@smiley: If the probablilities of certain components cannot be determined, then the probablility of the whole can't be determined, therefore any probablilities given for the whole must be made up.

"Not necessarily. Being all-powerful doesn't mean he can do logically impossible things."

Things God can't do:

*Change water into wine
*Heal a royal official's son by saying he's going to be fine
*Cast demons out of possessed people
*Heal a fever by helping someone sit up
*Cause abnormal numbers of fish to be caught by telling people to go fishing
*Healing leprosy by touch
*Healing a centurion's servant without even going in the house
*Healing paralysis with the power of forgiveness
*Healing arthritis by stretching (debatable)
*Raise a widow's son from the dead
*Stopping storms by telling them to chill out

I think that's enough.

"For example, God couldn't fly in the air, under his own power, whilst staying in one piece, while still leaving his feet on the ground. That is logically impossible."

Mr. Fantastic can TOTALLY do that. That makes Mr. Fantastic more powerful than God.

"And I believe that stopping evil without interfering with free-will is also logically impossible."

Is shooting a mugger in the face a violation of his free will?

@ Conservative Man

Your original post stated: "How about we debate the existence of God" yet when Average White Boy put the burden upon you, you promptly shifted the debate/discussion to "belief in God" rather than staying on point and debating the EXISTENCE of God.

Is belief the same as existence? If so, one would have to agree that your "belief" in God and another's "disbelief" are effectively the same thing.

+1 MichiganMan (did I just type that?)

If you're going to start the topic and take the "Yes" stance, the burden of proof is on you, CM--granted I think trying to prove God is silly as this is not a provable subject one way or the other (if you're religious, "God works in mysterious ways" and he can operate outside logic, thus making logic proofs useless, and if you're an atheist, you're not going to buy that, so it's futile.)

But still.

You started this one, you prove your point...prove to me God exists.

@theLevite: By beliefs don't hinge on God being proven, they hinge on my FAITH in God's existence, and my Faith in what he defines as sin.

Personally, I adhere to a the ancient Vedic notion of God (although I am not Indian) in which it is accepted that God is 3-O,. i.e., Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent. God is everything, knows everything, and can do anything. However, with in this mighty power there is one thing that God, in God's ABSOLUTE state, cannot accomplish. Any idea what it might be?

@MM: Well perhaps I meant a debate on the belief in the existence of God (which I did).

AH!

Here's some proof!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyYS-GzBSIg&feature=related

Hey, all you theists out there:

Wouldn't it be easier to prove a non-omnipotent god? (I use lowercase "g" because a god =/= the Abrahamic God).

Oh wait, you refuse to prove a non-omnipotent god, because you believe "any being not omnipotent is not worthy of being a god."

Who's to say we're not our own gods, dreaming up our own universes within our minds? After all, we have complete control over our imaginations, existing before the beginning and after the end.

What if we're all just a dream within a dream?

"By beliefs don't hinge on God being proven,"

Obviously not.

"they hinge on my FAITH in God's existence, and my Faith in what he defines as sin."

Belief hinges on FAITH. You believe it because you believe it.

"Well perhaps I meant a debate on the belief in the existence of God (which I did)."

I argue that you believe God exists and I do not.

God in the ABSOLUTE state cannot EXPERIENCE as to experience one MUST have an opposite, or to put it another way, there must be RELATIVITY. In the Absolute God is everything, and knows it, therefore there is nothing that is outside of Godself. This, is the source of the creation of the Relative Universe in which we find ourselves.

@obi: I can't. That definitely does not mean he does not exist, however . Let's take the Casey Anthony case. You, and I, and most people, believe that she did it. But the prosecution did not prove that she did it. But we all still believe that she did. Just because the prosecution didn't prove it doesn't mean she didn't do it. Now, I like the way our judicial system works, so I think it was the right decision, saying she's not guilty. So if your belief system is like the judicial system (i.e. must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or you will NOT believe it), then I understand why you wouldn't believe in God. But then, if your belief system is like that, I don't see why you believe the universe exists at all. The existence of the universe CANNOT be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so you shouldn't believe in it. I, on the other hand, choose to have faith that the universe exists (mainly because imagine how lonely and worthless your existance would be without it), and I choose to have faith that God exists (because there IS evidence, albeit not enough to prove his existence). Now, I'll write more on that evidence in my upcoming posts.

Faith is the presumption of proof that God exists. Just because there aren't equations and observations proving existence, "having faith" implies that there's some abstract proof of existence. Faith otherwise would be devoid of reason, which isn't conducive with philosophic thought.

@rayNimagi: "Who's to say we're not our own gods, dreaming up our own universes within our minds? After all, we have complete control over our imaginations, existing before the beginning and after the end."
That is entirely possible, but I have faith that it isn't true.

God created the relative universe in which there is up down, hot cold, black white, good evil, matter space, etc. and then "basted" God's conscious into tiny fragments, placed them inside vessels and caused these bit of Godself to "forget" that they were, in fact, God (as are all things). These vessels travel through out this relative space experiencing.

@thelevite: That makes no sense. What about cases of things that can't be proven either way? Take for exampl, leprechauns. I don't believe they exist because there is no evidence (there is however for God), however, their existance can't be proven either way. So you can either believe that they exist, and have FAITH that they do, or you can believe that don't exist, and have FAITH that they don't. It's the same way with God.

So anyway, on my evidence of God's existence. I first need to ask all you atheists a question. Do you all believe that Jesus existed as a person, even if he wasn't God?

@AWB: "*Change water into wine
*Heal a royal official's son by saying he's going to be fine
*Cast demons out of possessed people
*Heal a fever by helping someone sit up
*Cause abnormal numbers of fish to be caught by telling people to go fishing
*Healing leprosy by touch
*Healing a centurion's servant without even going in the house
*Healing paralysis with the power of forgiveness
*Healing arthritis by stretching (debatable)
*Raise a widow's son from the dead
*Stopping storms by telling them to chill out"

Uh, God can do all those things, because while some are (seemingly) physically impossible, they are not logically impossible.

"Is shooting a mugger in the face a violation of his free will?" No, but it still is evil. A better statement on my part would be: It's logically impossible for God to stop evil without committing an act of evil himself.

I am not an athiest, I do believe in God, but I think that we are ALL god -- we HAVE to be so. I think Jesus is an archetypal figure who was not a historical figure, but his teachings/message is the core of human godhood.

They cannot be proven with current methods, that doesn't mean they cannot be proven outright. It's not binary "They exist or they don't exist, case closed" I have no reason to believe or disbelieve leprechauns or God, there is no further philosophic point past that fork that requires me to choose either option. Leprechauns/God may or may not exist, I lack enough input to make that that decision for my own system of belief. The only way to win is not to play &c.

@thelevite: Of course you don't have to believe or disbelieve the existence of God. It can't be proven either way, so I see why you would. I, on the other hand, choose to believe that God exists.

But do you believe YOU, and all people and all things, are God?

@MM: No

But it is possible; anything that is logically possible, could possibly be true. I choose to believe that God is true.

Christians seem incapable of such understanding -- they always want to elevate Jesus and diminish themselves. Ironically, Jesus asked NOT to be worshiped and told humanity that they could do what he did, they the kingdom of God was WITHIN everyone, not just him

If you're not God, what are you?

"Uh, God can do all those things, because while some are (seemingly) physically impossible, they are not logically impossible."

Nice distinction. Now tell me what the difference is.

"No, but it still is evil. A better statement on my part would be: It's logically impossible for God to stop evil without committing an act of evil himself."

If not even God can stop evil, then who are we to fight it instead of worship it?

"That is entirely possible, but I have faith that it isn't true."
The only way to prove faith is to have faith that faith is true. The same logic can be applied to reason.

"I first need to ask all you atheists a question."
Don't forget agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and Jews.

"Do you all believe that Jesus existed as a person, even if he wasn't God?"
Was there a guy named Jesus who lived around 1 CE? Most likely. Did he defy the laws of physics? Most likely not.

"Is shooting a mugger in the face a violation of his free will?" Why can't God just make the mugger simply walk away? Surely an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God could find a peaceful solution. Perhaps God could inspire the victim with words to convince the mugger to stop. Why must He allow so much suffering in the world?