Smithereens

If All powerful is used to mean "Can do anything possible" I would have to disagree with you. Again I don't see why ambiguity in the term means that the person using the term is forced to use a logically incoherent definition of it. If you're taking away a definition that isn't what they mean, then there's a language barrier between you. 

I agree that there there is a logically incoherent way to conceptualise omnipotence, but given another, perfectly ordinary interpretation of the word, I wouldn't argue that Christians are somehow obliged to define God via the incoherent term, as that would be me putting words into their mouth.

humans are the ones that invent these words to describe things. If the message theists want to convey to you is that God is all powerful, pointing out that ambiguity in the word they chose to use can lead to a logical contradiction is being pedantic and legalistic imho. 

why does unlimited power suggest no logical limits? 

Christians believe in an omnipotent God. Omnipotent meaning "All-powerful" meaning anything that can be done, he can do. The suggestion that anything that can't be done, he can do is a contradiction in terms. You effectively have two definitions of omnipotent to deal with, one is coherent and the other is contradictory and undefined. I would've thought it was obvious that the coherent definition must be the correct one. 

omnipotent, or all powerful kinda implies that he can only do that which is logically possible in the first place. I don't think there is a word that describes being able to do things that aren't logically possible to do.

huh your elo went up with no completed debates? I wonder how it works.

how do you know so many books on this very specific topic just outta curiosity?

well I can't think of any way to disprove that.

I suppose, although we still get paradoxes like Hilbert's hotel imho, the classical impossibility for an infinite regression of events in reality. Also if it is the case that my mind is self contained via my minds memories, then why don't I have memories of my mind from millions of years ago?

yeah I think you are ahaha there aren't any members here who follow me around the forums and take the effort to remember my name. It's kinda retarded for normal people to do so it's a nicer explanation. Anyhow I don't judge so you do you. 

I'll keep your feelings in mind next time buddy Anal spectre edgelord pal. You're not the first incompetent lover to stalk me lol.

To claim that that is a true claim is actually two claims. You're certain of two claims. But that's a third claim. Ad infinitum, you're certain of an infinite number of things.

btw serious talk do you have feelings for me or something? You legit follow me around the forums trying to get my attention and you're the only member who bothered to remember my name when I introduced myself. Sounds like textbook high school crush lol. 

You've come here to whine about something you're entirely guilty of. Idk what's more to say my dear Anal. 

nah I'm contesting the impossibility of certainty. I've made the claim that it's impossible to be uncertain about everything, because you would need to be certain that there's nothing you're certain about. 

That is a limitation of IQ testing, not a fundamental flaw. Also the source you cite specifically questions the Raven's test because it was unfairly asserted that the Raven's could unbiasedly test both Africans and non-africans for intelligence.

We don't actually need IQ tests however to establish that there is a black-white intelligence difference. This neuropsychological test for instance found that even when blacks were matched with whites for education history, they still underperformed: 

I think you're effectively arguing that racial hatred is what racism should be, instead of the more mundane things you think it's being applied to. I agree with the sentiment. That being said, I have a white supremacist friend who says noongas are dysfunctional in Australia . imo he's correct, but I think he's racist because aside from that, he also hates black people. As far as I've seen, as often as abos are dysfunctional so too are people who claim that abos are dysfunctional are themselves racist. But not strictly for thinking that abos are dysfunctional, it's just a correlation.  

also autism detected in OP, but that's none of my business lol. 

I had one user claim that mind reading was a real thing, cited the wording of a Wikipedia page on the speculation of mind reading and left it to me to prove him wrong without further elaborating. He got extremely upset when I objected to his view on mind reading and went around reading my conversations with other members, looking to interject with an objection to make his man-baby feelings a little less butt-hurt.  

And then he went and made this thread lol. Top tier hypocrite detected.  

law of excluded middle.

also thank god it's a mutually exclusive dichotomy. Either truth is knowable or not truth is knowable. Not truth is knowable is a necessarily false claim ergo truth is definitively knowable. 

Suppose all my memories up to this point are fabricated memories and all I'm experiencing is the current moment over and over again. This doesn't match up with my experiences, so it's not a part of my experienced reality. It's not so much the case as I can't prove that I'm not hallucinating my memories as I can't prove I am hallucinating when all reason points to my existence being real.

if you doubt the ability for your mind to form a single valid conclusion a priori then you have formulated a contradiction and it isn't true. 

That introduces the problem of personal identity then. My experiences started a finite span of time ago, yet an uncaused eternal mind ought to have no beginning nor end. My mind is therefore subject to the passage of time and not the source of it.

then the question is begged, from whence comes my mind? 

If your mind doesn't exist, then what word do you use to describe the sum of the experiences you are experiencing and your awareness thereof? 

If our experiences are caused by something, then especially if it's a demon with a mind ray you're essentially suggesting a cause external to my own mind.

(wording edit) 

What does it mean to be fictional? to exist in the mind but not have physical form? Because that's still the same quality of idealistic reality.

If I take anesthesia, I lose consciousness. I can observe the act of me taking anesthesia, therefore my observations are causally linked to my experiences.

if reality is illusory, then reality is merely of the mind -idealism. It's still the case that reality exists, though the nature of it isn't physical. 

I think the pop culture topics would get opponents fairly quickly with the current members in mind imo.

stupidity in movies is pretty realistic then. Irl people are stupid, so it follows that people in movies are just as stupid. I agree that a lot of stupid things happen but I think this is where the fun is. I went to a comedy festival earlier and it was patently stupid and I thought that was all well and good too.

oh boarding school? GL, HF, RIP. 

Whatever you do don't smile at the gays. Save your rear end for the one you love.

Of all the stupid and bizarre scenes typical to movies, car chases are probably pretty ordinary imo? I'm a big fan of horror movies and I regularly beat my head in when the characters enthusiastically jump through their suicidal antics. I understand that the movie wouldn't be fun if they did the rational thing and not confront the horror entity at every opportunity however so it's fair enough.

Yes, but only in attrition battles. She's pretty much only useful for her rush and her healing. So each turn if a boss is regening shields you can up her agility and use her to shield break before getting a harder hitter to do health damage. If you have another rush character though it makes more sense to not touch her agility and use her for her healing imo.

If I cut all meat from my diet, save for the fish I'll have more than enough fat in my intake. As I mentioned, I only remove fat from low grade beef as the fat to meat ratio is not acceptable for my diet. I don't expect you to understand seeing as the concept of nutrition is foreign to you so I'll just leave you with the tips:

Follow these tips and one day you won't be so obese my child. 

If I roast I'll collect drippings yeah. I don't reincorporate the fats back into mince however, and I'm not sure how you would at any rate. Mince goes with spaghetti and tomato paste, idk about gravy. You're making me hungry lol

I can tell you don't cook your own meals. A kilo of low grade beef mince has far more fats and oils than you can metabolise in a day without building adipose tissue. I get all the fat I require from vegetables and fish (which I eat a lot of for cultural reasons). When I simmer a single meals worth I can fill half a cup with just fat. Just because it's monousaturated doesn't mean I can just drink it and call such a massive consumption "healthy." You're being ridiculous and ignorant as usual lol. 

Know your portions, learn to cook.  

is a liar a liar because he lies or does he lie because he's a liar..?

yeah pretty much. Unless you're deliberately making bad votes. 

message debateart.com or put his name in your receivers box and he'll get notified. 

I don't think anyone's upset, people can sometimes differ on opinions without experiencing trauma. The reality is that nobody really can force you to put effort into your votes and present something more decent than the half baked, barren RFD you're parading as the gold standard. Inb4 moderation happens. 

If you know how to judge and assess a debate, it's not much of an extra step to record your thought process on a debate's outcome. shit votes are what I would expect from noobs who don't understand how a debate works and can't justify a vote. I don't really know much about you but I get the feeling you're not a newb to debating and you do understand what's going on. Cue my present confusion and my questions as to why you prefer to produce low quality votes. Is it laziness? That's really the only one I can come up with. 

Somehow I doubt the voting culture is what killed DDO. The votebombing beforehand was an utter shitstorm so it was pretty inevitable. If you think lower standards make for better sites then you do you. who am I to disagree. In the end you're just a strip of bacon. Juicy, sizzling bacon. 

did you mean to address it to Budda or myself? :P 

what? 

yeah well they call themselves christians. Who am I to call them liars. If you've met Anal-gesic in this thread you'll know that everyone who ticks the box on the census saying they're christian is definitely 100% christian without a doubt. Anal-gesic can't be wrong remember, he has the census data you see. 

yeah nah you need to give some sort of explanation. Since you mention it, real life debates are very vigorous on this point. Every decision an adjudicator makes they have to justify, and if they don't give a satisfactory reason for a decision any of the debaters can submit a complaint to the regional coordinator. then they'll make the adjudicator provide a copy of the notes they took during the debate and if the RC isn't happy in the investigation they can dock the adjudicators pay or even derank them. So yeah feedback irl is definitely a thing.

If a debate requires more effort than the vote, you ought to give the debaters the courtesy of explaining your thought processes. I don't see how you can be bothered to read the entire debate but you can't be bothered putting even a fraction of that effort into your vote. You've gone so far to do so little. 

There's also the point that you need to display your thought processes so that a debater can fairly contest your vote if you misread or made a mistake. Nobody is going to know if you cast a vote on a mistaken premise if you're not even slightly transparent. 

There's a lot of reasons to have decent RFD's really. idk just do it man it's not hard. 

The life of DDO was the conflicts we had in the earlier days and boy did they keep us coming back for more aha. The membership is more than capable of taking care of most ordinary problems. RM isn't actually a problem for example until he multiaccount spams. Dealing with our own issues is something we can manage.

At any rate I think you whooped his arse enough in this thread here to make his trolling attempt unsuccessful if that's what he was doing lol.

dunno, but I think threat to society is measure that ought to be used here. Obvs P3 is a threat, jail him for life. P1 enables P3 to exist in the first place, so heavy jail term but not as severe as P3, since they don't appear to be capable of killing people themself.

I read this thread expecting the OP to go down the usual "therefore a creation requires a creator" but its actually ethang just insisting that paintings require painters. You gotta give that one to him folks lol.