God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

azulmagia

The problems with the viability of the concept of omnipotence are wll known; those of omniscience, not so much. This goes so far as to concern us with the definitions of these concepts. Neither of these are very well defined concepts, to be honest.

Given certain of these definitions, however, it's easy enough to demonstrate that such a God doesn't exist. For example, God's knowing the future would seem to contradict his omnipotence (he cannot change such a future, etc.)

There is one such treatment here. And another, with quotes showing that the Bible can be used to refute the idea that the Christian God is a God of the "omnis".

He can know the future, even if he isn't the one who chooses it. cool

He knows what everyone will do, how they think, how they will act etc.

[Blood Valkyrie]

The question itself is flawed.

[azulmagia]

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

The problems with the viability of the concept of omnipotence are wll known; those of omniscience, not so much. This goes so far as to concern us with the definitions of these concepts. Neither of these are very well defined concepts, to be honest.

Given certain of these definitions, however, it's easy enough to demonstrate that such a God doesn't exist. For example, God's knowing the future would seem to contradict his omnipotence (he cannot change such a future, etc.)

There is one such treatment here. And another, with quotes showing that the Bible can be used to refute the idea that the Christian God is a God of the "omnis".

He can know the future, even if he isn't the one who chooses it. cool

He knows what everyone will do, how they think, how they will act etc.

He who when you are sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows when you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness' sakes!

Oh wait, wrong imaginary figure. cool

[Suicidesoldier#1]

azulmagia

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

The problems with the viability of the concept of omnipotence are wll known; those of omniscience, not so much. This goes so far as to concern us with the definitions of these concepts. Neither of these are very well defined concepts, to be honest.

Given certain of these definitions, however, it's easy enough to demonstrate that such a God doesn't exist. For example, God's knowing the future would seem to contradict his omnipotence (he cannot change such a future, etc.)

There is one such treatment here. And another, with quotes showing that the Bible can be used to refute the idea that the Christian God is a God of the "omnis".

He can know the future, even if he isn't the one who chooses it. cool

He knows what everyone will do, how they think, how they will act etc.

He who when you are sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows when you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness' sakes!

Oh wait, wrong imaginary figure. cool

But unless you can prove it's imaginary, it's all conjecture. cool

But uh, that didn't seem wrong at all; God hypothetically does all those things too, on Christmas too.

[azulmagia]

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

The problems with the viability of the concept of omnipotence are wll known; those of omniscience, not so much. This goes so far as to concern us with the definitions of these concepts. Neither of these are very well defined concepts, to be honest.

Given certain of these definitions, however, it's easy enough to demonstrate that such a God doesn't exist. For example, God's knowing the future would seem to contradict his omnipotence (he cannot change such a future, etc.)

There is one such treatment here. And another, with quotes showing that the Bible can be used to refute the idea that the Christian God is a God of the "omnis".

He can know the future, even if he isn't the one who chooses it. cool

He knows what everyone will do, how they think, how they will act etc.

He who when you are sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows when you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness' sakes!

Oh wait, wrong imaginary figure. cool

But unless you can prove it's imaginary, it's all conjecture. cool

But uh, that didn't seem wrong at all; God hypothetically does all those things too, on Christmas too.

(A) You're confused where the burden of proof lies in this case.

(B) I think the links I gave do a well-enough job of doing exactly that.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

azulmagia

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

The problems with the viability of the concept of omnipotence are wll known; those of omniscience, not so much. This goes so far as to concern us with the definitions of these concepts. Neither of these are very well defined concepts, to be honest.

Given certain of these definitions, however, it's easy enough to demonstrate that such a God doesn't exist. For example, God's knowing the future would seem to contradict his omnipotence (he cannot change such a future, etc.)

There is one such treatment here. And another, with quotes showing that the Bible can be used to refute the idea that the Christian God is a God of the "omnis".

He can know the future, even if he isn't the one who chooses it. cool

He knows what everyone will do, how they think, how they will act etc.

He who when you are sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows when you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness' sakes!

Oh wait, wrong imaginary figure. cool

But unless you can prove it's imaginary, it's all conjecture. cool

But uh, that didn't seem wrong at all; God hypothetically does all those things too, on Christmas too.

(A) You're confused where the burden of proof lies in this case.

(B) I think the links I gave do a well-enough job of doing exactly that.

Ahh, but you made a claim, that they were imaginary. When you make a claim, no matter for what side you support, you have to provide evidence for it. Even if that's for non-existence; case in point, if I said aliens don't exist, or cats, or racecars, I'd need to prove it, and be wrong if I did not. Not making any beliefs or statements, such as "I don't know" or "there could be" is different from a declarative one.

Also, sauce is nice, but unless it's apple, I'm not buying it. It's an argument of words, not facts, and without hard facts, it's just posturing.

[Silent Mule Man]

If God is anything at all, then God exists. Being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent have nothing to do with it. You could ask the same question while describing God as being two feet tall with an afro growing out of five separate assholes and get the same answer.

[azulmagia]

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

The problems with the viability of the concept of omnipotence are wll known; those of omniscience, not so much. This goes so far as to concern us with the definitions of these concepts. Neither of these are very well defined concepts, to be honest.

Given certain of these definitions, however, it's easy enough to demonstrate that such a God doesn't exist. For example, God's knowing the future would seem to contradict his omnipotence (he cannot change such a future, etc.)

There is one such treatment here. And another, with quotes showing that the Bible can be used to refute the idea that the Christian God is a God of the "omnis".

He can know the future, even if he isn't the one who chooses it. cool

He knows what everyone will do, how they think, how they will act etc.

He who when you are sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows when you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness' sakes!

Oh wait, wrong imaginary figure. cool

But unless you can prove it's imaginary, it's all conjecture. cool

But uh, that didn't seem wrong at all; God hypothetically does all those things too, on Christmas too.

(A) You're confused where the burden of proof lies in this case.

(B) I think the links I gave do a well-enough job of doing exactly that.

Ahh, but you made a claim, that they were imaginary. When you make a claim, no matter for what side you support, you have to provide evidence for it. Even if that's for non-existence; case in point, if I said aliens don't exist, or cats, or racecars, I'd need to prove it, and be wrong if I did not. Not making any beliefs or statements, such as "I don't know" or "there could be" is different from a declarative one.

Also, sauce is nice, but unless it's apple, I'm not buying it. It's an argument of words, not facts, and without hard facts, it's just posturing.

Prove it? Try ******** defining it first.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

azulmagia

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

He who when you are sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows when you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness' sakes!

Oh wait, wrong imaginary figure. cool

But unless you can prove it's imaginary, it's all conjecture. cool

But uh, that didn't seem wrong at all; God hypothetically does all those things too, on Christmas too.

(A) You're confused where the burden of proof lies in this case.

(B) I think the links I gave do a well-enough job of doing exactly that.

Ahh, but you made a claim, that they were imaginary. When you make a claim, no matter for what side you support, you have to provide evidence for it. Even if that's for non-existence; case in point, if I said aliens don't exist, or cats, or racecars, I'd need to prove it, and be wrong if I did not. Not making any beliefs or statements, such as "I don't know" or "there could be" is different from a declarative one.

Also, sauce is nice, but unless it's apple, I'm not buying it. It's an argument of words, not facts, and without hard facts, it's just posturing.

Prove it? Try ******** defining it first.

You tell me what you defined it as. cool

[Silent Mule Man]

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

He who when you are sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows when you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness' sakes!

Oh wait, wrong imaginary figure. cool

But unless you can prove it's imaginary, it's all conjecture. cool

But uh, that didn't seem wrong at all; God hypothetically does all those things too, on Christmas too.

(A) You're confused where the burden of proof lies in this case.

(B) I think the links I gave do a well-enough job of doing exactly that.

Ahh, but you made a claim, that they were imaginary. When you make a claim, no matter for what side you support, you have to provide evidence for it. Even if that's for non-existence; case in point, if I said aliens don't exist, or cats, or racecars, I'd need to prove it, and be wrong if I did not. Not making any beliefs or statements, such as "I don't know" or "there could be" is different from a declarative one.

Also, sauce is nice, but unless it's apple, I'm not buying it. It's an argument of words, not facts, and without hard facts, it's just posturing.

Prove it? Try ******** defining it first.

You tell me what you defined it as. cool

God - a nonexistent entity conceived in order to achieve certain ends with no resemblance to anything that does exist. God.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Silent Mule Man

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

(A) You're confused where the burden of proof lies in this case.

(B) I think the links I gave do a well-enough job of doing exactly that.

Ahh, but you made a claim, that they were imaginary. When you make a claim, no matter for what side you support, you have to provide evidence for it. Even if that's for non-existence; case in point, if I said aliens don't exist, or cats, or racecars, I'd need to prove it, and be wrong if I did not. Not making any beliefs or statements, such as "I don't know" or "there could be" is different from a declarative one.

Also, sauce is nice, but unless it's apple, I'm not buying it. It's an argument of words, not facts, and without hard facts, it's just posturing.

Prove it? Try ******** defining it first.

You tell me what you defined it as. cool

God - a nonexistent entity conceived in order to achieve certain ends with no resemblance to anything that does exist. God.

But can you prove that?

[Silent Mule Man]

Suicidesoldier#1

Silent Mule Man

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

(A) You're confused where the burden of proof lies in this case.

(B) I think the links I gave do a well-enough job of doing exactly that.

Ahh, but you made a claim, that they were imaginary. When you make a claim, no matter for what side you support, you have to provide evidence for it. Even if that's for non-existence; case in point, if I said aliens don't exist, or cats, or racecars, I'd need to prove it, and be wrong if I did not. Not making any beliefs or statements, such as "I don't know" or "there could be" is different from a declarative one.

Also, sauce is nice, but unless it's apple, I'm not buying it. It's an argument of words, not facts, and without hard facts, it's just posturing.

Prove it? Try ******** defining it first.

You tell me what you defined it as. cool

God - a nonexistent entity conceived in order to achieve certain ends with no resemblance to anything that does exist. God.

But can you prove that?

No, no, no. We were trying to prove the existence of God based on a definition, as opposed to proving that any given definition was accurate. Which is why you shouldn't have been so keen to kick the ball into his court.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Silent Mule Man

Suicidesoldier#1

Silent Mule Man

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

Prove it? Try ******** defining it first.

You tell me what you defined it as. cool

God - a nonexistent entity conceived in order to achieve certain ends with no resemblance to anything that does exist. God.

But can you prove that?

No, no, no. We were trying to prove the existence of God based on a definition, as opposed to proving that any given definition was accurate. Which is why you shouldn't have been so keen to kick the ball into his court.

If you define God to be some alternative thing, say a sandwich, or a cat, and then based on that you decide to prove it's wrong, then you're a loony, and detract from the issue that you were trying to isolate a Christian God, or Hindu or what have you.

Then, I have already won, because you look stupid. That is scientific fact.


Of course, I look stupid too, BUT, because that's a plus to my image, being stupid or smart, no matter what I do, it's always a positive thing.

Unless I look like an a*****e, that starts to detract from things. But it's a price that sometimes must be paid. emotion_donotwant

[Silent Mule Man]

Suicidesoldier#1

If you define God to be some alternative thing, say a sandwich, or a cat, and then based on that you decide to prove it's wrong, then you're a loony, and detract from the issue that you were trying to isolate a Christian God, or Hindu or what have you.

You're gonna have to explain how this detracts from the issue. I simply don't see it. This entire line of argument is loony to begin with.

Suicidesoldier#1

Then, I have already won, because you look stupid. That is scientific fact.

It's not scientific until it's been confirmed in multiple studies.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Silent Mule Man

Suicidesoldier#1

If you define God to be some alternative thing, say a sandwich, or a cat, and then based on that you decide to prove it's wrong, then you're a loony, and detract from the issue that you were trying to isolate a Christian God, or Hindu or what have you.

You're gonna have to explain how this detracts from the issue. I simply don't see it. This entire line of argument is loony to begin with.

Exactly.

However, the point is, if you define God to mean your own made up thing and then prove that wrong, you haven't actually proven that God doesn't exist. You've just proven that your tailored definition can fit along with your argument, which has no bearing on the real world. In lay man's terms, it's known as a straw man argument.

In the standing man's argument, it's called "Bully day!"

Suicidesoldier#1

Then, I have already won, because you look stupid. That is scientific fact.

It's not scientific until it's been confirmed in multiple studies.

Sorry, I edited my post above.*