Can God Defy Logic?

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

No, I am of the first kind. Humans are in the world and if there are humans, it doesn't exist without human involvement.

The problem is how does logic exist in the natural world including humans?

 

[Copernicus]

No, I am of the first kind. Humans are in the world and if there are humans, it doesn't exist without human involvement.

The problem is how does logic exist in the natural world including humans?

In what sense do abstractions exist? Logic exists in the same sense that love and justice exist. There are aspects of natural human behavior that we can assign those attributes to, but the concepts themselves are not actually situated in time and space. We usually think of nature in terms of what exists physically, not in the abstract.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In what sense do abstractions exist? Logic exists in the same sense that love and justice exist. There are aspects of natural human behavior that we can assign those attributes to, but the concepts themselves are not actually situated in time and space. We usually think of nature in terms of what exists physically, not in the abstract.

Yeah, we think. It is standard folk dualism to treat the mental as not physical and mentally to think that the non-mental is physical.
The joke is that you can't point to the physical existence as it is a mental concept.
Both the physical and existence have no objective referents as they are abstract mental concepts.
Such fun to play philosophy.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

I really don't see a problem with the idea that omnipotent beings are limited by their nature. That may sound paradoxical, but it is actually a logical outcome of the way we define omnipotence. Omnipotent beings, by definition, cannot cancel their omnipotence, because that would itself be illogical. Where I see a problem is when you combine the attribute of omnipotence with other attributes that people associate with God--for example, the ability to make decisions and create beings with the free will to defy God. Humans are adept at partitioning and compartmentalizing their powers of reasoning in order to ignore incoherence and contradiction. That is, they are good at actually ignoring inconsistencies and denying reality. We all do it from time to time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I really don't see a problem with the idea that omnipotent beings are limited by their nature. That may sound paradoxical, but it is actually a logical outcome of the way we define omnipotence. Omnipotent beings, by definition, cannot cancel their omnipotence, because that would itself be illogical. Where I see a problem is when you combine the attribute of omnipotence with other attributes that people associate with God--for example, the ability to make decisions and create beings with the free will to defy God. Humans are adept at partitioning and compartmentalizing their powers of reasoning in order to ignore incoherence and contradiction. That is, they are good at actually ignoring inconsistencies and denying reality. We all do it from time to time.

Yes, we do, all of us. There is actually do biological reasons to suspect that brains can't function without compartmentalization.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, we do, all of us. There is actually do biological reasons to suspect that brains can't function without compartmentalization.

It's necessary to be able to make mistakes in order to learn how to avoid them. So one has to be able to weigh contradictory information, but that does not justify turning a blind eye to logical contradictions. Survival depends on resolving contradictions. So there is a greater biological imperative to break down barriers between compartments.

 

[Yazata]

An easy example would be an omnipotent God.

All your example shows me is that there's a logical problem with at least one of the traditional theistic attributes. (I do think that it's a real problem.)

The idea that it shows that God can defy logic (an idea that I don't want to argue against) only seems to work if we feel the need to tie that particular problematic divine attribute to God's essence, somehow.

I would prefer to argue that we shouldn't try to do that, arguing instead that God's essence is unknowable.

Logically an omnipotent God cannot exist.

We certainly have strong intuitive beliefs about the relationship between logic and ontology. But what justifies our confidence that the dependence of reality upon logic holds true universally and necessarily?

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

I'm hugely skeptical that the existence of God can be explained, whether the explanation is logical or not.

Explaining something seems to me to involve reducing the unknown to the known. But if God is the taken to be the ultimate Source upon which everything else depends (which is how I understand the word) then it would seem to me to be the ultimate deepest and darkest unknown. While it might arguably serve as the foundation of all that is real, God wouldn't seem to serve very well as an explanation. Instead of allowing us to restate mysteries in terms of ideas that are better understood, appealing to God as an explanation for things we don't know would just compound the mysteries with which we began.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm hugely skeptical that the existence of God can be explained, whether the explanation is logical or not.

More importantly, it doesn't need to be explained, since it hasn't been reasonably established. First you have to establish that God does exist. Nakosis is only asking whether the property of omnipotence that people attribute to a putative God makes sense. If it doesn't, then there is no point to applying logic to even try to explain its existence.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

​

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?

The Bible does Not teach an omnipotent God - Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2 - because God can Not lie.
Also, since we are gifted with being able to make free-willed choices shows that God does Not interfere with our choices.
God tells us what is right and what is wrong - the choice is then for ours to make - James 1:13-15

 

[URAVIP2ME]

.................The problem is how does logic exist in the natural world including humans?

To me ' logic ' exists in the natural world...... because Jesus used logic and reasoning in his teachings.
Jesus often prefaced his statements with the words " it is written...." meaning already written down in the old Hebrew Scriptures.
Thus, Jesus believed and taught that Scripture is religious logic meaning that Scripture is religious truth - John 17:17

 

[sun rise]

Yes Gödel used logic to show that in mathematical systems there exists true statements which cannot be proven. Math is a language and like all languages they are fundamentally true by definition not by proof.

Gödel and Tarski both went through a lot of work to prove that a statement which you cannot logically declare is not logical.

It comes down to this, if God is logical, then God is logically provable i.e. God cannot defy logic.
If God is not logical then God cannot be logically proven.

For something to be omnipotent it would have to be able to"create a rock it cannot lift and be able to lift it" something that is illogical to declare. By defining God as omnipotent you are defining God by an illogical statement. Therefore God is illogical and can't be logically proven.

So you can define God however you want. To say God is omnipotent, omnipotent being an illogical statement, since this is a property you want to assign to God, are saying God is illogical.

Of course, you can choose to define God by logical statements, but you certainly don't have to.

Thanks for the lucid expansion of my sketchy point.

 

[sun rise]

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

Yes. Since logical and illogical is one of the aspects of duality and transcendence is to me a divine attribute, I agree with the first part of that. I don't know what you mean by supra--- so I'm not commenting on that.

 

[dybmh]

Logically an omnipotent God cannot exist.

Sure it can. The argument against is a contradiction. Making a contradiction never proves or disproves anything.

God isn't omnipotent, because God is impotent ( can't lift a box of its own creation )? No
God isn't hot because it's not cold? No
God isn't big because its not small? No.
God isn't light because god isn't dark? No.

All of them are equally worthless.

God can't create a box that God can't lift? Nonsense. Just like the cartoon. God can do anything. Saying God isn't because God can't is just another way of saying, YES, God is omnipotent.

 

[dybmh]

Interestingly, I CAN make a rock so big I can't lift it. Making it among the things any of us can do that a god can't:

No... what you're describing are *actually* things you can't do. It's the not-lifting that defines the statement. The statement describes a limitation, and a lack.

As soon as it is confirmed that the statement is about something you can't do, then all you're saying is, it's something that the god CAN do.

Per the Christian god, can it be in the presence of evil? I can

I'm not sure that's true. I believe the quote is about evil being in God. And honestly, the same is true for anyone. evil is the shell, the superficial. everyone's inner being is completely good. But some people are completely overwhelmed by that shell, and how it works, and how powerful it is. And then, the more they feed off of that shell, the more constricted they become, and less and less of their inner being is available to recieve goodness.... so they keep feeding off of the shell, off of the superficial... more and more because they cannot feel that goodness anymore. they're too constricted, feeding off the shell, the casing, the vessel. That's how evil works. It's similar to all obsessions, all addictions... that's where those things come from.

all of this is just in theory of course I know you're not a believer. but, what you're saying isn't a contradiction at all.

Do a morally perfect god know what it is to lust? I do.

Of course it does. it knows your emotions, it knows your thoughts, it knows your passions, your talents, flaws, affinties, aversions...

when you lust, it experiences that too.

 

[Copernicus]

Tinker Grey: Interestingly, I CAN make a rock so big I can't lift it. Making it among the things any of us can do that a god can't:​

​

No... what you're describing are *actually* things you can't do. It's the lifting that defines the statement. The statement describes a limitation, and a lack.

As soon as it is confirmed that the statement is about something you can't do, then all you're saying is, it's something that the god CAN do.

I don't understand your comment here. It is possible for me to make something too heavy for me to lift. God can't make something too heavy for God itself to lift, because that would, in effect, cancel its omnipotence by making God vulnerable to the force of gravity. What I can't make sense of is your claim that "It's lifting that defines the statement." What does that mean?

 

[dybmh]

I don't understand your comment here. It is possible for me to make something too heavy for me to lift. God can't make something too heavy for God itself to lift, because that would, in effect, cancel its omnipotence by making God vulnerable to the force of gravity. What I can't make sense of is your claim that "It's lifting that defines the statement." What does that mean?

"It's lifting that defines the statement."

Sorry, it's the not-lifting that defines the statement. The lack of ability defines the statement which is impotence.

So, if a person makes any statement and that statement is communicating a lack of ability, impotence, that statement does not introduce a contradiction to god's omnipotence. The example in the other thread was about a buritto to hot for god to eat, but it could be anything: a dog god couldn't train, or a pizza god couldn't toss... all of those are communicating a lack of ability. So saying god cannot lack an ability (like I can) is simply confirming the omnipotence not contradicting/challenging it.

 

[Nakosis]

Sure it can. The argument against is a contradiction. Making a contradiction never proves or disproves anything.

God isn't omnipotent, because God is impotent ( can't lift a box of its own creation )? No
God isn't hot because it's not cold? No
God isn't big because its not small? No.
God isn't light because god isn't dark? No.

All of them are equally worthless.

God can't create a box that God can't lift? Nonsense. Just like the cartoon. God can do anything. Saying God isn't because God can't is just another way of saying, YES, God is omnipotent.

Yes, well that is what I am saying.
An omnipotent being, one of unlimited power, is like the statements above you point out is a contradiction.
You can't have a contradiction as a logical statement.
Of course you can always claim that God does not have unlimited power. You can claim anything you what about God since it can't be proven otherwise. You can even claim a God with illogical properties. You just can't make a logical argument for a God with illogical properties.

 

[Nakosis]

The Bible does Not teach an omnipotent God - Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2 - because God can Not lie.
Also, since we are gifted with being able to make free-willed choices shows that God does Not interfere with our choices.
God tells us what is right and what is wrong - the choice is then for ours to make - James 1:13-15

That's fine. Not saying anyone has to make a logical argument for God, but if you did want to then God would necessarily have to have logical properties.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, well that is what I am saying.
An omnipotent being, one of unlimited power, is like the statements above you point out is a contradiction.
You can't have a contradiction as a logical statement.
Of course you can always claim that God does not have unlimited power. You can claim anything you what about God since it can't be proven otherwise. You can even claim a God with illogical properties. You just can't make a logical argument for a God with illogical properties.

What's the illogical property?

Omnipotent means it can always lift anything.
Like you said, unlimited power.

So, where's the problem?

Not lifting the rock is "limited power".
You just defined it as unlimited power.

If you want to claim it's not omnipotent, then it won't be able to lift anything and everything.
If I claim it's omnipotent then it will be able to lift anything and everything.

Omnipotence is not an illogical property.

 

[Copernicus]

"It's lifting that defines the statement."

Sorry, it's the not-lifting that defines the statement. The lack of ability defines the statement which is impotence.

So, if a person makes any statement and that statement is communicating a lack of ability, impotence, that statement does not introduce a contradiction to god's omnipotence. The example in the other thread was about a buritto to hot for god to eat, but it could be anything: a dog god couldn't train, or a pizza god couldn't toss... all of those are communicating a lack of ability. So saying god cannot lack an ability (like I can) is simply confirming the omnipotence not contradicting/challenging it.

All Tinker Grey was saying in the comment you responded to was that he found it interesting that an omnipotent being seemed to be unable to do something that a person could do. Because of the way we define your "infinite" divine properties, we get these seeming paradoxes, but you have a funny way of saying that when you say "not-lifting defines the statement". I think we are basically on the same page on this one from a logical perspective. I just find your way of describing it as overly convoluted and hard to process. As I've said before, my main problem with the "omni" properties is when you bundle them together and try to make the assembled package sound logically consistent. Arguments over this sort of thing tend to descend quickly into logic chopping sophistry.