6g at least. But I am thinking perhaps 10 or 12.
Males… always on the attack.
You ain’t cute or funny, or even relevant… say what!?
Don’t make me beat on you. 
Where I would like you take your arguments:
But, instead, what we get from you is just more of the same. Even when edited six times:
The “proof” is entirely embedded in a series of deductions defining and defending yet more deductions still.
And, still, no actual omnipotent being in sight. There are others like phenomenal_graffiti who come here from time to time with their own quite elaborate set of epistemological assumptions…the logic of which just goes around and around in circles.
The omnipotent being as a tautology.
…and why would you wanna do that?
Are you cray bae? I meant verbal attack,
not physical… get with the program B…
…only place a male can slap me is on d ass,
and even then, only with my consent.
How did this thread ever get so out of hand, hmm.
I could say something -
And I suspect you would get along with my wife – and her girlfriend.
But I think we should show a little reverence and bow out of this thread. :-"
Yes let’s… Is that what you meant by, you married a liberal?
Your life sounds much complicated… mine isn’t at all.
I like it that way/the preferable option… infinitely uncomplicated.
Talking of 5g, I wonder if galaxies and universes have their own form of communication…
perhaps it’s the language of inertia… or their equivalent of it, for those systems.
Who knows…
I was overly-tired last night… had 4 hours sleep that day… my apologies.
So… it is Time and Space that is eternal and therefore the omnipotent, and the current/our Universe exists within this time/space locality, and so our Universe and Space are not one and the same, but the former exists within the latter, and possibly an entire Multiverse of Universes beyond that… or just an expanse of more of our own Universe.
Perhaps when we think of the notion of the infinite, it’s actually more a continual process of the creation of planetary bodies, as there are about 100 billion stars birthing and dying each year, about 275 million per day, in the whole observable Universe… and that’s obviously not even including that which lays beyond, that which lays beyond our observable Universe.
That is my current vision, of my perception, of what I deem infinity to realistically be… an endlessness… an endless supply of a cosmic populace.
Free-will is not a paradox(but it might be), like infinity of mathematical deduction or the spatial dynamics of the universe, both cosmically and atomically, are. Whatever the number you have it is possible to add another, wherever there is an end to the universe, there must be something beyond it; we broke into the atom to find there is something smaller in the atoms and something even smaller in the already smaller thing in the atom and it is conceivable that this depth could be as inaccessible as the general breadth of the aforementioned universe.
You have a few whopping contradictions in your post here (mr. “pure reason”)
I’ll point out one of the glaring ones.
You stated towards the end that if someone put a gun to the rapists head, that they’d stop. Hell is WAY worse than a gun to the head!!!
I’ve actually been to hell certainly real…
It’s not fun and there’s no point to it, it’s not something you can imagine until you’ve been there. Watch every horror movie ever made; hell is WAY, WAY, WAY worse than that.
Had I had some informed consent about logic and reason, say, my 44 year old self being able to travel back in time and explain existence to my 16 year old self, all of it would have been avoided.
There is no such thing as informed consent for hell, otherwise the term hell would be meaningless!!!
Like I stated before, you are extremely naive. I don’t relish saying this to you, and I have no desire other than some words in a message forum to show you (if that’s even possible).
I’m sure you experience sufferings in life… but the thing about you, your psychology, is that you leave it as a default that not only everything you do is perfect, but that perfection takes care of itself for everyone - that’s your comfort zone that consoles you. You are required not to be a thinker to develop this comfort zone; billions of people do it. You’re not much of a thinker, experiencer or even a responsible being for your own life in the context of the former 2.
You’re still an infant who hasn’t been born from the womb yet.
Madge says:
"Perhaps when we think of the notion of the infinite, it’s actually more a continual process of the creation of planetary bodies, as there are about 100 billion stars birthing and dying each year, about 275 million per day, in the whole observable Universe… and that’s obviously not even including that which lays beyond, that which lays beyond our observable Universe.
That is my current vision, of my perception, of what I deem infinity to realistically be… an endlessness… an endless supply of a cosmic populace."
My view is similar, and dissimilar imminently, as I understand space-time only to be like a renewable cognitive intermediary, like a system of channels of engaging and disengaging power sources, to unify or disjoint the many subsisting levels of thrust generated by forces which constantly undergo changes in respect toward one relative to another.
This is kind of a mechanical description , where these channels are neither one or the other, but are close to what You are describing as an analogous system: describing the tiny part of the connection of metaphysics, to the ultimate chaotic world: not bounded by uncertainty, but evolving toward some and ultimately an absolute certainty to the required system of organizing reality to toward the goal of attaining a manageable reality
.
This becomes the journey, the process which sets it’s part in various minute increments, not recognizing an ultimate caused cause. but forming substantial ways of description.
Certainly real, I think you have presented some excellent arguments. And in this post you responded in what I think is a “perfect” manner - up to a point.
Up to that point, I was impressed with the manner and style of your response - one point at a time followed by a short thesis. Those are the easiest to follow. Those make it easy to see where the conflict resides. Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be any way for anyone to concede to each individual point so those issues can be dropped from the batch of continuous argumentation.
In the lower part of what I quoted from your post you make some assertions. But notice no one takes those line by line and either agrees or disagrees. You have no way to know whether you have been heard on those issues. And if they were not accepted any further argument is going to be taken dubiously if at all.
As example:
Ok
Ok assuming God exists as omnipotent.
As above
Point taken assuming God exists as omnipotent. – so we don’t have to raise those points any more - progress.
Yes I do think that because~~~~.
I think that way of presenting your points and my take on those points is a good way to make progress.
But from there on out it seems to be all about the word usage (which you refuse to deal with). You keep this “I’m right - your wrong” thing going without finding out WHY anyone is right or wrong simply because you refuse to address the words. And because of that, you are not being perfect. So you are “evil” and deserve to suffer? Created for the purpose?
I could get behind most of what I think you are trying to say but then you always lead into a word issue that derails my support because it ends up leading to false assertions that you could easily correct with “pure reason”. But you don’t do it. Is that purely reasonable? Or are you really evil?
Up there in those clouds that you constantly complain about not being able to see into. Dogs can’t see colors.
Exactly. And to iambiguous that is all “up there” where he can’t see - the conceptual pure reasoning that he believes to be nonexistent or irrelevant. He appears to be void of the ability to see logic or reason itself. So using reason arguments gets people no where. I have been observing that for months.
_
That’s an interesting interpretation of what I thought Meno_
Well, to reiterate… the Universe is our furthest common ancestor, and the
omnipotence of being and of our becoming, and currently appears to be endless…
though it seems to have had a beginning.
They can… minus red and green, but it’s a very muted pastel view of the world.
Dogs aren’t omnipotent though, but they are instinctual.
I thought someone might say that. The point is the same. People can actually get hints concerning logic too. But they can’t see it CLEARLY and DISTINCTLY. Is that better? I just kept the short simple version.
Well… we know what colours dogs can see, so why try pestering
them into seeing colours that they are unable to physically see?
A futile effort all round… for Owner and Pet.
An analogy for something more/for those that will never see, that which others can…?
That was rhetoric, right? 
I hope. 
Hahaha! let’s say that it wasn’t! go?
“Abandon all hope, ye who enter here”. 