God Is Subject To The Law Of Noncontradiction

It has been one of the best debates I’ve had in my very short time on this site. I must first apologise to Pro, I did in fact mean to quote the other remark of "God can keep us safe without lying to us" with the "Of course, but who says he has to choose one method over another? " I haven’t had as much time as hoped this week and copied the wrong part, my full apoligies to Pro for this. Quantum Physics and Existing Pro points to my comments on super disposition and Schrödinger’s cat. On Superdisposition he has stated “the law of noncontradiction is violated only if something is and is not in the same sense” As I’d pointed out “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”. On Schrodinger’s cat he has pointed to the physical aspect of the cat being alive or dead and has said I have misunderstood or taken out of context the meaning. However, I must point out to Pro that Schrödinger was not brought up in this section, and was actually brought up in the “Character, Idea and Definition” category as an example of how our mind can create characters and thoughts that break this law, by extension pointing to the fact that if God is not real, and just a character, it is very possible for him to not be bound by noncontradiction. There was no attempt to say the cat was physically alive and dead at the same time, as it was a thought experiment. The whole point is that it can be thought of as alive, and not alive at the same time. Pro’s attempt to refute this from within another context doesn’t address the issue raised. Pro has also not stated how something that does not exist would be subject to any law, especially a law of thought and logic. Omnipotent Pro states that by saying God has unlimited power, I have put a limit on God. He states “If God is omnipotent, then my opponent seems to be arguing that it has no other choice than to be capable of logical contradiction” Limits on his power is the opposite of what I am arguing, and I cannot imagine a single instance where being capable of something is seen as a limit. To be capable of a choice, means he can choose either way. As stated, God is all powerful and can do anything, by definition, (as shown in round 1) Pro proposes a state in which God is not omnipotent. This, by definition is not a God. As God IS omnipotent by definition, and anything bound by noncontradiction cannot be omnipotent, (as shown in round one), God is clearly not bound by noncontradiction. God as a Character, Idea and Definition My opponent writes “what subjects a circle that is not a circle to the law of noncontradiction is its inability to exist”. How can something be subjected to a law of logic if it does not exist? It is subjected to no laws as it does not exist. Also, how can Pro possibly claim to know this about an object which does not, has never, and cannot exist. Pro then goes on to say “My opponent throughout his arguments unconsciously assumes noncontradiction of God, for example, if that "God does not exist" is the case, then "God does exist" is not the case. As I have stated, I do not believe that God is real, physical, actual or existing. What I am getting at is the character of God is contradictory. If I write a book saying “Jim has 3 legs, he is also legless” and publish this book, whether people believe it to be true or not, Jim has broken the law of noncontradiction. No one could ever argue that Jim is bound by noncontradiction, because after all, he has 3 legs and does not have 3 legs. It is in this same way that God can create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it and not create a rock so heavy he can lift it. Unless God is proven to be real, there is no way you can say “the idea of God is logically sound” when we can clearly see traits that make God logically unsound. Pro finally states that “If both of are true: "God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction," and "God is subject to the law of noncontradiction," then naturally "God is subject to the law of noncontradiction" is true, which is my argument. It doesn't matter if it's not, too. Pro is assuming that if “God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction” is true, the other MUST be true also. As God can choose, there is no reason to believe either way. God could JUST be not subject to noncontradiction, or he could be both, for he is god. God / Nature Pro states that being illogical is inferior to being logical. However he cannot, as could anyone, back this claim up with anything other than human understanding and human logic. How can we determine that logical beats illogical? How do we know that Gods mind doens’t work on something grander and greater than logic? Wolfs base their judgements on natural instinct and couldn’t fathom logic the way we do. What if what we call logic, and what God uses is different by that same degree. Being illogical may be the most perfect thing ever. Afterall, a perfect painting or piece of music is not the most logical one. Breaking The Rules Pro asserts that he has proven “God is not omnipotent” true. Again, this simply is not God. He asks me to prove God IS omnipotent, I point him simply to the round 1 definition provided. As stated several times through this debate. .. If what Pro mentions is not omnipotent, it is not God. God is omnipotent, therefore God breaks noncontradiction. Burdon of proof Pro states “I fully confess that I have been using logic to prove logic, but my opponent throughout our debate, and I am 100% certain this tendency will continue in his conclusion, has been using logic to disprove logic, though as he says himself he doesn't need to prove the negative, though by trying to falsify my proofs he has been trying to disprove the positive. ” We are in agreement with certain things, but it does not help Pro’s case the way he puts forward. We both agree that using logic to prove logic is self-defeating and does not actually prove a thing. Therefore, it should be as though no one has made any argument at all. As Pro has Burdon Of Proof and neither has made any argument, pro has failed in his Burdon Of Proof entirely. Pro’s Conclusion Pro says; 1. God can make the unliftable rock. 2. God cannot make the unliftable rock. 3. God can or cannot make the unliftable rock. 4 God cannot make the unliftable rock. (same as 2) 5. Therefore, God cannot make the unliftable rock and is subject the law of noncontradiction. This could just as easily be 1. God can make the unliftable rock. 2. God cannot make the unliftable rock. 3. God can or cannot make the unliftable rock. 4 God can make the unliftable rock. (same as 1) 5. Therefore, God can make the unliftable rock and is subject the law of noncontradiction. Neither of these are proof. Conclusion God is defined as all powerful and all knowing. Being all powerful breaks the law of non-contradiction. Characters, Ideas and definitions can be logically contradictory. God has not been proven to be anything more than a character, idea or definition. 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. 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. As a final point, as has been pointed out. .. We are arguing a proof of logic with logic, which is entirely self defeating. As such, you cannot prove logic with logic, and Pro has not met his burden of proof because of this. As a last note, this has been different from any debate Iv had. Thoroughly stimulating by far the one taking the most thought. I have enjoyed it just as much as Pro and thank him for the debate.