God Is Subject To The Law Of Noncontradiction

I thank con for his though-provoking opening statement.Rebuttal to Omnipotent / OmnipresentI feel confident enough that I've grasped this point that I will render it into syllogisms:Here is a modus tollens:If God is not omnipotent, God is not a GodGod is a GodSo, God is omnipotent.And a modus ponens:If God is omnipotent, God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction.God is omnipotent.So, God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction.The reasoning relies heavily on the law of noncontradiction. It assumes noncontradiction of God these three ways:God must be either a God or not a God, not both, or neither.God must be either omnipotent or not omnipotent, not both, or neither.God must be either subject to the law of noncontradiction or not subject to the law of noncontradiction, not both, or neither.However, that is my argument, not my opponent's.Rebuttal to God as a Character, Idea and DefinitionMy opponent's confusion about what is subject to the laws of logic is here: "People could argue that anything that manifests physically is subject to the laws of logic, but until a God manifests physically and we have the ability to scientifically measure God and compare him to the laws of nature, all we have to go on is what we define as a God."Something need not exist, or even have a definition, to be subject to the law of noncontradiction. As I alluded to in my opening statement, if God doesn't exist, and isn't subject to the law of noncontradiction, then God may also exist.If my opponent's definition of God includes, "that which is not subject to the law of noncontradiction," then what grounds remain for him to argue that "that which is subject to the law of noncontradiction" is not included as well?Rebuttal to God / NatureMy opponent's definition of God is indeed that "if God did not break the law of [sic] contradiction, then surely by definition we would not have found God." I suggest that this is profoundly incoherent.Matthew McCormick writes: "If [non-logical theists] try to assert that God is beyond logic... then they have effectively disqualified themselves from making any assertions about him... without logic, there won’t be any way to say it is true that God is X, because logic is what allows us to demarcate between true and false."I do not believe my opponent would like it very much if God were not subject to the law of non-contradiction. Anything goes, if my opponent is correct. Even if he proved that God is omnipotent, he still wouldn't have proven that God is omnipotent. If he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that God existed or had a good reason for allowing evil to thrive, he would not have proven at all that God existed or had a good reason for allowing evil to thrive.I would say that if my opponent defines God as that which can break the law of noncontradiction, not only will he never find God, he has guaranteed that the being cannot be.Rebuttal to Breaking the Rules Of LogicMy opponent writes that if God is not all powerful, it breaks either the law of noncontradiction or the law of identity by being omnipotent, but as I wrote above, my opponent, 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?Hopefully we don't digress too much into the law of identity, as it is beyond the scope of our narrow debate, but I am curious as to whether or not my opponent feels that the sentence "God is not a God" is false. Rather, to bring it back to the matter of noncontradiction, whether my opponent believes the sentence, "God is a God and God is not a God," is false. Normally the law of identity in the first case and the law of noncontradiction in the second would render the falsity of these sentences unassailable. However, without the laws there is no reason to think these sentences aren't perfectly true.Rebuttal to An UntruthI may sound like a broken record, but the lack of the law of noncontradiction screws up one very deep principle of reality: my opponent writes that "...the laws of nature were a God created illusion meant only to serve as restrictions to keep us safe."I refute that: the laws of nature were not a God created illusion meant only to serve as restrictions to keep us safe. Until my opponent provides an alternative method (one no doubt God will have to end up being subject to) of proving the falsity of a negated truth, he has no grounds to argue with my refutation, or any refutation of any belief he has about God.I would also like to ask my opponent, if God had not created the illusions, could he still keep us safe? My opponent's argument that God is so powerful that it can both lie sometimes and also be 100% truthful seems at odds with his argument that God has to lie to us to keep us safe. Is it beyond God's power to keep us safe without lying? My opponent may have accidentally subjected God to the law of noncontradiction, believing that of these two propositions one must be true and one must be false:"God can keep us safe without lying to us""It is not the case that God can keep us safe without lying to us"Burden of proofI accept the burden of proof and remind my opponent that a thing does not need to exist or be accessible to be subject to the law of noncontradiction. Here is an example of three things without definition or existence (as far as I know!)No pesh is a clomeLum is a peshSo, Lum is not a clomeThat is if such silly things are subject to the laws of noncontradiction. Otherwise we could see this:No pesh is a clome.Lum is a pesh.So, Lum is a clome.Even though pesh, clome, and lum are devoid of meaning, we can still tell that there is something terribly wrong with the second syllogism. No pesh is a clome, and Lum is both. If God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction, then there is something terribly wrong with it, perhaps that its definition is false.ConclusionIn his conclusion my opponent reiterates "By the definition of God, if he meets one rule of logic, he cannot meet the other." As in, if God is subject to the law of identity, (God is God) then by my opponent's definition, anyway, it cannot meet the law of noncontradiction. If it does not meet the law of noncontradiction, then it is not subject to the law of identity, since just because it is doesn't mean it is. If God is not subject to the law of identity, then there is nothing stopping "God is not God" from being true, which could mean that in fact it is subject to the law of noncontradiction after all.Merely saying that the sentence "God is not subject to the law of non-contradiction" is true is not sufficient to render the sentence "God is subject to the law of non-contradiction" false. However, saying that the sentence "God is subject to the law of non-contradiction" is true is sufficient to render the sentence "God is not subject to the law of non-contradiction" false. I have done this, and by rightly, though accidentally, reasoning that if God is one way (say, omnipotent) it automatically means its contradictory (non-omnipotent) is not the case, so indeed has my opponent.If, as I argue, God is subject to the law of non-contradiction, then a proposition about him must necessarily be either true or false, and a contradictory proposition about him must possess the opposite truth value. If God is not subject to the law of non-contradiction, then any proposition about him may be true, true and false, or false, or all three, and a contradictory proposition may be any combination of those as well, regardless of the truth value of the original proposition.Sources[1] http://www.provingthenegative.com...