Q is not Omnipotent

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Captain SEX
He has had his power removed many times and it seems to have limits, the Q had weapons which killed each other. Who do we think would win out of a Dowd or a member of the Q. Remeber the Dowd erased an entire Race from existence with a thought.

Acrosurge
Originally posted by Captain SEX
He has had his power removed many times and it seems to have limits, the Q had weapons which killed each other. Who do we think would win out of a Dowd or a member of the Q. Remeber the Dowd erased an entire Race from existence with a thought. I think the only way to determine such a thing would be an evaluation of feats, which would turn this into a versus battle. Is that appropriate for this forum? I'm not sure... Ah, we have Klingon vs Feds and stuff, so here goes.

I don't think that the Douwd would have the feats to compete with the Q. When angry, a Douwd devastated the surface of a world. By comparison, a stray shot from a Q attack causes a supernova as a side effect.

I don't argue against the Q lacking true omnipotence, but I do think they've more impressive showings than the single member of the Douwd we've observed. That isn't to say that the Douwd are incapable of more impressive things, only that we haven't seen them. Therefore, I'd put the Q a bit further on the omnipotence meter.

Captain SEX
Originally posted by Acrosurge
I think the only way to determine such a thing would be an evaluation of feats, which would turn this into a versus battle. Is that appropriate for this forum? I'm not sure... Ah, we have Klingon vs Feds and stuff, so here goes.

I don't think that the Douwd would have the feats to compete with the Q. When angry, a Douwd devastated the surface of a world. By comparison, a stray shot from a Q attack causes a supernova as a side effect.



The novas were caused by Q weapons. We also know Q can die....

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Acrosurge
When angry, a Douwd devastated the surface of a world.

"You don't understand Captain. There is no fitting punishment for my crime. I killed all of them -- everywhere." (paraphrased of course)

The Douwd wiped out an interstellar empire.

HARRY MUDD
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"You don't understand Captain. There is no fitting punishment for my crime. I killed all of them -- everywhere." (paraphrased of course)

The Douwd wiped out an interstellar empire.

Exactly!

jaden101
Originally posted by Acrosurge
I think the only way to determine such a thing would be an evaluation of feats, which would turn this into a versus battle. Is that appropriate for this forum? I'm not sure... Ah, we have Klingon vs Feds and stuff, so here goes.

I don't think that the Douwd would have the feats to compete with the Q. When angry, a Douwd devastated the surface of a world. By comparison, a stray shot from a Q attack causes a supernova as a side effect.

I don't argue against the Q lacking true omnipotence, but I do think they've more impressive showings than the single member of the Douwd we've observed. That isn't to say that the Douwd are incapable of more impressive things, only that we haven't seen them. Therefore, I'd put the Q a bit further on the omnipotence meter.

the planet was destroyed by the attacking forces i believe...although it's been a while since i watched that episode...the Douwd then destroyed that entire race throughout the galaxy...as others have said

feckin good episode though

Acrosurge
Originally posted by Captain SEX
The novas were caused by Q weapons. We also know Q can die.... Very true. So are we assuming that a Q could not wipe out an entire civilization if he/she wanted to? And that a Douwd would be incapable of killing another Douwd?

HARRY MUDD
Originally posted by Acrosurge
Very true. So are we assuming that a Q could not wipe out an entire civilization if he/she wanted to? And that a Douwd would be incapable of killing another Douwd?

No individual Q has ever done anything on that scale I have seen. Have they?

Acrosurge
Originally posted by HARRY MUDD
No individual Q has ever done anything on that scale I have seen. Have they? Not that I've seen, but when one can casually change the gravitational constant of the universe, hang starships on Christmas trees, and transport entire crews to the beginning of the universe, I wouldn't put much past a Q.

Has anything ever limited a Q, except another Q or Q-based construct?

HARRY MUDD
Originally posted by Acrosurge
Not that I've seen, but when one can casually change the gravitational constant of the universe, hang starships on Christmas trees, and transport entire crews to the beginning of the universe, I wouldn't put much past a Q.

Has anything ever limited a Q, except another Q or Q-based construct?

Everything though seems localised in my opinion. Smoke and mirrors.

hereatlast
Does anyone remember when Q met Guinan, they both stuck their hands up in the air at each other. Q mentioned that she was an incredibly dangerous creature and that he "had no idea". It's as if Q was worried by some of her powers or something, and yet Guinan's race was still assimilated into the Borg. Interesting... And if you want even more information about Q etc, read some of the books about him. I've got them all. smile

I actually have like 129 different Star Trek Novels. smile Along with many encyclopedias etc. (And the Spock vs. Q Cd's.)

God I'm a nerd. =\

Doctor-Alvis
I think that was to add more mystique to Guinan, or maybe they knew each other and were joking, which adds even more mystique. Really though, what the crap is up with Guinan? She is weird.

Badabing
Originally posted by hereatlast
Does anyone remember when Q met Guinan, they both stuck their hands up in the air at each other. Q mentioned that she was an incredibly dangerous creature and that he "had no idea". It's as if Q was worried by some of her powers or something, and yet Guinan's race was still assimilated into the Borg. Interesting... And if you want even more information about Q etc, read some of the books about him. I've got them all. smile

I actually have like 129 different Star Trek Novels. smile Along with many encyclopedias etc. (And the Spock vs. Q Cd's.)

God I'm a nerd. =\ Books? What books about Q?

Raoul
Originally posted by Doctor-Alvis
I think that was to add more mystique to Guinan, or maybe they knew each other and were joking, which adds even more mystique. Really though, what the crap is up with Guinan? She is weird.

two words.

whoopi goldberg.

that is all.

hereatlast
Lol, there quite a few books that have Q in it. I also have 350 books on Microsoft Reader. =O

Robtard
If the Douwd were more omnipotent than the Q, that Douwd could have reversed what he had done to Husnock.

Raoul
Originally posted by hereatlast
Lol, there quite a few books that have Q in it. I also have 350 books on Microsoft Reader. =O

i have a few, not not many q ones...

Originally posted by Robtard
If the Douwd were more omnipotent than the Q, that Douwd could have reversed what he had done to Husnock.

true...

Grand_Moff_Gav
There is no reason to suspect a Douwd could take on and beat a Q- they have killed an entire race?

Remember Q said at the beginning he was going to deny humanity existence.

Q can also time travel- and since Q says in Voyager that the Q have always been we must assume the Q have the ability to go back and time and stop the Douwd from ever coming into existence.

As for Guinan- Q said he would remove her and raised his hand, Guinan raised hers in response but there is no indication that her defenses would have been able to stop him.

SpikeSpiegel
Sorry, just saw the topic as "Q is not imputent" Thought it was a wierd thing to see :

alpinedigital
Q is absolutely omnipotent, as determined by the writers, who have the deciding vote on which criteria determines it. Remember this is not reality but a presentation for entertainment. It is up to the writers to present omnipotence in the manner that suits the plot or story.

Another thing is we need to understand a couple of things about omnipotence - unlimited power. This presents the paradox: Can an omnipotent being create a boulder so heavy that even he cannot lift it? Here we see that with a singular being, even the concept of being omnipotent is questionable. So what happens if you have 1 omnipotent being vs another of equal power?

In a struggle of the effort to exert a power successfully, the simplest idea is that 2 or more can overpower a single Q. It stands to reason that this is a basis for how they govern the Q society and enforce their laws. For example, we know it should be within a Q's power to escape from a comet, so it seems reasonable to assume the governing rulers of the Continuum simple relieved him of the power to escape.

As for Quinn's claim that the Q are not, we have to also consider the criteria he suggested as evidence for his reasoning:
"In a way, our vulnerability is what this is all about. As the Q have evolved, we've sacrificed many things along the way, not just manners, but mortality and a sense of purpose and a desire for change and a capacity to grow. Each loss is a new vulnerability"

As you see, we have our own perspective of the determining factors, which may differ from another's definition, Star Trek writer's presentation, and even Quinn's own interpretation. The bottom line is yes, Q are, even if we don't like how its presented, or whether or not we find discrepancies.

Wonder Man
Q appear Omniscient. Maybe that's the discrepancy. They're omnipotent but appear omniscient but aren't.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Wonder Man
Q appear Omniscient. Maybe that's the discrepancy. They're omnipotent but appear omniscient but aren't.

Omniscience is paradoxical.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Omniscience is paradoxical.
Could you elaborate?

Epicurus
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Could you elaborate?
"There could be something you don't know, that you don't know. And you'd never be able to say there isn't, because you wouldn't know it, if there were."

Supra
Originally posted by Epicurus
"There could be something you don't know, that you don't know. And you'd never be able to say there isn't, because you wouldn't know it, if there were."

"Gonna need more chloroform..."

Epicurus
Quit stalking me and derailing every thread I post in.

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Omniscience is paradoxical.

Well, you can limit yourself and still retain seeming omnipotence if you can reverse that limitation at will and defy it as much as you'd like. Basically, if you write the rules, you can be on either spectrum of physical capability or power because you write the rules.

So Q could make a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it, snap his fingers, and levitate it with a pinky. Overthinking the term is missing the point that the Q possess powers which transcend normal laws of physics and even ST understanding of probability.

Epicurus
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Well, you can limit yourself and still retain seeming omnipotence if you can reverse that limitation at will and defy it as much as you'd like. Basically, if you write the rules, you can be on either spectrum of physical capability or power because you write the rules.

So Q could make a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it, snap his fingers, and levitate it with a pinky. Overthinking the term is missing the point that the Q possess powers which transcend normal laws of physics and even ST understanding of probability.
But if GodQ couldn't lift it physically(the old fashioned way), then it implies that there is something which GodQ can't do, which would negate the idea of God'sQ's infinite powers. That's the beauty of the omnipotence paradox, in one swell move it completely renders moot one of the key aspects of a monotheistic deity(Chrisitian apologists' only counter to this being dismissing it as nonsense).

Though it likely doesn't apply to Q here, since he's not really omnipotent or omniscient. Just a sufficiently advanced alien.

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Epicurus
But if GodQ couldn't lift it physically(the old fashioned way), then it implies that there is something which GodQ can't do, which would negate the idea of God'sQ's infinite powers. That's the beauty of the omnipotence paradox, in one swell move it completely renders moot one of the key aspects of a monotheistic deity(Chrisitian apologists' only counter to this being dismissing it as nonsense).

Except that Q's powers appear to allow him to basically manipulate reality at will, making our measures of cause and effect or strength/power meaningless. He could be unable to lift a rock in one instant and then change the rules of reality the next and throw the rock across space and time. Taking the viewpoint of omnipotence as being able to do all things at one point in time does not rule out the ability to do all things at different points in time.



If you want to read into the literal interpretation, sure. But let's consider the term in light of what we know:

When has Q ever been able to not do something without being explicitly forbidden by other Q?

The answer is pretty much never and in that sense, Q is omnipotent within the confines of the plot. It's even implied that the Q exist outside of normal space-time and he makes pocket dimensions at will, indicating that reality warping can also make smaller realities instead of necessarily reshaping the greater whole.

In fact, Q seems to be limiting himself constantly so as to allow other beings to provide for his own amusement, which is why he doesn't force Riker to join the Continuum or why he doesn't force Picard to admit to being wrong on behalf of humanity and its failings. He uses his powers consistently to put the crew in situations where there own abilities and personalities dictate the outcome, and he eventually leaves on his own.

Epicurus
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Except that Q's powers appear to allow him to basically manipulate reality at will, making our measures of cause and effect or strength/power meaningless. He could be unable to lift a rock in one instant and then change the rules of reality the next and throw the rock across space and time. Taking the viewpoint of omnipotence as being able to do all things at one point in time does not rule out the ability to do all things at different points in time.

Pretending to be unable to lift a rock isn't proof of creating one even he couldn't lift. The omnipotence paradox is very explicit in this matter. What you described is cheating the test. Omnipotence is essentially an illogical conundrum created by people who never truly understood the full implications of ascribing such an attribute to a theoretical god-entity.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose

If you want to read into the literal interpretation, sure. But let's consider the term in light of what we know:

When has Q ever been able to not do something without being explicitly forbidden by other Q?

The answer is pretty much never and in that sense, Q is omnipotent within the confines of the plot. It's even implied that the Q exist outside of normal space-time and he makes pocket dimensions at will, indicating that reality warping can also make smaller realities instead of necessarily reshaping the greater whole.

In fact, Q seems to be limiting himself constantly so as to allow other beings to provide for his own amusement, which is why he doesn't force Riker to join the Continuum or why he doesn't force Picard to admit to being wrong on behalf of humanity and its failings. He uses his powers consistently to put the crew in situations where there own abilities and personalities dictate the outcome, and he eventually leaves on his own.
Being able to get on Picard's nerves.

Nope, it's not. Quinn also states that the aren't truly omnipotent either.

Yes, and the fact that other Q are capable of overriding his abilities is unquestionable proof of his (only)nigh-omnipotence, not absolute omnipotence.

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Epicurus
Pretending to be unable to lift a rock isn't proof of creating one even he couldn't lift. The omnipotence paradox is very explicit in this matter. What you described is cheating the test. Omnipotence is essentially an illogical conundrum created by people who never truly understood the full implications of ascribing such an attribute to a theoretical god-entity.

You're missing that it is entirely a semantic argument, and requires context on what level of "omnipotent" you're insisting upon. My answer was one that does not preclude Q's evident powers, but does preclude the possibility of him existing in a contradictory nature, by having the ability to change the rules which bind him and others at will. I'd like to point out that this is actually something he does on a constant basis.

If you want to apply the definition of omnipotent as being something other than a paradox (such as say, a being with control over reality on a level equal to that we would ascribe to a godlike figure) then Q definitely qualifies. If you get bogged down in semantic hogwash in an attempt to move the goalposts, then you're missing the point - Q can do whatever Q wants, so long as another Q isn't intervening.



Erm, what?

Individual Q have absolute control over space, time, reality, and matter. You could accurately say they can die, which I grant you. And that they cannot be all things all the time. That I also grant you. But for all intents and purposes, they have omnipotent power levels and how they can apply them (or how they think) is pretty much beyond us. Even their civil war could not be perceived accurately by humanoid minds and was perceived as a complex illusion of sorts.

Epicurus
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
You're missing that it is entirely a semantic argument, and requires context on what level of "omnipotent" you're insisting upon. My answer was one that does not preclude Q's evident powers, but does preclude the possibility of him existing in a contradictory nature, by having the ability to change the rules which bind him and others at will. I'd like to point out that this is actually something he does on a constant basis.

If you want to apply the definition of omnipotent as being something other than a paradox (such as say, a being with control over reality on a level equal to that we would ascribe to a godlike figure) then Q definitely qualifies. If you get bogged down in semantic hogwash in an attempt to move the goalposts, then you're missing the point - Q can do whatever Q wants, so long as another Q isn't intervening.

Which is why I specifically mention in my previous post that the abilities demonstrated by the Q so far border on nigh-omnipotence, not literal omnipotence. Which is I believe is also what your description matches with in reference to Q's abilities, or at least your intent does, even if you don't mention it exactly in that manner in your post.

Literal omnipotence is a state of being which essentially defies logic itself, so for a truly omnipotent being to exist, it would have to be beyond the usual rules of logic that human beings understand.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Erm, what?

Individual Q have absolute control over space, time, reality, and matter. You could accurately say they can die, which I grant you. And that they cannot be all things all the time. That I also grant you. But for all intents and purposes, they have omnipotent power levels and how they can apply them (or how they think) is pretty much beyond us. Even their civil war could not be perceived accurately by humanoid minds and was perceived as a complex illusion of sorts.
No, it's absolute simply by human standards, and based on the Q's own arrogant belief that it is far above all other life forms in the universe. That's essentially narrative hyperbole. They don't have omnipotent powers, what they have demonstrated so far descriptively matches with reality warping(universal-scale), which hardly qualifies as omnipotent power, unless one is a simpleton perceiving such abilities.

It couldn't be perceived by humans at all though. That illusion of them dressed as confederate and union soldiers was them modulating the appearance of the continuum so the lower species(humans) could perceive it without going mad or something like that.

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Epicurus
Which is why I specifically mention in my previous post that the abilities demonstrated by the Q so far border on nigh-omnipotence, not literal omnipotence. Which is I believe is also what your description matches with in reference to Q's abilities, or at least your intent does, even if you don't mention it exactly in that manner in your post.

Literal omnipotence is a state of being which essentially defies logic itself, so for a truly omnipotent being to exist, it would have to be beyond the usual rules of logic that human beings understand.

We seem to be encountering a semantic issue here, not so much an inability to see eye-to-eye.

It's conditional:

IF you see omnipotence as the ability to exist as all things at all times due to the power to do anything, THEN it seems logical to disregard this idea because of its inherent contradiction.

IF you see omnipotence as the ability to change the rules of reality at any point in history, even in direct contradiction to the rules you enacted previously, THEN Q qualifies.



Well, if you take the definition of omnipotence as I described it above, and then you look into the evidence at hand, what you expect is what you get.

- Q has demonstrated the ability to literally manipulate reality on many levels, including those that violate science and physics at will. He even jokes about changing the gravitational constant of the universe as something of a gag.

- Q can only be harmed/checked by other Q. This is very evident and no exceptions are given throughout the course of TNG, DS9, or VOY.

- Riker, when infused with the essence of Q, which was given to him despite his knowledge level and biology, was innate and allowed him do pretty much manipulate whatever he wanted. He materialized life forms out of thin air, changed the physical makeup and chemistry of Wesley Crusher, and brought back the dead.

So really, can you provide an instance which I've somehow overlooked that counters this?

Supra
Q and the Borg was the only thing I looked forward too..the rest blah..earl grey me.

Epicurus
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
We seem to be encountering a semantic issue here, not so much an inability to see eye-to-eye.

It's conditional:

IF you see omnipotence as the ability to exist as all things at all times due to the power to do anything, THEN it seems logical to disregard this idea because of its inherent contradiction.

IF you see omnipotence as the ability to change the rules of reality at any point in history, even in direct contradiction to the rules you enacted previously, THEN Q qualifies.

Nah, it's not a case of semantics here though. Unless you want to subscribe to the version of the term "omnipotence" which modern fiction creators have raped and mutilated beyond all recognition, then no, there isn't much to discuss or disagree upon here, since what we're talking about is basically the same thing: that Q as a universal scale reality warper is merely a nigh-omnipotent being.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Well, if you take the definition of omnipotence as I described it above, and then you look into the evidence at hand, what you expect is what you get.

- Q has demonstrated the ability to literally manipulate reality on many levels, including those that violate science and physics at will. He even jokes about changing the gravitational constant of the universe as something of a gag.

- Q can only be harmed/checked by other Q. This is very evident and no exceptions are given throughout the course of TNG, DS9, or VOY.

- Riker, when infused with the essence of Q, which was given to him despite his knowledge level and biology, was innate and allowed him do pretty much manipulate whatever he wanted. He materialized life forms out of thin air, changed the physical makeup and chemistry of Wesley Crusher, and brought back the dead.

So really, can you provide an instance which I've somehow overlooked that counters this?
None of the above listed feats make him omnipotent though. Majority of these are feats that comic book reality warpers have achieved on a whim, and these characters are either batshit insane(Scarlet Witch, Sir James Jaspers, Jamie Braddock) or close to being functional retards(Franklin Richards). And none of said reality warpers can actually be described as being omnipotent in the same sense in which the term is ACTUALLY utilized. Not our personal takes on the definition of the word(which are irrelevant anyways), but the actual meaning of such a state of being.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Epicurus
"There could be something you don't know, that you don't know. And you'd never be able to say there isn't, because you wouldn't know it, if there were."


That's not a paradox: that's a pseudo-tautology. It has the form and structure of philosophical logic but, when investigated with any degree of seriousness, fails to meet any reasonable criteria set for philosophical logic structure.

It's something people like to say to sound smart, basically.

Originally posted by Epicurus
But if GodQ couldn't lift it physically(the old fashioned way), then it implies that there is something which GodQ can't do, which would negate the idea of God'sQ's infinite powers. That's the beauty of the omnipotence paradox, in one swell move it completely renders moot one of the key aspects of a monotheistic deity(Chrisitian apologists' only counter to this being dismissing it as nonsense).


There is a very simple answer which gets its origins from particle physics: an omnipotent being can do both at the same time. Were the omnipotent being able to do one but not the other, it would not be omnipotent.

The question is linguistically nonsensical when broken down. Like most "omnipotence" paradoxes, it requires nonsensical use of language to be considered.

So, the answer must be equally nonsensical.

Epicurus
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not a paradox: that's a pseudo-tautology. It has the form and structure of philosophical logic but, when investigated with any degree of seriousness, fails to meet any reasonable criteria set for philosophical logic structure.

It's something people like to say to sound smart, basically.

Way to miss the point of me posting that link in the 1st place. roll eyes (sarcastic)
Originally posted by dadudemon

There is a very simple answer which gets its origins from particle physics: an omnipotent being can do both at the same time. Were the omnipotent being able to do one but not the other, it would not be omnipotent.

The question is linguistically nonsensical when broken down. Like most "omnipotence" paradoxes, it requires nonsensical use of language to be considered.

So, the answer must be equally nonsensical.
If you're referring virtual particles randomly popping in and out of existence as the supposed answer, stop right there.

No, it isn't really linguistic nonsense when one takes into consideration the (theoretically)infinite range of the powers and abilities possessed by a (theoretically)omnipotent being. An actual quantitative infinity simply cannot exist, and omnipotence is an actual quantitative infinity.

If you want to dodge the implications of the paradox, then yeah, the answer should indeed be a "nonsensical" one(though apologists generally don't tend to resort to nonsensical logic, as much as they prefer dismissing the query posed before them entirely).

dadudemon
Originally posted by Epicurus
Way to miss the point of me posting that link in the 1st place. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Way to miss the point of me quoting your quote and taking my comments personally as though those were your own words.

Edit - Why did you just assume what you did when you not only put your post in quotes, you also linked those words to a video? Does it not make more sense to not take it personally like you did?

Originally posted by Epicurus
If you're referring virtual particles randomly popping in and out of existence as the supposed answer, stop right there.

No, I am not referring to Hawking Radiation.

Originally posted by Epicurus
No, it isn't really linguistic nonsense

It is if you're even slightly familiar/educated with that argument in any academic way.

Epicurus
Originally posted by dadudemon
Way to miss the point of me quoting your quote and taking my comments personally as though those were your own words.

Edit - Why did you just assume what you did when you not only put your post in quotes, you also linked those words to a video? Does it not make more sense to not take it personally like you did?

So you mean to tell me that you can't even discern what posting a link to a parody home-made cartoon video means?

That's disappointing as sh1t, ddm. Guess I gave you more credit than you're worth.

Originally posted by dadudemon

No, I am not referring to Hawking Radiation.



It is if you're even slightly familiar/educated with that argument in any academic way.
Then please enlighten me as to what is it that you're referring to here.

One needs to have a degree in philosophy in order to be "educated" with that argument in an "academic way". Neither you nor I have such a qualification, so I guess it really isn't linguistic nonsense at all, as far as our discussion is concerned. At least not when considers the inherently paradoxical(and "nonsensical", lol) implications of the existence of an actual quantitative infinity.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Epicurus
So you mean to tell me that you can't even discern what posting a link to a parody home-made cartoon video means?

That's disappointing as sh1t, ddm. Guess I gave you more credit than you're worth.

You mean to tell me you were not aware that that quote is an actual idea spouted by pseudo-intellectuals and you shouldn't be shocked to see it show up in a shitty parody?? wink

Edit - Also, that quote is supposed to be the atheists' "shitty omniscience" argument, which is why you got so extremely butthurt by my observation. Come, now, don't act like an evangelical Christian regarding your beliefs. smile

Originally posted by Epicurus
Then please enlighten me as to what is it that you're referring to here.

No thanks. It's pretty obvious what I'm talking about.

Originally posted by Epicurus
One needs to have a degree in philosophy in order to be "educated"

Keeping knocking down those strawmen. Let me know how that works out for you.

Epicurus
Originally posted by dadudemon
You mean to tell me you were not aware that that quote is an actual idea spouted by pseudo-intellectuals and you shouldn't be shocked to see it show up in a shitty parody?? wink

Edit - Also, that quote is supposed to be the atheists' "shitty omniscience" argument, which is why you got so extremely butthurt by my observation. Come, now, don't act like an evangelical Christian regarding your beliefs. smile

Your constant need to b1tch and moan about a f*cking parody video, and constant editing and re-editing of your replies is already indicative of an incoming meltdown.

Keep it up, the ensuing hilarity is always fun to watch.thumb up
Originally posted by dadudemon

No thanks. It's pretty obvious what I'm talking about..
Sorry, I am not in the mood for playing detective right now. Either explain what exactly is it that you're trying communicate here, or cease and desist with this bullsh1t.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Keeping knocking down those strawmen. Let me know how that works out for you.
I am beginning to think that beginning the second season of Supernatural as part of my marathon run of the series would be far more productive than partaking in a discussion with you right now. On another note, concession accepted.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Epicurus
Your constant need to b1tch and moan about a f*cking parody video, and constant editing and re-editing of your replies is already indicative of an incoming meltdown.

Keep it up, the ensuing hilarity is always fun to watch.thumb up

And yet...and yet...you're the one butthurt.

You tried. That's what counts. big grin

Originally posted by Epicurus
Sorry, I am not in the mood for playing detective right now. Either explain what exactly is it that you're trying communicate here, or cease and desist with this bullsh1t.

Nope. You do your own simplistic thinking. smile

Enjoy!


Edit - You could ask for help. I'm sure there is an adult around with at least a high school education.

zeel
Q hasn't done anything that odin couldn't do, Q is at best skyfather level I think.

Epicurus
Originally posted by dadudemon
And yet...and yet...you're the one butthurt.

You tried. That's what counts. big grin

A very unclever "No you!!!" response. I honestly expected better. You just keep disappointing more and more.
Originally posted by dadudemon

Nope. You do your own simplistic thinking. smile

Enjoy!


Edit - You could ask for help. I'm sure there is an adult around with at least a high school education.
So the meltdown is finally upon you. Wonder how many pages it'll last this time.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Epicurus
A very unclever "No you!!!" response. I honestly expected better. You just keep disappointing more and more.

So the meltdown is finally upon you. Wonder how many pages it'll last this time.

K.

Epicurus
This thread's premise was vindicated by Quinn a long time ago.

Bentley
Originally posted by Epicurus
(Chrisitian apologists' only counter to this being dismissing it as nonsense).

Are you implying it isn't nonsense?

Bentley
Just read the thread further. It seems you're convinced the paradox is not nonsensical. Never mind my question.

Epicurus
Originally posted by Bentley
Are you implying it isn't nonsense?
I am not just implying, I am openly stating so.

Bentley
Originally posted by Epicurus
I am not just implying, I am openly stating so.


Good. I find the assertion downright sloppy and nonsensical, but I respect your faith and your beliefs thumb up

Surtur
Q isn't truly omnipotent. Just very powerful reality warpers. Whether they achieved this power innately or are somehow using highly advanced tech isn't really known. But I think it's probably innate, since you had the one girl who was born a Q and she wasn't given any kind of tech. So okay I guess we do know.

Q99
Approximate number of things in fiction that are 'truly' omnipotent in the 'can do absolutely anything, can't be opposed' sense:

0

Most attempted depictions of 'omnipotent gods' fall way short.

However, in the more generic/colloquial, not capable of doing *anything* but of such a higher level that there's nothing else close in their universe, Q's qualify.

Time-Immemorial
Q sucks

Surtur
Originally posted by Q99
Approximate number of things in fiction that are 'truly' omnipotent in the 'can do absolutely anything, can't be opposed' sense:

0

You could find a few obscure things in fiction that are. But with stuff like tv and comics the more appearances an "omnipotent" has the more chances it has to..not really be shown as omnipotent.

Q99
Originally posted by Surtur
You could find a few obscure things in fiction that are. But with stuff like tv and comics the more appearances an "omnipotent" has the more chances it has to..not really be shown as omnipotent.


Basically, the vaguer they are, the better, but even novels usually introduce information to indicate it falls short.

Time-Immemorial
Q's are the most wretched creatures of Star Trek, pure sucm.

Astner
Originally posted by Q99
Basically, the vaguer they are, the better,
Not necessarily. Ambiguity simply makes it difficult to scrutinizeā€”but that doesn't mean that there's anything more there. You can be very explicit in the presentation of omnipotence if you know what you're doing. The problem is that writers generally aren't well-versed with omnipotence as presented in in contemporary philosophy and classical theism; and thus are very likely to misrepresent it. The doctrine of divine simplicity is an argument that anyone who is not aware of will contradict if they go on to explain omnipotence beyond its dictionary definition.

Surtur
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Q's are the most wretched creatures of Star Trek, pure sucm.

Why? Sure Q himself is a dick and his kid was a dick too. But that one Q who wanted to commit suicide seemed nice lol.

I liked the Douwd, who killed a race of 50 billion just by thinking.

surajvines
Effortless spot for Q in the Movie

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.