Logic v God

[McCulloch]

and he can NOT do anything that is logically(something he created,logic) impossible. okay so that means there is some limit within logic?

It doesn't matter how illogical it is, but the idea of him being capable to do it.
He created everything, therefore he created logic. (when the earth was made, some rules-like gravity,limitations for humans,etc...- were formed with them)
He can surpass his own creation just like how he,in as Jesus, can preform all those miracles, rise from the dead, and walk on water. Also,just like time, God isn't in our matter/space/time so rules such as logic shouldn't effect him.

Is God beyond the rules of logic because God created logic?

[EduChris]

...What rules of logic are you claiming that God can break? Can God exist and not exist?

Our ordinary rules of logic say that water cannot be turned into wine on demand. Logically, we say that many (time-consuming) operations and interactions must ordinarily occur as wine is produced. But yet, if someone knew how to control the elementary physical particles of matter, that person could change water into wine on demand.

[fredonly]

...You're interpreting "logic" to be the mental processes of logical inference. I'm asking (and I believe the context of this thread) pertains to the ontological existence of the rules of logic - rules that transcend humanity (just as the number "4" transcends humanity). Such facts as:
If (A implies B) and (B implies C) then (A implies C)
A and (B or C) = (A and B) or (A and C)

Relevant questions that pertain to God include:
Did God create the rules of logic, or do they transcend God? Transcending God simply implies the rules of logic are necessarily true, but also implies God is bound be these rules of logic. God cannot create a round square.

On the other hand, if God created logic then it implies he was not bound by the laws prior to their creation. He may, or may not, be bound by these laws after he created them. It seems to me this would imply that logic is an illusion, an overlay on top of chaos.

Some might argue that omnipotence implies God cannot be bound by the rules of logic. Others have argued that logic is simply the underlying order of reality, and God must operate logically.

God is existence, reason, order, love. God does not transcend logic, nor does logic transcend God. Logic and rationality are aspects of God. We do not understand God fully, nor do we fully understand logic. But we know enough about logic and God that we can relate to God and to the world God has made.

God cannot choose not to exist, not because of any external logical contraint but rather because God's nature is existence.

Your answer seems vague to me; it sounds almost pantheistic when you say logic and rationality are aspects of God. Is the conceptual number "4" an aspect of God? It seems to me, that both logic and mathematics are simply aspects of reality, aspects that humans have discovered rather than invented. They exist with or without a deity. I can conceive of logic with a deity, but cannot conceive of a deity without logic.

[EduChris]

...Your answer seems vague to me; it sounds almost pantheistic when you say logic and rationality are aspects of God. Is the conceptual number "4" an aspect of God? It seems to me, that both logic and mathematics are simply aspects of reality, aspects that humans have discovered rather than invented. They exist with or without a deity. I can conceive of logic with a deity, but cannot conceive of a deity without logic.

The logic and the mathematics that we know apply (so we think) to our own universe. It is conceivable to me that there could be other universes that operate according to other variations of mathematics and logic.

I am reminded about my college days, studying abstract geometry. In abstract geometry, the Euclidean geometry that I had studied in high school was shown to be just the tip of the iceberg in terms of all possible geometric systems.

Just as abstract geometry transcends Euclidean geometry, so also God transcends our understanding of the mathematics and the logic that we use in our universe. But God is the source and ground of all mathematics and all logic; God is the Universal (or perhaps even "Multiversal") Logic.

[fredonly]

...Your answer seems vague to me; it sounds almost pantheistic when you say logic and rationality are aspects of God. Is the conceptual number "4" an aspect of God? It seems to me, that both logic and mathematics are simply aspects of reality, aspects that humans have discovered rather than invented. They exist with or without a deity. I can conceive of logic with a deity, but cannot conceive of a deity without logic.

The logic and the mathematics that we know apply (so we think) to our own universe. It is conceivable to me that there could be other universes that operate according to other variations of mathematics and logic.

I am reminded about my college days, studying abstract geometry. In abstract geometry, the Euclidean geometry that I had studied in high school was shown to be just the tip of the iceberg in terms of all possible geometric systems.

Just as abstract geometry transcends Euclidean geometry, so also God transcends our understanding of the mathematics and the logic that we use in our universe. But God is the source and ground of all mathematics and all logic; God is the Universal (or perhaps even "Multiversal") Logic.

I never took abstract Geometry, but I did take abstract Algebra - and I'm pretty sure the same thing applies: the various abstract mathematics vary only their premises, not in the rules of logic that allow inferences (mathematical proofs) to be made.

You apparently don't regard the rules of logic as absolutes - you even allow that they might be not be absolute within our own universe (based on your "so we think" comment). With this point of view, I obviously can't prove you wrong, since that would require using logic. However it also implies you have no honest basis for drawing any inferences of your own, about anything, since logic isn't trustworthy. It seems a dead-end philosophy; sort of a theistic nihilism.

[EduChris]

...You apparently don't regard the rules of logic as absolutes - you even allow that they might be not be absolute within our own universe (based on your "so we think" comment). With this point of view, I obviously can't prove you wrong, since that would require using logic. However it also implies you have no honest basis for drawing any inferences of your own, about anything, since logic isn't trustworthy. It seems a dead-end philosophy; sort of a theistic nihilism.

Logic and reason are trustworthy, and we cannot do without them, and they are certainly valid to use in debate. However, I have noticed many people differ on what constitutes a logical fallacy. For example, I think I have pointed out various logical fallacies at times, but after having done so, the opposing party responds by pointing what they believe to be my logical fallacies. So our grasp of logic and reason isn't so strong as we suppose. Education can help, practice can help, and so on, but for every logical person there is another who is even more logical, and still more who are less logical. And in terms of objective reality, who is to say that our logic is not merely a subset of God's logic--sort of like Newtonian physics is a subset of Einstein's physics, which is a subset of Quantum physics, which is a subset of the Next Latest Thing physics, and so on.

[EduChris]

...the various abstract mathematics vary only their premises, not in the rules of logic...

I think I finally get what you're saying here. You're saying that our human logic represents the highest possible type of "pure logic," whereas I have been arguing that our human logic is only a particular subset of God's logic.

In my analogy, the rules of logic that we use here in our universe are like the rules that apply only in Euclidean geometry. In Euclidean geometry, parallel lines don't intersect. But other kinds of geometry, parallel lines may intersect. The reason why Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean geometries may all be considered correct and consistent (in their own way) is that there is a higher order of geometric "logic" that encompasses all of the various and particular subsets.

Our human logic is all we know. That doesn't mean that there couldn't be a higher order of logic available to God.

[fredonly]

...the various abstract mathematics vary only their premises, not in the rules of logic...

I think I finally get what you're saying here. You're saying that our human logic represents the highest possible type of "pure logic," whereas I have been arguing that our human logic is only a particular subset of God's logic.

In my analogy, the rules of logic that we use here in our universe are like the rules that apply only in Euclidean geometry. In Euclidean geometry, parallel lines don't intersect. But other kinds of geometry, parallel lines may intersect. The reason why Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean geometries may all be considered correct and consistent (in their own way) is that there is a higher order of geometric "logic" that encompasses all of the various and particular subsets.

Our human logic is all we know. That doesn't mean that there couldn't be a higher order of logic available to God.

The differences you mention between Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometry are still premises, including the "rules" you mention - they aren't the rules of logic, they are the rules of the mathematical system. The rules of logic are the the rules of inference, which are based on truth tables - these are unequivocably true, independent of the actual premises. With the premises:
1) A implies B
2) B implies C
3) C implies D
4) B

We can logically conclude:
D
But we cannot logically conclude:
A

This is pure logic, and that's what I'm talking about. No alternate system of logic can ever make the conclusion "D" untrue, or make "A" necessarily true. Premises (what we plug into the letters) can change, and this would lead to different conclusions - but the logical process always works and is never wrong. The reason we have debates is because we disagree on premises. My contention is that a God cannot work outside these rules of inference.

[EduChris]

...No alternate system of logic can ever make the conclusion "D" untrue, or make "A" necessarily true. Premises (what we plug into the letters) can change, and this would lead to different conclusions - but the logical process always works and is never wrong. The reason we have debates is because we disagree on premises. My contention is that a God cannot work outside these rules of inference.

I can see why you think this way, given that our universe seems to operate according to these principles. But in the same way thay Einstein originally objected to quantum theory, so also we might resist the notion that a higher logic exists, a more universal logic that transcends our limited, parochial logic.

For example, it is possible that in our universe, 2 + 2 always equals 4. But who is to say that a more universal form of mathematics might be that 2 + 2 always equals 4 + x? In our universe, as far as we know, x = 0, but in other universes it could be that x = pi or whatever number at all.

[fredonly]

...No alternate system of logic can ever make the conclusion "D" untrue, or make "A" necessarily true. Premises (what we plug into the letters) can change, and this would lead to different conclusions - but the logical process always works and is never wrong. The reason we have debates is because we disagree on premises. My contention is that a God cannot work outside these rules of inference.

I can see why you think this way, given that our universe seems to operate according to these principles. But in the same way thay Einstein originally objected to quantum theory, so also we might resist the notion that a higher logic exists, a more universal logic that transcends our limited, parochial logic.

For example, it is possible that in our universe, 2 + 2 always equals 4. But who is to say that a more universal form of mathematics might be that 2 + 2 always equals 4 + x? In our universe, as far as we know, x = 0, but in other universes it could be that x = pi or whatever number at all.

The only mechanism we have to assess whether or not something is possible is to use logic. Something can be considered possible if it cannot be proven to be IMpossible. For example, the existence of a deity is possible because one cannot prove it to be impossible.

Consider this simple syllogism:
A implies B
B implies C
A
Therefore C

The syllogism shows that it is impossible for A to be true unless C is also true.

In your hypothetical universe, you propose that it can be the case that A is true, but C is not true. i.e. you are insisting the impossible is possible. This is self contradictory.

If you wish to believe the impossible is possible, feel free to do so. However, such a rejection of the universality of logic removes your ability to draw your own conclusions about anything, and makes it equally absurd to trust the deductions made by others - including theologians.

[EduChris]

...you are insisting the impossible is possible...

I'm saying that our limited, human logic may be only the tip of the iceberg. There may be more to logic than we know. I'm not saying this definitely is the case; rather, I'm simply saying that this is possible.

Our logic is as true for us, for the limited purposes that we have in our universe, as Euclidean geometry is true for us in terms of constructing buildings and bridges and so on.