X-Ftn-To: Ian 

"Ian"  wrote:
>No I do not mean that. I drew a self evidently incorrect conclusion from a
>definition, thereby showing that that which was defined was logically
>inconsistent. That is a reductio ad adsurdem proof.

Actually, it proved that the definition was inconsistent and that the
one who made it made a logical fallacy. You defined God as existent
(therefore a part of all that exists) and in the same definition
defined God as the creator of all that exists (which includes God).
This is a logical fallacy and if you think that nobody saw it, you
have a really low opinion of the auditorium. Obviously, if you defined
"universe" as "everything that we are able to perceive", and God as
the "creator of the universe", everything would be just fine with your
logic, since you don't perceive God, and you do perceive the universe.
I, however, can't do that, because God is a part of what I perceive,
and I have to define God as the fundamental reality, and the basis of
all experience, which fits my experience just fine.
So, we can play with definitions of God all day, but the fact is, God
exists, God is the fundamental, sole reality, and whatever you do,
will only affect your relationship with God, and never God himself.

-- 
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org