I agree that the exists versus does not exist debate is quite stupid. However, those trying to claim that God does exist every single time without fail also claim that he has done certain things, and that he continues to do certain things, and in the future he will do even more certain things. And when those things are debated, evidence and lack thereof is examined, and the believer runs out of ways to try to prove that their god does things, the believer falls back on the inarguable statement of "well he exists, I have faith he exists, and you can't prove he doesn't." It is the failing of atheists in these debates that they try to argue that point, because it is essentially the end of a rational discussion. Its better to just point out that they have agreed that there's no evidence of their god's actions, so if he exists then he doesn't do anything and therefore it doesn't matter at all one way or the other. Then its up to the believer again to find another bit of evidence of their god's actions, and everyone can have a debate about that all over again. That's why evolution vs. creation matters so much to so many people, because if creation in the religious sense could be proven true, then they would have evidence of their god's actions.
You aren't conceding the argument, but rather admitting that there are some things that can not be explained in rational discussion. Is the evolution/creation debate really still going on? Most sane people understand how evolution works and all evidence leads to it. Except maybe people who take the Bible to always be true, and we all know those people are "not all there".
Rational people are a very rare thing indeed. Especially here in America. We will end up destroying the world because we think God wills it. it's quite sad really.
I don't think we need too. Despite losing my train of thought during the downtime I think there is a better arguement for that. The creation of a square circle is meaningless without me. That is to say, that if god did create a square circle so that it were only imaginable in a different existence or in his mind it's pointless. Like I've been saying, logic is descriptive but who is it describing too? That would be us, the creators of logic. God would have to make a square circle logical to us, not in an alternate existence, not within his mind, within ours. If you still need a set of rules, just use the logical absolutes that are already laid down. A can not be not A and A at the same time, square circles, etc. Understand that all the points along a circle must be of exact distance and the definition of a square is four right angles at an equal distance apart. Add right angles to a circle means that some points are farther than others and the idea of a circle even having a corner makes it not a circle. Personally, I don't think omnipotence means omnipotence. God cannot create himself and did not create himself and could not create existence, though, he can destroy all these things he cannot create them. If god can indeed be limited by this then I see no reason why we can't limit him once more with logical absolutes. >> Oh and I made a mess-up. When I said that existence was a property I was mistaken, it is not a property. I was just rereading my posts and I was all like, "woah, you can't do that!" I cheated, what can you do, though (besides ridicule)? At least I pointed it out instead of you, it saved my integrity and self-respect . Existence has properties but is not a property itself. We can keep going, I think what I've said would pertain to any god but in particular you protect the Christian god would be easier for my side. Regardless of whether its the Christian god or not, wouldn't the very nature of being a god be to exist forever? Give me more examples of nature following function so I can better understand your side. Logic isn't exclusively descriptive. It is prescriptive in how it gives us a way to think. A way to structure our minds as to think properly about the universe. You have such a childish way of understanding logic (not an insult) in that you think that I think that because we cannot fly that nothing can fly, which, is not the case. Logic is not prescribing existence, as in, I cannot conceive a square circle therefore god cannot. It is descriptive in that we note square circles cannot be created. It's not that because we can't, god can't it is because existence does not allow for it. Logic is a reflection, if you will, of existence but it is also only in our heads. The universe does not govern itself through logic. The universe behaves the way it behaves and our perceptions and logical followings are all descriptions of the universe we observe. So when I say god cannot make a square circle I am not prescribing god to follow my way of thinking, I'm describing what the universe and existence allows and if god is indeed extant then he must follow the rules of existence for the reasons described in previous posts. This is what was irrelevant: "If he doesn't, existence still can so long as there is something to be existing but that's irrelevant." Everything else needs a response. I know you are not debating the christian god so put a strike through that and respond to the arguement as god always being there and if he wasn't why do you call him god? Killing is not the same as logical absolutes. Its an absolute for a reason. This post is pretty much answered in my response to yavi above. If not, please explain why or what you disagree with.
Nitrous (I really should've condensed your post), I do agree with your side. I just wanted to play the devil's advocate for god (no pun/irony/whatever else intended). I think I am going to give it a rest and leave this to the professional debaters. I have to save my mind for some real stuff right now (AKA tests, projects, etc.). I have been losing the ability to truly follow my own statements, but all in all, when I get some stuff done, I hope to hop back in this. I would just like to point out that the square arguement makes sense, but I would adivse against using the "A" example as any linguist will point out an A sound if that is what you are referring to could be made many different ways. If you mean the symbol, there are many symbols for the letter A in other cultures, so your statement does not necessarily hold true for that example. Otherwise, go strong young one (yonger by one year I guess) and defeat all those who opposeth thou with pure wit and reason.
Treat A like a variable and not a sound or symbol. A can be the universe, an atom, you, me, or anything you can possibly imagine. Just replace A with a physical object. "Can god make a dog not a dog and a dog at the same time?" Thanks for your time yavi. It was a lot of fun discussing this with you.
the ansewr is no because it is dependent on perseption god could recreate the world where a circle is calle a square or vice versa god= someone that can do anything (inmovable object) make a circle a square at the same time= something that can't be done (unstoppable force) what happens when someone that can do anything can't do somethin what happens when an inmoveable object is hit by an unstoppable force nothing because it doesnt happen one side would give leaving it to be falsely named
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270
like raident said, we cant have a square circle because a square is something we call with 4 straight sides to make a 2d box. A circle has no sides. Its not that he (i'm not going to capitalize it) couldn't make a square circle its just that something can't have both those characteristics. They negate each other. So in order to have both in one he would have had to gone out of his way to do something impossible for no point.