If You Could Ask God ONE QUESTION

[appolose]

mmnin said:

appolose said:

I hesitated to use bound, for I do not think that correct.  And I can agree with you that God might embody logic.  But it is with that that I find God "unable" to do absurd or meaningless things, in that a meaningless "thing" cannot be done because it does not exist.  To say God cannot do what isn't is limiting; it's definitive, as the alternative says nothing (and thus is not limiting).  Also, I think it false to say that there is "our logic" and then there is "God's logic".  There is no such distinction, for logic is simply non-contradiction.  One might say that we don't always use logic correctly or get it wrong occasionally, but that does not imply there is a different logic to be had.  Furthermore, the argument "God does not have our logic.  This action a contradiction.  Therefore, God can do this action" is using "our" logic again to prove our logic isn't the highest form of logic, and thus defeats itself (which is logical).

 

Actually I've been saying that "logic" or truth is possibly relative to the environment in which it is applied, and if it is relative, then there are an infinite many number of subsets to which can be in the overall set of logic.  I am saying that while our logic may be a subset of the overall set of logic, with God possibly being the whole set of logic, our subset would not equate the set since there are many logical environments that exist that we do not know about.

 

Which would be another usage of "our" logic (and would be, then, self defeating); By saying our logic cannot give the big picture (as it were) or equate to the whole of logic, and then saying this thus allows God to perform what would be a contradiction for us is to apply our logic, which could not be trusted.  It's essentially like giving a proof that there are no proofs.