Can God Do What Is Logically Impossible?

[Sunstone]

Now and then I've hear someone claim that god can do what is logically impossible*. The claim interests me, but -- so far as I can recall -- it is almost always made as a mere assertion, and without any rational attempt to demonstrate why it might be true. Consequently, I am starting this thread in part to see if anyone is willing to offer a rational basis for believing the claim is true.

A second, closely related question, is whether -- if god could do what is logically impossible -- would god be nonsensical?

This second question I would like to briefly address here. It seems to me that, if god could do what is logically impossible, god would be nonsensical.

Now, if god can do what is logically impossible, then god can create a square circle, a married bachelor, a beach ball that is not itself, and so forth -- all logical contradictions. But it doesn't stop there. God could also create a universe that both exists and does not exist, and god could even arrange that god both exists and does not exist. And god could then bring it about that he cannot do the logically impossible while at the same time doing the logically impossible. Of course, this would mean he could do all of that -- create a square circle, a married bachelor, etc, etc -- while not existing and being incapable of doing the impossible.

All of which, in my opinion, would reduce god to nonsense.

But what do you think?

1) Can god do what is logically impossible? Why or why not?

2) If god could do what is logically impossible, would god be nonsensical? Why or why not?​

___________________________

*A concept is logically impossible if there are inherent self-contradictions or necessary truths opposed to it. It is, in other words, a concept which is logically impossible to be true -- such as a square circle, or a married bachelor.

Now to be careful, I certainly do not mean by "logically impossible" anything along the lines of god doing what is merely illogical. "Logically impossible" and "illogical" are two very different birds. Logically impossible would be something like create a square circle. Illogical would be something like act in a non-logical manner. Obviously, god could act in a non-logical manner without doing the logically impossible.

 

[BSM1]

You mean, of course, logic as we know it? Have you fallen into the age old trap of applying human attributes to a transcendent Deity?

 

[Sunstone]

You mean, of course, logic as we know it? Have you fallen into the age old trap of applying human attributes to a transcendent Deity?

You raise some pretty interesting issues here, BSM. Thank you for that!

First, I am currently "agnostic" on the subject of whether one of god's attributes is logic. Therefore, I haven't been busy applying "attributes to a transcendent deity", as you suggest. Just to be clear.

Second, you seem to be suggesting here that there is some kind of distinction between "human logic" and "god's logic". So, let's take a look at that. In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction states that a thing cannot be both itself and not itself at the same time and in the same way. A cannot be both A and not-A. at the same time and in the same way. Can we say that god transcends that? That is, can we say that god is at once and in the same way both god and not-god? I don't think we can without reducing god to nonsense.

Now some might say, "That may be the case, but on a 'higher level', there is somehow no nonsensical contradiction between god being both god and not-god." But wouldn't that be speculation, and wild (i.e. wholly unsupported) speculation at that?

Last, any attempt to reason via classical logic that god can violate the law of non-contradiction must at least implicitly rely on classical logic to do so. But that would be self-refuting. Consequently, how can one rationally argue for such a position?

By the way, please forgive the heavy edit. The other day when I wrote my initial response to you, I was quite under the weather. Today, when I came back feeling marginally better, I was appalled to discover what I wrote didn't even come close to what I meant. Hence, the heavy edit.

 

[Nakosis]

Now and then I've hear someone claim that god can do what is logically impossible*. The claim interests me, but -- so far as I can recall -- it is almost always made as a mere assertion, and without any rational attempt to demonstrate why it might be true.

This IMO is your problem. Since it's possible to give God whatever attributes you can imagine. The hard part becomes providing an example of something like how a squared circle is possible. Which in asking for a rational explanation you end up forcing the person to use logic.

So how can I logically explain a squared circle. Using bad logic or redefining terms, whatever, I end up basically creating a way to logically/rationally explain it.

Something logically impossible can't have a rational explanation.

 

[YmirGF]

Have you fallen into the age old trap of proposing there exists a logic you can have no knowledge of because it is beyond human comprehension? If so, it sounds suspiciously like the sort of wild, unfounded metaphysical speculations that are most frequently indulged in by drunken college sophomores, and the model inmates of lunatic asylums.

Joking aside, how would you demonstrate that such a logic exists, or are you merely leaping from, say, a perhaps remote possibility to a conviction that it must exist?

It's hardly just our affable @BSM1 though. Since I was a knee high to a grasshopper I've heard, "God work in mysterious ways." as a sort of catch all for any difficult questions. By default, I'd hazard that the majority of theists would support that their idea of god is well beyond our ability to decipher. The kicker is there is no evidence behind this assertion, just wallpaper sliding off the cracks.

In answer to the question. Can god do something that is logically impossible? I'd have to say, possibly, but probably not. The problem with this is how would one ever arrive at the conclusion or find even evidence of the conclusion? Miracles are the playthings of the gods and are necessarily steeped in layers of unknown conjectures. If this god fellow was an existential reality I would think, due to its penchant for miraculous behavior, that it could do the logically impossible though I doubt such a being would be inclined to do so as that would upset the apple cart of reality as we know it. I think that would give said deity pause.

As to whether of not that rendered god nonsensical is hard to say though such an act might introduce ripples into our perception of reality that could well render it nonsensical. I guess it all depends on how bored a poor god is on a given endless day. That must get tedious.

 

[sun rise]

Since you asked a question about logic specifically, I answered yes because there are things which are illogical but true even at the human level. To wit:

Firstly, in a strictly formal setting, we note that Gödel's first incompleteness theorem tells us that truth is not reducible to proof, so there are many truths which are not derivable.

In a formal setting, we chose our axioms because we believe them to be self-evident truths - i.e., true for no (logical) reason. But why do we assume that only self-evident truths are not derivable.

More generally, beyond the formality of mathematics, if one accepts that nature includes random processes, then such processes may provide examples of brute facts which are true simply because they are true and for no other (logical) reason. For example, if one accepts that the human evolutionary process is driven by random mutations of our genetic material, then we are who and what we are for no logical reason. It is true that humans exist on planet Earth, but it is not a logical necessity and it could have been otherwise.

Regarding true statements that contradict logic, one might argue that quantum superpositioning may provide examples. Superpositioning is a phenomenon that is supported by experimental evidence, but it certainly appears to be illogical to assert that a particle can be simultaneously in two different states or two different locations. Having said that, it may follow logically from the formalism of quantum theory that superpositioning is a logical necessity. I'm not a physicist, so I'm not entirely sure.

Can something be true if it does not follow logic?

If you want to dig further into the rabbit hole

The problems are actual or possible situations in which someone has a belief that is both true and well supported by evidence, yet which — according to almost all epistemologists — fails to be knowledge.

Gettier Problems | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[Super Universe]

Now and then I've hear someone claim that god can do what is logically impossible*. The claim interests me, but -- so far as I can recall -- it is almost always made as a mere assertion, and without any rational attempt to demonstrate why it might be true. Consequently, I am starting this thread in part to see if anyone is willing to offer a rational basis for believing the claim is true.

A second, closely related question, is whether -- if god could do what is logically impossible -- would god be nonsensical?

This second question I would like to briefly address here. It seems to me that, if god could do what is logically impossible, god would be nonsensical.

Now, if god can do what is logically impossible, then god can create a square circle, a married bachelor, a beach ball that is not itself, and so forth -- all logical contradictions. But it doesn't stop there. God could also create a universe that both exists and does not exist, and god could even arrange that god both exists and does not exist. And god could then bring it about that he cannot do the logically impossible while at the same time doing the logically impossible. Of course, this would mean he could do all of that -- create a square circle, a married bachelor, etc, etc -- while not existing and being incapable of doing the impossible.

All of which, in my opinion, would reduce god to nonsense.

But what do you think?

1) Can god do what is logically impossible? Why or why not?

2) If god could do what is logically impossible, would god be nonsensical? Why or why not?​

___________________________

*A concept is logically impossible if there are inherent self-contradictions or necessary truths opposed to it. It is, in other words, a concept which is logically impossible to be true -- such as a square circle, or a married bachelor.

Now to be careful, I certainly do not mean by "logically impossible" anything along the lines of can god do what is merely illogical. That seems to me to be a relatively trivial question in this context -- unless one asserts (as many people do) that logic is a property of god in the same way that, say, omnibenevolence or omnipotence might be asserted to be properties of god. In which case, one would probably go further to assert that god can no more do what is illogical than god can go against god's own nature.

You atheists and your obsession with the word logic. The problem is that you think something logical is true. The ancient Atheneans came up with the philosophy of logic. It does not determine truth, it simply determines validity (which is not truth either) or invalidity. A valid concept is one that agrees with a stated premise. The stated premise can be incorrect but if the conclusion agrees then it is valid argument.

Ancient Athenean philosopher attempted an experiment. He drew two lines on a sidewalk. He had decided that any distance can be divided infinitely, so, he thought, if it is infinite then it is impossible to travel any distance because you would be travelling an infinite distance. The other man stepped across the lines.

God has already done what you would say is logically impossible. He created Himself. The problem is your primitive definition of what is logically impossible. You are trying to determine an advanced universal concept but you don't know enough about how the universe really works to know what is possible and what is not.

 

[BSM1]

The question is an idle one because the OP is speaking of whether god can do what is logically impossible according to "human" logic. It doesn't really matter here whether or not god would be doing what is logically possible according to god's logic.

Aye, there's the rub...

 

[BSM1]

It's hardly just our affable @BSM1 though. Since I was a knee high to a grasshopper I've heard, "God work in mysterious ways." as a sort of catch all for any difficult questions. By default, I'd hazard that the majority of theists would support that their idea of god is well beyond our ability to decipher. The kicker is there is no evidence behind this assertion, just wallpaper sliding off the cracks.

In answer to the question. Can god do something that is logically impossible? I'd have to say, possibly, but probably not. The problem with this is how would one ever arrive at the conclusion or find even evidence of the conclusion? Miracles are the playthings of the gods and are necessarily steeped in layers of unknown conjectures. If this god fellow was an existential reality I would think, due to its penchant for miraculous behavior, that it could do the logically impossible though I doubt such a being would be inclined to do so as that would upset the apple cart of reality as we know it. I think that would give said deity pause.

As to whether of not that rendered god nonsensical is hard to say though such an act might introduce ripples into our perception of reality that could well render it nonsensical. I guess it all depends on how bored a poor god is on a given endless day. That must get tedious.

Yeah, what he said...

 

[Kapalika]

EDIT:

I need to think more about this, I'm not sure, after much internal debate, that I can hold the views I previously did.

o far as I can recall -- it is almost always made as a mere assertion, and without any rational attempt to demonstrate why it might be true

Obviously by definition they can't rationally explain it other than to say "god is beyond our intellectual understanding" if they go that route. So I'm failing to see why you would even expect them to attempt to demonstrate it.

f god could do what is logically impossible -- would god be nonsensical?

It would appear nonsensical to us, but so has most natural phenomena has throughout most of history until we understood what was behind it. Is it no surprise we said gods caused earthquakes, hurricanes and other such things? Perhaps today what we call god or gods is that which still seems unexplained. Such things with seemingly no natural explanation are easily written off as the work of a higher intelligence that's beyond us our comprehension (and so human logic and rationality).

Take for example mysticism, which inherently makes no sense to the normal awake mind. How can I have a non-dualistic perception, or see reality without boundaries of subject (me) and object (other stuff)? To an ego based mind, it would appear nonsensical to even try to imagine it.

Mysticism definition:

belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.

mysticism | Definition of mysticism in English by Oxford Dictionaries

I would subscribe more into the former definition, since in Hinduism we have Jnana Yoga which is said to be able to reach union through intellect on spiritual matters. For the record Jnana is said to be the hardest of all yogas, and with good reason.

The reason people refer to god for mystical experiences is because they don't understand what else to call it. The experience seems nonsensical to us in our normal waking mind, so the use of "god" language fills in that gap of understanding and some will subscribe it to some higher intelligence. I've taken this as an example, as I know mysticism is a common ground for us.

If "god" was outside the realm of logic, Jnana yoga couldn't be valid. God being illogical goes against the metaphysical foundation of my system anyways. So I voted"no", god cannot do the logically impossible, but I'll add that to those who lack enough understanding or experience, the things (that I, at least have) subscribed to god would seem nonsensical, perhaps even illogical.

Example: "Shiva is formed and formless" seems like a contradiction, but through a lot of study and meditation I realized, no it's not, it's just that it's difficult to try to express the actual truth of it through a limited, dualistic language.

can do what is logically impossible according to "human" logic.

You basically just asked "is the impossible possible?", or "Is this red chair blue?"

So uh, the answer is obviously no. His response was pointing out the flaw in asking the question in the first place.

It doesn't really matter here whether or not god would be doing what is logically possible according to god's logic.

The moment someones jumps to saying that god defies logic or rationality, you can't use logic or rationality to defeat their argument.

The other side of that they sometimes forget, is that it also means they can't prove it either, since by their own admission we only have our human understanding.

That's why there is such a huge focus on faith. I personally DON'T believe that god is illogical or irrational, however. EDIT: at least by Hindu philosophy standards.

This IMO is your problem. Since it's possible to give God whatever attributes you can imagine. The hard part becomes providing an example of something like how a squared circle is possible. Which in asking for a rational explanation you end up forcing the person to use logic.

Agreed. Not that I am in that camp being forced to use logic, but you can't try to explore something the logic of something that from the onset is admittedly and inherently illogical by definition

Can god do something that is logically impossible? I'd have to say, possibly, but probably not. The problem with this is how would one ever arrive at the conclusion or find even evidence of the conclusion?

Exactly.

 

[jonathan180iq]

All of these answers are utterly meaningless because they're all based on the unsubstantiated premise than any of these beings or characters necessarily exist.

I could substitute your assumed deity with any other variable and ultimately produce the exact same conversation, couldn't I?

All that is necessary is that I allow the enormous tolerances afforded to this God character (namely "transcendent powers") and place them on any other character of choice. The outcome would be no different.

Questioner: "Can (X) perform tasks that are logically impossible?"

Respondant: "You're assuming that (X) is limited to the confines of human restraints. Since (X) is not confined to anything but my imagination, (X) can do anything, everything, and nothing all at once."

That's a wholly pointless conversation, since (X) could be anything from Mbombo of Bakuba to Yahweh or any other thing that you could possibly imagine.

 

[Skwim]

1) Can god do what is logically impossible? Why or why not?

By establishing the principle of logic one is saying there is a truthful condition of validity, which indicates an innate soundness. To be sound requires that the statements of the argument be true and the form of the argument be valid. To me, the following would be an attempt to argue that god can do the impossible.

all operations are things god can do

the logically impossible is an operation
________________________

The logically impossible is a thing god can do
​

The question here is, in what sense is the logically impossible a thing? Logically impossible is not a thing in of it self, a noun if you will, but the description of a thing; an adjective. It describes something not able to occur, exist, or be done. Of course, if it can occur, exist or be done, as in god can do it, then it's not logically impossible. It loses its membership in the class of those things that are logically impossible. Moreover, what is meant by a "logically impossible is an operation"? Right off the bat it indicates an operation that cannot be. It fails to fit within the category of all operations of things that god can do--the primary premise.

So, I'm voting No. God cannot do what is logically impossible.

.

 

[Kapalika]

All of these answers are utterly meaningless because they're all based on the unsubstantiated premise than any of these beings or characters necessarily exist.

We don't need to prove or disprove something to explore the consequences of assigning attributes to it.

To give an example you might be friendly towards, it would be like saying any discussion of M-Theory is utterly meaningless because it's not proven, and there are a lot of theoretical physicists who would probably disagree with such a statement (particularly since they discuss it and work on it to find a consequence they can test).

However, if you are here just to derail and ruin it for us by going "doesn't matter cause god isn't real!" You can kindly leave and not participate.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm not ready to dive in just yet tonight, but I do want to point out: anyone who says there is "human logic" and then "God's logic" is contradicting themselves. Logic is logic, it is ontological, it is necessary, but most importantly it is transcendental and incorrigible: suggesting its non-existence or that it isn't indelible or that there are ways around it require its use in order to suggest, which is as absurd as stating with words (and expecting them to have meaning), "I doubt that words have meaning."

There is no "God's logic" vs "human logic," there is just logic -- which God obeys as well as anything else, because logic is the essence of limitation, and limitation is what it means to exist. So if God exists, then God is a being of the same logic as the rest of the universe: A = A, A v ¬A, ¬(A ^ ¬A)

 

[Meow Mix]

Some more thoughts: someone brought up things like quantum mechanics and quantum superposition. These are more instrumentalist than they are realist interpretations. There are some physicists who aren't strong metaphysicists that will treat it in a realist sense, but there are many interpretations of the wave function -- the most common being the Copenhagen interpretation, which is non-realist. Philosophers of science who happen to be physicists and vice versa will not be arguing that there is actual superposition; in fact this was the entire reason that Schrodinger brought up the cat thing in the first place (to show a logical absurdity with a realist interpretation).

 

[Sunstone]

This IMO is your problem. Since it's possible to give God whatever attributes you can imagine. The hard part becomes providing an example of something like how a squared circle is possible. Which in asking for a rational explanation you end up forcing the person to use logic.

So how can I logically explain a squared circle. Using bad logic or redefining terms, whatever, I end up basically creating a way to logically/rationally explain it.

Something logically impossible can't have a rational explanation.

It seems to me you might be trying to point out that any logical criticism of logic must at least implicitly assume logic in order to conclude that logic is "wrong", and is therefore self-refuting. Is that what you're attempting to get at? If so, you are correct.

 

[Sunstone]

If this god fellow was an existential reality I would think, due to its penchant for miraculous behavior, that it could do the logically impossible...

Interesting post, Paul. I agree with much of it, although the part I've quoted gives me pause. I was curious whether you were reasoning something like this:

God is omnipotent
God can do anything
Hence god can create a logical impossibility -- such as a square circle.

Assuming god wanted to, of course.

 

[Sunstone]

Hi Sunrise! Thanks for a very interesting post!

Firstly, in a strictly formal setting, we note that Gödel's first incompleteness theorem tells us that truth is not reducible to proof, so there are many truths which are not derivable.

In a formal setting, we chose our axioms because we believe them to be self-evident truths - i.e., true for no (logical) reason. But why do we assume that only self-evident truths are not derivable.

I'm not following here how a non-derivable truth could lead to the claim god is able to do what is logically impossible -- such as create a square circle. Could you help me out a bit?

More generally, beyond the formality of mathematics, if one accepts that nature includes random processes, then such processes may provide examples of brute facts which are true simply because they are true and for no other (logical) reason. For example, if one accepts that the human evolutionary process is driven by random mutations of our genetic material, then we are who and what we are for no logical reason. It is true that humans exist on planet Earth, but it is not a logical necessity and it could have been otherwise

So far as I know, there are at least two kinds of randomness. Randomness can refer to a hypothetically spontaneous event, and it can also refer to non-spontaneous, caused event that is (for one reason or another) unpredictable. The second sense of randomness is far and away the most used, but it is often conflated with the first sense. Perhaps you are doing that here. In human evolution, random mutations are of the second kind -- caused but unpredictable. They are not of the first kind -- genuinely spontaneous and uncaused.

But looking beyond that, I'm still a bit confused here. I'm not seeing how either kind of random event could result in a logical impossibility -- such as a married bachelor.

Can something be true if it does not follow logic?

Absolutely! But again, that does not seem to me at least to address the issue of whether god could do what is logically impossible. Although something can be true even if it does not follow logic, the issue of whether something can be true if it is logically impossible is an entirely different matter.

The problems are actual or possible situations in which someone has a belief that is both true and well supported by evidence, yet which — according to almost all epistemologists — fails to be knowledge.

Gettier Problems | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Gettier problems are special cases used in epistemology to demonstrate that we need something more than a justified true belief for a belief to be considered genuine knowledge. Unless you're seeing something I'm not seeing, they have no relevance to the issue of whether a god can do what is logically impossible.

I think it's possible that my OP somehow mislead you into confusing "logically impossible" with "illogical", and that you have been answering the question, "Can god do what is illogical", rather than the question, "Can god do what is logically impossible". Those are two very different issues.

 

[Sunstone]

You atheists and your obsession with the word logic. The problem is that you think something logical is true. The ancient Atheneans came up with the philosophy of logic. It does not determine truth, it simply determines validity (which is not truth either) or invalidity. A valid concept is one that agrees with a stated premise. The stated premise can be incorrect but if the conclusion agrees then it is valid argument.

Ancient Athenean philosopher attempted an experiment. He drew two lines on a sidewalk. He had decided that any distance can be divided infinitely, so, he thought, if it is infinite then it is impossible to travel any distance because you would be travelling an infinite distance. The other man stepped across the lines.

God has already done what you would say is logically impossible. He created Himself. The problem is your primitive definition of what is logically impossible. You are trying to determine an advanced universal concept but you don't know enough about how the universe really works to know what is possible and what is not.

I bow to your superior convictions that you know what you're talking about.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not ready to dive in just yet tonight, but I do want to point out: anyone who says there is "human logic" and then "God's logic" is contradicting themselves. Logic is logic, it is ontological, it is necessary, but most importantly it is transcendental and incorrigible: suggesting its non-existence or that it isn't indelible or that there are ways around it require its use in order to suggest, which is as absurd as stating with words (and expecting them to have meaning), "I doubt that words have meaning."

There is no "God's logic" vs "human logic," there is just logic -- which God obeys as well as anything else, because logic is the essence of limitation, and limitation is what it means to exist. So if God exists, then God is a being of the same logic as the rest of the universe: A = A, A v ¬A, ¬(A ^ ¬A)

You highly theoretical types with your symbols....too hard to understand.
So I offer a thought experiment.....
God is all powerful...omnipotent. He can do anything he wants.
Can God create a haggis so awful that he cannot eat it?
Suppose he does, then he can't eat it.
But if he's omnipotent, then he can.
But if he can, then he can't create a haggis too awful for him to eat.
It seems my premises simply cannot be.