How thick is Matt Slick?

[Nihilist Virus]

When God "makes a decision" is he pondering something and then coming to a logical conclusion?

Why do you include "pondering". That is a straw man. Perhaps that is the problem with your argument. God does not need to ponder because of his omniscience. The fact that he does not need to ponder in no way affects whether a decision is logical.

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.

I see. Are you then suggesting that logic was developed by humans? So in all possible worlds where there are no humans "If P then Q; P therefore Q" is not a true statement?

Why do you include "pondering". That is a straw man.

Logic is the process/set of rules by which we organize our thoughts.  If God invokes logic, then he must be thinking about something.  Are you saying I'm propping up a strawman by equating "thought" with "ponder"?  Are you trying to say that God has quick little instantaneous thoughts but doesn't sit there and ponder something carefully because that would be some kind of strawman against God?  Or are you saying that God does not think at all?  If he doesn't, how is he using logic?

Perhaps that is the problem with your argument. God does not need to ponder because of his omniscience. The fact that he does not need to ponder in no way affects whether a decision is logical.

You're conceding the argument.  You just said that God does not need to ponder because of his omniscience.  If God does not need to ponder, then he certainly does not need to ponder in an organized manner, right?  And if he does not need to ponder in an organized manner, then he does not need to invoke logic, which means I have won the argument.

Are you then suggesting that logic was developed by humans?

If it wasn't invented by monkeys, if we didn't find it on a mountaintop or written on gold tablets buried in the ground, if we didn't find it written in the sky, if God didn't give it to us because he personally has no need of it and certainly does not expect it from his followers, then who else could've invented it? Of course logic was invented and developed by humans.

So in all possible worlds where there are no humans "If P then Q; P therefore Q" is not a true statement?


We all know what a truther is. It's someone who believes that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. You seem to be what I call an absolute truther, which is someone who believes that the laws of logic (and by extension, mathematics) are absolute.

I'm happy to answer your question here, but I'd be even more happy to make you answer it correctly for yourself. So I'm going to start off with a quick counter-question for you:

Can parallel lines ever cross?

Yes? So then you disavow Euclidean geometry? No? So then you disavow Non-Euclidean geometry? Maybe? So then you disavow the claim that logic and/or truth is absolute?


PS

I noticed I failed to respond to this from above:

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?

The definition of omnipotence is the ability to do anything.  What you are defining is known as maximally powerful.  Let's then suppose that God is maximally powerful.  Then there are limits to what he can do (for example, he cannot create a one-ended stick).  I assume that God is still maximally knowledgeable in this scenario (there are actually necessary constraints on his knowledge as well if you want to say he is bounded by the logic we humans have invented) so he already knows the limits of his power and does not need to invoke logic to deduce said limits.