Wow. It’s a Vulcan evangelist.
Sorry, I think I’m missing a step here. Without both omnipotence and omniscience we cannot say if one is more powerful than the other? So how does that preclude one being from posessing both qualities? Baby step me through it? 
Both omniscience and omnipotence are infinitely “powerful” by definition (although “powerful” isn’t really the right word). One cannot logically exist to a greater or lesser degree than the other.
The trouble with the Argument from Evil is one can simply counter it by insisting that evil, while practiced by free agents, can never be purposeless, and that it all somehow works out in the end. Really there are an endless number of ways to stack the deck with rationalizations, and theists do this liberally. There’s no arguing logic if the premises cannot be agreed upon, and that’s precisely the problem in all logical attacks on the existence or non-existence of God. It’s pointless, except as a brain-teaser, to even bother debating.
I hope my response to Polycarp helped. The problem is not deciding which is more powerful, since I think it is fair to say this cannot be decided, but that they cannot co-exist in one entity. There are mathematical entities called lattices, which are defined on partial orderings, such that not each element has an ordering defined. (It was so long ago I can’t remember an example.) Thus, you can have two things that have nothing above them, but neither of which are above the other.
Since there is no supreme being, the argument fails. In any case, most definitions of god assume he is both, which shows their fundamental incoherence (in the technical sense.)
That probably confused you even more.
Wouldn’t it be easier to call him a noob, then kill him in a duel* and tell him he’s been PWNED LOL?
Or maybe link him to fundie sites that’ll tell him he’s going to hell for playing a satanic game or something?
*online pvp duel, of course.
No, actually, it was crystal clear.
Thanks!
Actually, this is quite brilliant - treat social proselytizers like any geek who can’t say carry on a conversation unless it invokes the object of their geekdom. IMHO a bible-thumper becomes slightly less of a PIA if you percieve them as another variety of geek, while neatly sidestepping any issues of logic, truth, philosophy, etc.
What’s cute about this is that it leaves a world of room for those who feel deeply about their religion yet have the good taste not to “geek” about it in front of others. It addresses the social impropriety without attacking Religion.
Naturally, this is not an appropriate approach for dealing with a fundamentalist organization or movement. In numbers, these geeks like to change laws.
Of course anyone like this must have a lock or a shadow spec priest as a main.
On second thought…gotta be a Paladin or a Hunter, all the biggest dumbasses I have ever played with were one of those.
This fits in nicely with my theory that theology is the original fanwank.
So, wait, you posted a supposed proof of God, and he argued against it? That’s great
I’m always amazed at people who feel the need to somehow try and logically defend or “prove” that their particular belief system is a “fact”. I actually find it quite sad, the beautiful thing about theology is that it transcends all of those purely physical requirements, the wonder of theology is having faith in the absence of “proof”, yet all the time you see people throwing that away by insisting that they can “prove” something that is by definition unprovable. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater!
(Please note that my post has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Religions are seperate entities)
Mr. Armadillo has tried to tell him this exact thing several times, and he insists that we’re just “too indoctrinated with the religion of athiesm” to “think abstractly” and that’s why we can’t see the overwhelming evidence.