06 Jul 09
Originally posted by vistesdI agree in principal with some of the thoughts you are expressing. Summarizing, I suppose one could argue that the tools we use are crude imitations of that which is perfect: a chip off the old block, as it were.
Besides you, no one else is making this contention.
But I will. A nomological law would be a statement of some universal fact about the cosmos itself (and God, if there be God). A logical law is one that preserves coherency—whether any inserted “fact” turns out to correct or not. (Instead of the standard phrase “truth preserving”, I will suggest—rel ...[text shortened]... hat coherency. This, notwithstanding whether or not our observations of particulars are flawed.[/b]
My beef isn't with logic (flawed at its best), as logic is one of the best organizational mental skills man has developed. That being said, my beef is not limited strictly to poor execution of the same. It is--- at best--- a poor imitation of God's orderliness. It is--- at worst--- a blinding stumbling block to true faith.
The biggest issue I have railed against is when logic falls into the second category, i.e., when dependence upon it leads one further astray from the truth. The one so led can rightly say they followed the 'logical path' but is that the intent of logic?
Most of what you are saying deals with the mechanics of logic, as understood and used by man. Therefore, man becomes the standard--- unless there is some other rule established at the outset. Having man as the rule, no doubt at some point or another, God Himself--- the originator of orderliness and consistency--- appears illogical. How does one reconcile this?
Like language or math or music, these man-made constructs are some imitation of the Creator. How much weight do we give our self-made mannerisms is the question.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
06 Jul 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Your thinking is wrong. The original point (at least, in this regard) had to do with whether logic--- as man is able to use and apply it--- is a trustworthy method of ascertaining or establishing truths about God.
No, the point as I developed it, and to which you responded is a little different. It is about the reason why logic is inadequate as a tool to establish truths about god. My impression is that:
1. We disagree only on a question of emphasis. You want to reserve the option of saying that logic as man has devised it must be a mere shadow of god's orderliness at the level of process, whereas I question your epistemic basis for making such a blanket proclamation.
2. You have already agreed as much as you feel you can.
As has been stated, God is subject to none but Himself. You continue to attempt to put the cart before the horse, but it simply won’t work.
We agree on the notion that god is subject only to god, but you have missed the simple implication that if god is subject to god's nature, and logic is integral to god's nature, then god is subject to logic. Yet you have ruled this out on what basis?
In fact, it took vistesd's eloquent interjection to get you to concede to this possibility.
Not for this discussion.
I disagree.
And what is the price of tea in China these days?
Give over.
Besides you, no one else is making this contention.
Are you sure you read your posts?
Really? Why not? Name another human construct which can be shown to be error-free, in such a complete manner that we could, in turn, say that God follows the dictates of the same. I’ll give you the Clif notes on this one. None exist.
Now you are putting the cart before the horse. The whole point is that if logic is part of god's nature, it isn't a human construct. It is part of god's revelation. Now it is time for you to try to actually put forward some kind of coherent argument that this is not so. Good luck with that, considering it will use logic.
That He is consistent and faithful is part of His essence. However, just because there are lines in agreement doesn’t necessitate that God is beholden to the laws of logic.
God acts according to god's nature.
Yes. Emphatically, of course, on the revelation needed to set us on the right path.
I'm glad that, despite the fact that our world views are so different, we can find some agreement.
Sounds like you may have spent time in the enemy camp at some point…
Not quite, but I suppose I have fraternized 🙂
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
06 Jul 09
Originally posted by vistesdI hadn't read all of this before I responded to Freaky, but thanks for eloquently pressing home exactly what I have been implying.
[b]Besides you, no one else is making this contention.
But I will. A nomological law would be a statement of some universal fact about the cosmos itself (and God, if there be God). A logical law is one that preserves coherency—whether any inserted “fact” turns out to correct or not. (Instead of the standard phrase “truth preserving”, I will suggest— ...[text shortened]... hat coherency. This, notwithstanding whether or not our observations of particulars are flawed.[/b]
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHaving man as the rule, no doubt at some point or another, God Himself--- the originator of orderliness and consistency--- appears illogical. How does one reconcile this?
I agree in principal with some of the thoughts you are expressing. Summarizing, I suppose one could argue that the tools we use are crude imitations of that which is perfect: a chip off the old block, as it were.
My beef isn't with logic (flawed at its best), as logic is one of the best organizational mental skills man has developed. That being said, ...[text shortened]... tation of the Creator. How much weight do we give our self-made mannerisms is the question.
In such cases, I would say there are three possibilities:
(1) Logic has been badly applied;
(2) The stated claim (whether about God or something else) is, in fact, illogical; or
(3) One has simply inserted erroneous p’s and q’s.
As ConrauK recently pointed out on another thread, internally contradictory claims of fact cannot even be identified without a coherent and consistent logic.
I have often said that, although the “grammar of our consciousness” is surely coherent with the larger “syntax of reality” (or else we likely would not have survived as a species), it is not necessarily (I would say, not even likely) that such grammar is exhaustive of that larger syntax. Therefore, there may always be a “domain of mystery”. But even admittedly speculative extrapolations from the known to the unknown must follow the rules of logic to be coherent.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by vistesdI think Freaky ran into the same issue of invention vs discovery when we discussed countability earlier in the thread. He claimed that counting was solely an invention of man and therefore anything not subject to man was uncountable. He then had the problem that angels were apparently countable but not subject to man - a contradiction he failed to explain - but then again, since he is not subject to logic, he is not required to explain incoherency in his claims unless one quotes a Bible passage first.
I also—provisionally, anyway—disagree with the notion that the laws of logic are human creations; the terms we use to express those laws (e.g., language) are human creations, but the laws themselves are not made but discovered. They are discovered in observing the coherency, per se, of the cosmos—the logos, as LS notes. Our logical formulat ...[text shortened]... hat coherency. This, notwithstanding whether or not our observations of particulars are flawed.
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by Lord SharkYou want to reserve the option of saying that logic as man has devised it must be a mere shadow of god's orderliness at the level of process, whereas I question your epistemic basis for making such a blanket proclamation.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Your thinking is wrong. The original point (at least, in this regard) had to do with whether logic--- as man is able to use and apply it--- is a trustworthy method of ascertaining or establishing truths about God.
No, the point as I developed it, and to which you responded is a little different. It is about the ...[text shortened]... me in the enemy camp at some point…[/b]
Not quite, but I suppose I have fraternized 🙂[/b]
The "blanket proclamation" is based on two things. One, common sense. Common sense informs the one so equipped of the basic concept that there is a description (language, number, idea, etc.) and there is the thing itself. Logic is not knowledge; it is about knowledge.
Secondly, the Bible speaks of approaching life via a thinking system called faith. While the Bible is consistent in its presentation about God and life--- and thus in at least one sense, logical--- logic itself is never presented by the Bible as a system of thinking upon which man should rely. In fact, the Bible goes so far as to castigate those who do rely on logic instead of faith in God.
We agree on the notion that god is subject only to god, but you have missed the simple implication that if god is subject to god's nature, and logic is integral to god's nature, then god is subject to logic. Yet you have ruled this out on what basis?
Logic is not truth; God is. Logic is not righteousness; God is. Logic is not justice; God is. Logic is a system of thinking invented by man for the purpose of ordering his knowledge. It is not knowledge itself; it is about knowledge.
As we see it (assuming we are armed with correct information), God is logical... as we would describe Him using the language. But you could also say that God is funny--- as we understand humor. Just because one could find something within God's action as agreeing with a random standard of humor does not necessitate that God is funny.
The whole point is that if logic is part of god's nature, it [b]isn't a human construct. It is part of god's revelation. Now it is time for you to try to actually put forward some kind of coherent argument that this is not so.[/b]
I'm supposed to aruge your 'if?' Why don't you first support your assertion that logic is part of God's revelation. By that, what part of the divine revelation speaks of logic?
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadHe claimed that counting was solely an invention of man and therefore anything not subject to man was uncountable.
I think Freaky ran into the same issue of invention vs discovery when we discussed countability earlier in the thread. He claimed that counting was solely an invention of man and therefore anything not subject to man was uncountable. He then had the problem that angels were apparently countable but not subject to man - a contradiction he failed to explain ...[text shortened]... he is not required to explain incoherency in his claims unless one quotes a Bible passage first.
Eh? I know you have heard the term 'strawman' before. It appears you are employing the technique here. This is what was said:
ME: Last time I checked, counting and math are used by man to describe the physical world, or some aspect of creation. Real or imagined, all things countable would be part of or dependent upon that physical world.
YOU: Or are they too independent of mans silly invention of 'counting'.
See that there? It was you who claimed that counting was an invention of man. Not me.
He then had the problem that angels were apparently countable but not subject to man - a contradiction he failed to explain...
No such problem exists. Angels are countable because they are part of creation. I emphasized this fact a couple of times, but you insist on latching onto your own imaginations instead of my actual statements.
And, cherry on top, angels are actually servants to man, so you got it wrong on top of having it wrong. Go figure.
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by vistesdIn such cases, I would say there are three possibilities:
Having man as the rule, no doubt at some point or another, God Himself--- the originator of orderliness and consistency--- appears illogical. How does one reconcile this?
In such cases, I would say there are three possibilities:
(1) Logic has been badly applied;
(2) The stated claim (whether about God or something else) is, in fact, illogical; ...[text shortened]... tive extrapolations from the known to the unknown must follow the rules of logic to be coherent.[/b]
(1) Logic has been badly applied;
(2) The stated claim (whether about God or something else) is, in fact, illogical; or
(3) One has simply inserted erroneous p’s and q’s.
Agreed.
As ConrauK recently pointed out on another thread, internally contradictory claims of fact cannot even be identified without a coherent and consistent logic.
I don't recall the discussion, but I wonder what that logic was to be based upon?
But even admittedly speculative extrapolations from the known to the unknown must follow the rules of logic to be coherent.
... as we understand them, sure.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The "blanket proclamation" is based on two things. One, common sense.
When making proclamations about such matters so far removed from everyday experience, common sense won't do.
But even the claim you are making by appeal to common sense is not directly in dispute, you say:
Common sense informs the one so equipped of the basic concept that there is a description (language, number, idea, etc.) and there is the thing itself. Logic is not knowledge; it is about knowledge.
Nothing I have said implies otherwise.
Secondly, the Bible speaks of approaching life via a thinking system called faith.
That's fine, but how is it relevant?
Logic is not truth; God is. Logic is not righteousness; God is. Logic is not justice; God is.
What makes you think your flawed human conception of god's attributes is exhaustive or even adequate?
Logic is a system of thinking invented by man for the purpose of ordering his knowledge. It is not knowledge itself; it is about knowledge.
This is question begging. What is at issue is whether logic is part of god's nature. The problem you have is as an imperfect mortal temporal being, your conceptions of god's attributes are all limited. This leaves you in the absurd position of saying that justice is part of god's nature but logic is not.
I suppose you might want to argue that since god's knowledge is perfect, god has no need of a system by which to order it. But I don't think that position is sustainable somehow.
As we see it (assuming we are armed with correct information), God is logical... as we would describe Him using the language. But you could also say that God is funny--- as we understand humor. Just because one could find something within God's action as agreeing with a random standard of humor does not necessitate that God is funny.
That's my point. 'justice' is part of our language. if you are happy to say god is knowledge, or god is justice, or god is truth, then you should not resist the notion that god is logical. If you are tempted to argue about what it does or doesn't say in the bible as a response to that, then we'll go down a different track, but I don't see that path as relevant.
I'm supposed to aruge your 'if?' Why don't you first support your assertion that logic is part of God's revelation. By that, what part of the divine revelation speaks of logic?
No we are already arguing your 'if'. The difference is you don't realise that your proclamations are 'ifs'. So no more switchback manoeuvres please 🙂
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by Lord SharkWhen making proclamations about such matters so far removed from everyday experience, common sense won't do.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The "blanket proclamation" is based on two things. One, common sense.
When making proclamations about such matters so far removed from everyday experience, common sense won't do.
But even the claim you are making by appeal to common sense is not directly in dispute, you say:
Common sense informs the one ...[text shortened]... r proclamations are 'ifs'. So no more switchback manoeuvres please 🙂
The common sense part of the equation applies, regardless of the topic considered.
Nothing I have said implies otherwise.
If you weren’t flat out saying what you have been clearly flat out saying, we wouldn’t be quibbling, now would we? Repeatedly, you have been contending that God is bound by logic, as though logic is some transcendent quality. It’s not. It’s a philosophy.
That's fine, but how is it relevant?
I would think that when the arbiter or reality (God) tells those living in it how the game is played that such direction ought to count for something. Maybe I’m wrong.
What makes you think your flawed human conception of god's attributes is exhaustive or even adequate?
My only confidence is the word of God. I trust that He has given us everything we need for this stage of the game.
What is at issue is whether logic is part of god's nature.
This is certainly what you have been insisting and have yet to show. While I have already acknowledged that God’s actions certainly appear logical (to the one with a proper perspective) by no means has it been shown that God is subject to logic itself.
The problem you have is as an imperfect mortal temporal being, your conceptions of god's attributes are all limited. This leaves you in the absurd position of saying that justice is part of god's nature but logic is not.
If, by limited, you mean the confines of the Bible, you are correct. That is all He has opted to share with us at this time. I’ve dealt with it accordingly. It sounds as though you think another, more preferable method is available.
I suppose you might want to argue that since god's knowledge is perfect, god has no need of a system by which to order it. But I don't think that position is sustainable somehow.
With respect to God’s knowledge, the entire realm of the ‘knowable’ is one piece.
That's my point. 'justice' is part of our language. if you are happy to say god is knowledge, or god is justice, or god is truth, then you should not resist the notion that god is logical. If you are tempted to argue about what it does or doesn't say in the bible as a response to that, then we'll go down a different track, but I don't see that path as relevant.
I’ve never said that God isn’t logical. I have said He is not bound by the dictates of a man-made system. All Scripture is God-breathed. Logic is nothing more than man’s attempt at ordering his own thinking. Because of His own attributes, God’s action and being are in agreement with some aspects of logic--- but not because logic dictates. It doesn’t; His attributes dictate.
No we are already arguing your 'if'. The difference is you don't realise that your proclamations are 'ifs'. So no more switchback manoeuvres please.
You are the one contending that logic is part of God’s nature, that it is one of His attributes. I have challenged this assertion. Here, you claim it again and then turn and ask me to argue your point for you, which I cannot do.
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHQuite so, yet it was clearly implied in your post. Your argument after all was that God was not subject to basic math (or counting).
See that there? It was you who claimed that counting was an invention of man. Not me.
No such problem exists. Angels are countable because they are part of creation. I emphasized this fact a couple of times, but you insist on latching onto your own imaginations instead of my actual statements.
And, cherry on top, angels are actually servants to man, so you got it wrong on top of having it wrong. Go figure.
So are angels "part of or dependent upon that physical world."?
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by twhitehead1. Well God does have too follow math like if He made it rain and it rained one google raindrops but He only meant too make it rain one million there would be quite a flood!
Quite so, yet it was clearly implied in your post. Your argument after all was that God was not subject to basic math (or counting).
And, cherry on top, angels are actually servants to man, so you got it wrong on top of having it wrong. Go figure.
So are angels "part of or dependent upon that physical world."?[/b]
2. No angels are servants to God
3. What Earth? No.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
09 Jul 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOriginally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]When making proclamations about such matters so far removed from everyday experience, common sense won't do.
The common sense part of the equation applies, regardless of the topic considered.
Nothing I have said implies otherwise.
If you weren’t flat out saying what you have been clearly flat out saying, we wouldn’t be quibbling, now wo ...[text shortened]... gain and then turn and ask me to argue your point for you, which I cannot do.[/b]
The common sense part of the equation applies, regardless of the topic considered.
So we should have listened to all those who applied common sense and declared that heavier-than-air flying machines were impossible?
If you weren’t flat out saying what you have been clearly flat out saying, we wouldn’t be quibbling, now would we?
Well we would actually since clearly you are mistaken in what I've been saying.
Repeatedly, you have been contending that God is bound by logic, as though logic is some transcendent quality. It’s not. It’s a philosophy.
I don't think so. What I've been repeatedly contending is that you are not in an epistemic position to make your declaration that god is not bound by logic. Since logic could be integral to god's nature and god is bound by that nature, to support your case you would have to demonstrate that we as humans are not simply parroting this aspect of god's nature. You keep asserting that logic is not transcendent, yet I notice that christians who seem every bit as convinced as you are nonetheless use logic as an exempar of abstract universal truth which must come from god. They are called presuppositionalists. I'm sure you've heard of them. But I guess they are the kind of completely convinced yet wrong sort of christian, whereas you are the other sort.
I would think that when the arbiter or reality (God) tells those living in it how the game is played that such direction ought to count for something. Maybe I’m wrong.
You probably are. I base this on the many mutually contradictory things that the various christian denominations profess, each with their own unique access to what god has told them about how to play the game.
My only confidence is the word of God. I trust that He has given us everything we need for this stage of the game.
If only it were enough, then there wouldn't be such a diversity of interpretation.
This is certainly what you have been insisting and have yet to show. While I have already acknowledged that God’s actions certainly appear logical (to the one with a proper perspective) by no means has it been shown that God is subject to logic itself.
I have insisted no such thing. I have only said, following the standard theology, that god is subject to god's nature and I have questioned your basis for excluding logic from that, since human concepts like 'justice' pose no problem in this regard.
If, by limited, you mean the confines of the Bible, you are correct. That is all He has opted to share with us at this time. I’ve dealt with it accordingly. It sounds as though you think another, more preferable method is available.
It isn't me who thinks this, I'm an atheist. it is other christians who place an emphasis on biblical exegesis being informed and enhanced via revelation from god as god's plan unfolds.
With respect to God’s knowledge, the entire realm of the ‘knowable’ is one piece.
I like that. Although differentiation into pieces is a feature of the world.
I’ve never said that God isn’t logical. I have said He is not bound by the dictates of a man-made system.
But nor have you demonstrated that the man made system called logic is not the flawed human analogue of an aspect of god's nature manifest in creation, for surely the universe is redolent with this quality, namely intelligibility?
All Scripture is God-breathed. Logic is nothing more than man’s attempt at ordering his own thinking. Because of His own attributes, God’s action and being are in agreement with some aspects of logic--- but not because logic dictates. It doesn’t; His attributes dictate.
That's my point, for all you know, that's why logic works.
You are the one contending that logic is part of God’s nature, that it is one of His attributes. I have challenged this assertion. Here, you claim it again and then turn and ask me to argue your point for you, which I cannot do.
As I pointed out, I make no such contention. Recall, you are the one that sought to make declarative statements regarding god's attributes, in fact you specifically stated that god was not bound by logic. Since then you have been accelerating around a circular argument, yet you have failed to provide a basis for your statement which is consistent with ascribing other attributes to god, such as justice.
In summary, is god bound by man made systems? No, by definition. Is logic purely man made or is it man's mirroring of god's creation, which is intelligible and reflects god's nature? Many christians think so.
09 Jul 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadQuite so, yet it was clearly implied in your post. Your argument after all was that God was not subject to basic math (or counting).
Quite so, yet it was clearly implied in your post. Your argument after all was that God was not subject to basic math (or counting).
[b]No such problem exists. Angels are countable because they are part of creation. I emphasized this fact a couple of times, but you insist on latching onto your own imaginations instead of my actual statements.
And, ...[text shortened]... ing it wrong. Go figure.
So are angels "part of or dependent upon that physical world."?[/b]
Math, language, et al, are all expressions used by man to help describe reality. However, these are intuitive constructs and are subject to all kids of error. To hold God accountable to such vagary is incompatible with a proper adjustment to reality.
For instance, when we think of life, we think in terms of adding. Yet when we look into the womb, instead of addition, we see division. Counterintuitive.
So are angels "part of or dependent upon that physical world."?
Created beings. In this created universe.