Darth Dane

Yes, if God is both working within and without Time(space is included), how can we logically say anything about God?

It is easier, one part of God is logical(within Time/space) another part is illogical(without Time/space)

Yin/yang?

God is the unmovable mover?

God above Time/space is unmovable
God below Time/space is movable


Because we can only logically talk about part of God, we will have a harder time finding common ground. Because what one find logically another finds illogical. And so the lines get blurred.






DD - Love & Laughter

xorbie

Actually, I don't see time as at all inherently necessary for logic to exist. The "if ____ then _____ " has nothing to do with time, it is a logical thing. This means that the statement "if p then q" does NOT mean that if p is true this somehow causes p to be true, just that if p is true then q is also true. q might actually cause p for all we know.

If it helps, you can just rewrite p --> q as ~p v q which is basically the same thing as far as I can tell.

The_Unknown_Banana

Yes, but in my eyes that could be classed as trickery. In any case, whatever solution he comes up with, we could then say "ok, now try it again without doing it that way". This is assuming there are a limited amount of ways of doing illogical things, but if we can define the situation I am pretty sure we could define something which even God couldn't achieve. (Again, within the limits of the definition, and without deception)

Fpr instance, could God lose his omnipotence completely and totally, whilst at the same time retaining it? (Doing both at the same time is implied, and I am assuming that time travel would not be used so that there are 2 instances of God at the same time)

Can God define a scenario which would involve an impossibility for him? Whether the answer is yes or no, it is detrimental to the idea of his omnipotence (without logical constraints anyway).

beastmaster

There is no such thing as "logical impossibility!" It's pure fundie-babble.

Logic is a methodology for ordering human reasoning, drawing conclusions from premises.

But logic does not order phenomena.

When a quark behaves in unexpected ways, it is useless to wave your finger at it and shout "Stop! You are being illogical!"

If logic is powerless to confine the activities of the natural world, why should we expect logic to bind the supernatural?

Infidelettante

Thank you:notworthy thank you:notworthy thank you:notworthy
I have often thought to myself when reading IIDB "logic is only words, it doesn't say anything about what is."

xorbie

Well it is true that logic does not dictate any natural phenomenon, but only because no scientific principles can be used in a logical proof, as they are all inductive. If hypothetically some scientific principle were True, then nothing could ever disobey it. Ever. Logical impossibilities do not occur in nature. Ever.

SignOfTheCross

I believe this paradox is old and debunked. I read this on an atheistic website, but they still use the logic to teach others.

Peace,
SOTC

The_Unknown_Banana

As I said, I don't think the argument was originally intended to prove God's non-existance, but it was more to find out about God's possible properties. I don't think using this argument to prove God's non-existance would be ideal.

Originally, theists debated over such things, in an attempt not only to find out God's possible attributes, but also to find out whether Greek philosophy could actually be applied to the christian religion.

I personally don't see how you can just claim something to be outside the constraints of logic, though I understand that logic is from us mere humans' perspective. Does a quark really defy logic? (Is randomness not logical?) Or is it more likely that we either cannot predict or understand their behaviour? Bearing in mind I know a minimal amount on the subject :P

ScumDog

It is a way to prove the nonexistence of the omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent god that many christians profess their beliefs to. If attributes of a being contradict eachother, and therefore could not exist, a being with these attributes could not exist. People think it is debunked, but it is not. The only way out of it is to concede that the god is not omnipotent, but just "very powerful".

luvluv

If this were the case, then there could be no arguments for the existence or non-existence of God, and we'd all basically have to close up shop and go home.

If God isn't bound by logic, we'd have absolutely no ability to assess the probability of his existence.

The argument from evil? Gone. (It's logically impossible for both evil and God to exist. So what? God can DO the logically impossible.)

The teleological argument? Gone. (It's logically impossible to have a design without a designer. So what? God can DO the logically impossible. He can have created all life by BOTH evolution AND special creation. Logically impossible you say? Well guess what?)

Furthermore, God could both EXIST and NOT EXIST! (Logically impossible? Sure is. What's your point?)

You get the idea...