Can God Violate the Logical Absolutes {Identity, Non-Contradiction, Excluded Middle}

[Petros Agapetos]

• God is god and cannot be non-god.

— Law of Identity

• God cannot be both god and not god. God cannot both exist and not exist. Something cannot be both god and non-god. Nothing can be both god and non-god. The proposition: G:”God exists” cannot be both true and false.

— Law of Non-Contradiction

• God either is or is not: god either exists or does not exist.
Either "god exists" is true or "god does not exist" is true, and it cannot be neither: it must be either one or the other, with no middle option in between X and ~X.

Something/everything is either god or non-god.

Either the propositions X ("god exists") is true or ~X ("god does not exist") is true. The proposition X:= “god exists” can either be true or false. God cannot neither be nor not be. The proposition X cannot neither be true nor false.

— Law of Excluded Middle

Questions to consider:

— Can god violate the logical absolutes?
-- If so, can such a god be ruled out of existence

[Petros Agapetos]

Let X = something or some proposition
For example, let X be "god exists" then ~X is "god does not exist".

Then, the following options exist:

I. X is X; [LI]
II. X is not non-X; [LI]
III. X is not neither X nor non-X; [LEM]
IV. X is not both X and non-X; [LNC]

LI = Law of Identity
LNC = Law of Non-Contradiction
LEM = Law of Excluded Middle

[Note: ~X = not X, where X is a any proposition or anything]

1. The Law of Identity [LI]:
Something is what it is, and it is not what it is not: (X = X) <=> (X =|= ~X).

2. The Law of Non-Contradiction [LNC]:
X and ~X cannot both be true (at the same time, in the same sense) <=> X cannot be both true and false <=> Nothing can both be and not be:
~(X ∧ ~X), where ∧ = ‘and’ (logical operator).

3. The Law of Excluded Middle [LEM]:
Either X or ~X is true, which is logically equivalent to the principle of bivalence, which states: either X is true or X is false.
X ∨ ~X, where V = or (logical operator).

[Petros Agapetos]

Can god make A not A?

A := {X = X}

~A: = {X =/=X}

Can god make X not X?

where X = any thought, any thing (object of thought), or any proposition.

Consider A:
Let's take X = "god exists".

The Law of Identity states X = X <=is equivalent to=> X =/= ~X.
"god exists" = "god exists"
"god exists" =/= "god does not exist"

Can god break the law of identity?

[Petros Agapetos]

Can god be non-god (violating the law of identity)?

[renaissance12]

Can God create a triangle with 4 sides?

[RenaRyuguu]

Can God create a triangle with 4 sides?

yeah

[Petros Agapetos]

Can God create a triangle with 4 sides?

It is my position that God cannot violate the law of non-contradiction ~(X & ~X).

Something cannot both be a triangle and a non-triangle simultaneously (at the same time in the same sense)

Nor the Law of Identity.
[LI_1] X = X
[LI_2] X =/= ~X

Something is what it is and it is not what it is not.

The law of excluded middle states either X is true or ~ X is true: X V~X
Everything either is or is not, and it cannot be neither, that is, excluded the middle option between X and its negation ~X.
It cannot be the case that neither X is true nor ~X is true.
Everything must either be or not be.

Let X = god exists
~X = god does not exist.
Either "god exists" is true or "god does not exist" is true

The principle of bivalence: LEM & LNC
A proposition X can take one truth value (at a time), the truth values being 'true' and 'false'

Something is what it is and it is not what it is not, and it is not neither or both of what it is and what it is not.

Either is X is true or ~X is true --- Law of Excluded Middle
It cannot be both ---- Law of non-contradiction
It cannot be neither ---- Law of Excluded Middle


.

[Aldaris]

Well, short answer: no. Truth isn’t some kind of universal force, but more like a label we put on statements. I know it’s very counterintuitive, but the rules of logic are ultimately ambiguous and don’t exist in any sense outside of our minds. Don’t get too metaphysical about it and things get way easier. Just stick to the mathematical definition. And anyway, this doesn’t make sense: A := {X=X}. What exactly are the elements of A? You should do it like this A := {P, P<=>P}, where P is any statement.