If God defies logic, he doesn't defy logic.

Or we might say that if God defies logic, he is not God. Because logic ensures that God is God.

There is no such a thing as Zeno's paradox.
— bahman

Zeno's paradoxes — TheMadFool

I am aware of that. But the paradox is resolvable considering the fact that we need shorter duration for shorter distance.

Self-contradictory ideas cannot exist.
— bahman

Theism vs Atheism...Materialism vs Idealism...etc. — TheMadFool

I should have written Self-contrary ideas cannot exist in reality.

Of course God had to be able to defy logic, because if he wasn't able to, his omnipotence would be constrained by the rock problem. His only way out of it is to say that he can create a rock he can't lift and then lift it, because he's not constrained by the laws of logic that say he can't, or that he can create such a rock because he's not constrained by the fact that such a rock is a logical impossibility. Either way he cannot be both omnipotent and constrained by logic. — Pseudonym

SO He can and cannot lift the stone at the same time.

I think you're both missing the point, though. If we could make sense of God (the type of God we're discussing), then it would not be God. A necessary characteristic of a God which exists apart from the universe is that we cannot make sense of it. If we could, it would necessarily be part of our universe, because as I already said earlier: we cannot say anything about anything apart from our universe and our experience of it. So, if a characteristic of God is that it is not part of the universe, then it follows necessarily that we cannot say anything about what this God is like.

So, if a characteristic of God is that it is not part of the universe, then it follows necessarily that we cannot say anything about what this God is like. — JustSomeGuy

If we can talk about God as being transcendent and the creator of the universe then why can't we talk about God as being all-powerful (whatever we mean by the term)?

we cannot say anything about anything apart from our universe and our experience of it. — JustSomeGuy

So we can't talk about there being a transcendent creator God?

Here:

If God created the universe, then God is not part of the universe
We cannot say anything about anything apart from our universe
Therefore, if God created the universe, we cannot say anything about God

This is a logically valid argument. You can argue either of the two premises, but it logically follows that IF God is separate from the universe AND we cannot say anything about anything apart from our universe, THEN we cannot say anything about God.

Therefore, if God created the universe, we cannot say anything about God — JustSomeGuy

If we cannot say anything about God then we cannot say that God created the universe. Your argument refutes itself.

Besides, we can say all sorts of things about God. We do it all the time. So you need to be clearer with what you actually mean by saying that we cannot say anything about him. Perhaps you mean that nothing we say about him is true? Or just that we cannot know if anything we say about him is true?

Or just that we cannot know if anything we say about him is true? — Michael

Well, in a sense, yes. That is essentially what I mean. If we have no experience of something, we cannot say anything about it. Meaning, nothing anybody says about it can be said to actually apply to it. So, if a condition of your God is that it created the universe, you cannot say anything else about that God.

If we cannot say anything about God then we cannot say that God created the universe. — Michael

I understand your reasoning, but that doesn't disprove the argument. If the argument is sound, and your conclusion is correct, it's still showing what I was intending to show: that discussing a creator God is impossible/illogical. That's not to say a creator God cannot exist, only that if one does we cannot talk about it. As I've said before, this all really comes back to the limitations of language as well as the limitations of our brains.

If it helps to replace "say" with "know" in my argument, that's fine. Maybe that's where the confusion lies. I just don't like to use the term "know" because that just opens up a can of worms about what knowledge is.

But since you seem to take issue with my use of the term "say", then go ahead and replace it with "know".

What? Does that mean? — Cavacava

Having abandoned logic, you've abandoned identity ("it's fine saying that G is not G"), non-contradiction (G is possible and impossible, G both refers and does not), and some other things.
So, with G there's no longer anything in particular that's talked about.
Maybe G is just goat. (And not goat, but I prefer goat.) :)
To me it seems mostly like linguistic suicide, baby-talk, shooting oneself in the foot.
Which sort of makes me wonder what people are talking about here, well mostly the Yes voters.

So, if a condition of your God is that it created the universe, you cannot say anything else about that God. — JustSomeGuy

I agree with your exposition, the logic is infallible, for your definition of God, but I don't agree that such a definition is ever the one we're using. I think that because God is a concept in our minds he can only have properties that we can conceive.

We can talk about a God that has other properties, in the same way as we can say "this statement is false", but we are not really imagining him with those properties because we can't.

We can also understand the concept that some things are outside of our understanding, but then, I think it would be disingenuous to all religion to suggest that these things are what they mean by God. God speaks to people, sends thunderbolts, works out moral systems, decides what should happen adulterers. He's very much of this world, intrinsically tied up with human affairs.

So, I agree with you entirely that a creator of the universe must logically be outside of our conception, but I don't really think a creator of the universe (complete with all the logical implications you outline) is what anyone actually has in mind when they talk about god.

God speaks to people, sends thunderbolts, works out moral systems, decides what should happen adulterers. He's very much of this world, intrinsically tied up with human affairs. — Pseudonym

Exactly. Basically all I've been trying to say is that we can't talk about a God outside of our universe, so it follows that people discussing God in these ways cannot be talking about a creator God. Really, I just wanted to show the inconsistency there that most people don't seem to realize.

So, I agree with you entirely that a creator of the universe must logically be outside of our conception, but I don't really think a creator of the universe (complete with all the logical implications you outline) is what anyone actually has in mind when they talk about god — Pseudonym

I'm sure it's not what they have in mind because they haven't thought through the logical implications. I was just trying to bring some of those implications to light and show that talking about this kind of God at all is incoherent. We can really only talk about a God that is part of our universe, but this means that God could not have created the universe. Most people who believe in a God hold these incompatible beliefs about God.

I guess the conclusion to all of this is that if you're going to believe in a creator God, you can't talk about it at all because doing so limits it to our universe.

Edit: I just realized I'm basically describing the first few lines of the Tao Te Ching.

"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth"

I guess the conclusion to all of this is that if you're going to believe in a creator God, you can't talk about it at all because doing so limits it to our universe. — JustSomeGuy

I agree entirely but it raises an interesting question of whether any one could actually believe in a creator God at all. Sure, they could 'say' the words, but if we've just agreed that a creator God is not something of which the human brain could conceive, then how could anyone believe in it? Can one really believe in something one cannot even conceive of? I'm not sure that sounds possible.

That is an interesting question, indeed. I think it's probably possible to believe in something you don't understand. Many people believe in gravity without actually understanding it. But I suppose that's really believing in a representation of something, and not the thing itself.
You may be right; on its face it doesn't seem possible, though it would probably require more discussion of what "belief" actually is.

I think the problem is best resolved with the dispositionalist approach to belief of people like Ruth Marcus. By this approach, people do not believe in gravity, rather they believe that gravity will produce the effect of returning the ball to earth.

We could use this approach to allow that people do not believe in God at all, but they believe that God created the universe, in which case they need not conceive of the properties of such an entity, only its actions.

I agree, that approach does resolve the problem quite well.

I am aware of that. But the paradox is resolvable considering the fact that we need shorter duration for shorter distance. — bahman

The paradox hasn't be resolved.

I should have written Self-contrary ideas cannot exist in reality. — bahman

Contradictions are worse than contraries.

The paradox hasn't be resolved. — TheMadFool

So you didn't get my point?

So you didn't get my point? — bahman

Please explain how Zeno's paradox is solved.

Please explain how Zeno's paradox is solved. — TheMadFool

t=x/v where x is distance, v is speed and t is duration. Does it take shorter duration if the distance is shortened and speed is constant? Yes. Therefore you spend less time while you divide a distance into two and that allows you to move from the beginning to end during a specific time duration. That is true that number of interval is infinite but the sum of infinite interval is finite.

Please explain how Zeno's paradox is solved. — TheMadFool

Apologies if this has been covered already, but which paradox are you referring to? There are many.

Apologies if this has been covered already, but which paradox are you referring to? There are many. — JustSomeGuy

You are right. There are many paradoxes. But I think we are discussing about the paradox related to the runner.

t=x/v where x is distance, v is speed and t is duration. Does it take shorter duration if the distance is shortened and speed is constant? Yes. Therefore you spend less time while you divide a distance into two and that allows you to move from the beginning to end during a specific time duration. That is true that number of interval is infinite but the sum of infinite interval is finite. — bahman

It's not about infinite steps. You can't make the first step. To move a distance of 1 meter you must first move .5 meters. To move .5 meters you have to first move .25 meters and so on ad infinitum. Can you tell me the exact size of the first step you'll make to travel 1 meter? You can't because distance can be divided infinitely.

Apologies if this has been covered already, but which paradox are you referring to? There are many. — JustSomeGuy

Please read above.

It's not about infinite steps. You can't make the first step. To move a distance of 1 meter you must first move .5 meters. To move .5 meters you have to first move .25 meters and so on ad infinitum. Can you tell me the exact size of the first step you'll make to travel 1 meter? You can't because distance can be divided infinitely. — TheMadFool

Movement is not discrete but continuous.

If we're talking about Achilles and the Tortoise, the solution is simple. An infinite number of points can still add up to a finite distance. Just as you can divide a square in to an infinite number of smaller squares, and yet the sum of the area of all of them will still be the area of the original square, which is finite.