(June 9, 2016 at 10:38 pm)SteveII Wrote:(June 9, 2016 at 10:17 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Slick claims that logic is essential to God's nature. I showed that God has no reason to exercise logic because he is already omniscient. A thing cannot be essential to one's nature if one has no need for said thing.
I think it is essential to God's nature as well as it is essential for all rational beings. Are you saying that God has or will never make a decision or communicated an idea. Even a simple sentence like "It is raining outside, therefore I should take an umbrella" illustrates how thoughts are arranged into a logical pattern. Just read the 10 commandments, there are all kinds of "therefores" and "so thats" (drawing a conclusion from a premise).
Additionally, the definition of omnipotence is the ability to do anything logically possible. If God is bound by this, wouldn't knowledge of it be essential?
When God "makes a decision" is he pondering something and then coming to a logical conclusion?
(June 9, 2016 at 10:45 pm)SteveII Wrote: Even if you were successful in proving your point, to what end? Is there a reason other than to disprove the belief that God is has logic as part of is essential nature?
Matt Slick's favorite argument is a version of the transcendental argument that relies on the assumption that logic is essential to God's nature.
Jesus is like Pinocchio. He's the bastard son of a carpenter. And a liar. And he wishes he was real.
