(January 16, 2010 at 3:01 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: according to the above that is a lie.
Not so. You introduce semantics which of course is spurious.
(January 16, 2010 at 3:15 pm)Knight Wrote:Quote:No. The whole Universe and God is God.
What is the universe, and what is God? You have yet to define God yet you equate it with the universe.
"God is God"--no sir, that's not circular at all!
Incorrect. You wanted to more accurately understand what I meant by everything being God. Given God the creator we can know that together with creation there must also be creator. So it was simply your logic that was at fault. No need to introduce definitions that haven't been made. For a Theological Noncognitivist you sure do make a lot of theological statements!
(January 16, 2010 at 3:15 pm)Knight Wrote:Quote:Again... the point is I don't know what he is: only what he isn't.
It was or also was St Thomas Rabbit: the Via Negativa is one of his 3 ways to understand God.
That is the point! You CANNOT know what God is. You also cannot know what God is not since you cannot observe him.
Also, if God is omnipotent, he could technically be whatever he wanted. As you say, though, if there are things God cannot be, then he is not omnipotent. It's funny you would give God both of these characteristics without even observing him.
I've demonstrated several times now how you can know about something from what it is not. Observation simply doesn't apply. And to appeal on the grounds of special pleading is fallacious. Just because something is unique doesn't mean is can't exist.
You commit another fallacy trying to disprove omnipotency. See here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-1813.htm...nt+fallacy
