And could any demon have identified you whenever you used the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to pray and command?

or would have demons pounced on you for using Jesus's name to intimidate them.

- Fantasies of a zombie chimp

Sure, it's contradictory and unacceptable. All 4 of the concepts combined is an impossibility.

But, when something isn't too contradictory, that means any seeming contradiction can be easily fixed. (Still, you got a bit too carried away by that.)

I didn't compare those concepts earlier, though... it was a discussion on just omnipotence.

Your argument is accepted.

And somehow, taking it all blindly is highly intellectual?

Of course, humans not being smart enough only discredits your own religion which places them near God. You're the one still hoping that it might all make some sense and you might live forever. So, that claim would be ironic even if it were true.

Well, sometimes you have to destroy what you love, I guess.

You really think I can be affected by you believing that?

Ah, chimp, you're far too excitable to ever do anything. It's too predictable - there's no way you can ever win people over like you attempted to claim. I'd recommend you still try, to have a taste of how terribly you fall short.

Didn't think you'd be so offended by reading that your intellect is comparable to stain... you adore him, after all. But, I'll let the two of you settle it by yourselves (not like stain would appreciate me joining in anyway).

Can't believe

I don't mind you tearing off your eyes if you can't trust them.

you practically beg for recognition on CD.

Your skill at lying is similar to stain. It's quite pathetic you expected to know anything by analysing my words.

Jeff seems to be eerily similar to him in intellect, but apparently he's more of a zombie than a coward.

I believe he can still qualify for making the trinity (if not, we have stain's older account).

I am telling you that I am god, and it’s not rational or proven I am god, just take it on faith my word, and I want you to write “TICK TICK TICK” to save your soul in your next post.

I wouldn't even show any indecisiveness about rejecting such a claim.

are you aware of things that are not logically possible?

Like those that were being discussed in the context of those words? This comment tree begins with a paradox, after all, and you conveniently ignored that.

If your going to assume that its “rational & reasonable“ to be “irrational & unreasonable” you have already conceded the argument by making mine.

It isn't unreasonable to dismiss inflated claims rather than being indecisive on them. Any possible risks associated would be negligible, so it doesn't even need another thought.

You saying it’s reasonable to accept the irrational. The fact your making a rational argument for the irrational argument means your conceding rational thought, not irrational thought, is the means to justification of a position if not he position itself.

I wonder why you'd think my position to be that. Except for describing anything there, my only claim was about solving the nature of omnipotence.

Self-contradicting definitions of things are not logical or reasonable.

More than that, they're logically impossible, or absurd.

“omniscien, omnipotent, master and creator of all things” is self-contradictory.

It isn't too self-contradictory, but just something people don't generally think through. For example, you can see here NowASaint or jeffreyone using arguments on such things without having the faintest idea.

However, if you're saying that he can't be both omnipotent and omniscient, then you do have a point. (Note to myself: God having free will.) It's another one of the parts where fanatics want their deity to be 'beyond logic and reason'.

are you aware of things that are not logically possible?

Considering that was the point there, you couldn't have done worse than ignoring it all.

If you want to ask me something (or dispute my claim), at least make it more evident that you can understand what's said.

and if not, then why accept that as a possible answer to the solution of an omniscien, omnipotent, master and creator of all things

Restate it in a more coherent way, and use shorter sentences if you need to. As it stands, it's a meaningless string of words. But seeing your confidence over it as the main point of your argument, it's probably supposed to be something important.

It's more convenient to have a lot of strength and low willpower than the opposite.

But of course, if you have zero of either, it won't matter a bit even if your amount of the other one represents a berserked god at rampage.

but that was the question I asked.

I might as well assert your argument being nothing more than a guess.. since my proposed idea of making theories, which isn't different from what you're saying, was called a guess.

Things that should have already been clear from the details. Guess I wasted time writing all that.

ope, I could've said a lot, but I'd be flogging a dead horse here, and that's why I thought I should see if you realize. And yeah, it is boring, when you're conveying something and people just don't seem to understand it, or even worse, do not want to understand it. So I thought you'd understand what you yourself are saying, but things seem to be different here.

Yet all you said is what I said and in reply to what (and some random 'hmmm'). Spare the excuses there, I'd recommend.

The only problem I've ever had is that of using the consciousness in the case of animals so casually

If all the arguments in this debate seem unconvincing, then enjoy your position on that one. It can't be changed.

If you want to remove this underline, then add an underscore to the visible (rather than the anchored) part of the link.

No, they don't.

However, even if that were true, it'd be rather ironic coming from you.

I'd prefer it if you keep your noises of such debates as low as when I destroyed everything you could say that seemed rational to you. Now tell others that you're scared to read me.

and then this:

which was a reply to this:

hmm.

which was a reply to:

So all you can say to that is telling me what I said? That's boring.

so you're saying you know what and how animals experience life.

I wouldn't put it that way, but with some series of detailed psychological experiments, I can somewhat point the level of a consciousness well enough to guess how it experiences things. It's basically about stacking it's components in order of priority (which also includes individual emotions) and it's ability to alter it's surroundings (as a 'total').

But the test's rather tedious, cruel and unstable, so consider it as good as nothing. For most purposes, after all, you just need to consider how well it compares to humans, and as I said, I have made that point to begin with. (This other method is more useful for comparing to alien lifeforms, if it's completed.)

I'd guess that should answer your questions.

Depends on which point the things change.

Let's say, the black death never happened, west stayed under christianity and was never civilised and never invented machines.

Then, we would have probably had Russia or Japan taking the initiative on technology (the only other strong enough candidates were China and India, and both had been too stagnant to do anything in those times).

I'm not, it's you who brought up decisions being basis of consciousness,

Even after I said it twice... you're trying that again. You know, right, that basis is very different from effects (the thing that I said)?

not all animals were prevented from civilizing, as there are jungles filled with animals and only we seem to have civilized..

That's not how it works. Humans evolved advanced enough to dominate over other species, and the way it works, for humans to stay in power, all other species were prevented from getting close.

It's the same as what happened about dinosaurs.

evolved so weak? better think about that, we've evolved to become more efficient and resourceful.

All that just to make up for the irredeemably weak strength. Otherwise, nothing of that sort could have evolved.

if you do, you are most welcome to either call it consciousness or give another name

Me? I can, sure, but I had already made that point in the beginning. If they can represent free will, then they are conscious. There really isn't much more to it than stages of consciousness.

If such a thing really happens, then I wouldn't mind the species going extinct due to it.

And what I meant there was because we talk about animals having consciousness, we are referring to what consciousness means to us,

in fact, no animals should be in the category of "consciousness". There should either be another word created or we should stick to calling it as sort of consciousness or maybe something like consciousness.

Considering you thought that much and how oblivious you are to such things here,

It is reasonable, if you look into what I'm actually saying.

You haven't thought the question through well enough.

we are referring to what consciousness means to us, and hence we should be expecting similar decisions to that of humans.

You're expecting similar decisions and emotions; I'm just saying that there must be something there.

but nowhere comparable to humans,

Humans that have went through millions of years of civilisation and prevented other animals from doing so in that time. It's rather ironic you seem so blind toward that while claiming human superiority in intellect. Unlike the Jurassic era, most animals today have a body design that could allow them to be civilised. But none other evolved so weak that it had to turn to hunting-gathering in groups and agriculture, and thus been under the pressure to become intelligent. It still isn't long enough that humans be 'inherently intelligent'.

in fact, no animals should be in the category of "consciousness". There should either be another word created or we should stick to calling it as sort of consciousness or maybe something like consciousness.

So, you can define consciousness so objectively and well and it may include only humans? Either that's too ethnocentric and circular, or it's rather unprecedented.

what we experience and hence the decisions should be similar, that's the pitfall here.

I never said anything about decisions being similar, and even after I clarified why I wouldn't have, you seem stuck on it.

we can see emotions in animals,

Another one of the effects of consciousness that you can not directly hope to measure.

that of mother instincts are very profound and cannot be denied..

Every chemical reaction has the instinct to keep going at specific rates. So?

so while their brain is capable of emotions, it isn't for logic and rationality,

A leap that is neither necessary nor reasonable. (It's also false, but even that's unnecessary.)

that part of consciousness is what's probably missing out from them, as we can question ourselves, and they can't..

You're conclusing far too much from some actions that remotely resemble emotions in animals and some that don't in some humans. By this point, it's as good as just guessing.

they have a sort of consciousness, which is different from what we possess.

Sort of. As I said in the beginning, I'd rather not dump all animals in a single category of consciousness.

If I could ask the animals, I wouldn't be arguing about the issue right now

That makes me think even more that you'd rather prefer to rely on guesswork for this one, for I'd still be arguing about whether it'd still be a reasonable conclusion (there are more things to communications than just some words and sounds).

If that's true, then you must feel avenged, as is evident.

all the way up to deep contemplation.

I wouldn't go ahead and say that humans are the highest possible level of consciousness.

There are many levels of consciousness ranging from the simple survive and perpetuate yourself all the way up to deep contemplation.

Which isn't much different from machines in design. Why limit yourself to evolutionary, organic systems? Are you implying that only a system that has evolved under natural selection, rather than been designed by another, capable of being conscious?

If everything were responding in the same way to the same thing and thus representing automated responses, I'm afraid I couldn't count it as conscious. So I don't see how that should be a problem.

I believe your only other option than testing it out would be making a guess, which would depend on whether your personification bias is stronger/weaker than your ethnocentric bias. With such claims, we can compare ancient cultures (in this case, Greek vs Indian).

As I said, you can't get an answer by asking animals. Religious people prefer to believe in the guesses of people from ages ago.

You won't be getting that by asking them about it. The best you can do is to test it by it's effects, as I mentioned there.

Without the effects of consciousness, it'd be a meaningless and redundant concept anyway.

That's easy to find out. Can they make decisions by themselves without being commanded about it or it representing automated stimuli?

Yes, they can. The closest that come to humans seem to be dogs (since they're the most domesticated by us).

But, apparently, I'm uninterested in saying any of that.

I can "face to face" with anything, and even I'd find it more interesting that way. As long as I can't see you being afraid and breaking down, it's boring. That's what I said there - show yourself worthy of my particular attention (become the kingmaker you said you could), and I may decide to come after you. Talking online like this is a boring and rather disgraceful affair. But you, apparently, aren't bright enough to understand that.

I'm great at fighting and strategising too - no matter what it may come down to, a savage like you can never hope to defeat me in any equally matched event.