If You Could Ask God ONE QUESTION

[appolose]

mmnin said:

appolose said:

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 or using qualities that are simply a trait of the confinement of our own logic.  Certainly though that if we see an aspect that would limit our current logic knowledge into a smaller set, then that aspect is a limiting factor and that the over logic set would not be limited to its confines.

What I meant is I was likening your reasoning to the impossible "proof of no proof".  And the distinction you're making of our logic lacking certain aspects or qualities, as opposed to God's complete logic, is the same in that it relies on logic (our logic) to make such a distinction, and is ultimately a self-defeating supposition, despite your proposal that our logic can, sometimes, relay information about overall logic, as you noted that there is no guarantee that what we have is all that is there to be taken into account.  For if, indeed, our logic can lack key elements, then so would it be that our logic might lack a key element when it concludes that is lacks key elements.  So the argument must be false in that it asserts it's own falseness.

Logic must be all encompassing (by logic, I mean noncontradiction), for otherwise, it would follow that logic is still all there is.