[eunoia]

Originally Posted by Jer

Is this going to go into the ages-old debate between intelligent design and evolution? Both are fully plausible origins of life.

Then offer your counter argument, don't simply give me questions to answer. It is your duty to provide a counter-argument that is suitable, not simply possible (the Fountain of Youth and unicorns are POSSIBLE, but not LOGICAL) but also logical (or factual.)

Originally Posted by Jer

Not quite.

1. The greatest power imaginable is omnipotent.
2. God is not omnipotent.
3. Therefore, God is not the greatest power imaginable.

My response is clearly adequate enough to use the already-disproved omnipotence idea against your "God is the greatest power imaginable" idea.

You also fail to address the part of my argument that does not deal with omnipotence.

The greatest power imaginable cannot be omnipotent according to your definition, as an omnipotent being of your definition has been incorrectly defined. Omnipotence by your definition is impossible. God is omnipotent in the sense that He is of great power, almighty, you may say, not that He can defy logic (again, creating a spherical cube or something similar.) Again, the omnipotent argument against the existence of God is largely flawed and not used by the experienced debater. Find an argument I have not proven wrong as your counter-argument.

Also, you cannot imagine something greater than the greatest being which can be imagined. So this still stands:

1. God is the greatest being which can be imagined.
2. If God does not exist, then He is not the greatest being which can be imagined.
3. Since God is the greatest being which can be imagined, and His non-existence would mean He is not the greatest being which can be imagined, it must be concluded that God exists outside of the imagination.
4. Thus, God exists.

Originally Posted by Jer

The "goals" are the simplistic natural desires of survival and reproduction, which are not necessarily orchestrated by a God. Dandelion seeds blowing in the wind could just as easily be the product of adaptation as the work of God.

"Possibility is not fact" can be used against the idea of God existing as well. To counter the idea that your possibility is fact, I simply need to introduce another possibility, not necessarily fact.

Plants don't have desires. Dandelions don't understand reproduction. This argument does not sufficiently disprove my goals argument. Things which cannot think cannot act on purpose, thus they do not have goals or the ability to reach goals on their own. Dandelions cannot think. Things that cannot think do not develop goals.

You need to introduce a logical possibility, not a possibility left to stand on its own.

Originally Posted by Jer

El oh el.

I'm tired! Haven't slept. lol You so know what I meant.

Originally Posted by Jer

Can you offer evidence and reasoning that shows that this is not simply an effort to get me to bow down because you are running out of reasoning?

Above.

Originally Posted by Jer

Also, I ought to point out that possibilities are more than sufficient for this debate. In order for one side or another to become fact as we know it, all other possibilities need to be exhausted. We accept that our chair is black because we have proven that it is not red, blue, green, orange, purple, or any other color besides black. As long as one side or another can introduce a possible explanation or cause for a certain condition, the other side's possibility can never become fact.

I did not ask you to conclude with fact, but logic OR fact. I have not gotten either. Possibility backed by logic is acceptable. But use deductive logic or SOMETHING other than saying "it's possible."

Originally Posted by Jer

Then can you disprove that the greatest power imaginable is omnipotent? Or that my logic in that particular argument is flawed?

=

Originally Posted by Jessie

You stand corrected. Your argument against omnipotence is invalid for Christianity, as the Bible never claims that God is omnipotent. In fact, it specifies otherwise: God CANNOT lie (Titus 1:2). God CANNOT sin (James 1:13). Omnipotence as it relates to the Christian God does not mean that God can do all things. God cannot do anything contrary to His holiness. Besides, there are TWO definitions of omnipotent: having unlimited power OR having very great power. The definitions of omnipotence do NOT include the ability to do impossible or irrational things (like form a spherical triangle.) And as the Bible never mentions the word omnipotent: argument one, omnipotence, has become irrelevant. Most arguments against God of this nature were dropped long ago by the experienced debater.

+

The greatest power imaginable cannot be omnipotent according to your definition, as an omnipotent being of your definition has been incorrectly defined. Omnipotence by your definition is impossible. God is omnipotent in the sense that He is of great power, almighty, you may say, not that He can defy logic (again, creating a spherical cube or something similar.) Again, the omnipotent argument against the existence of God is largely flawed and not used by the experienced debater. Find an argument I have not proven wrong as your counter-argument.

And just for fun: Your argument below is seriously flawed, as it is based off of arguments which are unable to be verified by any information you have provided.

Originally Posted by Jer

1. The greatest power imaginable is omnipotent.
2. God is not omnipotent.
3. Therefore, God is not the greatest power imaginable.

1. The yummy food is green.
2. Popcorn is not green.
3. Therefore, popcorn is not yummy.