Why logic must reign in debate

[Luke2427]

1 Logic is of God.
It is not subjective. It is not a matter of perspective. It is not human. It comes from God as much as love and holiness come from him.

A theology that is not logical is as much false as a theology that is not holy.

Logic means that something cannot contradict itself. It cannot be something and not be that something at the same time.

God cannot exist and NOT exist at the same time.

God cannot be all-powerful and not be all powerful at the same time.

God cannot be all-knowing and not be all knowing at the same time.

God cannot be truthful and not be truthful at the same time.

THE ONLY REASON WE CAN TRUST ANYTHING THAT GOD SAYS IS BECAUSE HE IS LOGICAL. HE IS INTERNALLY CONSISTENT.



2 There is no point in discussing anything if logic does not apply to it.

Take the temperature at which water freezes in a particular environment.

If it can freeze and NOT freeze at 32 degrees at the same time then how is anything anybody says about water freezing relevant??

Bob- "I contend that it freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit."

Tom- "I contend that it DOESN'T freeze at 32 degrees Fahrenheit"

Bob- "Here are my reasons..."

Tom- "Here are MY reasons..."

So why do ANY of the reasons and arguments matter if there is no rhyme nor reason to why and how water freezes?

Both can be completely right and completely wrong all at the same time. Their reasons and arguments can be TOTALLY valid and UTTERLY invalid all at the same time.

Why? Because there is no logic to guide them.

But if water most assuredly always freezes in this particular environment under these particular conditions at 32 degrees Fahrenheit then arguments and reasons matter. They are EITHER valid or invalid.

The same is true with theology.

If God can know everything that will ever happen and NOT know many things that will happen at the same time then NOTHING ANYBODY SAYS IS EITHER VALID OR INVALID or EVERYTHING EVERYBODY SAYS CAN BE BOTH VALID AND INVALID- therefore nothing anybody says means ANYTHING.

So why even talk about it? WHY HAVE BAPTISTBOARD if logic does not reign?




BUT IF GOD IS LOGICAL...

Then he CANNOT know everything there is to ever know about everything and NOT know some things at the same time.

NOW one can make valid points and prove a theology right or wrong.

Why? Because God is logical- he is internally consistent. His attributes are not fluid and changing but they are concrete and immutable.

Words MEAN something. Things are either TRUE or FALSE.

Conversation is thus meaningful.


But for those of you who do not care if logic applies to what you purport- there is no point in ANYONE EVER talking with you.

 

[preachinjesus]

You have certainly added a good post where we agree on almost everything. Logic is the foundation of our discussions. However there are some points which need clarification.

One of the challenges that I renew is that I think you are using logic too dualistically. Not everything is either A or B. Most often questions go beyond two options and theological opinions are not confined to two answers. Not everything, actually nearly nothing, is confined to this dualistic tendency which is present in your writing.

Just because you and I agree that God has exhaustive knowledge of all events past, present, and future doesn't inherently mean He determines any or all of those events. In denying the Openness of God theology, I can still point out that foreknowledge doesn't equal determination.

I'd also encourage you to clarify a few definitions, such as:

Logic means that something cannot contradict itself. It cannot be something and not be that something at the same time.

That's a pretty limited definition of logic. Hopefully this isn't only what you mean.

THE ONLY REASON WE CAN TRUST ANYTHING THAT GOD SAYS IS BECAUSE HE IS LOGICAL. HE IS INTERNALLY CONSISTENT.

I completely agree with you on this.

If it can freeze and NOT freeze at 32 degrees at the same time then how is anything anybody says about water freezing relevant??

I'm not certain of your meaning here. Perhaps you can expand on the argument. Water's freezing level is almost entirely contingent on its environment and altitude. The higher the altitude the higher the freeze point, the lower the altitude the lower the freeze point, etc. Clarity would help here.

If God can know everything that will ever happen and NOT know many things that will happen at the same time then NOTHING ANYBODY SAYS IS EITHER VALID OR INVALID or EVERYTHING EVERYBODY SAYS CAN BE BOTH VALID AND INVALID- therefore nothing anybody says means ANYTHING.

This is a confusing point. What does God's knowledge have to do with what I say or do?

So why even talk about it? WHY HAVE BAPTISTBOARD if logic does not reign?

I think most people here think in (loose) logical categories. We don't have too many folks who are suggesting logical arguments don't work.

Then he CANNOT know everything there is to ever know about everything and NOT know some things at the same time.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Something should be said about de se knowledge versus in re knowledge (that is God possessing the first and creation possessing the latter.) But I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Words MEAN something. Things are either TRUE or FALSE.

Conversation is thus meaningful.

Oh my, now if we are going to talking about language theory and literary theory we better get ready to hold on. There is almost nothing in this world more challengeable than consistent, singular meaning in language and communication. I don't think that is what you mean though.

Logic is important and having an underlying basis for discussion is essential for sustained discussion. Most of the time this happens around here. Rarely the opposite.

That said, when we attempt to provide only A or B options in a discussion we violate some of the most basic points of logic...there are usually more than just A or B. Often we don't know beyond that because we've only been presented the dualistic systems.

There are some issues in theology that should be understood as A or B options. Did Jesus bodily resurrect from the dead after His crucifixion? Yes, absolutely. Did Jesus die on the Cross? Yes, absolutely. Is Jesus coming back? Yes, absolutely. How? well....

Anyhoo, I'll be interested to see where this thread heads. Logic is essential, but we all need to be familiar with it to use it.

 

[Luke2427]

You have certainly added a good post where we agree on almost everything. Logic is the foundation of our discussions. However there are some points which need clarification.

One of the challenges that I renew is that I think you are using logic too dualistically. Not everything is either A or B. Most often questions go beyond two options and theological opinions are not confined to two answers. Not everything, actually nearly nothing, is confined to this dualistic tendency which is present in your writing.

The three fundamental laws of logic are that A is A, A cannot be NOT A and as far as any assertion about A goes there cannot be a middle ground between true and false.


I need you to demonstrate what you mean about my view being "dualistic".

Just because you and I agree that God has exhaustive knowledge of all events past, present, and future doesn't inherently mean He determines any or all of those events. In denying the Openness of God theology, I can still point out that foreknowledge doesn't equal determination.

That's another thread. There is no point in discussing that unless we can agree fully on this.

I'd also encourage you to clarify a few definitions, such as:



That's a pretty limited definition of logic. Hopefully this isn't only what you mean.

Succinct would be a better word in my opinion than limited.

Ultimately the laws of logic lead to one conclusion: things are what they are.

I completely agree with you on this.



I'm not certain of your meaning here. Perhaps you can expand on the argument. Water's freezing level is almost entirely contingent on its environment and altitude. The higher the altitude the higher the freeze point, the lower the altitude the lower the freeze point, etc. Clarity would help here.

Perhaps you did not read it carefully. I noted the exact same thing in my statements.


Water IN A PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT (that has to do with sea level, air density and all of that) always freezes at a particular temperature.

But that is an anecdote to illustrate an assertion. Let's focus on the assertion not the anecdote.

I think most people here think in (loose) logical categories. We don't have too many folks who are suggesting logical arguments don't work.

Yes, we do.

A CURSORY perusal of the "greatest error on baptistboard" thread will prove this.

Most posters were arguing that God and miracles VIOLATE the laws of logic often.

 

[preachinjesus]

The three fundamental laws of logic are that A is A, A cannot be NOT A and as far as any assertion about A goes there cannot be a middle ground between true and false.

No, these aren't the three fundamental laws. If you believe this is it, I'd challenge whether you understand all the nuance within logic. The categories you're saying are the foundational/fundamental laws are only representative of one form of logic, classical logic. There are numerous other categories of logic: informal, formal, predicate, propositional, etc. Of course then we get into various epistemic systems: strong foundationalism, moderate foundationalism, coherentism, etc.

Though your epistemic system (strong foundationalism from what I gather from our interactions) your epistemic commitments are different than someone who has a form of moderate foundationalism (such as myself.)

The three laws you mention above are not wrong. However, they are incomplete. Normally this isn't a bad thing, however Luke you're using your belief that your understanding is absolute to demean and belittle people around here. Though you've gotten a good start on logic, my encouragement is to continue to learn. Around here, you need to recognize that your picture isn't the whole picture. In fact, it is only a small beginning step.

I need you to demonstrate what you mean about my view being "dualistic".

In how you state "God is __________ and cannot be ___________" or (syllogistically) "God is A and cannot be B." This works for certain aspects of God's revelation of Himself and plan. However, you are forgetting that often times God might be A, but also B, C, D,...X. God's revelation of Himself isn't always limited to either/or systems. When engaging with some like Winman or Van (I am not an proponent of the Openness of God) you mischaracterize their nuanced theological positions but forcing your specific epistemic system onto their views. Instead of sorting through options you present them as either black or white. The reality of theology is that there is often many colors between the two.

Take my position of molinism as it relates to the issue of whether God determines things in the world. It is a more nuanced approach that seeks that bridge between the extremes of determinism and free will.

Ultimately the laws of logic lead to one conclusion: things are what they are.

If you arguing materialist, empirical data it is often the case. However, in theology we are not arguing materialist, empirical data.

A CURSORY perusal of the "greatest error on baptistboard" thread will prove this.

Most posters were arguing that God and miracles VIOLATE the laws of logic often.

See my above point, I do think you're being unfair and mischaracterizing the positions of others. Luke, it seems you enjoy walking into these threads with your intellectual fists up, ready to start punching. My point above, and here, is that you have no reason for doing this. Your points about logic, while not entirely wrong, are incomplete. You lack a complete education in logic. However, you seem to enjoy using this little granule of knowledge and exploit it to prove a point. Be careful with that. Logic isn't confined to the foundational rules you posted above, it is far beyond them.

 

[Luke2427]

No, these aren't the three fundamental laws. If you believe this is it, I'd challenge whether you understand all the nuance within logic. The categories you're saying are the foundational/fundamental laws are only representative of one form of logic, classical logic. There are numerous other categories of logic: informal, formal, predicate, propositional, etc. Of course then we get into various epistemic systems: strong foundationalism, moderate foundationalism, coherentism, etc.

All forms of logic rely on the three fundamental laws of logic for their existence and justification. They are not JUST the fundamental laws upon which all forms of credible logic must rest but they are also the very foundational laws of THOUGHT ITSELF.

Check out this link
http://christian-apologetics.org/2011/what-are-the-three-laws-of-logic/

and this one:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/593494/laws-of-thought

Or even wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought

Welton said, "The Laws of Thought, Regulative Principles of Thought, or Postulates of Knowledge, are those fundamental, necessary, formal and a priori mental laws in agreement with which all valid thought must be carried on."

Though your epistemic system (strong foundationalism from what I gather from our interactions) your epistemic commitments are different than someone who has a form of moderate foundationalism (such as myself.)

The three laws you mention above are not wrong. However, they are incomplete. Normally this isn't a bad thing, however Luke you're using your belief that your understanding is absolute to demean and belittle people around here.

That's bull. That's not what I am doing. I am doing what you OUGHT to be doing- what EVERYBODY OUGHT to be doing- and that is ABSOLUTELY DEMANDING that people who speak on theological matters, which are ETERNAL MATTERS, yield their theologies to logic or SHUT THEIR MOUTHS because they are DANGEROUS.

I do not think it is hyperbole to say that one who purports things about God that are not logically consistent is evil- whether intentionally or not is irrelevant to me.

So if it comes across as belittling- then so be it. But it is right and you should be on board as well. Just LOOK at the deranged crud that I quote from posters on that thread above.

If you defend it when you know better, then you join them in this condemnation.

Though you've gotten a good start on logic, my encouragement is to continue to learn.

I am trying. I am spending about 20 thousand dollars a year so that I can learn more and more.

In how you state "God is __________ and cannot be ___________" or (syllogistically) "God is A and cannot be B." This works for certain aspects of God's revelation of Himself and plan. However, you are forgetting that often times God might be A, but also B, C, D,...X.

This has nothing to do with the laws of logic. There is nothing contradictory about saying God is A, B, C, D, E, F and all the to Z.

He can, just like anyone, be any NUMBER of things at the same time.

What he can't do is what NOTHING can do and that is be A and NOT be A at the same time in the same sense.

God's revelation of Himself isn't always limited to either/or systems. When engaging with some like Winman or Van (I am not an proponent of the Openness of God) you mischaracterize their nuanced theological positions but forcing your specific epistemic system onto their views. Instead of sorting through options you present them as either black or white. The reality of theology is that there is often many colors between the two.

Demonstrate how I have done this and where I am wrong in doing it.

See my above point, I do think you're being unfair and mischaracterizing the positions of others. Luke, it seems you enjoy walking into these threads with your intellectual fists up, ready to start punching.

Demonstrate how I have done this and where I am wrong in doing it.

My point above, and here, is that you have no reason for doing this. Your points about logic, while not entirely wrong, are incomplete. You lack a complete education in logic. However, you seem to enjoy using this little granule of knowledge and exploit it to prove a point. Be careful with that. Logic isn't confined to the foundational rules you posted above, it is far beyond them.

Logic is not confined to them but it fully rests on them. Thought itself does.