How thick is Matt Slick?

[Nihilist Virus]

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?  [1] 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. [2]

[1] I agree with the above statement. God does not "invoke logic" defined as an analytical process ( I have said the exact same thing a dozen time). As you pointed out his omniscience allows him to skip this step. However that in no way means that all conclusions God has are not logical (of or pertaining to logic). Your leap to God has no need of logic is unfounded.

1. Logical conclusions are derived from either a) the process of logically analyzing assumptions or b) having omniscience.
2. God has omniscience
3. God's conclusions are logical

[2] I was going to say something, but nevermind, it wont matter.

You didn't address my example and say whether you find it to be logical (but invalid) or illogical.

You are defining "logical conclusion" in such a way that omniscience makes one's conclusions logical.

Now if I assume this is true and beat you at your own game, I predict you will still refuse to admit you're wrong. Let's give it a go.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem shows that there are propositions which cannot be proven. Here's my informal sketch of the proof:

Observe that anything can be proven from a contradiction:
1. X and not X
2. X
3. X or Y
4. Not X
5. Therefore Y

And obviously if anything can be proven then we can prove a contradiction. More precisely I would phrase this as "Any logical statement can be proven as true or false from finitely many assumptions".

So we have established a logical equivalence:
X and not X
if and only if
"Any logical statement can be proven as true or false from finitely many assumptions"

Now negate both sides:
not (X and not X)
if and only if
not ("Any logical statement can be proven as true or false from finitely many assumptions")

Notice that
not (X and not X)
is the law of non-contradiction.

So for any logical system in which the law of non-contradiction is assumed, it is not true that anything can be proven. Like I said this is an informal proof. Gödel's proof is beyond dispute. In any case, there are undecidable propositions. It was shown that the continuum hypothesis is such a proposition. Is there a set with cardinality strictly greater than that of the integers but strictly less than that of the reals?

Maybe you want to argue that while no proof can be given, God simply knows the answer. But this won't work.

Suppose the set in question exists. Then God knows what the set is. Enumerating the set reveals its cardinality and constitutes the proof that has already been shown to not exist.

Suppose the set in question does not exist. But God, by his omniscience, is aware of every set that exists and can arrange them by their cardinality. This constitutes an exhaustive proof that the set in question does not exist.

So if God is omniscient then he necessarily violates logic with some of his knowledge. In other words, his knowledge, in this instance, cannot be "logical" because the knowledge itself violates logic.