a sailor's hatband.

I told him, I said, I'm cutting you off. That's it. No more moochie-mooch. Busting my butt 5 days a week and on Sunday I gotta pony up for Your work? F**k that noise! What about my work? That sinkhole in my back yard ain't gonna fix itself, and they don't drive fill dirt out to the county for free, y'know.

Hadn't seen Him since. Typical.

[The Grave]

Originally Posted by lordcow

i must've missed that



why is it certainly not true?

Why...is...it...certainly...not...true....?

Which part didn't you understand? I'll be happy to explain!

Oh, the bit about certainty...Well, if it were certainly true then we would all know, wouldn't we....

IT can't be a half certainty, now, can IT? This wouldn't be good for god! Only half correct, half a creator....??

Sooo IT is 100% non-existent. Beecaause IT is not 100% existent!

"Calling all hedgehogs, calling all hedgehogs. Come in hedgehogs!"

Keep reading Lordcow, you may learn something about everything....

Griff....The trouble is with physicists, they like to think they think they know it all; quite obviously they don't!

[The Grave]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

"Grammar".

(Sorry, I can't help it, it was just too obvious!)

Who put the 'er' in 'grammer'? Twas I Hoky-poky to sarcastically point out said 'er' to a learned friend. Twait, I have made an tother!

Griff...

[Hokulele]

Nah, I was just busting your chops. It's what I do.

[The Grave]

I too apologise for criticism, I have had a migraine for 5 hours (its 04:40) and strong pain killers ain't so strong!

Griff...

[Klaymore]

Set a price for home furnishings and appliances so rock bottom that even he can't beat it!

[c4ts]

Originally Posted by tsg

The Catholic Encyclopeida attemps to explain this, although I find it very hard to follow.

It seems to be claiming (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that through Divine Knowledge (ie omniscience) god knows what any person, through free will, will do in any given set of circumstances. And through Divine Will, engineers those circumstances so the outcome of the person's decision is all according to the Master Plan. So, apparently, god's omniscience is not simply limited to perfect knowledge of what could happen, but is indeed perfect knowledge of what will happen because he has, through Divine Will, caused the circumstances to generate the outcome.

So when somebody is about to get mugged and stabbed to death, it's divine will even if I decide to join in and stab the victim some more?

[lordcow]

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

If anyone here can act as an interpreter for Lordcow, I'd pay for a transcript of what ever is supposedly written above...Come to think of it, no I wouldn't.

Quote of the Century!
Lordcow...
"its like a cosmologist firing up a computer simulation of the early universe that consists of particles and the time dependent laws they must obey and watching it evolve. this is a completely consistent scenario, it happens all the time. god, in this case the cosmologist, brought into being matter, from which point on followed the laws he decreed."

How quaint!

Not a very good meta-for god I think. So what's going to be next? Scrambled eggs on toast, by Chef!

Your digital dictum is dilatory

i gather i don't need to reply to the patronization.

i know its dilatory, i even said so in response earlier to you:

"i'll agree that invoking god as an explanation for existence doesn't actually serve any explanation."

but that is not the point here, i was replying to your:

"To create uses energy and the THING would deminish, so to create EVERYTHING means there'd be none of IT left...So where's god?"

and was trying to show that the thing needn't not be diminshed, never mind whether it was dilatory.

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

not to mention a fallacy.

The computer programme, as written by the creator, would 'mimic' IT's world, and in such fashion IT would be bounded by the self same laws in IT's program. Unless IT decided to make up = down...

what're you on about, the programmer is able to create any universe with any laws he chooses, why does it have to mimic his world?

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

But all of which would be predictable...measurable.

what would?

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

And anyhow, what created the programmer??? Coming back at ya!

again, besides the point, i'm not arguing for god as an explanation for creation, i'm rebutting your claim that had he created he would've been completely diminished.

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

Griff...ps. in your quote, I corrected your spelling; your grammer is another matter.

apart from your ironic mispelling of grammar you're kidding right? your changing of my 'scenarion' to 'scenario' is the only instance i can see, which was quite obviously a typo and not a spelling mistake. why bother pointing it out except to aggravate? and what is wrong with my grammar? i'd be interested to see you cite an example.

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

Why...is...it...certainly...not...true....?

Which part didn't you understand? I'll be happy to explain!

you mean you'll be happy to scoff, mock, patronise, and then give another half-arsed reply that invalidates your cocky assurance.

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

Oh, the bit about certainty...Well, if it were certainly true then we would all know, wouldn't we....

IT can't be a half certainty, now, can IT? This wouldn't be good for god! Only half correct, half a creator....??

Sooo IT is 100% non-existent. Beecaause IT is not 100% existent!

as i said before, shoddy logic. here's a counter example - we do not know whether the egyptians built the pyramids, therefore it is certainly true that they didn't create the pyramids. though i'm not sure whether the absurdity of this statement will be aparent to you.

the opposite of 'certainly true', is not 'certainly not true', it is 'not certainly true'.

you might find that you are assuming that if god created the universe, he would've instilled an innate belief in all've us of this fact, which need not be true.

i was replying to your claim:

"The only truth is that there IS a Universe...its origin {by goddly creation} is certainly NOT true: yet another thing god can NOT do!"

whether the universe has a natural or supernatural origin, or whether it has an origin at all, is quite an open question. you make the strong claim that it definitely doesn't have a supernatural origin, to which you give no support when called on except meaningless wordplay, which seems to be your trend judging by the rest've your posts in this thread.

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

"Calling all hedgehogs, calling all hedgehogs. Come in hedgehogs!"

Keep reading Lordcow, you may learn something about everything....

Griff....The trouble is with physicists, they like to think they think they know it all; quite obviously they don't!

bored with knocking 'faithers' now you want to try your hand at generalised insults towards physicists? in my experience physicists are actually much more humble when it comes to knowledge than the average man. would you care to qualify your assertion, or at least point out where i imply i know everything? i won't hold my breath. on the contrary i am trying to ascertain how YOU seem to know everything, and am quite happy for you to teach me, but am becoming less hopefull.

[Klaymore]

Proffer a proof disproving his own existence so airtight that he can not contradict it.

[tsg]

Originally Posted by Klaymore

Proffer a proof disproving his own existence so airtight that he can not contradict it.

Like the Babel Fish?

[The Grave]

Lordcow, can you explain to us how a thing can create another thing without being diminished? And further that if said THING created EVERYTHING then IT must shrink to nothing. If not, why not?

Having never dropped a mark in Thermodynamics - I can't wait for this one!

A 'mimic' is the only possible outcome...A thing can only dream of things that exist....which is why god is ultimately made to look like one of us! Every alien ever imagined looks like something already in existence. IT can't use any rules IT chooses...This is the biggest faither fallacy of them all...when you ask them to elaborate they say" oh, god knows, but I don't"...to right they don't and neither would god.

As for a 'super' natural creator. If some THING exists IT would be as natural as a cup of tea and just as interesting! Let's say you can prove there's a god...so what? I still (for one) wouldn't "do as IT told me". I would live my own life, not spend my time sucking-up to IT.

Sorry for the patronising, I appreciate your frankness.

Griff...here's a for my fans!

[lordcow]

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

Lordcow, can you explain to us how a thing can create another thing without being diminished? And further that if said THING created EVERYTHING then IT must shrink to nothing. If not, why not?

i did just that. if you don't think i did, could you explain the fallacy in my cosmologist analogy?

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

Having never dropped a mark in Thermodynamics - I can't wait for this one!

i've also got a pretty good understanding of thermo, but more pertinent here is the philosophy of science, not the science results themselves.

more about it in the 'Maybe we CAN disprove God' thread.

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

A 'mimic' is the only possible outcome...A thing can only dream of things that exist....which is why god is ultimately made to look like one of us! Every alien ever imagined looks like something already in existence. IT can't use any rules IT chooses...This is the biggest faither fallacy of them all...when you ask them to elaborate they say" oh, god knows, but I don't"...to right they don't and neither would god.

mkay, not sure where this comes in.

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

As for a 'super' natural creator. If some THING exists IT would be as natural as a cup of tea and just as interesting!

on what do you base your claim that the supernatural can't exist?

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

Let's say you can prove there's a god...so what? I still (for one) wouldn't "do as IT told me". I would live my own life, not spend my time sucking-up to IT.

i wasn't trying to prove god exists, have never had any intention of doing so previously, neither do i believe one exists.

[The Grave]

My idea is simple...people call something they do not understand or they regard better than themselves "super"....See "The Incredibles" for a full explanation by Syndrome!

The point is, that to a god , a god is not "super". To a dog I suppose we are super, what with our planes and cars. Unfortunately for god IT fails to impress some of us. I'm impressed more by the idea I've shared a glass of water with Napoleon!

Yet another thing god can't do.


Other fallacy inspired words - meta, para ....

You can believe in god....religious

You can believe there's no god....religious

But I don't 'believe' period. I'm a humanist...for want of a better word.

Griff...I long the day when religion is in its grave!

[AudioFreak]

Originally Posted by lordcow

on what do you base your claim that the supernatural can't exist?

On what basis can anyone make the claim that something supernatural CAN exist? Anything experienced by us happens within the natural world. If our only tools of perception and measurement are natural, by what means could we even detect something supernatural?

Even something which seems supernatural must interact with the natural world through some mechanism, and in studying that mechanism we usually come to understand that it is a natural phenomenon which previously lacked proper investigation. Take thunder and lightning. People used to think that those were supernatural events, yet now we know there's nothing "super" about it.

If we were to have some detectable and measurable interaction from the supernatural it would then, by all means, fall into the realm of the natural. No "super" involved at all.

I do not believe in the supernatural, but I'm more than willing to state that there are a great many things which we have yet to understand.

[The Grave]

Originally Posted by AudioFreak

On what basis can anyone make the claim that something supernatural CAN exist? Anything experienced by us happens within the natural world. If our only tools of perception and measurement are natural, by what means could we even detect something supernatural?

Even something which seems supernatural must interact with the natural world through some mechanism, and in studying that mechanism we usually come to understand that it is a natural phenomenon which previously lacked proper investigation. Take thunder and lightning. People used to think that those were supernatural events, yet now we know there's nothing "super" about it.

If we were to have some detectable and measurable interaction from the supernatural it would then, by all means, fall into the realm of the natural. No "super" involved at all.

I do not believe in the supernatural, but I'm more than willing to state that there are a great many things which we have yet to understand.

Perfecta mun-do!....languages was never my strong point. Excellent point.

Yes (but) Audiofreak please try to avoid the use of the dread-word...believe.

They'll be on-to-you like Winnie on honey!

Griff...I wondered lonely as a cloud...with 50 billion drips!

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Yes. It wasn't very compelling.

Or interesting.

Your presence in the thread changes nothing.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

The argument that paradoxes are things, so that a being unable to perform one is not able to do everything relies on a very particular definition of omnipotence that few serious theists hold to. In other words, it is a straw man.

Power is the ability to act. An omnipotent being possesses the power to perform all actions. The creation of a four-sided triangle or of a rock so big an omnipotent being cannot lift it is not an action. It is meaningless babble.

There may be very good reasons for not believing in an omnipotent god. The alleged inherent contradictions of omnipotence itself is not one of them.

1. "few serious theists" = "no true Scotsman" = logical fallacy
2. "creation" = action, therefore "creation" + prepositional phrase = an action
3. Paradox = noun = person, place or THING

There are GREAT reasons for not believing in an omnipotent god - such as physical impossibility.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Simply, the creation of a four-sided triangle is not contained in the set of all actions.

Again, 'creation' is an action, therefore 'creation' plus a prepositional phrase is an action, therefore it is contained in the set of all actions.

[tsg]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray

1. "few serious theists" = "no true Scotsman" = logical fallacy

No. He is not defining "serious theists" as someone who believes omnipotence doesn't include doing the logically possible.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

One of those "Things that god can't do!"

Not laugh at you. (Note my sig)

DR

[The Grave]

Originally Posted by tsg

Darkness (the absence of light) would exist if there were no light (in other words, an absence of light), we just wouldn't have a word for it.

If a tree doesn't fall in the woods and there's nobody there to not here it, does it still not make a sound?

We wouldn't need a word for it...we wouldn't exist then, either!

Does a tree make a sound?

Yes, would be my best answer...as the stomata open and O2 is released; suction noise in the roots; the rustling of growth...etc.

All imperceptible to our ears, but an interesting PhD, if you're interested!

Got any sound gear?

The old 'pub-quiz' style questioning of philosophy...' does a tree make a sound if there's no-one there...?' is for kids; there is 'noise' all around but only a little 'sound'. Thank your lucky ears!

Griff...

[The Grave]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Not laugh at you. (Note my sig)

DR

Just another thing IT can't do...Make a DR reply meaningful and relevant.

Griff...

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray

1. "few serious theists" = "no true Scotsman" = logical fallacy

To be guilty of a no true Scotsman fallacy, I would have had to contend that one who believes God can perform the logically impossible is not truly a theist. Nowhere did I contend that. What I did say is that such people are not worth arguing with.

Quote:

2. "creation" = action, therefore "creation" + prepositional phrase = an action

Only linguistically. If the prepositional phrase represents a logical impossibility, there is no need to consider the creation of it a real action. It is meaningless babble. That something can be said is no reason to assign any reality to its referent.

[The Grave]

Or effluent of effluvium ?

Griff...

[Beerina]

Effluvia. There are multiple posts.

Quote:

A thing can only dream of things that exist....

Not true. Perhaps you mean things that logically are possible to exist, like a unicorn.

But even then, you'd be wrong. The brain dreams of things that are not possible to happen even in theory. I had a dream once where my dad's 1975 Grand Fury station wagon was in the end part of our family room -- where it could not possibly fit. It was not shrunken. The room was not extra large. It was not sticking through a hole in the wall. It was just in there, where it could not possibly be.

The mind creates as a feeling of true, of "actually happening" things that may or may not actually be "out there."

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by polaristutoring@tisc

Just another thing IT can't do...Make a DR reply meaningful and relevant.

Griff...

Ever heard of a thing called a joke? A jape? Raillery? Taking the piss?

DR

[The Grave]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Ever heard of a thing called a joke? A jape? Raillery? Taking the piss?

DR

Yes! And that's another thing god can't do ...Make satan funny...

Where's this?

DDDwestDDD

And, what's this?

sWATER
h
i
p

And what part of the body lies at the centre of your heart?

Joke:

Inflatable Johnny, goes to an inflatable school. He has inflatable friends, inflatable desks and chairs, inflatable teachers and books, too.

In the yard:

Teacher: "Johnny, what's that, a knife?"
Johnny:"No Miss."

Teach:"Yes it is. Come with me to the Headmaster!"

Head:"Johnny. Where's the knife? I want it!"

Johnny:"I don't have a knife, Sir!"

Head:"Look Johnny; give me the knife. If you don't give me the knife...you'll be letting me down, the school down and yourself down!"

Griff...

[Darth Rotor]

[quote=polaristutoring@tisc;2652177]
Where's this?

DDDwestDDD
The West Indies

sWATER
h
i
p

A book called Watership Down

The heart one is answered, quite simply, with heart.

DR

[The Grave]

2 out of 3 for DR....

Griff...Anyone else like to try?

god, maybe?

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by tsg

No. He is not defining "serious theists" as someone who believes omnipotence doesn't include doing the logically possible.

He appears to be making a distinction between 'theists' and 'serious theists', in the same way that someone would make a distinction between 'Scotsman' and 'true Scotsman.'