Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[Derideo_Te]

Are you saying something must have made the universe? Then what made the thing that made the universe? You can't have it both ways. If something must have made us, something must have made what made us. And since it takes a woman and a man to make something, there must be more than one god. Who are god's parents?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you somewhere in this thread post a syllogism attempting to refute God's existence that began with the acknowledgement that the idea of God is someone who is all powerful, all knowing and all present? The idea of God is that he is eternal and self-subsistent. His existence isn't contingent on anything. Is this something you do a lot? Use premises that you don't understand for arguments? Some of you guys are Grammar school theologians. You probably won't get the point, but are you saying that the universe can't exist because there can be no uncaused cause? Or are you saying that some material thing is the uncaused cause? Has something always existed or not? It doesn't look like you have any idea what's going on around you. Does the universe exist or not? Do you exist?

Explain the omnipotence paradox of your "creator". Can your omnipotent "creator" create something that he cannot destroy? In which case if there is something he cannot destroy he is no longer omnipotent because there is something he cannot do. Equally so if your omnipotent "creator" cannot create something that he cannot destroy then that is something he cannot do either and therefore is not omnipotent.

Omnipotence is a logical paradox and you cannot resolve it.

wtf is this weak shit? u srs?

Either you don't understand logic or you cannot refute it. Probably both.

 

[MaxGrit]

'

Are you saying something must have made the universe? Then what made the thing that made the universe? You can't have it both ways. If something must have made us, something must have made what made us. And since it takes a woman and a man to make something, there must be more than one god. Who are god's parents?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you somewhere in this thread post a syllogism attempting to refute God's existence that began with the acknowledgement that the idea of God is someone who is all powerful, all knowing and all present? The idea of God is that he is eternal and self-subsistent. His existence isn't contingent on anything. Is this something you do a lot? Use premises that you don't understand for arguments? Some of you guys are Grammar school theologians. You probably won't get the point, but are you saying that the universe can't exist because there can be no uncaused cause? Or are you saying that some material thing is the uncaused cause? Has something always existed or not? It doesn't look like you have any idea what's going on around you. Does the universe exist or not? Do you exist?

Explain the omnipotence paradox of your "creator". Can your omnipotent "creator" create something that he cannot destroy? In which case if there is something he cannot destroy he is no longer omnipotent because there is something he cannot do. Equally so if your omnipotent "creator" cannot create something that he cannot destroy then that is something he cannot do either and therefore is not omnipotent.

Omnipotence is a logical paradox and you cannot resolve it.

wtf is this weak shit? u srs?

Either you don't understand logic or you cannot refute it. Probably both.

that is really noob argument I can't believe you don't know the answer. Wtf?

It's similar to a kid asking why the sky is blue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

atheist "Depending upon each individual atheist they only need to individually satisfy themselves that there is no evidence."

Believers "on the other hand don't need to prove their God exists to satisfy themselves since they have simply have faith instead. "

Meaning atheists and believers have no evidence for their choice to believe or not.

Believers and not, you always be opposite sides of the same coin of faith. Always. You're both believers.

 

[PratchettFan]

My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.

Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.

The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:

1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.

2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God. God = not-God is logically untenable.​

Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The universe is fine-tuned for life.
The Fine-Tuning Argument

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply seem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.

“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.” – Victor Stenger

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” - Douglas Adams

The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life. We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things. We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?

But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument. (An argument I happen to subscribe to.) The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance

So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design. Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.

So until you know for certain just admit you don't know and keep on looking.

I am a probablist. There are very few things in this world that know for certain and almost nothing that I think I know everything there is to know. But I like to go with what is probable, what might be possible, what makes sense, what is rational, what is logical.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

What evidence do you have that they are not equally probable?

 

[PratchettFan]

[

No, you haven't. You have simply made one statement after another which are to be accepted without question. I do question them.
.

That's generally called begging the question, or something close to it. It's when people make arg

Are any of you too intimidated to admit that Rawlings' posts are generally just a verbose pile of unintelligible jabbering,

I mean intimidated because of their appearance of being intelligent?

I must admit that sometimes his writing bears a striking resemblance to that of Judith Butler and other critical theorists. It's needlessly complex and it needn't be.

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.​

It is flagrantly pretentious to employ a writing style that incomprehensible to even the intelligent,

just because it looks impressive.

The ability to be concise is a valuable asset.

All he's doing is using standard terms and arguments developed over the centuries by those who have studied the question of origin. I'm a new believer. I just recently began to read the literature. But I already know enough to recognize that he's not only mastered the material but is expressing ideas and expanding on arguments in original ways. That means he owns the topic in his own right. He also knows the relevant science too, which a lot of you atheists don't. That means he's not just regurgitating information by rote. What your posts tell me is that you don't have the background to challenge him. But instead of listening to your betters, you close your mind down. What you're really saying is that those who have earned the right to speak to the issue with authority, using the correct language and conventions are out of line, but ignorance and closed-mindedness is a virtue. To me that's a sick attitude. A few of you are saying that he's claiming things that's he's not, which means you're not really listening or thinking about his posts. I don't have any problem understanding him. Somebody on this OP said that he claims he can prove that God absolutely exists or that morality absolutely exists. No he's not. What he's saying is that there exists ideas and principles that are universal to mankind and are absolute in the sense that the denial of them leads to contradiction.

I asked you before but I will give it another try. Go back into any of his posts and show me one piece of objective evidence. If you actually have an open mind that would have been the first thing you would have looked for. Without it, you agree simply because it fits what you already believe. He's telling you you're right so it must be true.

 

[BillyP]

I am, therefore He is.

 

[Derideo_Te]

'

Are you saying something must have made the universe? Then what made the thing that made the universe? You can't have it both ways. If something must have made us, something must have made what made us. And since it takes a woman and a man to make something, there must be more than one god. Who are god's parents?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you somewhere in this thread post a syllogism attempting to refute God's existence that began with the acknowledgement that the idea of God is someone who is all powerful, all knowing and all present? The idea of God is that he is eternal and self-subsistent. His existence isn't contingent on anything. Is this something you do a lot? Use premises that you don't understand for arguments? Some of you guys are Grammar school theologians. You probably won't get the point, but are you saying that the universe can't exist because there can be no uncaused cause? Or are you saying that some material thing is the uncaused cause? Has something always existed or not? It doesn't look like you have any idea what's going on around you. Does the universe exist or not? Do you exist?

Explain the omnipotence paradox of your "creator". Can your omnipotent "creator" create something that he cannot destroy? In which case if there is something he cannot destroy he is no longer omnipotent because there is something he cannot do. Equally so if your omnipotent "creator" cannot create something that he cannot destroy then that is something he cannot do either and therefore is not omnipotent.

Omnipotence is a logical paradox and you cannot resolve it.

wtf is this weak shit? u srs?

Either you don't understand logic or you cannot refute it. Probably both.

that is really noob argument I can't believe you don't know the answer. Wtf?

It's similar to a kid asking why the sky is blue.

Still waiting for your refutation. Why the hesitation on your part?

 

[Derideo_Te]

atheist "Depending upon each individual atheist they only need to individually satisfy themselves that there is no evidence."

Believers "on the other hand don't need to prove their God exists to satisfy themselves since they have simply have faith instead. "

Meaning atheists and believers have no evidence for their choice to believe or not.

Believers and not, you always be opposite sides of the same coin of faith. Always. You're both believers.

To believe something exists without evidence requires faith.

To lack a belief in something for which there is no evidence requires no faith at all.

 

[G.T.]

If there is I haven't seen one. Every pseudo-response in this thread breaks down as you regress backward, but those typing them cannot see it because of their presuppositions and/or their cognitive dissonance.

First, God has to be defined and every individual speaking on "God" might in their mind be justifying a different term.

If "God" is not defined as a cognitive entity, but simply as whatever burst existence into being ("existence" defined as this universe, or if there was one before it/or are multiple universes) - there is evidence for that but most definitely not proof of it. The evidence is that we have not observe a nothing turn to something. Hell, we haven't even observed a nothing at all. So that's evidence, but not proof because not having observed it does not discount its possibility.

If God is defined as some cognitive entity, there is not evidence n'or proof. Any suggestions that the function of logic is proof of a super-mind of a source for said logic is supposition, and not supported. Also, in reference to "absolutes," whether they exist or whether they do not is not proof that said God exists, it's just proof that said absolutes exist or do not exist. I'd say that absolutes do exist, and they can exist independent of said God.

For example, it is an absolute truth that a non-omniscient being knows that it is not omniscient. Omniscience is complete knowledge, something cannot be omniscient and not omniscient in the same way at the same time. There's also cogito ergo sum. This is an irrefutable absolute; however, it does not prove that YOU are not the cognitive God, so long as said cognitive God is NOT omniscient.

Anyway, I love these discussions when people don't bloviate with hole-filled arguments and proceed by talking past people while really saying nothing. My elbows are pointed at you. You know who you are.

 

[MaxGrit]

'

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you somewhere in this thread post a syllogism attempting to refute God's existence that began with the acknowledgement that the idea of God is someone who is all powerful, all knowing and all present? The idea of God is that he is eternal and self-subsistent. His existence isn't contingent on anything. Is this something you do a lot? Use premises that you don't understand for arguments? Some of you guys are Grammar school theologians. You probably won't get the point, but are you saying that the universe can't exist because there can be no uncaused cause? Or are you saying that some material thing is the uncaused cause? Has something always existed or not? It doesn't look like you have any idea what's going on around you. Does the universe exist or not? Do you exist?

Explain the omnipotence paradox of your "creator". Can your omnipotent "creator" create something that he cannot destroy? In which case if there is something he cannot destroy he is no longer omnipotent because there is something he cannot do. Equally so if your omnipotent "creator" cannot create something that he cannot destroy then that is something he cannot do either and therefore is not omnipotent.

Omnipotence is a logical paradox and you cannot resolve it.

wtf is this weak shit? u srs?

Either you don't understand logic or you cannot refute it. Probably both.

that is really noob argument I can't believe you don't know the answer. Wtf?

It's similar to a kid asking why the sky is blue.

Still waiting for your refutation. Why the hesitation on your part?

I was on my phone. Why can't you just just look it up yourself?

Do I need to teach you how to chew and swallow your food so you won't choke as well?

The Omnipotence of God

An argument commonly raised by non-believers is "If God is all-powerful, can He create a rock so big He can't lift it?"

The question really involves a logical paradox. It falls into the same category as "an irresistible force meeting an immovable object". If a force is truly irresistible, it can move any object. Conversely, if an object is truly immovable, it can resist any force.

These arguments really involve word games and overly-legalistic logical games. They do not prove that God is not omnipotent. They prove that Man has an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of this aspect of God's nature. They simply prove what everyone already knows - that human language is not perfect and is not capable of fully describing God's divine nature.

060.042.000 Torrey: no
Topic 42: The Biblical concept of "omnipotence" must be different from the way we interpret "omnipotence".

The following is a synopsis of an argument in Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith. Smith claims it is a proof that an omnipotent god cannot exist. However, that is only one possible conclusion. An alternative conclusion that is equally valid (without considering other evidence) is that, as applied to God, our interpretation of the term "omnipotent" is not correct.

1. Something that does not exist has no characteristics.

2. If something exists (we'll call it "X") but has absolutely no characteristics, it is not possible by any means to distinguish this X from something that does not exist.

3. If X exists without characteristics, and therefore can not be distinguished from things that do not exist, for all practical purposes X might as well not exist, since even the mere fact of its existence cannot be determined by any means.

4. If something exists and has characteristics (we'll call it "Y"), Y must act in conformity with its characteristics.

5. Characteristics constitute limitations on what Y can do.

6. If a god exists, it has characteristics. Otherwise, as indicated in item 3, for all practical purposes it might as well not exist.

7. If a god exists and has characteristics, those characteristics constitute limitations on what that god can do.

8. A god that is limited in what it can do is not "all powerful", not "omnipotent", even if those limitations are created solely by the god's characteristics.

The word "omnipotent" is usually interpreted as meaning "able to do anything whatsoever". Funk and Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary, 1980, defines "omnipotent" as "Almighty; not limited in authority or power."

The God of the Bible has many characteristics, some detailed in this book, e.g.: (1) He is eternal; (2) He is immortal; (3) He is triune, i.e, three persons in one God; (4) He hates sin so much that He must take out His anger over sin on something; (5) He loves righteousness; (6) He gets jealous; (7) He gets angry; (8) He is merciful; (9) He feels compassion; (10) He is omniscient.

Obviously, Smith's argument proves that the "able to do anything" concept is self-contradictory; it falls in the same class as the "irresistible force meets immovable object."

However, Smith's argument does not prove that God is not omnipotent. It merely proves that human languages do not contain words that correctly describe this supernatural characteristic of God.

 

[MaxGrit]

Summary:

God's omnipotent means that God can do anything that is logically possible. God cannot do or create things that are by their nature self-contradictory.

Ex. God cannot create a triangle with 4 sides, a square circle, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift.

 

[G.T.]

No, the immovable object versus the irresistable force is not PROOF that our logic is incomplete, because it's not PROVEN that irresistible forces or immovable objects even EXIST.

that's a really weak understanding of what proof is.

 

[PratchettFan]

If there is I haven't seen one. Every pseudo-response in this thread breaks down as you regress backward, but those typing them cannot see it because of their presuppositions and/or their cognitive dissonance.

First, God has to be defined and every individual speaking on "God" might in their mind be justifying a different term.

If "God" is not defined as a cognitive entity, but simply as whatever burst existence into being ("existence" defined as this universe, or if there was one before it/or are multiple universes) - there is evidence for that but most definitely not proof of it. The evidence is that we have not observe a nothing turn to something. Hell, we haven't even observed a nothing at all. So that's evidence, but not proof because not having observed it does not discount its possibility.

If God is defined as some cognitive entity, there is not evidence n'or proof. Any suggestions that the function of logic is proof of a super-mind of a source for said logic is supposition, and not supported. Also, in reference to "absolutes," whether they exist or whether they do not is not proof that said God exists, it's just proof that said absolutes exist or do not exist. I'd say that absolutes do exist, and they can exist independent of said God.

For example, it is an absolute truth that a non-omniscient being knows that it is not omniscient. Omniscience is complete knowledge, something cannot be omniscient and not omniscient in the same way at the same time. There's also cogito ergo sum. This is an irrefutable absolute; however, it does not prove that YOU are not the cognitive God, so long as said cognitive God is NOT omniscient.

Anyway, I love these discussions when people don't bloviate with hole-filled arguments and proceed by talking past people while really saying nothing. My elbows are pointed at you. You know who you are.

You make excellent points. I really can't argue with the essence of it. People are attempting to prove the existence of something they have no information on, thus we don't even know what evidence would be evidence.

With due respect to Descartes, I have never felt comfortable with going that far with the concept of knowledge. For practical purposes, it leaves us nowhere. There is a coffee mug sitting in front of me right now. I am quite comfortable saying I know that it is there. However, from a macro perspective it is so small as to be non-existent. From a micro perspective it is essentially vacuum and thus non-existent. Neither of those perspectives will hold my coffee, which is seriously inconvenient. So I am content with accepting my less than perfect senses in order to meet my daily caffine requirements.

I've also thought the phrase itself, cognito ergo sum - I think therefore I am - doesn't capture the true nature of human thought. I prefer ego ergo sum - I'm fabulous therefore I am.

 

[MaxGrit]

No, the immovable object versus the irresist able force is not PROOF that our logic is incomplete, because it's not PROVEN that irresistible forces or immovable objects even EXIST.

What's your point?

 

[G.T.]

If there is I haven't seen one. Every pseudo-response in this thread breaks down as you regress backward, but those typing them cannot see it because of their presuppositions and/or their cognitive dissonance.

First, God has to be defined and every individual speaking on "God" might in their mind be justifying a different term.

If "God" is not defined as a cognitive entity, but simply as whatever burst existence into being ("existence" defined as this universe, or if there was one before it/or are multiple universes) - there is evidence for that but most definitely not proof of it. The evidence is that we have not observe a nothing turn to something. Hell, we haven't even observed a nothing at all. So that's evidence, but not proof because not having observed it does not discount its possibility.

If God is defined as some cognitive entity, there is not evidence n'or proof. Any suggestions that the function of logic is proof of a super-mind of a source for said logic is supposition, and not supported. Also, in reference to "absolutes," whether they exist or whether they do not is not proof that said God exists, it's just proof that said absolutes exist or do not exist. I'd say that absolutes do exist, and they can exist independent of said God.

For example, it is an absolute truth that a non-omniscient being knows that it is not omniscient. Omniscience is complete knowledge, something cannot be omniscient and not omniscient in the same way at the same time. There's also cogito ergo sum. This is an irrefutable absolute; however, it does not prove that YOU are not the cognitive God, so long as said cognitive God is NOT omniscient.

Anyway, I love these discussions when people don't bloviate with hole-filled arguments and proceed by talking past people while really saying nothing. My elbows are pointed at you. You know who you are.

You make excellent points. I really can't argue with the essence of it. People are attempting to prove the existence of something they have no information on, thus we don't even know what evidence would be evidence.

With due respect to Descartes, I have never felt comfortable with going that far with the concept of knowledge. For practical purposes, it leaves us nowhere. There is a coffee mug sitting in front of me right now. I am quite comfortable saying I know that it is there. However, from a macro perspective it is so small as to be non-existent. From a micro perspective it is essentially vacuum and thus non-existent. Neither of those perspectives will hold my coffee, which is seriously inconvenient. So I am content with accepting my less than perfect senses in order to meet my daily caffine requirements.

I've also thought the phrase itself, cognito ergo sum - I think therefore I am - doesn't capture the true nature of human thought. I prefer ego ergo sum - I'm fabulous therefore I am.

I understand that it leaves us wanting, but it cannot be refuted.

The mug is not you, so it doesn't apply to the mug. "I think therefore I am" only refers to your thinking, not what you're sensing in terms of your incomplete 5 senses, and their relativity to what is real.

It is simplistic, which is why it leaves you wanting - but if "you weren't," then "you" couldn't be sitting there thinking "am I, or am I not."

This doesn't prove the existence of anyone else, either. Just yourself. But - it proves yourself, to yourself, and to you is an absolute.


edit: 5 senses, wow bruce willis

 

[Derideo_Te]

Summary:

God's omnipotent means that God can do anything that is logically possible. God cannot do or create things that are by their nature self-contradictory.

Ex. God cannot create a triangle with 4 sides, a square circle, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift.

You just admitted that your God is not omnipotent!

Omnipotence includes the ability to defy logic because if you cannot defy logic that means that is an ability you lack and therefore are not omnipotent because you are forced to obey the laws of logic.

BTW religious websites are not credible in this instance since they are biased. You will need an unbiased source if you wish to be credible on this topic.

 

[G.T.]

No, the immovable object versus the irresist able force is not PROOF that our logic is incomplete, because it's not PROVEN that irresistible forces or immovable objects even EXIST.

What's your point?

You said this:

"They do not prove that God is not omnipotent. They prove that Man has an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of this aspect of God's nature. They simply prove what everyone already knows - that human language is not perfect and is not capable of fully describing God's divine nature."




The paradox does not "prove" what yo9u say it proves, because it's not first been proven that immovable objects or irresistable forces even EXIST - thus, the paradox does not even exist necessarily and cannot be used as PROOF (your words), of ANYthing.

 

[MaxGrit]

Context is important.

At the beginning of the second meditation, having reached what he considers to be the ultimate level of doubt — his argument from the existence of a deceiving god — Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any have survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence, he finds that it is impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving god (or an evil demon), one's belief in their own existence would be secure, for there is no way one could be deceived unless one existed in order to be deceived.
But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I, too, do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all], then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who deliberately and constantly deceives me. In that case, I, too, undoubtedly exist, if he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17)
There are three important notes to keep in mind here. First, he claims only the certainty of his own existence from the first-person point of view — he has not proved the existence of other minds at this point. This is something that has to be thought through by each of us for ourselves, as we follow the course of the meditations. Second, he does not say that his existence is necessary; he says that if he thinks, then necessarily he exists (see the instantiation principle). Third, this proposition "I am, I exist" is held true not based on a deduction (as mentioned above) or on empirical induction but on the clarity and self-evidence of the proposition. Descartes does not use this first certainty, the cogito, as a foundation upon which to build further knowledge; rather, it is the firm ground upon which he can stand as he works to restore his beliefs. As he puts it:
Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakable. (AT VII 24; CSM II 16)

 

[G.T.]

Context is important.

At the beginning of the second meditation, having reached what he considers to be the ultimate level of doubt — his argument from the existence of a deceiving god — Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any have survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence, he finds that it is impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving god (or an evil demon), one's belief in their own existence would be secure, for there is no way one could be deceived unless one existed in order to be deceived.
But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I, too, do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all], then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who deliberately and constantly deceives me. In that case, I, too, undoubtedly exist, if he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17)
There are three important notes to keep in mind here. First, he claims only the certainty of his own existence from the first-person point of view — he has not proved the existence of other minds at this point. This is something that has to be thought through by each of us for ourselves, as we follow the course of the meditations. Second, he does not say that his existence is necessary; he says that if he thinks, then necessarily he exists (see the instantiation principle). Third, this proposition "I am, I exist" is held true not based on a deduction (as mentioned above) or on empirical induction but on the clarity and self-evidence of the proposition. Descartes does not use this first certainty, the cogito, as a foundation upon which to build further knowledge; rather, it is the firm ground upon which he can stand as he works to restore his beliefs. As he puts it:
Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakable. (AT VII 24; CSM II 16)

Well, here's the thing.

It most certainly AND necessarily is a foundation to build further knowledge as it is an irrefutable truth, to one's self.

 

[MaxGrit]

No, the immovable object versus the irresist able force is not PROOF that our logic is incomplete, because it's not PROVEN that irresistible forces or immovable objects even EXIST.

What's your point?

You said this:

"They do not prove that God is not omnipotent. They prove that Man has an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of this aspect of God's nature. They simply prove what everyone already knows - that human language is not perfect and is not capable of fully describing God's divine nature."

The paradox does not "prove" what yo9u say it proves, because it's not first been proven that immovable objects or irresistable forces even EXIST - thus, the paradox does not even exist necessarily and cannot be used as PROOF (your words), of ANYthing.

Read more carefully and think about what you read. Don't read what you think.

I think you are misunderstanding the bolded part. It's simply saying that a lot of the confusion is due to a poor understanding of God's characteristics as well as loose definitions.

What is the difference between paradox and contradiction?