 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Can God be beyond logic? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 8/11/2003 6:20 PM (GMT -6) |   | "I study the Bible just like everyone else. I recognize there are concepts/doctrine/precepts/and etc. that can be communicated through language and what is communicated is sufficient for salvation and living life as we should. However, there are still some things I just don't fully understand and may not ever fully understand until I am in the presence of Jesus."
Preach it Brother Paul! You read my mind. My exact thoughts. Yes, we understand God as far as He allows us to and as much as He reveals to us, but John, do you think He is going to tell us all His mysteries? Here's one that really gets me? Where did God come from? I don't think He'll tell me that one even in Heaven. Heck, He's God; I am not. Personally, it doesn't bug me one bit that there are mysteries of God far beyond my comprehension. Needless to say, I devote much time to studying God's Word and learning about Him as much I can as is revealed in His Word, but isn't it said that "God's ways are higher than our ways?" Sound familiar?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 8/11/2003 6:33 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Fleetwood
Yes, we understand God as far as He allows us to and as much as He reveals to us, but John, do you think He is going to tell us all His mysteries?
Earlier in this thread, and repeatedly since then, I have stated clearly that I have never meant to say that we can ever know ALL there is to know about God.
quote:
Here's one that really gets me? Where did God come from?
God didn't "come from" anywhere--He's always existed in all places.
quote:
I don't think He'll tell me that one even in Heaven. Heck, He's God; I am not. Personally, it doesn't bug me one bit that there are mysteries of God far beyond my comprehension. Needless to say, I devote much time to studying God's Word and learning about Him as much I can as is revealed in His Word, but isn't it said that "God's ways are higher than our ways?" Sound familiar?
Actually, you are misapplying Isaiah 55. In this passage, God is not saying "You dumb humans are absolutely unable to understand me or my ways." The context reveals plainly that He is saying, "Let the wicked forsake his WAY, and the righteous man his THOUGHTS...for your thoughts are not my thoughts and your ways are not my ways (but they SHOULD be!" (Please note the context. It is the logical thing to do).
But just for the sake of this discussion, let's say you do pose a scripture to me that you say refutes what I might be saying. Why can't I just respond with, "Well, we just can't understand God. Lots of things are just meant to be mysteries." See what I mean?
"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
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 8/11/2003 6:36 PM (GMT -6) | | The "my ways/thoughts are not your ways/thoughts" is often used to infer the incomprehensibility of God. However, the context reveals that this is definitely NOT what God is saying in this passage:
Is 55:6 ¶ Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near.
7 Let the wicked forsake his way And the unrighteous man his thoughts; And let him return to the LORD, And He will have compassion on him, And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon.
8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD.
9 "For {as} the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.
So it would appear that far from meaning, "You puny humans are simply unable to even begin to comprehend my thoughts or my ways," in this passage God is actually saying, "Your ways and thoughts OUGHT to be like mine, but they aren't--because you refuse to give them up!"
(or, in other words, God is saying in this passage, "REPENT!")
"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
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/11/2003 7:15 PM (GMT -6) | |  Jolly good show John. You echo what I said before. When one says God is beyond our logic, you can make the Bible say anything you like and simply appeal to that "logic." | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/12/2003 6:54 AM (GMT -6) | | I've been reading this thread with amusement - very entertaining. I see a fundamental difference in definitions between some people like John Earp, Laika, and myself - and most of the rest of you.
For apologists, the definition of logic is what I have been saying - that's not just me talking either. Logic structures our way of communicating. If we don't employ logic, communication is impossible.
If I am discussing a philosophical problem, for example, with someone who does not follow these rules of logic, I may as well give up, b/c communication is then schizophrenic. If I'm talking about Proposition A as A, and the other person believes that A can be not A, then how are we going to ever be on the same page?
By the same token, apologists, when defending the existence of God, almost always say that God follows the rules of logic as well. If he doesn't, then how can we know anything about God at all? God gave us minds, and as so many OVers say repeatedly, God doesn't want mindless automatons. But that's entirely what we become, if God is incomprehensible. How can we even know what he requires of us, if he operates outside the rules of logic?
My one exception i wrote earlier is that Martin Luther believed that God CAN make a square circle, etc., he didn't say how that was possible, but he believed in order for God to be omnipotent, he must be able to do anything whatsoever. So, apparently God must be able to create a rock too heavy for him to lift- and don't you see the problem there? if it's too heavy for him to lift- he can't be all powerful, right? So this statement is illogical - and it doesn't deter from God's omnipotence to say that God can't do something illogical.
Can God make the color black white (at the same time)? Can the color black also be the color white? Can the direction North also be the direction South? I think you get the gist....
THe others on this board are talking about logic in laymen's terms - and that's the fundamental difference here. Saying that God is beyond logic simply means, to these people (I'm guessing) that God is above us, his "intelligence" and strategies dwarf ours, and just like we don't know the reasoning behind Einstein's theory of relativity (at least most of us dont') - neither do we know the reasoning behind everything God does. I could not agree more! That is true. I DON"T know the reasoning, but I sure as heck DO believe that his reasoning IS logical (according to the accepted philosophical definition of logic)....:) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/12/2003 7:02 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by honorman
Jolly good show John. You echo what I said before. When one says God is beyond our logic, you can make the Bible say anything you like and simply appeal to that "logic."
I want to 'wade' into this gently, honorman. But your post implies a very Islamic view of the Word.
(Remember, I'm wading gently)
God is truly IS beyond our logic. YET, his revelation is very much the way you say it is -- aimed at our logic. 
But what the Islamic influence on the medieval West did was conflate God's revelation to a book. While the Christian truth is that God's revelation is the Person of the Son, who is incarnate in Creation, in Scripture (the Gospel), and in Christ Jesus. But let us not loose sight (I'm not saying you did--beleive me.) that God speaks and reveals himself. It is not merely up to our power to discipher the Bible, as if it were a cypher.
That's all. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/12/2003 12:27 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Paul5388
Modes,
Is this a trick answer? "1. No, God is not finite." The use of a double negative no/not really makes the answer, "Yes, God is finite." I think "1. God is infinite." is what you meant, but, one never knows.
I simply meant: God is infinite. This has epistemological ramifications that don't seem to be attended to adequately in this discussion.
If there were no comma in my response, you would have been correct, but with the comma, the meaning of my statement is: "Contrary to what was said previously, it is the case that God is not finite. Therefore: God is infinite.)"
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/12/2003 1:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Actually, I did assume that we were dealing with "logic" in the more philosophical sense. I did not have the layperson's understanding of logic in mind. For what it's worth, I do affirm the principle of conradiction. It applies both in thought and in life. A cannot = -A. Agreed. But this is not what I see to be at issue. Rather, what are the parameters of knowledge of this sort?
How does logic apply to human interaction with God? Is God another person in the room making hypothetical assertions like the rest of us? What does "knowing God" have to do with this question of logic? "Knowing" and "God" are used frequently in the Bible and it always has to do with faith and relationship (not the mathematical/logical type)and often a call to obedience. Treating God as another object to be studied is simply wrongheaded and inevitably fails at what it attempts anyway. For those who think you can reason your way through Christianity, take a stab at Kierkegaard's book on this, Philosophical Framents[i/]. It's actually very rigorous logically, but it reveals the very real limits of logic as it pertains to faith and God as well.
The only logic required for Christian faith is that which is assumed in basic communication. That is, what it means to hear and obey, worship, etc. I have little interest in trying to talk someone into the faith on the grounds of three reasons. it is just as easy, and every bit as logical to give three reasons against faith in God as well...Our relationship to God is not based on logic, but rather on the power of God..."My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God." (1 Cor. 2:4-5)
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/12/2003 1:43 PM (GMT -6) | | | Meph - to an intellectually-minded person, arguments about the (unproven) power of God, or the way he makes you feel, or emotional anything are not worth much. There are many logical arguments for God's existence (the Christian God as well) based upon reason. If God is real, if Christianity is true, it sure better stand up to intellectual reason. It's a copout to say that God is above and beyond us so we don't need to even discuss it. Read "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" by one of my professors (years ago) Mark Noll - it is so on point. There's no reason that evangelicals should concede all the intellectual and reasoned arguments to atheists. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/12/2003 2:53 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Meph - to an intellectually-minded person, arguments about the (unproven) power of God, or the way he makes you feel, or emotional anything are not worth much. There are many logical arguments for God's existence (the Christian God as well) based upon reason. If God is real, if Christianity is true, it sure better stand up to intellectual reason. It's a copout to say that God is above and beyond us so we don't need to even discuss it. Read "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" by one of my professors (years ago) Mark Noll - it is so on point. There's no reason that evangelicals should concede all the intellectual and reasoned arguments to atheists.
I am simply saying that for every set of three reasons for this or that with regard to God, there are three reasons contrary. When dealing with God, who IS intangible, invisible, incomprehensible, infinite, etc. reason cannot get you from A to Z. I will not go from A to -A, that would be a contradition proper, but I will also not pretend that reason and logic get one from "evidence" to faith. After all, faith is what is required and it is not dependent upon reason but rather the power of God. I concede nothing to the athiest. She is dead wrong, but I will not pretend that I can demonstrate this by three reasons, no, it is a matter of faith.
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 8/12/2003 3:43 PM (GMT -6) | | I want to reiterate a few things so that no one will think I am advocating an emotionless, purely rationalistic sort of faith.
1. I am not saying that we can reduce God to mathematics or even logical sentences.
2. I am not saying that we as very definitely finite humans can ever know all there is to know about God.
3. I am also definitely not saying that a "head knowledge" or purely rationalistic approach to Christianity is the correct way, much less a desirable way.
4. I also am not saying that all we need is to use our reason/logic in pursuit of Christianity.
5. I AM simply saying saying that God has given us minds and we ought not use the standard anti-intellectual cop-out, "Well, we just can't understand God or the Bible, we've got to just take it by faith."
6. I am also saying that we should use our God-given ability to reason, as submitted to the Spirit of God as we can, when studying the Scriptures and theology. This seems quite consistent with the stated motto of this web page, "Faith that satisfies the mind and inspires the heart."
Or, as Charles G. Finney said, "My brother, sister, friend--read, study, think, and read again. You were made to think. It will do you good to think; to develope your powers by study. God designed that religion should require thought, intense thought, and should thoroughly develope our powers of thought. The Bible itself is written in a style so condensed as to require much intense study. Many know nothing of the Bible or of religion, because they will not think and study. I do not pretend to so explain theology as to dispense with the labour of thinking. I have no ability and no wish to do so." - Preface, Systematic Theology
"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
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 8/12/2003 4:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Modes,
Not to labor a point, but "No God is not finite" (leaving out the comma) would mean there aren't any gods who are infinite.
RD,
I’m sorry we “laymen” aren’t using logic the proper way, but you certainly haven’t explained how God doesn’t violate/contradict logic in many areas.
It doesn’t help to use circular reasoning. Like God is omnipresent because He is everywhere and He is everywhere because He is omnipresent. He is omnipresent because that is an attribute of God. He defies/contradicts the laws of physics by being omnipresent. If not, just show us how it can be.
BTW, To lift the rock, you have to have something even greater to support the load and God. Then you have to figure out how to get God out of the rock, so He can lift it without lifting Himself. Of course, it could be pointed out that there are many very large bodies in the universe that aren't being lifted by anything that can be seen. So, the concept of lifting is only valid in overcoming gravity. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/12/2003 4:38 PM (GMT -6) | | John, I completely agree with you (doesn't happen often here) and I am glad to say it!
Paul, I don't even know what you're talking about, so I won't try to reply :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/12/2003 4:44 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Paul5388
Modes,
Not to labor a point, but "No God is not finite" (leaving out the comma) would mean there aren't any gods who are infinite.
RD
Not a problem, your still wrong because God is God's first name. See, it is capitalized. 
quote:
I’m sorry we “laymen” aren’t using logic the proper way, but you certainly haven’t explained how God doesn’t violate/contradict logic in many areas.
It doesn’t help to use circular reasoning. Like God is omnipresent because He is everywhere and He is everywhere because He is omnipresent. He is omnipresent because that is an attribute of God. He defies/contradicts the laws of physics by being omnipresent. If not, just show us how it can be.
BTW, To lift the rock, you have to have something even greater to support the load and God. Then you have to figure out how to get God out of the rock, so He can lift it without lifting Himself. Of course, it could be pointed out that there are many very large bodies in the universe that aren't being lifted by anything that can be seen. So, the concept of lifting is only valid in overcoming gravity.
I don't recall claiming or trying to explain these things. That is really not an interest of mine. I am interested in the limits of logic, but I am not interested in the perenial conundrums about rocks and angels on pinheads. Being omniscient is not a contradiction of physics, it simply means that a set of rules that applies with certain things doesn't apply for certain other things. For instance, because you cannot measure the mass of a lake using a yardstick doesn't mean that asking about the mass is an illogical question. It only means there is a mismatch between the tool and that which one is attempting to do. distance, mass and so forth are not applicable to God. Where is the logical contradiction? If I were to say God is 5 gazillion miles long and God is not 5 gazillion miles long because God is omnipresent, then we'd have a problem. But I would say simply these forms of measurement don't apply.
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 8/13/2003 1:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Modes,
You are not the first to think a section I have written to someone else was directed toward you. I clearly started a new section with "RD,". However, as I said, you are not the first to not see the division. That's a long way around to say, is there some other way of seperating two addressees in the same post that would be more easily noticed? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/14/2003 6:48 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Paul5388
Modes,
You are not the first to think a section I have written to someone else was directed toward you. I clearly started a new section with "RD,". However, as I said, you are not the first to not see the division. That's a long way around to say, is there some other way of seperating two addressees in the same post that would be more easily noticed?
Yes, post two seperate replies, one addressed to me and the other addressed to RD, in this case. This still may not prevent people from responding things you address to others, but it will at least be more clear who you intend to address.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
| 120 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:00 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|