How thick is Matt Slick?

[SteveII]

Whoa. How could a changeless entity think? That's nonsense. Actually I have repeatedly said that God does not think! If you are going to butt in, you can at least follow more carefully.

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.

[surreptitious57]

Nihilist Virus already invalidated this statement of yours but instead of accepting it you repeated it which makes it just as wrong as the first time when
you said it. So once again : parallel lines do not intersect in one dimensional or two dimensional Euclidean space but do in three or higher dimensional
non Euclidean space. Now if you draw a line on a flat sheet of paper it will be straight but if you bend the paper the line will be curved. So that is why
curved lines will at some point intersect with each other because equidistance is only possible in one or two dimensions. Curvature distorts shapes too   
For example a triangle in two dimensional space is a hundred and eighty degrees but in three dimensional space is two hundred and seventy degrees

So then your point is that in non Euclidean geometry there are no parallel lines because parallel lines do not intersect. I fail to understand at all how this makes a point about anything

Two straight parallel lines in one or two dimensional space become curved lines in three or more dimensional space. At some point along their trajectory they shall intersect. And so this
disproves your claim that parallel lines do not intersect because this is only partially true not absolutely true. A geodesic is the generalisation of a straight line in three dimensional space

[The Grand Nudger]

You've been able to conclude that the mind of god is intrinsically logical without being able to establish that there's a god to have a mind in the first place?  I doubt that very much.

What if I told you that I had reached a conclusion as to the manner in which dragons flew?

[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.

[SteveII]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

[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.

[Esquilax]

[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.

How did you determine 1b, again?

Couldn't you be omniscient and still fundamentally irrational? Like, if you had personal biases that influenced the conclusions you drew from your omniscience? What if you were insane? Hell, what if you weren't actually omniscient, but just thought that you were?

I'd say this was a problem with drawing logical arguments without any means of determining the premises, but I don't even think that's what you're doing here. Your complete lack of even attempted justification suggests that you're just saying things out of convenience, because I know you're smart enough not to think these assertions actually count for anything on their own.

[The Grand Nudger]

Like so many of these god propositions...they manage to find a way to be wrong even if you grant them the assumption that they're right.  It would be impressive if that was the intent, but it wasn't...so it isn't.

[Esquilax]

"Oh, god's omniscient!"

How did he determine that? Not you, the believer, but how did god decide that he was omniscient? He just knows all things, does he?

Well, no, he can't actually say that for a fact, because he's got no way of verifying it. Sure, he knows all the things that he knows, maybe that's a lot of things, and maybe that includes the "fact" that the things within his knowledge comprise all the things that there are, but how does he know that last fact is true, rather than a false thing that he believes really hard? People claim knowledge incorrectly all the time, and obviously you can't know about the things you don't know you're ignorant about. If god is completely, one hundred percent in the dark about something, to the point that he doesn't even know that he's ignorant about it, he could not be omniscient and still think he's omniscient.

There is no way for a supposedly omniscient being to actually verify that he is, indeed, omniscient. Any honest being, especially one that was actually omniscient, would both understand this, and also leave it out of their documentation on their attributes. The fact that god doesn't understand this simple fact is suggestive of his lack of omniscience.