But you're positioning the argument as if I had to.

No I'm not

What if I don't believe in an omnipotent god?

Then my argument doesn't apply to your god

Okay, so how does your argument prove that there is no God?

I should have specified that it disproves the idea of a christian god

Since the christian god is omnipotent, and omnipotence is logically impossible

Why can't God transcend human logic?

@Vlad Your logic

GG @Dagrad, you just advanced to level 25!

My logic?

He can transcend your logic

I am simply asking you questions.

Ask

I am not making claims.

You are.

You left without answering.

Ask

I don't have million of free time

If god does exist above logic, then there would be no way to prove his existence logically, so any argument for his existence would require empirical evidence

I say you now ask @Vlad

> @Vlad He must give presents right?
@Dagrad

I don't know.

Yeagh

Yeah what?

So, what's your question

What does Santa have to do with God? @Dagrad

> If god does exist above logic, then there would be no way to prove his existence logically, so any argument for his existence would require empirical evidence

The requirement for empirical evidence follows the same logical trend.

Why can't God transcend it? Why can't he exist without being proven?

If you make a positive claim you have to back it up with some sort of proof or justification

That's answering questions about who would be correct in a dialogue.

Why can't he exist without being proven?

How can you say something exists without any proof or justification for it?

I am not saying anything. You're telling me that he does not exist.

And your argument is that in a discussion

a party making an "active" claim has to provide proof.

My question is this: why cannot God exist without us having proved he does?

@Vlad Santa is not god?

I don't know. Is he?

@Dagrad