RE: Open Challenge to All Atheists: Can you Disprove God?

[MrLawrenceV]

but what would you do with a rock so heavy you couldn't lift it? Think about it.

[RyogaHibiki2000]

there are somethings that God can't do.

God can't throw me away from his kingdom, where would he put me? everything is his kingdom. he can erase me he can evapurate me, he can just kill me and turn me to sand. but God can't throw me away from his kingdom.

[templarart]

I'm an atheist. This is a common mistake among atheists as it assumes that all words and all questions are valid. This is incorrect. Words and phrases are not ends in and of themselves but tools used to communicate concepts. If a phrase does not communicate a concept - like "Have you tuned your goldfish?" the phrase is invalid and thrown out. There are no concepts behind so-called "omnipotence paradoxes" - just words strung together that communicate nothing imaginable. Invalid argument.

[templarart]

As an example: A math genius claims that he can solve any equation in less than 1 minute. You smirk and ask "What is 2 + a banana"? The fact that he cannot answer the question is not an indictment of his abilities but instead an indictment of your ability to use the tool of language. 2 + a banana is not a legitimate concept and is therefore a misuse of the tool of language producing only nonsense.

[zebraone100]

This is like saying that omnipotence is invalid because an omnipotent being cant divide by zero.

Break your argument apart:

1. How big would the rock need to be for an all powerful god to fail in moving it? By definition, that rock cannot exits.

2. Does omnipotence mean doing the impossible, ie making 1+1=3? No rational person has that expectation.

You're saying god cant produce an impossible rock. QED there is no god. Dumb.

btw, the is no god, but for better reasons that this.

[JuliusFirefly]

There's a difference between a task that is impossible from the get-go (dividing by zero is by definition impossible) and a task that only proves to be impossible. The rock itself is impossible because the whole concept of omnipotence makes no sense (which is the point of this argument).

btw, there is no god, for lots of reasons. SamiZaatari asked for a single one. I'd love to see your response video.

[zebraone100]

The only rock that an all powerful rock mover can't move is one that does not exists. You're thinking It would have to infinitely large, but try one that has zero mass and zero volume.

Creating a rock that doesn't exist is trivial. Even I can do that and I bet you can too.

[tudungsenduk]

God is all powerful not all stupid. Can he do anything? Yes. Will he do everything? No.

[JuliusFirefly]

Of course he wouldn't do everything. Nobody ever said he would.

This just deals with the concept of an omnipotent being. If in theory he couldn't do what he's supposed to be able to do, there's a serious flaw with the whole concept.

Simply saying "he won't fall for this trick" isn't a valid counter argument. The question wasn't "would he?" but rather "could he?"

[tudungsenduk]

"The question wasn't "would he?" but rather "could he?"

You might as well ask can god run round naked in town. I know Obama can but I dont think he will.

[JuliusFirefly]

Sure he could, but he wouldn't. I agree.

Now compare that to the original question. The answer would be: He wouldn't, but even if he would, he couldn't.

[tudungsenduk]

"He wouldn't, but even if he would, he couldn't."

God cant throw me out from his domain. All domain are His. God cant create another God greater than him. If you want to limit God this way then yes.

[Naked4Jesus]

You totally missed the point. The point was to show that the concept of omnipotence is irrational and therefore the existance of any hypothetical being that you assign omnipotence to will be fundatmentally impossible. "It don't jive" See?

[PapaDeltaRomeo]

I feel there is no way to truely disprove god but its easy to disprove any organized religion.

[JuliusFirefly]

Organized religion is based on way more shaky ground than the concept of god, because there's always a way to counter an argument against the existence of god: "MY god is nothing like that".

But omnipotence is usually the common denominator for all monotheistic gods. And omnipotence as a concept is seriously flawed. The only logical escape: "MY god isn't omnipotent, just very, very powerful".

So I agree with you, in a way.

[PapaDeltaRomeo]

Some people say there is a flaw with being omnipotence and all poweriful but i find that to be mistaken too. If you are omnipotence you know every single posiblty for the future. So if you are god you would be able to know what the future would be because everything is going to go just as planned unless you(god) decided to change it in which he would know what would happen for that too.

[JuliusFirefly]

That's not omnipotence, that's omniscience.

[PapaDeltaRomeo]

I don't believe in god but I never liked the "reason" you gave. And I don't like the example you use with omnipotence.