2012-07-07, 10:47 PM
DrRusty Wrote: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.
[MENTION=68]DrRusty[/MENTION]
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.
Eos Wrote: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.