If You Could Ask God ONE QUESTION

[mmnin]

appolose said:

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.

 

While I'm not stating that one can know what logic is not available to us, that does not mean that it is impossible to deduce a generic case that there exists logic beyond what we know.  That "statement" is well within our logic as here it is, it exists.  If you could see numbers in a group from 1 to 11 and all you knew were 1 to 11, you may not know about 12 or 0 or -5, but that does not mean that you cannot think of the possibility of some number greater than 11 or less than 1.  The logic dealing with the possibility of existence is definitely within our logic base, but that does not mean that we have the ability to know all that it consists of or the means to understand it even if we did know what it consisted of.  Just the aspect that logic could have an infinite amount of subsets of which there is most likely an infinite amount of subsets outside of our collection of subsets shows that we would at least not be capable of knowing all that makes up the logical spectrum since we are mortal and will not have the time or capacity needed to understand an infinite number of subsets in its entirety.

While there may not seem a way to "prove" it as of yet and may never be.  It still is a possibility.  If we knew all that there is to know then there wouldn't be many people searching for solutions to problems.  And you'll have to excuse me, I think my mind is escaping me.   In fact, I'm not entirely sure I caught your whole argument because of the fact, but I think I roughly responded to it.