How thick is Matt Slick?

[SteveII]

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?

[The Grand Nudger]

If the purpose of your constant definitions is simply to equivocate between the terms I don't think we have anything more to discuss. In any case...no..knowing all true propositions does not make any conclusion a logical one. For a conclusion to be a logical one, you must do logic. Redefine that, if you like.....but I'll know we're not talking about the same thing the moment you do - and you clearly need for us to be talking about the same thing.

"logical in nature"...lol. Pick a story and stick with it, that's all I ask...in conversation or faith. Your question regarding what might "get us somewhere" tells me that you're plainly aware of the requirement of doing something with those propositions..true or false, no matter how many are known, or by whom......before anything can be called a logical or illogical conclusion.

Now sure, I get that you want to be able to describe gods "conclusions" or omniscience as logical, I understand why. You value logic, you think that it;s informative and demonstrative. You also, unfortunately, value your god claims. More so than you value logic. You want god and all that he does or is to be logical without needing to do logic..without the hassle of meeting the requirements that are self described by that system...and that's not doing logic either.

The truth of a proposition does not guarantee the truth a conclusion, or that the conclusion is logical. You'll need means of inference, you'll need to consistently and correctly apply them. You could know every true proposition in the world...and if you fail to do the latter every ounce of your knowledge, every one of your "conclusions" is either a-logical or illogical regardless of their factual accuracy. So yeah, to your final question...in that every single damned one of your "conclusions" based upon true propositions can be as illogical as all get out.

We call it getting it right for the wrong reasons, or for no reason. You call it omniscience, apparently...and that's why we don't equivocate, eh?

[SteveII]

[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.

First, when I use the word omniscience, I mean knowing only and all true propositions. I responded to Rhythm about why I think omniscience entails logical conclusions. 

You could be omniscience and act irrationally. I don't think your conclusions could be irrational. Knowing only and all true propositions would exclude personal bias since a bias introduces something that is not true.

Lastly, my little syllogism was to illustrate the relationship between what I was saying. Nihilist Virus is just talking past me and I have no idea why he could not see my point.

[Nihilist Virus]

Looking at this again I find myself informal proof to be invalid, but I can't edit the old post. Still my reasoning at the end holds if I only defer to Gödel for the proof of his theorem.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your explanation was fuctually, demonstrably, logically and definitionally wrong.  That some god claim you make gives you the feels regarding it's truth is irrelevant to the subject of what is or is not a logical conclusion.  Feel that such and such is true all day long, but that's not us discussing what is or is not a logical conclusion, is it?

[Esquilax]

First, when I use the word omniscience, I mean knowing only and all true propositions. I responded to Rhythm about why I think omniscience entails logical conclusions

Yes, it's a nice, easy cheat assertion, but the argument still fails for the reasons I cited: without any means of demonstrating true omniscience over simply really, really believing that god has it, you're just playing word games. Since omniscience is fundamentally unfalsifiable, no being, even your god, has grounds for claiming possession of that attribute.

You could be omniscience and act irrationally. I don't think your conclusions could be irrational. Knowing only and all true propositions would exclude personal bias since a bias introduces something that is not true.

You're mistaking feelings for knowledge: you can know something to be true and still be so biased against it that you'll conclude the opposite anyway. Bias is a statement of position regarding a claim, not of the truth of that claim. Cognitive dissonance, the state of believing a thing contradictory to what is known to be true, is a well known psychological condition, which plays well into my other suggestion, which is that god might be insane: true objective input fed through a fundamentally distorted mind to reach a conclusion means that the conclusions don't have to be true themselves.

It would explain a lot of the christian god's behavior, actually.

[SteveII]

If the purpose of your constant definitions is simply to equivocate between the terms I don't think we have anything more to discuss.  In any case...no..knowing all true propositions does not make any conclusion a logical one.  For a conclusion to be a logical one, you must do logic.  Redefine that, if you like.....but I'll know we're not talking about the same thing the moment you do - and you clearly need for us to be talking about the same thing.  

"logical in nature"...lol.  Pick a story and stick with it, that's all I ask...in conversation or faith.  Your question regarding what might "get us somewhere" tells me that you're plainly aware of the requirement of doing something with those propositions..true or false, no matter how many are known, or by whom......before anything can be called a logical or illogical conclusion.

Now sure, I get that you want to be able to describe gods "conclusions" or omniscience as logical, I understand why.  You value logic, you think that it;s informative and demonstrative.  You also, unfortunately, value your god claims.  More so than you value logic.  You want god and all that he does or is to be logical without needing to do logic..without the hassle of meeting the requirements that are self described by that system...and that's not doing logic either.

The truth of a proposition does not guarantee the truth a conclusion, or that the conclusion is logical.  You'll need means of inference, you'll need to consistently and correctly apply them.  You could know every true proposition in the world...and if you fail to do the latter every ounce of your knowledge, every one of your "conclusions" is either a-logical or illogical regardless of their factual accuracy.  So yeah, to your final question...in that every single damned one of your "conclusions" based upon true propositions can be as illogical as all get out.  

We call it getting it right for the wrong reasons, or for no reason.  You call it omniscience, apparently...and that's why we don't equivocate, eh?

I have a question perhaps you can help me think through. Can you "know" something without a logical framework?

[Thomas Kelly252525]

[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.

Esquilax,

We may agree that to judge correctly using knowledge a person needs to use wisdom.

[The Grand Nudger]

We have to know something to even use a logical framework, eh?   This probably won't be very fruitful, I'm an empiricist. I'm certainly not going to require you to argue in your name, with any framework, before I accept that you know it.

[SteveII]

@Esquilax

How about you...can you "know" something without a logical framework?