Children's freedom?

Not at all.
Epistemology is about knowing "what is."
If I said that God has these characteristics then epistemology would come into play. At the moment we're talking about concepts of God, whether it's logically possible for him to exist. Epistemology has no place in this discussion. It's only when we establish whether it's logically possible for God to exist and have these characteristics that we can start asking questions about whether he really does. That will be when epistemology will be relevant.

This was specifically to your "limited limitness = nonsense" claim.
I gave an example of something that had a limited amount of limitness.

Evidence a concept?
Evidence is for contingent facts.
It's irrelevant to concepts...
Or evidence that a concept of God can have a will?
The God of the Bible has a will and an intelligence.
'He' communicates to people and chooses to do things.
Evidence that he really communicated to people?
Irrelevant for now because we're talking about the concept and it's possibilities, and not worrying about "what really happened" until we've atleast settled these.



I haven't discussed the main topic (the logical argument) in this post partly because I might need to look over it a bit more. (I might've gotten caught up in a erroneous approach) and also because there's some groundwork need clearing before we carry on:

1) We have to agree that epistemology is irrelevant at this stage in the argument.
Why?
If I claimed there existed a unicorn then I would probably prove it to you by showing you one. The question would be purely epistemological as we both agree that the concept of a unicorn existing is a logical possibility.
If I claimed there was such thing as circle with corners then the epistemology wouldn't even be an issue as the concept itself is meaningless and illogical.

We're currently discussing whether the concept of God existing is meaningful.
If we establish that it is then we move on to the epistemology and the evidence to see if he really does exist. Until then we're just discussing the concepts involved and evidencing is absolutely irrelevant.


2) Omnipotence is defined as having unlimited power to affect the natural world as he pleases.
This means:
a) It doesn't require the ability to make logical contradictions true.
He has full reign over which of the possible contingent facts are true (i.e. facts about the world) but doesn't have to have full reign over necessary/analytic truths. So he can decide whether unicorns exist (empirical/contingent facts) but not whether circles have corners (necessary/analytic facts). It's possible that he could, in which case your position is correct and he's not understandable, but it's also possible that he's not. I'm only trying to show that it's possible to have a logically coherent concept of God.
b) This is a lack of limit over which contingent facts he can determine if he wants to. Any limits that don't contradict this are therefore possible without contradicting his omnipotence. This is why people also say that God is omniscient. If omnipotence was a lack of all limits, why bother specifying another lack of limit also? Having a will and an intelligence as positive characteristics (and therefore as limits) does not contradict omnipotence.

We can't go on without this groundwork being cleared so we'll argue this until we agree and then we can return back to the logical argument.

 

I noticed we were having these two problems.
(and it wasn't all me btw! ).

I've halted the main argument for now, see if we can clear up these two problems. The first is why these "naked" assertions are irrelevent to evidence/epistemology (because we're talking about concepts rather than facts). The second is the definition and implications of omnipotence. We might have to talk about supernatural as well.

It's a slight tangent but it's necessary to break the circles.
It ought to put to rest most of our misunderstandings too.
I'll take a look at some of the philosophers you mentioned too.
I've come across Kant's transcendentalism before...

 

Your making claims, but not evidencing them. At not point in an argument can you assert something, and then fail to back it up. But this is what your doing.

Example: You say we can ‘know’ god. How?

Omnipotence is necessarily beyond all limits.

As Gregory of Nyssa correctly argues… if God is limited he must be limited by something greater than himself. If he is limited by anything, there are things above ‘him,’ which means it wouldn’t be omnipotent, or a god.

And what are these limits. You assert, yet you don’t evidence. What are these ‘limits’?

The supernatural is beyond nature, hence SUPERnatural.

So anything supernatural necessarily exceeds (is beyond) all of nature. God is supernatural be definition and therefore, is beyond nature. So nothing relating to the natural world, such as logic, can be applies to him. Character, nature and identity are all natural terms. God violates ontology.

Because of this, god is necessarily incoherent to us, necessarily incomprehensible and necessarily unknowable, and it’s logically sound to hold that.

It is illogical and irrational to hold that god is coherent, comprehensible and knowable.

This makes no sense.

How can we settle the ‘concept’ if you do not provide evidence for your argument. Without evidence we will never go anywhere.

You need to evidence the assertion you’re making for such concept.

If you say “X is ~X”, you need to evidence that “X is ~X” i.e. on what grounds, justification and reasons are you basing the assertion of X being ~X.

Otherwise it’s an unsupported assertion.

Before we accept for example the claim the god “really communicated with people” we need to reason – evidence – to accept it. If no one ever evidences it, I will never accept it.

You can evidence why it would be meaningless an illogical.

I’ve logically evidenced that the concept of a god is meaningless, absurd, incoherent, incomprehensible and unknowable.

You reject this because you show dismay over that fact…
That a meaningless god is meaningless!
That an absurd god is absurd!
That an incoherent god is incoherent!
That an incomprehensible god is incomprehensible!
That an unknowable god is unknowable!

All these are logically necessary in the concept of a god.

It’s logically impossible, and necessarily so!!

 

Ok guys- I am closing this thread due to lack of ability to stay on topic (not to mention the fact that the original topic seems to have played out).

You are welcome to start up another thread.