My point exactly.
How’s that for a circular argument?
Does a God, any God, have to be infallible?
Seriously. Is that a requirement for a deity?
Jon Scribe wrote:
Rather definitive, I think! 
For mine, it is.
Well, we pretty much have to assume that one, otherwise the whole idea of reality goes down the toilet.
Ack! No! Deductive logic is only one way to model reality. There are many epistemologies, and none is more valid than another.
If you just close your eyes to the fact that deductive logic is a question-begging epistemology, built upon one of its own fallacies, then you close your eyes to reality itself, because that’s how deductive logic really is.
I could move that rock, if God could make me a lever and somewhere to stand.
Can God create a paradox so complex, even he can’t solve it?
So the preacher is saying god can’t do everything, since god can’t do wrong even if he wants to?
According to general relativity, gravity is equal to acceleration. So the question could be rephrased “could God make a rock with so much momentum that even he couldn’t stop it?”
In the midst of all the jocularity and mischievousness, I find this interesting.
Is this true Lib? Must your diety be infallible?
Forgive this hijack into a serious question.
As always, it’s up to the claimant to prove that God does exist. The disbeliever doesn’t have to prove anything. If anyone is requiring proof, that is.
if indeed there is any merit in trying to prove such a thing…
The following is not a joke.
Yesterday I posted a lengthy response to this subject here, on this thread, hit “submit reply”, and eventually actually saw it formatted as one of the listed responses.
Today, it doesn’t exist. Gone forever.
I am completely serious.
Well, we know Scott isn’t Lib’s god, then.
I have a problem with the infallibility of God… Does this mean “wrong” is whatever God never does or would do, or does this mean there is some transcendent standard by which we can judge God and find him perfectly on one side?
Or rather, I have a question etc.
erislover, you’ve provided a perspective I didn’t consider. Namely that God could be considered infallible by definition… whatever He decides to do is “right”.
I was assuming what you refer to as a transcendent standard of what is “right”.
But then I tend to have a Gary-Larson-like view of God. I’d like to believe He could think to Himself “damn… that was stupid; why did I ever create mosquitos.”
Yeah, without a standard to judge god by, you kind of have a hard time indicating what the criteria for a mistake is. Mosquitos might be a good point to start, though, now that you mention it! 
yet, if we have a standard by which to judge god, doesn’t that mean that something is greater than god? whether it be the thing that judges god, or the thing that “caused” the standard, or just the standard itself, if god is to be held to it, it must be greater than him.
so how can the person who believes god is infallible define infallible any other way than by claiming it means exactly as god does or is?
So can God make a post on the SMDB so big, the hampsters can’t eat it?