Comments: 24
Phen01 [2011-05-15 20:03:50 +0000 UTC]
Clarice is cute in the second-to-last panel.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
woodlander2 [2010-11-21 08:49:48 +0000 UTC]
That makes sense now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
naan21 [2010-11-20 18:58:42 +0000 UTC]
Awww, she blushed :3
And screwballs, says the great talking skullface....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
SicknessUntoLove [2010-11-20 15:38:06 +0000 UTC]
haha I love the second to last pannel XD and this story so far = D
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Paddy-Wolfe In reply to SicknessUntoLove [2010-11-21 08:42:28 +0000 UTC]
I thought that moment was awesome. I swear this page was unplanned. It sort of spilled out.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
SicknessUntoLove In reply to Paddy-Wolfe [2010-11-23 05:09:40 +0000 UTC]
I love when that happens =} it's usually something awesome
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Paddy-Wolfe In reply to SicknessUntoLove [2010-11-23 15:09:51 +0000 UTC]
Every now and then the ecstatic in me actually gets crackin'.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
SilentSECP [2010-11-20 14:13:20 +0000 UTC]
I second that notion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Paddy-Wolfe In reply to SilentSECP [2010-11-21 08:41:12 +0000 UTC]
It's too friggin' confuzzling!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Cevaztyen [2010-11-20 05:35:48 +0000 UTC]
In my opinion, omnipresent is one of the most complicated of explanations.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Paddy-Wolfe In reply to Cevaztyen [2010-11-20 08:36:12 +0000 UTC]
I guess what I mean is it's too convenient. It just seems like "Well we don't know so we're just going to make this part up".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Cevaztyen In reply to Paddy-Wolfe [2010-11-20 08:37:51 +0000 UTC]
But the omnipresent God came after YEARS of worshiping individual, not omnipresent gods.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Cevaztyen In reply to Paddy-Wolfe [2010-11-20 08:51:13 +0000 UTC]
You mean you don't comprehend the concept of omnipresence?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Paddy-Wolfe In reply to Cevaztyen [2010-11-20 08:53:02 +0000 UTC]
I comprehend it, I just don't accept it. There's something fundamentally wrong with the logic of it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Paddy-Wolfe In reply to Cevaztyen [2010-11-20 09:29:34 +0000 UTC]
Well, it sounds good and all except the idea only works on paper. Nothing in nature is omnipresent, with the single possible exception of gravity. But even that isn't truly omnipresent because the gravity of any given area strictly depends on the amount of mass, so it isn't so much omnipresent as it is a basic part of mass to begin with.
I suppose if you're able to transcend time and space you could be omnipresent which may very be the case. But then it sounds more like an episode of Doctor Who.
In order for something to be omnipresent you need a constant absolute unchanging variable. And the only thing I can think of that fits that bill is change itself, but then that would be a contradiction. The problem is our universe is constantly changing, and while it may follow a strict set of physical laws to do this, there is enough allowance for randomness that there are no perfectly set variables.
I wish I could make this more concise than that, but in a nutshell that's my problem with the concept of omnipresence. I take a different approach to theology than that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Cevaztyen In reply to Paddy-Wolfe [2010-11-20 16:38:39 +0000 UTC]
Well, wouldn't Death (Not the guy in the comic, more the classical personification of it) trancend time and space? it's not Like Doctor Who came up with that type of idea.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Paddy-Wolfe In reply to Cevaztyen [2010-11-21 08:05:35 +0000 UTC]
The idea still doesn't jibe with me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Cevaztyen In reply to Paddy-Wolfe [2010-11-21 08:36:53 +0000 UTC]
Eh, to each his own opinion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0