Prove to me that Jesus is real, and that hell and/or heaven is real, and yes I would repent and follow him.

If it could be proven that there was a place of absolute happiness and thriving, and the means to this place could be proven, I would jump at the chance. Likewise, if it could be proven that there was a place of absolute pain and devastation, I would jump at the chance to avoid it.

Most religions are centered around the idea that there's something realer, more satisfying, and more important than the physical world and the pleasures of the flesh. Sex is the quintessential pleasure of the flesh, therefore religion must assert that whatever it's selling is more important than sex. The best way to do this is to place restrictions on sex so that one must restrain their indulgence of sex in order to be a good practitioner.

If God exists, then it is possible. If God does not exist, then it is not possible.

This is just a matter of possibility, not probability, which would be a whole different matter.

I don't wear them. I find them constricting and unnatural. I prefer to feel free.

Also, I am a male.

If male, they would be terminated and I would look into what legal options were available to me to sue for the emotional distress he no doubt caused my workers.

If unattractive, I would do the same.

If female and attractive, I would give her a small monetary reward and encourage her to express herself in such a manner more often.

I'm a sexist, and I'm okay with that.

Nah, I like him. Disagree with him on almost everything I've seen him write, but I like him.

According to Christian theology (or at least my understanding of it), he's already born with sin and therefore headed to hell, and he can only be saved by accepting Christ. So whatever he did is really a non-issue since he isn't sent to hell based on his behavior anyway.

If they could be transcended then they would not be laws.

Laws of physics only apply to physical objects. Anything that is not physical would be free to transcend them, while the laws would retain their status as laws.

The majority of the scientific community disagrees with you. Einsteinian physics disproves the notion. If you want to refute that then you will have to refute mathematics, which, as I have said, is futile.

I'm sure that the majority of the scientific community understands that theories exist to be falsified and are to be held only so long as evidence is not found to contradict them. And Einsteinian physics don't disprove anything, it is a model that is itself to be tested, falsified, improved, and developed.

That's why experiments are conducted that try to move something faster than the speed of light. To falsify it. Because we don't know that nothing moves faster than the speed of light, it's only the best theory we currently have.

Personal psychological experiences cannot be defined as evidence.

Why not? Weak evidence is still evidence. We accept eyewitness testimony as evidence, which is a personal experience.

Anything can be construed as possible if you disregard physics, which is why I take issue with your argument, it can be summarised as "If the impossible were possible, then the impossible would be possible".

My claim is that what you're calling “impossible” is not impossible. It may be incredibly unlikely, but that's not the same thing as an impossibility.

If God transcends the universe then how could he interact with it?

Why would transcending the universe mean that he could not interact with it? Especially if he were in a position where he could manipulate the universe. The universe's laws would not apply to him (therefore making him transcendent), but I don't see why that would prevent him from interacting with it.

You cannot pick and choose with mathematics. I present science, you respond "magic". God is a paradox, correct? If your answer is a paradox then either your information is wrong or you are.

We're discussing a being said to be omnipotent. Of course most of these answers are going to basically amount to magic.

My argument is more comprehensive. I did not say it was impossible to operate outside limits that apply only to humans, but the limits that apply to everything. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the debate.

Alright, and I'm saying that the limits you say apply to everything do not. They apply to matter and energy of the universe, but not to that which transcends the universe. Which is really where our key disagreement is, I'm saying that it's possible for transcendent beings to exist, and you say that no such being can exist. You point to science and mathematics, and I point out that they don't help us here since the very being under discussion is said to be beyond the realm of science and mathematics. You say that because we've not yet found a transcendent being that we should assume such things are impossible, I say that such an assumption goes beyond the actual evidence we have.

The interconnected nature of mathematics makes it impossible for one to follow some rules and not others. For example, 2 = 1+1. This implies that 2x = x+x. As x is a variable, the equation applies to all numbers. Hence, it is impossible to say that 30 =15+15, but 40 (=) 20+20, where brackets indicate falseness.

I see. Thank you for the explanation.

But omnipotence is impossible for just that reason: it defies mathematics. 2 can never equal 3. Bending a ruler does not change the length of an inch.

And I'm saying that a transcendent being is free to defy mathematics.

More "magic".

If you want to discuss the likelihood of God, that's another debate altogether. One that I would probably agree with you on. This is about the possibility of God. Since the very being that is being discussed is said to be omnipotent, magic is a perfectly appropriate answer when discussing whether or not such a being is possible.

"believes that there is no God" can be written as "Does not believe that there is a God". Every positive belief has a negative belief attached to it. For example, "Apples are Green or red" means that "Apples are not purple".

False. “Does not believe that there is a god” is a distinct statement from “does not believe that there is a God.” The first one indicates a belief, the second the absence of a belief.

No, one simply professes not to know. You have stated that you do not believe in God, presumably because of the lack of evidence. Agnostics cannot believe that there is or is not a God. They must simply say "maybe" to either claim.

How is it possible to not have an opinion on the existence of God while not simultaneously lacking a belief in the existence of God?

Even a “maybe” claim puts them in the atheist camp because they would still lack a belief in God if they said “maybe.”

Which is what I said.

False. You said that we should assume that nothing transcends the laws of physics because nothing we have currently observed transcends the laws of physics. Whereas I said simply that there is currently no reason to believe that anything transcends the laws of physics.

My statement works only with the evidence we currently have and makes no assumptions about the rest of the universe or beyond.

Damn you and your false definitions. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. How do we know this, without having seen every moving force in the universe? We do not, but yet the claim is made. That is exactly what I did.

You're right. We don't know that nothing travels faster than the speed of light. The truest claim to make here is that nothing we have found thus far travels faster than the speed of light. Disregarding the possibility of this theory being falsified speaks beyond the evidence.

All we can say is that it is our theory that nothing travels faster than the speed of light, and that thus far nothing has falsified this theory. This speaks well within the evidence.

Faith is belief without evidence. I was "not completely without it". And yet you still call it faith? That's perverse.

Theists have personal psychological experiences. That's weak evidence, but still evidence. Does that mean that theism is not faith? Of course not.

Evidence comes in shades. It's not evidence vs. not-evidence; it's much evidence vs. little evidence. When the evidence is little, the faith is much. When the evidence is much, the faith is little. When you spoke beyond the evidence, your statement became more faith-based.

Whereas I say nothing can transcend it. Neither view can be verified, but mine has more supporting evidence. Therefore mine should be favoured.

There's currently no reason at all to believe that there exists a transcendent being(s). My only goal was to work within possibility, not likelihood.

Working within likelihood, yours is clearly the stronger scenario. However, due to our lack of omniscience, we cannot say with certainly that there are no beings that transcend the universe, and therefore the possibility exists regardless of how unlikely it is. All I need is the possibility so that I can talk about a hypothetical entity that does transcend the universe.

Scientific conjecture.

Scientific conjecture in an area where scientific conjecture holds no weight. Science only applies to the universe (the way I defined it earlier).

I disagree. If there are any Gods, then there are a number of them, correct? If there is one then that number is 1. If this is true then the rest of mathematics must also be adhered to.

No. That is continuing to apply the logic of the universe to the being said to be it's creator.

And even if it were the case that God was 1, why does it follow that the rest of mathematics must also be adhered to? Even if our logic and mathematics applies to him, why does it follow that it applies in it's entirety. If he were omnipotent, perhaps he just chooses what mathematics apply to him.

Poorly.

I don't know, I thought it was pretty good.

That is not why it is inappropriate.

How many metaphors don't break down when examined thoroughly enough? As long as it illustrated the point of an entity living in one world making a false conjecture on another world based on applying the situation of their world to the other world, then it served it's purpose.

If you follow one, you follow all.

Please elaborate as to why this is so.

Of course it doesn't.

Which was the original point. That he has power over mathematics and logic. That for god, "2 + 2 = 5, so does 2 + 3 = 5, so does 10,000,000,000 + 999,999,999 = 5." That he is not bound to them, he transcends them.

In that event, probability would be 1.

Probability works with occurrences. This god is not said to have occurred.

Lacking belief and not believing are the same thing. I made no distinction between the two.

This is true. However in your last post you wrote "an atheist is a person who believes that there is no God." That is neither lacking belief nor not believing. That's an actual belief, a claim that there is no God.

There's a difference between "I don't believe in a god," and "there is no god." One is the lack of the believe, the second is itself a belief. These are, however, both atheism.

You cannot be both agnostic and atheistic. You do not believe in God, which makes you an atheist. An agnostic would not have an opinion either way.

If one does not have an opinion either way, then one must necessarily lack a belief in god. Since anything that lacks a belief in god falls under atheism, that makes one both an agnostic and an atheist.

An agnostic is making an epistemological claim whereas the atheist is either making a claim about existence or declining to make a claim about existence. These two are not mutually exclusive.

Then it is logical to assume that nothing does.

False. The reasonable thing to do would be to take the evidence as it is: which is that there is currently no reason to believe that there is anything transcends the laws of physics. It is not any more logical to make a premature judgment on everything we have yet to discover and study.

Faith is belief without evidence. The evidence suggests that nothing transcends the laws of physics. It is therefore impossible to label my conjecture as "faith".

Evidence comes in shades. If you say that "nothing we have found thus far transcends the laws of physics," you are speaking well within the evidence we have. When you say "nothing transcends the laws of physics" you are making a universal claim based upon our current body particular evidence. The evidence is far weaker for such a claim, and therefore more faith-based.

Properly speaking, you were speaking beyond the evidence, not completely without it. I still think the faith-based claim label is appropriate for that reason.

You cannot, by definition, transcend the universe. The universe is all.

The universe, as I am using it, means the totality of physical existence, matter and energy, and the physical laws and constants that govern them. That is what I am saying this being transcends.

And yet you continue to use the singular noun. If He transcends mathematics then he cannot have a numerical value. Therefore he is 0, non-existent. Either He does not transcend mathematics or he does not exist.

False dichotomy created from trying to impose the rules of the known upon the unknown. The fact that I use the singular noun in discussing him only reveals the limits of language, not the nature of the being under discussion.

So why do fish fear land predators such as bears? Regardless, it is an inappropriate metaphor.

I was using it to illustrate a point, not to accurately portray the relationship between fish and land-dwelling creatures.

Merely existing gives your probability a value of 1. If something exists it has to have such a probability. Probability being a branch of mathematics, everything that exists must comply with mathematical laws, even God.

This does not show that God must comply with mathematical laws. This does not show that he could not alter the laws of mathematics to create all sorts of absurd equations that would nevertheless be true because his omnipotence gave Him power over them.

All this shows is that we can, at least in form, apply the human measurement of probability to God. Not that probability has some sort of power over him, or even that God is an appropriate subject for probability. Especially since probability is the measure of random events, and would hardly be appropriate for discussing something that is said to have always been and never occurred as the result of a particular event.

Your definition of agnostic is wrong then. An agnostic believes that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not. An atheist is a person who believes that there is no God. If you do not have a personal belief in God then you are an atheist, regardless of whether you make such a claim verbally.

Is an atheist “a person who believes that there is no God,” or is an atheist anyone who lacks a personal belief in God? You seem to be disagreeing with yourself here.

And yes, you are right when you defined agnostic, that's what I said. I wrote two posts ago: “agnosticism is an epistemological position that denies knowledge is possible. In this case, in the area of the existence or non-existence of God.”

Surely you understand that there's a different between knowledge and belief.