Square-circles Vs. God

[robvalue]

The very idea of "omni" anything is blatantly absurd and just a childish notion to make the imaginary God seem more impressive. That's why it's so easy to find ways in which it doesn't fit into our reality.

If an ant could conceive us, and our power, it would probably see as as having unlimited power.

[Chad32]

If you are consistent within yourself (not capricious, having no need to change), you would be unbounded rather than bound.
There are things you would not do because they are outside your operating parameters.
Self contradictions (confusion) would be one of them.

And we've done the whole debate over whether there are really contradictions in the bible or not.

Older gods were not all powerful, though the biblical story of creation isn't the oldest story of creation. It's mainly a way to say my god is better than your god, so you should worship him instead. Not only does he do what your god can't, he does your god's job better than yours. Not that either party ever had concrete evidence of either god.

[The Reality Salesman01]

If you are consistent within yourself (not capricious, having no need to change), you would be unbounded rather than bound.
There are things you would not do because they are outside your operating parameters.
Self contradictions (confusion) would be one of them.

And would "lying" or "suicude" be examples of these things?

---

And please, Professor, expand on these things you "would not do", and explain how these limitations are distinguished from restrictions that prevent ALL things from behaving in a manner that is inconsistent with their nature. After all, is it necessary to be unchanging to be limited by things that would be self contradicting and beyond our capacity? No. That is the nature of all things. Calling it God doesn't seem to make sense and it seems like thats what you are doing.

[Cheerful Charlie]

What prevents God from being capable of logically impossible feats?

From an Atheist's perspective, it just seems like the nature of all existence carries with it some inherent conceptual restrictions. And at a minimum, in order to understand things in this universe, we need a way of identifying them as either "it" or "not-it". But if you pull all of us out of the universe, surely God wouldn't need to rely on the same simple rules that we use. And he certainly shouldn't be required to abide by them, right?

So, is God bound by the same things as all nature? If not, what's your move from here? Just wonderin'...

This is an old puzzle. William of Okham and Rene Descartes both wrote that God could create reality as he wished, he could make 2 + 2 = 5 or any state of affairs he desired. But if so he could by fiat create a world where moral evil does not exist. He could create man to have a god-like good nature and a god-like free will who, like God freely chooses to do no evil, the perfectly good God of theology.

Since obviously, we do not live in such a moral evil free Universe, the type of God does nor exist. And if that type of God exists any sort of hidden purpose argument is void from the start.

So we have establish naturalism, the world is dependent on natural laws beyond and outside of God, and God is not the basic foundation of reality. And where does this God free naturalism come from, and how deep does it go?

I call this the problem of super omnipotence, and I find it a good strong atheist argument against the most expansive arguments for an infinitely powerful God and for naturalism. God as a concept here is very shaky and self-destructs when taken to what as first seems to be the logical limit of omnipotence.

[Ravenshire]

What prevents God from being capable of logically impossible feats?

Absolutely nothing, really. If you take as a given that gawd created the universe and is an omnipotent gawd, there is no reason it couldn't change the very fabric of space-time to allow it to do whatever it wanted. Hell, I'm not sure we'd even notice if it happened. We're talking about magic after all.

---

A circle only appears to be a circle if a person is looking at the figure directly perpendicular at its center. Otherwise it appears to become an oval.

Likewise a square appears to be a square only when it's viewed directly perpendicular at its center.

What you see depends on how you look at it.

That would be perception, not reality and while perception can be misleading it never dictates what's real. A circle is a circle even if it appears oval from your perspective.

---

Since obviously, we do not live in such a moral evil free Universe, the type of God does nor exist.

Or, that type of gawd is either amoral or immoral.

[wiploc]

What prevents God from being capable of logically impossible feats?

If god can violate logic, then logic is not reliable. Therefore, if you want to have a logical conversation about god, you must assume that logic works, always, not just at god's whim and caprice.

To have a logical discussion about god, you must discuss a god who is logical.

From an Atheist's perspective, it just seems like the nature of all existence carries with it some inherent conceptual restrictions.

From a submarine, you would study things that are wet. From logic, you study things that are logical.

If you want to use nonsense to "study" things that are nonsensical, feel free.

And at a minimum, in order to understand things in this universe, we need a way of identifying them as either "it" or "not-it".

Not sure what you're saying, but it looks like you're trying to use logic, right? That's not cool, not unless logic is reliable, inviolable.

But if you pull all of us out of the universe, surely God wouldn't need to rely on the same simple rules that we use.

Is this a logical conclusion? If you think it is, then you need logic to work dependably. You need a god (if any) who doesn't violate logic.

And he certainly shouldn't be required to abide by them, right?

Do you think that conclusion follows logically from your premises?

Do you understand the concept of "self-refuting"?

So, is God bound by the same things as all nature?

Gods that can be reasoned about must be reasonable. Gods subject to logical analysis must be subject to logic.

You can discuss nonsensical gods nonsensically if you wish. (I'm reminded of a story. My aunt played tennis with a woman who would toss the ball up for the serve, and then---if it didn't hang up there invitingly in just the right place---catch it and throw it up again. Sometimes over and over. One day, my aunt said to her, "You know, I talked to the tennis pro about you doing that. He said there's no rule against it. He said you are free to keep doing that for as long as you can get people to play with you.")

If not, what's your move from here? Just wonderin'...

When I see a self-defeating argument, I enjoy pointing it out.

[dyresand]

The problem with gods and or a god is the issue with fitting it into reality is where the bigger issues come into play.
If you have a all knowing and all powerful being 1. where does he power come from 2. if he is all powerful he would take up a considerable amount of space.
3. souls if they existed which they do not if they go to a heaven or hell its violating conservation I.E. matter can not be created or destroyed it would have to stay constant. those are the key 3 things
they would have to figure out and magic is not a real answer to them.

[Minimalist]

What prevents God from being capable of logically impossible feats?

I'd say the prime reason is that there is no evidence that such a being exists.

[Alex K]

For days now I keep reading the title as Squirrels vs. God.


Carry on...

[Cheerful Charlie]

What prevents God from being capable of logically impossible feats?

Absolutely nothing, really. If you take as a given that gawd created the universe and is an omnipotent gawd, there is no reason it couldn't change the very fabric of space-time to allow it to do whatever it wanted. Hell, I'm not sure we'd even notice if it happened. We're talking about magic after all.

---

A circle only appears to be a circle if a person is looking at the figure directly perpendicular at its center. Otherwise it appears to become an oval.

Likewise a square appears to be a square only when it's viewed directly perpendicular at its center.

What you see depends on how you look at it.

That would be perception, not reality and while perception can be misleading it never dictates what's real. A circle is a circle even if it appears oval from your perspective.

---

Since obviously, we do not live in such a moral evil free Universe, the type of God does nor exist.

Or, that type of gawd is either amoral or immoral.

Yes. And that eliminates the God of Judaism, Christianity, Islam et al that is defined as perfectly good and moral and concerned with our well being. If such a God existed and created the rules and laws and metaphysical necessity of the Universe, we'd live in a far different Universe than we do. So all of this is a reductio ab absurdum for the concept of a biblical God that creates all.