>By the way, even though I'm still pretty confident in how correct my logic is, I did make one mistep:
>
>"So, logically, either Premise2 or Premise4 is false. I think it would be diplomatic to conclude:"
>
>This is'nt actually true. Logically, any premise can be false, but at least one has to be. I narrowed it down to 2 and 4 but 1 and 3 can be false as well.
>
>Just for reference:
>
>1: If the force holding the atoms together disappears, the universe will implode/explode
>2: God holds the atoms together
>3: If God were omnipotent, he could step away from the universe to observe it
>4: God is omnipotent
>
>Take another look, I'll think you'll find my logic is correct, but instead of debating the truthfullness of p2 and p4, you may be more inclined to suggest that 3 is false. Does that make sense?
>
>I must admit, I never understood ominpotence. But then I never understood religion either so that kind of makes sense ;-)

Omnipotence as in "he doesn't have to step out of the universe to observe it, he can be both places at the same time", i.e. this guy can solve all the VB bugs, all Windows bugs, and still keep electrons together, and sit on the outside of the universe and laugh at the whole mess at the same time.