Unlimited omnipotent

[Chrawnus]

Similarly, for a rock to itself, it does not need to be logical for that rock to exist. In order for me to determine that the rock exists, my determination of that proposition would be bound by a logical framework. All the while, the rock simply is or isn't, and a logical mode is not required for this activity. If you remove the observer, logic disappears.

But reality does seem to work according to the (for a lack of better terms) "law" of logics, atleast the most fundamental ones, such as the Law of non-contradiction. Or would you argue that it's possible for above mentioned rock to be both a rock and not be a rock at the same time? Or is it possible for it to exist and not exist at the same time?

Or how about the Law of identity? Is reality subject to that? Is it possible to say that A is not A. I.e does it seem possible that a rock is not a rock, for example?

Or, to take the Law of the excluded middle, that is, for every proposition either that proposition is true, or it's negation is. Can both the proposition "God exists" and "God does not exist" be true at the same time? God here stands for a generic theistic deity.

Personally, I believe that a framework/theory/hypothesis (whatever you want to call it) of reality that doesn't take these "laws" of logic into account are wrong at best, and renders reality non-intelligible at worst.

[Adrift]

Can both the proposition "God exists" and "God does not exist" be true at the same time? God here stands for a generic theistic deity.

You could have used a little "g" if you wanted to.

(sorry couldn't resist an inside joke)

[Xru]

Since you haven't been back in two days to check for answers, and any of your questions is easily answered on any Christian apologetics site I suspect you are a Troll out for some fun.

Find some other site to play tricks on. Yours are not at the least funny nor sophisticated.

[Jon_Day]

But reality does seem to work according to the (for a lack of better terms) "law" of logics, atleast the most fundamental ones, such as the Law of non-contradiction. Or would you argue that it's possible for above mentioned rock to be both a rock and not be a rock at the same time? Or is it possible for it to exist and not exist at the same time?

A rock can neither "be a rock" or "not be a rock". The thing which you are referring to as a rock either is, or is not. It is either interpreted by the senses or it is not. If it is interpreted by the senses in x way, it will be defined as x thing. The proposition of "is it possible to exist and not exist at the same time" is not a matter of concern in reality, it is only a conceptual reality which cannot actually be. The "law" of non-contradiction is not a "rule", it is an observable truthism, refined into an abstract linguistic concept apt for communication between individuals. The notion of "not exist" cannot be in reality. Reality is, in fact, only comprised of that which exists.

Or how about the Law of identity? Is reality subject to that? Is it possible to say that A is not A. I.e does it seem possible that a rock is not a rock, for example?

Reality is only subject to that which is. This has nothing to do with the label of what a rock may or may not be. A rock is not a rock, a rock is a word used to describe a particular item. The word "rock" is not the thing itself. What defines a specific object as separate from another in "reality"? If you remove the distinctions created by your own mind, nothing is separated, and everything is simply one complete totality of existence.

Another point. I could create a foam rock, which may appear to be a rock, but is not in fact a rock. I could get a piece of rock candy, which may resemble a rock, and could even be defined as a rock, but is not in fact a rock if the rock is specifically defined as a particular mineral or some other material.

I'm not sure how the "laws" work when discussing things on a quantum level. I think it's important to note they are not "laws" they are descriptions of what appear to be observable truths. However, these will likely be limited to our cognitive abilities for quite some time, if not for the duration of our existence as a species. Things seem to change rapidly concerning what we know. Some things seem to be able to exist in two contradictory states simultaneously in certain instances. However, I'm not sure that isn't the result of more semantic confusion. It would seem that in reality, there is only the totality of all that exists. Anything which is part of this totality is existent. Perhaps some things which are part of this reality are not observable to us (thus removing an applicable logical framework). To me, that does not indicate a free for all for deciding what does exist (such as the supernatural beings described in most religions).

Or, to take the Law of the excluded middle, that is, for every proposition either that proposition is true, or it's negation is. Can both the proposition "God exists" and "God does not exist" be true at the same time? God here stands for a generic theistic deity.

This is simply a semantics issue. Clearly God cannot not exist and exist. Things can only really only exist. A thing cannot "not exist", but an idea can be a representation of something which does not exist. These are truthisms. The "laws" you refer to, are not what controls these, but rather those laws are in fact our way of describing these inherent truthisms to one another. Therefore, the reality in itself is not bound by these "laws", but rather these "laws" are created based on what we observe about reality. They are not "real". They are purely abstract.

Personally, I believe that a framework/theory/hypothesis (whatever you want to call it) of reality that doesn't take these "laws" of logic into account are wrong at best, and renders reality non-intelligible at worst.

Certainly a framework, theory and hypothesis would all require these laws of logic. In fact, each of those things would not be able to be made use of without a logical framework. I'm not sure what gave you any impression that I feel otherwise. I simply meant that an omnipotent being would not be bound by a logical framework, in that a logical framework has only to do with propositions, and they do not govern anything.

[Doug Shaver]

If you have unlimited omnipotence can you do the following

According to whom? Should we believe it just because you say so?

[Doug Shaver]

Omnipotent are not bound logic reason and sense so all those things are possible

I don't see why.

[Cow Poke]

I don't see why.

OK, so, for the sake of argument, let's assume God is real.

(and this is just off the top of my head, so work with me... )

The REAL God created the universe and set the worlds in motion. (we're ASSUMING! )
The "laws of physics" are not laws that ORDER things to behave in certain ways, but they are simply observations of how things work, whether or not God is in control, yes?
But in the case of God, the laws of physics describes how HE made things work.
As far as I know, we are STILL trying to figure out how SOME things in the universe work, but we don't write those laws to MAKE things happen in any specific way, we are recording what we see and understand.
The "logic" of the universe is based on what is observable, and, more or less, expected, according to reason.

Since God "wrote" the laws of physics, he can change them at any time.
Therefore, He is not bound by them, nor is He bound by logic, all of which He is the author or designer.

[Chrawnus]

OK, so, for the sake of argument, let's assume God is real.

(and this is just off the top of my head, so work with me... )

The REAL God created the universe and set the worlds in motion. (we're ASSUMING! )
The "laws of physics" are not laws that ORDER things to behave in certain ways, but they are simply observations of how things work, whether or not God is in control, yes?
But in the case of God, the laws of physics describes how HE made things work.
As far as I know, we are STILL trying to figure out how SOME things in the universe work, but we don't write those laws to MAKE things happen in any specific way, we are recording what we see and understand.
The "logic" of the universe is based on what is observable, and, more or less, expected, according to reason.

Since God "wrote" the laws of physics, he can change them at any time.
Therefore, He is not bound by them, nor is He bound by logic, all of which He is the author or designer.

But then again, you could argue that the "logical" order we see in creation is simply a manifestation of God's nature, i.e that God is by nature logical. And AFAIK God is bound by his own nature. Titus 1:2 for example states that God cannot lie and I understand that to mean that for God lying is unthinkable because of His very nature.