[2562]

This thread has probably been done many times before, but oh well.

I've been thinking about this quite a lot today; here are my ideas:

Leaving aside for the moment exactly what the term 'principles of logic' means, I want to posit the existence of a God that lies beyond the 'rules' of sense and congency; indeed, a God that created these 'rules' to aid us in our understanding of the world.

If this God exists, surely we, as logical beings, could never justify our belief that he exists. To say that the world is so complex as to warrant a creator by necessity, for example, implies a logical relation between the creator and the created, and even that God recognises his abilty to create complexity over our own ability. This latter idea implies that God thinks logically, which contradicts the initial premise that he lies beyond it.

We could solve these issues by saying that he is subject to logic, and that he did create the world logically. However, this would apparently remove him of omnipotence. And we can't have the best of both theories, as it's contradictory to say that he is governed by the 'principles' that he 'created'.

Does my argument demonstate a misunderstading of the entirely inconceivable in relation to the logical principles that 'govern' (for want of a better word) what I can conceive of?

[RawJoh1]

God is subject to the principles of logic, or else He doesn't exist (because if He is not subject to the principles of logic, therefore He can both exist and not exist at the same time. This entails He does not exist.

[jjmitchell314]

Originally Posted by RawJoh1

God is subject to the principles of logic, or else He doesn't exist (because if He is not subject to the principles of logic, therefore He can both exist and not exist at the same time. This entails He does not exist.

This is true, but as we have yet to prove god exists we can say that he BOTH exists and doesn't exist until we find proof either way. It's the whole point of belief. Belief that he exists when he may well not.

[RawJoh1]

Originally Posted by jjmitchell314

This is true, but as we have yet to prove god exists we can say that he BOTH exists and doesn't exist until we find proof either way. It's the whole point of belief. Belief that he exists when he may well not.

What?

That there isn't proof of God's existence (though some, though not me would dispute that) doesn't mean that He both exists and not exists.

[jjmitchell314]

Originally Posted by RawJoh1

What?

That there isn't proof of God's existence (though some, though not me would dispute that) doesn't mean that He both exists and not exists.

Shrodinger's theory, that until something is observed to be true or false it is theoretically both.

[sksflipper]

Well yes. If you think logically you come to the conclusion that he/she/it doesn't exist.

If you mean does the concept of a benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent creator contradict logic then yes it does.

I would also say that positing, as I think you do, a being that is not subject to physical law, or a part of the physical universe is illogical. So I would say it is illogical to posit some of this kind and then try reconcile it with logic later.

[sksflipper]

Originally Posted by jjmitchell314

Shrodinger's theory, that until something is observed to be true or false it is theoretically both.

And since god is not observable or physical he doesn't exist.

[Mithra]

Originally Posted by jjmitchell314

Shrodinger's theory, that until something is observed to be true or false it is theoretically both.

Physics fail.

[Phonicsdude]

Originally Posted by RawJoh1

God is subject to the principles of logic, or else He doesn't exist (because if He is not subject to the principles of logic, therefore He can both exist and not exist at the same time. This entails He does not exist.

P1 IF God is not subject to the principles of logic.
P2 THEN God could exist and not exist.
C Therefore God does not exist.


Wtf. No coherence. P1 does necessitate P2

[2562]

Originally Posted by RawJoh1

God is subject to the principles of logic, or else He doesn't exist (because if He is not subject to the principles of logic, therefore He can both exist and not exist at the same time. This entails He does not exist.

Interesting argument, but it also entails that he does exist. You can't just avoid a contradictory conclusion by removing that bit.

[sksflipper]

Originally Posted by Mithra

Physics fail.

Indeed.

[2562]

Originally Posted by sksflipper

Well yes. If you think logically you come to the conclusion that he/she/it doesn't exist.

If you mean does the concept of a benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent creator contradict logic then yes it does.

I would also say that positing, as I think you do, a being that is not subject to physical law, or a part of the physical universe is illogical. So I would say it is illogical to posit some of this kind and then try reconcile it with logic later.

The fact that I can conceive of a body that is not subject to gravity proves that final sentence wrong. Logical principles are distinct from physical laws. Physical laws are subject to logical principles but, as far as I am aware, they can be conceived of as being otherwise or non-existent whereas logical principles cannot.

[RawJoh1]

Originally Posted by Phonicsdude

P1 IF God is not subject to the principles of logic.
P2 THEN God could exist and not exist.
C Therefore God does not exist.

Wtf. No coherence. P1 does necessitate P2

P1 entails P2 if we have the plausible suppressed premise

P1.5 The only reason that X cannot both exist and not exist at the same time is because the law of non-contradiction is true and has universal scope

EDIT: I'm aware that there are logics which deny the law of non-contradiction but meh ...

[RawJoh1]

Originally Posted by 2562

Interesting argument, but it also entails that he does exist. You can't just avoid a contradictory conclusion by removing that bit.

I've never met a theist who'd agree that God does not exist (even if, weirdly, He did also exist).

[sksflipper]

Originally Posted by 2562

The fact that I can conceive of a body that is not subject to gravity proves that final sentence wrong. Logical principles are distinct from physical laws. Physical laws are subject to logical principles but, as far as I am aware, they can be conceived of as being otherwise or non-existent whereas logical principles cannot.

What is logical about a body that is not subject to gravity?

[Phonicsdude]

Originally Posted by RawJoh1

P1 entails P2 if we have the plausible suppressed premise

P1.5 The only reason that X cannot both exist and not exist at the same time is because the law of non-contradiction is true and has universal scope

EDIT: I'm aware that there are logics which deny the law of non-contradiction but meh ...

I still don't understand how "X can exist therefore X does exist" is logical. Am I being stupid?

[RawJoh1]

Originally Posted by sksflipper

What is logical about a body that is not subject to gravity?

There's nothing illogical about a thing that's not subject to gravity.

[sksflipper]

Originally Posted by RawJoh1

There's nothing illogical about a thing that's not subject to gravity.

Sorry I wasn't clear. It would be illogical to posit a body that is not subject to gravity.

[RawJoh1]

Originally Posted by sksflipper

Sorry I wasn't clear. It would be illogical to posit a body that is not subject to gravity.

Would it? Why? (maybe there's a technical definition of 'body' I'm not aware of, but if that's the case then your interlocutor isn't talking about bodies, he's talking about things).

[RawJoh1]

Originally Posted by Phonicsdude

I still don't understand how "X can exist therefore X does exist" is logical. Am I being stupid?

I don't see how my thought relies on that move.