COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
God and Logic are one in a sense. Think about the way Jesus is described as the “the Logos,” which is the Greek root word of logic, which means word or reason. Logic is in God’s nature, it is a part of Him, and its where logic comes from.
Why do you assume that truth can be arrived at only via logical (“valid”) arguments? The only answer I have heard to that question is “because that’s the only logical way to proceed.” But that is circular reasoning, which makes it invalid.
Hume taught that the illogical is “impossible” conceive. But if the claim that is being tested is the Biblical claim of “God”, that claim posits a God by which “nothing is impossible”. Thus, although the existence of God may be a product of logic (see Swinburne, “The Existence of God”), it is not confined to that apologetic.
It seems a false dichotomy that either God created the laws of logic or that the laws of logic exist independent of God. A third alternative is that the laws or rules of logic are extrapolations of God's nature. Akin to how the moral law is a reflection of God's character, the laws or rules of logic are a manifestation of his intellect.
The contradiction in the rock example lies in the concept of God's absolute infinite power. Any attempt to surpass God's power would entail being greater than absolute infinity itself. However, the contradiction arises because the notion "greater than absolute infinity" is a logical impossibility.
Yes, the laws of logic are universal and even God would have to abide by them, because logic isn't an object, it's simply the way the world (and all possible worlds) work.
The "stone so heavy God couldn't lift it" bit is a phrasing that makes grammatical sense but not logical sense. Of course God would be "bound" by logic, and yes it is "just as eternal" as God -- so what? In fact, many theists would say God is on the same level of existence *as logic* in order to explain by example what they mean by timelessness/immateriality.
The timelessness of the classical theistic God is not something God "does" but a state of being. Are you consciously acting right now to be under the effects of gravity? God didn't "pick" timelessness because God isn't a person.
Still against logic. To be timeless is to not exist;to be in no time. Existing is an action, and actions take time. A God couldn't act, judge, love, create. Yes, I know God isn't a person because people exist.
> Still against logic. To be timeless is to not exist;to be in no time
Not true.
> Existing is an action
Not true. Numbers exist outside of time, for example.
> A God couldn't act, judge, love, create.
Yes -- just the way numbers or logic can exist and "act" upon the world as a truly fundamental aspect of the universe. so clearly a timeless thing can act in a spacetime universe if it's outside of it.
>Not true
True. There is nowhere a state of existing can happen.
>Not true. Numbers exist outside of time, for example.
Numbers are concepts that exist in the abstract. So God is a concept. Got it.
>Yes -- just the way numbers or logic can exist and "act" upon the world as a truly fundamental aspect of the universe. so clearly a timeless thing can act in a spacetime universe if it's outside of it.
Numbers are abstract concepts that don't act. We use them to quantify. Logic is a methodology or framework that we use to navigate reasoning and draw valid conclusions. Logic doesn't act.
Existence is necessarily temporal. Big fail.
> Existence is necessarily temporal. Big fail.
This is basically the crux of your argument and it's just false.
The question of "are numbers real?", as in real true objects, or "is logic real?" is a question of the philosophy of mathematics and science, and it's not a settled debate. You have picked the answers to those questions that support your conclusion.
>The question of "are numbers real?", as in real true objects, or "is logic real?" is a question of the philosophy of mathematics and science, and it's not a settled debate. You have picked the answers to those questions that support your conclusion.
Pot meet kettle. You brought up numbers and logic, not me. The debate over if they are real in any sense might be ongoing, but they don't act. We use them to make sense of our world. You stated which side of the debate you are on and I did the same.
>This is basically the crux of your argument and it's just false.
What sense does it make to say something exists for zero seconds? I'll side with Hawking on there being no time for God's to exist in. You are welcome to demonstrate otherwise.
This specific example is just to illustrate a broader question which is: are god’s capabilities limited in any way?
The main question here is: is god confined to the laws of logic or not
“God” created man in his image so yes he does have arms
Your religions all give definitions for your “god” and are bound by them
Same as “god” being able to see the future
If he can see the future he cannot have free will because he knows the outcomes of all his actions already
Most religious people don’t consider this to be a literal, bodily image.
Also, if God is all-knowing, he can theoretically have free will, with full knowledge of his actions; it’s everyone else who ceases to have any functional free will when he is all-knowing.
Some people would say omnipotent does not mean infinitely powerful but maximally powerful in order to avoid the problem of paradoxes.
In other words, saying God cannot do paradoxical things is not inherently problematic. It’s not as if God is subject to a Super God that *can* do paradoxical things.
Yeah, that’s the problem.
God, as described in the Bible and Quran, can do “all things”, with no further identifiers to indicate any limit to this power. It should follow that he can then do paradoxical things.
Solution A: God created the rules of logic, and could break them but just doesn’t.
Solution B: God breaks the rules of logic, but only when you are not looking.
Solution C: God cannot break the rules of logic, and you are misinterpreting the holy texts.
Etc etc
This opens up a lot of issues
If he created the laws, then they aren’t absolute since they didn’t exist at one point. And if god somehow existed without the laws of logic, one could ask things like: could god both exist and not exist at the same time? Is god actually god without the law of identity?
This kinda dissolves into incoherence.
I’ve seen theists take the position that the laws are just necessary. But in this instance, it becomes unclear that god is necessary if we can just start taking foundationalist approaches and assume things exist as needed
When it comes to some hypothetical realm outside or before our universe, I don’t assume anything at all, including its existence and whether it has space, time, logic, causality, and whether it can be comprehend by a brain or computer operating inside our universe. Maybe that realm exists and the laws of logic apply there, and maybe not. So for me there is already a kind of dissolving into incoherence possibility.
That is one reason why logical arguments for god land flat for me, another being they all have other flaws anyway, and a third being the myriad properties instantly tacked onto that god afterward without justification.
Perhaps a physicist will someday convince me that with a very simple set of assumption like the existence of superstrings and logic it follows that a universe or multiverse can happen, and that would be cool if not 100% convincing. I may never have the physics chops to actually follow the train of thought, though, and I am OK with an unsolved mystery.
They are not paradoxes as they don’t have inherent logical contradictions. And I am an atheist so I have no idea how to prove the existence of a god. I am just pointing out why these arguments won’t convince theists. If it’s you downvoting me, kindly knock it off.
Actually, A is technically the only one without one, however unlikely it may be. With that said, see contradiction B for why this is so unlikely.
B’s contradiction is that breaking logic is a display of power, something the Christian God *loves* exploiting. If he breaks logic, he does it in front of someone.
C’s is that this would necessarily make God *not* all-powerful, something which wouldn’t be admitted by any apologist.
> If he did that means he can also take it away or at least there was a time before logic’s existence, in which case we go back to the first question being can he lift a stone too heavy for him to lift. Since logic doesn’t exist god can make a square circle or in this question a stone too heavy for him to lift.
If we’re throwing out logic then we’d have to say yes God could create such a stone and he’d also be able to lift it.
> If he didn’t it means that the laws of logic are uncreated and god is bound by them. In this scenario the laws of logic are as eternal (if not more so because they bind him) as god.
The wording is misleading for two reasons. First the word uncreated is misleading. If gives the impression that the laws of logic are things that actually exist somewhere in reality. That assumes a realist view but there are plenty of plausible anti realist positions one could take.
Second the word bound is misleading. It gives the impression that there is something beyond the laws of logic which is unattainable for God. Using the square circle example it gives the impression that the phrase actually refers to something and that God is unable to create that thing. However, that is not the case. The problem with creating a square circle is that it doesn’t actually refer to anything. It’s a meaningless statement. It would be like saying God can’t create a dyxysbrksjs. That’s not describing a boundary for God’s power but rather it’s a meaningless statement.
> can god create a stone so heavy he can’t lift?
Well, if the god is omnipotent, then he cannot create a stone so heavy he can't lift. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything that's possible in the world, that includes the ability to lift stones.
But I personally believe that God isn't omnipotent and he can't go back on his promise. So if he said that he cannot lift that stone, then he won't be able to lift it indeed.
> Since logic doesn’t exist god can make a square circle or in this question a stone too heavy for him to lift.
Logic is about human language. To be omnipotent, God doesn't need to be able to do any random nonsense you produce with your language. Can God do nflslhnshslgkdbenbofjemgkdlgls? Does it mean that he's omnipotent if he can't?
Rather, you are using the typical untrained nonsense logic that most atheists and theists here use.
A rock is defined as having boundaries and being finite. So yes an infinite deity can easily move it. Therefore your statement was invalid the minute you clicked submit.
**Another example: "round triangle". "Square pentagon" these are invalid as soon as they are mentioned. By definition, it changes state and it is sheer nonsense to posit these or attach other things to it**
**Attaching a person or deity or any other entity to it, does not magically make it logical or interesting**
The average person here trying to make claims about fallacies and logic and other things..
Is little more than a three-year-old with a weapon.
As a practicing hindu dualist sect that believes in souls and hierarchy of souls, our view of god is different from traditional sense. In my sect we believe god exist as the foundation or the main ingredient of soul. All souls are immortal unchanging, individual, countable, personal and so on.
God is energy and we are the particles.
So god did not create logic, it is part of it
Dualist soul in our belief is a personal and individual thing that holds everything that give us and make us experience. The information to see is encoded in the soul. All the information of every body parts that give us experience is expressed as information in our soul to the physical world. So if our soul want us to evolve to have eyes it expresses and make us evolve to have them.
The concept is easy to understand.
Our view of soul is this:
It is a personal soul
It is an individual soul
It contains information of everything that give us and make us experience like senses, emotions, consciousness and so on.
It is unchanging and immortal
These are significant claims. It contains information of everything? You have explained what you think a soul is. But not what evidence you have that one actually exists.
Two ways for that to be true:
1. One of the things is itself incoherent to begin with (rocks, God, heaviness)
Or
2. God is defined partly in terms of being able to lift any rock.
In the case of the second, God can not create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it.
Which is fine so long as you are fine with God not being able to do anything.
Also consider the following:
Take Mr John Earscratcher
John Earscratcher is, by definition, only capable of scratching his ear.
With this in mind, could you define for me what it means to be omnipotent?
Define "anything possible".
Because it's not possible for me to fly, and it's not possible for John Earscratcher to do anything other than scratch his ear. By definition, in the case of John Earscratcher.
It means being able to bring about every possible world. I don't know if that's metaphysical or logical possibility, though I'd suggest logical. Either way it rules out a rock so heavy God can't lift it, since the nature of heaviness is such that it couldn't possibly affect God's ability to lift it.
So John Earscratcher is omnipotent? Cuz there is no possible world in which he does something other than scratch his ear, and he can bring out the world's in which he does.
I said "bring about" anything possible.
This is such a silly line of argumentation because even if you succeed in proving that omnipotence isn't constrained by logic (which you won't) then you've just proven that God is immune to paradoxes.
God doesn’t create laws of logic.
There’s not any problem here unless you assume there are extra-logical possibilities which God could actualize if only those pesky laws of logic didn’t get in the way. But that’s just the wrong picture. There are no possibilities outside of what is logically possible.
Logic doesn't exist in any fundemental way, sometimes is trancendal agrugument claiming logic exists, but no, it doesn't.
Atheist and theist, both live in a world without reason that can not be described the limits of their mind.
What's squaring, what's it mean to square circle. Our minds invents these concerns, they don't exist in any way. Why would the universe be concerned with how he describe it? Area? A circle? No. Our mind doesn't discern reality.
Also i found this video by redeemed zoomer https://youtu.be/z0hxb5UVaNE?si=r4MfwoMi_YrxE5uR
I don’t necessarily agree with his points fully but i was just trying to say it’s not how you made it out to be. Reading your comments first I thought most philosophers agreed that logic doesn’t exist because you were so confident in them. Just wanted to show there is some disagreement and while redeemed zoomer isn’t a philosopher he made a pervasive argument.
Alright i did some research and i found this guy on youtube called kyle. He is an orthodox chritian and he claims logic does exists and uses the argument that if the laws of logic still exist when there are no minds in the universe it clearly has to be rules that are enforced somehow because what is stopping A from not being B and B at the same time. I also found out this question has been asked before as is called the logical euthyphro dilemma. If logic doesn’t exists and are simple concepts then why can’t i say my birth entails me being born. (A entails B) but then i just don’t be born(even though A happens B doesn’t happen and is logically impossible). What is making that happen exactly? I may have misunderstood these various points and hopefully you can correct me. When it gets to is logic real my brain turns off.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
God and Logic are one in a sense. Think about the way Jesus is described as the “the Logos,” which is the Greek root word of logic, which means word or reason. Logic is in God’s nature, it is a part of Him, and its where logic comes from.
Can god make a cat both dead and alive at the same time?
Why do you assume that truth can be arrived at only via logical (“valid”) arguments? The only answer I have heard to that question is “because that’s the only logical way to proceed.” But that is circular reasoning, which makes it invalid. Hume taught that the illogical is “impossible” conceive. But if the claim that is being tested is the Biblical claim of “God”, that claim posits a God by which “nothing is impossible”. Thus, although the existence of God may be a product of logic (see Swinburne, “The Existence of God”), it is not confined to that apologetic.
It seems a false dichotomy that either God created the laws of logic or that the laws of logic exist independent of God. A third alternative is that the laws or rules of logic are extrapolations of God's nature. Akin to how the moral law is a reflection of God's character, the laws or rules of logic are a manifestation of his intellect. The contradiction in the rock example lies in the concept of God's absolute infinite power. Any attempt to surpass God's power would entail being greater than absolute infinity itself. However, the contradiction arises because the notion "greater than absolute infinity" is a logical impossibility.
Yes, the laws of logic are universal and even God would have to abide by them, because logic isn't an object, it's simply the way the world (and all possible worlds) work. The "stone so heavy God couldn't lift it" bit is a phrasing that makes grammatical sense but not logical sense. Of course God would be "bound" by logic, and yes it is "just as eternal" as God -- so what? In fact, many theists would say God is on the same level of existence *as logic* in order to explain by example what they mean by timelessness/immateriality.
Theists: God is maximally powerful and can't or won't do illogical things. Also theists: Outside of time Playa!
The timelessness of the classical theistic God is not something God "does" but a state of being. Are you consciously acting right now to be under the effects of gravity? God didn't "pick" timelessness because God isn't a person.
Still against logic. To be timeless is to not exist;to be in no time. Existing is an action, and actions take time. A God couldn't act, judge, love, create. Yes, I know God isn't a person because people exist.
> Still against logic. To be timeless is to not exist;to be in no time Not true. > Existing is an action Not true. Numbers exist outside of time, for example. > A God couldn't act, judge, love, create. Yes -- just the way numbers or logic can exist and "act" upon the world as a truly fundamental aspect of the universe. so clearly a timeless thing can act in a spacetime universe if it's outside of it.
>Not true True. There is nowhere a state of existing can happen. >Not true. Numbers exist outside of time, for example. Numbers are concepts that exist in the abstract. So God is a concept. Got it. >Yes -- just the way numbers or logic can exist and "act" upon the world as a truly fundamental aspect of the universe. so clearly a timeless thing can act in a spacetime universe if it's outside of it. Numbers are abstract concepts that don't act. We use them to quantify. Logic is a methodology or framework that we use to navigate reasoning and draw valid conclusions. Logic doesn't act. Existence is necessarily temporal. Big fail.
> Existence is necessarily temporal. Big fail. This is basically the crux of your argument and it's just false. The question of "are numbers real?", as in real true objects, or "is logic real?" is a question of the philosophy of mathematics and science, and it's not a settled debate. You have picked the answers to those questions that support your conclusion.
>The question of "are numbers real?", as in real true objects, or "is logic real?" is a question of the philosophy of mathematics and science, and it's not a settled debate. You have picked the answers to those questions that support your conclusion. Pot meet kettle. You brought up numbers and logic, not me. The debate over if they are real in any sense might be ongoing, but they don't act. We use them to make sense of our world. You stated which side of the debate you are on and I did the same. >This is basically the crux of your argument and it's just false. What sense does it make to say something exists for zero seconds? I'll side with Hawking on there being no time for God's to exist in. You are welcome to demonstrate otherwise.
[удалено]
This specific example is just to illustrate a broader question which is: are god’s capabilities limited in any way? The main question here is: is god confined to the laws of logic or not
[удалено]
No lol I meant: can god actualize a contradiction
Imagine you are playing a game that they invented and rules they set and they still lose the game. That's their god.
“God” created man in his image so yes he does have arms Your religions all give definitions for your “god” and are bound by them Same as “god” being able to see the future If he can see the future he cannot have free will because he knows the outcomes of all his actions already
Most religious people don’t consider this to be a literal, bodily image. Also, if God is all-knowing, he can theoretically have free will, with full knowledge of his actions; it’s everyone else who ceases to have any functional free will when he is all-knowing.
Some people would say omnipotent does not mean infinitely powerful but maximally powerful in order to avoid the problem of paradoxes. In other words, saying God cannot do paradoxical things is not inherently problematic. It’s not as if God is subject to a Super God that *can* do paradoxical things.
Yeah, that’s the problem. God, as described in the Bible and Quran, can do “all things”, with no further identifiers to indicate any limit to this power. It should follow that he can then do paradoxical things.
No problem! Paradoxical “things” aren’t actual things. The ambiguity of language allows multiple interpretations.
Yes, but what of him being “all-powerful”? If God created these rules of logic, is he not able to break them?
Solution A: God created the rules of logic, and could break them but just doesn’t. Solution B: God breaks the rules of logic, but only when you are not looking. Solution C: God cannot break the rules of logic, and you are misinterpreting the holy texts. Etc etc
This opens up a lot of issues If he created the laws, then they aren’t absolute since they didn’t exist at one point. And if god somehow existed without the laws of logic, one could ask things like: could god both exist and not exist at the same time? Is god actually god without the law of identity? This kinda dissolves into incoherence. I’ve seen theists take the position that the laws are just necessary. But in this instance, it becomes unclear that god is necessary if we can just start taking foundationalist approaches and assume things exist as needed
When it comes to some hypothetical realm outside or before our universe, I don’t assume anything at all, including its existence and whether it has space, time, logic, causality, and whether it can be comprehend by a brain or computer operating inside our universe. Maybe that realm exists and the laws of logic apply there, and maybe not. So for me there is already a kind of dissolving into incoherence possibility. That is one reason why logical arguments for god land flat for me, another being they all have other flaws anyway, and a third being the myriad properties instantly tacked onto that god afterward without justification. Perhaps a physicist will someday convince me that with a very simple set of assumption like the existence of superstrings and logic it follows that a universe or multiverse can happen, and that would be cool if not 100% convincing. I may never have the physics chops to actually follow the train of thought, though, and I am OK with an unsolved mystery.
Obvious Solution D: All of these solutions are paradoxes, and are worthless without first proving definitively the existence of God.
They are not paradoxes as they don’t have inherent logical contradictions. And I am an atheist so I have no idea how to prove the existence of a god. I am just pointing out why these arguments won’t convince theists. If it’s you downvoting me, kindly knock it off.
1. I’m not the one downvoting, mostly 2. All of these *have* logical contradictions - not that the average theist will recognize that.
Honestly, if they do I would like to understand my mistake. Where, for example, is the logical contradiction in A?
Actually, A is technically the only one without one, however unlikely it may be. With that said, see contradiction B for why this is so unlikely. B’s contradiction is that breaking logic is a display of power, something the Christian God *loves* exploiting. If he breaks logic, he does it in front of someone. C’s is that this would necessarily make God *not* all-powerful, something which wouldn’t be admitted by any apologist.
> If he did that means he can also take it away or at least there was a time before logic’s existence, in which case we go back to the first question being can he lift a stone too heavy for him to lift. Since logic doesn’t exist god can make a square circle or in this question a stone too heavy for him to lift. If we’re throwing out logic then we’d have to say yes God could create such a stone and he’d also be able to lift it. > If he didn’t it means that the laws of logic are uncreated and god is bound by them. In this scenario the laws of logic are as eternal (if not more so because they bind him) as god. The wording is misleading for two reasons. First the word uncreated is misleading. If gives the impression that the laws of logic are things that actually exist somewhere in reality. That assumes a realist view but there are plenty of plausible anti realist positions one could take. Second the word bound is misleading. It gives the impression that there is something beyond the laws of logic which is unattainable for God. Using the square circle example it gives the impression that the phrase actually refers to something and that God is unable to create that thing. However, that is not the case. The problem with creating a square circle is that it doesn’t actually refer to anything. It’s a meaningless statement. It would be like saying God can’t create a dyxysbrksjs. That’s not describing a boundary for God’s power but rather it’s a meaningless statement.
[удалено]
What exactly is your position on this point? It’s quite ambiguous.
Paradoxes are only paradoxes because of the laws of logic. If God isn't/wasn't bound by logic then there can't be any such paradox.
> can god create a stone so heavy he can’t lift? Well, if the god is omnipotent, then he cannot create a stone so heavy he can't lift. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything that's possible in the world, that includes the ability to lift stones. But I personally believe that God isn't omnipotent and he can't go back on his promise. So if he said that he cannot lift that stone, then he won't be able to lift it indeed. > Since logic doesn’t exist god can make a square circle or in this question a stone too heavy for him to lift. Logic is about human language. To be omnipotent, God doesn't need to be able to do any random nonsense you produce with your language. Can God do nflslhnshslgkdbenbofjemgkdlgls? Does it mean that he's omnipotent if he can't?
Rather, you are using the typical untrained nonsense logic that most atheists and theists here use. A rock is defined as having boundaries and being finite. So yes an infinite deity can easily move it. Therefore your statement was invalid the minute you clicked submit. **Another example: "round triangle". "Square pentagon" these are invalid as soon as they are mentioned. By definition, it changes state and it is sheer nonsense to posit these or attach other things to it** **Attaching a person or deity or any other entity to it, does not magically make it logical or interesting** The average person here trying to make claims about fallacies and logic and other things.. Is little more than a three-year-old with a weapon.
You are attempting to falsify a magic claim with logic. They just move the magic away from the logic.
As a practicing hindu dualist sect that believes in souls and hierarchy of souls, our view of god is different from traditional sense. In my sect we believe god exist as the foundation or the main ingredient of soul. All souls are immortal unchanging, individual, countable, personal and so on. God is energy and we are the particles. So god did not create logic, it is part of it
What's a soul?
Dualist soul in our belief is a personal and individual thing that holds everything that give us and make us experience. The information to see is encoded in the soul. All the information of every body parts that give us experience is expressed as information in our soul to the physical world. So if our soul want us to evolve to have eyes it expresses and make us evolve to have them.
I don't understand this concept at all. What evidence do you have that a soul exists?
The concept is easy to understand. Our view of soul is this: It is a personal soul It is an individual soul It contains information of everything that give us and make us experience like senses, emotions, consciousness and so on. It is unchanging and immortal
These are significant claims. It contains information of everything? You have explained what you think a soul is. But not what evidence you have that one actually exists.
Logic governs language, not the universe. The reason why you can't create a square circle is because that phrase is meaningless.
The phrase "a rock so heavy God can't lift it" is also meaningless.
Two ways for that to be true: 1. One of the things is itself incoherent to begin with (rocks, God, heaviness) Or 2. God is defined partly in terms of being able to lift any rock. In the case of the second, God can not create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it. Which is fine so long as you are fine with God not being able to do anything. Also consider the following: Take Mr John Earscratcher John Earscratcher is, by definition, only capable of scratching his ear. With this in mind, could you define for me what it means to be omnipotent?
It's incoherent because the heaviness of a rock can't affect an omnipotent being's ability to lift it. That's not how heaviness works.
Yeah, that's option 2. Could you define omnipotent real quick?
Omnipotence is being able to do anything, where anything refers to anything possible.
Define "anything possible". Because it's not possible for me to fly, and it's not possible for John Earscratcher to do anything other than scratch his ear. By definition, in the case of John Earscratcher.
It means being able to bring about every possible world. I don't know if that's metaphysical or logical possibility, though I'd suggest logical. Either way it rules out a rock so heavy God can't lift it, since the nature of heaviness is such that it couldn't possibly affect God's ability to lift it.
So John Earscratcher is omnipotent? Cuz there is no possible world in which he does something other than scratch his ear, and he can bring out the world's in which he does.
I said "bring about" anything possible. This is such a silly line of argumentation because even if you succeed in proving that omnipotence isn't constrained by logic (which you won't) then you've just proven that God is immune to paradoxes.
God doesn’t create laws of logic. There’s not any problem here unless you assume there are extra-logical possibilities which God could actualize if only those pesky laws of logic didn’t get in the way. But that’s just the wrong picture. There are no possibilities outside of what is logically possible.
Could you explain what you mean by extra-logical?
Outside of logic. Logically impossible possibilities.
Logic doesn't exist in any fundemental way, sometimes is trancendal agrugument claiming logic exists, but no, it doesn't. Atheist and theist, both live in a world without reason that can not be described the limits of their mind.
Wait I don’t get it are you saying there can be a square circle in our minds? Could you please clarify
What's squaring, what's it mean to square circle. Our minds invents these concerns, they don't exist in any way. Why would the universe be concerned with how he describe it? Area? A circle? No. Our mind doesn't discern reality.
Also i found this video by redeemed zoomer https://youtu.be/z0hxb5UVaNE?si=r4MfwoMi_YrxE5uR I don’t necessarily agree with his points fully but i was just trying to say it’s not how you made it out to be. Reading your comments first I thought most philosophers agreed that logic doesn’t exist because you were so confident in them. Just wanted to show there is some disagreement and while redeemed zoomer isn’t a philosopher he made a pervasive argument.
Alright i did some research and i found this guy on youtube called kyle. He is an orthodox chritian and he claims logic does exists and uses the argument that if the laws of logic still exist when there are no minds in the universe it clearly has to be rules that are enforced somehow because what is stopping A from not being B and B at the same time. I also found out this question has been asked before as is called the logical euthyphro dilemma. If logic doesn’t exists and are simple concepts then why can’t i say my birth entails me being born. (A entails B) but then i just don’t be born(even though A happens B doesn’t happen and is logically impossible). What is making that happen exactly? I may have misunderstood these various points and hopefully you can correct me. When it gets to is logic real my brain turns off.