God is omnipotent. That means he can do anything. (1)
You're asking him to not be able to do something. (2)
He can't not be able to do something, since there is nothing that he can not do. (3)
Hence, he cannot create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift (4), but he can create a rock that is bigger than the universe squared and then lift it.
1. If this is true (his omnipotence) then he is also able to fail, since failing is just as much an action as succeding in doing something, and he can do anything, including failing.
2. But if he fails (at succeding) then he doesnt succeed at doing something, and therefore cannot do it, which is a limit and thus he wouldn't qualify as omnipotent.
And if he fails (at succeding) on purpose then he has imposed a limit on himself, and is no longer an omnipotent being as per definition, since he cannot do everything.
3. Quite untrue, if he can do ANYTHING, then he can also succeed at failing. And if he can fail then he is not omnipotent.
Thus omnipotence contradicts itself and is an impossible state of being. See point 1 & 2
4. So this is the conclusion:
If he cannot do one of those things, then he is not omnipotent.
If he can do it however, he is still not omnipotent.
2 Things that has to be done, 1 outrules the other, making
it an impossibility. He can bend the rules of reason and logic
you might say but then I want him to do this without bending
said rules, cause if he cannot do so, he is not omnipotent, cause
as an omnipotent being he must be able to do so, since an omnipotent can do anything, under any circumstances.
Infinity is all relative to what you're measuring with anyway, if you were an atom, you'd think the length of your finger was pretty infinate.
Yet it wouldnt be infinite, just extremly much bigger..
And I already made it clear I dont believe that infinity really exists other than as an extremly large number that is so big (in relation to everything else you know) you just dont got a better label for it.
"Density is only a mesure of mass" wasn't very spot on, now was it? Can you blame people for picking up on that? Let's think about this... Density = Mass/Volume...
I also said this.. It is a mesaure of mass per unit of volume.
Note how it says A MEASURE OF MASS..
I never denied you used units of volume to measure it though.
If there is an issue here, then it is one of language barriers,
english not being my first language, I shouldn't be taken 100%
literal if there is something missing in a sentence, like in this
instance, fill in the blanks yourself. I thought density was such
an easy thing I didn't need to explain it or give a full definition of
Might want to remember I didn't learn the definiton of said words in english, since it isn't my first language. And still I got it that close from just translating it from my own language.
That may all be true, but it does not mean God does not exist. We have verifiable evidence that logic breaks down. There is however no way to disprove God. This may seem rather cheap and unfair, but that is the way it is. I don't particularly mind people not believing in God. I just expect them to have intelligent reasons for it.
I believe in higher beings, though I do not believe in a single, omnipotent "God" (with a big G)
Especially not if this god is "all good"..
And why dont I, well:
1. Omnipotence is impossible.
2. The teachings of the very religions that preach this "god" generally dont have a clue about how simple things in nature work, how could they possibly have a single fuckin clue about something that would defy both science and logic like a god would?
(Like you are so quick to point out)
3. If this god is all good and omnipotent, then why is there "evil" (as defined by said religions) in the world? "His ("god's") ways are" (whats the term in english? well, you can fill in the blanks I suppose) is nothing but an excuse for the lack of intervention.
Thus, stuff like omnipotent, allmighty, perfect, is nothing but boasting about how great your own "god" is, it's a commercial
of said religion so to speak...
4. The teachings of said religions contradict themselfs almost everywhere in respective "holy book".
5. Most of the teachings are small parts of other, polytheistic religions, that have been simply taken and copied for respective religion. The name Lucifer for instance was taken from the Romans,
who in turn, took it from the Greeks, where he was named Eosphoros. Then it was taken and applied to a "fallen & evil angel" to slander those religions. If that isn't disrespect for other peoples
beliefs then I dont know what is. And that isn't the only example.. There are LOTS of them.
6. Most religions have been made for a purpose, and not a divine one, but a clearly human one, alot of people today stick to their respective religion for that small chance they might get
to live again in the afterlife (heaven or whatever you want to call it), so fear of death is one reason for such religions, or rather making them not afraid of dying for their "betters" that command the "word and will" of respective "god" is a reason (thus making the priests etc VERY powerful), explaining natural phenomena they didnt have a clue about when the religions was MADE UP is another.. And the list goes on.
I could go on forvever, but this is just to give you some idea of why..
Gravity is a theory as well. In science a theory is the most definitive statement of "fact" there is. Although you are correct that String Theory is yet to be fully accepted.
Gravity is not a theory, it's a force, and it was proven to exist before there was any theory as of how it worked. (Newton didnt discover Gravity, he gave it a name and a theory of how it worked.)
Everyone knew that "something" kept you on the ground and made objects fall to the ground when dropped, but what it was, or how it worked nobody knew, and nobody bothered to find out (or simply couldnt) since it was so natural.
Thus Gravity is not a theory, only how it works is.
You might need to read up, if you think gravity is nothing but a theory so here; its aimed at people like you. (Kids 8+) http://www.hkshum.net/whatisgravity/
Except of course that all objects are constantly moving through time. . .
Yes, but I said freely
Objects cant (atleast we believe so) move "back" (or to the sides, however that would work) in time so to speak, only "forward".
The Universe is expanding, which means it is finite, but it is also unbounded. The Universe is generally considered to be expanding into itself and thus is finite and infinte at the same time. A contradiction perhaps, but then again infinity is not logical. Also the Universe is not well defined. Technically the Universe consists of everything, but people use the term in different ways.
Yeah, I never believed in infinity when it comes to size and such anyways.
Anyways, this is just going round round.. And Im probably not going to be here during this weekend so I think Im going to drop this.