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?

[fredonly]

...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.

I am simply arguing that pure, basic logic must be assumed to be true in all possible worlds. Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometry still rely on this. Premises and representations can vary, but the rules of inference cannot be negated. It's reasonable to assume that more complex inferences can exist; other complexity can be layered onto it, but pure basic logic cannot reasonably be assumed to be untrue.

The point of all this is that I contend that we can and should trust our reasoning abilities. It would be unreasonable to assert that a proven fallacy is "OK to believe in" based on the fantasy that a different type of logic will provide a magical solution around the fallacy. That would be the same as assuming the impossible is truly possible.

[EduChris]

...pure basic logic cannot reasonably be assumed to be untrue...

That may be true for human beings in our universe at this time. It's a good goal to strive for, and certainly it's better than the (currently known) alternatives, but unfortunately, "pure logic" has rarely been observed in humans--at least with respect to non-trivial matters.

[Miles]

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.

FYI

Your example is not a syllogism. Syllogisms have three parts, and three parts only:

Major premise
Minor premise
____________
Conclusion



What you've presented is an example of the Modus Ponens rule of inference.

A implies B
B implies C
A
___________
Therefore C

Which can be extend to any number of steps.

A → B
B → C
C → D
D → E
E → F
A
___________
Therefore F

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

In a true syllogism C (the conclusion) can be false and A (the major premise) true.

Dogs are mammals
mammals eat iron
________________
Dogs eat iron

And a modus ponens argument can inclued a false C and a true A, although it would lead to a false conclusion.

If today is Monday then I will go to work.
If I go to work then I will fy to the Moon
Today is Monday
_____________________
Therfore I will fly to the Moon

The form here is valid, and obviously the truth of A is not dependant on the truth of C. Just because I won't be flying to the moon doesn't mean today isn't Monday.

Yet, as you observe, such an argument does fail. It is not true.

[fredonly]

...pure basic logic cannot reasonably be assumed to be untrue...

That may be true for human beings in our universe at this time. It's a good goal to strive for, and certainly it's better than the (currently known) alternatives, but unfortunately, "pure logic" has rarely been observed in humans--at least with respect to non-trivial matters.

As I said before, it's most reasonable to assume that it's universally true, not merely true in our universe. But we agree it's good to strive for sound logic. I believe the best way we can each examine our own logic is to test it with those with whom we disagree - as we frequently do on this forum. I've never seen anyone have the mind changed, but it can at least help us refine our reasoning.

Miles - I stand corrected out my incorrect use of the term, "syllogism."