post-it

You can be self-contradictory and you exist. If God is greater than you, God can also be self-contradictory and exist.

Dr Rick

The concept of self-contradiction as it is used here is to denote logical impossibilities. Examples would include a married bachelor or a round square, neither of which can exist.

The argument from evil is such an argument used to refute the existence of the Christian God; The existence of evil contradicts the possibility of a Christian God that is all-knowing (onmiscient), all-powerful (omnipotent), and all-loving (omnibenovelent).

Rick

post-it

A nonexistent God, cannot be a true statement, thus God exists. The round square argument is but a play on words, such play can equally prove God. Neither are sound arguments.

Quote:

The argument from evil is such an argument used to refute the existence of the Christian God; The existence of evil contradicts the possibility of a Christian God that is all-knowing (onmiscient), all-powerful (omnipotent), and all-loving (omnibenovelent). Rick

Only if we allow you to make the rules under which a omnipotent God would act. One that is omnipotent can alter the other attributes at certain times and for certain time limits. There is no verse which states that God is controlled by these attributes at all time. Nor could a God that is omnipotent be limited to act within any limitation as this trite argument suggests.

post-it

double post

Automaton

Not so, due to one of the most basic rules of logic, that is if A is A (and it always is, otherwise it would not be A in the first place) then A cannot be simultaneously not-A, for the reason just stated. It makes no sense, thus, to say "p is self-contradictory and p is true" any more then it makes sense to say "<blank space> is self-contradictory and <blank space> is true", as an incoherent concept is predicatively the same as a null concept. And because I can (apparently) self-contradict, me being non-omnipotent also would mean I could be omnipotent, for all you know. All your proofs against it will be meaningless since I can, as you say, self-contradict.
"Greater" in what capacity? Is there an ontological scale of "greatness" (whatever that means, note: subjective term), and can you define and prove such a scale to me? I somehow doubt it. And even if greatness were a real ontological property, why would X entity being greater than Y entity immediately mean X must be entitled to all the attributes of Y. If such were true, wouldn't such an argument also be sound: I can commit evil acts and play basketball, and God is greater than me, therefore God can commit evil acts and play basketball? I doubt an ethereal, omnibenevolent being can actually play basketball or commit evil acts.

Automaton

A solipsistic tautology. Existence cannot be defined, otherwise there is an infinite possible array of things that could be defined existent and thus make the statement "x is non-existent" necessarily untrue, and as such infinite possible arrangements of everything would actually exist, which cannot be the case.
The argument that a square cannot also be a circle, which is valid and sound? Is there a "round square" disproof of God?
Please demonstrate this assertion.
If one defines something, one "makes the rules" under which that something would exist, otherwise you haven't defined it at all. For God to represent a meaningful, thinkable concept, you must define the term God, and to do that, you must "make the rules" by the very definition given. An omnibenevolent God can never, under any circumstances commit evil, because if in some possible state of affairs God actually does commit evil, that God is not omnibenevolent. If God can change his own attributes then he was never those attributes to begin with, based on their definition. To affirm God is a meaningless concept is to affirm the strong atheist position.
Not if those attributes were essential. I assume you think omnibenevolence is an essential attribute and not just an accidental one (by way of God never choosing to do evil)?
But the very meaning of omnibenevolence mandates that he is indeed controlled by this attribute all the time.
The theistic apologetic is amazing at how it can stretch and obfuscate logic, don't you think?

Dr Rick

A non-existent Santa Claus, like a nonexistent God, can be a true statement; It's possible that neither Santa Claus nor gods exist.

The round square is a self-contradiction that cannot exist. It is an example of a logical impossibility, not an argument against the existence of God. However, is God is shown to be a logical impossibility, than he also cannot exist anymore than a round square can.

There has to be some definition of gods if one believes they exist; the description of one as an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being is how the Christian god is described. Those are not my rules; they are theirs. A god that does not have all of these attributes is not the god of Christianity as described in the Bible

Quote:

One that is omnipotent can alter the other attributes at certain times and for certain time limits.

This is a contradiction; omnipotence can have no limits beyond that which is logically impossible, or it is not omnipotence.

Quote:

There is no verse which states that God is controlled by these attributes at all time. Nor could a God that is omnipotent be limited to act within any limitation as this trite argument suggests.

An omnipotent God could not make a round square or a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it; these are logical contradictions that do not negate his omnipotence, but inability or unwillingness to do some things which are logically possible could negate his omnipotence or omnibenevolence.

Rick

Wiploc

That doesn't follow. You can't reliably reason about a being that doesn't follow the rules of reason. So, if god violates the laws of logic, you don't know a thing about him --- including whether he exists.
crc

Wiploc

Thus all gods exist?
crc

post-it

The statement is true since our understanding of what rules stipulate the contridictions may not be fully defined or understood. The attributes of God could not possibly be fully understood.

Example:

1. The dress is white 2. The dress is all blue.

Both statements can be true at the same time. The properties of light and our understanding of light allow this to occur. Place a blue shirt under a powerful light even the sun, and you could see white places from the relflection.