And the biblical God vanished in a puff of logic!

[Martian]

I challenge you to provide a way for the theist to describe his/her God as being able to do everything but what is logically impossible or makes something that requires more than his intellect and might.

Well, its kid changed molecular structure of water with the power of will. And it itself managed to carve a fully grown human (or so the tale goes, yes..?) out of another's rib... Logically impossible for a number of reasons.

Is it logically impossible? Or do humans lack the means to make such an operation, whilst God has that ability?

I am interested, though I don't know how you could solve for n. It doesn't seem to have enough information to be solved.

You can solve an equasion of the type x^y=n where x is the variable and y and n are constants. But I was never able to calculate nor find a third party solution for my x^x=n  

I don't think it's logically possible to solve the problem you provided. God cannot do logically impossible things.

[Zarathustra]

God cannot do logically impossible things.

:hail:  
now you stated it again, thank you! Martian has now disproved God, twice! Wow! (Although in a circular fashion, but hey... what is good enough for the theists..)

[Martian]

God cannot do logically impossible things.

:hail:  
now you stated it again, thank you! Martian has now disproved God, twice! Wow! (Although in a circular fashion, but hey... what is good enough for the theists..)

No. No. No.

If a theist, out of hand, claims that their God is not bound by logic, then God is logically impossible and your proof is redundent.

On the other hand, if they claim that their God is bound by logic, then it would do you well to analyze what these theists are actually saying when they say God is all-knowing and all-powerful. It would obviously mean that God can do anything WITHIN LOGIC. "All-" refers to that which is a logical possibility, NOT that which is logically impossible.

I don't know about you, but I don't care about those who say their God is not bound by logic, because they have ALREADY SAID that there is no reasoning with them by saying "God is not bound by logic". I care about the intelligent theists that actually proport something which is logically defensible. Let me show you how a conversation would be between an atheist using this argument and an intelligent theist.

Atheist: "I have proven that your God can't do or know logically impossible things."
Theist: "I don't care. I never meant that God could do logically impossible things. I meant that he can do and know everything that is logically possible. Having "all" include things which are logically impossible is really stupid and pointless. And it's petty that you would harp on such a technicality that's not actually part of my God concept."
Atheist: "Oh, but that's not the real definition of the the words, omnicience and omnipotence!"
Theist: "Fine. Give me a term that describes what I'm trying to say, so that I can use them to describe my God concept."

In this case, just to satisfy you, I will create two new terms to represent what a respectable theist would mean: "logical omniscience" and "logical omnipotence".

Logical omnipotence - having all powers might that are logically possible.
Logical omniscience - having all the powers of intellect that are logically possible.

God is logically omnipotent.
God is logically omnipscient.

God cannot make a math problem that he cannot solve, because a math problem that is too difficult for him to solve is a logical impossibility (it can't exist, because God can solve any math problem that's solvable). God cannot make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, because a rock that is too heavy to lift is a logical impossibility (it can't exist, because God can lift anything).

Harping on technicalities will get us nowhere. This argument will not impress any theist for the reason that it's either redundent (they already accept that God can do logically impossible things) or that it's analyzing things which are not part of their God concept (they mean that God can do anything that is logically possible).

[Zarathustra]

In this case, just to satisfy you, I will create two new terms to represent what a respectable theist would mean: "logical omniscience" and "logical omnipotence".

Logical omnipotence - having all powers might that are logically possible.
Logical omniscience - having all the powers of intellect that are logically possible.

God is logically omnipotent.
God is logically omnipscient.

I don't see why your ad hoc creating two new terms, should satisfy me. In fact I find it most dissatisfying because it is, a repetition of your ad hoc definition eluding the real one. When you restrain "omni" by something (in your case logic), it is simply not "omni" any longer. Especially since omniscience and omnipotence are both inherently illogical, which makes "logically omnipotent" a conceptual selfcontradiction.
Furthermore it really doesn't save the god concept from the paradox, because:

This argument will not impress any theist for the reason that it's either redundent (they already accept that God can do logically impossible things) or that it's analyzing things which are not part of their God concept (they mean that God can do anything that is logically possible).

the paradox works regardless of whether god can or can't do logically impossible things. (That is just something you added.) How about changing your comments according to what I wrote you about earlier?
Considering the second part, I agree as long as the theist in question is not a christian. This thread is about the christian-god concept though. If they assume the premise you stated, they have an awful lot of explaining to do explaining exactly what it is they believe in.

Harping on technicalities will get us nowhere.

I am not planning to convince a theist! (Now there's a logical impossibility.... or?) I am simply restating the paradox, because I like it and wanted to share it with you guys.

I'd like to see anyone dismantle it, without a number of ad hoc definitions or changing the god concept. Then I'll be the first to admit it doesn't work. So far, you've got a loooong way to go Martian.    But please do give it your best shot, if you want.

[Wechtlein Uns]

Omnipotence = All powerful

Omniscent = All knowing

Power = control

knowing = (in the simplest case) memory

Control implies the existense of desire. Desire implies the existence of an outside object that does not = what an inside subject believes it to equal.

The existence, or rather, division of the universe of phenomena into subject and object is immaterial. No such devision can be made, or rather, an infinite number of infinitely different divisions can be made, any of which is equally valid. But that being the case, it is apparent that the division does not actually exist. If no such division of subject and object can be made, then no such thing as desire can be made apparent, thus no such thing as control can be exerted, thus there is no real ground for power to exist, let alone omnipotence.

knowing: It is my conclusion through a long and exhaustive inquiry into the nature and definitions of the term "knowledge" and the terms that define it that omniscience would require an equivalency to all things that whatever possesing the trait of omniscience would seek to know. This is , again, because of the lack of a division between subject and object.

It is not the case, in my opinion, that there can be a being or entity that is both omniscient and omnipotent. However, all phenomena is all phenomena, and what it does equals all things capaple of doing, being done, or doing to. Also, without a division between subject and object, it can be said that there is an omniscience of sorts. It would be held by all things. Everything. But only as a whole.

[Zarathustra]

Hello Wechtlein

I agree with some of what you are saying, since I have been there myself.And philosophically I have high esteem for phaenomenology, so you won't get an argument from me against dissolving the subject/object distinktion!
 I have a few suggestions, though.
- Since your argumentation is quite incoherent, and could easily be refined.

Omnipotence = All powerful

Omniscent = All knowing

Yes, we can agree as far   Others strongly disagrees.

then no such thing as desire can be made apparent, thus no such thing as control can be exerted, thus there is no real ground for power to exist, let alone omnipotence.

Whoops!! There you lost everyone! Maybe you should take a look back at your beginning again   - because this leads you even further:

knowing: It is my conclusion through a long and exhaustive inquiry into the nature and definitions of the term "knowledge" and the terms that define it that omniscience would require an equivalency to all things that whatever possesing the trait of omniscience would seek to know. This is , again, because of the lack of a division between subject and object.

It is not the case, in my opinion, that there can be a being or entity that is both omniscient and omnipotent. However, all phenomena is all phenomena, and what it does equals all things capaple of doing, being done, or doing to. Also, without a division between subject and object, it can be said that there is an omniscience of sorts. It would be held by all things. Everything. But only as a whole.

Or better yet: Read some of the philosophers I mentioned above.

[Martian]

When you do your proof that shows that God cannot possibly do illogical things (which is obvious and axiomatic), what are you trying to accomplish? It seems to me that you are suggesting that God cannot have immense power because it is logically impossible for him to do logically impossible things, which is a false conclusion. Rather, you can only conclude that God is not able to do logically impossible things, BUT it is possible that he is able to do all other things, as I said earlier.

Also, I think you are confused about what Ad Hoc means. It refers to making explanations for specific events that doesn't fit within the theory specified before the event. For example:

If, say, someone presented the arguement, "God cannot be omniscient because it is impossible for anything/anyone to make a math problem that requires more intelligence than that thing/person already has," and I made excuses like "math problems don't apply to God", then that would be Ad Hoc. Also, if you provide the rock-argument and I say "rock weights don't apply to God," then that is also Ad Hoc. But, if I provide a better theory that explains the exceptions, then it is not Ad Hoc. In fact, science is based on this principle of self-correction: make an explanation, and when data comes in that doesn't corroborate with that explanation, make another explanation that fits that data into that new explanation (without being Ad Hoc). But anyway, what we're talking about here is not even an argument, it's redefining (in this case simply specifiying) a certian word to reflect the concept that user wants it to represent. We do this all the time in philosophy.

Omni- means all. All of what, is not specified. Obviously, the theist didn't really think about the logical contradictions that technically arrise from this wording and thought that the definition that was made would suffice to express the way they wanted to describe God. Now that pradoxes (which are incredibly stupid technicalities) like the one you provided have come to light, the theist must specify that they didn't mean to include things that are LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE (as if anyone has to make such an obvious specification). Also, Logic is not a limitation, because it is a platform for all existing things to exist, everything else is meaningless, like square circles. You can't say that God is limited from making a square circle because it's a meaningless concept.

And remember, if this argument does not work against the theist's concept of God, then it's not a very good one. Look at the following options and see why it's not very useful.
1) If the math problem paradox does apply to a theist's God concept, then the theist won't have a problem with it because they already accept that their God can do illogical things. So this impacts nothing.
2) If the math problem paradox does not apply to a theist's God concept, then the theist won't have a problem with it because it has nothing to do with their beliefs. So this impacts nothing.

Also, you mentioned that you were talking about the Christian God concept. It certainly is true that there are a lot of Christians who believe that God is "not limited by man, math problems, rocks, nor logic." But they are just copying what they have seen other people say, without thinking about the logical implications. They are sheep that can't think. Rather, an intelligent Christian, someone who actually knows what "logic" means, would see the folly of saying God is beyond logic, and he/she would declare that God can do all LOGICAL things. So, the Christian God concept is not really tied down to being able to do logically impossible things, and I don't think the bible goes against any of this.

[Zarathustra]

When you do your proof that shows that God cannot possibly do illogical things (which is obvious and axiomatic), what are you trying to accomplish? ....(long smeer about this misconception, and a lecture on philosophy in which I have a degree. Thank you).... So, the Christian God concept is not really tied down to being able to do logically impossible things, and I don't think the bible goes against any of this.

I agree with your last statement, because the bible contains miracles. But I'm sorry that is not what the paradox shows. And you're still misunderstanding the paradox. It shows that they are saying "God is both tall and short at the same time" or "2+2=5"... Maybe someone besides me or Asmodean should try to explain it to you, since obviously we fail.  

[Asmodean]

When you do your proof that shows that God cannot possibly do illogical things (which is obvious and axiomatic)...

If it can't do illogical things, it's not omnipotent.

[Martian]

When you do your proof that shows that God cannot possibly do illogical things (which is obvious and axiomatic), what are you trying to accomplish? ....(long smeer about this misconception, and a lecture on philosophy in which I have a degree. Thank you).... So, the Christian God concept is not really tied down to being able to do logically impossible things, and I don't think the bible goes against any of this.

I'm sorry that is not what it shows.And I agree because the bible contains miracles. You're still misunderstanding the paradox. It shows that they are saying "God is both tall and short at the same time" or "2+2=5"... Maybe someone besides me or Asmodean should try to explain it to you, since obviously we fail.  

Wow. I made two counterpoints against your Ad Hoc allegation, and you failed to understand ad hoc whilst ignoring my second point about the ad hoc fallacy not applying to what we are talking about because we are not making arguments. I will try again.

Ad Hoc fallacy, is a error made when a person modifies a theory to allow for a specific event or there is no good reason to suggest that modification is true. Or in other words, the modification to that theory cannot be generalized to apply to other exceptions. What you have presented here is not Ad Hoc for two reasons.

1) The modification to the "theory" (it's not a theory) is generalized, and does not refer only to a specific event.
2) What we are talking about here is not a theory. It is just a definition of God. There is no data, and we're not testing to see if it's true. We're just defining things. If you have a degree in philosophy, then I'd imagine you'd understand this.

[Martian]

When you do your proof that shows that God cannot possibly do illogical things (which is obvious and axiomatic)...

If it can't do illogical things, it's not omnipotent.

Who cares about making explanations? Asmodean said it, ergo case closed!

But seriously...

[Zarathustra]

What are you talking about? I'm at a loss about what your criticism about my post is.

[
Wow. I made two counterpoints against your Ad Hoc allegation, and you failed to understand ad hoc whilst ignoring my second point about the ad hoc fallacy not applying to what we are talking about because we are not making arguments. I will try again.

Ad Hoc fallacy, is a error made when a person modifies a theory to allow for a specific event or there is no good reason to suggest that modification is true. Or in other words, the modification to that theory cannot be generalized to apply to other exceptions. What you have presented here is not Ad Hoc for two reasons.

1) The modification to the "theory" (it's not a theory) is generalized, and does not refer only to a specific event.
2) What we are talking about here is not a theory. It is just a definition of God. There is no data, and we're not testing to see if it's true. We're just defining things. If you have a degree in philosophy, then I'd imagine you'd understand this.

I know you are at a loss. And neither Asmodean nor I can explain it to you I guess    And your cons against my ad hoc presentation,.... please..1 applies to any ad hoc explanation. Two is a sophist claim. If YOU know a little about philosophy, then you would know that definitions is exactly what we spend a lot of time testing. That makes me repeat my question:

Are you by any chance a christian?

[Martian]

I know you are at a loss. And neither Asmodean nor I can explain it to you I guess    And your cons against my ad hoc presentation,.... please..1 applies to any ad hoc explanation. Two is a claim that makes me repeat my question:

Are you by any chance a christian?

I think you are confused about what I said. What you claim to be an ad hoc explanation is not an ad hoc explanation because it is not a modification to the "theory" that only applies to a specific event. And in any case, Ad Hoc does not apply to what we're talking about because this is not a theory or hypothesis, it is a modification to a definition. And I would argue that it's hardly even that. Reason:

When we say "all", we automatically refer to "all logical things" (obviously). Illogical things are impossible. Just because it's not specified that we are only talking about logical things, doesn't mean we are also talking about illogical things. All we have done is make the distinction that we are only talking about logical things, which should have been obvious without anyone being explicit.

As for your Christian question (which you edited into your earlier post after I was responding to that earlier post), I am not. I'm a total atheist, but I still don't like bad arguments, for or against God.

[Zarathustra]

I know you are at a loss. And neither Asmodean nor I can explain it to you I guess  

[Asmodean]

When you do your proof that shows that God cannot possibly do illogical things (which is obvious and axiomatic)...

If it can't do illogical things, it's not omnipotent.

Who cares about making explanations? Asmodean said it, ergo case closed!

Indeed.

It's all in definition of omnipotence. Last I asked a fundie type if there was something - anything - his god couldn't do, I got "no" for an answer. Well, Zarathustra illustrated (in but one way of many) how such a god is no more than a bunch of BS.

Now since you claim to be an atheist, why should I even work with your definitions and your take on semantics? You have no god so it needs no debunking.

...You already know that god is a load of crap so why the need to hear me/us confirm it for you?