> I believe that if you try to limit God, you aren't limiting Him, you are denying Him. That is cause for a debate,imo, which I won't have.

Except that the question was:

Is saying that God can't do the logically impossible a case of limiting him?

Your statement presupposes an answer to the question (and it isn't an answer I endorse as I've already said).

I've also posted about what I intended the point of this thread to be, though I'll say it again:

Contemplating the nature of God can help us get clearer on his nature.

But only if one accepts the rules of rational discourse. If people don't accept the rules of rational discourse then contemplating the nature of God actually won't help us get clearer on his nature and it actually won't help us get clearer on the role of reason and faith.

Why not?

Because people are throwing reason out the window.

The trouble with throwing reason out the window is that that is precisely what fuels scientific hostility to the notion of god and to religion more generally.

It is a shame because there is a middle way...

But people are... Too afraid their faith will flag if they accept the rules of rational discourse? They don't have faith that one can apply reason and still end up with a conception of god that is worthy of worship.

Sigh.

Good luck to you people.

I do think it is appropriate to have this forum on a mental health board... I know currently religion is one of the exclusion criteria... But if people insist on being hostile to science I'm sure the favour will be returned in the near future and one day this forum will be moved in keeping with the other psychotic disorders.

Good luck to you people.