A commonly used "proof" against god's existence

[mrdevious]

You make a valid point, although I believe that saying still has value. Perhaps not as a statement meant to "prove" anything, but it helps show that absolutes do not exist. "There is nothing God can not do" is an absolute, but it doesn't work. If there is nothing God can't do, than God cannot do "nothing". This would make more sense if I wasn't stoned.

Anyways, the problem with this is...if nothing is an absolute...isn't that an absolute? Another paradox.

but once again, like so many, only a literary paradox, not one applicable to reality. if the only absolute is nothing being absolute, absoluteness still doesn't exist.

though I totally agree with the innitial theory, I've always said nothing's written in stone.

mrdevious Reviewed by mrdevious on 03-31-2005. A commonly used "proof" against god's existence I actually don't believe in god, at least not in a literal form of a being (for my own reasons). though ones interpretation of god, such as existence itself, is always arguable. anywhoo though, I still stick to critical thinking and don't like hearing a theory that is totally flawed in logic, regardless of it being in my favour. an atheistic argument against omnipitence is the good 'ol "can god create a rock so heavy, even he can't lift it", taking issue with the fact that if he's Rating: 5