God and logic

[Thief]

No, you're not getting what Im saying.

My words mean "it's not that he is refraining from doing so by any choice. He cannot do so."

He could not break such a necessary framework. At this point these assertions about an omnipotent being, go back to what I said about kids talking about the best superpowers. It's become a contest of creating the greatest superlative which has merely devolved into sentences whose words make no sense.
There are no square circles, and cannot be, no matter how powerful your God is.
I think that is also a reply to 9Westy9 too.

To pretend that is so is just... playing pretend.

I think we are saying the same thing.
He is not going to 'flex' His creation as it would result in chaos.
He is able to...but refrains.

For the notion of logic....let's consider a problem.
If your existence depended upon a distortion of reality to spare you from dying....
but that distortion would then render your death....
you going to die.

Logic first?....or take the chance and twist what is real, for your sake?

 

[Conlocke]

God can transcend human understanding, but not logic. A logically impossible action is not an action at all. It is nonsense.

 

[Skwim]

or we can say that, by definition, an omnipotent being can bring himself out of non-existence into existence as he can do anything

And by definition of non-existence this being would not be, so there wouldn't be anything "bringing himself out of non-existence"?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Is God truly omnipotent then he is not bound by the laws of logic however are there more limits after logic

High master are you stoned

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Well potentially a god might be outside of logic... of course such an existence is so far removed from OUR understanding of logic that it precludes rational thought (since rational thought is dependant on logic)

Though logically speaking, logic itself is the ultimate restraint; just because such an existence is outside of logic does not mean that there are not other constraints, what those restraints might be are incomprehensible - because as mentioned before, rational thought applied to a non-logically bound entity is completely unreliable.

Perhaps it might be possible for such an existence to be, however if it did, even considering it would be a waste of time; given that I am not Apatheistic, instead strongly supporting the consideration of metaphysical concepts, that is saying quite a lot. That is why in the PMs I suggested that it would likely be unhealthy to attempt to pursue such a train of thought.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I think we are saying the same thing.
He is not going to 'flex' His creation as it would result in chaos.
He is able to...but refrains.

For the notion of logic....let's consider a problem.
If your existence depended upon a distortion of reality to spare you from dying....
but that distortion would then render your death....
you going to die.

Logic first?....or take the chance and twist what is real, for your sake?

No, I am afraid, you are wrong.

 

[garrydons]

If god is not bound by logic than faith in him/her/it is a subjective belief with no evidence to support it.

God who is unseen is evidenced by the things which are seen.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Mm, no

 

[Thief]

And by definition of non-existence this being would not be, so there wouldn't be anything "bringing himself out of non-existence"?

We finally get to the jest of the topic.

Is it logical to say 'I AM'...when no form can affirm it?

I say....Spirit first.
With spiritual life in the lead....we have hope of an after life.
With substance in the lead there is only the grave.

If you insist that non-existence is a problem....wait til you die....
problem solved.

 

[The high master]

Can God do stuff that does not make sense like a power greater then all power is one

 

[9Westy9]

And by definition of non-existence this being would not be, so there wouldn't be anything "bringing himself out of non-existence"?

but that would be logical . He'd be the strongest non-existing being of all time

 

[InformedIgnorance]

If you suspend logical restraints, no logical argument or conclusion is reliable; that does not mean they are false, only that they are unreliable.

The above refers to an existence unbound by logic, as my argument uses logic, it is unreliable; as is this sentence denoting its unreliability, so it is unreliably, unreliable... though that's unreliable.

The lack of logical reliability means the concepts involved become without any rational basis, they become non rational - does that mean they are irrational? Perhaps, perhaps not - it would be an existence we have no means by which to even attempt to understand, because any attempt to understand is based in rationality - we could have 'faith' it is correct, but there is no way to conduct any examination - because our very minds are founded on rationality.

 

[9Westy9]

If you suspend logical restraints, no logical argument or conclusion is reliable; that does not mean they are false, only that they are unreliable.

The above refers to an existence unbound by logic, as my argument uses logic, it is unreliable; as is this sentence denoting its unreliability, so it is unreliably, unreliable... though that's unreliable.

The lack of logical reliability means the concepts involved become without any rational basis, they become non rational - does that mean they are irrational? Perhaps, perhaps not - it would be an existence we have no means by which to even attempt to understand, because any attempt to understand is based in rationality - we could have 'faith' it is correct, but there is no way to conduct any examination - because our very minds are founded on rationality.

:clap

 

[Heathen Hammer]

If you suspend logical restraints, no logical argument or conclusion is reliable; that does not mean they are false, only that they are unreliable.

The above refers to an existence unbound by logic, as my argument uses logic, it is unreliable; as is this sentence denoting its unreliability, so it is unreliably, unreliable... though that's unreliable.

The lack of logical reliability means the concepts involved become without any rational basis, they become non rational - does that mean they are irrational? Perhaps, perhaps not - it would be an existence we have no means by which to even attempt to understand, because any attempt to understand is based in rationality - we could have 'faith' it is correct, but there is no way to conduct any examination - because our very minds are founded on rationality.

Oh really. If they are irrational, how can they be true, or exist?

If they're not true, they don't signify.

If God doesn't signify, ignore him. He doesn't matter.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

True and False are statements of logic; hence if the entity is not bound by logic then their applicability to it is unreliable.

Perhaps under it is possible for something to be simultaneously true and false, neither true nor false, true and impossible, possible and impossible... While I cannot conceive of any existence where logic cannot be reliably applied (if I could do so I would get a nobel prize), logically speaking it is not impossible that some existence where the true/false paradigm is insufficient might exist (I have previously constructed an extensive logical proof for this only to delete it after realising that any reference to such an existence, even if completely logical is inherently unreliable) - suffice to say that the limitation is theoretical only in so far as we are aware (logic is one of the few domains of human understanding to be so thoroughly tested and 'proved'), given that any domain of human understanding inherits in its foundations the theoretical limitations of human understanding.

Such an existence would be so far from our understanding it is difficult to even think about (because our minds are rational), so while I would not go so far as to say it does not matter I agree that for all intents and purposes it does not merit thinking about it.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Again, though, I wish to hear how an entity can be 'not bounded' by logic. It makes your opening statement taste of begging the question.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I have no idea how.

I just acknowledge it is logically possible that logic may not apply to some existence (the use of the term existence there is something akin to dimension I suppose, just our own existence IS categorised by logic, perhaps other existences are not - I do not know) as logic has been formulated based on human observation and analysis of our experiences within this existence, for more abstract concepts (including such metaphysical concepts as God) which are outside of any experience represented in logic (and as they are outside of our experience thus they may be outside of the ability of the logical framework we have developed to be able to represent), perhaps in such an existence it may be possible that logic does not apply.

However I would personally find such an existence, uncategorised by logic to be highly unlikely, even less likely than the existence of a anthropomorphic god who is aware of our existence.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Hm, so, do you think that in a different dimension, it is possible that the 'laws' of that universe can allow a non-logical framework? Granted I accept the laws can be different, but.. that different?

I guess if we are positing things as far as, say, comic books take 'em, maybe, but, how would such a being then impinge upon our universe and begin lording it over us? Kinda like trying to play an NTSC signal on a PAL television. If this God exists in some nonsensical goduniverse I don't see how it would manifest anything here.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Why not? I would however suggest that if it were able to effect our existence then it would mean that it is likely that we would be able effect it's existence to some extent had we the appropriate knowledge and technology... though since that is logical it is an unreliable assumption X_X

But I think you are looking down on most comic books... Unless you are talking about the ones with absurd time paradoxes and so forth, in which case yeah that is about right. XD

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Looking down on comic books? Au contraire! :beach: