Does God exist: A hopefully civil and fruitful debate

[Eos]

we're discussing infinity because of the omnipotence paradox, which I brought up as an argument against god's existence.

Whether or not god is omnipotent is irrelevant if you haven't even been able to decide if God exists. You're arguing the color of the chicken before it's even been born.

I am about to kill this thread just on the basis of it not being at all what it's stated purpose was.

[Kalovale]

lol this is a hilariously ironic. Just as we're trying to use logical vs illogical in determining god's existence, we're using different definitions of infinity to describe the argument itself. Using arithmetic, yes, you are right. Since infinity is indeed indeterminate it can not be used for anything. In mathematics, you use things that lead up to infinity (like my infinity ohms example) allowing it to be used in formulas.

@DrRusty
As I recall, you didn't quite give me a definition of infinity to work with. But let's take that aside for one second and grant you that:

1. infinity - infinity = 0
2. infinity * 0 = 0
3. infinity * 1 = infinity

How do you defend the self-contradictory definition of a "stone heavier than can be lifted"? And to put things into perspective, these are the relevant arguments:

1. If God is omnipotent, then he can make object A
2. He cannot make object A
3. Therefore he is not omnipotent

Classic modus tollens.

Counterargument: Object A doesn't even make sense, so it doesn't make any sense to talk about God being capable of creating it. As such, the premise of the argument is flawed in the way that it can't be entertained sensibly, not in the way that it is factually false. The argument is thus scrapped.

Whether or not god is omnipotent is irrelevant if you haven't even been able to decide if God exists. You're arguing the color of the chicken before it's even been born.

I am about to kill this thread just on the basis of it not being at all what it was stated intent was.

Two things: 1/ I'll give up after this one attempt. It's a pity, though. 2/ Since we're talking about a god with those characteristics (mainly my fault), let's grant this argument the privilege. Besides, an argument proving that God cannot be "existent" + "all-powerful" + "all-knowing" + "all-good" at the same time is good enough for me.

[DrRusty]

I'm not the one who said he wasn't sure if god existed or not. I don't believe in god at all

How do you defend the self-contradictory definition of a "stone heavier than can be lifted"? And to put things into perspective, these are the relevant arguments:

1. If God is omnipotent, then he can make object A
2. He cannot make object A
3. Therefore he is not omnipotent

Classic modus tollens.

Counterargument: Object A doesn't even make sense, so it doesn't make any sense to talk about God being capable of creating it. As such, the premise of the argument is flawed in the way that it can't be entertained sensibly, not in the way that it is factually false. The argument is thus scrapped.

I don't see how you're having trouble with the concept. It seems pretty easy to me. You would have to use the mathematics definition of infinity to describe the paradox. The rock gets heavier approaching the point of god being unable to lift it until it becomes so heavy that he can't. I just don't know how that doesn't make sense to you. Being all-powerful, can he count to infinity? Can he walk around in a circle until he finds the end of it? Can he purple until he dies of cabinet? Can he defeat Chuck Norris? (last 2 were jokes btw)

[Kalovale]

I'm not the one who said he wasn't sure if god existed or not. I don't believe in god at all


I don't see how you're having trouble with the concept. It seems pretty easy to me. You would have to use the mathematics definition of infinity to describe the paradox. I just don't know how that doesn't make sense to you. Being all-powerful, can he count to infinity? Can he walk around in a circle until he finds the end of it? Can he purple until he dies of cabinet? Can he defeat Chuck Norris? (last 2 were jokes btw)

Because you're already assuming the answer in the question. I'll point it out: The rock gets heavier approaching the point of god being unable to lift it until it becomes so heavy that he can't.

This sentence assumes a few things, but let's get right to the meat of the matter:

1. It assumes that such a thing has the property of existence.
2. It assumes that there is a point that God cannot lift.

"Have you stopped being a douche?" cannot be answered in such a way that contradicts the assumption that the person has in fact been a douche. The normal response is to correct the questioner: "I have not been a douche." and not give an answer. The same applies here.

We're trying to define God using reason, so omnipotence works on everything that is sensibly imaginable and none otherwise. I might have neglected to point out, but language is hardly rational. Something like "Can he do X" sounds nice because it starts with "Can he", implying--linguistically--an ability or lack thereof. Rationally, there is no ability concerning objects that don't even make sense from the start.

[DrRusty]

It doesn't even have to assume that there is any point that god can't lift it.

If god can lift anything, no matter what it is, then he obviously can not create something he can not lift meaning that's something he can not do (all-powerful kind of meaning that you can do anything).

We're trying to define God using reason, so omnipotence works on everything that is sensibly imaginable and none otherwise. I might have neglected to point out, but language is hardly rational. Something like "Can he do X" sounds nice because it starts with "Can he", implying--linguistically--an ability or lack thereof. Rationally, there is no ability concerning objects that don't even make sense from the start.

well, we're at a problem if it doesn't make sense to you, because it makes sense to me.