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

[Sicnoo0]

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.'

So you'd agree that - outside of sneakily redefining terms - there would be no way for anyone - even a "god" - to create a married bachelor?

The reason I'm interested in this is that it seems some of my fellow atheists are not willing to concede that - if a god hypothetically proved his/her/its existence to them - any god which exists in the real world has to be incapable of performing logically impossible feats, such as creating a married bachelor.

I'll even quote an atheist who has refused to concede to this: "If I found out that god is actually real then I wouldn’t assume anything about its capabilities or limitations"

Where I differ from this atheist is that I do believe it would be reasonable to assume a real-life god has the limitation of being unable to perform logically impossible feats, such as creating a married bachelor

[Sicnoo0]

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

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. 

I guess where you and I disagree is that I believe you're being too charitable when you say "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"

I, on the other hand, firmly believe there is zero chance that everything I think I know about logic can turn out to be a misunderstanding. Some of the more complicated things in logic, maybe, but not everything, because that would include things like the law of identity and the law of the excluded middle.

If a god tried to trick me into thinking he/she/it has produced a married bachelor, I would confidently hold to my belief that this is impossible.

This is where my concern with whether I'm being dogmatic comes in. Is my unwillingness to say that the most well-established laws of logic could be wrong a type of dogmatism?

I can see how it would be dogmatic to assume standard logic is the only logic that makes sense, and ignore quantum logic and many-valued logic. But that's outside the scope of what I want to ask questions about.

[Belacqua]

I guess where you and I disagree is that I believe you're being too charitable when you say "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"

I, on the other hand, firmly believe there is zero chance that everything I think I know about logic can turn out to be a misunderstanding. Some of the more complicated things in logic, maybe, but not everything, because that would include things like the law of identity and the law of the excluded middle.

If a god tried to trick me into thinking he/she/it has produced a married bachelor, I would confidently hold to my belief that this is impossible.

This is where my concern with whether I'm being dogmatic comes in. Is my unwillingness to let go of logic a type of dogmatism?

OK, we're quickly getting over my head here. (Which I admit isn't hard to do.)

I have vaguely heard of things like alternative mathematical systems, in which the rules of mathematical logic that we learned in school don't apply. Non-Euclidean, something like that?

Is it possible that aliens could have a different logic than we do? 

I don't see how they could -- I agree with you that the law of identity seems immutable to me.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I reject the premise as incoherent. God, as commonly understood, is a logical impossibility. Therefore, asking if a logically impossible being could act in logical manner makes no sense.

It isn't that God doesn't exist, it's that God can't exist.

Boru

[Sicnoo0]

I reject the premise as incoherent. God, as commonly understood, is a logical impossibility. Therefore, asking if a logically impossible being could act in logical manner makes no sense.

It isn't that God doesn't exist, it's that God can't exist.

Boru

maybe I shouldn't entertain the hypothetical either, then

How about a modified version of god that lacks any properties that would render it a logical impossibility? What then? Would you entertain the hypothetical in that case? And if so, would you assume - as I would - that this supposed god cannot create a married bachelor, or perform other such logically impossible feats?

My guess is you'd just not even consider it a god anymore at that point if it lacks any properties that would render a god logically impossible

You'd consider such a being to be a simple mortal. And thus, it would obviously follow that he/she/it cannot create a married bachelor

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I reject the premise as incoherent. God, as commonly understood, is a logical impossibility. Therefore, asking if a logically impossible being could act in logical manner makes no sense.

It isn't that God doesn't exist, it's that God can't exist.

Boru

maybe I shouldn't entertain the hypothetical either, then

How about a modified version of god that lacks any properties that would render it a logical impossibility? What then? Would you entertain the hypothetical in that case? And if so, would you assume - as I would - that this supposed god cannot create a married bachelor, or perform other such logically impossible feats?

My guess is you'd just not even consider it a god anymore at that point if it lacks any properties that would render a god logically impossible

You'd consider such a being to be a simple mortal. And thus, it would obviously follow that he/she/it cannot create a married bachelor

Oh, I can imagine a logically possible god (mythologies are chock-a-block with them) but yes, that god's actions would be logically constrained.

Boru

[The Valkyrie]

what anime is that?

Anime??

That alone should get you shot.

[brewer]

Read your first bullet point.
Read what I bolded.
See the difference.  

hint * bachelor indicates unmarried

Does this take into account that 'multiverse' chestnut?

[Mister Agenda]

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?

There are plenty of Christians williing to assert that their God created logic and is therefore not bound by it. If that God exists, logic is just ihis whim.

[Sicnoo0]

This is still real life, not a fairy tale.

There are plenty of Christians williing to assert that their God created logic and is therefore not bound by it. If that God exists, logic is just ihis whim.

If god turned out to be real, I'd assume that scriptures (and theists themselves) got many, many, many, many things wrong about god

For starters, I'd assume that the real god is much, much weaker than theists like to believe their god is

I'd be pretty confident that any real-life god cannot create a married bachelor

Only the god in theists' imaginations can do absurd things like that, and defy logic on a whim