I've got my own thread about this (well, based on whether God can do things that are logically impossible, but I use the heavy rock as an example).
My solution is that God can create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift, but he can lift it anyway.
If I remember correctly, that´s the very solution I myself offered in your thread, as well. And also in my response to Naroia.
So I really doubt that God would be bound by logic.
Your claim in your response:
"we first have to decide whether we want this discussion, the topic and our arguments be constrained to the logically possible, or whether we allow for the illogical.
(Personally I´m all for the first, simply because the latter allows for all sorts of nonsensical assumptions and claims. On top, the fact that we typically argue with means that imply the acceptance of logic as the limiting framework - we use words like "because", "since", "hence", "either - or" etc. - doesn´t leave much doubt that this is a mutually accepted premise)."
Seems to me like you are just arbitrarily accepting that we are going to limit the discussion to the logically possible, and in a discussion about whether God can do the logically IMpossible, that sounds troublesome. In essence, you are saying, "If we assume that God doesn't do the logically impossible, then we can show that God doesn't do the logically impossible. Therefore, God doesn't do the logically impossible."
No, that´s not quite right, I think.
In the following paragraph I (briefly, though) discussed the alternative:
1.If your answer were "no", nothing could be shown to be a contradiction - because "contradiction" is depending on logic. If we allow for the illogical there aren´t any contradictions (and your attempt to point out a contradiction would be moot): God could lift a rock he can´t lift, God could simultaneously exist and not exist etc.etc.
I didn´t offer that option just for rhethorical purposes.
However, I am not sure that anyone who picks this option has really thought through the consequences.
For me, it´s not so much about what "God is bound by", but whether we really want to suspend logic in our considerations and discussions. Do we really consider "logic" to be a limitation? Personally, I don´t.
Once we allow the logically impossible to be part of that which has to be considered possible, our considerations have lost any ground - simply because logic is the axiomatic framework of our thinking.
Once we allow the logically impossible to be part of that which has to be considered possible, we must suspend logic altogether. Any meaningful discussion of "God" would immediately be obsolete, any nonsense could be claimed.
If you really decide you want to go down that route, I must wonder why you even attempt to make your arguments in questions concerning God look logical. A logical chain is as strong as its weakest link - hence, once I have to expect illogicality to be the solution, I won´t even bother for the rest of the chain to be logical.
In short: If you want to be the logically impossible to be included in that which we consider possible, let´s start talking nonsense right away.
And the only reason that you provide to take that particular position is that to take the other position would be troublesome. But bear in mind that you are a human who IS bound by logic, so of course it would be troublesome. But if God is not bound by logic, then it wouldn't be troublesome to him whatsoever.
Well, "troublesome" doesn´t appear to cover the depth of the consequences.
On the other hand, I could easily celebrate the liberation that comes with the license to talk nonsense.
But again, your paragraph appears to be the attempt at being logical - and I really have to wonder why you even bother to make logical sense, considering that the result will be "in these discussions we needn´t make logical sense".
Is there really a point in trying to use logic to show that logic can be suspended?
In the end, aren't you just limiting God to logic in order to show that he's limited to logic?
No - I clearly did offer the alternative.
But: once we base our considerations and discussions on this alternative we can immediately stop any meaningful discussion, declare apologetics pointless and go home. It even becomes possible that God exists and exists not simultaneously - personally, I have no idea what that might possibly mean, but ok.
