Square-circles Vs. God

[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.