Does "the power to do whatever I want" imply omnipotence?

[Kamehameha34]

... insubstantial?!

I think I spelled it right.

I knew the whole time HOW you were using the phrase. What confused me was WHY, seeing how the rest of the world would use it differently to you.

Because there's no other laconic way to express the concept I'm discussing.

You know how I'm using it, so bitching about it doesn't accomplish anything.

You then take the insane step of inventing some deities that would have wants less than thier desires. That's ridiculous. Deities are abstract concepts, and they are SUPERNATURAL BEINGS. They can be ethereal, omnipresent, and don't have to be bound by the barriers of reality. You are unneededly applying natural things like a set CAPACITY of power (or even wants) to deities. It's pointless and absurd.

This whole quoted section is ridiculous, insane and absurd.

(Woah, that's sure an easy response. If only it had any substance.)

Which deities are we talking about here anyway?

There are an infinite amount of possibilities. Naming a few would be redundant.

[pikatore]

uhh... i think you'd made yourself look like enough of an idiot in this thread. ill leave it at that.

[bishop]

enough of the antics.. either debate in a mature/civil manner, or leave the thread alone.

[Kamehameha34]

That's 5 posts that haven't had any substance. Concede, argue the point, or leave.

[pikatore]

i've PMed yasa, the creator of the thread, to decide whether or not i've brought in any substance. we'll see.

[Yasa]

Quote by: pikatore Which deities are we talking about here anyway?

Kame will claim "some" ones.


Sigh, I've pointed out that "some" in no way shape or form defines the limits of the wants/desires. It means that not all gods can get whatever they want, not that "the gods I'm talking about have limited wants and can get them". "Some gods can get whatever they want" is the same as saying "Not all gods can get whatever they want". Some can, some can't--please explain how in the above statement(s) the wants of these certain gods are defined. Also, these "some" gods could be omnipotent... thus proving "some" does not limit the wants.

Ex. "Some gods can get whatever they want" would absolutely apply to those gods which are omnipotent.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore i've PMed yasa, the creator of the thread, to decide whether or not i've brought in any substance. we'll see.

I'll save you some time and say you haven't.

It means that not all gods can get whatever they want, not that "the gods I'm talking about have limited wants and can get them".

That's exactly what it means. Saying it doesn't means nothing - especially when those instances where you "pointed this out" were followed by a complete deconstruction of your points.

[Kamehameha34]

Ex. "Some gods can get whatever they want" would absolutely apply to those gods which are omnipotent.

Let's look at it in context.

Quote by: Paraphrase of myself Why must gods be omnipotent for you to consider them gods? Why not a being that created our universe, and can provide whatever it wants?

It's quite obviously implied that omnipotent gods are being excluded.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That's exactly what it means. Saying it doesn't means nothing - especially when those instances where you "pointed this out" were followed by a complete deconstruction of your points.

Then saying it does means nothing. I hardly call your retorts a complete deconstruction of my points.

"Some" IE. certain. A defintion you agreed with.

Certain gods can get whatever they want.

Certain means not all gods, only X quantity.

Certain does not define what those wants are (the wants define the limit of the power according to the statement).

Those certain gods could be omnipotent--the statement still holds true. They might not, because their power is limited and so is their wants. But if their wants are not defined, they have the potential to be anything--and so for the statement to hold true no matter what those wants are (potential for anything), they would be considered omnipotent.


Anyways, this is getting boring stating the same things only to get immature, obscure retorts.

[Kamehameha34]

Certain does not define what those wants are (the wants define the limit of the power according to the statement).

That just means that it's not a self-contained proof. That in no way means that the statement is invalid.

Those certain gods could be omnipotent--the statement still holds true.

Are we completely forgetting the post that started this in the first place, despite my continuous citation of it?

Anyways, this is getting boring stating the same things only to get immature, obscure retorts.

If that's how you're writing off my counterpoints, it's no wonder that you've seemed to gloss over them.

[Jason]

That is enough. Volconvo is a place for intelligent discussion and debate, not immature fights. If someone has a good point, admit it. If they don't, refute it. The nonsense in this thread is completely uncalled for.

Consider this a warning to everyone involved in the above bickering. Thread closed.