What do you think of the argument

“God created logic, so he can do illogical things. (Like preparing a breakfast too big for him to eat, and still be omniscient) “

?

Responded to in THIS thread, #10 and following.

Which god?  If one created logic, I bet all the other gods were pissed.  I’m sure it took all the fun out of being a god.

ETA:  Doug, I liked your comparing this to the Euthyphro Dilemma.  It’s a bit of a let down that there aren’t more apologists here who would be willing to tackle this question.

Another is God is outside of space and time, outside of our universe and so is not restricted by the rules of logic our universe must conform with.

This God would have some use if things cannot spring into existence of there own accord and usually we suppose that they can’t.

I don’t take the idea very seriously but it seems more plausable and is a reason many give for belief in God. The belief that there must be an uncaused causer.

Stephen

StephenLawrence - 14 January 2009 07:47 AM

Another is God is outside of space and time, outside of our universe and so is not restricted by the rules of logic our universe must conform with.

The question as to whether God is outside of space and time (an abstractum) is a different question from whether God is or is not restricted by the laws of logic.

Taking Stephen’s thought a little further… If we take it that a god created logic it would seem strange that he would also create free will.  Why have laws that cannot be broken as well as laws that can be broken but with consequences?

the PC apeman - 14 January 2009 07:53 AM

Taking Stephen’s thought a little further… If we take it that a god created logic it would seem strange that he would also create free will.  Why have laws that cannot be broken as well as laws that can be broken but with consequences?

Well, if God created logic then it follows that his reasons literally are inscrutable. (That is, if God himself is not bound by the laws of logic, everything you say about God is both true and false). So it’s pointless to ask any further questions about him or his supposed “reasons”.

dougsmith - 14 January 2009 08:07 AM

the PC apeman - 14 January 2009 07:53 AM

Taking Stephen’s thought a little further… If we take it that a god created logic it would seem strange that he would also create free will.  Why have laws that cannot be broken as well as laws that can be broken but with consequences?

Well, if God created logic then it follows that his reasons literally are inscrutable. (That is, if God himself is not bound by the laws of logic, everything you say about God is both true and false). So it’s pointless to ask any further questions about him or his supposed “reasons”.

Good point.  Without logic I suppose it’s equally pointless to say such a god exists or did anything.

the PC apeman - 14 January 2009 08:12 AM

dougsmith - 14 January 2009 08:07 AM

the PC apeman - 14 January 2009 07:53 AM

Taking Stephen’s thought a little further… If we take it that a god created logic it would seem strange that he would also create free will.  Why have laws that cannot be broken as well as laws that can be broken but with consequences?

Well, if God created logic then it follows that his reasons literally are inscrutable. (That is, if God himself is not bound by the laws of logic, everything you say about God is both true and false). So it’s pointless to ask any further questions about him or his supposed “reasons”.

Good point.  Without logic I suppose it’s equally pointless to say such a god exists or did anything.

I don’t see how any of that follows.  Doug seemed to have an easy enough time piercing the inscrutability of such a god by saying that he is not bound by the laws of logic.  But how does it supposedly follow from there that everything we say about that god would be both true and false?  Do we need to backtrack and say that god is both bound by the laws of logic and not bound by the laws of logic?

Bryan - 14 January 2009 09:33 AM

I don’t see how any of that follows.  Doug seemed to have an easy enough time piercing the inscrutability of such a god by saying that he is not bound by the laws of logic.  But how does it supposedly follow from there that everything we say about that god would be both true and false?  Do we need to backtrack and say that god is both bound by the laws of logic and not bound by the laws of logic?

I think PCs point is that a God who could contradict the laws of logic has himself contradictory properties and hence cannot exist. This does not have any implications, however, about a God who could not contradict the laws of logic.

dougsmith - 14 January 2009 09:41 AM

Bryan - 14 January 2009 09:33 AM

I don’t see how any of that follows.  Doug seemed to have an easy enough time piercing the inscrutability of such a god by saying that he is not bound by the laws of logic.  But how does it supposedly follow from there that everything we say about that god would be both true and false?  Do we need to backtrack and say that god is both bound by the laws of logic and not bound by the laws of logic?

I think PCs point is that a God who could contradict the laws of logic has himself contradictory properties and hence cannot exist. This does not have any implications, however, about a God who could not contradict the laws of logic.

Nor does it have implications for a God who could contradict the laws of logic, as I have already pointed out.  If you make it axiomatic that God can do the impossible then existing despite the impossibility of existing seems like relatively small potatoes.

Well, yes. Once you start throwing out the law of noncontradiction, the whole game is pretty much over.

dougsmith - 14 January 2009 07:52 AM

StephenLawrence - 14 January 2009 07:47 AM

Another is God is outside of space and time, outside of our universe and so is not restricted by the rules of logic our universe must conform with.

The question as to whether God is outside of space and time (an abstractum) is a different question from whether God is or is not restricted by the laws of logic.

True.

What I’m trying to get at is that I think some people believe in a creator God because it would take something they considered to be illogical, an uncaused causer, to start the universe.

If we believe nothing inside the universe can be illogical and believe an uncaused causer is illogical, that gives reason to believe in God. God being defined as an uncaused causer outside of space and time.

I think this is a case in which perhaps the standard atheist argument is wrong. That argument is that if God can cause himself to be himself, then why can’t the universe cause itself to be itself and so God doesn’t help explain the universe’s existence.

But if uncaused causers are illogical and the universe can’t be and an uncaused causer is required to start a universe, then God (as defined) is needed as an explanation.

Stephen

StephenLawrence - 14 January 2009 10:14 AM

dougsmith - 14 January 2009 07:52 AM

StephenLawrence - 14 January 2009 07:47 AM

Another is God is outside of space and time, outside of our universe and so is not restricted by the rules of logic our universe must conform with.

The question as to whether God is outside of space and time (an abstractum) is a different question from whether God is or is not restricted by the laws of logic.

True.

What I’m trying to get at is that I think some people believe in a creator God because it would take something they considered to be illogical, an uncaused causer, to start the universe.

Why do you think they think that an uncaused causer is illogical?

StephenLawrence - 14 January 2009 10:14 AM

But if uncaused causers are illogical and the universe can’t be and an uncaused causer is required to start a universe, then God (as defined) is needed as an explanation.

We’ve been through this bad argument before. “God” doesn’t add anything to the explanation.

the PC apeman - 14 January 2009 07:40 AM

Which god?  If

Doesn’t matter. Assuming that there is some _god_ that created logic, we are talking about his nature. The others are not important in this context.