Comments by "Ungoogleable o_O" (@oO_ox_O) on "Rationality Rules" channel.

  1. +Mario mario +MrNateSPF Are you implying that only a single variation of either procedure exists? Because this isn't the case. Of course you can compare similar variations.
    2
  2. Can an omnipotent being create another omnipotent being? Or even one which has power over everything else and additionally also over the being that created it and therefore be considered even more powerful? What you get is one absurdity after another, at most you can attempt to solve it by limiting what omnipotence means, e.g. like someone in this thread did: > if omnipotence means the ability to do/make all things that could exist. This attempt would lead to another conundrum, because in a world where a supposed omnipotent being can exist it would be again possible for it to create itself.
    1
  3. +Ansatz66 > so as long as they don't actually come into conflict there's no problem with them both being omnipotent So it's as if there was only a single being? ;) > If you actually agree then no force is necessary because it's what you want already. So an omnipotent being can only create other omnipotent beings which agree with it? Are those all omnipotent beings or all omnipotent beings equally limited in this fashion, i.e. there can only be a single head (figuratively)? I guess you could generalize this and say define that an omnipotent being can only do things which are possible at the current constellation (time?), since there is already an omnipotent being, it can't create a truly independent being. But again, you are clearly limiting what can or can't be done, you are introducing rules which your local theist might argue have to come from somewhere, maybe some super-duper-meta-being established those rules…? ;)
    1
  4. +Ansatz66 > the collective English speakers of the world for deciding that the word omnipotent meant something which cannot be in conflict I would argue that the "collective" hasn't really thought this through and people came up with omnipotence simply as a result of e.g. thinking that everything can be described as an absolute hierarchy and something has to be on top (ontology) and since everything is be limited by layers above, there is something on top without any limits at all. > These sorts of nonsense statements don't come from anything in the real world. A square circle isn't an object forbidden by some higher power; it's literally nothing. I get the feeling that this discussion is related to whether mathematics is discovered or invented.
    1
  5. +Ludovic Tichit What if it's for their sick children with symptoms which might point at something possibly fatal?
    1