Matt,

Words MUST have meaning in order for any communication to occur. As for the impossible being possible, even in a "god realm" or whatnot, the burden of proof for demonstrating not only that x=-X is possible, but MUST be true lay upon your shoulders alone.

As for the world being flat, no amount of faith will make it so. The world is a sphere. Surely we can agree on this basic fact.

Matt says:

The problems with this approach are near infinite, but let's begin with begging the question, aka circular reasoning. Matt begins with the assumption that this "god" must exist (which of course is his conclusion, thus unproved) and it must be that "god" that inspired the very notion of omnipotence in humans. Clearly the conclusion cannot ever be shown to be true when it is contained in the premises of the arugment, thus this argument necessarily fails.

Add to this the false premise that "god says he is omnipotent." There simply is no evidence whatsoever for this claim, which also simply assumes that this "god" must exist but furthermore has declared that it is omnipotent.

As for a "source outside of the xn bible" I would point out that all of reality is outside of the xn bible, and of course reality cannot be so easily excluded from discussions of existence. This tactic is nothing short of intellectually dishonest. Taking a claim from the xn bible and comparing it to reality to determine its truth is the very same methodology we use for determining whether any claim made anywhere is true. Reality determines truth, not guys in funny hats.

As for the notion that choice somehow answers omnipotence, Matt you are grossly missing the point. This supposed entity is described as being all powerful. This means that it can destroy itself, and it cannot be destroyed. There is NO ELEMENT OF CHOICE here, but rather necessarily contradictory "powers" thus making the very notion of omnipotence itself nonsensical and impossible. Therefore no entity which is supposed to have this characteristic can ever exist.

x=-x if and only if x=0

Actually that is not true. Zero represents nothing, therefore the negation of nothing is something. So putting zero in for X we get "Zero equals not zero" or "Nothing is not nothing (aka something)" so the contradiction still remains.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. Your previous post indicated x = -x. The symbol '-' is recognized as negative (or opposite). It turns out that zero is its own opposite. Mathematically speaking overcaffein8d was perfectly correct.

I realize you probably did not mean it that way, but one other thing to take into account is that, also mathematically speaking zero is something. If I have a set containing zero, then it is a non-empty set. Only the empty set itself is mathematically nothing.

I just want the math to be correct... that's all!

Yeah, it was only a geeky math joke :-P

Yeah, and the world is NOT a sphere. A sphere is perfectly round, while the world is not.

Just being mathematically correct...

Yeah, and the world is NOT a sphere. A sphere is perfectly round, while the world is not.

Just being mathematically correct...

something that ways 194 newtons at the poles weighs 195 at the equator. that makes it an oblate spheroid. Still, we digress, and the point remains....

Jim,

You might as well also go off on the notion that "x" is used to represent multiplication. Your argument begins wholly out of context then pretends to be offering some statement in context. Clearly this is logically erroneous, which is why your point remains false. "-" in a logic statement represents "not" and obviously is not merely a hyphen, or a subtraction symbol, or the connecting element of an "H" or as you would have it representative of a negative number.

Just to be accurate..