Square-circles Vs. God

[Ben Davis]

The Squared Circle IS God!

[The Reality Salesman01]

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.

Well spotted, and well explained. I find it to be a very strong argument as well and I was hoping that my OP might bait a theist into being slammed by it. But alas....

I think that this argument is to omnipotence as the Euthyphro Dilemma is to assertions of piety. Thanks for chiming in!

[Angrboda]

I don't see why God couldn't be superomnipotent, yet these laws of logic are something he created. If he created the other laws, then why not the laws of logic?

[Pizza]

I don't see why God couldn't be superomnipotent, yet these laws of logic are something he created. If he created the other laws, then why not the laws of logic?

Is that even intelligible?

[Ravenshire]

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.

---

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.

---

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.

I'm not arguing for any gawd. Just pointing out that an omnipotent gawd, if it created the universe, could do whatever the fuck it wanted to said universe. Change the laws of physics?!? Sure. No problem.

Would it be a very different universe? Probably, but that's entirely beside the point.

[robvalue]

It all gets a bit weird to conceptualize. (No, I'm not saying it can't happen due to my inability to imagine it :p )

Say god has to make all the laws. But there's no law of cause and effect yet. So when he tries to do something, nothing happens. And without the laws of logic, nothing makes any sense. And without time, he can't act...

Not trying to make a serious point here, it's just so bizarre imagining someone "making the rules".

[The Reality Salesman01]

Say god has to make all the laws. But there's no law of cause and effect yet. So when he tries to do something, nothing happens.

...and not to mention that a power, no matter how great, is made manifest only when exerted upon an external object. Without anything for God to exert his omnipotent causal power on, there can be no measurable amount of power to speak of...good thing he figured out a way to get around those little conundrums, otherwise we wouldn't have the finely tuned, perfect worls we find ourselves in..wait...thats not quite right, back to the OP...God damn it!

[robvalue]

God is a bit like our universe, isn't he. The closer you go to his beginnings, the fuzzier things get...

[The Reality Salesman01]

I don't see why God couldn't be superomnipotent, yet these laws of logic are something he created. If he created the other laws, then why not the laws of logic?

I suppose he could. Honestly, that's the only way I think it could make sense. If any God were real, then it would be of that kind. Though, any God of that kind would not be contingent upon those laws and as a result, could not be defined by them and therefore could neither be conceived of as anything except "that which exists beyond them" .So, when we say things are "logically impossible" that would be an accurate assessment from our standpoint. Things like "square circles" would just be examples of a fork in the road where our capacity for understanding splits from Gods. And if all of this were true, it would mean that we lack the cognitive faculties for even pretending to know what God is beyond this current speculation that-God is that which lies beyond the human comprehension of what can be real. This would certainly justify the assumption that anyone who claims to have any knowledge of God is a liar.

---

Wait a minute...

I just used logic in an attempt to affirm that illogicality is synonymous with God. And since illogical conclusions do not have properties themselves, they certainly can't be affirmative proofs of anything logical. This whole thing is a mess...I need a beer.

[Cheerful Charlie]

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.

I'm not arguing for any gawd. Just pointing out that an omnipotent gawd, if it created the universe, could do whatever the fuck it wanted to said universe. Change the laws of physics?!? Sure. No problem.

Would it be a very different universe? Probably, but that's entirely beside the point.

Its a very big problem for those religions such as Christianity, Islam et al that define God as being good and perfectly good at that and who cares about us. Such a God not being limited in any way except by his nature (perfect goodness) would be perfectly good of his own free will. Such a God would of his free will, never do moral evil.

A God that is morally indifferent or ammoral is not the God of supposed revelations (pick your favorite) which so many theists tell us we must take as absolute truths. So that dodge is not a way out for what I call the pest religions, Islam, Christianity et al.

But now they have to admit the metaphysical necessities, the most fundamental basics of reality are outside and beyond God. Naturalism is proven logically.

This fundamental naturalism is necessary in the technical sense. But God in this regard is dispensable if the theists can't demonstrate a God that fits into this scenario actually exists and can be squared with their favorite revealed theology. The burden of proof most certainly shifts to the theist here.