There’s No Good Food in Ancient Times, So I’ll Just Become the God of Food

First of all, I don't think this is an error in language logic alone, because language logic is based on the same cognition. For example, there is a contradiction in the story. A man sells a spear and a shield, saying that the spear can pierce everything and the shield can defend against anything. When someone asks what will happen if he pierces the shield with a spear, the weapons dealer is speechless. This story is first based on the fact that there is a spear in one hand and a shield in the other. Both things exist. This paradox first arises between believers and opponents. They are already on different cognitions from the beginning, whether they believe it or not. Secondly, if the author and his friends are regarded as third parties who do not believe or object, then such a situation will arise. Friend: I saw something... Author: This is caused by the logical imperfection of human language... Friend: Oh This is tantamount to a third party using another concept to persuade a third party to retreat, just like two primary school students fighting for comparison and going to the teacher. The teacher said: "What's the use of comparing with this? Comparing is to learn." This is just a transfer of conflicts. If a believer and an opponent are fighting each other A: God is omnipotent B: God Paradox A: Your paradox is an imperfection in the logic of human language. B: So is God's omnipotence perfect in language? If not, it still cannot prove omnipotence. If yes, then why does the language defect theory not apply to this sentence, but to me? A: Because God is omnipotent, there is no logical contradiction. B: Because what I said has logical contradictions and is an imperfection in human language. Can this be used to prove that God is omnipotent? … If this continues, it will still be an endless cycle. One is questioning God's omnipotence, and the other is questioning human flaws. Today you can use language, and in the future you can use emotions, physiology, etc., Because human beings have too many flaws. What the author said can only be regarded as an interpretation or interpretation produced by a third party, and it cannot be regarded as completely dissolving the issue. And in the many years that this issue has existed, some people must have made arguments that the issue was not valid in the first place, but using this to persuade people with different perceptions on both sides probably failed. As for saying that asking this question is an insult to religion, then it depends on the essence of the sentence. As a third party, maybe it is just used as a talking point. But there are not only third parties in the world who "do not believe in nor oppose". Some opponents say this just to criticize people. You cannot solve my problem, but instead say that my problem is a logical error. Then I can also say that your argument is also logically wrong from the beginning, because there is no complete absolute. Therefore, the seemingly logical contradiction of saying right is wrong is actually a part of language attack, because the omnipotent God is unable to solve the contradiction caused by language, and can only avoid answering by saying that it is a flaw in human language. PS: Religion itself is a very idealistic thing. If you follow logic and theorems, you will be fooling yourself sooner or later, because any religion has too many self-contradictions, so it is best to be mysterious and mysterious. Even if others know that you are cheating, they cannot refute it with theorems, because you have not followed "reason" from the beginning. Of course, I am also a family member.

I strongly recommend that you go to the sixth page of Chapter 89, turn on the male voice to read aloud, and feel the dao dao dao dao. It is really rhythmic, and you will hear blood spurting out from the mouth.

Dian Niang can also swallow stickers. Someone just posted a message scolding me for deleting the post. I just woke up and in a daze, I saw words like "working behind closed doors", so I deleted the post and banned it. I realized this problem only after washing my face and brushing my teeth, so I looked back at the person's ID, then looked through my background records, and found that there was no posting record of this person at all. Let me explain it to you here I don't know how to access bans, so there's nothing you can do about your ban. I delete posts all by computer, so there will be a deletion record on my phone, but I don't have a record of your posts. It is true that I will delete posts with personal attacks. Even if I delete such posts, it is normal. But sometimes there will be situations where the mother swallows the post. I won't bear this responsibility anymore. Sometimes your normal posts may be swallowed, this is normal. It often happens in my background that there are 10 messages but only 8 messages. This is the best proof. This has been proven in the group just now. As for how to be harmonious? I didn't know. In short, just avoid some sensitive words as much as possible. It doesn't have to be swear words. Sometimes a very common word will cause the post to be deleted if it is detected by the system. This is not set by me, and I am helpless. The guy who was banned by me, I'm sorry, I really don't know what you posted, and I just woke up and thought you were a personal attack on me, so I subconsciously deleted and banned you, and I just don't know how to unban you.

The protagonist is simply possessed by Rick, the Rick in "Rick and Morty", otherwise why would there be so many shit and piss scenes?

In fact, you are right. The so-called God problem cannot prove that God is omnipotent at all. What conclusion can be drawn by first creating a logical impossibility and then asking God to do it? Is God omniscient and omnipotent within the limits of logic? Neither theists nor atheists will accept this conclusion. Those who believe in God put forward a more domineering explanation: God is omniscient and omnipotent, and your inability to understand it is a flaw in your being, just like a two-dimensional creature cannot understand that there are two straight lines in the world that are neither parallel nor intersecting. Philosophers who are tired of arguments point out: "Don't add entities unless necessary." Although the existence of God cannot be falsified, since everything in life can be explained by more intuitive and understandable things, why should we introduce an illusory existence? Whether he actually existed or not, he didn't exist until he affected me.

Regarding the God Paradox, if it is proved that there is a problem with the logic of human language, then how can we prove that this conclusion is correct?

When I see the so-called cracking of the refutation, I just want to say that you still haven't answered the question directly, or that people are not perfect, so the question is flawed. But again, since God is omniscient and omnipotent, the so-called imperfect problem should still be solved, so you said that human thinking is not perfect and cannot answer the question of God's refutation.

If there is an iron pot, isn't there a tripod? The author did not learn history well

Question: What is the most expensive food in mainland China?

Originally, it was okay to complain, and this article was realistic enough, but when I saw the princess, I couldn't stand it. In the feudal era, you, a son of a landlord, were rude to the princess, and the princess was not a time traveler. This was a crime of collision. Everyone thought you were trying to gain the position of the princess's consort, right? Otherwise, you are crazy. Do you have time to show off? Is there time for you to die?