Can God Defy Logic?

[Koldo]

Yeah, but if I can do something which is illogical and further act on that, then it is a far as I can tell a part of the everyday world and the actual falsification of that logic is universal.
That is that. Now you can claim that I ought not to do that, but that is not an "is", that is an "ought".

It is important to draw a distinction between 'lacking sound reasoning' and 'logically contradictory', for example.

You (or anyone else) can do things that lack sound reasoning, but you can't do things that are logically contradictory

 

[Nakosis]

Humans defy logic all the time. It can't possibly be that difficult for non-humans, gods or otherwise, to do the same.

Humans can "defy" logic by making illogical statements.
However can humans behave illogically?
I think that would be harder to prove because you would basically have to disprove determinism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is important to draw a distinction between 'lacking sound reasoning' and 'logically contradictory', for example.

You (or anyone else) can do things that lack sound reasoning, but you can't do things that are logically contradictory

Yeah, in a certain sense, but in general logic in these debates are in general considered somehow to be universal.
We have 3 standards.
Logical.
Illogical.
Alogical.

The problem is that all definitions are manmade for logical and not so. But yes, logic, you are properly right for contradictory in the narrow sense, but not for logic in a broader sense.

 

[Nakosis]

Now it is rather telling that you use a because that is not logic as such.

Well, I could always delete it, then where would you be?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Humans can "defy" logic by making illogical statements.
However can humans behave illogically?
I think that would be harder to prove because you would basically have to disprove determinism.

I am universally right, therefore as a valid deduction you are universally wrong and not even a human in any sense.

The problem is in effect how does logic exist as process in the natural world?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From Wikipedia: Omnipotence Paradox:

A common response from Christian philosophers, such as Norman Geisler or William Lane Craig, is that the paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence, they say, does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that is possible according to his nature. The distinction is important. God cannot perform logical absurdities; he cannot, for instance, make 1+1=3. Likewise, God cannot make a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being. God is limited in his actions to his nature. The Bible supports this, they assert, in passages such as Hebrews 6:18, which says it is "impossible for God to lie."

The above was pretty easy to find, as was the Stanford entry. I'd be curious to know whether or not @Nakosis - the OP's author - took the time to look into the question before opining on it.

 

[Nakosis]

From Wikipedia: Omnipotence Paradox:

A common response from Christian philosophers, such as Norman Geisler or William Lane Craig, is that the paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence, they say, does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that is possible according to his nature. The distinction is important. God cannot perform logical absurdities; he cannot, for instance, make 1+1=3. Likewise, God cannot make a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being. God is limited in his actions to his nature. The Bible supports this, they assert, in passages such as Hebrews 6:18, which says it is "impossible for God to lie."

The above was pretty easy to find, as was the Stanford entry. I'd be curious to know whether or not @Nakosis - the OP's author - took the time to look into the question before opining on it.

Yes, an obvious solution to keep a logical God if that is what one wishes to do. However what I think would be interesting is if one could figure this particular answer without looking it up. IOW, can an individual think for themselves without depending on Wikipedia for their thinking.

While I prefer answers from folks who do think for themselves, it obviously is not necessary if you can find someone else to do the thinking for you.

 

[1213]

Logically an omnipotent God cannot exist.

Why not?

 

[Nakosis]

I am universally right, therefore as a valid deduction you are universally wrong and not even a human in any sense.

The problem is in effect how does logic exist as process in the natural world?

Do mean "in the natural world" as existing without human involvement?
To me humans are natural so their involvement is natural but some folks use it with this other intended meaning.

If you are one of those, I would say logic cannot "naturally" exist as it takes a rational mind to define the rules of logic.

To me it is ok that logic doesn't "naturally" exist as we humans were able to define it into existence and make use of it.

 

[Nakosis]

Why not?

An agency or force of unlimited power is not logically possible because it would not have the power to limit itself.
You can use a different definition for omnipotence which is fine but then in doing so you are agreeing that unlimited power is not a property of God.

 

[Shaul]

G-d is neither logical nor illogical and is both logical and illogical simultaneously. G-d is supra-logical and suprarational.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... what I think would be interesting is if one could figure this particular answer without looking it up.

What you consider interesting I find mildly irresponsible, but that is a different topic.

 

[Heyo]

If they are happy saying their God is illogical, who am I to disagree with them?

Yep, can't reason with someone not accepting reason. Thats what the ignore function is for.

 

[Koldo]

G-d is neither logical nor illogical and is both logical and illogical simultaneously. G-d is supra-logical and suprarational.

Which doesn't mean anything... at all.

 

[Heyo]

From Wikipedia: Omnipotence Paradox:

A common response from Christian philosophers, such as Norman Geisler or William Lane Craig, is that the paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence, they say,

Yep, that's it. They say this, others say that. There is no agreed upon definition.

 

[George-ananda]

As coming from a nondual Hindu perspective (God and creation are not-two) I see the entire universe as a creative thought form of God. There is nothing he cannot think would be my answer. And that includes contradictions.

 

[osgart]

I tend to think logic works well with knowns and the realm of knowable. When you get into unknowns from a known there's no obligation for nature to work logically according to expert analysis. Logic is not a truth machine about existence. Sometimes intuition can be better.

Nature defy's logic and then why not for God.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

While I prefer answers from folks who do think for themselves, it obviously is not necessary if you can find someone else to do the thinking for you.

And I prefer observations and responses from reasonably well informed people.

 

[SalixIncendium]

View attachment 78560​

An easy example would be an omnipotent God.
Logically an omnipotent God cannot exist.

Does this mean the existence of a God cannot be logically explained?

No, because not all gods are omnipotent.

 

[PureX]

The concept we call God inherently precedes and transcends the limitations of logic.