The impossibility of infinite ability..aka "god"

Are you saying you agree? And the OP is actually a better arguement than this one....But anyways, Even some things which are irrational (such as emotion, the square root of 2 or 17, and imaginary numbers) are in existence, and are explainable by logic (emotion is a consequence of certain chemical reactions, the square roots of 2 and 17 are actually sequences of numbers, not concrete values, and imaginary numbers, at least, have effects in mathematics which are observable). God, however, is simply impossible because(and this assumes that "god" is supposed to be omnipotent) it is impossible to move at an infinite rate, and god's abilities couldnt allow it to cause things which would render it non omnipotent (such as creating another omnipotent being). The definition of "best" is: something which most applies or demonstrates a certain rule, such as out of rubber, lead and platinum, platinum is the best conductor since it demonstrates the rules of conductivity the most.Therefore, it would be true that vanilla could be the "best" ice cream for a person, since for that person, it applies the rules of taste(some things, with natural processes, taste better than others) the most of any flavor. However, since these rules dont apply to the other person(the rules work differently with some than others), chocolate could also be the "best", for them.So, yes, everything is objective

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.

Please stop wasting everybody's time by repeating the same refuted nonsense over and over again. "Rate" is simply nonsensical to an infinite being. Period. Why can't omnipotence be divisible? And if division did end omnipotence, so what? Why can't something be omnipotent now and not omnipotent tomorrow? You mean subjective.

---

“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

Simple logical reality: if something cant be proved or disproven, then there are only two explainations.1. The thing in question is possible, but it is not discernable (i.e. it is possible that there is life on another planet, but it isnt discernable.)2. The thing in question isnt even accurately defined. This is illustrated in someone saying, "I know that something exists. I dont know anything about it, only that it can do so-and-so.". Its not even possible to know whether or not that thing likely exists or not, since there isnt any information to work with to deduce its plausibility. Itd be like me saying to you, "hey theres something in this box." You ask, "like what?" and I say, "thats not the point, I just want you to know it exists".With the example I just gave above: 1. How can you believe theres even anything in the box, 2. what do I mean by "anything", 3. what IS it, 4. am I just delusional?

An "infinite being" doesnt even make sense. But, even if it were possible to be an "infinite" being, no one has ever given me any reason to believe it actually exists, not just that its possible that it could exist. Just as I said in my last post

Another thing: of course "god" requires reason to believe in it, and "god" is not outside reason. Even saying that you believe in god, or that god is possible, requires reasoning to do.So, if "god" really were outside of reason, you could just go "bababafrefjdkjhforhnuofdhnonfdjasofhda" to someone else, and possibly express the idea of "god" since god is, after all, not reasonable.

TheNaturalist writes:
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????????? The point was, if god created another omnipotent being, there would be a creature god would be equal to, so he wouldnt be the "alpha" being of the universe.And heres something: if god did create another omnipotent being, then what if their rules that they made up(or whatever) conflicted each others'? Then, neither set of rules could be applied, since to do so would make one god favored over the other, which couldnt happen if theyre both omnipotent.And if this would happen, then neither god could apply ANY rules, making them both completely inept.

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.

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.What? Its the same thing, since just calling that "something" a name, such as "god", is the same as if I gave you the box and said, "here is a fhrdhrujhn".....so, just giving undefined entity a name doesnt mean any more than what my analogy would imply

Does any of this apply in another dimension?The bible says one day to God can be like a thousand years, what does that mean, and how can that be possible with the absolutes we have set on the universe/time/distance?You really think if we die, leave our body's, we are going to be in the same realm as now?You really think if God can speak the universe into existence, that any of these minuscule things apply to Him?You think an ant can describe/fathom how the Apollo rocket ship got to the moon?

duhhh it cant, its just an element of the made-up text of the bible. yeah duh, people just disintegrate and lack conciousness Thats one hell of a big assumption. "if god can speak...""minuscule"?! such rules are as fundamental as 2+2=4, since they are just data describing reality; if something moves a distance, then its movement of distance, compared to distance moved during that object's movement, of all other fundamental entities in the universe, is its rate. A claim of ignorance? And besides that, humans can describe things with accuracy, or if not, we can tell if we have described it with accuracy or not with experimentation. We rarely think of ideas(this applies to men/women of advanced sciences, not laypeople) as accurate unless they are accurate; though we know sometimes that we have not enough information to determine something.

Hi TheNaturalist Where I come from 2 + 2 = 22Have fun,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi TH, I don't get it I thought everybody knew that there was three in one.
God the Father.
God the Son.
God the Holy Spirit.All three agreeing in one but at the present accomplishing different things. Even though God the Father and God the Son are in Heaven and God the Holy Spirit is on Earth. They are still all together as they are all omnipotent=all powerful, and omnipresent=always present everywhere.So what is the problem that I am supposed to look for since there are three of them in one?Have fun,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

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.