I can see it in logs.

i added something

> Right, and why is the party that claims that God does exist any different than the party that claims that God does not exist in your active-vs-passive scenario?
@Vlad

"Claiming that something doesn't exist is a negative claim, which means that its the passive stance. Claiming that something does exist is a positive claim, which means that is the active stance."

But anyways, lets assume that i do have to prove that god doesn't exist for some reason, i will

Is your god omnipotent

I don't know.

Do you believe in a god?

Not really.

What's next then?

Well if you do believe in a god that is indeed omnipotent

Why do I have to?

That god cannot exist since omnipotence itself is logically impossible

I didn't say you have to

i said *if*

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