God Is Subject To The Law Of Noncontradiction

Since this is only a 3 round debate I will try to go over as much of Pro’s argument as I can. ConsequencesPro starts off his argument by going over the consequences of what may or may not happen should a God not be subject to the laws of non-contradiction. While this fits the topic, it does not provide any evidence for or against the debate. These consequences would only occur should God act on his ability to be contradictory. There is nothing to say that if God is free to be contradictory, then he has must to so. This would put constraints onto what God can do. As a God, he must be free to choose whether or not to adhere to such a law. He could easily make choices that do not break the law without actually being bound by it. Quantum Physics and Existing Pro then goes on to state “Even if God does not exist, it is still subject to the law of non-contradiction”. I feel that this is a very flawed statement, and one which has not been backed up. Surely if a non contradictory thing can not-exist, then things that do not exist are not always bound by the law of non contradiction? It seems that Pro thinks that everything is bound to the law of non-contradiction. This is simply not true. For example, in Quantum Physics, we see that a particle can be moving and not moving at the same time which is in direct conflict with this law [2]. Also when we look at light waves, they are both particles and waves. So we have shown that the law of non-contradiction is not present everywhere. If things within our own universe are not always bound by the law of non contradiction then there is no reason why God should be bound by them. That would make him more restricted than a wave of light and a God cannot be outclassed by anything. OmnipotentPro has not provided an answer to this dilemma. As I have stated;God is omnipotent. Omnipotence is a logically contradictory. Therefore God is a logically contradictory. Pro must prove otherwise. God as a Character, Idea and DefinitionAgain Pro has not dealt with the issue at hand. As I have stated, idea’s can be contradictory. “This sentence is a lie” would be a contradictory sentence. When we look at thought experiments, Schrodinger’s Cat is both alive and dead. A character in a novel or a thought in our mind could also be logically contradictory. At best, unless proven to exist, all we can say is that God is an idea, character or concept. Pro says “Something need not exist, or even have a definition, to be subject to the law of noncontradiction. ” This doesn’t prove anything. A circle that is not a circle does not exist. If it doesn’t exist, and God doesn’t exist, you cannot say that the law of non-contradiction extends to all things nonexistent. Therefore, you would have to prove that a nonexistent God is subject to the law of noncontradiction, because not existing on its own is not a proof. At present, I am unsure how you would prove a point about something which does not exist. On the second point. .. If “something” is not defined, then it MAY be subject or not subject to any law. We wouldn’t know because we do not know what the “something” is. We have to define it in order to assess whether it is subject to such laws. So in order to say positively, that “God is subject to the law of noncontradiction”, we must define God. Pro then tries to state that if something (say a square that is a not a square) is not subject to the law of noncontradiction, then it could also be subject to the law of noncontradiction. If this was the case, and both were true, this would be breaking the law of noncontradiction in itself, something which Pro has said is not the case. Rebuttal to God / NaturePro quotes my statement of “if God did not break the law of noncontradiction, then surely by definition we would not have found God". Pro states that this is my definition of God and it is “profoundly incoherent”. First off this is not a definition. This is the consequences of that definition. As has already been stated the definition is “the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness” as defined by Merriam-Webster, not by myself. This is a pretty standard definition of God. If pro wanted another definition (I’m not sure what. .. ) then it was up to Pro to provide it within the opening round. If we say x is p, and we show that something is not p, we have surely shown that it is not x. If by definition God is omnipotent and therefore breaks the law of noncontradiction, then surely anything that does not break the law of noncontradiction, is not a god. Breaking The RulesPro has asked. .. “while perhaps having proven that the sentence, "God is omnipotent" is true, has not proven that the sentence, "God is not omnipotent" is false. What reason, other than noncontradiction, does my opponent have for believing the negation of his belief is false? ”I do not need to prove that the opposite be false. If it is true that God is omnipotent, then god breaks noncontradiction. If he is not omnipotent, he is not god. An UntruthPro asks “Is it beyond God's power to keep us safe without lying? ” Of course, but who says he has to chose one method over an other? Burdon of proofI think Pro has missed what I mean here when pointing out he has burden of proof. Burdon of proof alone may break his argument. Pro has stated that “God is subject to the law of non-contradiction”. The Burdon of proof says that Pro must prove this, not that I must disprove this. Now that may seem obvious, but let’s take a step back. Pro needs to provide evidence for a rule of logic being absolute. This fact alone means that the statement is non falsifiable and non verifiable on the grounds that any proof would require the use of the law itself prior to reaching the conclusion. In other words, to verify or falsify the laws of logic, one must use logic to do so. Mr S Cohen goes into great detail on this case. [1]So, my point is that you cannot prove logic by using logic, this is self defeating. The Burdon of proof requires Pro to prove his point, not myself to prove the negative. As Pro cannot prove his point with any rational, logical way without being self defeating, Pro cannot meet his Burdon of proof. Also, The Lum/Pesh/Clome analogy is fine for explaining a lum/pesh and clome. But as stated, not everything is subject to the law. Conclusion1. God is defined as all powerful and all knowing. Being all powerful breaks the law of non-contradiction.2. Characters, Ideas and definitions can be logically contradictory. God has not been proven to be anything more than a character, idea or definition.3. The only way to test if a physically existing God was in fact a God, is if the God broke the rules of science and logic. Otherwise he has no more proof to his claim than anything else in nature.4. God can either adhere to "he is what he is". or "the law of non-contradiction". By the definition of God, if he meets one rule of logic, he cannot meet the other. If he can break rules of logic, he is not bound by them.5. God is god. He is more powerful than anything. By extension he is more powerful than the laws of the universe. He cannot be bound by something less powerful than him. Sources[1]. http://faculty.washington.edu...[2]http://www.scientificamerican.com...