For Bobbles: The ontological argument
G = (∃x) Gx = God exists P-->Q = strict implication P⊃Q = material implication N(x) = It is necessary that X ~N~(x) = It is not necessary that not-X = It is possible that X (1) G-->N(G) (2) [G-->N(G)]⊃[~N~(G)-->G] (3) ~N~(G) (4) ~N~(G)-->G (1,2; MP) ::. G (3,4; MP) Okay. Let me have your best objection, and I'll gladly dismantle it.
P-->Q = strict implication
P⊃Q = material implication
N(x) = It is necessary that X
~N~(x) = It is not necessary that not-X = It is possible that X
(4) ~N~(G)-->G (1,2; MP)
::. G (3,4; MP)
Okay. Let me have your best objection, and I'll gladly dismantle it.
The beauty of all this is that I am not making any premise, I don't have an argument. I am simply looking at your argument, as a layman. You're presenting a logical argument:
You said, at least implicitly, that the notion of a 'limitless being' leads to absurdities, and you gave examples for this. Since you did not explain specifically where the notion goes astray, the only thing left for me to do is focus on your examples.
I really do not see 'limitless' as some abstruse notion; I think you, as an atheist, are intentionally confounding it in order to spuriously present it as being some arcane idea restricted to the worldviews of sophists or theological pedants--this way, you can further create a gap between theism and common sense, such that you are better able to vindicate your atheism to the uninformed neutral onlooker. The term is obviously part of our discourse, as you can observe people using it at least hyperbolically to describe, say, their favorite football player (e.g., "His ability to run is without limit" ). I think the fact that the majority of people in the world worship something akin to a limitless being (whether it be Brahma, Samsara, Yahweh, Allah, or the God of Spinoza) is testimony to the fact that the notion is not as you are trying to represent it.
The whole point is that things do not exist equally: Some things die easier than others; some things require more preconditions for their existences; some things do not exist except when they are thought; some things have greater ability to affect other things; and so on. The idea here is that a being such as God, a limitless being, embodies existence to its absolute maximum. God, by logical necessity, is the greatest most powerful thing that can possibly exist (and, consequently, actually exists).
My guess is that you are going to reject this under the banner of some postmodernistic woo-woo, where it is taboo and even repugnant to even speak of 'great-making', 'limits', and so on--of course, you'll do this in your ignorance of the metaphysical implications of your position.
And I am taking that a step further, and saying that if a being is truly limitless, and you choose to attribute the limitless attribute to, wisdom, power, sexual prowess; then you must also apply the same attribute to mass, temperature, gravity, space, etc.
You are wrong because sexual prowess, mass, temperature, gravity, and space all involve materiality, which is an ontological limitation; materials have to be put together, and they are held together by natural laws. It would follow that God is ontologically dependent upon nature in order to exist; hence, he is limited by the natural world insofar that his existence stands or falls upon what nature necessitates. Further, it would entail that the sufficient reason for God's existence is in something else, and another good definition of 'limited' is that which applies to anything whose sufficient reason for being is not in itself.
When we say that God is infinite, we mean that He is unlimited in every kind of perfection or that every conceivable perfection belongs to Him in the highest conceivable way. In a different sense we sometimes speak, for instance, of infinite time or space, meaning thereby time of such indefinite duration or space of such indefinite extension that we cannot assign any fixed limit to one or the other. Care should be taken not to confound these two essentially different meanings of the term. Time and space, being made up of parts in duration or extension, are essentially finite by comparison with God's infinity. Now we assert that God is infinitely perfect in the sense explained, and that His infinity is deducible from His self-existence. For a self-existent being, if limited at all, could be limited only by itself; to be limited by another would imply causal dependence on that other, which the very notion of self-existence excludes. But the self-existing cannot be conceived as limiting itself, in the sense of curtailing its perfection of being, without ceasing to be self-existing. Whatever it is, it is necessarily; its own essence is the sole reason or explanation of its existence, so that its manner of existence must be as unchangeable as its essence, and to suggest the possibility of an increase or diminution of perfection would be to suggest the absurdity of a changeable essence. It only remains, then, to say that whatever perfection is compatible with its essence is actually realized in a self-existing being; but as there is no conceivable perfection as such — that is, no expression of positive being as such — that is not compatible with the essence of the self-existent, it follows that the self-existent must be infinite in all perfection. For self-existence itself is absolute positive being and positive being cannot contradict, and cannot therefore limit, positive being.
As for me explaining what omniteporal, omnispatial and omnimaterial mean... they are the in the same category as omnipotency, omnipresence, they are attributes that a truly LIMITLESS being has? I don't understand what you mean for me to define them. I'm asking you to define them since you are the one postulating the Limitless Being, and I'm showing you how silly it is for you to do that, and what that sort of terminology leads to. I'm not sure how those are logically incoherent attributes, and the ones that you postulate are logically coherent?
I told you this already. They are not in the same category because any notion of space, time, or materiality is intrinsically limiting, for the reasons stated above; whereas notions of potency and intellect are not intrinsically limiting.
Rather than recapitulating everything that I've already stated, perhaps you should take a trip down to Newadvent.org and read about this. If it is still too recondite for you, then I know some good professors you can e-mail; that is, if you are genuinely interested in understanding the position. If this is merely an inquisition, then there is no point to me sitting here trying to explain my position.