2

Note: This isn't a question asking for an explanation, that would be a debate, more one asking for clarification. I don't want this turning into a debate about the existence of deities.

Whenever debating religion and deities we have to use logic but if a deity was apart that the debates may have to follow a different tactic. There is the common atheistic rebuttal of "Can an omnipotent being make a bowl of porridge too big for themselves to finish...and then eat it all?" which depends on there being logical constraints (and a strict definition of omnipotence).

The question comes down to: in the theologies (monotheistic if this needs to be narrowed down) where do the Gods stand against logic? Is it believed that logic itself was created by a God or that it comes before as some more fundamental rule which Gods are also governed by?

At the 'beginning' do theologies hold that the possibilities results of the creation were restricted by what is logical or was logic a thing which was created by the deity first and then a universe.

Geoffrey Thomas
  • 35,303
  • 4
  • 40
  • 143
Lio Elbammalf
  • 208
  • 1
  • 8
  • Who knows ? If God created **ALL**, included logical laws, **we** humans are forced to follow them, because our "harware" has been designed by God with those logic laws as "firmware". – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Oct 23 '18 at 11:13
  • But what does it mean to ask if God follows or not logic laws ? Who knows God's arguments, actions and so on ? – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Oct 23 '18 at 11:14
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA I'm not asking for a truth value, I'm asking what the stance is within theology. What is the philosophy regarding logic and Gods? – Lio Elbammalf Oct 23 '18 at 11:26
  • 1
    I find the question interesting but cannot understand it well enough to reply. I'm not sure what you mean by 'Where do the Gods stand against logic?'. –  Oct 23 '18 at 11:39
  • @PeterJ I added a couple of edits in an attempt to clear this up. Essentially is it believed that Gods are restricted by logic? – Lio Elbammalf Oct 23 '18 at 13:43
  • This is an old question, cast in a new form. Socrates asked: is what is good, good, because the gods like it, or do the gods like what is good? Does goodness stand “above” or “below” the gods? Here we’re dealing with logic, not good, but the question stands. Similar for “can god create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?”. My take is logic has its limits, they are known and established, and the universe, never mind an omnipotent god, is under no obligation to accord with it. We all *hope* the universe does, but hope and 25 cents will buy you a bag if chips. – Dan Bron Oct 23 '18 at 13:59
  • See related post : [Is God subject to logic?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/22697/is-god-subject-to-logic) – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Oct 23 '18 at 14:33
  • This is controversial among theologians, even just Catholic ones. According to "rationalists", like Aquinas, God is "bound" by logic. Actually, "bound" is a misnomer, it is not that God is bound by anything, it is just that language allows us to form nonsensical sentences that do not correspond to anything. Logic just cuts out the nonsense. According to "mystics", God is beyond logic, and can surpass its bounds. This requires admitting that absurd can be real in some way, which is also the position of dialecticians, see [credo quia absurdum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum). – Conifold Oct 23 '18 at 19:35
  • Also related [Can strong omnipotence be decomposed into logically possible and logically impossible aspects?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/31067/9148) – Conifold Oct 23 '18 at 19:40
  • 1
    @Conifold - The claim of mysticism is most definitely not that the absurd can be real. The claim is that the Ultimate transcends the categories, not that the universe is absurd. This is where Priest, Melhuish and other non-mystic philosophers get it hopelessly wrong. The universe would obey Aristotle's laws. 'God' would not be 'illogical' but would lie 'beyond the coincidence of contradictories'. The universe would be reasonable just as demonstrated by Nagarjuna. This issue has been much muddled by Priest, who we may note is not a mystic but an onlooker. –  Oct 24 '18 at 11:47
  • @PeterJ Nagarjuna, negative theologists, etc., admit two levels of truth, the ordinary where logic applies but which is to be surpassed, and the deep, which is beyond it. Priest is not a dialectician, he is a dialetheist, "unity of opposites" is Nicholas of Cusa's term, he was a dialectic mystic. "Credo quia absurdum" is from Tertullian, and is also meant to express the beyondness of God. – Conifold Oct 24 '18 at 18:03
  • @Conifold - Quite so. . –  Oct 25 '18 at 09:37

1 Answers1

1

It depends on the context.

From a religious point of view, man is subject to the divine law, and therefore is not up to its understanding. In such case, logics, science, math et.al. are superseded by the divine law. Religious people follow this thinking structure.

On the other hand, from a rational perspective, logic precedes any other discipline, since it allows the description of nature, and therefore allows the discrimination of truth and falsehood. People who tends to think logically follows such approach.

Logic (usually related to the rational process) and math (related to analysis and communication of complex ideas and logic structures) are usually incompatible with religions. That is because religious knowledge is usually infested by contradictions, which are not acceptable in logic. If a religion would be completely logical, it would be absolutely compatible with science:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Epicurus

Most people follows the latter model because it just reflects our rational process. We survive using logic. And moreover, any god lacking of logics would be truly evil (e.g. we fight for survival, and any god that would contradict such principle would be just the opposite as what we could consider as a god):

Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.

Isaac Asimov

Religions, therefore, are not to be understood. They are just to be followed. It's all up to each one of us.

RodolfoAP
  • 6,580
  • 12
  • 29