If you learned that the god of [insert religion] is real, would all bets be off?

[Sicnoo0]

 if I woke up to learn that god is real, I'd be very confident that he is not fully, truly omnipotent. I'd still cling to my sense of what's logically possible or impossible.

As you know, I'm sure, there are a lot of different versions of God, even among Christians. Some of them make more sense than others. 

Generally the serious theologians don't hold that "omnipotent" means "can do anything." So Thomas Aquinas, for example, is clear that God couldn't create a 4-sided triangle. 

In this tradition, "omnipotent" has to do with potentialities and actualities. Good old Aristotelian stuff. God is said to be full actualization with no potentiality, but such a thingy is said to be necessary for any potentiality in the world to be actualized. So "omnipotent" in that case means "the source and actualizer of all potential." 

I'm not arguing this is something you should believe -- only that this is a description of God which doesn't include logical paradoxes.

ok, so you agree that any real god would have to have some limitations
thank you

[arewethereyet]

If god was truly omnipotent, he could alter how we perceive reality. Thus, he would decree it, and we would all suddenly understand and know that a married bachelor is all the rage. Of course, most theists also believe in a little something called free will, whereby god cannot intervene in such a way.

You could perceive that the square root of two is rational, but that would just be god lying to you. I'm concerned with actual truth, not perceptions of what's true.

If god were to be audited by his superiors, he would have to admit that the square root of two is irrational and he was merely being deceptive.

My question is targeted at my fellow atheists, and concerned with how atheists envision a hypothetical god to be.
I couldn't care less how theists imagine their god to be, because many of their ideas about their hypothetical god are obviously wrong.

My issue is I don't think a truly omnipotent god can exist.
So if I woke up to learn that god is real, I'd be very confident that he is not fully, truly omnipotent. I'd still cling to my sense of what's logically possible or impossible.

Really pushing reality when you want to add a layer of beings above a god.

If we are speaking mainly of the Christian god, I have to say I have never heard that he had superiors to answer to.

[Sicnoo0]

You could perceive that the square root of two is rational, but that would just be god lying to you. I'm concerned with actual truth, not perceptions of what's true.

If god were to be audited by his superiors, he would have to admit that the square root of two is irrational and he was merely being deceptive.

My question is targeted at my fellow atheists, and concerned with how atheists envision a hypothetical god to be.
I couldn't care less how theists imagine their god to be, because many of their ideas about their hypothetical god are obviously wrong.

My issue is I don't think a truly omnipotent god can exist.
So if I woke up to learn that god is real, I'd be very confident that he is not fully, truly omnipotent. I'd still cling to my sense of what's logically possible or impossible.

Really pushing reality when you want to add a layer of beings above a god.

If we are speaking mainly of the Christian god, I have to say I have never heard that he had superiors to answer to.

I just got done editing that to make it clear that god having superiors is just a joke on my part

[Angrboda]

[Sicnoo0]

every atheist I've asked so far has told me that they would not assume a god standing before them would have any limitations

I just find this to be really crazy. Why wouldn't you assume the god standing before you is incapable of creating a married bachelor? This is still real life, not a fairy tale.

Would learning that god exists cause you to abandon all logic?

[Sicnoo0]

what anime is that?

[Belacqua]

Would you be willing to entertain the hypothetical and share what you think you'd believe with regard to the limitations or lack thereof of the god standing before you? Assume that somehow the god being real would be undeniable.

You can even pick whatever god might be easiest to deal with for the hypothetical

It's an interesting question, but difficult for me. The versions of God which seem most persuasive to me are not the type that could be "standing before" me. They don't work like Apollo, who has location and extension and therefore can be perceived by people (when he wants). 

Of the monotheistic versions, from Plato on, God is not something that can be perceived through the senses, nor can it be localized. The One Form of the Good that emanates all physical reality (to paraphrase Plotinus) isn't going to be standing there trying to persuade me of anything. In those rare cases where people have mystical experiences and get direct perception of this God (as they report it) it is more like an oceanic one-ness with all of reality. 

The big exception of course is Jesus, who took on human form through miraculous kenosis. But (according to the stories) a lot of people who saw him were not persuaded that he was God. 

I suppose that the experience most likely to persuade me would something like a mystical vision, of the type described by various mystics including Plotinus, Nicholas of Cusa, William Blake, etc. But this doesn't include a guy standing there doing demonstrations.

[Sicnoo0]

Would you be willing to entertain the hypothetical and share what you think you'd believe with regard to the limitations or lack thereof of the god standing before you? Assume that somehow the god being real would be undeniable.

You can even pick whatever god might be easiest to deal with for the hypothetical

It's an interesting question, but difficult for me. The versions of God which seem most persuasive to me are not the type that could be "standing before" me. They don't work like Apollo, who has location and extension and therefore can be perceived by people (when he wants). 

Of the monotheistic versions, from Plato on, God is not something that can be perceived through the senses, nor can it be localized. The One Form of the Good that emanates all physical reality (to paraphrase Plotinus) isn't going to be standing there trying to persuade me of anything. In those rare cases where people have mystical experiences and get direct perception of this God (as they report it) it is more like an oceanic one-ness with all of reality. 

The big exception of course is Jesus, who took on human form through miraculous kenosis. But (according to the stories) a lot of people who saw him were not persuaded that he was God. 

I suppose that the experience most likely to persuade me would something like a mystical vision, of the type described by various mystics including Plotinus, Nicholas of Cusa, William Blake, etc. But this doesn't include a guy standing there doing demonstrations.

what I really want to know more than all else is whether you believe any god could convince you that they're capable of creating a married bachelor, or other such oxymorons, assuming you would still have the ability to think logically

The reason I'm curious about this is that some atheist friends of mine have been unwilling to concede that a hypothetical real-life god probably cannot defy logic. They're too open-minded about what a god could be capable of, in my view.

Personally, I can envision myself challenging such a real-life god to create a married bachelor, fully confident that this god cannot do so.

As long as I'm convinced I'm living in the real world and not in a fairy tale, I cannot see how even a god could create a square circle or a married bachelor

God existing would cause me to question many things I thought I knew, but I would nonetheless still be confident that logic cannot be defied

Tangentially, I'd also like to ask you the following:

Can the belief that married bachelors cannot exist be considered a dogmatic belief?

I often see theists saying "well your belief in logic and reason is just as dogmatic as my belief in god"

[Astreja]

Can the belief that married bachelors cannot exist be considered a dogmatic belief?

It's a definition, not a belief per se. A married bachelor is a contradiction in terms, because by definition bachelors are not married.

If a god were to create a married bachelor it would simply create a case in which the meaning of the word 'bachelor' had been altered to 'a man who can be either married or unmarried.'

[Belacqua]

what I really want to know more than all else is whether you believe any god could convince you that they're capable of creating a married bachelor, or other such oxymorons, assuming you would still have the ability to think logically

The reason I'm curious about this is that some atheist friends of mine have been unwilling to concede that a hypothetical real-life god probably cannot defy logic. They're too open-minded about what a god could be capable of, in my view.

Personally, I can envision myself challenging such a real-life god to create a married bachelor, fully confident that this god cannot do so.

As long as I'm convinced I'm living in the real world and not in a fairy tale, I cannot see how even a god could create a square circle or a married bachelor

God existing would cause me to question many things I thought I knew, but I would nonetheless still be confident that logic cannot be defied

Tangentially, I'd also like to ask you the following:

Can the belief that married bachelors cannot exist be considered a dogmatic belief?

I often see theists saying "well your belief in logic and reason is just as dogmatic as my belief in god"

I guess since we're speculating, I have to say that MAYBE everything I know about logic is simply a local and contingent misunderstanding. Since I don't have the knowledge that (we imagine) God would have, I have to admit I might be entirely wrong. 

That said, I don't see how a God would defy such logic, or would want to. As I said, none of the major theologians picture God that way.

Maybe one thing to be wary of is how we use the word "logical." Strictly speaking, logical problems are like math problems, and should have tautological answers. But in conversation, we may use it to mean something more like "reasonable." So we'd say "Why would Trump send his minions to attack the Capitol?! That's not even logical!" In such a case, we're not talking about married-bachelor type issues -- more like a reasonable expectation. 

So if someone said "It isn't logical for God to allow us to sin and then send his son to die for us," I don't think that's really a logic problem. It's more like questioning his efficiency. Maybe he had good reasons for it which I don't know of. 

And I don't think that logical problems, of the married-bachelor type, can be called dogmatic. What they boil down to is tautologies, in which the term on one side of the copula is identical to the term on the other side, if we understand the meaning of the terms.