Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

God's Coherence w/Logic

Ad_Infinitum
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 6:24:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This question is kind of a poke at a particular statement I often hear made by Christians. Also, however, I believe it presents an important philosophical question. So, here we go.

Many Christians say that God is so powerful that he does not have to cohere to logic. If something doesn't cohere to logic then does that make it, by definition, illogical?
dricedow
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 12:13:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 6:24:15 PM, Ad_Infinitum wrote:
This question is kind of a poke at a particular statement I often hear made by Christians. Also, however, I believe it presents an important philosophical question. So, here we go.

Many Christians say that God is so powerful that he does not have to cohere to logic. If something doesn't cohere to logic then does that make it, by definition, illogical?

Yes. Since the Biblical worldview alone can explain the existence of logic, the statement is false. For example, the law of non-contradiction:
(Biblical) God is truth. (John 14:6)
God cannot deny himself. (2 Tim 2:13)
Therefore, the truth cannot deny (or contradict) itself.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 8:31:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/15/2011 12:13:03 AM, dricedow wrote:
At 6/12/2011 6:24:15 PM, Ad_Infinitum wrote:
This question is kind of a poke at a particular statement I often hear made by Christians. Also, however, I believe it presents an important philosophical question. So, here we go.

Many Christians say that God is so powerful that he does not have to cohere to logic. If something doesn't cohere to logic then does that make it, by definition, illogical?

Yes. Since the Biblical worldview alone can explain the existence of logic, the statement is false. For example, the law of non-contradiction:
(Biblical) God is truth. (John 14:6)
God cannot deny himself. (2 Tim 2:13)
Therefore, the truth cannot deny (or contradict) itself.

"existence of logic"?

What exactly do you think logic is? What does this statement mean?

Further you seem to be straining at the meaning of those passages - this is cafeteria Christianity at it's finest. This is similar to the people who found the 'bible code'.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 8:39:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/15/2011 8:31:55 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 6/15/2011 12:13:03 AM, dricedow wrote:
At 6/12/2011 6:24:15 PM, Ad_Infinitum wrote:
This question is kind of a poke at a particular statement I often hear made by Christians. Also, however, I believe it presents an important philosophical question. So, here we go.

Many Christians say that God is so powerful that he does not have to cohere to logic. If something doesn't cohere to logic then does that make it, by definition, illogical?

Yes. Since the Biblical worldview alone can explain the existence of logic, the statement is false. For example, the law of non-contradiction:
(Biblical) God is truth. (John 14:6)
God cannot deny himself. (2 Tim 2:13)
Therefore, the truth cannot deny (or contradict) itself.

"existence of logic"?

What exactly do you think logic is? What does this statement mean?

Further you seem to be straining at the meaning of those passages - this is cafeteria Christianity at it's finest. This is similar to the people who found the 'bible code'.

At a guess I think he is referring to TAG
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 9:15:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/15/2011 8:39:37 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/15/2011 8:31:55 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 6/15/2011 12:13:03 AM, dricedow wrote:
At 6/12/2011 6:24:15 PM, Ad_Infinitum wrote:
This question is kind of a poke at a particular statement I often hear made by Christians. Also, however, I believe it presents an important philosophical question. So, here we go.

Many Christians say that God is so powerful that he does not have to cohere to logic. If something doesn't cohere to logic then does that make it, by definition, illogical?

Yes. Since the Biblical worldview alone can explain the existence of logic, the statement is false. For example, the law of non-contradiction:
(Biblical) God is truth. (John 14:6)
God cannot deny himself. (2 Tim 2:13)
Therefore, the truth cannot deny (or contradict) itself.

"existence of logic"?

What exactly do you think logic is? What does this statement mean?

Further you seem to be straining at the meaning of those passages - this is cafeteria Christianity at it's finest. This is similar to the people who found the 'bible code'.

At a guess I think he is referring to TAG

That's my guess too.
dricedow
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 6:23:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/15/2011 8:31:55 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 6/15/2011 12:13:03 AM, dricedow wrote:
At 6/12/2011 6:24:15 PM, Ad_Infinitum wrote:
This question is kind of a poke at a particular statement I often hear made by Christians. Also, however, I believe it presents an important philosophical question. So, here we go.

Many Christians say that God is so powerful that he does not have to cohere to logic. If something doesn't cohere to logic then does that make it, by definition, illogical?

Yes. Since the Biblical worldview alone can explain the existence of logic, the statement is false. For example, the law of non-contradiction:
(Biblical) God is truth. (John 14:6)
God cannot deny himself. (2 Tim 2:13)
Therefore, the truth cannot deny (or contradict) itself.

"existence of logic"?

What exactly do you think logic is? What does this statement mean?

Further you seem to be straining at the meaning of those passages - this is cafeteria Christianity at it's finest. This is similar to the people who found the 'bible code'.

Correct reasoning.

Cafeteria Christianity - irrelevant. Do you have any rational reasons for your point of view?
dricedow
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 6:25:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/15/2011 8:39:37 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/15/2011 8:31:55 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 6/15/2011 12:13:03 AM, dricedow wrote:
At 6/12/2011 6:24:15 PM, Ad_Infinitum wrote:
This question is kind of a poke at a particular statement I often hear made by Christians. Also, however, I believe it presents an important philosophical question. So, here we go.

Many Christians say that God is so powerful that he does not have to cohere to logic. If something doesn't cohere to logic then does that make it, by definition, illogical?

Yes. Since the Biblical worldview alone can explain the existence of logic, the statement is false. For example, the law of non-contradiction:
(Biblical) God is truth. (John 14:6)
God cannot deny himself. (2 Tim 2:13)
Therefore, the truth cannot deny (or contradict) itself.

"existence of logic"?

What exactly do you think logic is? What does this statement mean?

Further you seem to be straining at the meaning of those passages - this is cafeteria Christianity at it's finest. This is similar to the people who found the 'bible code'.

At a guess I think he is referring to TAG

What is TAG? (I couldn't find it on a search)
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 8:23:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
dricedow wrote: "Correct reasoning."

So then what do you mean by suggesting that it 'exists'?

dricedow wrote: "Cafeteria Christianity - irrelevant. Do you have any rational reasons for your point of view?"

Yes - the fact that you picked various passages to support your point, when a plain reading of those passages *in context* do not support your contention.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2011 8:25:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/15/2011 6:25:27 PM, dricedow wrote:

What is TAG? (I couldn't find it on a search)

Transcendental Argument for God - which was popularized by bahnsen. It's supposed to be a transcendental argument, but it isn't. It's an abductive argument.

It's popularized by a branch of apologetics known as presuppositionalism, which IMO, is internally incoherent to the same degree as logical positivism.
dricedow
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2011 12:34:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/16/2011 8:23:54 AM, Meatros wrote:
dricedow wrote: "Correct reasoning."

So then what do you mean by suggesting that it 'exists'?

From a materialist point of view, where did logic/correct reasoning come from, since they are non-material?

dricedow wrote: "Cafeteria Christianity - irrelevant. Do you have any rational reasons for your point of view?"

Yes - the fact that you picked various passages to support your point, when a plain reading of those passages *in context* do not support your contention.

John 14:6 -"Jesus said to him, I am the Way, and the Truth..."
Is Jesus claiming to be the truth?

2 Tim 2:13 -"...He[God] cannot deny Himself. "

These passages seem pretty plain. If the context suggests I interpret them differently, then please explain it to me.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2011 3:22:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would say that the existence of God is quite logical actually. Depends on your perception of the information available to you.

I would say the religious dogma and corresponding versions of God that some religions believe is indeed illogical though. But again, that's only my personal logic based on my individual perception of the information i have acquired in my life. I could be wrong, but so could anyone else.

To each his own logic. To each his own judge. To each his own God.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2011 1:20:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/17/2011 12:34:08 AM, dricedow wrote:
At 6/16/2011 8:23:54 AM, Meatros wrote:
dricedow wrote: "Correct reasoning."

So then what do you mean by suggesting that it 'exists'?

From a materialist point of view, where did logic/correct reasoning come from, since they are non-material?


This depends on what you mean - you seem to be implying that logic exists outside of human minds. If logic is "not material" then what is it? A magical substance?

dricedow wrote: "Cafeteria Christianity - irrelevant. Do you have any rational reasons for your point of view?"

Yes - the fact that you picked various passages to support your point, when a plain reading of those passages *in context* do not support your contention.

John 14:6 -"Jesus said to him, I am the Way, and the Truth..."
Is Jesus claiming to be the truth?

2 Tim 2:13 -"...He[God] cannot deny Himself. "

These passages seem pretty plain. If the context suggests I interpret them differently, then please explain it to me.

again, you seem to be implying that God is talking about logical systems, presumably aristotelian logic. I don't see any reason to cherry pick these versus as indicating that God is directly responsible for the law of non contradiction, for example. Also would such an interpretation mean hat God was powerless again other logical systems (fuzzy logic, parasympathetic logic) or are those tools of Satan?
dricedow
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2011 7:49:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/18/2011 1:20:39 PM, Meatros wrote:
At 6/17/2011 12:34:08 AM, dricedow wrote:
At 6/16/2011 8:23:54 AM, Meatros wrote:
dricedow wrote: "Correct reasoning."

So then what do you mean by suggesting that it 'exists'?

From a materialist point of view, where did logic/correct reasoning come from, since they are non-material?


This depends on what you mean - you seem to be implying that logic exists outside of human minds. If logic is "not material" then what is it? A magical substance?

Yes, correct reasoning must exist outside the human mind. Since people make mistakes, there must be a *correct* standard.

dricedow wrote: "Cafeteria Christianity - irrelevant. Do you have any rational reasons for your point of view?"

Yes - the fact that you picked various passages to support your point, when a plain reading of those passages *in context* do not support your contention.

John 14:6 -"Jesus said to him, I am the Way, and the Truth..."
Is Jesus claiming to be the truth?

2 Tim 2:13 -"...He[God] cannot deny Himself. "

These passages seem pretty plain. If the context suggests I interpret them differently, then please explain it to me.

again, you seem to be implying that God is talking about logical systems, presumably aristotelian logic. I don't see any reason to cherry pick these versus as indicating that God is directly responsible for the law of non contradiction, for example. Also would such an interpretation mean hat God was powerless again other logical systems (fuzzy logic, parasympathetic logic) or are those tools of Satan?

What I am saying is outside of an orderly creator, correct reasoning is a myth. Without order, operational science would be impossible, because the "laws" of nature could change. This includes logic.
Do you agree that correct reasoning exists? If so, how do you know that correct reasoning won't change in the future?
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 7:07:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
dricedow wrote: "Yes, correct reasoning must exist outside the human mind. Since people make mistakes, there must be a *correct* standard."

This makes no sense - reasoning occurs *within* minds. What on earth do you mean by suggesting that it has to occur outside of the human mind?

As to your non sequitur - people do make mistakes in reasoning, that doesn't mean that the axioms in various systems of logic are not definitional - in other words, just because humans make errors in reasoning doesn't mean they always make errors. Further, it doesn't mean that there was a mistake in reasoning with respect to the law of identity, which holds for various systems of logic (but not all).

So, what *is* logic? You've told me what it is not (ie, material), please tell me what it is.

dricedow wrote: "What I am saying is outside of an orderly creator, correct reasoning is a myth. "

Please demonstrate this through a proper deductive argument. This seems to beg several questions.

dricedow wrote: "Without order, operational science would be impossible, because the "laws" of nature could change. "

And they very well might change. However, we are pragmatically justified in accepting them for the moment because they work.

On the flip side, there is nothing that would screw with that 'order', such as, I don't know, a God that interferes with nature through miracles and such. So if you are a theist you are in an EVEN worse position then the naturalist.

dricedow wrote: "This includes logic."

No, actually it doesn't, since logic is conceptual. True, we get the ideas from nature, just like we do for math, but we extrapolate that abstractly.

dricedow wrote: "Do you agree that correct reasoning exists? "

I'm not sure what you mean by reasoning in this context. You seem to be badly screwing up Bahnsen's arguments, so I'll withhold an answer until you clarify.

dricedow wrote: "If so, how do you know that correct reasoning won't change in the future?"

Why do I have to know this? Seems to me that I'm justified in the assumption based on pragmaticism, or to put simply, because it works. When it stops working, I am no longer justified in it.

Please demonstrate through a logical deductive argument that:
1. We must know that correct reasoning won't change in the future.
2. That correct reasoning won't change in the future.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 6:56:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 6:24:15 PM, Ad_Infinitum wrote:
Many Christians say that God is so powerful that he does not have to cohere to logic. If something doesn't cohere to logic then does that make it, by definition, illogical?

Logic is subjective, is it not?
So God doesn't have to adhere to Human 'logic', He has perfect logic.

...not that humans are very logical anyway.

At 6/12/2011 6:34:34 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Do many Christians say that?

*strokes beard thoughtfully*

You don't have a beard, so what are you stroking, eh?
^_-
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
dricedow
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 12:37:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 7:07:50 AM, Meatros wrote:
dricedow wrote: "Yes, correct reasoning must exist outside the human mind. Since people make mistakes, there must be a *correct* standard."

This makes no sense - reasoning occurs *within* minds. What on earth do you mean by suggesting that it has to occur outside of the human mind?

I didn't say occur.

As to your non sequitur - people do make mistakes in reasoning, that doesn't mean that the axioms in various systems of logic are not definitional - in other words, just because humans make errors in reasoning doesn't mean they always make errors. Further, it doesn't mean that there was a mistake in reasoning with respect to the law of identity, which holds for various systems of logic (but not all).

So, what *is* logic? You've told me what it is not (ie, material), please tell me what it is.

Sorry, thought I'd put this in a previous post. Correct or Rational Reasoning

dricedow wrote: "What I am saying is outside of an orderly creator, correct reasoning is a myth. "

Please demonstrate this through a proper deductive argument. This seems to beg several questions.

dricedow wrote: "Without order, operational science would be impossible, because the "laws" of nature could change. "

And they very well might change. However, we are pragmatically justified in accepting them for the moment because they work.

But if they change, doesn't that make them wrong?

On the flip side, there is nothing that would screw with that 'order', such as, I don't know, a God that interferes with nature through miracles and such. So if you are a theist you are in an EVEN worse position then the naturalist.

Please define miracles. What do mean by "interferes with nature"?

dricedow wrote: "This includes logic."

No, actually it doesn't, since logic is conceptual. True, we get the ideas from nature, just like we do for math, but we extrapolate that abstractly.

dricedow wrote: "Do you agree that correct reasoning exists? "

I'm not sure what you mean by reasoning in this context. You seem to be badly screwing up Bahnsen's arguments, so I'll withhold an answer until you clarify.

Sorry, I'm a Coffee House Christian. I'm not sure which of his arguments you're referring to. However, his wikipedia picture reminds me of Will Ferrell :)

dricedow wrote: "If so, how do you know that correct reasoning won't change in the future?"

Why do I have to know this? Seems to me that I'm justified in the assumption based on pragmaticism, or to put simply, because it works. When it stops working, I am no longer justified in it.

Please demonstrate through a logical deductive argument that:
Why? It seems that your ultimate standard for reasoning is "what works". However, you are asking me to prove my statements using a different standard. Why the inconsistency?

1. We must know that correct reasoning won't change in the future.
By definition: If it changed, then it would not have been correct.

2. That correct reasoning won't change in the future.
Correct reasoning is a reflection of God's mind.
He is immutable.

Is it possible for the law of non-contradiction to be shown false someday?
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 7:01:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
dricedow wrote:"I didn't say occur."

Okay, then what do you mean when you say it 'exists' outside of minds?

dricedow wrote:"Sorry, thought I'd put this in a previous post. Correct or Rational Reasoning"

So it's a function of a mind then?

dricedow wrote:"But if they change, doesn't that make them wrong?"

No, it means that they have changed - it doesn't mean that the past was 'wrong'. I'm not even sure what you mean here. Please be specific.

dricedow wrote:"Please define miracles. What do mean by "interferes with nature"?"

A miracle is a supernatural interference with nature. An interference with nature is when something supernatural upsets what we consider natural laws and facts.

dricedow wrote:"Sorry, I'm a Coffee House Christian. I'm not sure which of his arguments you're referring to. However, his wikipedia picture reminds me of Will Ferrell :)"

I'm vaguely aware of a myspace group called 'coffee house christians' or something to that effect. If this is not what you mean, then please explain.

In any event, what you are flirting around with is that God is necessary for logic and that logic is universal and absolute. Correct? If so, this view is false on many levels, but I don't want to get into it if this is *not* what you actually believe, because I would be arguing against a strawman.

dricedow wrote:"Why? It seems that your ultimate standard for reasoning is "what works". However, you are asking me to prove my statements using a different standard. Why the inconsistency?"

You didn't answer my question - I asked why we have to know this. In other words, why must we have certainty with regard to the uniformity of nature? You need to support this in order to continue your position, since my appeal to pragmatics gives us a reason in which to trust our reasoning.

In other words, I have backed up my justification of using reason, logic, and the uniformity of nature without an appeal to God. If you question this, then you have to provide an argument against it. If you don't, then don't. I'm basically calling you on where I perceive your argument to be going. If you want to drop it now, that's fine.

dricedow wrote:"By definition: If it changed, then it would not have been correct."

This doesn't answer the question - this is just a statement of (potential) fact. If it change, it changes. Why must we be certain that it won't change, in order to be pragmatically justified in using it?

dricedow wrote:"Correct reasoning is a reflection of God's mind.
He is immutable."


Leaving aside, for the moment, the incoherency of this position, I have to ask, on what basis can you say that God will remain immutable? Because he has in the past?

Also, if you are a christian and you believe the bible, you already have a defeater for assuming that nature is uniform. God interacts with his creation by suspending, changing, and interfering with nature's uniformity. One example is the stopping of the Sun in one of Joshua's battles. What basis do you have that God will not interfere in nature again? Say by causing earth quakes or three hours of darkness when Jesus supernaturally resurrected from the dead? Or how about the power of prayer changing the natural course of events?

So not only have you fallen into the same begging the question trap that you would accuse naturalists of falling into, I have presented you with a counter argument for assuming that God would allow nature to act uniformity. My final point is to ask, why are you assuming God would keep nature uniform or ensure that we have correct reasoning? Aren't we 'fallen creatures'?

dricedow wrote:"Is it possible for the law of non-contradiction to be shown false someday?"

It depends on what system of logic you use. Not all systems of logic adhere to the law of non-contradiction. So please be specific, are you talking Aristotelian logic? Certainly para-consistent logic does not necessarily hold that the law of non contradiction is true.

I'm going to bluntly ask: Do you believe that the laws of logic are necessary? Do you believe that the laws of logic depend on God?