Refuting God

I'm bored so post your argument supporting God's existence, explaining what the argument is (you can be as detailed as you like) and I'll attempt to refute it. I look forward to reading some interesting arguments.

Famousdebater: My favorite ontological: to be all-powerful and not exist is contradictory.

admin: Wouldn't this be attempting to define God into existence?

Kohai: We can disprove that by looking at the opposite. Suppose there was an integer larger than 7 and smaller than 5. These two are contradictory, therefore we can say this integer does not exist. This is not by definition, but rather the contradiction is where the conclusion derives from.

admin: Well there are two ways we can look at a deity being omnipotent.

A- We can look at God as being all powerful, so he can break the laws of logic.

B - We can look at God as being all powerful within the laws of logic.

Definition A is contradictory so God cannot have this characteristic. This would open up a number of paradoxes, notably the paradox of whether or not God could make a rock that nobody (even he) couldn't lift and then lift it. If he is omnipotent he should have the power to make anything so if he can lift it he isn't omnipotent. But if he doesn't lift it he is also not omnipotent because he should be able to lift anything.

Therefore, God cannot be all powerful outside of the laws of logic.

If we take Definition B then God isn't really all powerful and your argument doesn't follow because he wouldn't be completely all powerful and would be restricted by logic which would refute this argument.

Famousdebater: Of course if God can break contradictions then he needn't exist to be all-powerful. So I'm happy to accept that even if it's burden pushing.

However notwithstanding that I don't see how your answer accounts for the alternative. Suppose by all-powerful I meant "able to do anything logically possible". Surely there remains a contradiction between that and nonexistence?

Famousdebater: If we take Definition B then God isn't really all powerful and your argument doesn't follow because he wouldn't be completely all powerful and would be restricted by logic which would refute this argument.
How would God not be all powerful because of this considering that you said that God can not break the laws of logic since that would be contradictory?

admin: Suppose by all-powerful I meant "able to do anything logically possible". Surely there remains a contradiction between that and nonexistence?

It's under your burden to prove why that's a contradiction. I can't see a contradiction. If you point one out I'll refute it.

Famousdebater: Sure. Logically, power measures something existing. Or put in reverse, something that does not exist has no power.

Bi0Hazard: How would God not be all powerful because of this considering that you said that God can not break the laws of logic since that would be contradictory?

Being truly omnipotent is not possible, correct. But that doesn't mean that the ability cannot exist figuratively. Let's assume that God doesn't exist. Does that mean that the entire concept of God doesn't exist? Of course not. The same goes to dragons and other mythological creatures. Whilst God could be all powerful within the laws of logic. He still has reached true omnipotence (even if that isn't possible).

A better analogy would be a flying human. You could say that a human is omnipotent based on your logic. We can't fly independently, jump incredibly high independently, comprehend the entire universe, time travel, etc. But you could just dismiss those as impossible for a human at the moment to do (which they are) and describe us as omnipotent because we can do everything that is possible for a human to do. The same applies to God. Just because it is impossible for God to be omnipotent, doesn't mean that he is completely all powerful.

admin: But the entire concept is hypothetical. We are discussing the existence of a hypothetical being that is hypothetically all powerful within the limits of logic. This hypothetical God could exist and could not exist.

Famousdebater: Hypothetically, if it has infinite power, it exists, right?

admin: No. If I say an infinitely powerful man exists on Earth he doesn't necessarily exist. It's only if he exists he has infinite power. If you disprove the existence of something that could exist and could have infinite power then that being that could exist and could have infinite power doesn't actually exist.

Famousdebater: I think the substantive answer you're giving is that power is defined by the quality of existence, not existence by power (it's hard to tell because you need commas lol). If so then you must assume a priori that God may not be omnipotent.

admin: I just realized that my previous post didn't really make sense, sorry, I was on my phone lol.

What I'm basically trying to get at is that we can come up with hypothetical about any infinitely power being but that doesn't mean that it exists. We're merely asserting that it exists.

If I said right now that I am infinitely powerful would you believe that I was? Based on the fact that it is supposedly contradictory for an omnipotent being to not exist?

I'm still not entirely sure I understand the contradiction. If a group of people assert that an infinitely powerful God exists, that doesn't mean it exists. All it means is that they've got this idea that an infinitely powerful being exists from a Holy Book or a revelation of some kind.

Famousdebater: There's a difference between it having to exist and you being that infinitely powerful being.

We are asserting it exists because it is infinitely powerful. You can claim ANYTHING is an assertion. 1+1=2? Assertion! And the reality is that logic itself can be challenged in this way making such a claim moot. I don't remember the revelation where God discussed ontology with his chosen people but I guess that's another topic.

To be clear then it is not because I asserted that it must be so, that it must be so. The logic is that God is infinitely powerful, to say God does not exist would mean he was not infinitely powerful, therefore God must exist. You can deny this on the grounds that you don't think God is infinitely powerful (or moot that claim) as I think you tried to get at earlier, or that it is possible somehow to have real power, let alone infinite amounts of it, without existing.

admin: We are asserting it exists because it is infinitely powerful.

Well that's a ridiculous argument. How can you justify the existence of a hypothetical infinitely powerful being by saying that it exists because it is hypothetically infinitely powerful. You are saying that a thing exists because it has a certain characteristic. It only has to exist if it does exist which is a pointless argument to make. If it actually is all powerful then it has to exist. But if it doesn't exist then it cannot be all powerful, even if we thought that it was all powerful before.

You can claim ANYTHING is an assertion.

True, though that wasn't the point I was trying to get across. The point is that all we're doing is saying that this hypothetical being exists. Even if we say that it is infinitely powerful that doesn't bring this being into existence. All it means is that we've come up with an idea for something that powerful.

The logic is that God is infinitely powerful, to say God does not exist would mean he was not infinitely powerful, therefore God must exist.

I disagree with the first premise. It isn't phrased correctly to stand. It should be like this:

P1: God may exist and may be infinitely powerful.
P2: To say God does not exist would mean he would not be infinitely powerful.
C1: Therefore, God exists.

The reason that C1 fails to uphold is because of the "may" in P1. If he actually was infinitely powerful, then sure that would work. But the point is that God is hypothetical. He doesn't necessarily exist and so if we have two possibilities. Either God exists or God doesn't exist. Let's create 2 syllogisms based on the two possibilities.

Syllogism 1:

P1: An omnipotent God doesn't exist.
P2: To say that this nonexistent omnipotent God doesn't exist would mean he isn't infinitely powerful.
C1: Therefore this God that doesn't exist, exists.

The fallacy is obvious here. So if an all powerful God doesn't exist, it isn't fallacious.

Syllogism 2:

P1: An omnipotent God exists.
P2: To say that God does not exist would mean that he would not be omnipotent.
C1: Therefore God exists.

This makes sense. But the reason it makes sense is because God exists so the argument is pretty much invalid. This can only prove that God exists if it is a known fact that an omnipotent God exists. But if this were the case then an omnipotent God's existence wouldn't need to be proven.

Famousdebater: hypothetically infinitely powerful. You are saying that a thing exists because it has a certain characteristic.
These are two different positions for the reason I stated above. I'm certain you're defending that God may not actually be infinitely powerful. In that case are you really refuting God or a different concept? You or I "may or may not be infinitely powerful", so it kinda moots the whole question of what God is.

admin: Okay, you define what kind of God you are trying to prove and I'll refute the argument based on that.

Famousdebater: Suppose we prove that something must be infinitely powerful