God Is Subject To The Law Of Noncontradiction

I thank con for his well-researched and formidable rebuttal.To begin my conclusion, unless it was a typo, I was very confused about my oppoent's answer to my question, "Is it beyond God's power to keep us safe without lying?" My opponent writes, "Of course, but who says he has to choose one method over an other?" If anything is beyond God's power, then God is not omnipotent, which contradicts my opponent's view.Quantum Physics and ExistingMy opponent points to the principle of superposition and Schrödinger's cat as evidence for contradictory phenomena, but he misunderstands what they mean. While many popular periodicals consider superposition to violate the law of noncontradiction, the law of noncontradiction is violated only if something is and is not in the same sense. "It is raining" can be true and false if it's raining here and not there. Similarly, superposition can be easily misunderstood: Schrödinger did not say that the cat is simultaneously alive and dead, but that the possibilities are random and equal. Such as with the experiment, sourced below, the probability of the resonator possessing zero and one phonon were random and equal.Schrödinger himself stated of his thought experiment, "In itself it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks."OmnipotentMy opponent writes that I have not proven otherwise of this line of reasoning:God is omnipotent.Omnipotence is a logically contradictory.Therefore God is a logically contradictory.However, in this way he puts a limit on God: If God is omnipotent, then my opponent seems to be arguing that it has no other choice than to be capable of logical contradiction. If my opponent argues that this is not the case, such argument is in the second premise below:If God is omnipotent, he is forced to be capable of contradiction.God is not forced to be capable of contradiction.Therefore God is not omnipotent.And if God is not omnipotent, then certain laws are out of his control, namely, the one that kicked him out of omnipotence.God as a Character, Idea and DefinitionMy opponent writes, "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," by which I believe he means that what frees a circle that is not a circle from being subject to the law of noncontradiction is its non-existence. However this is backwards, what subjects a circle that is not a circle to the law of noncontradiction is its inability to exist.My opponent writes: "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." I have already proven this, but I will once more.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. The only reason he assumes that the meanings these two sentences have any bearing on each other whatsoever is because God is subject to the law of noncontradiction. The only reason my opponent believes the meanings of the sentences "God is subject to the law of noncontradiction" and "God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction" have any bearing on each other is because God is subject to the law of noncontradiction. There is no other explanation for why my opponent sees that the sentences bear on each other's meaning.My opponent has not adequately negated the proof that the only reason we can have this debate is because of these two sentences, one must be true and one must be false."God is subject to the law of noncontradiction.""God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction."Con writes "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."Con again assumes noncontradiction. It is true that "if God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction, then it could also be subject to the law of noncontradiction." If both of these 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. That God is not subject to it has no bearing on the truth or falsehood that it is subject to it. "If this was the case, and both were true," then I would be correct. I would also be incorrect, and you would be correct, and you would also be incorrect, and I would be correct, and you would be correct. We'd both also be wrong. Naturally I hope I win this debate, but bearing this in mind it would be funny if we tied.God / NatureThere are many arguments that if God is not subject to the logical law then he is illogical. Logical beats illogical, the argument goes, and so if a being is illogical then it is not perfect in goodness, and not God. Not being subject to the law of noncontradiction is a failing. Omnipotence to lie and be 100% truthful is also not perfect goodness, so again, it wouldn't be God, and omnipotence merely means being able to do everything. Simultaneously lying and telling the truth isn't a thing.Breaking The RulesMy opponent writes that he does not have to prove "God is not omnipotent" false. I have proven it is true in the "Omnipotent" section, so my opponent in effect does not intend to counter my assertion.Again, my opponent claims simultaneously that God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction, and that of these sets of contradictories, one must be true of God and one must be false:"If God is not omnipotent, it is not God""If God is not omnipotent, it is God""If God is omnipotent, then God breaks noncontradiction.""If God is omnipotent, then God does not break noncontradiction."Why con insists on ruling out the truth of negated truths is not a mystery.Burdon of proofI have, or shortly will have, met my burden of proof. Cohen's paper notwithstanding, 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. To use logic to disprove logic is fittingly contradictory, and yet unless I am in for a surprise, my opponent is subject to the law of noncontradiction.ConclusionTo conclude my conclusion, as my final proof I will use the principle of explosion to demonstrate that the sentence "God is subject to the law of noncontradiction" is true.Here is the symbolic representation of the argument:1. A2. Not A3. A or B (true from one)4. Not A (true from two)5. So, B. (true from 3 and 4)And finally:1. God can make a rock so large it cannot lift the rock.2. God cannot make a rock so large that it cannot lift the rock.3. God can make a rock so large it cannot lift the rock or God is subject to the law of noncontradiction. (true from 1)4. God cannot make a rock so large it cannot lift the rock. (true from two)5. So, God is subject to the law of noncontradiction. (true from three and four)I thank my opponent for an extremely stimulating debate and wish him luck with the voters and more importantly with actually having the more accurate view.Sources[1] http://www.tuhh.de...[2] http://web.physics.ucsb.edu...[3] http://www.paul-almond.com...