Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Can God be beyond logic?

Forum Quick Jump

120 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/5/2003 3:42 AM (GMT -6)

[quote]Meph, something tells me you might like this one; on: "Can God be beyond logic?"

quote:
John and Tom, IS SIN LOGICAL?

Reflecting on what Tom wrote, I wondered just how much the "juridical" view of atonement bears on it. Is BECOMING SIN a logical act. Or is it outside logic?

What do you think; and why?

Backing up, I'd think that to answer that one also has to answer the first question: Is sin logical?

Where's Meph on this one?

==============================

I had posted about the Cross not being based on logic. Laika and Tom don't like the un-neatness of that comment. I posted using "logic" in a juxtoposition; rather than using the dictionary definition. And as much as I know and appreciate what they want to affirm, I ALSO think that God's grace steps outside (not contrary) logic too.

Where I hope to see this go is to find out if "became sin for us" is something that can only be really appreciated with AWE, and when we don't try to 'tame' it into the framework of logic.

Medieval Scholasticism liked the neat boxes that the "juridical" analogy provided. No loose ends. Everything fits. And everything seems to follow necessarily.

But is that true of the CROSS. Or is the Cross a "mystery?"

"What is not assumed is not healed" is a logical statement too. And for God to assume humanity (as Maximus points out) 'follows' because humanity is designed for communion with God.

But I'm wondering energetically whether the PASSION is not just still the MYSTERY that the Church has always recognized it to be.

What do you think, Meph?

I WANT TO SEE WHERE THIS GOES.

(o)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/5/2003 3:53 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by TGB

Is the Cross "logical?" I'll agree with John on this one and say yes. It is the Cross which is the ultimate rational act while Adam's sin was the ultimate irrational act. This doesn't mean we could have arrived at the inevitability of the Cross before that event. It just means that the event is consistent, comprehendable (not exhaustively), able to be related to meaningfully.

Tom

I'M DIGESTING TOM'S POST HERE. MUCH, MUCH TO LIKE!!!!

Adam's sin was the ultimate irrational act

the Cross ... the event is consistent, comprehendable (not exhaustively), able to be related to meaningfully.

Tom does not say here that the Cross is "inevitable." But perhaps he would. (He does say: "This doesn't mean we could have arrived at the inevitability of the Cross before that event.")

I don't want to think of the Cross as "inevitable" at all. I want to think of the Cross as something that God did as a PERSONAL act of Communion with us, out of his love, not inevitable. "Inevitable" sounds like something determined by static nature. (You know what I mean.) And that road leads back to the "classical view" and is not "open" with respect to God's Person.

I think that the Cross is a PERSONAL rather than a "logical" act.

"Rational" yes. But not "logical." Not "logically determined; but surely "consistent, comprehendable (not exhaustively), able to be related to meaningfully" as TGB said it!!!!

(o)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/5/2003 4:50 AM (GMT -6)

As I understand, the INCARNATION does not present a problem logically. (Unlike how some contemporary extreem-views of "kenosis" regard it.) Mankind was created FOR communion with God. The en-hypostasis of God's assuming humanity to the Person of the Son -- an asymmetrical union -- is not 'illogical,' as humanity was not called upon to do anything that was beyond its "specs."

I am tempted, though to say, that in "becoming sin" God did something that is, perhaps, be-yond logic. (I'm not saying "il-logical.") The SHAME and the CURSE of the Cross are not at all similar to the assumption of humanity that is naturally a part of the incarnation. The SUFFERING, Personally, of one of the Trinity was a personal act; but I'm not prepared to say that it was "logical."

I'd more quickly say that it is logical that God who created the world in love would also continue to love the world, and choose to die. But THAT is a logical statement because it is by nature an observation. And as an observation it is logical. I'm slower to say that God followed logic in loving. That again seems to make his person subservient to his "nature." (See above post.)

(o)

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 8/5/2003 3:46 PM (GMT -6)

PoW:

I think perhaps we are using the term "logic" differently. Speaking of course only for myself, when I say God's loving us and sending his Son was logical, all I mean is that it is able to be explained in words that are noncontradictory (logical). In other words, the Gospel of Christ is not irrational, illogical or unreasonable; it is most eminently God reasoning with man about sin, righteousness, and judgment.

On the other hand, I am NOT saying that the gospel is something a human without divine revelation could have come up with by using logic alone. I am just saying that Christianity is not illogical, even though it is a religion dependent upon God's revelation of himself.

If one concedes that Christianity is contrary to Reason, illogical, irrational, we are in effect saying that our faith is no more well founded than that of any other religion in the world. In the end all we can say is "I believe this because I FEEL it is true!" See what I mean?

Is sin logical? Sin is moral insanity!

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/5/2003 4:51 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by John Earp

PoW:I think perhaps we are using the term "logic" differently.

Yep. I said that from the outset too. And again, and again...

But I thought doing so was useful!

quote:
Originally posted by John Earp

Is sin logical? Sin is moral insanity!

VERY WELL PUT, JOHN!!!!

And it is on THAT note that it does seem to me that the Cross, and Christ's suffering needs to be thought of NOT ONLY along those particular lines that logic can help with. I think that the piety that understands our salvation as mystery is necessary.

PoW

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 8/5/2003 5:52 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
I think that the piety that understands our salvation as mystery is necessary.

Okay, would you explain what you mean by "mystery?" Paul said that the mystery of the gospel has already been revealed in Christ. (It is no longer a mystery to us as it was to those before Christ).

Col 1:26 {that is,} the mystery which has been hidden from the {past} ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints,

Col 1:27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

Col 2:2 that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and {attaining} to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, {resulting} in a true knowledge of God's mystery, {that is,} Christ {Himself,}

Col 4:3 praying at the same time for us as well, that God will open up to us a door for the word, so that we may speak forth the mystery of Christ, for which I have also been imprisoned;

(All NASB)

It does not seem to me that the Apostle Paul used mystery as "mystifying," or "incomprehensible." Rather, it seems he used it to denote something that had formerly been a mystery, but was no longer, for CHRIST is the mystery that formerly was hidden!

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 8/5/2003 7:20 PM (GMT -6)

Laika,

Just got in from clipping weeds on about 5 acres. Mostly goat weed, rosin weed, bull nettle and tallow trees. Funny thing about goat weed, goats don't eat it and neither does anything else.

There is usually plenty of time to think when you are on a tractor. Big Smile

So, I was thinking about Hideki Yukawa, Nobel prize winner in 1947, who predicted pi mesons (pions) somewhere around 1935. Was the non-repelling proton logical before his prediction, or was it contrary to the laws, as known, of nature? You see, all you did was reveal what we think we know now and say it is all very logical, but I don't know that we know what we know. I keep wondering about the mass of the nucleus being less than what you would expect. Logically, one would expect deuterium to have a mass that is twice (2.01456 AMU) that of hydrogen, but that isn't the case. Pions (pi mesons) are supposed to be part of the "binding" as they "swap" back and forth between protons and protons, neutrons and neutrons and protons and neutrons, regardless of charge, thus "binding" them with greater energy than the energy that repels them. However, energy has to be absorbed to decompose a nucleon into a neutron and a proton, so "binding energy" isn't really energy that is present in the nucleus, it's actually lost energy. So, in reality, "binding energy" doesn't have anything to do with why the positive charges don't repel. Then we have this

quote:
All four of the fundamental forces involve the exchange of one or more particles. Even the underlying color force which is presumed to hold the quarks together to make up the range of observed particles involves an exchange of particles labeled gluons. Such exchange forces may be either attractive or repulsive, but are limited in range by the nature of the exchange force. The maximum range of an exchange force is dictated by the uncertainty principle since the particles involved are created and exist only in the exchange process - they are called "virtual" particles. source

and I notice "virtual" particles which sounds a whole lot like someone dreaming of an explanation. Smile

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 8/6/2003 1:50 AM (GMT -6)

weed whacker Paul5388
Are pions pions and not pions at the same time?

We didn't know what gravitational force was until we "discovered" it but once we did, apples didn't fall "down" and "up" simultaneously, did they? You still don't understand what formal logic we're talking about.

Just give me one (1) example of something that is in a set A, and the complement of set A. Say set A is the set of circles, then the complement of set A is the set of non-circles (everything else but circles).

Feel free to pick any example. Just show me one thing that is in a set AND the complement of that set. Just one. Use pions if you want.

Here's the definition of a complement set:
mathworld.wolfram.com/ComplementSet.html

Then we can see that God can hold two contradictory states as being true simultaneously.

Secondly, what the heck are you doing on a farm? Maybe you should be teaching physics. Tongue

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 8/6/2003 5:18 PM (GMT -6)

Laika,

I did teach a little in HS, but couldn't handle the students who were continually out of control.

I did give you a set where "A" (like charges repel) is contradicted by "A" (like charges not repelling in the nucleus of an atom) and until 1947, the data showed that to be a fact (I'm not convinced the data still doesn't show it to be a fact Big Smile

).

Of course, you have totally neglected the electrons that never run out of energy. "A" there is no such thing as perpetual motion, but electron's continuous motion contradicts that. Absolute zero (zero degrees Kelvin, -273 degrees Centigrade) is unobtainable, but by definition it is the point/temperature where electrons stop moving.

quote:
0 degrees Kelvin is the point at which all motion in matter stops; it is known as "absolute zero." No temperature can exist that is lower than 0 degrees Kelvin.

quote:
Unfortunately we are unable to reach absolute zero itself. It is forbidden by the third law of thermodynamics.

BTW, the 1993 Edition of Chemistry, Principles and Reactions doesn't even mention mesons or pions, but it does discuss "binding energy".

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 8/7/2003 1:40 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Paul5388
I did give you a set where "A" (like charges repel) is contradicted by "A" (like charges not repelling in the nucleus of an atom) and until 1947, the data showed that to be a fact (I'm not convinced the data still doesn't show it to be a fact ).

O.K. Like charges repel but something is holding them together, i.e. some more powerful force is overriding the repellent force. They aren't flying away AND staying side by side at the same time. They are side by side; we may not understand why. The electrons aren't doing two contradictory things at the same time.

quote:

Of course, you have totally neglected the electrons that never run out of energy. "A" there is no such thing as perpetual motion, but electron's continuous motion contradicts that.

You just contradicted yourself. You said "there is no such thing as perpetual motion" and then demonstrated that there was. So in the set "A" of perpetual motion, add electron's continuous motion.

If electrons were in perpetual motion AND not in perpetual motion at the same time, you'd have a contradiction.

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 8/7/2003 9:07 AM (GMT -6)

Laika,

I didn't contradict myself, the concept of perpetual motion is what is contradicted by electrons. Try to conceive of any other means or device that will function perpetually and you will make a fortune, but there isn't any, so, sorry about the fortune. Sad

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 8/7/2003 11:16 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Paul5388

Laika,

I didn't contradict myself, the concept of perpetual motion is what is contradicted by electrons. Try to conceive of any other means or device that will function perpetually and you will make a fortune, but there isn't any, so, sorry about the fortune.

What's the concept of perpetual motion? That nothing moves perpetually? If so then "electrons continuous motion" contradicts that. So you have a set of things that move in perpetual motion and the only element in it are electrons due to their continuous motion.

An electron cannot be perpetually in motion AND not perpetually in motion. That's a contradiction.

God cannot be in an eternal now state. He would hold all contradictory states of things simultaneously. To Him, Laika would be a bachelor AND married, eternally. Two contradictory states.

I think you originally set out to prove that there were other things that existed in contradictory states simultaneously but got sidetracked.

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 8/7/2003 2:51 PM (GMT -6)

Laika,

If you were a bachelor, I'm actually thinking you are married, but if you were, you are simultaneously married to Christ, through the church.
Eph. 5.30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
That makes two states that one exists in simultaneously that are contradictory, because you would truely still be a bachelor while you are married or if you are married, you are monogamous while being involved in polygamy.

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 8/8/2003 4:09 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Paul5388
you are simultaneously married to Christ

Someone can be married to different people at the same time. This is polygamy. It's illegal here, maybe not in Texas.

But someone cannot be married to someone and NOT married to them at the same time. This is illogical. God cannot hold these two contradictory states as being true simultaneously. You know that.

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 8/8/2003 5:23 AM (GMT -6)

Laika,

The states you put forth are impossibilities, not contradictory. I did show two contradictory states, you just want to use a construct that cannot be fulfilled by any circumstance.

Can one be a bachelor and be married at the same time? Yes! He can be in two contradictory states at the same time. He is unmarried while he is married.

If I am married, and I have been for 37 years, and I am also married to Christ, I exist in a polygamous state even though no court in the land would convict me of being other than monogamous. I exist in two contradictory states, just like what you say God cannot exist in. I am monogamous while being polygamous. That's two contradictory states.

EDIT: I should have continued with God being in the present and being in all time at the same time. If God is omnipresent where isn't He? It is because of His omnipresence that He has all knowledge about everything at any given time or at all times. All you have suggested is that God is here and He can't be not here at the same time, which would be an impossibility, not a contradiction. He fills the universe and as such sees the light emitted right now from a distant star at the instant it is emitted as well as when it arrives here on earth hundreds or thousands of light years later. He is faster than the speed of light, because He is already at the destination in addition to being at the source.

I have a lot on my mind right now with my baby girl being recently engaged and planning a marriage, so hopefully my thoughts aren't too disjointed to be understood. Smile

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 8/8/2003 5:39 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Paul5388
The states you put forth are impossibilities, not contradictory.

Contradictory means is A and is NOT A. You cannot be married and NOT married. Yes, it's also an impossibility. That's why God cannot be in some eternal now state. Contradictory AND impossible.

"Marriage" to Christ is not similar to earthly marriages. Bad example.

Are you going to try and prove the circle square as well?

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 8/8/2003 5:44 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Paul5388
If I am married, and I have been for 37 years, and I am also married to Christ, I exist in a polygamous state even though no court in the land would convict me of being other than monogamous. I exist in two contradictory states, just like what you say God cannot exist in. I am monogamous while being polygamous. That's two contradictory states.

So Jesus is your other bride? His church is the bride, He is the groom. So you don't have more than one bride. One bride == monogamy. See, I can be disingenuous too.

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 8/8/2003 6:02 AM (GMT -6)

Laika,

Do a search for "bride of Christ" and see if you come up with anything. Ephesians doesn't say we are the bride, but we are the wife/woman of Christ. Are you a woman while you are a man?

Tigress
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252

Posted 8/8/2003 6:25 AM (GMT -6)

Can't logic (or the logic our finite minds understand) be something that God created for our level/plane of existence alone and there is a higher and different type of "logic" that exists in His state? All these miracles that God performed were actions that defied logic as humans know it, yet God could still perform them, which seems like a contradiction unless He was able to step into the logic He structured around us and use a higher or different one to supercede ours in order to make His point. As someone else stated, our brains can only understand the logic we see around us. But, I wonder if there's much more than what we can see.

Tigress

"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."

-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World"

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 8/8/2003 6:58 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Paul5388
Do a search for "bride of Christ" and see if you come up with anything. Ephesians doesn't say we are the bride, but we are the wife/woman of Christ. Are you a woman while you are a man?

Christ is your groom and your wife is your bride.

HTH (Hope That Helps)

Being a part of the "bride" of Christ doesn't make me a woman.

All your word games won't refute formal logic. Tongue

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 8/8/2003 7:28 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Tigress

Can't logic (or the logic our finite minds understand) be something that God created for our level/plane of existence alone and there is a higher and different type of "logic" that exists in His state?

His logic may go beyond ours (like calculus goes beyond algebra) but it won't contradict ours. Otherwise, we're neither made in His image nor can we communicate if every thing He says is contradictory to our understanding.

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

Tigress
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252

Posted 8/8/2003 7:54 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Laika

quote:
Originally posted by Tigress

Can't logic (or the logic our finite minds understand) be something that God created for our level/plane of existence alone and there is a higher and different type of "logic" that exists in His state?

His logic may go beyond ours (like calculus goes beyond algebra) but it won't contradict ours. Otherwise, we're neither made in His image nor can we communicate if every thing He says is contradictory to our understanding.

But couldn't there be a different "logic" for Him? An analogy is this: we can only live on our planet that's just the right number of miles away from the sun, with just the right amount of air, land, water and vegetation to sustain us. God, on the other hand, isn't confined by these parameters. He can exist outside of that, but He can also still communicate with us and even live among us as He did as Jesus, and even live in us as He is as The Holy Spirit. God is infinitely above our state of being, yet can still live in it if He wants to. Can't our logic and His logic be like this, too. I don't see them as being contradictory. Our logic is only what our finite minds can handle, just as our planet is only what our finite bodies can handle. But, just as God can move within and without of our planet, He can move within and without of our logic that we're confined to.

Tigress

"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."

-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World"

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 8/8/2003 7:55 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Laika

quote:
Originally posted by Tigress

Can't logic (or the logic our finite minds understand) be something that God created for our level/plane of existence alone and there is a higher and different type of "logic" that exists in His state?

His logic may go beyond ours (like calculus goes beyond algebra) but it won't contradict ours. Otherwise, we're neither made in His image nor can we communicate if every thing He says is contradictory to our understanding.

Also, it is perfectly logical that a God who is able to do anything can perform a miracle. There is no logical contradiction to miracles at all if we keep this in mind.

Tigress
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252

Posted 8/8/2003 8:14 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by John Earp

quote:
Originally posted by Laika

quote:
Originally posted by Tigress

Can't logic (or the logic our finite minds understand) be something that God created for our level/plane of existence alone and there is a higher and different type of "logic" that exists in His state?

His logic may go beyond ours (like calculus goes beyond algebra) but it won't contradict ours. Otherwise, we're neither made in His image nor can we communicate if every thing He says is contradictory to our understanding.

Also, it is perfectly logical that a God who is able to do anything can perform a miracle. There is no logical contradiction to miracles at all if we keep this in mind.

If this is true, then why all the arguing about God being logical or not? I'm arguing that God can be both at once if He wants to BECAUSE He's able to do anything.

Tigress

"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."

-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World"

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 8/8/2003 8:36 AM (GMT -6)

First, God can not do just "anything". He can't make a square circle.

Second, overriding the laws of physics (a miracle) is not contradictory to formal logic. There's a difference between formal logic and "hey, how did He do that?" type of "logic"; call it "reasoning".

Some have said it's illogical for a man to sacrifice his son. This is a different kind of "logic"; call it "reasoning". It is possible for a man to sacrifice his son. It is not possible for a man to sacrifice his son AND NOT sacrifice his son at the same time.

The moment Babe Ruth hit his 60th home run, he was a Yankee AND was NOT a Red Sox. This violates logic. Could God have known Babe Ruth a Yankee AND a Red Sox at that instance? No.

Would an eternal now God be logical if He knew that Babe Ruth is a Yankee and Babe Ruth is a Red Sox simultaneously? No.

Would a God that knew Babe Ruth as a Yankee for some years and knew Babe Ruth as a Red Sox for other years be logical? Yes.

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

120 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:09 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual