Everybody wrote:As He is (conceptually) omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and we have no references as to what being any of those three are, our limited understanding breaks down how much of Him can be understood by us.
I can agree with that, EB. We can make assertions about God, in the hope of defining Him. But we cannot properly define the words we choose because they are by definition, undefinable. Infinity, for instance, cannot be understood in its entirety because we have no way in which to measure it. A complete description would go on, and on, and on....and on... Because of this, we have to make up words that represent the absolute, like perfect, forever, or all-powerful. And only through a similar word can we describe such a word. However, it is because we know that we cannot fully understand these words that we are able to use them, and use them correctly. What better way to define the undefinable than with an undefinable word?
Divebomb wrote:When you say "God cannot do something that is not true" you are begging the question. God must exist for him to do something "not true" - which causes the difficulty you are realizing in my argument. But if God does not exist, there is no one to do the impossible, therefore there is no conflict.
But the premise of your proof implies that we must assume God exists, at least within the context of your argument. In fact, the whole equation represents God. One side of the equation includes a value for God's qualities. I just threw a "1" in there simply because it has a positive value. On the other side of our hypothetical equation we have a valueless number "0". I must better explain the reason why this equation is wrong.
On the "God's qualities side", we have all the perfect, eternal, Godly words we can think of.
1 = ?
Now, the purpose of your equation is to assert a logical impossibilty to refute these qualities. In doing this you present an "impossible" situation, and place it on the other side of the equation.
1 = 0
Anyone who has taken a math class at any level should be able to see there is something wrong with this. Since the whole equation represents God, then God cannot exist with the qualities we give Him. And, by looking at this, I would have to agree.
This equation, however, remains incomplete. Because there are other things that God's qualities are capable of doing, besides the impossible. In fact, there is an infinite number of possibilities that must be included. Again, I use "1" to represent that infinite number. Understand that there may be an infinite number of impossibilities too, but 0 * infinity = 0.
1 = 1 + 0
Suddenly, God's existence looks reasonable again. When I say your proof is flawed, Divebomb, I should have said it was merely incomplete. Fill in the last necessary ingredient, and then your argument still does nothing to disprove or prove the existence of God, and we are back to where we started.
I stand by my assertion that I have yet to hear any reasonable argument that can deny God's existence. This, by no means, implies that I have heard a reasonable argument that proves God's existence. I do believe, however, that the proof can be seen, and is in fact seen by us every moment
we exist. It may simply be that because the infinite is so difficult to comprehend that we have such a difficult time seeing it.
I finish by saying that I do not really know anything, as many of you will probably readily agree to. I haven't read the "great minds" of our history. Heck, all I have managed to accomplish in this life is to flunk out of college three times (a grand total of four semesters of rarely attended classes--hopefully, my latest effort will fare better). Please do not take my words as a command to you to accept my words as truth. What I say is only a jumbled mass of thoughts that collect in my head like so much sediment in a river bend.