(June 15, 2016 at 10:01 am)Rhythm Wrote: That's the barest equivocation I've ever seen. You actually just went and -said-.."this is that, and x has that".....lol. ';m sorry, but that's just plainly wrong on it's face. Logical conclusions are arrived at by logical means and rules of inference. That is the requirement of a logical conclusion constrained and self described by the system from whence those conclusions get their name. If god isn't -using- logic, his conclusions simply aren't logical conclusions...if they are conclusions at all.
That I know something does not mean that said something is a logical conclusion. Knowing everything would not alter this, and the possession of all knowledge must -necessarily- include knowledge which is not a logical conclusion.
If omniscience is to know all true propositions (without having to analyze and "process" them) and true propositions are necessary for logical conclusions, doesn't that get us to Gods conclusions are logical in nature? Conversely, could knowing all true propositions get you to an illogical conclusion?
