above logic???

[XChristian]

Lol, what you define as logical will be unlogical to another. Humans = clueless.

 

[heymikey80]

To be blunt I don't concern myself with your problems with the human constructed 'language' of logic.

That's fine, but keep in mind they may reappear in quite unusual ways.

However I am very much concerned with what must be true and what must be not true given that a certain premise is true...I am concerned with assertions about the properties of your god that unequivically can be reduced to the following:
P => Q
R => S
S => ¬Q

Essentially the conclusion would be that one of the premises doesn't conclude what you might think it concludes.

Given: R and P are true

An example...let P be the statement 'G'od is omnipotent, then Q is the conclusion it can do all things
R is the statement 'G'od is omniscient, then S is the conclusion it knows all things
Now then, if your god is omniscient it knows all things and so it must know even what actions it itself shall perform (from it's own perspective) such that if your god sees itself do X then for all actions it performs, the resultant outcome will be that it does X..ie; for all Y=/=X 'G'od cannot do Y given it knows it will do X. (otherwise if it knows it will do X, and then instead does Y then it did not know it would do X in the first place)
This can then be expressed as S => ¬Q

Actually there's an issue with the definition (e.g., the problem above).

As you must realize, omnipotence is not the tenet that God does all things He can do. It's simply an assertion that nothing is beyond His power to perform. Telling me he can't do something meaningless or inconceivable is simply going beyond the language limitation, we'd probably agree there.

As you point out, what God actually does, that does not impact on His capability, that is, His power to do any of the other alternatives. That purely impacts from God's will to do one of the alternatives.

To say Britain were capable of bombing France would not conclude that it must ever carry out the bombing of France to actually be considered capable.

 

[Grega]

That's fine, but keep in mind they may reappear in quite unusual ways.

Essentially the conclusion would be that one of the premises doesn't conclude what you might think it concludes.

Actually there's an issue with the definition (e.g., the problem above).

As you must realize, omnipotence is not the tenet that God does all things He can do. It's simply an assertion that nothing is beyond His power to perform. Telling me he can't do something meaningless or inconceivable is simply going beyond the language limitation, we'd probably agree there.

As you point out, what God actually does, that does not impact on His capability, that is, His power to do any of the other alternatives. That purely impacts from God's will to do one of the alternatives.

To say Britain were capable of bombing France would not conclude that it must ever carry out the bombing of France to actually be considered capable.

Essentially the conclusion would be that one of the premises doesn't conclude what you might think it concludes.
I disagree...Firstly I'll assume that given how I define the variables in this example you accept that P=>Q, R=>S are valid since Q an S are simply the definitions of P and R.
I will therefore assume you think that I cannot have S => ¬R.
Now, if ever it was the case that your god knows it will do X and it instead does Y then the assertion your god knows it will do X is false
So for that assertion to be true, your god can not do Y. ie: S => ¬R

Actually there's an issue with the definition (e.g., the problem above).

As you must realize, omnipotence is not the tenet that God does all things He can do. It's simply an assertion that nothing is beyond His power to perform. Telling me he can't do something meaningless or inconceivable is simply going beyond the language limitation, we'd probably agree there.
I know what the assertion is and do not make the assumption he does all things he can do, I merely point out that were he to perform some things that omnipotence implies he is capable of doing then your god would contradict itself.

As an aside, many people don't think the Bible actually states 'G'od is omnipotent. They infer it, but what sort of audience were these words written for such that this type of inference is drawn???
I'm sure my mum must have told me when I was a little nipper that I should always do as she says...saying that served a useful purpose back then and was probably the most efficient way of preventing me from doing or being the victim of any number of bad things. I disagree with that statement now I'm older though

As you point out, what God actually does, that does not impact on His capability, that is, His power to do any of the other alternatives. That purely impacts from God's will to do one of the alternatives.
If we are given that 'G'od is omniscient then if he is capable of doing something that is counter to what it knows it will do, then your god is not omniscient. The reason for this is, is that wrapped up in this statement is the assertion that god can choose to do otherwise and will simply decide not to when it is time to do what 'G'od knew it would do earlier (from 'G'od's perspective of earlier that is), but this itself defies the implication that god knows it will not do otherwise.
To preempt a response of the form "you know you're not going to kill your mother, despite the fact you are capable of such" I respond with "I'm pretty damned sure I won't kill my mother, but I do not know I won't"

To say Britain were capable of bombing France would not conclude that it must ever carry out the bombing of France to actually be considered capable.
If it were said that it is known that Britain will not bomb France then Britain has no such capability for something will act towards its prevention

 

[heymikey80]

I know what the assertion is and do not make the assumption he does all things he can do, I merely point out that were he to perform some things that omnipotence implies he is capable of doing then your god would contradict itself.

There're multiple issues with this argument, Grega.

The most serious issue is that ability isn't actuality. "He would contradict himself" doesn't mean the ability -- the power -- to do so is somehow drained from him.

Omnipotence is about ability, not actuality. "He could" doesn't mean "he did".

There's no contradiction in saying a gallon of gas will take my car 30 miles in any direction. The only contradiction lies in attempting to use the gas to go 30 miles in every direction.

 

[Grega]

There're multiple issues with this argument, Grega.

The most serious issue is that ability isn't actuality. "He would contradict himself" doesn't mean the ability -- the power -- to do so is somehow drained from him.

Omnipotence is about ability, not actuality. "He could" doesn't mean "he did".

There's no contradiction in saying a gallon of gas will take my car 30 miles in any direction. The only contradiction lies in attempting to use the gas to go 30 miles in every direction.

There're multiple issues with this argument, Grega.

The most serious issue is that ability isn't actuality. "He would contradict himself" doesn't mean the ability -- the power -- to do so is somehow drained from him.

Omnipotence is about ability, not actuality. "He could" doesn't mean "he did".
You do not address the problem...I am saying that if your god knows it does X, then to do Y would contradict its knowing of itself doing X. Having the ability to do Y here is merely pseudo-ability, this ability cannot be exercised without its prior knowledge being incorrect.

Given that you accept that 'G'od always knows it will do X, then Y cannot occur. Your 'G'od does not even have the choice of doing Y; for knowing that he will do X, then that choice has somehow already been made.

There's no contradiction in saying a gallon of gas will take my car 30 miles in any direction. The only contradiction lies in attempting to use the gas to go 30 miles in every direction.
There is a contradiction if you'd have first stated: You have only one car, and the maximum distance from a particular point A to another point B, a gallon of gas in your car will allow you to travel is strictly less than 30 miles


If you were to say 'G'od knows lots of things or can do lots of things, but not all things then no problems arise here.

 

[heymikey80]

You do not address the problem...I am saying that if your god knows it does X, then to do Y would contradict its knowing of itself doing X. Having the ability to do Y here is merely pseudo-ability, this ability cannot be exercised without its prior knowledge being incorrect.

I do address the problem -- the question is one of capability, not will.

It's a question of potency. It's not a question of action.

To assert that God would never do something wrong would not change His potency to do so, should His will so decide -- it would simply assert that God's will is such that none of what He performs would actually be wrong.

Given that you accept that 'G'od always knows it will do X, then Y cannot occur. Your 'G'od does not even have the choice of doing Y; for knowing that he will do X, then that choice has somehow already been made.

True. Omnipotence does not accede that God may do things His will does not wish to do.

If you were to say 'G'od knows lots of things or can do lots of things, but not all things then no problems arise here.

Will doesn't enter into the definition of omnipotence.

Omnipotence is not God's actually doing all things. God self-defines and thus self-limits His actions through His will. But God's power to perform any action is unhindered.

 

[Grega]

I do address the problem -- the question is one of capability, not will.

It's a question of potency. It's not a question of action.

To assert that God would never do something wrong would not change His potency to do so, should His will so decide -- it would simply assert that God's will is such that none of what He performs would actually be wrong.

True. Omnipotence does not accede that God may do things His will does not wish to do.

Will doesn't enter into the definition of omnipotence.

Omnipotence is not God's actually doing all things. God self-defines and thus self-limits His actions through His will. But God's power to perform any action is unhindered.

I do address the problem -- the question is one of capability, not will.

It's a question of potency. It's not a question of action.

To assert that God would never do something wrong would not change His potency to do so, should His will so decide -- it would simply assert that God's will is such that none of what He performs would actually be wrong.
There is no subtlety to this problem; Omniscience is the statement: has complete and inerrant knowledge of ALL things...If your god has the potential to do Y then he does not know he will do X before the action of doing or not doing Y is made...contradicting omniscience

Will doesn't enter into the definition of omnipotence.

Omnipotence is not God's actually doing all things. God self-defines and thus self-limits His actions through His will. But God's power to perform any action is unhindered
Omnipotence is the statement: can do ALL things...by above, If you want to keep omniscience, then his will to do Y given he knows he will do X cannot be exercised, and this is not having the ability to do all things. Thus contradicting omnipotence

 

[ephraimanesti]

Lol, what you define as logical will be unlogical to another. Humans = clueless.

MY BROTHER,

Please explain to me the "logic" of denying the reality of that which has been experienced by millions over the course of thousands of years as God and His attributes have been.

MAY GOD BLESS AND KEEP YOU,
ephraim

 

[Grega]

MY BROTHER,

Please explain to me the "logic" of denying the reality of that which has been experienced by millions over the course of thousands of years as God and His attributes have been.

MAY GOD BLESS AND KEEP YOU,
ephraim

a) Lots of people over lots of years claim to have experienced the Christian 'G'od
b) Lots of people over lots of years claim to have experienced some of the other different gods, or claim that such experiences of the Christian god were false and have turned agnostic/atheist, or claim to have had no experience of any gods
c) The set of people for which (a) applies as far as can be measured now is not as big as the set of people for which (b) applies

Therefore if numbers were the only argument I could use to choose a particular belief then it would be incorrect to choose the Christian 'G'od.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Hi, Grega

There are some insanely clever Christians who will be able to discuss the maths and philosophy of faith, and that's not something I'll ever be able to do... but as I read your OP, it reminded me of a signature I once saw that really had quite a profound affect on my understanding of faith:

And Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?"

They replied, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed."

And Jesus replied, "What?"

To my mind, Christianity is the logical option. Having gone from militant atheist to Christian, I know that it felt like I was forcing it before, whereas this now feels natural. I understand that's anecdotal and in no way persuasive... I just want to explain why, next to the historicity of Christianity and my own experiences, I believe Christianity is the logical option.

But. I don't think it's something that can be pulled apart and examined under a microscope and discussed as if it were a mathematical equation - it can't be intellectualised to this degree: not because it crumbles under scrutiny, but because Christianity is salvation, and it's love... we don't know enough about love to make this something that can be discussed so objectively.

The quote thingie I gave above expresses my views far more saliently than I ever could. While the logic of Christianity, to my mind, is unimpeachable, (meaning God is, yes, far far above logic), it's almost irrelevant. I completely understand what your brother meant - it meant his faith in the Lord is bigger than his faith in man, and what man tells us about the world.

It's impossible to understand God; to examine Him. He won't be found in huge dusty philosophical tomes that are intellectually impressive; but we can see His shadow and His footprint in the people who are willing to get on their knees to help others, and to love the unwanteds, and to forgive the people who hurt them. Examining them is how we can begin to understand who He is.

 

[Grega]

Hi, Grega

There are some insanely clever Christians who will be able to discuss the maths and philosophy of faith, and that's not something I'll ever be able to do... but as I read your OP, it reminded me of a signature I once saw that really had quite a profound affect on my understanding of faith:

And Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?"

They replied, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed."

And Jesus replied, "What?"

To my mind, Christianity is the logical option. Having gone from militant atheist to Christian, I know that it felt like I was forcing it before, whereas this now feels natural. I understand that's anecdotal and in no way persuasive... I just want to explain why, next to the historicity of Christianity and my own experiences, I believe Christianity is the logical option.

But. I don't think it's something that can be pulled apart and examined under a microscope and discussed as if it were a mathematical equation - it can't be intellectualised to this degree: not because it crumbles under scrutiny, but because Christianity is salvation, and it's love... we don't know enough about love to make this something that can be discussed so objectively.

The quote thingie I gave above expresses my views far more saliently than I ever could. While the logic of Christianity, to my mind, is unimpeachable, (meaning God is, yes, far far above logic), it's almost irrelevant. I completely understand what your brother meant - it meant his faith in the Lord is bigger than his faith in man, and what man tells us about the world.

It's impossible to understand God; to examine Him. He won't be found in huge dusty philosophical tomes that are intellectually impressive; but we can see His shadow and His footprint in the people who are willing to get on their knees to help others, and to love the unwanteds, and to forgive the people who hurt them. Examining them is how we can begin to understand who He is.

Agh (you write in green!)...will...not...change my...colour scheme


There are some insanely clever Christians who will be able to discuss the maths and philosophy of faith, and that's not something I'll ever be able to do... but as I read your OP, it reminded me of a signature I once saw that really had quite a profound affect on my understanding of faith:

And Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?"

They replied, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed."

And Jesus replied, "What?"

Chesterton hit me with this one in my "A timeless God???" thread whereby he tried to demonstrate that a more accurate definition of god might have been presented as what you posted. My response was:

"You have merely accomplished a mapping from a collection of distinctly non-transparent conceptual dissolutions and displaced coalescence of such, to a collection of undeterminate propositions who's composition with numerically substantial units of our common lexicon optimistically hope that an infinitesimally small subset of our population, which by the circumspect consideration of taxonomy can be determined to be non other than humanoid; can not glean from this configuration a commodious mental reresentation of the message you seek not to convey with conspicuousness.

Or in human language you've merely swapped fuzzy-wuzzy metaphors with a fuzzy-wuzzier statement by using big words and combining them meaninglessly to achieve the desired level of obfuscation."

As far as the 'maths/philosophy' goes...it is the non too subtle, universal and clearly understood properties about some people's 'G'od that I say defy logic and these problems can be sufficiently talked about in simple language.

But. I don't think it's something that can be pulled apart and examined under a microscope and discussed as if it were a mathematical equation - it can't be intellectualised to this degree: not because it crumbles under scrutiny, but because Christianity is salvation, and it's love... we don't know enough about love to make this something that can be discussed so objectively.

The quote thingie I gave above expresses my views far more saliently than I ever could. While the logic of Christianity, to my mind, is unimpeachable, (meaning God is, yes, far far above logic), it's almost irrelevant. I completely understand what your brother meant - it meant his faith in the Lord is bigger than his faith in man, and what man tells us about the world.

It's impossible to understand God; to examine Him. He won't be found in huge dusty philosophical tomes that are intellectually impressive; but we can see His shadow and His footprint in the people who are willing to get on their knees to help others, and to love the unwanteds, and to forgive the people who hurt them. Examining them is how we can begin to understand who He is.
Though I don't expect to understand 'G'od, or even expect the same of others. I expect that what people do understand should not be paradoxical/inconsistant. Certain formulations of 'G'od are, and I feel they can be demonstrated as such. With respect to reading the Bible as an errant work of men about 'G'od then this is a safer (though not sufficiently believable by far) position than the literal interpretation my brother takes.

I can be told that the universe originated from custard...this would not be illogcal, it would merely defy the laws of physics as we know them.
I can be told that 'G'od has 3 heads, and they always smile...again this would not be illogical, again, silly perhaps, but not illogical.
I will not accept a propostion that say..."God is bound by no phenomenon that can be reduced to some concept of time", and: "he waits"
Because for something for to wait implies a separation between at least two events: that which it was first observed didn't happen, and that for which it was observed didn't happen at some other instant. This separation is reducable to "some" notion of time, and is thus contradictory.




btw...your avatar compelled me to watch the jumping elephant on youtube...utter quality!

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Agh (you write in green!)...will...not...change my...colour scheme

Green is totally where it's at

I've snipped most of your post... I hope that's ok. Truth is, I don't have answers for much of what you're saying. But I wanted to ask you a question: for a second, assume that Christ really did rise from the dead. Do you think a God that can defy the very nature of death is really bound by the rest of our "scientific laws"?

btw...your avatar compelled me to watch the jumping elephant on youtube...utter quality!

Not watched that for an age, actually... will have a looksee after this. Yay!

 

[Grega]

Green is totally where it's at

I've snipped most of your post... I hope that's ok. Truth is, I don't have answers for much of what you're saying. But I wanted to ask you a question: for a second, assume that Christ really did rise from the dead. Do you think a God that can defy the very nature of death is really bound by the rest of our "scientific laws"?Not watched that for an age, actually... will have a looksee after this. Yay!

I've snipped most of your post... I hope that's ok. Truth is, I don't have answers for much of what you're saying. But I wanted to ask you a question: for a second, assume that Christ really did rise from the dead. Do you think a God that can defy the very nature of death is really bound by the rest of our "scientific laws"?
The law of non-contradiction (as much as you can call it a "law") is not one of "our scientific laws" The language we have developed to capture it I suppose may be "scientific" but the language is irrelevant...as I suggested in my last post, your 'G'od could arrange it such that we transform into midgets every Friday and have us fall towards to the moon when we jump, then have false memories implanted into our brains by the martian red backed biting crabs on Saturday. This would not defy logic...it would defy our presently understood physical laws but this is a different matter.

 

[NaLuvena]

This thread is inspired by a conversation I had with my brother today which started with me asking him what sort of Christian was he. Essentially I was curious as to whether he was a hardline fundamentalist or was he a more liberal Christian. His reply demonstrated, to my chagrin, that he is a fundamentalist and through an hour long discourse we had, where I had to justify my problems with what he was trying to sell me; he basically told me there and then that he will not listen to logic, and that all my arguments fail because he believes his god is above logic.

Is this the case with some of [edit] you folks?...Do you hold that some statements about your god can be simultaneously true and NOT true?...can your god be omnipotent and NOT omnipotent at the same time? can he be God and NOT God? does your god transcend logic?

If so, how could one possibly expect a person who does value logic, a person who does not see it merely as a human construct, to find truth in any arguments that champion this particular formulation of a god?

Hi Grega,

Interesting question. I also had the same dilemma once, as a new believer. I've been reading through your thread, and wanted to contribute.

Firstly, God transcends logic, in the sense that He transcends the logic we humans have. However, God Himself is logical, very very logical, to a degree that we can't fathom. Why, you might ask?

For one thing, logic is based on knowledge, on truth. For example, if you say that P=Q (a logical statement), this implies that you know that P is always the same as Q. This is true because you have already studied it, or have some source of data to refer to that has proven this relationship to you. Based on this historical data, you assume that the same relationship will hold true in the future as well.

Now, when something happens, that you have no data for, something that happens for the first time, what do you call that? You cannot use logic to determine that. It does not fit, because logic operates on the assumption that what will happen in the future will follow the pattern that has occurred in the past. There is no data to use to develop the relationship that logic needs to work, because the event in question is happening for the first time.

A good example is that of the sun, rising and setting periodically everyday for centuries. If someone told you that the sun would not rise tomorrow, you would say it was illogical, because logically, the sun always rises fromt he east in the morning.

However, what if you had access to the data of the past and the future? Nothing would then be new to you, and you could use logic on everything, because you had the data to predict and develop your logical relationships.
If you knew that the sun would not rise tomorrow, and you already had the data to prove it, that statement would not be illogical to you, but very logical.

God has access to this data, all data. The Bible calls it omniscience, that God knows everything. This can also be explained logically as well, how god can know everything, be everywhere, and be all powerful.

This is why most Christians will say that God transcends logic. Technically He doesn't transcend logic, only our human version of it.

 

[Grega]

Hi Grega,

Interesting question. I also had the same dilemma once, as a new believer. I've been reading through your thread, and wanted to contribute.

Firstly, God transcends logic, in the sense that He transcends the logic we humans have. However, God Himself is logical, very very logical, to a degree that we can't fathom. Why, you might ask?

For one thing, logic is based on knowledge, on truth. For example, if you say that P=Q (a logical statement), this implies that you know that P is always the same as Q. This is true because you have already studied it, or have some source of data to refer to that has proven this relationship to you. Based on this historical data, you assume that the same relationship will hold true in the future as well.

Now, when something happens, that you have no data for, something that happens for the first time, what do you call that? You cannot use logic to determine that. It does not fit, because logic operates on the assumption that what will happen in the future will follow the pattern that has occurred in the past. There is no data to use to develop the relationship that logic needs to work, because the event in question is happening for the first time.

A good example is that of the sun, rising and setting periodically everyday for centuries. If someone told you that the sun would not rise tomorrow, you would say it was illogical, because logically, the sun always rises fromt he east in the morning.

However, what if you had access to the data of the past and the future? Nothing would then be new to you, and you could use logic on everything, because you had the data to predict and develop your logical relationships.
If you knew that the sun would not rise tomorrow, and you already had the data to prove it, that statement would not be illogical to you, but very logical.

God has access to this data, all data. The Bible calls it omniscience, that God knows everything. This can also be explained logically as well, how god can know everything, be everywhere, and be all powerful.

This is why most Christians will say that God transcends logic. Technically He doesn't transcend logic, only our human version of it.

Firstly, God transcends logic, in the sense that He transcends the logic we humans have. However, God Himself is logical, very very logical, to a degree that we can't fathom. Why, you might ask?
Hmm...see, I think that for many Christians there is a mix up between 'common sense' and 'logic' They are not the same

For one thing, logic is based on knowledge, on truth. For example, if you say that P=Q (a logical statement), this implies that you know that P is always the same as Q. This is true because you have already studied it, or have some source of data to refer to that has proven this relationship to you. Based on this historical data, you assume that the same relationship will hold true in the future as well.
Firstly P=Q does not imply "P is always the same as Q" it simply implies P = Q, nothing more. Furthermore, unless it is strictly stated that for P = Q to have been true in the past, that P = Q will be true in the future; it would be wrong to infer that simply because [edit] there exists no [/edit] occurance that P = Q was not true in the past, it will be true in the future. This is more an inference based upon common sense (and common sense can betray us)

Now, when something happens, that you have no data for, something that happens for the first time, what do you call that? You cannot use logic to determine that. It does not fit, because logic operates on the assumption that what will happen in the future will follow the pattern that has occurred in the past. no, 'common sense' operates on this assumption...not logic!
There is no data to use to develop the relationship that logic needs to work, because the event in question is happening for the first time.
If we were talking about the fallacies of common sense then I'd agree with you...this has nothing to do with the laws of inference, logic however.

A good example is that of the sun, rising and setting periodically everyday for centuries. If someone told you that the sun would not rise tomorrow, you would say it was illogical, because logically, the sun always rises fromt he east in the morning.
No I wouldn't call it illogical, I'd say it defies my experience and knowledge and ask for justification but I would certainly not say it is illogical.
On the otherhand if you were to say "There exists no sun [edit] (and never will)[/edit], and the sun will rise in the East" then this would be illogical

However, what if you had access to the data of the past and the future? Nothing would then be new to you, and you could use logic on everything, because you had the data to predict and develop your logical relationships.
If you knew that the sun would not rise tomorrow, and you already had the data to prove it, that statement would not be illogical to you, but very logical.

God has access to this data, all data. The Bible calls it omniscience, that God knows everything. This can also be explained logically as well, how god can know everything, be everywhere, and be all powerful.
I don't find the premise that your 'G'od is omniscient to be illogical taken in isolation, but it's combination with omnipotence leads to paradox (see earlier posts)...again you seem to have a wholly different notion of 'logic'

This is why most Christians will say that God transcends logic. Technically He doesn't transcend logic, only our human version of it.
What I can infer is that it transcends some human's version of it because those humans have the wrong 'notions' of logic to start with as you yourself have demonstrated.

 

[NaLuvena]

Hmm...see, I think that for many Christians there is a mix up between 'common sense' and 'logic' They are not the same

Well that is true, not only for Christians, but for everyone. What you call logic, someone else would have called truth.

Even your idea of logic is different from everyone else's. that is because it is based on what you know, and therefore cannot be the same as anyone else's.

Firstly P=Q does not imply "P is always the same as Q" it simply implies P = Q, nothing more.

My bad. I should have written "is always equal to" instead of "is always the same". Takes some effort switching between christianese and logicese.

Furthermore, unless it is strictly stated that for P = Q to have been true in the past, that P = Q will be true in the future; it would be wrong to infer that simply because you can find no occurance that P = Q was not true, it will be true in the future. This is more an inference based upon common sense (and common sense can betray us)

So, as you know that something that holds true in the past will not hold true in the future, your logic is changed by that knowledge. People who don't know this, will still assume that the same will hold true in the future.

no, 'common sense' operates on this assumption...not logic!

If we were talking about the fallacies of common sense then I'd agree with you...this has nothing to do with the laws of inference, logic however.

so what is the difference between common sense and logic?

No I wouldn't call it illogical, I'd say it defies my experience and knowledge and ask for justification but I would certainly not say it is illogical.
On the otherhand if you were to say "There exists no sun, and the sun will rise in the East" then this would be illogical

Then I did you the injustice of assuming you didn't think of that possibility. Apologies.

Would having a new dawn, without the sun do as an illogical statement for you?

I don't find the premise that your 'G'od is omniscient to be illogical taken in isolation, but it's combination with omnipotence leads to paradox (see earlier posts)...again you seem to have a wholly different notion of 'logic'

It becomes a paradox for you because you don't have the knowledge required to understand it. Even we don't. You call it a paradox, we call it a mystery.

What I can infer is that it transcends some human's version of it because those humans have the wrong 'notions' of logic to start with as you yourself have demonstrated.

It transcends all human versions of logic, everyone's. Even yours. If it didn't, you wouldn't have "paradoxes" to deal with, my friend.

 

[Grega]

Well that is true, not only for Christians, but for everyone. What you call logic, someone else would have called truth.

Even your idea of logic is different from everyone else's. that is because it is based on what you know, and therefore cannot be the same as anyone else's.


My bad. I should have written "is always equal to" instead of "is always the same". Takes some effort switching between christianese and logicese.



So, as you know that something that holds true in the past will not hold true in the future, your logic is changed by that knowledge. People who don't know this, will still assume that the same will hold true in the future.






so what is the difference between common sense and logic?



Then I did you the injustice of assuming you didn't think of that possibility. Apologies.

Would having a new dawn, without the sun do as an illogical statement for you?



It becomes a paradox for you because you don't have the knowledge required to understand it. Even we don't. You call it a paradox, we call it a mystery.



It transcends all human versions of logic, everyone's. Even yours. If it didn't, you wouldn't have "paradoxes" to deal with, my friend.

Well that is true, not only for Christians, but for everyone. What you call logic, someone else would have called truth.

Even your idea of logic is different from everyone else's. that is because it is based on what you know, and therefore cannot be the same as anyone else's.
This thread has demonstrated my idea of logic is different to that of a number of theists...by logic I don't mean "what we think should be right based on overwhelming evidence" or "what obeys the laws of physics etc..." I am talking about what must (not might, must) be true or inferred given that some set of well defined premises are assumed true. If a contradiction arises then assuming the logic is correct, the premises are wrong.

My bad. I should have written "is always equal to" instead of "is always the same". Takes some effort switching between christianese and logicese.
Still your bad ...you can only infer "equals" not "always equals"

So, as you know that something that holds true in the past will not hold true in the future, your logic is changed by that knowledge. People who don't know this, will still assume that the same will hold true in the future.
I'm not understanding what you mean by logic...it seems different to mine...this link may help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

so what is the difference between common sense and logic?
Common sense is that which we collectively assume to be true based on experience/evidence...it isn't precise deductive reasoning.

Then I did you the injustice of assuming you didn't think of that possibility. Apologies.

Would having a new dawn, without the sun do as an illogical statement for you?
"a new dawn is caused ONLY by the sun, there never has, and never will exist at least one sun, or any fractions of a sun, there will be a new dawn tomorrow" would be illogical.

It becomes a paradox for you because you don't have the knowledge required to understand it. Even we don't. You call it a paradox, we call it a mystery.
I disagree, I understand well enough what these terms are defined to mean, and what must be also be true given that they are true. A contradiction does arise and I attribute it to a poorly constructed notion of God...please read from post #22, Newmikey champions some of your views

It transcends all human versions of logic, everyone's. Even yours. If it didn't, you wouldn't have "paradoxes" to deal with, my friend.
No, I disagree. As an obvious example of how paradox can arise from poor premises assume these premises are true:

"all cars are vehicles and they always have wheels"
"John has only one vehicle and it doesn't have wheels"

Now assume we are talking about the same John, at the same point in time, and it is given as one more premise that:
"John has a car"
Does John's car have wheels or not?...do you see a contradiction?

 

[ephraimanesti]

a) Lots of people over lots of years claim to have experienced the Christian 'G'od
b) Lots of people over lots of years claim to have experienced some of the other different gods, or claim that such experiences of the Christian god were false and have turned agnostic/atheist, or claim to have had no experience of any gods
c) The set of people for which (a) applies as far as can be measured now is not as big as the set of people for which (b) applies

Therefore if numbers were the only argument I could use to choose a particular belief then it would be incorrect to choose the Christian 'G'od.

Yes, my brother, what you say is indeed true. As our Lord exhorts us,

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."(Matthew 7:13-14)

My point was not that the god with the most votes wins. Instead it was drawing attention to the fact that millions of people over thousands of year from all parts of our world reporting having the same experience with the same God must indicate that something is going on that atheists, for whatever reason, have chosen to overlook and, in fact, prejudicially deny.

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[Grega]

Yes, my brother, what you say is indeed true. As our Lord exhorts us,

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."(Matthew 7:13-14)

My point was not that the god with the most votes wins. Instead it was drawing attention to the fact that millions of people over thousands of year from all parts of our world reporting having the same experience with the same God must indicate that something is going on that atheists, for whatever reason, have chosen to overlook and, in fact, prejudicially deny.

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF CHRIST,
ephraim

My point was not that the god with the most votes wins. Instead it was drawing attention to the fact that millions of people over thousands of year from all parts of our world reporting having the same experience with the same God must indicate that something is going on that atheists, for whatever reason, have chosen to overlook and, in fact, prejudicially deny.
No it doesn't!!!

 

[ephraimanesti]

My point was not that the god with the most votes wins. Instead it was drawing attention to the fact that millions of people over thousands of year from all parts of our world reporting having the same experience with the same God must indicate that something is going on that atheists, for whatever reason, have chosen to overlook and, in fact, prejudicially deny.
No it doesn't!!!

Yes, my brother, i understand that it is absolutely necessary to your world view that "it doesn't," and to the atheistic ego-centric outlook on reality that "it can't." Kind of reminds me of the old PeeWee Herman shtik where, when somebody tries to tell him something he doesn't want to hear, his puts his hands over his ears and yells at the top of his lungs, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU--LALA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU--LALA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU--LALA LA."

However, for those of us who are seeking the Ultimate Reality--God--and are willing to pay the price by being willing to change our world view to square up with the reality of things, and put to death our egocentricity and self-appointed "godhood", it is evidence that what we are seeking is real, is available, is obtainable, and is ours for the asking. As our Lord promises, "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened."(Matthew 7:7-8)

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim