Refuting God

admin: Suppose we prove that something must be infinitely powerful

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are we assuming that this hypothetical deity is all powerful within the laws of logic and reason?

Famousdebater: As I said earlier, if you ignore logic then the question of whether God exists or not ceases to be relevant. Therefore I'm happy to accept logic in this discussion.

admin: I still get the feeling that there's going to be some contention over what God is but I'll refute this again now.

Here's my argument in the form of a premise (p) / a potential conclusion (pc) structure:

P1: God is defined as an all powerful being who has infinite power within the laws of logic.
P2: God may or may not exist.
PC1: God exists and is all powerful within the laws of logic.
PC2: God doesn't exist.

There doesn't seem to be any problem here. If God doesn't exist then he isn't all powerful. In order for God's omnipotence to actually exist, God needs to exist. Without God existing then his omnipotence doesn't exist either. If his omnipotence doesn't exist when God doesn't exist then your original problem of an omnipotent God not being able to exist is invalid.

Famousdebater: So either a non-all powerful being doesn't exist, or an all-powerful being does? I'm not sure that's logically exclusive.

Famousdebater: Being truly omnipotent is not possible, correct.
That point is what I was wondering about.
You said God is not omnipotent since God can't do the impossible. How does that make God not omnipotent?
Being omnipotent is being the greatest possible being.

admin: All your argument is prove that God must exist if he exists. All it does is conclude that God may exist or may not exist. The point of this thread is for me to refute arguments affirming God's existence.

Bi0Hazard: It depends on how you define omnipotent. If we go by the definition:

Omnipotent: the characteristic of being all powerful within and outside of the laws of logic.

Then God isn't omnipotent. If you remove "and outside of the laws of logic" then God can be omnipotent. But that still doesn't affirm God's existence. It merely shows that this one characteristic isn't contradictory.

Famousdebater: There's a difference between "if he exists" and "if he is omnipotent".

admin: If he exists then I have no problem with conceding that he is omnipotent. But if he doesn't exist then he isn't omnipotent because he doesn't exist. So therefore, God can not exist and also been described as being omnipotent if he did exist.

Famousdebater: So then we're not arguing about whether an omnipotent being exists. We're arguing over whether something is all-powerful, whether it exists or not. Because if something is all powerful you concede it must exist, right?

admin: We are discussing the existence of something that could be all powerful if it existed.

P1: If God exists then he is all powerful.
P2: God doesn't exist.
C1: God is not all powerful.

And if God does exist:

P1: If God exists then he is all powerful.
P2: God exists.
C1: God is all powerful.

So all you've told me is that if God exists he is all powerful. But that isn't the purpose of the thread. The purpose of the thread is to provide arguments in support of God's existence. Whilst you claim that this argument presents a contradiction for God not to exist, I still fail to see it based on the two syllogisms.

Famousdebater: Reframe that so existence is the conclusion not the premise. We're trying to establish the quality of existence here not assume it.

So it's that could exist if it was all-powerful, not that could be all-powerful if it existed.

admin: Are you trying to say this?

P1: God is omnipotent if God exists.
P2: If God is omnipotent he can't not exist.
C1: Therefore God exists

Famousdebater: The only actual "proof" of Gods existence is the Bible. If we believe the Bible is a true account then we must also believe that God is neither Omnipotent, Omniscient,Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent nor Allpowerful. Why?. Because the Bible tells us so. Does God exist?. I personally do not believe but if He does He has feet of clay.

Polymath: The only actual "proof" of Gods existence is the Bible.
No, it is a collection of ancient texts, not a scientific test.
If we believe the Bible is a true account then we must also believe that God is neither Omnipotent, Omniscient,Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent nor Allpowerful. Why?. Because the Bible tells us so.
You mistakenly added the word "neither" in there.
Does God exist?. I personally do not believe but if He does He has feet of clay.
Official "proof" that you don't know what "God" even is.

Famousdebater: Then God isn't omnipotent. If you remove "and outside of the laws of logic" then God can be omnipotent.
This isn't even about "laws of logic", the laws of logic (by definition) go without saying.

Bi0Hazard: his isn't even about "laws of logic", the laws of logic (by definition) go without saying.

Exactly. That's my point. Some people argue that God is "beyond the laws of logic" which is absurd.

I invite you to check out my debate on debate.org titled "God definitely does not exist, and the agnostic view is wrong."

boris7698: You should add a link to it

boris7698: Here's a direct link: http://www.debate.org/debates/God-definitely-does-not-exist-and-the-agnostic-view-is-wrong./1/

I have also started a similar debate with a religionist, and I will post a link to it when it completes.