Augusto vs. Mooby: God Does Not Exist

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Hey everyone!

Augusto and I are here to discuss the non-existence of God.  As Augusto writes, "I believe I can actually prove God's non existence."  My position, then, will be the opposite: "Augusto cannot prove God's non-existence in this discussion."  Consequently, I do not intend to extend any formal proofs for the existence of God as the basis of my position, though of course we may touch upon historical examples at some point.

At the outset of our discussion, it is not quite clear to me the scope of what Augusto intends to argue.  Is he intending to disprove all supernatural deities ever described by man, an extremely narrow view of God as described by a specific religious denomination, or somewhere in-between?

I expect that we will get this nailed down within the first few posts, and I am excited to see what arguments Augusto presents.

[Augusto]

So, let's draw some sort of concept for God before starting so we don't fall in this:

"One could not speak of God's existence, or even the probability of God's existence, since the concept itself was unverifiable and thus nonsensical".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

I agree, Augusto. What concept of God do you intend to disprove?

[Augusto]

Actually, my whole argument relies in the imposibility of creating an objective concept of God. I mean: How can you think about the possibility of the existence of something you cannot even describe?

Naming "God" the first cause (the one who created the universe) is random, to say the least.

So, how can you have a word so empty in its meaning? The only place such word have some weight is in religion, but outside of that, there is no place for the word "God".

So, if you wish, you can try to give it a try at building a concept... if you can't, then... I guess it's over.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

So, if you wish, you can try to give it a try at building a concept... if you can't, then... I guess it's over.

Augusto, allow me to remind you of your initial challenge:

I have been thinking, and I believe I can actually prove God's non existence. For that porpouse I would like to challenge someone to a formal debate. Basically this person only need to find a way to counter argue my reasons

If your entire argument is that you cannot provide reasons until I do something, then it appears that my best strategy is to do absolutely nothing.  Because then you will have supplied zero reasons, and I will be able to claim that I have successfully countered every reason you have thrown at me.

Actually, my whole argument relies in the imposibility of creating an objective concept of God. I mean: How can you think about the possibility of the existence of something you cannot even describe?

I cannot describe several theorems of modern physics, but I do not discount the possibility that they are true.  As the popular joke goes, "Nobody understands quantum mechanics[nb]Richard Feynman, in The Character of Physical Law (1965)[/nb]," but that does not stop physicists from studying it and, yes, even postulating that it exists.

Of course, you may argue that the fact that these are current fields implies at least partial understanding of them, but that is not really my point.  Were dinosaurs subject to the laws of gravity millions of years before Newton defined the law of universal gravitation?  Of course.  Did magnetism exist before we defined north and south poles?  Definitely.  Did natural selection occur before Darwin defined it?  Absolutely.  Did Pluto magically morph from one thing into another when we redefined it from "planet" to "dwarf planet?"  Of course not.  Thus, the reality of things as they exist is not dependent on the words humans use--or fail to use--to describe them. 

Therefore, whether or not God exists is independent of whether or not God is defined.  Therefore, hiding behind ignosticism offers no evidence for or against the existence of God.  Therefore, by using ignosticism you fail to meet the goalpost you have set for yourself[nb]"I can actually prove God's non existence"[/nb].  This supports my previous assertion that by doing nothing in the face of ignosticism, I will fulfill my obligation of preventing you from proving God's non-existence.

Going further, you start by saying that defining "God" is impossible[nb]"my whole argument relies in the imposibility of creating an objective concept of God"[/nb], but then you go on to claim that this impossibility is contingent on what I can do[nb]"if you can't, then... I guess it's over."[/nb].  I can assure you that there are many, many things that I am currently unable to do on-demand that have been successfully done at some point by at least one person of the ~100 billion people who have ever lived.  For instance, I could not shoot a full-court basket today if you challenged me, but there is video evidence of such a feat being done.  Therefore, my inability to do something is not evidence that said thing is impossible.  Therefore, my inability to construct an objective concept of God is not evidence that defining God is impossible.

That being said, the great thing about definitions is that the person making the definition is free to construct it in any way she or he likes.  If you'd like, I could define God in such a way that it would be impossible for you to disprove Him.  And then we would see whether you are asserting that defining God is impossible vs. whether you think it is impossible for me to provide a definition with which you, Augusto, will personally agree.  And if you disagree, we can discuss whether your rejection of my definition implies that you actually do have a concept of how God should be defined.

Therefore,
- Because definitions do not control reality
- Because my inability to do something is not evidence that something is impossible
- Because I actually can provide a definition of God
- Because disagreeing with me that I can provide a definition of God means that you can provide a partial definition of God

I conclude:
- Your allegation that God cannot be defined does not hold water
- Your allegation that God cannot be defined is irrelevant to whether God actually exists

[Augusto]

See... natural selection, magnetism and other things you mentioned existed before men knew they existed, but a concept appeared to take care of a system or phenomena after it was observed. Is not like God... the origin of such idea is related to fear and society (and is way older than judaism), not to the big bang.

The problem with the FACT that there is no agreement in a concept for God is simple: every single piece of argument in favor for His existence is NOT, not it can be, scientific.

So... from the beginning, it was necessary to point at this fact: I'm not trying to disprove a science theory, not even an hypothesis. There is absolutely NO WEIGHT in the "argument" "God might be real", because it's a maleable / unshaped idea that could be attributed to some phenomena that could be discovered in the future... for example, some people claim God is the Universe or the Big Bang.

If we are to discuss the impossibility to coin the name to something that might appear in the future (from a mental disease to the origin of energy or whatever), well, I'm sure someone will do that eventually, but that does NOT mean God exists... it was just a name that will probably be coined to something, just because people doesn't want to get ride of it.

Well, there is "The Eye of God" already, and other things like that.

---

Here is a wiki concept that compiles a few characteristics of God:

God is often conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.[1] In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. In deism, God is the creator (but not the sustainer) of the universe. In pantheism, God is the universe itself. The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. Monotheism is the belief in the existence of one God or in the oneness of God. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the greatest conceivable existent.

You can start from there if you like or offer your own view on a concept. I assume there are a few characteristics we might NEED in order to be able to call him God, like:
- Conscious
- Alive
- Eternal
- Intelligent
- Creator

Or we might be talking of a dumb energy that came from a different dimention and vanished/died during the Big Bang... we can call it God, but if we get there, I would be pretty happy with the result of this debate.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

See... natural selection, magnetism and other things you mentioned existed before men knew they existed, but a concept appeared to take care of a system or phenomena after it was observed. Is not like God... the origin of such idea is related to fear and society (and is way older than judaism), not to the big bang.

First off, gravity and magnetism had magic as their original explanations, which gave way to the occult in the Newton era[nb]http://www.systemicsblog.com/en/2013/history_of_electromagnetic_theory[/nb].  Furthermore, the Big Bang was initially proposed as "the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation" and was described by Einstein as "he most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened," followed by a Church declaration in 1951 that it was scientific evidence of the existence of God[nb]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre[/nb].  Via the principle, "If the origin of something does not match our current perception of it, then said thing is disproven," should we consider gravity, magnetism, and the big bang theory to be disproven?

Secondly, please prove that "God... the origin of such idea is related to fear and society."

The problem with the FACT that there is no agreement in a concept for God

Since it is a "FACT," please provide evidence that no two people in the history of the world have ever agreed on a concept of God.

every single piece of argument in favor for His existence is NOT, not it can be, scientific.

I don't recall making the claim that every argument in favor of God's existence is expressly scientific.  Perhaps you would be better off discussing with a person who does make that claim, which amounts to almost nobody.

There is absolutely NO WEIGHT in the "argument" "God might be real"

That may be so, but your stated goal for this thread was not to show that the arguments for God are wrong.  Your stated goal was to show that God does not exist.  Failure to prove God's existence is not the same as proving God's non-existence.

If we are to discuss the impossibility to coin the name to something that might appear in the future (from a mental disease to the origin of energy or whatever), well, I'm sure someone will do that eventually, but that does NOT mean God exists...

I'm not trying to establish that God exists.  Per your own words:

there is no need to prove God's existence

You're not arguing that it hasn't been proven that God exists.  You're arguing that God doesn't exist, remember?  You said it right here:

I believe I can actually prove God's non existence.

Here is a wiki concept that compiles a few characteristics of God:

God is often conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.[1] In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. In deism, God is the creator (but not the sustainer) of the universe. In pantheism, God is the universe itself. The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. Monotheism is the belief in the existence of one God or in the oneness of God. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the greatest conceivable existent.

I am only qualified to discuss a theistic deity with you.  If you have a different one in mind for your disproof, you will need to find an adherent of that faith for this discussion.

You can start from there if you like or offer your own view on a concept.

You want my definition?  Oh, no, we're starting from scratch, then.

My first proposed definition of "God" is, "The set of all things that cannot be disproven."

Do you accept this definition?

[Augusto]

LOL @ your definition.

You did make some good points tho; let's see...

- Nice stuff with the gravity and magnetism. I agree with that.
- You request proof that there is no agreement / concensus = check Wikipedia.
- I'm simply showing the emptiness / lack of objetivity / lack of consensus of the idea of God. If I come up with "4t43#@??~@" and I say it's real, you would want to know what that is and why I'm saying it's real. "God" is nothing but 3 letters and there is no substance behind those letters in the scientific area. Simple enough. If I show you 20 people giving different concepts toward "4t43#@??~@", you'll be forced to assume the logical conclusion that those people are talking about something IMAGINARY, which is also the case of God.
- Since you're admiting to be qualified to discuss a theistic idea of God, I'll take the Catholic cloudy idea of God as a base for this discussion. Let's start with one of the classic attributes... "Omnipotent": The idea of omnipotency have been proven to be an absurd by itself; for example, no so called omnipotent being is capable of creating a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it... because if he cannot lift it, then he is NOT omnipotent; and if he cannot create it, he is NOT omnipotent either = the religious concept of God is obviously not based in logic or science... it looks like something that cannot exist outside of human imagination, just like "Perfection" is not logically possible, another attribute of God.

For a longer explanation of the falacy behind God's religious attributes, check this article:

http://www.skeptic.ca/Impossibility_Arguments_for_God.htm

CONCLUSION: Since there is no evidence, no agreement and no logic behind the idea you're embracing... God is IMAGINARY.

By definition, Imaginary = False / Not real.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

- You request proof that there is no agreement / concensus = check Wikipedia.

http://www.wikipedia.org/

I see nothing on this page concerning that.

- I'm simply showing the emptiness / lack of objetivity / lack of consensus of the idea of God. If I come up with "4t43#@??~@" and I say it's real, you would want to know what that is and why I'm saying it's real.

Correct.

"God" is nothing but 3 letters and there is no substance behind those letters in the scientific area.

Again, who is suggesting that God has substance "in the scientific area?"

Simple enough. If I show you 20 people giving different concepts toward "4t43#@??~@", you'll be forced to assume the logical conclusion that those people are talking about something IMAGINARY, which is also the case of God.

No, I would not be forced to make such an obviously faulty assumption.  I would be free to make many different assumptions, and would likely assume that these people simply do not agree.

Also, let me remind you once again that your stated purpose of the thread was not to prove that you, Augusto, personally have assumed that God is imaginary.  Your stated purpose was to prove that God does not exist.  Those are two very different things.

- Since you're admiting to be qualified to discuss a theistic idea of God, I'll take the Catholic cloudy idea of God as a base for this discussion.

That is fine with me.

Let's start with one of the classic attributes... "Omnipotent": The idea of omnipotency have been proven to be an absurd by itself; for example, no so called omnipotent being is capable of creating a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it... because if he cannot lift it, then he is NOT omnipotent

Before I respond to this, which one(s) of the five standard conceptions of omnipotence are you attempting to refute?

the religious concept of God is obviously not based in logic or science

Again, where is this group of hypothetical believers you are arguing against who believe God is strictly based in science?  It seems to me that you are trying to disprove a deity that no one (or very few) actually follows.

For a longer explanation of the falacy behind God's religious attributes, check this article:

http://www.skeptic.ca/Impossibility_Arguments_for_God.htm

Ok, I have read it.  Now what?

CONCLUSION: Since there is no evidence, no agreement and no logic behind the idea you're embracing... God is IMAGINARY.

Let's take these one at a time:

Evidence - As I touched upon in my last post, things in the universe do not begin to exist after evidence is found for them.  Rather, they exist first, and the evidence is gathered after-the-fact.  Therefore, whether or not God exists is independent of whether evidence for God exists.  Furthermore, I am not providing evidence of God in this discussion because you specifically said I didn't need to:

there is no need to prove God's existence

Agreement - You still haven't established lack of agreement, or even what you mean by lack of agreement.  Does it mean no two people who have ever lived agree?  Does it mean that not everybody who has ever lived agrees?  Somewhere in the middle?  Even after you establish that, you still have the problem of demonstrating how objective reality is contingent on whether people agree about objective reality.[nb]Were geocentrism and the flat earth true up until people stopped agreeing they were true, or are the truth values of geocentrism and the flat earth independent of popular consensus?[/nb]

No logic - I have contested your claim of lack of logic above.  Also, you have not shown how my inability to provide logic has an actual effect on whether things exist or do not exist.

Thus, I reject all three pillars of your conclusion.  Thus, I reject your conclusion.


Also, am I to take it from your LOL that you do not accept my proposed definition of God?  If so, then why not?

[Augusto]

Please don't make me do pointless investigations... Muslims vs Catholics vs Adventists vs Mormons vs...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptions_of_God

Back to the argument of "4t43#@??~@": If people cannot agree and there are multiple concepts for the same word, and there is no evidence or logic to support any of their concepts, but they all are SURE to be right. They are crazy. How else could it be explained?

---

The 5 conceptions of Omnipotence:
1) A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do: That's trashy because I am able to do anything I choose to do, yet... I cannot create a rock so big that I cannot lift it, neither a deity is capable of doing it.
2) A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature: So can I, and I cannot do what violates my own nature either, including the rock thing.
3) Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so: Which is bulls**t.
4) A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan: So we go to the intelligent design... I'll cover this pretty soon.
5) Every action performed in the world is 'actually' being performed by the deity, either due to omni-immanence, or because all actions must be 'supported' or 'permitted' by the deity: So who wrote this trash? What's the value behind this 5 "conceptions"? Is it philosophy or something? The problem with the rock persist, by the way.

---

I'm not requesting any sort of evidence from you, and I'm intending to logically prove God doesn't exist, so rest assure I don't suffer from amnesia.

The reason I'm talking about consensus and discrediting the "notions" behind the word "God" is simple. The word is broken:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_(semiotics)

The sign is formed by signifier and signified. By having a trashy signified (meaning), you have a broken sign = only and exclusively imaginary. You cannot conect it to anything. Got it?

---

Your "definition" is not a definition.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Please don't make me do pointless investigations... Muslims vs Catholics vs Adventists vs Mormons vs...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptions_of_God

Pointless?  You were the one who suggested I check a Wikipedia page without telling me which page to check.

Ok, I have skimmed the page.  Now what?

I cannot agree nor disagree on consensus until you tell me what the scope of "consensus" is per my last post.

Back to the argument of "4t43#@??~@": If people cannot agree and there are multiple concepts for the same word, and there is no evidence or logic to support any of their concepts, but they all are SURE to be right. They are crazy. How else could it be explained?

Numerous ways.  The simplest is that, despite what they may think, at least some of them are partially wrong.

The 5 conceptions of Omnipotence:
1) A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do: That's trashy because I am able to do anything I choose to do, yet... I cannot create a rock so big that I cannot lift it, neither a deity is capable of doing it.
2) A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature: So can I, and I cannot do what violates my own nature either, including the rock thing.
3) Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so: Which is bulls**t.
4) A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan: So we go to the intelligent design... I'll cover this pretty soon.
5) Every action performed in the world is 'actually' being performed by the deity, either due to omni-immanence, or because all actions must be 'supported' or 'permitted' by the deity: So who wrote this trash? What's the value behind this 5 "conceptions"? Is it philosophy or something? The problem with the rock persist, by the way.

I think you have misunderstood.  Those are historical ways in which different thinkers have approached and/or discussed omnipotence.  You made the charge that omnipotence is "absurd" per your example.  I am prepared to respond to your example, but my response will change depending on what conception of omnipotence you had in mind while concocting your example.  I was not asking you to respond to the classic conceptions of omnipotence individually.

The sign is formed by signifier and signified. By having a trashy signified (meaning), you have a broken sign = only and exclusively imaginary. You cannot conect it to anything. Got it?

Not really.  I am actually having a difficult time understanding what you are trying to say here, as I have no background in semiotics.  Are you saying the signified is the objective God?

I do note, however, that you assert "The sign is formed by signifier and signified" as fact, even though the page you link to depicts it as one of several theories, and a historical one at that: "Modern theories deny the Saussurian distinction between signifier and signified[. . .]Many postmodernist theorists postulate a complete disconnection of the signifier and the signified."

Your "definition" is not a definition.

How so?

[Augusto]

Man... I have a weakness, I hate when I need to over explain myself to someone I feel is intentionally playing the fool. This drove me to cut our previous debate and is why I was a little bit reluctant to discuss with you.

Please, debate with integrity.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Excuse me?

Let's talk about debating with integrity:

   
• You started the discussion with a bait and switch: You told me you were going to disprove God's existence, waited until I asked what your scope was, and then proclaimed that God was undefinable and that we'd be done if I couldn't provide a definition (Reply #6)
• You stated that you intend to disprove God's existence without needing a proof of God's existence, but then turned around and tried to base an argument on there being no weight to a positive assertion of God (Reply #8)
• You conveniently ignored both my objection that definitions do not control reality and my objection that my inability to do something is not evidence that something is impossible (Reply #5)
• You quite vaguely suggested that I "check Wikipedia," a site with 4,494,245 articles (as of this post) in response to a question about a claim you made, and then had the gall to accuse me of making you do "pointless investigations" (Reply #12)
• You completely sidestepped my question about which conception of omnipotence you were criticizing and instead made irrelevant replies (consisting of useless subjective comments such as "trashy" or "bulls**t"), and then claimed that your criticism still stood (Reply #12)
• You mentioned a field that I didn't even know existed until you cited it, and when I confessed that I do not understand it very well (and comparing your post to the article it appears that you do not understand it very well either), you accused me of "playing the fool" and challenged my integrity (Reply #12, 14)
• You completely ignored the reply above you and instead attacked me (Reply #14)

I have been waiting quite patiently for you to actually make an argument I can respond to.  I have been asking questions not to play the fool, but rather to gather information, increase my understanding of what you are saying[nb]You are not nearly as clear as you seem to think you are[/nb], and prod you towards actually expounding on your position rather than just pick the interpretation that'd be easiest for me to respond to.  You may be a genius who is capable of reading minds, but I am not.

-1 for that.

[Augusto]

Ok... so I've been frustrating too... sorry about that. Please excuse me, I didn't intend anything bad. If you give me some time I will try to explain everything the best I can and respond to your latest post accordingly.

I haven't been in any debate outside of this community. Perhaps frustration is a natural part of it. But it's interesting, nevertheless...!

[Augusto]

Okay, after thinking a little bit about it, here is what I got:

You can completely ignore semiotic. It's not necessary to understand my point. In short, this is my approach:
- In English the word "gay" used to mean "happy", now it is widely accepted as "homosexual", which is something entirely different.
- I'm going to prove the word "God" cannot currently describe an entity that have any chance to exist out of imagination by attacking by means of logic the most commondly accepted characteristics related to such word, which shouldn't be a problem for you because you said you were qualified to discuss the religious take of the word "God".
- Once I break some key attributes, the impossibility for God to exist will be proven, regardless the possibility that in the future someone coins the word to a different phenomena because what we are going to discuss is the current meaning of the word "God", not the word, which (like in the case of "Gay"), could adquire a different connotation in the future, like a mental disease or some form of dimentional energy or whatever.

---

Please let me know if you have any doubt or objection regarding my approach to this debate.

---

In order to keep things simple, let's discuss God's attributes one by one. The first one is OMNIPOTENT, and I already set my argument regarding such attribute:

The idea of omnipotency have been proven to be an absurd by itself; for example, no so called omnipotent being is capable of creating a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it... because if he cannot lift it, then he is NOT omnipotent; and if he cannot create it, he is NOT omnipotent either.

---

Edit: Also, I want to check the origins and grounds of such attributes people gave "God" and how they're more relevant than the attributes of Spagetti Monster.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

- In English the word "gay" used to mean "happy", now it is widely accepted as "homosexual", which is something entirely different.

I agree.  The point of confusion for me would come if someone insisted we could not discuss the word "gay" because of those differing meanings.  From my point of view, we could do so just fine as long as we clarified which definition(s) we intended to discuss.

- I'm going to prove the word "God" cannot currently describe an entity that have any chance to exist out of imagination by attacking by means of logic the most commondly accepted characteristics related to such word, which shouldn't be a problem for you because you said you were qualified to discuss the religious take of the word "God".

I am fine with that.  I am happy to discuss whichever characteristics we both agree should be taken into consideration.  For example, I agree with including "omnipotence" as part of our working definition of "God." 

- Once I break some key attributes, the impossibility for God to exist will be proven, regardless the possibility that in the future someone coins the word to a different phenomena because what we are going to discuss is the current meaning of the word "God"

I agree.  If we agree upon key attributes for our definition of God, and you prove that a deity with those attributes does not exist without a valid counter-argument from me, that will satisfy your goal in this discussion.  If at some future time the popular definition of "God" changes, it will have no bearing on the outcome of this discussion as we are only discussing "God" as we agree to define Him in this thread and anything other than that is beyond the scope of our discussion.

In order to keep things simple, let's discuss God's attributes one by one.

I agree that this is a logical approach for us to take.

The first one is OMNIPOTENT, and I already set my argument regarding such attribute:

The idea of omnipotency have been proven to be an absurd by itself; for example, no so called omnipotent being is capable of creating a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it... because if he cannot lift it, then he is NOT omnipotent; and if he cannot create it, he is NOT omnipotent either.

Yes, I am quite familiar with this classical formulation of the omnipotence paradox.  As I mentioned before, various definitions of "omnipotence" have been presented over the centuries.  I was inquiring whether you had a particular one in mind, though you appear to be silent on this point.  So I think the best approach is for me to start with a general overview of omnipotence along with some classic interpretations of the paradox in light of the various approaches.  You are likely familiar with at least some of these responses, so I think it will be a good jumping-off point for further discussion.

Firstly, we must recognize that "omnipotence" does not restrict a deity from ever taking a limited form.  We know this because at least one religion, Christianity, asserts that the omnipotent God took the form of a limited human being (Jesus of Nazareth).  While in this form, the omnipotent deity had some physical limitations, such as struggling to carry a crucifix due to weakness and exhaustion (Mark 15:21-22).  In this sense, it is incredibly easy for an omnipotent being to meet your challenge: First create the stone, then transform into a human, then fail to lift the stone, then reassert its omnipotence by turning back into a deity and moving the stone.

Of course, I take your question to mean that the deity remains fully omnipotent the entire time.  Which is actually a problem for the question, because it tacitly assumes that the deity is taking a limited physical form.  After all, for someone to be able to lift a stone it must be present on some physical plane to lift against, which in our universe means God must take a form smaller than a star, lest we count moving celestial bodies through space as "lifting."  However, we are still limited by the size of the universe, which means to really evaluate the question we must construct hypothetically infinite physical planes in hypothetical universes that somehow still have similar properties to our universe.  Even if we do that, though, we still have to make the assumption that God takes a particular form to "lift" the stone, which means that we're still allowing God to take a limited form and the above paragraph applies.

This brings me to our first classical response: that the question is nonsensical to humans, and thus we cannot evaluate it.  In other words, the situation that the sentence describes is nonsensical, and this is "not a thing."  Since omnipotence is the ability to do "any thing," our "not a thing" does not apply because "not a thing" is not part of the set of "any thing."  Another way to look at this point is in light of one of the classical responses to the liar paradox.  Per Prior, the sentence could be logically transformed into, "This sentence is true and an omnipotent being could make a stone so big it could not lift it."  Since the latter half is nonsensical, the truth value of the sentence would be false, without commenting on the omnipotence itself.  Thus, the apparent paradox simply does not apply and omnipotence is not challenged.

However, there are other formulations of the omnipotence paradox that do not rely on a physical feat such as lifting an object.  Yet even these formulations run into the problem that logic as a dichotomy between "true" and "false" is largely a human construction, and that there are logical systems out there in which a logical statement can be both true and false at the same time or in which a statement can have truth values other than "true" or "false."  That being said, I do not have a large breadth of knowledge in these areas and this is stepping away from the question you're trying to ask, so rather than dwell on them I will just mention that they exist and move on.

Supposing that we somehow get past all the logical problems with simply asking the omnipotence paradox question (the paradox of the paradox, if you will), there are still several reasons why the omnipotence paradox is not a silver bullet for omnipotence.  To understand this, we need to look at the various ways in which omnipotence is generally understood:

The term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:

   
• A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.
• A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
• Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.
• A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.
• Every action performed in the world is 'actually' being performed by the deity, either due to omni-immanence, or because all actions must be 'supported' or 'permitted' by the deity.[nb]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence#Meanings[/nb]

I am going to ignore definition 5 for now as it does not really relate to the omnipotence paradox and is not really a major factor in the common perception of a personal God (it's a bit closer to pantheism than to traditional theism).  Which leaves us with the first four definitions.

Definitions 2-4 are pretty similar to each other, describing a more practical form of omnipotence.  In other words, Definition 1 describes what a truly omnipotent deity could do (anything it chooses), while Definitions 2-4 describe what an omnipotent deity would do (act in accord with its own nature, act consistently according to its own laws, act according to its own plan, etc.).  In this sense, one could say that an omnipotent deity would not create a stone too heavy for it to lift because that would violate its omnipotent nature and would be inconsistent with its own laws of logic and of the universe.  Definitions 2 and 3 allow this to happen without violating that deity's omnipotence; thus, the deity's omnipotence is not refuted and the apparent paradox is resolved.  This is the second classical response.

"But hey," you may say, "Let's cut the crap.  Let's stop talking about what you think the deity wants to do and get to the real meat and potatoes of the question.  Could an omnipotent being create a paradox for itself?  No more talk about practical limitations; I want the true scope of unlimited power.  Quit stalling and get to the good stuff!"

As you wish, imaginary voice that sounds suspiciously like Mooby.  Let's look at our Definition 1 again:

A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.

What does the true, completely unbridled version of this definition mean?  Let's take another look at the Wiki page in my footnote:

According to the Hindu philosophy the essence of God or Brahman can never be understood or known since Brahman is beyond both existence and non-existence, transcending and including time, causation and space, and thus can never be known in the same material sense as one traditionally 'understands' a given concept or object.
[. . .]
Also trying to develop a theory to explain, assign or reject omnipotence on grounds of logic has little merit, since being omnipotent would mean the omnipotent being is above logic. A view supported by Ren? Descartes.  He issues this idea in his Meditations on First Philosophy.

In other words, true omnipotence means that one has power that supersedes everything, including logic itself.  Thus, the deity could fulfill the requirements of the paradox (create a stone so heavy it couldn't lift it) and the situation would be logically impossible, but this would be irrelevant because true omnipotence allows one to do the logically impossible. This is the third classical response.

The problem with the omnipotence paradox as it applies to true omnipotence is that the question assumes that logic supersedes true omnipotence.  In other words, one must first assume that the omnipotence is limited to assert that omnipotence is limited.  As the question itself binds itself to the supremacy of logic, it must therefore bind itself to the rules of logic.  Since the question assumes the very thing it is trying to conclude, it commits the question-begging fallacy and is therefore not a valid logical argument against true omnipotence.

So the paradox is either resolved or invalid when applied to Definition 1, and resolved when applied to Definitions 2-4.  It does not apply to Definition 5 as far as I can see.

Edit: Also, I want to check the origins and grounds of such attributes people gave "God" and how they're more relevant than the attributes of Spagetti Monster.

We can do that if you wish.  However, I would caution that failure to disprove a parody deity does not exist is not a necessary step to proving a real deity does not exist.  In other words, if we agree upon a given definition of God, and one or more parody deities happens to meet our definition at the end of the discussion, that does not affect the outcome of our discussion as failing to disprove them does not mean they actually exist.

[Augusto]

The 5 characteristics are ruled by number1: "Is able to do anything", while number2 is a characteristic of anything.

I will focus in number2 for a second, let's read it again:

"A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature".

This is not a definition of omnipotency, not even a characteristic of a deity. A worm, a grain of salt and even air is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature. This is important because it is a very clear EVIDENCE of the poor reasoning behind such construction. Could it be taken seriously? Could I dismiss every single argument from the guy who brough this "material" into the table? This, Mooby, would certainly ruin your reputation on a trial... but let's keep moving; there is something else in here:

"thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie".

So we are not talking about "a deity" here, we are talking about Bible God... so what is the reason behind this poor construction (which is trying to look like is talking about deities in general) and this particular example? Easy, the reason is the Bible, because God is described as a being that cannot lie. Which means this "characteristic" is not only stupid but also forged with the clear and desperate goal of making God (Yaweh) look LOGICAL, notice the inclusion of the word:

"...if it is a logical consequence..."

Okay, now that I discredited Mooby's source material, let's review the Omnipotent argument:
- Can God lie? No? Then he is NOT omnipotent.
- Can God create an unstoppable force and an immovable object in the same plane of existence? No? Then he is NOT omnipotent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_force_paradox

If you're going to tell me God can be ilogical/absurd/impossible as part of his omnipotency, then I will tell you is not the power to trascend logic he has, is the NEED, because the word "omnipotence", just like its 5 definitions defense, was ilogical since the beginning, not to mention forged and based on nothing but human IMAGINATION.

Plus, I submit the logical argument that there is no evidence of an all powerfull God doing anything right now. No pictures on NASA, no angels, no collumns of fire, no beheaded people walking, NOTHING. Just like it have always been... so where did the omnipotence idea came from? With all the absurdity that it holds in its core? From the imagination of a poor head? Just like the head who created this?:

"A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature".

Oh and, I'm waiting for you to attempt to give logic to the idea of omnipotence, like the guy who wrote this:

"...if it is a logical consequence..."

Thank you...!

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

The 5 characteristics are ruled by number1: "Is able to do anything", while number2 is a characteristic of anything.

I will focus in number2 for a second, let's read it again:

"A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature".

This is not a definition of omnipotency, not even a characteristic of a deity. A worm, a grain of salt and even air is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature.

I disagree with your assessment.  Lifting rocks is in accord with your nature, but you are not able to lift every rock.  Drinking water is in accord with your nature, but you are not able to drink all of the water in the world.  You can the ability to perform actions that in accord with your own abilities, but you do not have unbounded agency to act in accord with your abilities.

This is important because it is a very clear EVIDENCE of the poor reasoning behind such construction. Could it be taken seriously?

Yes, I think it could be.  My evidence of this is that it has been taken seriously by scholars for centuries.

Could I dismiss every single argument from the guy who brough this "material" into the table?

You could, but if you did so you would be poisoning the well.  Doing so may be problematic for you, as such reasoning is considered logically fallacious and you have stated that consider your position based on logic.

I do not think you understand, though.  These are not "proofs."  They are different definitions that people have used.  If you don't like one of the definitions, we can use one of the ones you do like.  I provided 5 definitions to give you a choice, not to fence you in.  We can even make our own 6th definition if you don't like any of the other ones.

"thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie".

So we are not talking about "a deity" here, we are talking about Bible God... so what is the reason behind this poor construction (which is trying to look like is talking about deities in general) and this particular example?

The page is describing a deity in general.  Likely the author was using the Biblical God's as a template for the example, much as you and I are doing in constructing our definition.

- Can God lie? No? Then he is NOT omnipotent.
- Can God create an unstoppable force and an immovable object in the same plane of existence? No? Then he is NOT omnipotent.

Before we can conclude God is not omnipotent, we must first have a working definition of "omnipotent."  I have provided you with 5 (well, really 4) definitions that we can use for our definition.  Alternatively, we could mutually agree upon a proposed definition.  Since you seem dissatisfied with my general overview of the classical definitions, I will leave it up to you to suggest how we should define "omnipotent."

What we cannot do is equivocate by saying that omnipotence means "can do everything" over here and then saying it means "can do everything logically possible" over there and then rejecting it because we equivocated.  That's bad form.  Personally, I like Definition 1 the best, but I am fine with whatever definition of "omnipotence" we can agree upon, so long as we use it consistently. 

If you're going to tell me God can be ilogical/absurd/impossible as part of his omnipotency, then I will tell you is not the power to trascend logic he has, is the NEED, because the word "omnipotence", just like its 5 definitions defense, was ilogical since the beginning, not to mention forged and based on nothing but human IMAGINATION.

I am having trouble understanding your train of thought after the word "need."  Also, the 5 definitions are not a "defense."  They are the standard ways in which omnipotence has been described and understood over the centuries.  A definition is not a proof, nor is it a defense, nor is it an argument.  It is a definition.

Plus, I submit the logical argument that there is no evidence of an all powerfull God doing anything right now.

I do not agree with this statement, but I currently do not wish to contest it.

where did the omnipotence idea came from?

That's an excellent question, and one that doesn't appear to have an obvious answer.  We'll likely never precisely know, because there really aren't any terms in ancient language that we can translate directly and specifically to "omnipotent."  Instead, the words we get translate to words like "almighty" or "most high" or "king of kings," which are a bit more nonspecific and may or may not refer to true omnipotence.

What we are able to do is follow the language of cultures as they transitioned from polytheism towards monotheism via henotheism.  For instance, as Amun rose into prominence in Egyptian polytheism and merged into Amun-Ra, he began to take on transcendental qualities often associated with deities described as omnipotent,[nb]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amun[/nb] though it's unclear whether Egyptian belief advanced to such a degree as to include true omnipotence.  Likewise, the Hindu concept of Brahman arose from Hindu henotheism to embody transcendent qualities similar to omnipotence, though I am unsure whether the connotation of omnipotence as power is the same as for us in the west (know any Hindus we could ask?) 

Lastly, and most clearly, we can trace Hebrew beliefs from the henotheism of Abraham through the monotheism of later Israel to see how the understanding of God's power grew in scope over time.  For me, the pivotal moment in Hebrew understanding was Yahweh's famous declaration in Exodus: "I Am."  Of course, said declaration is one of primacy rather than potence, but it does lay the ontological groundwork from which omnipotence can be later derived.

Meanwhile, many of the Greek philosophers started looking around or beyond the gods of Greek polytheism and began talking about the metaphysical concept of Being, starting with pre-Socratics such as Parmenides and continuing through philosophical schools such as Platonism, Aristotelianism, and Neo-Platonism.  They again talked more about the primacy of this Being than its potence: you may be familiar with Aristotle's descriptions of "uncaused cause" or "unmoved mover."  We do know, however, that the Greeks had a concept of omnipotence as it is mentioned in the Epicurean paradox that was likely synthesized by ancient Greek skeptics.

This leads me towards the conjecture that idea of omnipotence is not something that one suddenly thinks up out of the blue, but rather is a logical conclusion one gradually reaches while transitioning towards a single ultimate deity.

[Augusto]

"A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature".

I'm able to lift rocks according to my nature. I don't need to be able to lift all rocks, since that wouldn't be according to my nature. So I invite you to agree this definition is completely dumb for not being limited to deities. There is no place in this concept that claims anything related to unbounded agency, as you suggest.

Yes, I think it could be.  My evidence of this is that it has been taken seriously by scholars for centuries.

I'm going to take note on this to my case on the incompetence of theologists over the centuries.

Personally, I like Definition 1 the best

"A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do".

Okay then, let's use that one. So, since you seem pretty confident relying in the "argument" of the absurd, please answer:
1 Can God lie?
2 Can God create an unstoppable force and an immovable object in the same plane of existence without any of them losing their attributes?
3 Can God make himself (since the beginning of existence) completely unnecessary to the creation of the universe and to every known or unknown phenomena?
4 Can God become himself (since the beginning of existence) a total and absolute not existent being and only come to exist later in our imagination?
5 Can God be, or make himself, (since the beginning of existence) impossible and absurd?

Even by embracing the absurd, omnipotence doesn't work right, as you can see in my five questions... please answer them all. I think you NEED to say yes to them all, specially since you were the one who introduced the "absurd" argument and showed preference for absolute omnipotency. Just know that:

- By saying yes to 1, 4 and / or 5, you become an agnostic.
- By saying yes to 2, you fall in something beyond the absurd because an unstopable force cannot coexist with an unmovable object.
- By saying yes to 3, you hypothetically break the "Creator" attribute to God.
- By saying no to any of them, you let me win the argument of omnipotency.

I am having trouble understanding your train of thought after the word "need."

Simple; see the difference:
- God is so powerful than he is able to do something beyond any logic.
- The idea of omnipotence is so ridicule that NEEDS to embrace its lack of logic to work.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

I'm able to lift rocks according to my nature. I don't need to be able to lift all rocks, since that wouldn't be according to my nature. So I invite you to agree this definition is completely dumb for not being limited to deities. There is no place in this concept that claims anything related to unbounded agency, as you suggest.

Being in accord with one's nature means that it doesn't expressly contradict an essential part of your nature or a logical consequence of it.  For instance, being fully incorporeal is not in accord with your nature because it contradicts your corporeal being.  Lifting a rock does not violate your nature; whether it is within your abilities is a different consideration.  But if you do not like the definition, we do not have to use it.

Okay then, let's use that one. So, since you seem pretty confident relying in the "argument" of the absurd, please answer:
1 Can God lie?
2 Can God create an unstoppable force and an immovable object in the same plane of existence without any of them losing their attributes?
3 Can God make himself (since the beginning of existence) completely unnecessary to the creation of the universe and to every known or unknown phenomena?
4 Can God become himself (since the beginning of existence) a total and absolute not existent being and only come to exist later in our imagination?
5 Can God be, or make himself, (since the beginning of existence) impossible and absurd?

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes

I think you NEED to say yes to them all, specially since you were the one who introduced the "absurd" argument and showed preference for absolute omnipotency.

I'm obligated to say "yes" to them as far as either of us is obligated to answer consistently with respect to our own arguments.  I do not feel any special existential need to do so.

- By saying yes to 1, 4 and / or 5, you become an agnostic.

I do not see how any of those three compels one towards agnosticism.

- By saying yes to 2, you fall in something beyond the absurd because an unstopable force cannot coexist with an unmovable object.

Yes, that something is called the "illogical."  I do not have a problem with the potential existence of the illogical.  The illogical is something that is readily observable in our universe, particularly in humans.  The ease with which you were able to fire five easy-to-read, illogical scenarios at me attests to that fact.  At times, I suspect some humans have a much harder time with the logical than they do with the illogical.

With that in mind, I have no reason to think that an omnipotent being would be strictly bound to all that is logical and, consequently, all that is possible.

- By saying yes to 3, you hypothetically break the "Creator" attribute to God.

Correct, I think true omnipotence means being able to break one's own attributes.

It all boils down to this: Can an omnipotent deity create something that is both true and not true at the same time?  Yes.

Simple; see the difference:
- God is so powerful than he is able to do something beyond any logic.
- The idea of omnipotence is so ridicule that NEEDS to embrace its lack of logic to work.

It's not about need to break logic to work.  It's about understanding the implications of one's own views.

Do I think God created the laws of logic?  Yes.  Do I think the laws of logic created God?  No.

So if God wanted to, do I think He could throw the laws of logic out the window?  Absolutely.

[Augusto]

Being in accord with one's nature means that it doesn't expressly contradict an essential part of your nature or a logical consequence of it.  For instance, being fully incorporeal is not in accord with your nature because it contradicts your corporeal being.  Lifting a rock does not violate your nature; whether it is within your abilities is a different consideration.  But if you do not like the definition, we do not have to use it.

This is saying what I already said without acepting what I asked you to. Please re-read all this argumentative line all you need and post accordingly.

The illogical is something that is readily observable in our universe

Please show me something like the unstopable force and unmovable object in nature, and also answer this questions:

- Can the omnipotent God "need"...?
- Can the omnipotent God need to use the absurd, in order to be omnipotent?
- Can the omnipotent God become perfect and yet create another completely separated being that tops perfection?
- Can God create a challenge (to himself) that is absolutely and infinitely beyond his own capacity no matter what?
- Can god Turn himself (in all times, including eternity) into a being with no characteristics at all?
- Can God literally f**k himself?

So far the definition of omnipotency have served me to enlarge, destroy and ridicule the definition of God (with your approval, each time you said yes to my questions), no matter what attributes he might have. However, I'll wait for your response before offering my final conclusion in which I attempt to link pretty much everything I've said since the debate started, without going heavy into semiotics, as promised.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

This is saying what I already said without acepting what I asked you to.

No, I don't think we're in agreement on that point.

Please show me something like the unstopable force and unmovable object in nature, and also answer this questions:

I didn't say something like an unstoppable force and unmovable object are in nature.  I said we can observe the illogical, particularly in humans.  Much of gambling behavior is illogical, as is using logical fallacies.  Many crimes, particularly crimes of passion, have an illogical source.  The fact that humans are capable of and even seem to enjoy creating paradoxes is evidence that the illogical is present in the universe.  We would not even have a concept of the logical if we did not have the illogical as exception to compare it to.

- Can the omnipotent God "need"...?

Sure, if He wants to do so.

- Can the omnipotent God need to use the absurd, in order to be omnipotent?

Sure, if He wants to do so.

- Can the omnipotent God become perfect and yet create another completely separated being that tops perfection?

Sure, if He wants to do so.

- Can God create a challenge (to himself) that is absolutely and infinitely beyond his own capacity no matter what?

Sure, if He wants to do so.

- Can god Turn himself (in all times, including eternity) into a being with no characteristics at all?

Sure, if He wants to do so.

- Can God literally f**k himself?

It's interesting how you edited your post to include something I can only assume was meant to offend me.  Of course, if you successfully goad me into behaving illogically, it will only add to my evidence that the illogical is observable in this universe.

So far the definition of omnipotency have served me to enlarge, destroy and ridicule the definition of God (with your approval, each time you said yes to my questions), no matter what attributes he might have.

You have not enlarged our definition of God.  As you may recall, the definition of "omnipotent" that we agreed to use is the one that I both supplied and nudged us towards while knowing full well the reasoning behind your paradox.  Thus, you did not enlarge the room that housed our definition.  That room size has not changed since we agreed upon the definition of "omnipotent."  I have merely been waiting patiently while you finish exploring it.

You did not destroy our definition of God.  Our definition has remained consistent since our last agreement on it despite your challenges to this.  You even directly pointed in your last post that your prior post that to keep our definition consistent I would need to answer affirmatively to your questions.  I did; therefore, our definition has been kept consistent.  You did nothing in your last post to disrupt that consistently; therefore, our definition is still intact.

You have indeed successfully ridiculed our definition of God.  However, the appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy, and therefore is not a valid argument.  Thus, we cannot logically count it as evidence against our definition.

Therefore, I maintain that you have provided no valid argument that our current definition is inadequate or otherwise reflective of non-existence.  Thus, we are still in the same position as we were at the outset of this debate.

ETA: Also, I request clarification on a point from your prior post.  You suggested that certain omnipotence paradoxes about God point towards agnosticism.  Are you saying that our definition of God means that one cannot prove God's existence or non-existence?

[Augusto]

Let me show you what have been happening, apparently without you noticing it.

...we can observe the illogical, particularly in humans.

If I may, "EXCLUSIVELY in human mind, as we are able to construct absurd ideas that have no place in reality".

Let's take a look at the meaning of the word "absurd":
- Ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable.
- Manifestly false.
- Irrational and meaningless.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/absurd

Here is the definition behind the word "God" you helped me create:

God: Is an absurd and potentially ridiculous being that can either be real or false (imaginary), or both at the same time (the concept holds the impossible attribute as well). He can either be responsible for the creation of the universe or be completely irrelevant to it; also, he can/may need to rely in the absurd (which is exclusively part of human imagination, thus, not applyable to reality), which includes things like creating a different being more powerful or perfect than him (given the fact that perfection is also another construction exclusive of the mind), not being omnipotent, plus, you can as well disregard everything in this concept because is possible that he doesn't have any characteristics at all.

The last part is pretty interesting because it cancels itself in such a way that, while the word "God" exists, there is nothing but contradictions and emptiness inside of it.

Now, as if it were something necessary, let's see the background behind the word "omnipotence: Nothing, pure and cheap especulation. And what about the people who helped develop the concept over the years? Well, they said this:

"A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature".

This is not a definition of omnipotency, not even a characteristic of a deity. A worm, a grain of salt and even air is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature. This is important because it is a very clear EVIDENCE of the poor reasoning behind such construction. Could it be taken seriously? Could I dismiss every single argument from the guy who brough this "material" into the table? This, Mooby, would certainly ruin your reputation on a trial... but let's keep moving; there is something else in here:

"thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie".

So we are not talking about "a deity" here, we are talking about Bible God... so what is the reason behind this poor construction (which is trying to look like is talking about deities in general) and this particular example? Easy, the reason is the Bible, because God is described as a being that cannot lie. Which means this "characteristic" is not only stupid but also forged with the clear and desperate goal of making God (Yaweh) look LOGICAL, notice the inclusion of the word:

"...if it is a logical consequence..."

As you admit:

Yes, I think it could be.  My evidence of this is that it has been taken seriously by scholars for centuries.

---

Now, what was my goal on this debate?

I'm just planning to use logic.

...my whole argument relies in the imposibility of creating an objective concept of God.

I'm going to prove the word "God" cannot currently describe an entity that have any chance to exist out of imagination by attacking by means of logic the most commondly accepted characteristics related to such word

So, according to the definition of absurd, the implicit and evident meaningless concept of God not only ridicules itself but also accepts that is possible that there is NOTHING AT ALL to say about the characteristics that build the word "God". Now let's take a look at this:

"Anything that CAN happen WILL happen".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

According to the omnipotence argument, God is able to everything I said above (and more), but most importantly, to be absolutely unexistent.

4 Can God become himself (since the beginning of existence) a total and absolute not existent being and only come to exist later in our imagination?
5 Can God be, or make himself, (since the beginning of existence) impossible and absurd?

4. Yes
5. Yes

This theorem only needs "Time", and guess what? Omnipotence can make God INFINITE. So, even if he existed and did all kind of absurd things, given the time, he ABSOLUTELY CEASED TO EXIST, and once that happened, there is no turning back.

---

Conclusion: I f**ked up God's religious attributes up-side-down with your help and proved God to be false in four different levels:
- Logically
- Epistemologically.
- Estatistically.
- Religiously.

Note: The "f**k Himself" question was NOT to attack you, it was to better fit the concept of "absurd", which contemplates the word "ridiculous".

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

If I may, "EXCLUSIVELY in human mind, as we are able to construct absurd ideas that have no place in reality".

And also in human behavior.

Here is the definition behind the word "God" you helped me create:

God: Is an absurd and potentially ridiculous being that can either be real or false (imaginary), or both at the same time (the concept holds the impossible attribute as well). He can either be responsible for the creation of the universe or be completely irrelevant to it; also, he can/may need to rely in the absurd (which is exclusively part of human imagination, thus, not applyable to reality), which includes things like creating a different being more powerful or perfect than him (given the fact that perfection is also another construction exclusive of the mind), not being omnipotent, plus, you can as well disregard everything in this concept because is possible that he doesn't have any characteristics at all.

Incorrect.  Here is the definition of God we have agreed upon so far:

God: A being whose characteristics include omnipotence
Omnipotence: The ability to do anything one chooses to do

We do not define Augusto as
Augusto: A man who can be awake or asleep either loudly or silently.  He can be eating or fasting, driving a car or sitting as a passenger or being run over by his own car while it is being driven by a clown.  He can also do things that are downright foolish, such as skydiving without a parachute, nude dog sledding in the Arctic, bathing in Old Faithful, or smashing his testicles 143 times in the row with a bowling ball.  Plus, you can as well disregard everything in this concept because it is possible that he is dead right now.

You could technically do all those things, but that doesn't mean those things define you.  Most of those things are probably things you would never do, despite technically being able to do them.  I could sit here all day and think of absurd, ridiculous, and foolish things that are technically possible for you to do, have another member on the forum agree that you technically could do them, and then deride you for having the ability to pour capsaicin in your eyes and glue them shut.  Surely at some level you understand that having the potential to do something is not the same is doing it; otherwise, I shudder to think how you would have survived this long in your own life.

Likewise, true omnipotence allows one to do absolutely everything, even things that you consider "absurd," but that does not mean the potential to do those things defines the one wielding it.  One could be omnipotent and do absolutely nothing.  Or one could use omnipotence to create a system of logical rules and then decide to only act within those rules.  Or only outside those rules.  Or whatever else one wants to do.  Unless you can show that the God of our definition necessarily does all the things you mentioned in your modified definition, I see no reason to agree that they should be included in our definition.

Now, as if it were something necessary, let's see the background behind the word "omnipotence: Nothing, pure and cheap especulation. And what about the people who helped develop the concept over the years? Well, they said this:

"A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature".

Sorry, but we agreed to reject that definition, remember?  For you and I, omnipotence is defined as the ability to do anything.

So we are not talking about "a deity" here, we are talking about Bible God

You and I are talking about God as we are defining Him.  We have not included any holy texts anywhere in our definition of God.

So, according to the definition of absurd, the implicit and evident meaningless concept of God not only ridicules itself but also accepts that is possible that there is NOTHING AT ALL to say about the characteristics that build the word "God". Now let's take a look at this:

"Anything that CAN happen WILL happen".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

According to the omnipotence argument, God is able to everything I said above (and more), but most importantly, to be absolutely unexistent.
[ . . . ]
This theorem only needs "Time", and guess what? Omnipotence can make God INFINITE. So, even if he existed and did all kind of absurd things, given the time, he ABSOLUTELY CEASED TO EXIST, and once that happened, there is no turning back.

As you can see from your own page, the infinite number theorem does not predict that any given outcome must absolutely happen.  Using the original monkey analogy:

The probability that an infinite randomly generated string of text will contain a particular finite substring is 1. However, this does not mean the substring's absence is "impossible", despite the absence having a prior probability of 0. For example, the immortal monkey could randomly type G as its first letter, G as its second, and G as every single letter thereafter, producing an infinite string of Gs; at no point must the monkey be "compelled" to type anything else. (To assume otherwise implies the gambler's fallacy.)

In fact, on the original typewriter, conceivably a string could consist of any number to infinite decimal places.  As you may recall from mathematics, not all infinities are created equal: there are countable infinities and uncountable infinities.  The set of real numbers is uncountably infinite, which means that despite the probability of an infinite monkey typing Shakespeare is 100%, there are uncountably infinite infinity scenarios in which not even a single letter of Shakespeare ever gets typed.

Likewise, at any given moment that an infinite being could destroy itself, it could instead choose to do something else, such as saying a digit of a number.  Thus, per above, there are uncountably infinite scenarios in which an omnipotent being does not destroy itself over an infinite period of time.  Thus, your assertion that any infinite being that did exist must have "absolutely ceased to exist" is factually incorrect.

That being said, you will observe that the proofs for your theorem rest on random, statistically independent events.  Without those assumptions being met, it falls apart.  For instance, given enough time it is not an statistical certainty that you will ever smash your testicles with a bowling ball or engage in nude dog sledding nude or bathe in Old Faithful because you have the ability to choose not to do those things.  Those events are not completely random for you.  Likewise, we have not derived anything about our God that would lead us to conclude that His actions are random and statistically independent.  Thus, the infinite monkey theorem does not apply to this situation.

Also, I again request clarification on your previous comment.  You suggested that certain omnipotence paradoxes about God point towards agnosticism.  Are you saying that our current definition of God means that one cannot prove God's existence or non-existence?

[Augusto]

No, I was saying that certain questions I made, if your answer to them was yes, would make you look like an agnostic.

I'll edit this post later with a full response, so far... +1

---

Edit:

And also in human behavior.

Not by performing impossible deeds like a circular triangle.

As for the definition of God, you said: "Yes" to each one of the questions I asked, and the concept just reflects the capacity to do things regarding those areas.

I will agree that the infinite monkey theorem does not work, that's why I gave you the +1, but that's only one of the 4 arguments for God's non-existence; let's see:

LOGICAL ARGUMENT:

Let's take a look at the meaning of the word "absurd":
- Ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable.
- Manifestly FALSE.
- Irrational and meaningless.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:

God: Is an absurd and potentially ridiculous being that can either be real or false (imaginary), or both at the same time (the concept holds the impossible attribute as well). He can either be responsible for the creation of the universe or be completely irrelevant to it; also, he can/may need to rely in the absurd (which is exclusively part of human imagination, thus, not applyable to reality), which includes things like creating a different being more powerful or perfect than him (given the fact that perfection is also another construction exclusive of the mind), not being omnipotent, plus, you can as well disregard everything in this concept because is possible that he doesn't have any characteristics at all.

The last part is pretty interesting because it cancels itself in such a way that, while the word "God" exists, there is nothing but contradictions and emptiness inside of it.

THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:

1 Can God lie?

1. Yes

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

No, I was saying that certain questions I made, if your answer to them was yes, would make you look like an agnostic.

Is how I look in any way relevant to God's existence or nonexistence?

Not by performing impossible deeds like a circular triangle.

As for the definition of God, you said: "Yes" to each one of the questions I asked, and the concept just reflects the capacity to do things regarding those areas.

Correct on both accounts.  I stated that the illogical is observable, not that the impossible is.  The "impossible" is our label for what we, as humans, are currently unable to do and/or observe.  So of course we have not observed the "impossible," because as soon as we observe the impossible we relabel it as "possible."

That being said, "impossible" applies to our current abilities and does not necessarily restrict a being other than ourselves, nor does it necessarily restrict ourselves in the future.  Much of what exists today was declared impossible at some point or another.  For instance, 200 years ago, people believed that it was impossible to travel faster than 20 mph without dying of asphyxiation.

LOGICAL ARGUMENT:

Let's take a look at the meaning of the word "absurd":
- Ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable.
- Manifestly FALSE.
- Irrational and meaningless.

The red is what you are trying to prove.  What you are trying to prove cannot be an argument for what you are trying to prove.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:

God: Is an absurd and potentially ridiculous being that can either be real or false (imaginary), or both at the same time (the concept holds the impossible attribute as well). He can either be responsible for the creation of the universe or be completely irrelevant to it; also, he can/may need to rely in the absurd (which is exclusively part of human imagination, thus, not applyable to reality), which includes things like creating a different being more powerful or perfect than him (given the fact that perfection is also another construction exclusive of the mind), not being omnipotent, plus, you can as well disregard everything in this concept because is possible that he doesn't have any characteristics at all.

The last part is pretty interesting because it cancels itself in such a way that, while the word "God" exists, there is nothing but contradictions and emptiness inside of it.

Again, none of those are attributes of God.  The fact that you could theoretically have died between your last post and this one does not mean that you are currently dead.  The fact that God could theoretically wipe Himself out of existence does not mean that God is currently nonexistent. 

THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:

1 Can God lie?

1. Yes

[/quote]
That doesn't appear to be an argument to me.

[Augusto]

Now you're simply denying every single one of my conclusions, and I don't see your refutal valid. Could this be the end of the debate or do you think you can actually show me you are trully right in dismissing my arguments?

Notice that I've granted you other points on this discussion, whenever I see you are right, and I became an atheist after losing a debate, so... trust me that I'm not trying to win this, but really, I don't see the validity in your refutal.

---

Edit: Allow me to further explain myself. My definition of God might or might not be a concept, eitherway, it doesn't matter. What matters is that there is an infinite number of implications with the attribute of true omnipotency. If you don't want to call it a concept, consider it implications then. It's the same: implications destroy the concept of God (which, by the way, automatically get all other classic attributes, but is not limited to them).

For example, guiving that all questions must end with a possitive answer, God can also be an absolute falacy, and absolute impossibility (and by this I mean independently of what we currently accept as truth or as possible), so the concept of God automatically falls appart no matter what. This also applies for the teological argument... there is an infinite number of questions I can make to contradict the biblical conception of God. The one about being capable of telling lies is just one example. Being capable of denying himself or being capable of being powerless are others.

I hope that makes it easier for you to grasp. 

---

Edit 2: I think I got the perfect question to solve this debate once and for all...

- Could God create a challenge so big/difficult that he cannot beat/solve/overcome no matter what?

An afirmative or a negative answer on this question will lead to the conclusion that true omnipotency cannot possibly exist; therefore, God, as defined on this debate, cannot possibly exist either.

I think I should postulate my argument, it would be called "The Shoot in the Foot Argument".

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Now you're simply denying every single one of my conclusions

False.

1. Conclusion regarding capacity - I spent 2 paragraphs responding to it, which you have not responded to.
2. "Logical Argument" - I pointed out that your argument assumes what it is trying to prove.  You have been trying to push through this concept of "absurd" as a premise, yet I have never agreed to include it as part of our definition.  You have been trying to prove your concept of "absurd," but have offered no objective measure by which you will do so.  Just saying it is so does not make it so.  Thus, there is nothing to refute in your Logical Argument as it is neither logical nor an argument.
3. Epistemological Argument - I spent 5 paragraphs in Reply #23 refuting your claim about your new definition of God.  Rather than make any sort of response to it at all, you simply restated it as the premise for your argument.  Thus, I spent 1 sentence reminding you of this fact.
4. Theological Argument - Again, there is no argument here.  Perhaps you have one in your mind, but you have just dropped two random quotes here as a poor substitution for an argument.

So no, I actually didn't "simply deny" any of them.  I gave a different response to each one.  It is actually you who simply repeated an argument (#3) as if your ad nauseum restatement actually makes it any less stupid.

Edit: Allow me to further explain myself. My definition of God might or might not be a concept, eitherway, it doesn't matter. What matters is that there is an infinite number of implications with the attribute of true omnipotency. If you don't want to call it a concept, consider it implications then. It's the same: implications destroy the concept of God (which, by the way, automatically get all other classic attributes, but is not limited to them).

P1. Assume that if there are two or more contradictory implications from a being's characteristics, then that being cannot exist.
P2. Since Augusto is a human, he could be alive right now.  He could have also had an unfortunate accident and be dead right now.
=> Augusto does not exist.
P3. If Augusto does not exist, then Augusto cannot disprove God.
=> Augusto cannot disprove God.

So either you don't exist and can't disprove God, or P1 is wrong.

For example, guiving that all questions must end with a possitive answer, God can also be an absolute falacy, and absolute impossibility (and by this I mean independently of what we currently accept as truth or as possible), so the concept of God automatically falls appart no matter what.

That is only true if you can establish that "can be" necessarily means "is."  It is true that Augusto can be dead.  It is not true that Augusto is dead.  It is not contradictory for Augusto to be alive simply because he has the potential to be dead.

- Could God create a challenge so big/difficult that he cannot beat/solve/overcome no matter what?

Of course.

[Augusto]

You have been trying to push through this concept of "absurd" as a premise, yet I have never agreed to include it as part of our definition.

Yes, you did...

true omnipotence means that one has power that supersedes everything, including logic itself.

Going beyond logic means ilogic / absurd; thus, from the point of view of logic, it is automatically true that God is impossible.

What we cannot do is equivocate by saying that omnipotence means "can do everything" over here and then saying it means "can do everything logically possible" over there and then rejecting it because we equivocated.  That's bad form.  Personally, I like Definition 1 the best

Here is definition 1: "A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do".

You have been trying to prove your concept of "absurd," but have offered no objective measure by which you will do so.  Just saying it is so does not make it so.

The objective measure is the concept of true omnipotence: "Could God create a challenge so big/difficult that he cannot beat/solve/overcome no matter what?" Yes? Then, in this scenario he has a challenge that he cannot beat/solve/overcome no matter what, even by the absurd standart of true omnipotence (that means God cannot beat the challenge not even breaking the laws of phisics or logic), which proves that true omnipotence is absurd

3. Epistemological Argument - I spent 5 paragraphs in Reply #23 refuting your claim about your new definition of God.  Rather than make any sort of response to it at all, you simply restated it as the premise for your argument.  Thus, I spent 1 sentence reminding you of this fact.

While it might not be a new concept, it is a fact that omnipotency allienates and sabotages anything that you might want to put inside the concept, therefore, the concept is meaningless, which means I did proved God's non-existence epistemologically.

4. Theological Argument - Again, there is no argument here.  Perhaps you have one in your mind, but you have just dropped two random quotes here as a poor substitution for an argument.

Those quotes are not random. They are good enough to FORCE some teologists to re-formulate the concept of omnipotency in a ridiculous attempt to make it compatible with bible God:

A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).

Such "concept" was proved ridiculous as well.

P1. Assume that if there are two or more contradictory implications from a being's characteristics, then that being cannot exist.
P2. Since Augusto is a human, he could be alive right now.  He could have also had an unfortunate accident and be dead right now.
=> Augusto does not exist.
P3. If Augusto does not exist, then Augusto cannot disprove God.
=> Augusto cannot disprove God.

So either you don't exist and can't disprove God, or P1 is wrong.

Do you think you can get away with something like that at this point? It doesn't even have any sense, there is no logic following the sentences and it doesn't give you a way out to the problem. Try again:

"Could God create a challenge so big/difficult that he cannot beat/solve/overcome no matter what?"

If yes, them omnipotence is impossible, not just "could be impossible", but actually IS IMPOSSIBLE. If no, then omnipotence IS IMPOSSIBLE as well. Also, by breaking such attribute, and because of the other implications, the whole word breaks appart and my case is proven.

That is only true if you can establish that "can be" necessarily means "is."  It is true that Augusto can be dead.  It is not true that Augusto is dead.  It is not contradictory for Augusto to be alive simply because he has the potential to be dead.

Even if God never creates the impossible challenge, the absolute possibility of such challenge to exist makes omnipotency absolutely impossible. It's like God being capable of dying, even if he never dies, he is NOT INMORTAL.

It is also like saying that just because Earth haven't been destroyed, earth is undestructible. There is no need for the Earth to be destroyed in order to know Earth is vulnerable to black holes or meteorites. In the same way, there is no need for God to create the challenge, just knowing that such challenge can exist, and knowing its effects is enough to conclude omnipotency is IMPOSSIBLE, with which your whole case falls into pieces.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

You have been trying to push through this concept of "absurd" as a premise, yet I have never agreed to include it as part of our definition.

Yes, you did...

true omnipotence means that one has power that supersedes everything, including logic itself.

Going beyond logic means ilogic / absurd; thus, from the point of view of logic, it is automatically true that God is impossible.

The three definitions you provided on "absurd" do not mention "illogic."

But I see what you're doing now.  You're equating "beyond logic" to "illogic," "illogic" to "irrational" (part of your 3rd "absurd" definition), and then equivocating the "irrational" definition of "absurd" to the "false" and "ridiculous" definitions of "absurd."

No, I did not agree to your fallacious equivocation.  I agreed that God as we defined Him is beyond logic.  Period.

The objective measure is the concept of true omnipotence: "Could God create a challenge so big/difficult that he cannot beat/solve/overcome no matter what?" Yes? Then, in this scenario he has a challenge that he cannot beat/solve/overcome no matter what, even by the absurd standart of true omnipotence (that means God cannot beat the challenge not even breaking the laws of phisics or logic), which proves that true omnipotence is absurd

Um... no.  That sentence is still a logical construct.  Defying that sentence is to defy a logical construct, which simply means acting outside of the laws of logic.

"Absurd" is not an objective term.  You will have to define it objectively and then show how God meets its criteria if you expect me to agree to its use.

While it might not be a new concept, it is a fact that omnipotency allienates and sabotages anything that you might want to put inside the concept, therefore, the concept is meaningless, which means I did proved God's non-existence epistemologically.

Please prove the bolded fact, because I do not currently take it as fact.

Those quotes are not random. They are good enough to FORCE some teologists to re-formulate the concept of omnipotency in a ridiculous attempt to make it compatible with bible God:

A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).

We agreed not to use that definition, remember?  You keep trying to equivocate our definition of "omnipotent."

P1. Assume that if there are two or more contradictory implications from a being's characteristics, then that being cannot exist.
P2. Since Augusto is a human, he could be alive right now.  He could have also had an unfortunate accident and be dead right now.
=> Augusto does not exist.
P3. If Augusto does not exist, then Augusto cannot disprove God.
=> Augusto cannot disprove God.

So either you don't exist and can't disprove God, or P1 is wrong.

Do you think you can get away with something like that at this point? It doesn't even have any sense, there is no logic following the sentences and it doesn't give you a way out to the problem.

I'll note that you refuted none of the premises nor the conclusions, which is the proper way to attack a syllogism.

"Could God create a challenge so big/difficult that he cannot beat/solve/overcome no matter what?"

If yes, them omnipotence is impossible, not just "could be impossible", but actually IS IMPOSSIBLE. If no, then omnipotence IS IMPOSSIBLE as well. Also, by breaking such attribute, and because of the other implications, the whole word breaks appart and my case is proven.

Please demonstrate how "yes" forces omnipotence to be impossible and breaks the world apart.

Even if God never creates the impossible challenge, the absolute possibility of such challenge to exist makes omnipotency absolutely impossible. It's like God being capable of dying, even if he never dies, he is NOT INMORTAL.

You're just listing things that you personally find contradictory, but you are not demonstrating how they actually are.
"God can't exist because if He could He could do A."
"How does A mean God can't exist?"
"Because if He did it'd be impossible, just like God doing B."
"How do either A or B mean God can't exist?"
"Because if He did it'd be impossible, just like C..."
*Repeat forever*

Again, please demonstrate how the potential to do something equates to omnipotence to being impossible.  You keep claiming it over and over and over, but every time I ask you to explain why it is the case, you simply state it again as if that's somehow proof.

Or, let's give you a taste of your own medicine:
"If something meets our definition of omnipotence, then could it be both impossible and exist at the same time?"