God Created All Atheists

If you are using it, then God cannot be above it.

False claim. I can use logic while God can be above logic. My use of logic has nothing to do with God's own abilities.

If you are not using it, then you are literally not even thinking coherently, at which point nothing you say has any meaning.

Circular reasoning.

Definitions require the application of logic in order to make sense. You cannot define something as being above logic any more than I can define a 4 sided triangle into existence.

Circular reasoning. You are saying logic must apply to God in order for logic to apply to God. You are saying definition requires logic in order for logic to apply to definition. But sadly, such circle only works against you. If you need logic to disprove God, and logic does not apply to God, then you cannot disprove God or even question his existence. As for definition, the definition itself isnt above logic. God is.

And how did you reach that conclusion? What did you use to get there?

The basic law of logic is A = A.

Which then creates a true equation:

God is above logic = Logical laws cannot stop God from creating himself out of nothing.

This is true by tautology, which is different from circular reasoning you use.

One cannot agree with one part while disagreeing with other.

Or if you need a more simple one:

Logic = Logic

Above logic = Above logic.

"Above logic = logic" cannot ever be logically true, so its opposite is the only one which can be logically true:

Above logic =/= logic.

So to put it simply, being above logic simply means "A = A" doesnt need to apply as a rule.

So God can be "A = A", but he can also be "Not A = A" and "A =/= A".

So being above logic simply means God can do what is logically impossible, which is "Not A = A". In other words, God can move from state of non-existence into state of existence.

When "A = A" doesnt apply, what applies is "Not A = A". In other words, what applies is law of non-logic, where "0 = 1".

"God doesnt exist = God exists" cannot be logically true, but because God is above logic, it can be true for God, and God can create himself/herself out of nothing.

This isnt difficult to understand. If I defined God as "all powerful being which can create itself out of nothing, and which can exist even when it doesnt", such definition of God would by tautology prove God at the same time.

Atheists place logic above God, but that contradicts the basic definition of God. If logic is more powerful than God, then God isnt most powerful, but logic is. So in other words, you cannot agree to definition of God and then contradict the definition which you agree to.

That’s a good argument for God. “So in other words, you cannot agree to definition of God and then contradict the definition which you agree to.”

Definition is very important. In the same way some versions of ontological argument are based entirely on proof by definition.

Example:

God is defined as greatest possible being.

Greatest possible being would logically be being which exists everywhere by definition.

So to say that God doesnt exist somewhere would contradict with established definition of God.

And if such God exists somewhere, such God exists everywhere.

Such God exists in mind, so such God exists somewhere.

Thus, such God exists everywhere.

I am not a big fan of ontological argument, but it is one example where definition of something is used as proof for it. Similar is done in math, where definitions are also proof.

Or.

GOD is a various concept applied to the point at which we need to create various concepts.

Of course, MANGOD was an obvious MAN concept.

If we were CARROTS we would undoubtedly have conceptualised a maximal CARROTGOD.

MARINEBIVALVES, then MARINEBIVALVEGOD.

BANANAS.........

Etc etc.

Omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omnipotence:

1. Only omniscience is truth, as partial truth without omniscience is never whole truth, thus is never truth. Thus, only God is truth.

2. Only omnipresence can be present everywhere if present anywhere, and can include all reality in itself. Thus, only God can contain whole reality.

3. Only omnipotence can be above all and be source of everything else, as only omnipotence(ability to create anything) can create everything, and nothing except omnipotence can create everything. Thus, only God can be the source of everything.

4. Only omnibenevolence can be a correct standard for what is good, as only completely good can be used as a meassure for how good something is. Thus, without God's omnibenevolence, there is no way to tell what is good or what is completely good.

My use of logic has nothing to do with God's own abilities.

No but you are using logic to come to that conclusion, just as you are using logic to reach every conclusion you have ever reached in your entire life. That's why what you're doing is definitionally absurd - by asserting that anything can exist outside the boundaries of logic you are abandoning logic as the rule of thought, so in order to continue defending your assertion you have to put yourself in the position of using logic to argue against logic, which is exactly what you are and have been doing.

If you don't find that absurd then you have no concept of what the word means.

Circular reasoning

There is nothing circular about this. Logic is foundational, that is, all thought begins with logic. It cannot be proved or disproved, and any attempt to do either requires the usage of it, thereby presuming its validity at the outset. That's why abandonment of logic is immediately dismissed as incoherent to a level where you are indistinguishable from someone who belongs in a mental asylum.

If you need logic to disprove God, and logic does not apply to God, then you cannot disprove God or even question his existence.

There is no such thing as a concept that logic doesn't apply to. Arguing that logic doesn't apply to God is every bit as incoherent as me saying I can prove to you that you don't exist.

God is above logic = Logical laws cannot stop God from creating himself out of nothing.

This is true by tautology

A tautology is definitionally, a meaningless statement. All it means it's that a statement is consistent with itself, that cannot be used to prove anything, that's why in any debate between educated participants the term is used as a pajorative. Telling someone their statement is a tautology is telling them that they're saying nothing at all.

So God can be "A = A", but he can also be "Not A = A" and "A =/= A".

Do you believe it is acceptable for your beliefs to violate the laws of logic? Yes or No?

No but you are using logic to come to that conclusion, just as you are using logic to reach every conclusion you have ever reached in your entire life. That's why what you're doing is definitionally absurd - by asserting that anything can exist outside the boundaries of logic you are abandoning logic as the rule of thought, so in order to continue defending your assertion you have to put yourself in the position of using logic to argue against logic, which is exactly what you are and have been doing.

Logic is "A = A". I am simply saying God is capable of "Not A = A". That isnt logic. That is non-logic, something a divine being is capable of. So the claim that I am using logic to describe non-logic is false.

There is nothing circular about this. Logic is foundational, that is, all thought begins with logic. It cannot be proved or disproved, and any attempt to do either requires the usage of it, thereby presuming its validity at the outset. That's why abandonment of logic is immediately dismissed as incoherent to a level where you are indistinguishable from someone who belongs in a mental asylum

Same can be said about non-logic. It cannot be disproved or even questioned. Also, saying that you need logic to prove logic just means you cant even prove logic.

There is no such thing as a concept that logic doesn't apply to. Arguing that logic doesn't apply to God is every bit as incoherent as me saying I can prove to you that you don't exist.

Logic doesnt apply to "Not A = A".

A tautology is definitionally, a meaningless statement. All it means it's that a statement is consistent with itself, that cannot be used to prove anything, that's why in any debate between educated participants the term is used as a pajorative. Telling someone their statement is a tautology is telling them that they're saying nothing at all

Tautology also means statement logically derived from other statement. In other words, when one statement is true, other must be as well.

Do you believe it is acceptable for your beliefs to violate the laws of logic? Yes or No?

Yes, because then they cannot even be questioned. A much better debating position.

Logic is often applied in a circular way.

That is non-logic, something a divine being is capable of. So the claim that I am using logic to describe non-logic is false.

You're literally doing that right here in this paragraph.

Again, YOU are asserting that a being can exist outside the boundaries of logic. That makes this stated belief, by definition, irrational.

What about that so you not understand?

Same can be said about non-logic. It cannot be disproved or even questioned.

Non logic isn't a thing. It's not a tool one can use. Non-logic = incoherence, so your argument is that incoherence cannot be disproven, which is absurd and goes to show that you do not understand even the most basic of concepts involved here.

Non-logic would be like a formula error in an excel spreadsheet. Once you get an error, every formula that is tied to it, directly or indirectly, will also spit back an error message, so your entire sheet can become one huge error message all because of one cell. That's what it looks like to try and defend non-logic as a concept; it is incoherent and so then is everything you try to build off of it.

saying that you need logic to prove logic just means you cant even prove logic.

Correct, you cannot prove logic, which if you read my previous post I already said. Logic is foundational, so it is presumed at the outset. It is not itself proven, it is the tool by which everything else is proven. Why? Because we have no other choice. The very concept of proving or disproving anything at all requires that we begin with logic as a presupposition. If you do not, then you cannot prove or disprove anything.

The very fact that you are having this conversation right now means you are using logic. It is not a choice, it's a precondition of intelligible thought. Your only other option is incoherence, which is exactly what you are engaging in all while pretending you're not.

Logic doesnt apply to "Not A = A"

Correct, because that is by definition an illogical statement, which is by itself a refutation of it.

Tautology also means statement logically derived from other statement. In other words, when one statement is true, other must be as well.

No, it's not. A tautology is a self affirming statement, like "it is what it is" or "all triangles have 3 sizes". The whole idea of a tautology and reason why we have a word for it is because statements like this are often uttered in an attempt to sound like something meaningful is being said. Calling someone's statement a tautology is a direct way of telling that person their statement is meaningless, that's the whole point.

Question: Do you believe it is acceptable for your beliefs to violate the laws of logic? Yes or No?

Answer: Yes, because then they cannot even be questioned. A much better debating position.

Wow.

I'll grant you that your beliefs cannot be questioned, but that's because your beliefs are definitionally incoherent. That's not a better debating position, it means your position is invalidated before you've even begun.

If logic does not have to be adhered to, then the Easter bunny exists, while also also not existing, and is also a car, which is also a tree, which is a true and a false statement.

That's what your position amounts to, and no, it's not clever nor is it sophisticated. It's just a jumbled mess of words while forming no coherent concept by which one could even contemplate let alone understand.

Again, YOU are asserting that a being can exist outside the boundaries of logic. That makes this stated belief, by definition, irrational.

And irrational is "not according to logic"? More circular reasoning from you, I guess.

Non logic isn't a thing

How would you know?

It's not a tool one can use

Its a tool God can use.

Non-logic = incoherence

And incoherence is non logic? Again, I hope you stop making circles in hope I will fall for circular logic.

so your argument is that incoherence cannot be disproven

Well, by all means, go ahead and disprove that non-logic can exist. I will wait.

Non-logic would be like a formula error in an excel spreadsheet

And error is what exactly?

Once you get an error, every formula that is tied to it, directly or indirectly, will also spit back an error message, so your entire sheet can become one huge error message all because of one cell.

If error is lack of logic, then yes, using non-logic will result in lack of logic. However, your task is to disprove non-logic. You are merely describing it in circles. If you think lack of logic makes something impossible, then that is burden of proof you cannot possibly uphold. Anything capable of ignoring logic likewise cannot be made impossible by logic itself.

That's what it looks like to try and defend non-logic as a concept; it is incoherent and so then is everything you try to build off of it.

More circular reasoning. If this is the best you got, I think there is not much for me to even debate here.

Correct, you cannot prove logic, which if you read my previous post I already said. Logic is foundational, so it is presumed at the outset. It is not itself proven, it is the tool by which everything else is proven.

Ok, so you cannot prove logic, but you want to use logic to prove something. So likewise, I cannot prove non-logic, but I can use non-logic to prove something. However, non-logic proves itself because it cannot be prevented from existing.

Why? Because we have no other choice. The very concept of proving or disproving anything at all requires that we begin with logic as a presupposition. If you do not, then you cannot prove or disprove anything.The very fact that you are having this conversation right now means you are using logic. It is not a choice, it's a precondition of intelligible thought. Your only other option is incoherence, which is exactly what you are engaging in all while pretending you're not.

I think you have extremely poor eye sight. As I said, I used non-logic to prove God. So no logic was used.

Correct, because that is by definition an illogical statement, which is by itself a refutation of it.

Circular reasoning, you are saying non-logic cannot exist because it is non-logic. So now go and explain how do you stop from existence something which is by its own definition ignoring logical laws? What exactly stops non-logic?

A tautology is a self affirming statement, like "it is what it is" or "all triangles have 3 sizes". The whole idea of a tautology and reason why we have a word for it is because statements like this are often uttered in an attempt to sound like something meaningful is being said. Calling someone's statement a tautology is a direct way of telling that person their statement is meaningless, that's the whole point

No, tautology is also using parts from definition in an attempt to make a deductive argument by definition.

I'll grant you that your beliefs cannot be questioned

So you cannot even question if being above logic exists.

, but that's because your beliefs are definitionally incoherent.

Circular circle. You already defined incoherent as lack of logic, so saying that something above logic is above logic isnt really saying anything new.

That's not a better debating position, it means your position is invalidated before you've even begun.

Invalidated how? You already conceded you cannot disprove non-logic. If invalidated means not according to logic, that is just another circle.

If logic does not have to be adhered to, then the Easter bunny exists, while also also not existing, and is also a car, which is also a tree, which is a true and a false statement.

Its called belief in infinity. Yes, there are infinite number of Gods, worlds, and God is everything because God is infinite.

That's what your position amounts to, and no, it's not clever nor is it sophisticated. It's just a jumbled mess of words while forming no coherent concept by which one could even contemplate let alone understand

What do you not understand about Not A becoming A? It is technically not even non-logic. Not A can become A in real world, and A can become not A. If you burn a book, it is no longer a book. So A becomes Not A.

So when Not God becomes God, it is not anything even non-logical. The only time when non-logic applies is when "Not A = A"

, but "Not A becoming A" isnt really non-logic. It happens in real world all the time by transformation. So God creating himself out of nothing can also be act of transformation, which doesnt actually violate A = A, because Not A can become A. It just cannot logically be Not A and A at the same time. Of course, I took the idea a step further, because God by definition cannot be less powerful than logical laws.

The assertion "god did not create atheists, religion did" suggests that atheists are a product of the human invention of religion rather than directly created by a divine being. This perspective aligns with atheism itself, which denies the existence of God, while religious teachings typically posit that God created humanity in its entirety, including those who do not believe.Therefore, whether God created atheists or not depends on the perspective of the individual or belief system. 

ive read that the large majority of theologians argue god abides by logic

now we’re stepping into the classic intersection of **philosophy, theology, and metaphysics**: whether God (or the divine) can exist *outside or above the laws of logic*. Here’s a careful overview of how theologians and philosophers have approached this:

---

## 1. **Classical Theism: God as Rational and Logical**

* **Aristotelian / Thomistic approach (Aquinas, Augustine):**

* God is *perfect, necessary, and self-consistent*.

* Logic (principles like non-contradiction) is not external to God; rather, it is a reflection of God’s rational nature.

* God **cannot contradict logic**, because contradiction would imply imperfection or absurdity.

* Example: God cannot make a square circle, because that is *nonsense*, not a limitation on God.

* **Implication:**

* Logic is not a “constraint” on God; it’s part of God’s nature. To say God is above logic would imply God could be irrational, which classical theologians consider impossible.

---

## 2. **Mystical and Negative Theology (Apophatic Tradition)**

* **Eastern Orthodox mysticism, Pseudo-Dionysius, Meister Eckhart:**

* God’s essence is ultimately **unknowable**. Human categories (including logic) can only approximate God.

* Statements like “God transcends human understanding” suggest God is not *fully capturable by our logic*.

* Some mystics speak of paradoxical truths about God (e.g., God is both transcendent and immanent, both hidden and revealed).

* **Caveat:**

* Most negative theologians still **don’t claim God violates logic**; they mean that human language and conceptual categories **cannot exhaust the divine reality**.

---

## 3. **Modern Philosophical Considerations**

* **Process theology / open theism:**

* God’s knowledge and power interact dynamically with creation. Some argue God is *not strictly bound by deterministic rules*, but logic as such is generally preserved.

* **Contemporary analytic philosophy (Plantinga, Swinburne):**

* God is **maximally coherent**, not logically incoherent. God cannot make contradictions true, because logical contradiction is considered “nothing” rather than a real state of affairs.

---

## 4. **Summary of Theological Consensus**

| Tradition / Thinker | View on God vs. Logic |

| -------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| **Aquinas / classical Catholic** | God cannot violate logic; logic is a reflection of divine rationality |

| **Eastern Orthodox / apophatic** | God transcends human conceptual grasp; may appear paradoxical, but not truly illogical |

| **Mystics (Western/Christian)** | God is beyond full human articulation; apparent paradoxes are limits of language, not true contradiction |

| **Modern analytic philosophers** | God is maximally coherent; cannot make contradictions true |

**Bottom line:**

* Nearly all theologians agree that **God does not literally violate the laws of logic**.

* Saying God is “above logic” usually means: human logic cannot fully comprehend God’s ways, not that God can make contradictions exist.

* True violation of logic would imply incoherence, which theologians argue is incompatible with **omnipotence and perfection**.

What other religious people think of God is irrelevant. To say that logic is above God is sort of an insult to God. By definition, God is most powerful, so he is above logic when it comes to power. To say that logic limits God would be same as saying logic is more powerful than God, which contradicts the definition. Surely, I have plenty of arguments to use which prove God, and I have seen that atheists struggle with a lot of them.

1. Conditions for existence argument (There are no known conditions which would enable our existence but not existence of God. Existence is either conditional or unconditional, and unconditional existence enables God to exist. Only conditional existence would prevent God, but conditional existence requires first cause which contradicts its own premise by being unconditional).
2. Probability argument: if one God has 50% chance to exist, when you account for two independent Gods, the chance of one existing is over 50%.
3. God as maximally great being: maximally great being exists in all worlds, including in imaginary worlds. If it exists in one world, it exists in all.
4. God as the only truth: The only complete truth is omniscience, and since God is omniscient, only God can be the truth and everything else a lie or not whole truth. In this sense, it is not possible to question his/her omniscience, because any questioning is always done from a position of lesser knowledge and incomplete truth. And without omniscience, truth itself cannot exist, so to deny omniscient being means to deny that truth completely exists, which then makes such denial an invalid claim.
5. Existence cannot be explained except by God. Only something with power to create everything which exists can create everything which exists. This is true axiom, and there obviously is something which created all that exists.
6. Observational evidence: prayer indeed changes a person, religion has an effect on life, and religious societies historically were far more successful than atheist societies. It is as if some power in Universe rewards religious people on average.

And irrational is "not according to logic"?

Correct. If you don't believe me Google the definition.

More circular reasoning from you, I guess.

And what if it were? Would that be a problem, and of so, why?

Its a tool God can use.

Completely baseless and incoherent.

Well, by all means, go ahead and disprove that non-logic can exist. I will wait.

Do you need me to prove to you that married bachelor cannot exist?

No really, do you?

If you think lack of logic makes something impossible, then that is burden of proof you cannot possibly uphold.

My argument isn't that a logically impossible object cannot exist, my argument is that a logically impossible object cannot be asserted to exist. Do you understand the difference? If not please ask.

It would be helpful here to define the word impossible. When we say something is impossible we are saying that it's possibility should be rejected in accordance with an assumed limitation. There are three general limitations; practicality, physically, and logically.

Practical impossibility simply means unrealistic, i.e. "it's impossible to get this done by 5pm".

Physical impossibility is a higher bar, meaning it would violate the laws of physics, i.e. an object traveling faster than the speed of light.

Logical impossibility is the highest bar of impossibility, meaning in violation of the laws of logic, i.e. a 5 sided triangle.

There is nothing "higher" on the scale other than a logical impossibility, so at that point the word impossible loses all meaning. If logic is not a limitation of possibilities then literally everything is possible and nothing is impossible. At that point all coherent thought and ability to communicate breaks down. This is why it's absurd to claim God can do this. If such a being is possible then it's possibility is meaningless to the human mind, and most certainly cannot be proven.

Lastly, I find it interesting that you assert I have a burden to prove anything here. What principals are you using to reach that conclusion?

More circular reasoning.

Still waiting for you to tell me why that's a problem.

However, non-logic proves itself because it cannot be prevented from existing.

So, if I cannot "prove" a 5 sided triangle does not exist, then it must necessarily exist? Is that really what you're going with?

As I said, I used non-logic to prove God. So no logic was used.

Let's see if I can understand this claim;

P1. Non-logic =/= logic

P2. Non logic was used

C. Logic was not used

Is this your claim?

Circular circle.

Still wondering why this is bad

[Me:]If logic does not have to be adhered to, then the Easter bunny exists, while also also not existing, and is also a car, which is also a tree, which is a true and a false statement.

Its called belief in infinity.

No, it's called a jumbled incoherent meaningless mess of words. Why? Because it does not adhere to the laws of logic.

Do you really need me to "disprove" this statement? That's not a rhetorical question, answer that.

So God creating himself out of nothing can also be act of transformation, which doesnt actually violate A = A, because Not A can become A.

That has nothing to do with this conversation. The first law of logic is that A equals A, which is to say that A is A, not A will be A at some point.

A becoming A is not a violation of logic, so if there is a God who can do this it wouldn't make him powerful enough to violate the laws of logic.

Yes, the Big Bang Theory is the scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe, stating that the universe began as an extremely hot and dense point that rapidly expanded and cooled, creating space, time, energy, and all matter about 13.8 billion years ago. As the universe expanded and cooled, subatomic particles formed, then atoms, which eventually grouped to form the stars and galaxies that exist today. 

Key Aspects of the Big Bang Theory

1. Singularity: 
2. The universe began as a tiny, infinitely dense point, or singularity, containing all the matter and energy of the cosmos. 
3. 
   
4. Explosive Expansion: 
5. This singularity underwent a rapid, explosive expansion, which scientists sometimes refer to as "cosmic inflation". 
6. 
   
7. Cooling and Particle Formation: 
8. As the universe expanded, it cooled, allowing for the formation of subatomic particles like quarks and electrons, followed by protons and neutrons. 
9. 
   
10. Nucleosynthesis: 
11. About three minutes after the Big Bang, the universe cooled enough for protons and neutrons to fuse into the nuclei of the first atoms, primarily hydrogen and helium. 
12. 
    
13. Formation of Atoms and Structures: 
14. After approximately 380,000 years, the universe cooled sufficiently for electrons to combine with these nuclei, forming the first stable atoms. Over billions of years, gravity pulled these atoms together to form stars, galaxies, and the larger cosmic structures we observe. 
15. 
    
16. Ongoing Expansion: 
17. The universe is still expanding today, with the rate of expansion accelerating. 
18. 
    

Supporting Evidence

The Big Bang theory is widely accepted because it explains many cosmological observations, including the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation and the observed distribution of galaxies

If everything is God's will, free will doesn't exist, and free will being the monotheist's greatest argument for the existence of suffering, means that God wants evil and suffering to exist, meaning God is not benevolent, meaning faith and worship are meaningless and futile efforts.

Words are just vocalised or symbolic representations of internally processed data.

And putting omni in front of a word is quite popular.

Though I wouldn't go as far as to say omnipopular, even though I just did.

See how easy it is?

Correct. If you don't believe me Google the definition.

I just needed you to confirm that you werent making an argument, but just saying same thing twice in a circle.

Do you need me to prove to you that married bachelor cannot exist?

In non-logic, even in dual reality, two opposites can exist because dual reality allows that. Think of it like world where everything is same except one world has A and the other world has Not A. But sure, since you insist, go ahead and prove that God cannot create a married bachelor.

My argument isn't that a logically impossible object cannot exist, my argument is that a logically impossible object cannot be asserted to exist.

By that logic, same object cannot even be asserted to not exist. So now you have a situation where you cant go either way. However, I dont really agree with you. Logically impossible object can be asserted to exist. Otherwise, what are you arguing against here?

It would be helpful here to define the word impossible. When we say something is impossible we are saying that it's possibility should be rejected in accordance with an assumed limitation. There are three general limitations; practicality, physically, and logically.Practical impossibility simply means unrealistic, i.e. "it's impossible to get this done by 5pm".Physical impossibility is a higher bar, meaning it would violate the laws of physics, i.e. an object traveling faster than the speed of light.Logical impossibility is the highest bar of impossibility, meaning in violation of the laws of logic, i.e. a 5 sided triangle.There is nothing "higher" on the scale other than a logical impossibility, so at that point the word impossible loses all meaning. If logic is not a limitation of possibilities then literally everything is possible and nothing is impossible. At that point all coherent thought and ability to communicate breaks down. This is why it's absurd to claim God can do this. If such a being is possible then it's possibility is meaningless to the human mind, and most certainly cannot be proven.

Sadly, I dont agree with your definition, so not sure how that helped you. But again, God is by definition above everything else. So any rule you put in place to limit God, God is already above it. You can define impossible as "cannot exist according to logic", but God is above logic and doesnt need to exist according to it.

So, if I cannot "prove" a 5 sided triangle does not exist, then it must necessarily exist? Is that really what you're going with?

And what is it that you are going with? You cannot even demonstrate how a logic could prevent something capable of existing by ignoring logic. The mere definition of such a thing makes any logic used against it flawed by default.

A becoming A is not a violation of logic, so if there is a God who can do this it wouldn't make him powerful enough to violate the laws of logic.

So even logically, Not God can become God, just as in the world, Not A becomes A.

If everything is God's will, free will doesn't exist, and free will being the monotheist's greatest argument for the existence of suffering, means that God wants evil and suffering to exist, meaning God is not benevolent, meaning faith and worship are meaningless and futile efforts.

God is everything. God is both good and evil. As for prayer, some people pray to evil Gods. It is not mutually exclusive.

The universe began as a tiny, infinitely dense point, or singularity, containing all the matter and energy of the cosmos

If that begining existence was unconditional, then likewise same unconditional existence would enable God to exist. But if it was conditional, then it wasnt a begining.

Words are just vocalised or symbolic representations of internally processed data

Yes.

A materialistic model of the world doesn't allow for free will but a theistic one can allow for it

I just needed you to confirm that you werent making an argument, but just saying same thing twice in a circle.

Are you ever going to tell me why circular reasoning is a problem, or just keep dodging the question because you know it undercuts your position?

But sure, since you insist, go ahead and prove that God cannot create a married bachelor.

Nice try. I asked you whether you need me to prove to you that a married bachelor cannot exist. Answer the question.

Logically impossible object can be asserted to exist.

Ok, I should have known this conversation was that deprived of sense to the point that I would need to rephrase. You can assert anything you want, love flavored cereal, a bed made of sleep, etc. You cannot do so coherently. All you're doing is throwing words around and you really think you're making a logical argument all while arguing against logic itself. The fact that you can't see the absurdity of that is quite amusing.

You can define impossible as "cannot exist according to logic", but God is above logic and doesnt need to exist according to it.

There is no higher bar (or lower depending on how you're phrasing it) than logic as a limitation in distinguishing possible vs impossible. So once we knock that bar down, the word possible no longer has any meaning in language. Therefore, anything you assert beyond that point also becomes meaningless.

We're back to the excel error on a spreadsheet. I would ask if you understood that reference, but of course you don't.

And what is it that you are going with?

That one's "failure" to "prove" a 5 sided triangle does not exist, does not mean it does exist.

You're turn.

You cannot even demonstrate how a logic could prevent something capable of existing by ignoring logic.

Because logic is foundational as I've already pointed out. You cannot demonstrate it, your only choice is to assume it which is exactly what you're doing right now and doing throughout this entire thread, all while arguing against it. But go on and continue explaining to me why I need to prove to you the validity of the very thing you are actively relying on to argue against me.

The mere definition of such a thing makes any logic used against it flawed by default.

No, the very fact that you are defining something as existing outside three boundaries of logic makes your definition unintelligible and meaningless. That's why arguing against it is flawed, because there's no coherent concept to argue against.

Are you ever going to tell me why circular reasoning is a problem, or just keep dodging the question because you know it undercuts your position?

I told you. You are just saying same thing twice. It has no meaning.

I asked you whether you need me to prove to you that a married bachelor cannot exist.

I dont need to. I already know that you cant.

You cannot do so coherently

I never even claimed God was only according to logic, so nice strawman. I am literally arguing that God is above logic, and you think I am arguing he is limited by logic.

There is no higher bar (or lower depending on how you're phrasing it) than logic as a limitation in distinguishing possible vs impossible. So once we knock that bar down, the word possible no longer has any meaning in language. Therefore, anything you assert beyond that point also becomes meaningless

That is only if you define meaning as logically possible, and it depends on how you define possible. If you define both as according to logic, then that is just saying "if we dont use logic, there will be no logic". As much as I enjoy your circles, thats all what they are. Non-logic is dual state of things. In other words, its meaning is that something both is and isnt. Now, you cant prove logic, and even if you did prove logic, you wouldnt be able to disprove non-logic. I can explain why logic exists, but you cannot. And that is the crucial flaw in your position, because it relies on something which only my position can explain. You, by being limited to logic, cannot at the same time explain what created logic, and I dont even need to tell you that logic can only be created by something greater than logic.

Because logic is foundational as I've already pointed out. You cannot demonstrate it, your only choice is to assume it which is exactly what you're doing right now and doing throughout this entire thread, all while arguing against it. But go on and continue explaining to me why I need to prove to you the validity of the very thing you are actively relying on to argue against me

I think you are confused. My whole position here is that God is above logic. So to claim that I was using logic when I specifically talked about non-logic is a bit silly accusation.

No, the very fact that you are defining something as existing outside three boundaries of logic makes your definition unintelligible and meaningless. That's why arguing against it is flawed, because there's no coherent concept to argue against

And unintelligible, plus meaningless means what? Let me guess, lack of logic? But at least you conceded that questioning God who is above logic is impossible, so I truly hold a position which cannot even be questioned.