The impossibility of infinite ability..aka "god"

Please put the goalposts back where you found them.When you started this thread, you were doing to prove that God doesn't exist or God can't be all-powerful or some such thing. Now that you've failed miserably at that, you want people to prove to you that God does exist or is all-powerful or some such thing.You don't seem to understand the difference between belief and logic.Faith is for things that are not seen. It's a fallback position for things where observation and logic don't apply. In most cases - nearly all useful cases - we can do without invoking a supernatural element. And if you want to eliminate any supernatural element from your own thoughts, you're free to do that.But you can't prove logically that the supernatural doesn't exist.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

I think I have however I am honest enough to know that I might also be wrong. Many reasons that I have covered elsewhere at EvC, but you can start with Belief Statement - jar and we can go from there.Why I believe though is not the topic, the issue is whether or not your scenario as outlined in the OP refutes my GOD. Since my GOD is something which can bring the universe into existence simply by an act of will, little issues such a movement or time or being everywhere at once or doing the impossible simply are not relevant.You may well think you have some astounding logic in your OP, however it is easily refuted by anyone simply saying "Nuhuh!"

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

"is something which can..."<<<< THAT is the problem. You dont ever give a REASON why it exists, you just say it DOES exist. "Something"??!! like WHAT?? Explain. You cant, because its nonsensible. Yeah......that makes sense. So if someone says, "2+2=4" and someone says, "Nuhuh" then its plausible that 2+2 does not equal 4??Either 1. Youre agreeing with me that some people are just being thick-headed and objecting to reason, such that Ive put on these posts or 2. youre trying to be funny or something or 3. youre saying that some people just cant be reasoned with because theyre too stupid (really the same as #1) or 4. you yourself are actually that stupid...but, I pretty much know its not #4 and, most likely isnt #2 so, youre pretty much agreeing with me, whether or not you realize it

No offense, I only "failed miserably" if you arent smart enough to know what I was talking about. Arent you? Oh? Explain what "supernatural" means exactly. Until then, I wont be able to argue for or against it. As of now though, I think "supernatural" is just an explaination primitive people gave for natural phenomena that they couldnt understand, (which, looking at history and reasoning of the primitive layperson, you have to admit it was). And, its something that is supposed to not work in the natural way. But, no one has ever demonstrated how that even makes sense, little lone how its plausible.

Not quite the same as #1, since I do not agree with you. However, you are new here so I have not yet made an assessment on whether or not you can learn. No, because 2 + 2 = 4 is something which can be tested. GOD is not something which can be tested. I believe that I have mentioned that in other responses to you. Let me check...Ah yes, in Message 41 and Message 44.Can you be reasoned with?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Yes I can Alright, now heres a kicker: what if GOD says that 2+2 does not equal 4????

Oh, I knew what you were talking about. I'm just saying that your logic is worthless. You've created a strawman God and demolished it. Yawn.If you want do something worthwhile, address the God that people actually believe in, the one that isn't constrained by "movement". If you can't do that, fine. But don't pretend that you've made a powerful argument when you haven't. Again, that's not the topic. Your argument fails to deal with the supernatural aspect of God. You lose.By the way, have you noticed that I don't say whether I believe in the supernatural or not? I'm not criticizing your conclusion. I'm criticizing your approach to the question.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

Then what you think is God speaking is NOT GOD and is wrong.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Heres something to think about:God is supposedly all-powerful...So, it ought to be able to create, if it so chooses, a being as powerful as god itself is.Being all-powerful, can god do it? If god cant, it isnt all-powerful, is it?But if god can, then isnt there a being every bit as powerful as god, rendering god not omnipotent?????????And oh yes by the way, I need to modify my last post; the question should have been: "Can god, being all-powerful, make 2+2 not equal 4?"Of course god cant. "2+2" is obviously not anything but 4.

You say to address the god people(laypeople, since most of the really educated and scientific people do not believe in such nonsense) believe in, when you also say: When I ask what even "supernatural" means? You say that knowing what "supernatural" means isnt the topic even though Im supposed to address the "god people believe in"??Uhhhhhh........if I dont know what "supernatural" really means, how can I "address the God that people actually believe in"? Thats about senseless..of course, I do know what "supernatural" means, its an explaination primitive laypeople gave to natural phenomena they couldnt understand, but apparently theists dont think so...

You've been told that "the God that people actually believe in" is everywhere. That automatically nullifies your argument.If you want more information than that, it's your responsibility to educate yourself (preferably before you start a thread on a subject you know nothing about). But since the thread is already in gear, maybe you can take this oppurtunity to actually learn something instead of just ranting against theists.By the way, you might also have noticed that I don't say whether I'm a theist or not. Did it ever occur to you that I might just be trying to help you formulate a better argument?

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

For that to nullify my arguement, god would have to be covering an infinite distance; but infinite distance can only be covered with an infinitely long time, or infinite rate(which as Ive already said is impossible); so, god would have to not be covering an infinite distance anytime, but instead always be covering more and more distance.Of course, another thing is that god doesnt have a mechanism to do this; itd have to have an infinite amount of material to cover an infinite distance.This entire thing is absurd...the only reason why people believe in theistic nonsense is that their inefficient(or entirely too brainwashed) minds make a sensible mapping of what "god" is, which is nothing more than an unreal description of impossibility, but, they forget that almost immediately; this happens every time they even think about "god".

Nope. Infinite size. As I said, your time would be better used learning something about the subject. Instead of flaunting your own brain-wishiwashiness, how about taking a hint and asking some questions?

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

Look at message 54.

So, why didn't you use that brilliant argument instead of the lame one in the OP? I tend to agree that "omnipotent" isn't a very useful term. But the difficulty in defining God's power isn't in itself an argument against the existence of God.You still seem to be missing the basic point: You can't use logic to explain away something that isn't based on logic. I don't think anybody in this thread is arguing that God exists based on logic.It's like trying to convince me logically that vanilla is the best flavour of ice cream. You can't do it because I believe chocolate is best.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs