i dont understand this omnipotent

[Willamena]

Why would such a being use words? Indeed would there even BE words in such an existence? Words are, but a poor attempt to reference concepts.

I understand the point, however in such an existence where we are talking about an entity unrestrained by logic, the vestments we have created within our universe such as linguistics, even epistemology.... would they still have any validity? The inability to rely on simply logic as being reliable means we are faced with considering a non rational existence not characterised by anything which we can reliably examine. :/ what would be nonsensical musings here may be reliable there; to suggest that logic does not constrain is a premise that defeats any attempt at examination >.<

Because such a being sets out to accomplish a purpose, which means such a being is consciousness, which has fractured the world into the meaningful bits we call words. That framework is already in place before we could even begin to hypothetically set "god" out to "do" or make god "be" "anything." There is no "anything" and no way to accomplish it without it being "something," which means it has a word.

Even being "unrestrained by logic" is "something."

If your argument shifts to that "god" moves, acts and exists beyond our ability to frame a hypothetical situation for him in words, then you argue against yourself to be in support of a "god" that "does" "anything" "beyond words."

 

[Willamena]

Why would such a being use words? Indeed would there even BE words in such an existence? Words are, but a poor attempt to reference concepts.

Or, to put it more simply, we are not exempt from god.

 

[crystalonyx]

Without logic, discussion or thought on the concepts are pointless. A concept not bound by logic cannot be meaningfully thought of, identified, defined or anything to humans. There is one logical law that if not true of something then that thing cannot be recognized by us at all. That is the law of identity. If God does not follow the laws of logic then God is not God. If he does not follow the law of identity then it is possible that he is not what he is. He has no attributes as well as having many attributes. This is why without logic, there's no meaningful discussion or thoughts.

Examination is impossible without logic, to suggest that God does not follow logic or is not constrained by logic defeats any attempt at examination.

A god is not bound by logic, at least not our logic, it can act illogically as it wills, as it is not ruled by a higher power.

 

[filthy tugboat]

A god is not bound by logic, at least not our logic, it can act illogically as it wills, as it is not ruled by a higher power.

As I already stated, if God is not bound by logic then God does not abide by the law of identity. God is not what he is. There are many God's and all of them are only one. Nothing can be meaningfully said about God. The bible is inaccurate as is every religious text or idea about God ever. Thoughts about God if God is not subject to logic are necessarily inaccurate. God cannot be identified, recognized, thought about, heard from, seen or reacted to. This is the result of a God that is not subject to logic.

What you propose contradicts every possible notion of God and necessitates the falsehood of all religions.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Because such a being sets out to accomplish a purpose, which means such a being is consciousness, which has fractured the world into the meaningful bits we call words. That framework is already in place before we could even begin to hypothetically set "god" out to "do" or make god "be" "anything." There is no "anything" and no way to accomplish it without it being "something," which means it has a word.

Even being "unrestrained by logic" is "something."

If your argument shifts to that "god" moves, acts and exists beyond our ability to frame a hypothetical situation for him in words, then you argue against yourself to be in support of a "god" that "does" "anything" "beyond words."

I am ignoring the 'before we could even begin to' as simply a typo; please correct me if I am wrong. In a similar fashion I have understood 'world' to mean all which exists. That stated, the grammar of the last section is so disjointed that I cannot figure out what you mean sorry.

Suppose that some 'god' (undefined) is 'omnipotent' (not bound by logic as per the initial premise of the OP) and that this occurs according to its 'intent' (an assumption which is not necessarily true btw; this denotes an intention of purpose, inferring thoughts and so forth)

In such a scenario that 'god' by virtue of having thoughts can conceive of concepts and relationships between such concepts (but concepts are not defined, only words are); moreover because of its omnipotence it is able to take action with regard to those concepts in order to attempt to achieve outcomes.

Now we can split hairs about whether omnipotence refers to actions or outcomes (personally I prefer actions, because this would enable the outcomes to be subjected to the environment in which they occur, such as being bounded by logic within our own existence which is characterised by logic); however there is nothing to suggest either way, because it is fundamentally an unfalsible proposition (which to me would indicate that the theological noncognitive response would be appropriate - however for the purposes of discussing the concept with THM, I have entertained the abstract notion despite those reservations)