After reading all of your conversation with HarvieTheDinkle, I have come to the assumption that you are fucking retarded and/or ignorant in oh, so many ways. The majority of this site's population would agree with me on that bit, I'd like(and most definitely hope) to think so.

according to the amount of these arguments i have had, and by the amount of thumbs i have been given by the community i have decided you are wrong.

You realize that people disagreeing with you only proves my point, right?

As for the thumbs, you may want to get your eyesight checked. You "thumbs" are in the negatives, not the positives. Or if you can't quite compute numbers yet, they're red(bad) rather than green(good).

or if you would have decided to check my profile you would see that i have more green thumbs in comments than red.

your*

omnipotent contains the other two.

Omniscient- All knowing
Omnipresent- Everywhere at all times
Omnipotent- Ultimate and infinite power

omnipotent - able to do anything__, or have the power to do anything, the other two are contained in the first one.

Who are you talking to? The kid said "omniscient."

The kid never denied that god would be omnipotent. All he did was state an attribute of god. God can still be omnipotent, but facebook user was being specific. Both would work. One is just more specific than the other.

actually he was being too specific.

the focus of the sentence was about knowledge - he was not being too specific.

How? If a person is specific it is something that is normally like the edge of a knife. -The exact point-

here is an example. i have 1/2 of a cup of sugar in my cabinet, what does that say about the amount of sugar i have?

You have 1/2 of a cup obviously. -_-

no i have a 50 pound bag in my store room, how come you didn't know about my store room?

No, you idiot... I was never wrong. You do have 1/2 of a cup. and you also have another 99 1/2 cups.

The kid is not denying gods power. Merely stating an attribute of it.

but ignoring the rest of his powers, that is why in this case omnipotent would be a better word

Tell me, if I have 1/2 a cup of sugar in my cabinet how much sugar do I own?

He was never ignoring it. Both would work you idiot! Why cant you understand that? One is more specific since it is stating an attribute of gods power. He obviously wanted to be specific. He never discarded the others, but focused on one. -_-

yes both work, but the better choice is omnipotent, being specifit limits things.

He wanted to limit it. He only wanted the sight, since the kids wanted to "See" why.

just read the other conversation.

I did and obviously HarvieTheDinkie is right.

not saying he isn't, i am still saying that a broader brush would do this job quicker, and resolve any issues that could form because of someone else's belief

If you want to paint in a space smaller than a broad brush, what would you use? A smaller brush. Obviously to get the key point.

but the broader brush get it done quicker, and if used right better.

It would be sloppier and vauge. Precision, is what the facebook user is using.

*specific

What you're saying is that omniscience is a power contained within omnipotence.
But what the kid says still works.
That's like saying "do you have any furniture" vs "do you have a table" - when the topic is about a table, both work.

The topic was about god's knowledge (omniscience). That is contained within omnipotence. Thus, my example works - a table is contained within the realm of furniture.

If you're talking about a table, saying the word "furniture" is fine - but in no way is saying the word table - literally the topic - wrong.

You're failing to see the point here.

Let's make this a little easier for you
Omnipotence could work, but it would be more general.
Omniscience = knowledge. he was asking if god KNEW something (why kids love the taste). he was right.
Omnipotence could work, but it would be more general.

He has furniture. And within that realm, he has a table. When the subject was about a table.

How is it limiting his god's power?
Say that god has A, B, C, and D.
Saying that god has D doesn't mean he doesn't have the other three letters.
Saying that god ONLY has D does mean that - D, of course, being omniscience, and all of the letters together omnipotence.
The kid never said "only."
You're right in the fact that he CAN say that god has A, B, C, and d; but seeing as A, B, and C aren't necessary to the situation, it's not necessary.
And if I'm interpreting your jello/pudding analogy correctly, that's similar to asking about D, but hearing an answer about B. those are two different scenarios.

where is it implied?
where does he even hint at anything other than omniscience - aka knowledge - in this scenario about god's knowledge?

pre-crisis superman....... nuff said.

...what?

I'm utterly confused

Pre-crisis superman had an insanely OP powerlist... some guys literally compared him to god, saying he was omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.......and he burst through dimensions once and flew into heaven cause he was such a feckin badass.

or something like that this is my friends account feel free to troll like fuck, he shouldn't have left his fj signed in at my flat ^_^

<kid when he gets back

if i tell you that i only have 1/2 a cup of sugar in my cabinet what does that tell you?

I think you're getting at that you don't have a full cup of sugar (or more).
but if that is what you're getting at (and correct me if I'm wrong) - then it's a different scenario.
BECAUSE YOU DID SAY THE WORD "ONLY" (and let me emphasize this).
And even then, measurements of any kind don't count - if you say you have a certain measurement of something, it does imply that you don't have any more.
but this isn't a measurement scenario - this is a table/chairs/furniture scenario where i say i have a table (omniscience). but that doesn't mean I don't have chairs (all of God's other powers). if I said I ONLY have a table, that would be a different story.

I'm trying to think of new ways to explain this - you're making me run out lol :D

Why don't you all literally argue over Semantics?

why not? it has been a long time since my last good argument.

But the conditionary to the statement is in relation to sight..........

explain or make sense. that is the one and only choice i will give to you at this point unless you are female.

My rebuttal to your ultimatum.

Fuck you. You seriously have no idea who i am. Plus in my eyes, since you don't understand the simplicity in the Omniscient vs Omnipotent ideology relating to sight, you're the simpleton.

"But the conditionary to the statement is in relation to sight.......... "
(you spelled contradictory wrong by the way)
is in no way in any thought process a complete sentence let alone a response to,
" yes, but the way he put this is, "god" can only see everything, he didn't say that "god" had other abilities he just could see everything, he didn't mean it that way, that is just how he put it. "

Let's get personal here. I can hear well enough. I also have all other human senses (which contain the sense of hearing). In this analogy, hearing is omniscience; all other senses is omnipotence.

If someone says "Joe (not my name, but whatevs) is supposed to have the sense of hearing - that means he can hear (a sound), right?" then it means I have the sense of hearing.
It doesn't imply in any way that I don't have all other senses.

but it doesn't imply that you "joe" do.

Yep. But the burden of proof, oddly enough, actually lies upon the people who DOUBT i have all other senses. this is because most people in the world have all of the other senses - thus, until someone proves otherwise, no one would think I'm lacking anything.

likewise, most christians believe god is all-powerful - that is the standard. so the burden of proof would be on the people do didn't believe (from the christians' point of view) that he has all powers. Thus, the facebook kid doesn't need any reason to say that god is omnipotent.

actually the burden of proof lies on the believers, i don't believe in the existence of "god" but if undeniable(using this loosely, everything can be denied) proof appeared tomorrow that he was real, like i don't know him talking to every person on the planet at the same time, then i would believe. on the other hand if you where to have only on sense like hearing, we could prove it by testing the other senses directly, like putting a rose next to you, or holding up flash cards, or leaving your hand on a stove, but this is neither here or there, you are now saying that it falls on atheists to disprove the belief in "god".

Hey - I'm not Christian at all either.

But from the kid's point of view, there is a god. so, he doesn't even need to say that god is omnipotent - he already thinks that - or at least is talking to those who know that according to christianity, god is omnipotent.

and how did this conversation go to disproving god altogether? I was just talking about disproving his omnipotence.

then why would he only talk about "his" ability to see everything?

*"his"

We maxxed out the purple bars - so I'll just reply here.

He only talked about god's knowledge - not all of his other powers - because knowledge, not every single other power, was the focus of his sentence.
So he only needs to use the word "omniscient." he doesn't need to introduce a topic that would be unnecessary and redundant.
If someone asks me how many fish i have, I wouldn't randomly say that I have "every pet" (pretend it's possible and true in this scenario - in fact, pretend that the standard is that EVERYONE has every pet type available). All I need to say is that i have 5 fish. They never asked me about cats or dogs - so why would i tell them? I'm neither confirming nor denying their existence by bringing it up. I'm simply addressing the topic.

(side note: i think someone doesn't like me, not you or maybe you, but i doubt it) yes but if, everyone didn't have every pet, then them asking you what pet do you have requires a more explanivie answer, let us assume that one of his friends didn't know what thet ment and looked it up, he would then think that his friend thought that "god" could only see everything, like in the fish analogy if they asked you what pet you have and you have every pet, but you answer with 5 fish, they will think that you only have 5 fish.

I don't know who the other guy is...
The kid says that god is omniscient - which fits the topic of god's knowledge.
He is simply stating an attribute of god - not stating that it is his ONLY attribute.
And let's take your example - let's say that Person "A" hasn't ever heard of god before at all.
It's not as if the kid's disproving god's omnipotence to Person A.
It's also not as if he's proving it.
In fact, he doesn't need to bring up omnipotence at all (and doesn't). Because omnipotence is not the topic; omniscience is.

yes, but he will then without doing other research think that god only has infinite knowledge.

You're missing another important point - the kid doesn't care if person A thinks about omnipotence. All he was going was talking about omniscience - and that's all that matters, in this context.

If the kid were trying to prove god's omnipotence, he would have had a serious discussion, and brought it up then.
But he wasn't, and didn't.

but it is wrong to just leave someone hanging like that.

about their own incorrect assumption? not at all

yes it is, like teaching someone how to use a toilet, and then leaving them in the desert.

No, it's more like not explaining how electricity works when you're talking about how to make a paper crane.

ya, but i will always take the machine that makes them for me over folding them myself.