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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
With all due respect, philosophy isn’t a fucking science unlike linguistics.
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).
what’s that philological argument? “Trust me bro”? The cambridge dictionary’s definition of the word omnipotent is literally
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.