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?

[Murad]

But can such a creature actually exist? I seriously doubt it, but am willing to hear any arguments.

Such a being cannot exist. That is because the concept of existence is subject to logic. Existence is meaningless without the fundamental rules of logic, thus a being that is beyond those fundamental rules cannot exist.

But logic as we apprehend it may not be the only operating flavor in the universe. Of course, if by "logic" you're referring all possible logics, not just those we recognize, then you're doubtlessly right; however, is this what you mean?

How about the Law of Identity?

In logic, the law of identity states that an object is the same as itself: A ≡ A. Any reflexive relation upholds the law of identity. When discussing equality, the fact that "A is A" is a tautology.

Can anyone explain to me the existence of a being that is beyond the law of identity? There exists a God that is not God. Such a God cannot be said to exist. Thus, I conclude that whatever god anyone posits that exists, that God is subject to the Law of Identity.

I dont think God is subject to any law, after all if he is called "God" he makes laws, and thus has the authority not to follow them.

In the early forms of the Big Bang(Creation of the universe) the laws of physics did not apply, infact the laws of physics clearly contradict the possibility of such a dense singularity so therefore scientists had no choice other than to say "The laws governing physics don't apply in the big bang"

So it is not illogical to say that some laws of this universe are possible to alter(by divine powers) and have been altered before.

[Angel]

I dont think God is subject to any law, after all if he is called "God" he makes laws, and thus has the authority not to follow them.

In the early forms of the Big Bang(Creation of the universe) the laws of physics did not apply, infact the laws of physics clearly contradict the possibility of such a dense singularity so therefore scientists had no choice other than to say "The laws governing physics don't apply in the big bang"

So it is not illogical to say that some laws of this universe are possible to alter(by divine powers) and have been altered before.

Hi Murad. I think McColluch's point precedes even creation. You can't validly say that there is a "being" in existence without any of the laws of logic being established, especially the law of identity. God would have to have some already established conditions like His attributes and what it would take to be called a "being" to begin with. I agree with you on the laws of physics but they are not on the same scope as the laws of logic. I like to think that both the supernatural and the natural realm are all under the laws of logic with the laws of logic.

[ChaosBorders]

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

No, not because he created them. Presumably if God is absolutely omnipotent then God is beyond the rules of logic for no other reason than God just IS. If God is only any other philosophical definition of omnipotent then most likely God is constrained by at least some form of logic.

[Adamoriens]

In the early forms of the Big Bang(Creation of the universe) the laws of physics did not apply, infact the laws of physics clearly contradict the possibility of such a dense singularity so therefore scientists had no choice other than to say "The laws governing physics don't apply in the big bang"

So it is not illogical to say that some laws of this universe are possible to alter(by divine powers) and have been altered before.

It does not follow that since physical laws can apparently change that they can actually be altered, much less by divine powers. Your statement actually is illogical.

[LiamOS]

To clear up the above post, the laws diverge from each other after the singularity; this information can even be found on most of the Big Bang posters.

[FinalEnigma]

I'm not yet even decided on whether you can even discuss something outside the laws of logic. In fact, I highly doubt you can.


once you leave the existence of logic, I don't think anything can be true. Without SOME system, nothing can work, and if the system doesn't adhere to logic, then it would implode in senselessness.

Actually, I'll just stop here. You can't discuss anything before the existence of Logic with any meaning whatsoever, because no statement or conclusion can have any meaning.

Without the law of non-contradiction, there is nothing preventing any statement we make from being both true and false.
Admittedly, the simple lack of a law doesn't mean that it automatically is violated. for example, just because something CAN be both true and false simultaneously doesn't mean it is. It does however, mean that there is no reason to make any statement, because it's impossible to even determine whether something is simultaneously true and false because you have to assume that something has to be either true or false before you can attempt to determine whether or not something IS either true or false or both true and false.

[Grumpy]

FinalEnigma

I'm not yet even decided on whether you can even discuss something outside the laws of logic. In fact, I highly doubt you can.

Logic is a TOOL, not a system of truth finding on it's own. You can prove many things with logic that simply have no congruence with reality. The exact same thing can be said of math. Whereas anything that violates the rules of either can safely be said to be untrue, the fact that the rules allow one to prove non-existent things means that every conclusion flowing from math and logic cannot be automatically assumed to be true. Both logic and math must be connected to reality(through the scientific method)to come to valid conclusions. As Steven Gould put it...

"The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world."

Angel

I agree with you on the laws of physics but they are not on the same scope as the laws of logic. I like to think that both the supernatural and the natural realm are all under the laws of logic with the laws of logic.

You would be wrong, for the same reason as above. The Universe is as it is, no matter what our "Laws of Logic" tell us the Universe is. As a tool, logic is only as applicable as the way it is being used. Our initial premises may or may not be true, no matter how "logical" they appear to us.

Grumpy

[FinalEnigma]

FinalEnigma

I'm not yet even decided on whether you can even discuss something outside the laws of logic. In fact, I highly doubt you can.

Logic is a TOOL, not a system of truth finding on it's own. You can prove many things with logic that simply have no congruence with reality. The exact same thing can be said of math. Whereas anything that violates the rules of either can safely be said to be untrue, the fact that the rules allow one to prove non-existent things means that every conclusion flowing from math and logic cannot be automatically assumed to be true. Both logic and math must be connected to reality(through the scientific method)to come to valid conclusions. As Steven Gould put it...

"The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world."

Even if you consider Logic only as a tool and thus the claim that God is above logic or that logic cannot be used to determine God's constraints is the one under discussion, you still have a problem, because we don't even have the capability of considering what we're talking about without the use of logic.
Even if it is, as you call, just a tool, without that tool, we can't discuss anything in any way that has meaning.

[Grumpy]

FinalEnigma

Yes, in order to drive nails you need a hammer. But to turn screws the hammer is not the tool you need.

thus the claim that God is above logic or that logic cannot be used to determine God's constraints is the one under discussion

To do this one must assume(for no reason IMO)that there is such a thing as a god. According to the scientific method only that which is evidenced can be assumed to be true(there are no "proofs" in the real world). The only reason I can see for arguing that a god is beyond our evidenced reasoning would be so the arguer can continue to believe in unevidenced and unreasoned concepts.

Grumpy

[Angel]

FinalEnigma

I'm not yet even decided on whether you can even discuss something outside the laws of logic. In fact, I highly doubt you can.

Logic is a TOOL, not a system of truth finding on it's own. You can prove many things with logic that simply have no congruence with reality. The exact same thing can be said of math. Whereas anything that violates the rules of either can safely be said to be untrue, the fact that the rules allow one to prove non-existent things means that every conclusion flowing from math and logic cannot be automatically assumed to be true. Both logic and math must be connected to reality(through the scientific method)to come to valid conclusions. As Steven Gould put it...

"The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world."

Proofs stem from the use of logic but the principles behind logic are not just tools. They are the fabric of any coherent thought and world which science by the way assumes it is discovering everyday. Without logic you may as well say the Universe exists and does not exists.

I agree with you on the laws of physics but they are not on the same scope as the laws of logic. I like to think that both the supernatural and the natural realm are all under the laws of logic with the laws of logic.

You would be wrong, for the same reason as above. The Universe is as it is, no matter what our "Laws of Logic" tell us the Universe is. As a tool, logic is only as applicable as the way it is being used. Our initial premises may or may not be true, no matter how "logical" they appear to us.

Grumpy

Saying "the Universe as it "IS"" assumes existence. Without logic you could not utter that statement let alone know what it means to say or even imply that anything exists.