CAN God do the the logically impossible? Why / why not?

[Free]

If a house is built on quicksand (false premises),
is it better to stop building, to dig down to bedrock, or to abandon it ?

Again, what is your point and what does it have to do with this discussion?

 

[Little Owl]

?? What would Lazarus disagree with ?
Neither logic nor math is able to raise someone from the grave.
Jesus is , of course , well able to do so.

Exactly.

 

[Little Owl]

You’re not understanding. God created everything and for him to raise someone from the dead is perfectly consistent with that. It isn’t a logical impossibility; it’s not a matter of logic at all.

Logic doesn’t limit God. God is the source of logic, it is an aspect of his nature. For God to go against logic would mean God would have to go against his nature. That is an absolute impossibility.

Precisely. Your remarks should be addressed to those who believe there are things that are logically impossible within the realm of God.

That ideology is Humanist.

 

[Free]

Precisely. Your remarks should be addressed to those who believe there are things that are logically impossible within the realm of God.

I don't understand this comment as you first agree and then disagree. There "are things that are logically impossible within the realm of God" because the Bible explicitly says there is and because reason tells us there is. Examples have been even been given.

That ideology is Humanist.

That God can't do the logically impossible? That God cannot do the logically impossible is biblical and rational based on using God-given reasoning. Verses were given proving this is the case and further examples were given as well.

The arguments against it show that persons do not understand either the nature of logic or the nature of God.

 

[Little Owl]

I don't understand this comment as you first agree and then disagree. There "are things that are logically impossible within the realm of God" because the Bible explicitly says there is and because reason tells us there is. Examples have been even been given.

I should have said, precisely, after excepting the last sentence on your post.
My error.

The Bible doesn't state God is bound by logic.

That God can't do the logically impossible? That God cannot do the logically impossible is biblical and rational based on using God-given reasoning. Verses were given proving this is the case and further examples were given as well.

The arguments against it show that persons do not understand either the nature of logic or the nature of God.

 

[Free]

I should have said, precisely, after excepting the last sentence on your post.
My error.

The Bible doesn't state God is bound by logic.

No, it doesn't, because that would be to misunderstand the nature of God and the nature of logic. To say that God is bound by logic is to suggest that logic is greater than God, that it would essentially be God. As I posted on the previous page:

'The constancy of God's character provides us an absolute basis for us to trust in his faithfulness to us. And this faithfulness includes logical consistency rather than illogicality. God "cannot deny himself" (2 Tim. 2:13). He always acts in accordance with who he is.
...
Logic is in fact an aspect of his character, because it expresses the consistency of God and the faithfulness of God. Consistency and faithfulness belong to the character of God. We can say that they are attributes of God. God is who he is (Ex. 3:14), and what he is includes his consistency and faithfulness. There is nothing more ultimate than God. So God is the source for logic. The character of God includes his logicality.' (Very Poythress, Logic, p. 63)

" Our experience of thinking, reasoning, and forming arguments imitates God and reflects the mind of God. Our logic reflects God's logic. Logic, then, is an aspect of God's mind. Logic is universal among all human beings in all cultures, because there is only one God, and we are all made in the image of God." (Ibid, p. 64)


Do you believe God is omniscient? You should:

Isa 46:9 remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,
Isa 46:10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ (ESV)

Mat 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.
Mat 10:30 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. (ESV)

1Jn 3:20 for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything. (ESV)

Rev 21:6 And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. (ESV)

(Etc.)

So, if God is omniscient, and he is, then that means there is nothing he does not know; he knows everything. This means that God cannot learn. That is why the question was asked earlier if God could learn--it creates logical conundrum. If God can learn, then it means that there is at least one thing he doesn't know, and therefore, cannot be omniscient. If God cannot learn, then that means he is omniscient, but that there is something he cannot do, namely, learn.

That is also why I asked if God could make a rock so heavy that he could not lift it. If he could make such rock, his inability to lift it would mean he is not omnipotent. Yet, if he cannot create such a rock, then he is also not omnipotent. It makes the idea of omnipotence self-contradictory.

The whole point is to show that God cannot do the logically impossible because such an idea is nonsense. That means at least two things. First, that understanding omnipotence as meaning God can do absolutely anything, including the logically impossible, is not at all correct. Second, that God can only act in ways that are consistent with his nature. If he could act in ways contradictory to his nature, then he could sin and would be completely untrustworthy. But, what does the Bible say?

2Ti 2:13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful— for he cannot deny himself. (ESV)

Heb 6:18 so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. (ESV)

Jas 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. (ESV)

It clearly states there are things that God cannot do, because they go against his nature. Self-contradictory things are precluded from having any bearing on omniscience or omnipotence since they absolute nonsense.

 

[Little Owl]

No, it doesn't, because that would be to misunderstand the nature of God and the nature of logic. To say that God is bound by logic is to suggest that logic is greater than God, that it would essentially be God. As I posted on the previous page:

'The constancy of God's character provides us an absolute basis for us to trust in his faithfulness to us. And this faithfulness includes logical consistency rather than illogicality. God "cannot deny himself" (2 Tim. 2:13). He always acts in accordance with who he is.
...
Logic is in fact an aspect of his character, because it expresses the consistency of God and the faithfulness of God. Consistency and faithfulness belong to the character of God. We can say that they are attributes of God. God is who he is (Ex. 3:14), and what he is includes his consistency and faithfulness. There is nothing more ultimate than God. So God is the source for logic. The character of God includes his logicality.' (Very Poythress, Logic, p. 63)

" Our experience of thinking, reasoning, and forming arguments imitates God and reflects the mind of God. Our logic reflects God's logic. Logic, then, is an aspect of God's mind. Logic is universal among all human beings in all cultures, because there is only one God, and we are all made in the image of God." (Ibid, p. 64)


Do you believe God is omniscient? You should:

Isa 46:9 remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,
Isa 46:10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ (ESV)

Mat 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.
Mat 10:30 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. (ESV)

1Jn 3:20 for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything. (ESV)

Rev 21:6 And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. (ESV)

(Etc.)

So, if God is omniscient, and he is, then that means there is nothing he does not know; he knows everything. This means that God cannot learn. That is why the question was asked earlier if God could learn--it creates logical conundrum. If God can learn, then it means that there is at least one thing he doesn't know, and therefore, cannot be omniscient. If God cannot learn, then that means he is omniscient, but that there is something he cannot do, namely, learn.

That is also why I asked if God could make a rock so heavy that he could not lift it. If he could make such rock, his inability to lift it would mean he is not omnipotent. Yet, if he cannot create such a rock, then he is also not omnipotent. It makes the idea of omnipotence self-contradictory.

The whole point is to show that God cannot do the logically impossible because such an idea is nonsense. That means at least two things. First, that understanding omnipotence as meaning God can do absolutely anything, including the logically impossible, is not at all correct. Second, that God can only act in ways that are consistent with his nature. If he could act in ways contradictory to his nature, then he could sin and would be completely untrustworthy. But, what does the Bible say?

2Ti 2:13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful— for he cannot deny himself. (ESV)

Heb 6:18 so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. (ESV)

Jas 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. (ESV)

It clearly states there are things that God cannot do, because they go against his nature. Self-contradictory things are precluded from having any bearing on omniscience or omnipotence since they absolute nonsense.

There is nothing that is impossible for God.

Logic is for the finite and fallible.

"God is not logical because logic is for the finite and the fallible. It is a structure created and given by God so that beings with limited knowledge cold solve problems and have a reasonable world. But God is not limited to the logic we hold up as the ultimate right to disprove all nonsense." https://seminary.bju.edu/theology-in-3d/is-god-bound-by-logic/

That God cannot deny himself has nothing to do with supporting your premise.

 

[Free]

There is nothing that is impossible for God.

Of course not, but that precludes the logically impossible; those things don't ever enter the picture.

Logic is for the finite and fallible.

"God is not logical because logic is for the finite and the fallible. It is a structure created and given by God so that beings with limited knowledge cold solve problems and have a reasonable world. But God is not limited to the logic we hold up as the ultimate right to disprove all nonsense." https://seminary.bju.edu/theology-in-3d/is-god-bound-by-logic/

Where did you get that quote from? Apart from lacking basic understanding, it sure isn't from the article you linked to, which actually supports everything I've said:

'God’s inability to be illogical (which is not the same as paradoxical) is not due to any compulsion to conform to some extrinsic reality (“Logic”) but to act in keeping with his own intrinsic nature. God’s nature defines reality and, for that matter, logic.'

'Logic isn’t something outside God to which he must conform, any more than righteousness or compassion is; it is an extension of his own being and character that we have the capacity to appreciate and reflect because he has built it into humanity (how we think) and this world (how it operates). So is God bound by logic? In the same sense that he is “bound” by righteousness or by love, yes; those are all part of his nature and he is “bound” to act according to his own nature. But in the sense that logic or righteousness or love is some universal quality external to God to which he is compelled to submit, no. God is not bound by logic; God is logic.'

That God cannot deny himself has nothing to do with supporting your premise.

It has everything to do with supporting my premise--that there are things that God cannot do because they are logically impossible.

 

[Fastfredy0]

To say that God is bound by logic is to suggest that logic is greater than God,

There is nothing that is impossible for God.

Of course not, but that precludes the logically impossible;

seems like a contradiction to say "God not bound by logic" and say "God can't do the logically impossible" ... maybe semantics

 

[Free]

seems like a contradiction to say "God not bound by logic" and say "God can't do the logically impossible" ... maybe semantics

The answer is in the quote:

‘So is God bound by logic? In the same sense that he is “bound” by righteousness or by love, yes; those are all part of his nature and he is “bound” to act according to his own nature. But in the sense that logic or righteousness or love is some universal quality external to God to which he is compelled to submit, no. God is not bound by logic; God is logic.'

God can only be said to be “bound” by logic insofar as it is an aspect of his nature. But, to say that God is bound by logic in that he is forced to obey it's rules, would mean that logic exists outside of him and is therefore greater than he is. The ability for God to do the logically impossible simply doesn’t exist since he is logic and can only act in accordance to his nature.

 

[Fastfredy0]

‘So is God bound by logic? In the same sense that he is “bound” by righteousness or by love, yes; those are all part of his nature and he is “bound” to act according to his own nature. But in the sense that logic or righteousness or love is some universal quality external to God to which he is compelled to submit, no. God is not bound by logic; God is logic.'

I guess I am saying that things like "logic" or "truth" or "I'm to lazy to think of another example" would exist even if there wasn't God. Granted, there would be nothing to appreciate the concepts of "logic" or "truth" but I would say God didn't create them. I agree that God's nature is to be logical and truthful. I don't care for the word "bound" as if "logic" or "truth" had power over God as that is inappropriate.
Maybe better to say that God is perfect and perfection is defined in part as being logical and truthful.

God can only be said to be “bound” by logic insofar as it is an aspect of his nature. The ability for God to do the logically impossible simply doesn’t exist since he is logic and can only act in accordance to his nature.

Agreed. Again, I don't like the choice of the word "bound".

 

[Free]

I guess I am saying that things like "logic" or "truth" or "I'm to lazy to think of another example" would exist even if there wasn't God.

Except that they wouldn't, since they are of God himself. That would also mean that God actually is bound by (subject to) logic and truth since, if they would exist without him, that means they are greater than he is.

Granted, there would be nothing to appreciate the concepts of "logic" or "truth" but I would say God didn't create them. I agree that God's nature is to be logical and truthful. I don't care for the word "bound" as if "logic" or "truth" had power over God as that is inappropriate.
Maybe better to say that God is perfect and perfection is defined in part as being logical and truthful.


Agreed. Again, I don't like the choice of the word "bound".

I wouldn't say that God's nature is to be logical and truthful, as again, that would imply they exist outside of himself and he would actually be subject to them, making them greater than himself. God's nature is logic and is truth, just as it is spirit and is love. I think that is one of the reasons John used Logos of the preincarnate Son.

And, as Jesus said:

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (ESV)

 

[Fastfredy0]

Except that they [truth/logic] wouldn't, since they are of God himself.

You may be right. I'm not so sure though. It's not as if TRUTH or LOGIC is a created thing. Could God make 1+1=3? or make a system in which lying is truth (keeping in mine our definition of truth). I don't think so. God and truth are eternal and both uncreated IMO.

That would also mean that God actually is bound by (subject to) logic and truth since, if they would exist without him, that means they are greater than he is.

Again ... I don't see it that way. If God didn't exist, would not truth still exist? Like, if there was no God and nothing then would it not be true that nothing exists? .... why would we need God for the statement 'nothing exists' to be true.

.... not that this is important ... just doing some thinking to clear the mental cob webs away in this old body.

 

[Free]

It's not as if TRUTH or LOGIC is a created thing.

Exactly.

Could God make 1+1=3? or make a system in which lying is truth (keeping in mine our definition of truth). I don't think so.

No and no.

God and truth are eternal and both uncreated IMO.

Right, and since God is the only eternal, truth is necessarily an aspect of God's nature which is why it is eternal.

Again ... I don't see it that way. If God didn't exist, would not truth still exist?

How could it? If God created everything that exists, how could truth exist if God didn't exist? What would truth even be if there was no mind to comprehend it?

Like, if there was no God and nothing then would it not be true that nothing exists?

Yes, it would be true. I stated that on the previous page--if God didn't exist, nothing would exist, including logic, math, and truth.

.... why would we need God for the statement 'nothing exists' to be true.

I don't understand what you're asking here.

.... not that this is important ... just doing some thinking to clear the mental cob webs away in this old body.

It's always good to think about these things. Maybe not all the time as it is likely to drive one mad.

 

[Fastfredy0]

How could it? If God created everything that exists, how could truth exist if God didn't exist?

Well, I'm saying that truth and 1+1=2 would exist as, per my thought, God didn't create them and there is no need for God to exist in order the truth exist.

What would truth even be if there was no mind to comprehend it?

Interesting ... I had the same thought. I came up with: Well, if nothing existed then the statement that nothing exists would be an established truth and no need for God to establish it. I grant there would be nothing that would know the truth, yet a truth would exist.


Re I said: Like, if there was no God and nothing then would it not be true that nothing exists?

Yes, it would be true. I stated that on the previous page--if God didn't exist, nothing would exist, including logic, math, and truth.

I think you contradicted yourself. I said there was "no God" and it would be true that nothing existed. You said that was true [therefore a truth] ... then said nothing exist including truth. I truth exists, just no one knows it ... *giggle*

.... why would we need God for the statement 'nothing exists' to be true. [thus establishing TRUTH does not need God in order to exist]

I don't understand what you're asking here.

I am saying if God didn't exist it would be a truth that nothing exists which establishes the fact that God is not necessary for truth to exist. Giggle ... this is getting wordy ... hope you followed ....not like this is important *giggle*

It's always good to think about these things. Maybe not all the time as it is likely to drive one mad.

LOL ... if Aristotle was alive I don't think his job would be in jeopardy.
Aside: Must be gettin' cold up there

 

[KV-44-v1]

asking

God seems to be able to both be seen AND not seen at the same time. From someone:

"
Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank.

I've seen the apologetics trying to reconcile "no man hath seen God" with this verse in which they clearly saw God. They've all chosen the stupidest possible interpretation of Paul (the absolutist interpretation) and are gaslighting their asses off trying to reconcile this one.

The easiest reconciliation is that Paul was not speaking in the absolute sense, but in the relative/relatable sense -- none of you are going to be able to see God unless you die.

Or how about Is Jesus God? Did people not literally see him? Well then that also contradicts Paul, doesn't it? Unless Jesus isn't actually God, but that would contradict John who explicitly identifies Jesus as Logos (the Word), who was with God AND was God, yet another self-contradictory statement unless the term God refers to both a being and a title as separate things.
Ambiguity in interpretation. It's a legitimate, faith-dividing question whether the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all the same being in different manifestations. What is meant by "my Father and I are One?" Sure, you can answer it, but your answer isn't going to be congruent with Catholicism or any of the restorationist or any of the protestant faiths, which are all going to give substantially different answers and meanings. Each of them will cite chapter and verse to support their opposing claims. Who gets to arbitrarily decide which one is the "most biblical?"

It comes down to this:

There is no purely biblical test that can identify that a sect is correct; all will claim full biblical compatibility according to their interpretation.
"

 

[Free]

God seems to be able to both be seen AND not seen at the same time. From someone:

"
Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank.

I've seen the apologetics trying to reconcile "no man hath seen God" with this verse in which they clearly saw God. They've all chosen the stupidest possible interpretation of Paul (the absolutist interpretation) and are gaslighting their asses off trying to reconcile this one.

The easiest reconciliation is that Paul was not speaking in the absolute sense, but in the relative/relatable sense -- none of you are going to be able to see God unless you die.

Okay, but that is a matter of proper interpretation and understanding, not a logical impossibility.

Or how about Is Jesus God? Did people not literally see him? Well then that also contradicts Paul, doesn't it? Unless Jesus isn't actually God, but that would contradict John who explicitly identifies Jesus as Logos (the Word), who was with God AND was God, yet another self-contradictory statement unless the term God refers to both a being and a title as separate things.

This is a nonsense argument that also is based on a lack of proper interpretation and understanding.

Ambiguity in interpretation.

There are some things that are ambiguous and some that are truly difficult, but for the most part, with proper biblical study, all the above is consistent and coherent.

 

[Little Owl]

seems like a contradiction to say "God not bound by logic" and say "God can't do the logically impossible" ... maybe semantics

Possibly.
Maybe logic isn't something some understand.

It isnt logical for a dead man laying in a tomb for days to come back to life and walk and live again. Lazarus and Jesus did that.

It isntohical for a man to walk on water but Jesus did that.

God is not bound by logic because he is outside of and above his creation. True,all things God created are of God and from God. However the created cannot limit by its natural laws that he also created, God.
.

 

[Little Owl]

Of course not, but that precludes the logically impossible; those things don't ever enter the picture.


Where did you get that quote from? Apart from lacking basic understanding, it sure isn't from the article you linked to, which actually supports everything I've said:

'God’s inability to be illogical (which is not the same as paradoxical) is not due to any compulsion to conform to some extrinsic reality (“Logic”) but to act in keeping with his own intrinsic nature. God’s nature defines reality and, for that matter, logic.'

'Logic isn’t something outside God to which he must conform, any more than righteousness or compassion is; it is an extension of his own being and character that we have the capacity to appreciate and reflect because he has built it into humanity (how we think) and this world (how it operates). So is God bound by logic? In the same sense that he is “bound” by righteousness or by love, yes; those are all part of his nature and he is “bound” to act according to his own nature. But in the sense that logic or righteousness or love is some universal quality external to God to which he is compelled to submit, no. God is not bound by logic; God is logic.'


It has everything to do with supporting my premise--that there are things that God cannot do because they are logically impossible.

The article rightly understood does not support your premise.

God is the creator of the natural world and its laws. Those laws define reality. Everything is of and from God. Yet,God is outside of and above,beyond,his creation.

It is illogical to insist God must be conformed by,confined by,his creation.

Logic is our domain. Not God's. God created what defines in our world, Logic. The created does not limit the creator.

 

[Fastfredy0]

‘So is God bound by logic? In the same sense that he is “bound” by righteousness or by love, yes; those are all part of his nature and he is “bound” to act according to his own nature. But in the sense that logic or righteousness or love is some universal quality external to God to which he is compelled to submit, no. God is not bound by logic; God is logic.'

Agreed

God can only be said to be “bound” by logic insofar as it is an aspect of his nature. But, to say that God is bound by logic in that he is forced to obey it's rules, would mean that logic exists outside of him and is therefore greater than he is. The ability for God to do the logically impossible simply doesn’t exist since he is logic and can only act in accordance to his nature.

So, if logic was not part of God's nature then in theory God could create a rock too big for Him to lift and then He would lift it? The definition of a PERFECT God would change in a world where logic was not a foundation of knowledge.
It is difficult to discuss this as it relies on the possibility that there could be an illogical world and we only have logic to postulate what that world might be like.
LOL ... philosophy is not my strong suit