God is a logical impossibility

Thanks for the response Thett Premise 1: Defense The “logically” in “logically possible” is not a superfluous adjective. “Logically” is deliberately inserted both in the resolution and my syllogism to draw a distinction between that which is logically possible (as in, permitted by logic), and that which is just possible. There are events that occur (particularly on the Quantum Scale, as my opponent mentioned) that directly defy classical logic. So really what I am affirming is that God is inconsistent with classical logic (hence logically impossible)….not that God is simply impossible. This was not intended to be a surprise trick or anything. I thought it was understood. In this way, Premise 1 is indeed self-evident. If it is logically possible, it abides by the rules of logic. I disagree with my opponent when he says that we can imagine illogical things. What we can imagine are stupid/irrational scenarios, like a 1 million year old clown being president of Hong Kong, not illogical ones. To prove my point, try imaging a square that is triangular. However, this is a moot point, even if we could imagine such things, imagining something that is illogical is not itself illogical. What is contradictory about imagining something that is contradictory? The nature of the abstraction you imagined is illogical, not the act of imagining it. I completely agree with my opponent on the non-universality of logic, but I never claimed that was universal. Again “logically” is a very distinctive adjective in this debate. However, before anyone breathes a sigh of relief that this argument is not really attacking the standard God, I’ll explain what damage it does at the end. Premise 2: God is not bound by logic (Defense) “Ike gives you no reason to think that God is forced to follow the rules in the Universe he created rather than just choosing to do so. For example, if I impose a rule upon myself, I am the creator of the rule, but I can break it if I wish.” This doesn’t really address the premise. If God “chooses” to follow the rules of logic, then he is not bound by logic. Logic demands a COMPULSORY adherence to its rules, not voluntary. A voluntary adherence to logic is itself in violation of logic. My opponent offers an extremely innovative rebuttal in saying that logic conforms and changes according to God’s actions, that God IS logic. This took me aback, but unfortunately it fails on its own terms. If logic may change at any arbitrary moment, then no logical proposition has certainty. And since the law of noncontradiction can also be compromised, we wouldn’t know whether or not logic was still true or false and we wouldn’t know if God had just changed it. Ergo, changeable logic is a pure absurdity that destroys the very argument from which it was born. Our perception of logic IS what we call classical logic. If God is not in line with this perception, which I think my opponent just conceded, then the resolution is affirmed. “My opponent posits that if God cant do illogical things than he must not be omnipotent, but try to imagine an illogical thing. A circular square is meaningless, it cannt be concieved. How exactly is it a limit on Gods power to not create an abstract object that has no concievable meaning?” My opponent affixes our own limited capabilities to God himself! Is what is meaningless to us also meaningless to him? Does that not mean our intellect and his are equals? Is what is impossible to us also impossible to him? Does that not mean our power and his are equals? What is omnipotence if not boundless power? How can a god be all powerful, yet bounded by logic? The errancy in this argument is evident. It’s a definitional contradiction. Conclusion My opponent has unmistakably affirmed the existence of a transcendent, non-logically bound, eternal God,…but not the God the resolution sought to impugn, nor the God of any standard western religions. If an omnipotent God is not bound by logic, which I believe I have proved, then he cannot be affirmed nor negated. He cannot be conceived by our limited minds. The God so many of us believe in, by virtue of his boundless power, has no business in intellectual discourse. There can be no reason to believe in God, for God is above all reason! And within that framework, he is logically impossible. Resolution affirmed.