Is God a logical contradiction?

[Anomalocaris]

There is absolutely nothing logical about god.

Whether existent notions of god are logically consistent or not does not directly point to whether some notion of god can be logically consistent or not.


However, I think a logically consistent notion of god would be more lacking in power to overawe yokels, because I think part of the power of the concept of god lies in the fact that it creates in the head of yokels a nagging suspicion that god can transcend any deduction or constraint whether physical or logical, so it is better to prostrate oneself before it rather than attempt to accommodate it by figuring it out.

So the existent notions of god are logically inconsistent not because the notion of god can not be logically consistent, but because the reason why the notion of god is perpetuated in the first place - to control, dominate and exploit yokels - would not be as well served with a logically consistent notion of god than with an logically inconsistent one.

[The Grand Nudger]

Protons are a component of the explicitly material theory that explains marbles existence and attributes.

To use “immaterial” as a stand-in for the relationship between protons, marbles, and human perception and intelligence is to employ the term in a highly metaphoric way.

Not this this is a problem, as another poster mentioned the use of the term does strongly suggest that it’s inherently metaphor for something that would be “material” in any non novel sense. The example being that energy is, in fact, “material”.

I think that with our best explanation of the world being so explicitly material....and as we’ve learned more about the world than we previously had means to know...the set has become so expansive that it includes things we might have previously thought were “other than”.

Even things like a virtual realty are still a material reality. They’re descriptions of the states and relationships of material gates, juxtaposed with a description of the content of our material brains.

[Anomalocaris]

I suggest we call fermions "Material" and bosons "Immaterial". The reason is Fermions observe the exclusion principle, which means it is not only measurable in some way but "takes up space", which conforms better to our notion of "material".

[The Valkyrie]

No.

A fictional character.

[downbeatplumb]

Is God a logical contradiction? Is saying an [all-powerful] immaterial intelligence [God] like saying a square circle or married bachelor? To the best of my knowledge there are no immaterial things, such as energy waves, that exhibit intelligence. I need help with this. Anyone?

Can you give me a list of all immaterial things known to us? Do any of them exhibit intelligence? Are all immaterial things known to us (as in there can't be anymore)?

The problem with the above: Is it possible there could be something immaterial which is intelligent? Maybe, maybe not imo. This could be like asking "is it possible that a bachelor could be married?" No, it's not possible. But then maybe I'm wrong.

Thanks.

It would depend on how god is defined. But no one has been up to the task in any great detail, god is this, god is that but when questioned on the details its all very vague.

e.g. God created the universe they say, how asks I, silence from them.

[LadyForCamus]

Good questions! I like working on this kind of thing.

One problem that usually comes up when we discuss things like this: there are different conceptions of God among the different monotheisms, and even among Christians. In particular, the Christians at your local church down the street are unlikely to have worked on questions like this one. They are more interested in fellowship and how to behave and those good things. The important Christian thinkers who have tried to answer have reached conclusions that generally sound unfamiliar to the rank and file. 

This means that when I try to describe what the Aristotelian/Thomistic tradition says, or the Neoplatonic Christians say, people are quick to tell me that no Christian they have ever talked to agrees with those guys. Still, unless we want to say that Augustine and Aquinas aren't real Christians, this is something we can look at.

Well, the reason for this push back is because the Christian god of the Bible is demonstrably not the god of Thomism. The biblical god is a thinking, considering, conscious, active, person-like being who has desires, emotions, a specific plan for every human’s mortal life, and the ability to communicate its thoughts and wishes to us. These qualities seem entirely antithetical to the Thomist “god”, which doesn’t seem to be able to do or be anything. I’m not even sure in what way it qualifies as a god at all.

[comet]

Protons are a component of the explicitly material theory that explains marbles existence and attributes.

To use “immaterial” as a stand-in for the relationship between protons, marbles, and human perception and intelligence is to employ the term in a highly metaphoric way.

Not this this is a problem, as another poster mentioned the use of the term does strongly suggest that it’s inherently metaphor for something that would be “material” in any non novel sense.  The example being that energy is, in fact, “material”.

I think that with our best explanation of the world being so explicitly material....and as we’ve learned more about the world than we previously had means to know...the set has become so expansive that it includes things we might have previously thought were “other than”.

Even things like a virtual realty are still a material reality.  They’re descriptions of the states and relationships of material gates, juxtaposed with a description of the content of our material brains.

whats a proton?  Its a particles popping into and out of existence.  The net effect is what we call a proton.  Kind of like how you are a group of cells interacting with a net effect of you.

The best way I can put it is that "if its all an illusion then its as real as it gets."  so yeah, I agree with you, the standard model is all we have.  and thats that.

[The Grand Nudger]

As it pertains to the term “immaterial”. It’s a material component of an explicitly material theory.

That’s what makes the objection of protons (and relationship of protons to marble) a non starter.

Illusions are also material. They describe a range of material interactions that exploit material sensory systems.

[comet]

I suggest we call fermions "Material" and bosons  "Immaterial".    The reason is Fermions observe the exclusion principle, which means it is not only measurable in some way but "takes up space", which conforms better to our notion of "material".

My second set of favorite words ... gauge bosons.

[LadyForCamus]

Belaqua: "I've already addressed this. When theologians say that God is intelligent, it is not in the same way that a person is intelligent. If you skipped my description of this before you can look again, at my first post here. "

So in what way is God intelligent?

You've been saying he is, not me. 

I say that according to theologians he's omniscient, in that he and the truth are one. All the things that people may know are at one with him.

"He takes no actions. This would require change, and he doesn't change. 

He causes things to be and to change because of what he is, but this doesn't require his own change"

Wouldn't causing things to change required a change of thought?

Here's an analogy: 

The guy who plays Thor is asleep on a park bench. He's doing nothing, has no plans. Yet he causes action all around him, because people react to him. This is the Neoplatonic view:

Except that the guy who plays Thor is a material thing; a person; so he, and no other material thing can be appropriately used as an analogy. 

God causes action in the world because the world is motivated to be like him or near him.

Is God a “him”?

That's just one analogy, but it might serve as an example of how something that doesn't act causes action.

You just referred to god here as some “thing”. Is god a thing? What is an immaterial thing, and how does it exist? What is its mechanism of action?