Posted: Apr 25, 2011 12:32 pm
by hackenslash
Frankly, Kalamity Kraig's definition is hot air, and moreover, contains contradictory and self-refuting attributes. The question then becomes 'what do these attributes actually mean?' and subjectivity enters the discussion, rendering the definition open to exactly the charge I levelled at 'the god of classical theism', namely that it has as many definitions as there are wibblers who wibble about it. I know for a fact that this fuckwit doesn't employ the same definition of omnipotence that I do.

And that's before we get into the self-refuting nonsense of 'the creator of all things'.

These things demonstrate that this entity is not well-defined, and my question stands.