Logical fallacy of God

The most known logical fallacy of god (I’ll give my own logical fallacy later as well) comes from the idea that if an all powerful god exists their power must be paradoxical in the sense that they cannot have the power to create something that they don’t have the power to destroy. This is exemplified by the idea that they cannot create something that they cannot lift. 

This example is then set precedent to show that if a god can exist they must be out of the boundaries of logic but the fact that here, this god created something in itself is the chink in the

armor of this argument. Something comes with boundaries, limitations. If this so-called “god” created something that is with limitations, would the god itself not have limitations? 

In order for something to exist, something must not exist, which then gives the logical conclusion that this god is indeed not all powerful, as to invoke limitations one must invoke limitations within themselves, which are the result of either its will or something else that is yet to be discussed

The idea is then, would an all powerful god not be able to create at all? As creation implies the idea something is not created? With the point being that creation must come from a limited mind. This is a fallacy in itself as we still do not know how an infinite can become finite but the argument as of now stands at the point where either an all powerful god wouldn’t be able to create (limited things) or they exist outside of logic to the point where there is no logic of any kind that can be applied to it, as logic is randomly made up. 

There is much to be discussed on just this topic, and I will be discussing more on many things here so make sure to share your thoughts below and reddit and if you’re interested in hearing more about these, keep an eye out for these posts. 

The second idea is that if god is all understanding, the paradox then images that god cannot understand not understanding. For example, if there is a god that knows everything, it might know what it is like to be person A, which then comes with every idea that person A knows about how it can’t understand what it’s like to be person B. The not understanding is part of the package that “god” would have to understand, which then itself is another paradox.

The idea is that in order to entirely have the perspective of person A, there cannot be other perspectives involved. Because if this "god" can pull information from other perspectives it is no longer subjected to the constraints of that perspective. But since this "god" must know what it's like to have this perspective, and it must not know the other perspectives the same as how the person A does not know any other perspectives this all knowing god becomes a logical fallacy.

Then the question becomes is not understanding, understanding? If that is the case then everything is understanding, and we would need a better definition of what understanding is, which I will discuss more about in a later post. Until then, thanks for reading.