Quite true Jay, quite true. It's just sad that a belief is usually set in stone and closes ones mind. It's going to sound funny but just like in the movie Dogma. "People die and kill over beliefs. Isn't it better to have a good idea?" Not a verbatim quote but it's close enough.

I know there is always the rare occasion minority that can put personal beliefs aside and actually listen to what others have to say, but that is few and far between. Most of the time it's a "Nope, you're wrong because science PROVES otherwise ( even though the proof is theory or has a shitton of holes in it ) or vice verse and GOD is REAL because a book said so.

Yes generalized but just throwing the "general" idea out there that beliefs tend to skew each side of the argument and not in the favor of the person that holds the "hardcore" belief.

Not throwing anyone or any religion under the bus here. THIS IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE. I have heard hardcore Christian's just belittle peaceful Muslim's because in their personal view all Muslim's are bad and do harm. To them a Christian never causes harm only good. You should see the look on their face when I bring up the Crusades......

Just simply trying to make the point, no matter your outlook it would behoove anyone that chooses to engage in these types of conversations to put a "hardcore" outlook aside and to keep an open mind. If anything it will make for a nice debate and not one filled with "Nu Uh"/"Uh Huh".

NOTE: This argument only applies to an infinite God we see in the Christian (and other monotheistic) Bibles, in the omnipotent and omniscient sense. I define him thus.

Original argument:

Premise 1: God is infinite

Premise 2: God doesn't change with respect to time.

From (2) -> dGod/dTime = 0

dGod = 0 * dTime

[Integrate] God = 0 + C = C, where C is some constant

By definition, C < infinite.

God < Infinite

(1) and (2) lead to a contradictory conclusion

Therefore, God cannot be both infinite and constant.

God does not exist in the universe defined by our mathematical laws.

The easy Christian response to this is that "God exists outside of our mathematical laws!". Here is the refutation [using modal logic]:

Definition: A being is god in some world W if it is God-like in that world. [Being is omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.]

Definition: A being is God if it is god in all worlds.

Premise 1: It is possible that God exists

In some world, God exists

Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that God exists.

In the world where God exists, it is necessary that God exists

Therefore, it is necessarily true that God exists.

The previous statement implies that some world W exists where it is necessarily true that God exists. In this world, God necessarily exists.

Therefore, God exists.

By definition, if God exists in a world, then God exists in all worlds

Note that the above argument is all but universally agreed upon by logicians. The weird feeling you get from the fifth statement is because we usually use "possibly" and "necessarily" in a different way.

However, from the first argument, we know that for some world W, no god exists.

Therefore, no god can exist in all worlds.

Therefore, no god is God.

Therefore, the conclusion that the premise implies to is false.

Therefore, the premise is false.

From this, we can conclude the following:

It is not possible that God exists.

First off if you are going from the Christian aspect and god doesn't change, have you read the Old Testament and then the New Testament? God changed. Eating me on Friday was no longer a sin to name one of the simpler explanations. Furthermore, the only thing that is static about god as an entity is that he is infallible. Nothing more, nothing less.

The infallible part is one that can't be argued really. Look at it this way. If a being creates something, including you how can you say that it was a mistake or faulty? How do you know that wasn't their plan? How do you know that they didn't change their plan at some point? Furthermore who's to say that the bible is even accurate? After all, it was recorded by man, whom by the way is very fallible and even more so when the grip of and sort of power over others is at hand.

You simply can't take a record that was recorded by man and changed several times with even more information being withheld ( look at the possible dead sea scrolls or whatever they turned out to be, that the Catholic Church refuses to release the info on it to the public ). This is the case for either side of the debate by the way.

dude, your just picking out random bits of comments to agree with your thoughts

the argument that "God exists outside the boundaries of our laws" does not escape from the consequences of "God cannot exist according to the laws of our world". If God cannot exist in some world W that obeys our mathematical laws, then he is not God.

I understand that you're playing devils advocate to some degree. im not shutting anyone's beliefs down, im just asking simples questions. such as "why"? and the answer i got back is magic. not magic in saying that some form of a creator made this happen, but just flat out magic.

proven by many many many people that the new testament is at least 75% lies

First off if you are going from the Christian aspect and god doesn't change, have you read the Old Testament and then the New Testament? God changed. Eating me on Friday was no longer a sin to name one of the simpler explanations. Furthermore, the only thing that is static about god as an entity is that he is infallible. Nothing more, nothing less.

The infallible part is one that can't be argued really. Look at it this way. If a being creates something, including you how can you say that it was a mistake or faulty? How do you know that wasn't their plan? How do you know that they didn't change their plan at some point? Furthermore who's to say that the bible is even accurate? After all, it was recorded by man, whom by the way is very fallible and even more so when the grip of and sort of power over others is at hand.

You simply can't take a record that was recorded by man and changed several times with even more information being withheld ( look at the possible dead sea scrolls or whatever they turned out to be, that the Catholic Church refuses to release the info on it to the public ). This is the case for either side of the debate by the way.