If You Could Ask God ONE QUESTION

[mmnin]

appolose said:

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.

 

No, there are proofs.  Proofs usually deal with specific scenarios, sometimes general in scope, but they establish the environment from which the proof is speaking before proceeding because if you do not have a base set of rules and declarations to start from, then there would be nowhere to go with the proof.  A proof would deal in a subset of logic.  I'm not saying that our logic is one entity either, but can also be broken down into its own subsets of logic.  I never said it wasn't "possible" to provide the big picture.  Certainly if what logic we understand were a subset of the overall logic then we could come into contact with aspects that are condusive to the overall set logic.  So it is possible to deduce and hypothesize about the overall set logic based on what logics we can understand, but there isn't a guarantee that we will not be missing key aspects not known to us or using qualities that are simply a trait of the confinement of our own logic.  Certainly though if we see an aspect that would structure our current logic into a smaller set, then that aspect is a limiting factor and we can possible deduce that the overall logic set would not be limited to its confines.

With that i'm taking a break, but please continue if you want.  All this stuff helps me to refine my thoughts and find possible errors.  I'll check it out later.