693
God and Lucifer were chatting one day (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
120 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (6 children)

With all due respect, philosophy isn't a fucking science unlike linguistics.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 6 days ago (5 children)

    And I used both a philological and a philosophical argument. So both a scientific one and one that didn't pretend to be scientific (but can be true nonetheless).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 6 days ago (4 children)

    what's that philological argument? "Trust me bro"? The cambridge dictionary's definition of the word omnipotent is literally

    having unlimited power and able to do anything

    It both is the most common definition of the word, and the most logical one, based off its components literal meaning, whereas yours is dubious, misleading and requires you to define the "maximum power". In other words its inferior according to the Occam's Razor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 6 days ago (3 children)

    The dictionary gives a broad, ordinary-language definition; it doesn’t settle the technical or philosophical interpretation. Someone asked something similar, and I answered here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 6 days ago (2 children)

    that "someone" was me. If your reading comprehension is so lacking, that you can't even read a username, your words have as much credibility as a baby babble.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    Yeah, I generally don't read usernames. I care about the arguments, not the people who use them. If you think that's a criteria of intelligence… it's not very flattering for you.

    But now you became insulting, so as I said in my first message, I'll now ignore you. I'll have to read usernames now, so you should be happy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 6 days ago

    yes, being able to differentiate beings you're interacting with is a sign of intelligence (which is present amongst most animals, so the bar is very low), as it shows the depth at which you perceive the world around you. Sorry that it insults you. If you can't be bothered to do so little, i doubt you'd manage to produce anything thought-provoking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent