How thick is Matt Slick?

[Nihilist Virus]

1. God is not analogous to a supercomputer
2. God does not think
3. ???
4. God uses logic

When you say God uses logic you are again saying God thinks about things. He does not. You are confusing the outcome: a logical conclusion, with how he got to that conclusion. Omniscience gave him the logical conclusion instantaneous. That is how we can conclude that intrinsically, the mind of God is logical.

That process is not logical.

Logical:
Of or pertaining to logic.

Logic:
The process by which conclusions are derived from assumptions.

Consider the following statement:

The moon is made of cheese; therefore, the sky is blue.

There are two ways to describe this. We can use whichever one you want, and you're still going to be wrong.

1.) This is logical, but it is invalid logic: the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The statement is logical because it invokes logic, but it invokes logic incorrectly so it is invalid.

2.) This is illogical. By "illogical" we mean a statement that invokes logic but does so incorrectly.


Note that I'm not saying God is using logic incorrectly. I bring up this analogy because you seem to be operating with a faulty understanding of the definition of logic. When I say that God is not using logic, that does not mean he is using invalid logic or that he is being illogical; I'm saying he's not invoking logic at all. It's like in baseball, you might equate a poorly constructed logical syllogism to striking out; I'm not saying God struck out, but rather I'm saying that he's not even playing baseball.

Now let's re-examine your statement:



"When you say God uses logic you are again saying God thinks about things. He does not. You are confusing the outcome: a logical conclusion, with how he got to that conclusion. Omniscience gave him the logical conclusion instantaneous. That is how we can conclude that intrinsically, the mind of God is logical."


God is omniscient, and always has been, and at no point in "time" or at no "moment" was it the case that there was information he lacked, right? So there was no process by which he determines anything, right? So it is unnecessary for him to invoke logic, right? You need to either provide a workable definition of logic that takes us in a different direction or else concede you're wrong.

I've seen many Christians tell me that I'm just a contrarian and I'll argue no matter what. But in reality it's the Christians that argue no matter what. I'm not even trying to prove anything negative about God here. Matt Slick's theology is contradicted by my conclusion, but, as far as I can tell, yours isn't. Your only reason for rejecting my argument is your pathological contrarianism, your belief that atheists are wrong no matter what. I think it's quite clear that God has no reason to invoke logic, as I've been claiming all along, and your best move is to tip over your king to at least salvage some respect from those of us who are still watching this conversation.