The impossibility of infinite ability..aka "god"

Only if he does it. You can't disprove an omnipotent God like that, because being omnipotent doesn't mean "doing everything you're capable of doing". In this universe, within its current laws, 2+2 is always 4. You seem to be missing the point that "God" is supposed to have made these laws, and is defined as being capable of changing them.Take it from an atheist, you're not doing anything to disprove the existence of a God on this thread. It can't be done, and evidence against certain concepts of God cannot be presented. You can find plenty of evidence against a version of the Abrahamic God that's based on literal interpretations of the Bible or the Koran, but the God of more sophisticated theists/deists is impossible to prove or disprove by its nature.You can't look at the universe and come up with evidence against a creator God who created the universe as it is (however that is) as it would be the same whether he existed or not.Incidentally, argument doesn't have an "e" after the "u", not that I'm fussy, but I thought someone may as well learn something from the thread.

I'm not sure if your analogy is very good, as I'd immediately agree that there's very likely to be something in the box, like air or dust, if nothing else. Theists aren't saying "something" exists, but that their God or Gods exist. Many don't attempt to present evidence for this, and freely admit that it's a matter of faith, which is honest, at least.Where some get irritating is when they claim that people who do not believe in whichever God or Gods that they believe in do so on faith, which is when I point out that belief in any supernatural concept for which there is no evidence is active, and that lack of belief in fairies, for example, is passive, and that the difference between monotheists and atheists is that the former lack belief in all the Gods ever invented by mankind except one, and the latter share the same lack of belief, but without exceptions.

"If", you say. I'd say if God created an omnipotent being, then he would no longer be omnipotent, and would have replaced himself with a new God. But this is no argument against an omnipotent God, because the theist who believes in such a God obviously believes his God has not chosen that particular course of action.I agree that two omnipotent supreme beings is an apparently impossible concept, unless they're clones, and always agree on everything, in which case, why should God choose to split like an amoeba in the first place? The first God, being omniscient, would predict this result, but being omnipotent, could certainly be an inept double God if he wanted to. Perhaps this did happen, and explains his/their apparent absence.Welcome to EvC, BTW.

You mean that theists don't or can't describe their Gods? Well, some try. You could ask ICANT and RiverRat about that, as an interesting exercise to see if you can find two Christians who actually believe in the same thing.