No, it means you can't deny them.

So what you are saying is that all these pictures of Chuck on the Internet are real and he can do all of this because of his faith?

That's it, we know god exists, Chuck Norris is the proof of it and it was under our eyes the whole time.

All we need to convince the few remaining sceptic is a picture of Chuck LITERALLY (and I am not misusing it) using his faith to LITERALLY move a mountain as the bible says is possible if you have faith.

Anybody with photoshop up to the task?

I love god ,he is great

Ok, poor phrasing on my part, rephrase it with "can god create ANOTHER being more powerful than him?" if you prefer

Actually I believe that it is much more likely for god to be constrained by lack of existence and hence NOT POWERFUL AT ALL rather than limited in power.

You think infinite power, and thing that I think limited power whereas I think lack of power due to lack of existence is the most plausible alternative.

Though a god (or being in general) could very well have created the universe without being all powerful, he would just need to be very, very powerful so that to us he would appear all powerful without being so.

I do believe in a universal good and bad. It is just that I believe that it exists regardless of the existence or nonexistence of any particular deity and that a chaotic god giving us immoral commands does not make said command moral, it makes said god immoral.

In essence the existence of god and the existence of morality are orthogonal to each other, hence why I call myself orthotheist.

Even if the god of the bible or the koran or the vedas revealed itself in a theoretically undisprovable manner and offered me conversion to its faith (say, because he thinks I'm a nice guy and hates to see me go to hell because I don't believe in him) I would not jump at the occasion and instantly convert to judaism/christianity/islam/hinduism but would also need to know that his moral were good morals (either because I already think so or because he can convince me by logical means why they are; though being very powerful he could doubtlessly change me to believe them to be regardless of whether I would find them good or abject of my own volition).

You could say that one of the differences between you and me is that I consider all the gods to be part of the masses whose opinion you do not want to be subject to whereas you pick out one of them whose opinion you say you subject yourself to (though you probably don't as I am sure there are plenty of things in the bible that god did, said, or inspired its authors to write that you would disagree with).

Wrong, godhood does not imply goodness as plenty of religions have had evil gods. It is only the narrowminded judeo-christiano-islamic view that think that due to them postulating only one full god that they view as omnibenevolent no matter what atrocities he commits.

But this is not what the bible says (haven't read the koran so I would have to ask superchunk on that), it says that god is perfect, not that he strives to be. It is the bible that implies said point stands still and that god is there and that we humans should be striving for it.

Paraphrasing you:

"Religion doesn't really work, anyway. You can't prove anything with it, you can't even claim it can give a good guess. You can never prove that you're not hallucinating, or that you are being manipulated by some sinister force. And you can't say that it's indicative of anything because you would be using religion to demonstrate that, which would be circular. I'm not even sure if methods of truth exist, or if the idea makes any sense at all."

The difference is most (all?) religion relies on you accepting a number of tenets that theoretically cannot be changed as they are supposed to be the perfect word of a perfect creator (at least for abrahamic religions) whereas science does its best to limit the number of tenets you need to believe and allows you to challenge each and every one of them iff you have good evidence to do so: i.e. you can't just say the earth is flat or evolution didn't happen when all the evidence indicates that it is round and that some kind of evolutionary process is occurring; though not necessarily in the exact form being theorised in today's science as further data might invalidate some of it.

Hell, even Newton's theory of gravity could and would be challenged if people started to float up in the air without changing morphology (not evolving bags of air to make us like human balloons) and without assistance from technology.

Oh, wait, newton's theory of gravity WAS challenged by Einstein and shown partially incorrect and gave rise to the theory of general relativity. This didn't make Newton's theory wholly wrong or useless but it refined it to give us a better understanding of the universe. It is unlikely that further discoveries in this field will totally invalidate either theories due to the amount of evidence backing them up but who knows, maybe further refinements will add to them in a similar fashion.

The same is true for the theory of evolution. There is enough evidence for us to be sure that it occurred in the past and is occuring now but like the theory of gravity it probably will need to be modified as we understand how things happen(ed) better (it was already modified a lot since Darwin, especially with genetics which confirmed it where it could have just as easily destroyed it).

So when I have the choice of believing something that rely on total faith with no proof of it possible I prefer to be sceptic. When offered to believe something that seeks to explains things to me and whose fruits I enjoy daily (even as I type this post) I choose to believe it as far as it has proven itself and when it offers new theories I choose to be sceptical of them until the amount of evidence of their favour and my understanding of them it enough to overcome said scepticism, hence why I still don't believe in cold fusion (even though I would love for it to be true).

The conclusion only holds if the total energy of the universe is not equal to zero.

As the gravitational potential energy is negative (see: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_gravitational_potential_energy_negative_for_the_equation_of_Ep_equal_-GMm_over_r) it would depend on whether all that negative potential energy going around is enough to bring the total of the energy to zero.

According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time (p.129): "In the case of a universe that is approximatively uniform in space, one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."

Now, science being what it is it is possible that later evidence points toward it being non-zero but if such is the case I have honestly not heard of it (yet). Such a non-zero value would be a good clue as to the possible existence of a deistic god. It would however be a stretch to go from "there may be a deistic god" to "that god can only be YAHWH/Elohim/Jesus/Allah" without further evidence pointing in either of these directions.

edit: sorry for the triple post but it's not like I didn't give you guys time to answer unless you are in bed, time differences and all... speaking of which, I have been awake for nearly 24h so I am soon going to hit the pillow.

1.) Like I said, limited perception on your part. Light is exhibits properties of both a particle and a wave, I don't recall any recent science explaining how this is possible. Same thing, God can create something that is not himself that then is himself.

2.) Scientifically, that's the flaw in your arguments. Your arguments are based on the idea that the more we learn about Science, the more we learn that God can't have done. In the typical description, God CREATED the universe and is responsible for it's motion and how it operates, hence the most science can claim is "Oh, I see how we can do the same thing, I bet when God did this, the universe exhibited similar properties"
The issue at hand here is that if I'm right about God existing, then circular logics are going to be necessary because of the very properties of his existence that defy the limitations of the physical universe because he is the one who created them. He is literally a being that, by his most basic description, has to have existed outside the bounds of the physical universe. HE CREATED IT, hence he "existed" before it. We are bound by the physical laws because we can only exist in and perceive the physical universe that we are in, however, as it's creator, God must have existed at a point in which those laws did NOT exist.
However, for your points you have offered various "logical" tests as "proof" of God's inexistance. However, EVERY SINGLE ONE of these arguments are all based on the initial idea that God doesn't exist. The only issue is that scientifically, that is unsound. So by that fact, if you want to believe in God, you must rest those beliefs on proofs that conflict with the very laws that supposedly dictate your own beliefs. My beliefs of God is "why" and Science is "how we can do what god already knows how to do" has none of those conflicts. circular logic? perhaps, but just like rock paper scissors and yinyang and nature itself, a flow is often a sign of harmony and balance

3.) Actually, my beliefs are founded on the fact that people are not perfect, nor is language, and politics only makes things worse. I don't make the mistake of going "well, it said it in the bible, I must kill and stomp out anything that seems to conflict with the bible" because the first thing that you should do is check what the bible says (a book written by man) against the 10 commandments (direct words of god) though still, currently written in language invented by man wich is not perfect, hence needing to be carefully reinterpreted every so often in order to avoid loss of original intent. Most religions forget this, but I don't, which is why my beliefs aren't bound to the same stupid logical falacies that most religious documents have their doctrines peppered with.

4.) Again, limited perception on your part. I never said God wasn't already perfect, I said perfection is constantly increasing. God is not constantly striving to reach perfection, he IS that ever increasing point of perfection. Hence no matter how "perfect" we are able to make something (not in theory, in reality), there is always a way to improve, or become more accurate. So there isn't any conflict with what any bible has said and what I have said.

LOL. Oh wait.....you were being serious.

No, of course I don't believe in any God. Which God are you guys talking about anyway? There's hundreds to choose from.

In case you missed it.

@premise 1,

Oh BTW this quote:

"Science doesn't really work, anyway. You can't prove anything with it, you can't even claim it can give a good guess. You can never prove that you're not hallucinating, or being manipulated by some sinister force. And you can't say that it's indicative of anything because you would be using science to demonstrate that, which would be circular. I'm not even sure if methods of truth exist, or if the idea makes any sense at all.

Is nothing but philosophical skepticism.  Most people recognize that you must reject it completely or live paralyzed in indecision.  Note what happens when you turn this position on itself, now we cannot trust the idea that we cannot trust things.  Note what happens when you turn this position on god, now we cannot be sure that anything that allegedly happened regarding any religion has ever happened.  Note what happens when you turn this on existence, now we cannot be sure that anyone exist and must accept the possibility that we are nothing but the figment of a delusional imagination, but of who?.  The thinking is circular and paralyzing and it must be ignored for progress to be made. So long as science continues to explain the universe to great accuracy, consistency, and agreeance with objective observable evidence people will logically continue to ignore the idea of philosophical skepticism in favor of what works.

Ok with premise 1 addressed I'd like to point out that premise 2 is irrelevant since with the 1st law of thermodynamics properly used in this context there is no rule that says the universe cannot spring from "nothing" (the term is used loosely) and thus no longer has a need to be infinite. I address it for completeness.

Now to address premise 2,

As for the "infinite paradox", its not really a paradox although I should point out that a paradox is not necessarily a contradiction (read more) to begin with. 

But to more concretely deal with it I shall go to space-time, something most people are familiar with by now is the concept that time is simply another dimension of space.  All mass has a constant velocity through these 4 (or more) dimensions which is why if you increase your spatial velocity you lose velocity (aka "Slow down") in your movement through time.  I point these proven facts out because it is important to understand that time is literally another dimension just like space.

Now understanding this consider the "paradox" of where you are right now.  Just like where we are in time at this moment (an infinite expanse of time) you are in an infinite expanse of space.  No, not the infinitely large kind of space, the infinitely small kind of space.  You're standing at 6.734572342456673452345667.....etc which can go to infinite precision and yet you can still exist within this infinite expanse.

Now, the point here is that many people often mistake their own inability to comprehend an infinite expanse for an inability to exist in one.  Consider this, if it were impossible for you or I to exist within an infinite expanse, what can exist within an infinite expanse?  And if nothing can exist within an infinite expanse how can anything be infinite if nothing can be part of it? 

For the record the infinitely small example is a false example but I thought it would be easier than attempting to relate the details of a non-euclidian geomotry to you to explain that space can be infinite in the large scale.  Its used as a proxy example because it is far easier to understand for those who don't want to spend a bunch of time reading about math (like me =p).

Indeedly Doodly. If you don't believe in God what do you believe in?