Atheists revenge. Persecution of theists.

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

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

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

 

How? Where?

 

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

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

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

 

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".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

 

No. You made an unjustified claim.

Still to be shown.

That too would be wrong.

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.

 

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

shown above.

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

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.

 

You're rambling again.

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.

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.

 

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.

The term was term.

right two truths in your eyes resting on nothingness.

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?

 

Then I assume you were, correct?

 

"Truths"?
What are you talking about?

Because you didn't 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.

More off-topic waffle.

 

No person in their right mind disagrees with nature.

how did I not address the logic given?

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

really? What does omniscience mean in Latin?

 

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