Can logic be applied to the almighty?

[Willum]

So far the best arguments for God are arguments from logic.

However, in order for this creature to exist and fulfill the expectations levied on it by the Bible or other references, it needs to be All-powerful, or omnipotent.

It also needs to be constrained by these books or promises it allegedly made.

The problem with this is twofold:
Human beings can't be relied upon to keep their word, we agree - and this might not even be from dishonesty, merely misunderstanding or bad expectations. We can be made enforce our promises under some circumstances, but how would you do that with God? Especially if it is the misunderstanding of a second century goat-herder?

You can't.

Now what if the mis-understanding is based on the fact that you can't possibly understand the creature you are dealing with?

So if the fallible humans of the Bible got their understanding of an incomprehensible creature wrong, you are out of luck.

Of course the second problem with using logical arguments for God is that something all-powerful can defy logic MUCH MORE EASILY than reality.

Logic simply does not apply to a creature that can bend reality, or even create it. So square circle, maximal beings, any of that are easily made real by an creature that can do anything. If it can change reality, it can certainly change a human's idiotic definitions and logic. To imagine otherwise, is folly.

So how can use use logic to demonstrate something that can defy it?

You can't.

So, no evidence of God, no proof of God, nothing can actually be ascribed to God, anything God might have said can not be affirmed, nor logic apply. It all adds up to zero.

How could a reasonable person believe in such a creature?

[Tcg]

…They are TWO dimensional geometric figures[/b] – X and Y axis / directions only…

Yes, in the description I gave, circle and square are two dimensional, if you look from right direction, you see either square or circle. If you would not look two dimensionally, you would see something else.

You have assigned this quote to me. I, however, am not the author.


Tcg

[Zzyzx]

.

…They are TWO dimensional geometric figures[/b] – X and Y axis / directions only…

Yes, in the description I gave, circle and square are two dimensional, if you look from right direction, you see either square or circle. If you would not look two dimensionally, you would see something else.

I had the great advantage of an eighth grade course in mechanical drawing. We learned to depict various real three dimensional objects as two dimensional drawings -- and to distinguish between a drawing and an object -- and to distinguish between two dimensions vs. three dimensions.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 22 by Zzyzx]

Regardless, perspective is certainly another kind of logic.
If you see something differently, you reason differently.

You keep drumming on about it, but I myself can create a lens that would make a square circular.
If you do not know about the original shape, nor the lens, how do you know it is it a square, a circle, or is it both?

That's just little old feeble me, dorking about with a lens, making a square circle. God, if he existed has the power to warp reality itself, how can you continue to state this is impossible?

[Zzyzx]

.

That's just little old feeble me, dorking about with a lens, making a square circle. God, if he existed has the power to warp reality itself, how can you continue to state this is impossible?

Of course, with smoke, mirrors, lenses many illusions can be created.

Making up definitions can ‘change’ the meaning of words.

A ‘god’ can be whatever the imagination desires.

Quote me verbatim with URL stating ‘impossible’

[1213]

I had the great advantage of an eighth grade course in mechanical drawing. We learned to depict various real three dimensional objects as two dimensional drawings -- and to distinguish between a drawing and an object -- and to distinguish between two dimensions vs. three dimensions.

Difficult to believe that, but good for you. Unfortunately that really doesn’t add anything meaningful to this debate, and it doesn’t change the fact that what I depicted, is circle from certain point of view and square from certain point of view.

[1213]

…They are TWO dimensional geometric figures[/b] – X and Y axis / directions only…

Yes, in the description I gave, circle and square are two dimensional, if you look from right direction, you see either square or circle. If you would not look two dimensionally, you would see something else.

You have assigned this quote to me. I, however, am not the author.


Tcg

Sorry, I try to be more accurate in future.

[The Tanager]

Difficult to believe that, but good for you. Unfortunately that really doesn’t add anything meaningful to this debate, and it doesn’t change the fact that what I depicted, is circle from certain point of view and square from certain point of view.

Since we are getting nowhere, perhaps we could use a different example for the same issue. Do you think an omnipotent being could create a married bachelor, where "bachelor" means an unmarried person? Not a bachelor that gets married and is no longer a bachelor, but a person who is both married and a bachelor at the same time?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 27 by The Tanager]

Certainly. I can do that (in concept).
A man gets married in one country. He moves and in the new country it doesn't recognize his marriage.

So far your brilliant examples of God-binding logic haven't bound ME, much less a creature of omnipotent stature, so I think that we can safely say that God is not bound by your logic, your books, your beliefs, or even anything you think he said or promised you.

[The Tanager]

Certainly. I can do that (in concept).
A man gets married in one country. He moves and in the new country it doesn't recognize his marriage.

I should have seen that you could still equivocate to hold onto your point. Married now means "married according to country X" and bachelor now means "unmarried according to country Y" rather than the original meanings.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 29 by The Tanager]

I doubt either or any country would see it as equivocating.
Marriage may have different legal constraints in one country then another.
Your logic is incorrect of course, marriage is of course a human convention, governments, churches and gods (if gods existed) would wash your paltry word away like the idea it is.

Since marriage is the legal union of two people, the laws, of countries, etc., are penultimate to your argument... and your argument is dismissed, again.

But do go on, perhaps you will be able to come up with some logical constraint that an all-powerful being (or more realistically ME) won't be able to wade through like water.