The Instigator
Youll-Log
Pro (for)
Tied
5 Points
The Contender
David.McIntosh
Con (against)
Tied
5 Points

God Is Subject To The Law Of Noncontradiction

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,512 times Debate No: 35825
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Youll-Log

Pro

Just for reference, Aristotle described the law of noncontradiction through these three angles: "It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect," "No one can believe that the same thing can (at the same time) be and not be," and "The most certain of all basic principles is that contradictory propositions are not true simultaneously."

If God is exempt, and is not subject to the law of noncontradiction, a number of consequences may both follow and not follow.

The problem of evil may both become and not become much worse of a problem if God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction. Suppose person A argues that the sentence, "God has a perfect reason for allowing evil to thrive," is true, and person A's opponent, person B, argues that the sentence "It is not the case that God has a perfect reason for allowing evil to thrive," is true. If God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction, then the law does not prohibit person A and person B from both being correct. They may also both be incorrect, if it is neither the case nor not the case that God has a perfect reason for allowing evil to thrive.

Even if God does not exist, it is still subject to the law of noncontradiction. Suppose person A argues that the sentence "God exists," is true, and person B argues that the sentence "It is not the case that God exists," is true. If God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction, then the law does not prohibit person A and person B from both being correct. They may also both be incorrect, if it is neither the case nor not the case that God exists.

Even if God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction, then it still may be subject to the law of noncontradiction. Suppose person A argues that the sentence "God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction," is true, and person B argues that the sentence "It is not the case that God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction," is true. If God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction, then the law does not prohibit person A and person B from both being correct. They may also both be incorrect, if it is neither the case nor not the case that God is subject to the law of noncontradiction.

I'd like to point out to my future opponent that your challenge is to rule out the case that God is subject to the law of noncontradiction. Ideally my opponent will demonstrate that absurdities result if we conclude that God is in fact unable to violate the law of noncontradiction, and that the above three paragraphs do not demonstrate absurdities by concluding that God is in fact able to violate the law of noncontradiction. Hopefully my opening statement demonstrated that if God is not subject to the law of noncontradiction, this fact alone does not rule out the possibility that he also is subject to the law of noncontradiction.

I would like the argument to take this format:

1. Pro Opening Statement (this)
Con Opening Statement
2. Pro Rebuttal
Con Rebuttal
3. Pro Conclusion
Con Conclusion
David.McIntosh

Con

I thank Pro for the debate and hope that we both enjoy it.

I will present 6 points as to why I think God is not subject to the law of non contradiction, which I have sumemd up in the conclusion. First, I want to establish definition. God has not been defined for this debate. I will go by Merriam-Webster’s definition [1].


Definition of GOD

Merriam Webster stated that God is;
1 Capitalized: the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind


The Christian God

Lets take the very first definition provided by M-W. It states a “the being perfect in power, wisdom”. To show these traits beyond a simply dictionary definition and create a bit of cohesion between definition and God idea’s currently worshipped, I will show that in Christianity these traits are backed up in the bible;

All knowing: Job 37:16 – “Do you know the balancing of the clouds, the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge.”, “Psalm 147:5 - Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.”

All powerful: “Matthew 19:26 - But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, with men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.”

So from the Bible, we can establish that at the very least, the Christian God is all knowing, and all powerful. This gives light to what is known as the problem of evil, along other contradictions which we should look into for the purpose of this argument.


Omnipotent / Omnipresent

If God is omnipotent / all powerful, he must be able to create a rock that he cannot lift. If he cannot create the rock, he is not all powerful, but if he creates it, he cannot lift it, so he is not all powerful. The very notion of all powerful is logically contradictory as shown above, but it is one of the fundamental characteristics of God. If he is not all powerful, his power has limits, and thus gives the chance that a more powerful being could exist, making the being in question not a God.

From this we can determine that a God, by definition is logically contradictory.


God as a Character, Idea and Definition

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.

As a definition, character or idea, God is not subjected to this law. So I bring it to Pro that if he wishes to prove that God is subjected to this law on non-contradiction he would have to prove an unimaginable feat, that is, to prove Gods existence. Otherwise it is merely “IF God exists AND manifests within our physical reality he MIGHT be subjected to the law of non-contradiction.”


God / Nature

As an extension to the above argument, let’s say we DID find God. Let us even go as far to say that we could scientifically measure God with the same accuracy as we have the rest of our known world.

If God did not break the law of contradiction, then surely by definition we would not have found God, just a powerful entity beyond our current knowledge. God by his own traits should not meet the restrictions placed on the natural world, he should go beyond them. Any entity that we find that is constrained by these traits would surely show that by this fact alone, they are not a God. The only true test for God we would have is if the being could break the natural laws of our universe. Otherwise anything God does is explainable within the laws of logic and science.


Breaking the Rules Of Logic


I put it to Pro that his initial question is a logical fallacy. It is within the same rules of Logic that something “is what it is”.

If we follow that rule then God is a God. That is... God is all powerful, and by extension, as shown in the “omnipotent” paragraph, is logically contradictory. If we follow the rule of non-contradiction, then God isn’t omnipotent, and therefore isn’t what he is.

Either way, one of these 2 rules of logic are broken. If one must be broken, God is not bound by the rules of logic. If God is not bound by the rules of logic, he is not bound by the law of non contradiction.


An untruth

Let us look at one specific religion for a moment since the rest of my argument is strongly based on definition. Since I have mentioned the Christian God before, I’ll stick with the same one here.

If God exists, what is to say that the laws of the universe are an illusion, created to keep us within confinements, maybe for our own safety, who knows. This begs a big question, that God may have deceived or lied to us, but is that such a big question? Let us see if the bible would back this up...

1 Kings 22:23 - Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

Jeremiah 4:10 - Ah, Lord GOD! Surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.

Jeremiah 20:7 - O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.


Ezekeil 14:9 - And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.

2 Thessalonians 2:11 - For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

So we can firmly establish, at least within Christianity, that there is reason to believe this particular God might lie or deceive. I should note, that this alone breaks the laws of non contradiction since God is said to be truthful and cannot lie.

However this would all be explained if the laws of nature were a God created illusion meant only to serve as restrictions to keep us safe. If this is the case, God is not bound by such illusions. Is there any other way to explain how an existing God could be so contradictory?


Burden Of Proof

Pro has stated "God Is Subject To The Law Of Non contradiction" and therefore has the burdon of proof to this claim. I however find it unimaginable for him to meet this burden of proof however, since how would we actually show that God is in FACT, subect to this law.

We could put forward possibilities, but as shown from my arguement there is plenty reason for doubt in pro's claim. Without access directly to God, how can Pro PROVE that God actually is subject to the Law of Non Contradiction.


Conclusion

1.
God is defined as all powerful and all knowing.
Being all powerful breaks the law of non-contradiction.
therefore God breaks the law of non-contradiction.

2.
Characters, Ideas and definitions can be logically contradictory.
God has not been proven to be anything more than a character, idea or definition.
Therefore God is not bound by the law of non-contradiction.

3.
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.

4. God can either adhere to "he is what he is". or "the law of non-contradiction".
By the definition of God, if he meets one rule of logic, he cannot meet the other.
If he can break rules of logic, he is not bound by them.

5. God has been shown to lie and decieve before.
The laws of logic could be an illusion by God.
If they are an illusion, God is not bound by them

6.
God is god. He is more powerful than anything.
By extention he is more powerful than the laws of the universe.
He cannot be bound by something less powerful than him.


Sources

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Debate Round No. 1
Youll-Log

Pro

I thank con for his though-provoking opening statement.

Rebuttal to Omnipotent / Omnipresent

I 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 God
God is a God
So, 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 Definition

My 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 / Nature

My 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 Logic

My 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 Untruth

I 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 proof

I 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 clome
Lum is a pesh
So, Lum is not a clome

That 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.

Conclusion

In 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...
David.McIntosh

Con

I thank Pro for the rebuttal. Since this is only a 3 round debate I will try to go over as much of Pro’s argument as I can.


Consequences

Pro starts off his argument by going over the consequences of what may or may not happen should a God not be subject to the laws of non-contradiction. While this fits the topic, it does not provide any evidence for or against the debate. These consequences would only occur should God act on his ability to be contradictory. There is nothing to say that if God is free to be contradictory, then he has must to so. This would put constraints onto what God can do.

As a God, he must be free to choose whether or not to adhere to such a law. He could easily make choices that do not break the law without actually being bound by it.


Quantum Physics and Existing

Pro then goes on to state “Even if God does not exist, it is still subject to the law of non-contradiction”. I feel that this is a very flawed statement, and one which has not been backed up.

Surely if a non contradictory thing can not-exist, then things that do not exist are not always bound by the law of non contradiction? It seems that Pro thinks that everything is bound to the law of non-contradiction. This is simply not true.

For example, 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 [2]. Also when we look at light waves, they are both particles and waves.

So we have shown that the law of non-contradiction is not present everywhere.
If things within our own universe are not always bound by the law of non contradiction then there is no reason why God should be bound by them. That would make him more restricted than a wave of light and a God cannot be outclassed by anything.


Omnipotent

Pro has not provided an answer to this dilemma.
As I have stated;

God is omnipotent.
Omnipotence is a logically contradictory.

Therefore God is a logically contradictory.
Pro must prove otherwise.


God as a Character, Idea and Definition

Again Pro has not dealt with the issue at hand. As I have stated, idea’s can be contradictory. “This sentence is a lie” would be a contradictory sentence. When we look at thought experiments, Schrodinger’s Cat is both alive and dead. A character in a novel or a thought in our mind could also be logically contradictory. At best, unless proven to exist, all we can say is that God is an idea, character or concept.

Pro says “Something need not exist, or even have a definition, to be subject to the law of noncontradiction.”

This doesn’t prove anything. 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. Therefore, 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. At present, I am unsure how you would prove a point about something which does not exist.

On the second point... If “something” is not defined, then it MAY be subject or not subject to any law. We wouldn’t know because we do not know what the “something” is. We have to define it in order to assess whether it is subject to such laws. So in order to say positively, that “God is subject to the law of noncontradiction”, we must define God.

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.


Rebuttal to God / Nature

Pro quotes my statement of “if God did not break the law of noncontradiction, then surely by definition we would not have found God". Pro states that this is my definition of God and it is “profoundly incoherent”.

First off this is not a definition. This is the consequences of that definition. As has already been stated the definition is “the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness” as defined by Merriam-Webster, not by myself. This is a pretty standard definition of God. If pro wanted another definition (I’m not sure what...) then it was up to Pro to provide it within the opening round.

If we say x is p, and we show that something is not p, we have surely shown that it is not x.

If by definition God is omnipotent and therefore breaks the law of noncontradiction, then surely anything that does not break the law of noncontradiction, is not a god.


Breaking The Rules

Pro has asked... “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?”

I do not need to prove that the opposite be false. If it is true that God is omnipotent, then god breaks noncontradiction. If he is not omnipotent, he is not god.


An Untruth

Pro asks “Is it beyond God's power to keep us safe without lying?” Of course, but who says he has to chose one method over an other?


Burdon of proof

I think Pro has missed what I mean here when pointing out he has burden of proof. Burdon of proof alone may break his argument.

Pro has stated that “God is subject to the law of non-contradiction”. The Burdon of proof says that Pro must prove this, not that I must disprove this. Now that may seem obvious, but let’s take a step back.

Pro needs to provide evidence for a rule of logic being absolute. This fact alone means that the statement is non falsifiable and non verifiable on the grounds that any proof would require the use of the law itself prior to reaching the conclusion. In other words, to verify or falsify the laws of logic, one must use logic to do so. Mr S Cohen goes into great detail on this case. [1]

So, my point is that you cannot prove logic by using logic, this is self defeating. The Burdon of proof requires Pro to prove his point, not myself to prove the negative. As Pro cannot prove his point with any rational, logical way without being self defeating, Pro cannot meet his Burdon of proof.

Also, The Lum/Pesh/Clome analogy is fine for explaining a lum/pesh and clome. But as stated, not everything is subject to the law.


Conclusion

1.
God is defined as all powerful and all knowing.
Being all powerful breaks the law of non-contradiction.

2.
Characters, Ideas and definitions can be logically contradictory.
God has not been proven to be anything more than a character, idea or definition.

3.
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.

4. God can either adhere to "he is what he is". or "the law of non-contradiction".
By the definition of God, if he meets one rule of logic, he cannot meet the other.
If he can break rules of logic, he is not bound by them.

5.
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.



Sources

[1]http://faculty.washington.edu...
[2]http://www.scientificamerican.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Youll-Log

Pro

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 Existing

My 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."

Omnipotent

My 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 Definition

My 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 / Nature

There 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 Rules

My 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 proof

I 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.

Conclusion

To 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. A
2. Not A
3. 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...

David.McIntosh

Con

I thank Pro for his last round. 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.

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 4 years ago
Juan_Pablo
This was a very good debate! The topic made me think about it for a few hours.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Is there any way this type of debate, can be held with a lower character limit?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 4 years ago
MassiveDump
Youll-LogDavid.McIntoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Juan's vote was not based on the arguments provided.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 4 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Youll-LogDavid.McIntoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a very difficult decision for me to make. Both debaters made excellent points! I could see legitimacy in Con's position and legitimacy in Pro's position, too! However, ultimately I had my own opinions coming into this debate and I have the bias that this philosophical problem is really a language issue. For example, Con stated that how could light be both a wave and a particle? That's evidence of contradiction. Well, the truth is particles also behave this way: an electron, for example, has both particle properties and wave properties. The truth is both light and particles are both - or something new that we don't really quite understand. The problem is language, at least that's what I believe. The same argument can be applied to God. Maybe the real defintion of God is that he IS IN FACT a liar! There would be no contradiction in this. Instead the definition of God changes. Ultimately I decided Pro was right, but I gave points to Con too for his style!