Gods logical nature?
- Thread starter the
- Start date
Yeah, I think so.
I believe we get everything we create for ourselves and that it is the God in each of us that facilitates this process.
What we get is often not what our ego wants but it is always exactly what we need.
I think, being infinitely compassionate, God has created a very logical theatre of subjective experience.
But I do believe that there is a beyond-the-beyond, an absolute realm, where everything is completely deciphered and logic has little utility.
I believe we get everything we create for ourselves and that it is the God in each of us that facilitates this process.
What we get is often not what our ego wants but it is always exactly what we need.
I think, being infinitely compassionate, God has created a very logical theatre of subjective experience.
But I do believe that there is a beyond-the-beyond, an absolute realm, where everything is completely deciphered and logic has little utility.
Shaqie
The Grandmaster in Disguise
God is beyond understand logic i would go as far as say that God has no logic.....not as we label it anyways. And its not in the pronunciation if thats what your thinking. Obviously to explain our definition of our logic follows. Is it a systematic action...ive played a few puzzles that are suppose to improve logic or whatnot...and the principles of most the game had one common dominator, which was equivalence.
Anyhow...I really feel like i cant even right the rest becuase im bit dozy of codeine....ill post a bit more later.
Anyhow...I really feel like i cant even right the rest becuase im bit dozy of codeine....ill post a bit more later.
I don't like saying it(makes me feel funny), but it should be noted that if God doesn't act logically or predictably it makes reasonable discussion nearly impossible. I do think it's easy to say that at least what we know from scripture God appears to have both logical actions and motives.
Well that's true. But also I think that God would be so advanced and vast that human logic wouldn't be able to encompass it.
Imagine modern desktop computers. They work based on logic, but understanding how they work is not clear without aid and being able to understand all the myriad parts. Imagine how much harder to understand God would be, being so much more vast, and beyond examination.
It'd be logical but there's no way of telling how that logic pans out.
I'm not trying to limit God to our fallible nature, it's simply that If you say God is not bound by logic then a lot of the common understanding of God starts to fall apart. Like take the freewill/predestination debate. If God can indeed make a square circle or stone so large that he cannot lift but also simultaneously lift it. Then God should be able to simply wave his hand and bring every soul into heaven without invalidating them in any way, and the only reason he wouldn't do that is because he simply doesn't want to. Or if you take it a step further why couldn't God give us both free will and world without sin.
And I agree, we don't always understand God's logic, but most of us don't understand the logic of a fifth grader, our next door neighbors and best friends. That probably has more to do with us then God.
It's a bit of weird conversation, when you talk about the limitations of God, I've only ever accepted the Idea that God is limited to his own nature, he can not lie because his nature is truth, he must love us because his nature is love. That's what logic is, it's a set of rules and limits that define how we think and act, in this case God is logical because everything he does is governed by his own nature(the opposite is how humans govern themselves by things outside of their nature.)
I think there is a huge difference between what is possible logically and what is preferred logically.
What I mean to say by that is similar to our MBTI types we have all the functions equally and all are equally valid, but we differ in our preferences.
The illogical and the absurd exists in equal measure and are not so easily explained away.
Edit: Let me also clarify a usage of the word 'logical.' Logic is technically a field of study for reasoning. We find it used as a suffix in many other fields of study '-ology.'
We tend to use 'logical' as being synonymous with 'reasonable.' Illogical would be more equivalent to 'unreasonable' or 'irrational reasoning' because illogical is itself an illogical word if we consider it to be against the field of study for reasoning.
I read an author describe paradoxes as the prime numbers of philosophy and I believe that to be absolutely spot on if you understand how important the prime numbers are to mathematics.
Gödel's immense contribution to the field of mathematical logic rests on the power of a paradox and the implications it had towards the foundations of mathematics.
Edit2: Also here's his answer to your question:
What I mean to say by that is similar to our MBTI types we have all the functions equally and all are equally valid, but we differ in our preferences.
The illogical and the absurd exists in equal measure and are not so easily explained away.
Edit: Let me also clarify a usage of the word 'logical.' Logic is technically a field of study for reasoning. We find it used as a suffix in many other fields of study '-ology.'
We tend to use 'logical' as being synonymous with 'reasonable.' Illogical would be more equivalent to 'unreasonable' or 'irrational reasoning' because illogical is itself an illogical word if we consider it to be against the field of study for reasoning.
I read an author describe paradoxes as the prime numbers of philosophy and I believe that to be absolutely spot on if you understand how important the prime numbers are to mathematics.
Gödel's immense contribution to the field of mathematical logic rests on the power of a paradox and the implications it had towards the foundations of mathematics.
Edit2: Also here's his answer to your question:
Last edited:
[MENTION=1848]Barnabas[/MENTION]
Well regarding the stone paradox, if God is infinitely powerful then such a stone would have to be infinitely heavy, which is logically ridiculous.
When you have something of that magnitude, things like 'lifting' or 'moving' become absurd. It would be like saying to lift the sun, or lift the universe, except it'd be even more ludicrous. How do you lift the sun? It's travelling through space! From where do you lift it??
It's an absurd concept.
Besides, if he made something that he couldn't lift, it'd be so massive that it would suck up the rest of the universe.
Well regarding the stone paradox, if God is infinitely powerful then such a stone would have to be infinitely heavy, which is logically ridiculous.
When you have something of that magnitude, things like 'lifting' or 'moving' become absurd. It would be like saying to lift the sun, or lift the universe, except it'd be even more ludicrous. How do you lift the sun? It's travelling through space! From where do you lift it??
It's an absurd concept.
Besides, if he made something that he couldn't lift, it'd be so massive that it would suck up the rest of the universe.
[MENTION=1848]Barnabas[/MENTION]
Additionally lifting is relative.
If you had the heaviest thing in the universe, the size of a basket ball and of incredible mass, and the strongest man possible, standing on the surface of the earth, and the heaviest thing by some magic doesn't destroy everything with its incredible mass:
Let's say the strong man tries to lift this heaviest object off the ground, but he can't actually move it. But let's say that what does happen is that when he tries to lift the object, he pushes away the earth. Therefore to nearby observers on the earth it would appear the man has lifted the object, but actually it hasn't moved - the entire earth moved.
What about that, hmm?
Additionally lifting is relative.
If you had the heaviest thing in the universe, the size of a basket ball and of incredible mass, and the strongest man possible, standing on the surface of the earth, and the heaviest thing by some magic doesn't destroy everything with its incredible mass:
Let's say the strong man tries to lift this heaviest object off the ground, but he can't actually move it. But let's say that what does happen is that when he tries to lift the object, he pushes away the earth. Therefore to nearby observers on the earth it would appear the man has lifted the object, but actually it hasn't moved - the entire earth moved.
What about that, hmm?
I'm aware that it's an absurd example, it's also the most common one brought up in talks about God and logic so I figured it would be a good grounding point. It's the second example that's important and speaks about the character and nature of God.
It depends how God is defined. If God is traditionally defined as the one perfect being, then he cannot contradict himself by definition.
But if he cannot contradict himself, then he is always logical. An illogical God would sometimes act contrary to truth, and so would not be perfect, and so would not be God.
But if he cannot contradict himself, then he is always logical. An illogical God would sometimes act contrary to truth, and so would not be perfect, and so would not be God.
This represents one of the differences between some of the eastern concepts and more Abrahamic concepts. Some of the former don't associate God with good, so much as something that doesn't have much of a constraint. In fact, many mystical traditions try to portray God as beyond both good/evil and logic. The two constraints that we usually consider most basic. Presumably to some, this is the greatest conceivable being (in a suitable sense -- obviously not a logical or ethical sense), because it is simply with no constraints whatsoever and is usually something like synonymous with Being.
The version many Christian philosophers would defend can't do non-good and can't contradict logic, and this isn't viewed as a constraint so much as a perfection. (Although, I have to say, it does raise the question: why create creatures who are prone to sin ... the usual defense that this is permissible because you're gifting them freedom doesn't apply, because Christian theology tends to often say God creates the world freely, so clearly he has some idea of free will without needing to be able to contradict his goodness by sinning.)
The version many Christian philosophers would defend can't do non-good and can't contradict logic, and this isn't viewed as a constraint so much as a perfection. (Although, I have to say, it does raise the question: why create creatures who are prone to sin ... the usual defense that this is permissible because you're gifting them freedom doesn't apply, because Christian theology tends to often say God creates the world freely, so clearly he has some idea of free will without needing to be able to contradict his goodness by sinning.)
Depends on the conception of god you are using. My understanding of God, which falls into a Judaeo-christian classification, would say no, he isn't bound by logic necessarily. However, I do believe that he would act within the bounds of logic as it is something very fundamental to the world he created. I think this must be based in some reasoning he used, and so likely reflects his own actions/thoughts.