ScumDog

So basically, if god cannot do that, he is not omnipotent. Put any limits on omnipotence and it isn't omnipotence. You can play with the words all you want, limitations to unlimitation cancels out unlimitation.

long winded fool

Incapable of being limited is not a limitation. You are confused by the idea of "incapable." Incapable of being limited = unlimited.

luvluv

Scumdog, let me ask you a simple question. Can God do the logically impossible?

If your answer is yes, then yes, God can create a rock so heavy He can't lift it.

BUT He can also lift that rock.

Now, do you have any problem with the above answer?

Quantum Ninja

Ok, so let's assume God can do anything including the logically impossible. If He can do anything, He also has the ability to act in accordance with the laws of logic, right?

So can God do the logically impossible while trying to act in accordance with the laws of logic (such a statement is logically impossible)? If He can, then how can it be said that He is acting in accordance with the laws of logic? If He cannot, then we've found something logically impossible that he cannot do.

Which would take precedence over the other in this case: logic or the logically impossible?

Spenser

Your argument is over semantics and not about what theists actually claim God to be. Most theists would agree with the God you define as being impossible and you are still left with them as theists (with nothing new to ponder) and you as an atheist. What does that really accomplish?

long winded fool

Once we assume God can do the logically impossible, speculating on what he can do becomes logically impossible. (He can do everything and nothing.) Since we can't presume something logically impossible and then come to a logical conclusion, the above question is unanswerable in any rational way. All answers must be illogical and therefore rejectable. Assuming God can do the logically impossible must necessarily prevent any coherent defense against the "bait and switch" conclusion, "Omnipotence is self-contradictory and can't exist. Therefore God cannot be omnipotent." It is assuming the conclusion in the premises, though the arguer may not even be aware of his or her switch in premises. (First assuming the illogical in the premise, and then rejecting the illogical in the conclusion.)

It is ironic that so many theists say that God can do the logically impossible to defend against this very argument. They are effectively assuming the refuting conclusion as their own premise and preventing anyone, including themselves, from being able to understand their argument.

Quantum Ninja

My mind is still going through loops over this question: "Can something simultaneously act logically and illogically?" I think my head is going to explode. The only reasonable answer I can think of so far is, "Uhh...."

B. H. Manners

Couldn't a theist that God created logic in the first place and is in fact above logic?

long winded fool

What if space-time is like the syntax of a program and God is like the programmer? We can compare this to me creating a program full of self-aware digital people. The only way for the digital people to function is through the syntax of the program. Every aspect of their digital universe can be described by ones and zeros. Though they are aware of this, they are never at any time in possession of all the ones and zeros. In fact, they live in only a remote corner of the digital universe, so despite their intelligence, they are only aware of the tiniest fraction of the ones and zeros they can detect around their tiny island. They do, however, know that all things in the program can be described in such a way. For a thing to even exist for them, it must be some sequence of ones and zeros. How could they ever comprehend me, the programmer, if I am not described by binary code? For them, there is nothing "outside" the program because ones and zeros are prerequisites for the word "outside" to be defined. There is nothing "before" the program for the same reason. Digital space-time is undefined without the ones and zeros I created it with. Therefore, because I am not a sequence of ones and zeros, I can never be comprehended by any digital people in my program. Any manipulation of my program must take the form of an understandable sequence of binary code. If a digital theist (believes in an illogical programmer) were to point out something he irrationally, (yet correctly) thinks is me manipulating the program, the digital atheists (the program is all there is, was, and ever will be,) will point out the completely rational sequence of ones and zeros and will show the theists why there's no need to presume a mystical programmer who can't logically exist. This would be completely rational... and incorrect. They will say that it's not a programmer causing the digital trees to grow, because they obey the mostly understood laws of the program which do not permit the existence of a programmer. This is what they should think if they are being logical, yet at the same time, it is wrong.

I am outside my program and am therefore not subject to any of the rules or laws that I encoded and which are discovered and named by the digital people I created. To them, I cannot exist, and as long as existence is defined as some sequence of ones and zeros, I will never exist and the digital theists will be perpetually forced to see me through the glass darkly, through intuition, faith, or simply fear of chaos. The digital atheists will always win the arguments because they are absolutely correct. I don't and can never exist because I am not described by binary code. Only outside of the program can the digital atheists be proven wrong. Since "outside binary code" is a self-contradictory idea to those inside, I am necessarily non-existent. And here I sit.

ScumDog

You're fond of that program analogy aren't you long winded