Both statements resolve down to the same thing from your position.
No they don't
"Can God make a square circle?"
What is the response in your description of my position? What is the response in my description of my position?
God is unable to do something
Are you claiming that square circles are things? I am saying they are non-things, so are not included in some-thing. Or are you claiming that any combination of words (without regard for meaning) define a thing?
the system of logic that we are constrained by.
This argument actually has nothing to do with God. It is about the system of logic we are using. You seen to be happy using meaningless statements as part of your deductive process, this is not something the systems of logic I use allows! Of course if you do accept meaningless statement as part of proofs (do you?) it does make it very easy for me to prove everything (and anything) I want about God, I just need to start by reciting Jabberwocky:
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.
As for free will: free will being a prerequisite for love as far as I can see is an assumption you are making, I would query the necessity and basis of that assumption. I think it is more accurate as describing man as having a will, and this will as being free to X. (For various X, to be defined).
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
No they don't
"Can God make a square circle?"
What is the response in your description of my position? What is the response in my description of my position?
God is unable to do something
Are you claiming that square circles are things? I am saying they are non-things, so are not included in some-thing. Or are you claiming that any combination of words (without regard for meaning) define a thing?
the system of logic that we are constrained by.
This argument actually has nothing to do with God. It is about the system of logic we are using. You seen to be happy using meaningless statements as part of your deductive process, this is not something the systems of logic I use allows! Of course if you do accept meaningless statement as part of proofs (do you?) it does make it very easy for me to prove everything (and anything) I want about God, I just need to start by reciting Jabberwocky:
As for free will: free will being a prerequisite for love as far as I can see is an assumption you are making, I would query the necessity and basis of that assumption. I think it is more accurate as describing man as having a will, and this will as being free to X. (For various X, to be defined).