Is God a logical contradiction?

[Belacqua]

No I don't think they have but it might be worth a try. That's a lot of research!

I'm pretty sure they have, in fact. It's one of the big things they addressed.

Most of the guys I named are running variations on Plato and Aristotle, so once you've got those two in hand the others are easier. 

I mean... if you're going to pose these questions as tough challenges to believers, it would make sense to look up the answers they've given already. It's not as if nobody has thought of it before. And I'm not saying they're right, only that if a problem in their thinking looks incredibly obvious to us, it's likely that they addressed it long ago. 

One example that comes to mind offhand: in Stoicism one aspect of God (or one way that God is apparent to us) was said to be the Logos. Then the Gospel of John says Jesus is Logos, importing this theological concept. But Logos is principle, reason, logic -- the "rules" by which everything works. Is logic made of something?

[The Grand Nudger]

You’re arguing for a pointlessly narrow definition of something.

Principle, reason, and logic aren’t made of nothing.

-and it’s still just trivia. God is made of whatever people think it needs to be at any given time and place. The god stories that impact ya today are anthologies....not a single work, and outside commentary has been applied...as you note, as well.

Stories from different times, places, and authors are not expected to match in every detail. Because they don’t.

[Tom Fearnley]

No I don't think they have but it might be worth a try. That's a lot of research!

I'm pretty sure they have, in fact. It's one of the big things they addressed.

Most of the guys I named are running variations on Plato and Aristotle, so once you've got those two in hand the others are easier. 

I mean... if you're going to pose these questions as tough challenges to believers, it would make sense to look up the answers they've given already. It's not as if nobody has thought of it before. And I'm not saying they're right, only that if a problem in their thinking looks incredibly obvious to us, it's likely that they addressed it long ago. 

One example that comes to mind offhand: in Stoicism one aspect of God (or one way that God is apparent to us) was said to be the Logos. Then the Gospel of John says Jesus is Logos, importing this theological concept. But Logos is principle, reason, logic -- the "rules" by which everything works. Is logic made of something?

Could you quote me where they have talked about this? Either logic is made of physics or made of something we have no understanding of/something meaningless to us.

[Belacqua]

Could you quote me where they have talked about this? 

 
Well... Throughout much of their work they address the issues of what a God (or whatever term they have for it) would be like. It's not like there's a single page I can point to. It's kind of a big deal for them. And as far as I know all of them take it as true that to be God means being immaterial and uncreated. So not made of anything.

Either logic is made of physics or made of something we have no understanding of/something meaningless to us.

If we define logic as the reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity, and physics as the branch of human inquiry which studies the nature and properties of matter and energy...

I don't see how we can say logic is "made of" physics. If anything the opposite would be nearer to the truth, since logic is one of the tools we need when we practice physics. 

If something as important as logic can be "made of" something, and we have no understanding of what it's made of, then we seem to be lacking some pretty fundamental information. 

But it's possible that I'm just reading you all wrong. To me, "made of" refers to a raw material, as chairs are made of wood; wine is made from grapes. It also seems to imply a maker, since it has the word "made" -- but that may be just a manner of speech -- I guess we could say that trees are made of wood, even though there was no maker.

[Abaddon_ire]

I'm pretty sure they have, in fact. It's one of the big things they addressed.

Most of the guys I named are running variations on Plato and Aristotle, so once you've got those two in hand the others are easier. 

I mean... if you're going to pose these questions as tough challenges to believers, it would make sense to look up the answers they've given already. It's not as if nobody has thought of it before. And I'm not saying they're right, only that if a problem in their thinking looks incredibly obvious to us, it's likely that they addressed it long ago. 

One example that comes to mind offhand: in Stoicism one aspect of God (or one way that God is apparent to us) was said to be the Logos. Then the Gospel of John says Jesus is Logos, importing this theological concept. But Logos is principle, reason, logic -- the "rules" by which everything works. Is logic made of something?

Could you quote me where they have talked about this? Either logic is made of physics or made of something we have no understanding of/something meaningless to us.

Don't fall for the trap!

[GrandizerII]

You’re arguing for a pointlessly narrow definition of something.

Principle, reason, and logic aren’t made of nothing.

-and it’s still just trivia. God is made of whatever people think it needs to be at any given time and place. The god stories that impact ya today are anthologies....not a single work, and outside commentary has been applied...as you note, as well.

Stories from different times, places, and authors are not expected to match in every detail. Because they don’t.

I wonder if theologians seriously have ever addressed this particular argument? They always seem to assume on the fly there is a God that isn't anything like that, yet even the philosophical God originates in human thinking rather than demonstrating itself to us.

[Belacqua]

They always seem to assume on the fly there is a God that isn't anything like that, 

Given the thousands of pages they wrote to figure out what God is, and why it's necessary, I don't think "on the fly" is a fair characterization. 

yet even the philosophical God originates in human thinking rather than demonstrating itself to us.

This is our modern feeling. 

The arguments of the people you dismiss are based on obvious facts about the universe which, they feel very sincerely, point to a God when properly analyzed. God, in their view, "demonstrate[s] itself to us" by being the logical conclusion of questions we ask about existence.

I know you don't think their conclusions are correct, so you don't have to remind me of that.

[Tom Fearnley]

Well... Throughout much of their work they address the issues of what a God (or whatever term they have for it) would be like. It's not like there's a single page I can point to. It's kind of a big deal for them. And as far as I know all of them take it as true that to be God means being immaterial and uncreated. So not made of anything.

Either logic is made of physics or made of something we have no understanding of/something meaningless to us.

If we define logic as the reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity, and physics as the branch of human inquiry which studies the nature and properties of matter and energy...

I don't see how we can say logic is "made of" physics. If anything the opposite would be nearer to the truth, since logic is one of the tools we need when we practice physics. 

If something as important as logic can be "made of" something, and we have no understanding of what it's made of, then we seem to be lacking some pretty fundamental information. 

But it's possible that I'm just reading you all wrong. To me, "made of" refers to a raw material, as chairs are made of wood; wine is made from grapes. It also seems to imply a maker, since it has the word "made" -- but that may be just a manner of speech -- I guess we could say that trees are made of wood, even though there was no maker.

I came up with one: "God did not create that from which he is made. So God did not create everything".

Well, in other words, perhaps logic and God are made of nothing (but nothing means something we have no understanding of.)

[Belacqua]

I came up with one: "God did not create that from which he is made. So God did not create everything".

Well, in other words, perhaps logic and God are made of nothing (but nothing means something we have no understanding of.)

OK, but the standard view of classical theology is that God isn't made of anything. God is not a material being that could be located or measured. 

The standard view is that God is existence itself. Existence is the bedrock thing that there must be. You can't have something that pre-existed existence, because that would mean it existed before existence. Therefore, there can by definition be nothing prior to God, either temporally or essentially.

[Tom Fearnley]

There can be nothing prior to God and God is made of nothing. But nothing just means something meaningless. I can't see how he can't be made of anything at all, if that's what you mean by nothing. Our entire experience of science is that something always comes from something.