Is God Above Logic?

[DelsonJacobs]

Why does it function logically?

Catholics believe that such a question cannot be answered fully without God himself revealing it.

While believing that humans can come to some understanding about God with their own faculty of reason, they also understand that because God is transcendent we require revelation from God to know anything our mind cannot understand on its own.

Catholics do not claim to have a definitive and official answer as to “why” God is who God is. Even God’s personal name, Yahweh, is a self-identifying title meant to defy being pinned down to a label. It literally means: “I am defined by what I am and what I do” or just “I am.”

Just as people should be accepted on their own terms (and who wants to be forced to fit a certain label or be judged according to a preconceived idea), God asks no less of us. God is who God is. The “why” is not for us to ask, at least as far as Catholics (and Jews, from whom this idea originates) are concerned.

 

[belorg]

Catholics believe that such a question cannot be answered fully without God himself revealing it.

While believing that humans can come to some understanding about God with their own faculty of reason, they also understand that because God is transcendent we require revelation from God to know anything our mind cannot understand on its own.

Catholics do not claim to have a definitive and official answer as to “why” God is who God is. Even God’s personal name, Yahweh, is a self-identifying title meant to defy being pinned down to a label. It literally means: “I am defined by what I am and what I do” or just “I am.”

Just as people should be accepted on their own terms (and who wants to be forced to fit a certain label or be judged according to a preconceived idea), God asks no less of us. God is who God is. The “why” is not for us to ask, at least as far as Catholics (and Jews, from whom this idea originates) are concerned.

I respect this, DelsonJacobs. But if the “why” is not for us to ask, the “God is necessary” is not for us to claim either.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

I respect this, DelsonJacobs. But if the “why” is not for us to ask, the “God is necessary” is not for us to claim either.

Catholics don’t claim that “God is necessary” in the sense that all are obliged to believe in God, even against their will.

The Church formerly teaches that every human is entitled to freedom of conscience as to matters religious, including the rejection of such concepts. This right is to be defended to ensure the dignity and conscientious freedom that each human is entitled to.

Catholics choose to believe in God, not because God is necessary but because they believe God is. If there is a God, then Catholics believe we can only benefit from listening to him. For us loving God is a choice, not an injunction. For even our doctrine teaches us that God will not force us to accept him. We are free to do with this life as we choose.

 

[belorg]

Catholics don’t claim that “God is necessary” in the sense that all are obliged to believe in God, even against their will.

I was not talking about what Catholics claim, Delson. My response was aimed at those who do claim God is a necessary being, like punkforchrist seems to do e.g.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

I was not talking about what Catholics claim, Delson. My response was aimed at those who do claim God is a necessary being, like punkforchrist seems to do e.g.

That I don’t know and cannot answer for. But know this, that such is not the view of all theists.

I’m a Roman Catholic of Jewish ancestry. The official Catholic view matches and was inherited from the view of my people, the Jews, and their concept regarding God and the world.

As a Catholic and a Hebrew I don’t hold to the views of those who insist that all people subscribe to convictions they cannot in all good conscience hold. As you can imagine for a Jew, the thought of forcing an ideology on another or determining the value and dignity of another human on the basis of whether or not they believe in a deity, whatever form, is repugnant.

Besides if God doesn’t demand you to believe he is necessary, wouldn’t I belie my claim to following him if I made such a demand on you?

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Footnote to Belorg: On this site’s profile PunkforChrist claims to be Catholic, and as such is likely to adhere to the same official view on freedom of conscience. You will find unity in this belief an earmark of those who practice Catholicism.

But I do not presume to officially speak for PunkforChrist on this matter.

 

[polytropos]

My response was aimed at those who do claim God is a necessary being, like punkforchrist seems to do e.g.

To claim that God is necessary is not inconsistent with saying that one does not know what in God’s nature makes God necessary.

I take the question of “what in God’s nature makes God necessary” to be one way of interpreting “why God is necessary.” But another way to interpret it (which I imagine is what punkofchrist means) is “what warrants belief that God is necessary,” which is a separate issue. To understand that God is necessary (and to have some argument with such a conclusion) is not to understand what in God’s nature accounts for God’s necessity (which Catholics believe is not accessible to humans).

I imagine most atheists would grant that “necessary being” is included in the signification of the term “God.” (Making exceptions for certain theologians and philosophers of religion who deny necessity of God, but they are outside of the Catholic mainstream and the historical use of the term.)

Regarding the OP, the question seems to me wrongheaded. Are the laws of logic above me, a human being? I submit that the answer is “no,” since the laws of logic are not concrete components of the universe. It rather seems like the universe is by nature intelligible; it’s intelligibility is in itself, not because there are laws “above” it which make it intelligible. God need not “create” the laws of logic, nor do they need to be above him. They just need to be accurate abstractions of the nature of being.

 

[belorg]

To claim that God is necessary is not inconsistent with saying that one does not know what in God’s nature makes God necessary.

I take the question of “what in God’s nature makes God necessary” to be one way of interpreting “why God is necessary.” But another way to interpret it (which I imagine is what punkofchrist means) is “what warrants belief that God is necessary,” which is a separate issue. To understand that God is necessary (and to have some argument with such a conclusion) is not to understand what in God’s nature accounts for God’s necessity (which Catholics believe is not accessible to humans).

I imagine most atheists would grant that “necessary being” is included in the signification of the term “God.” (Making exceptions for certain theologians and philosophers of religion who deny necessity of God, but they are outside of the Catholic mainstream and the historical use of the term.)

I asked why God’s mind functions logically and punkforchrist gave an answer. I am not sure his answer makes any sense, but at least he did not say that “Catholics believe that such a question cannot be answered fully without God himself revealing it.”

I have no problem with someone who takes all this on faith, but someone who claims that he or she has arguments for this, should be able to give them and not just claim that we cannot fully know the answer.

Regarding the OP, the question seems to me wrongheaded. Are the laws of logic above me, a human being? I submit that the answer is “no,” since the laws of logic are not concrete components of the universe. It rather seems like the universe is by nature intelligible; it’s intelligibility is in itself, not because there are laws “above” it which make it intelligible. God need not “create” the laws of logic, nor do they need to be above him. They just need to be accurate abstractions of the nature of being.

 

[polytropos]

I asked why God’s mind functions logically and punkforchrist gave an answer. I am not sure his answer makes any sense, but at least he did not say that “Catholics believe that such a question cannot be answered fully without God himself revealing it.”

I have no problem with someone who takes all this on faith, but someone who claims that he or she has arguments for this, should be able to give them and not just claim that we cannot fully know the answer.

I don’t know what punkofchrist’s reasoning is, but it seems to me like a lot of people are talking past each other in this topic (equivocation as to what “why God is logical” means, lack of clarification of what the laws of logic are, etc.).

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Someone who claims that he or she has arguments for this, should be able to give them and not just claim that we cannot fully know the answer.

Why “should” they? What is the basis for claiming that they “should be able to give them” is a requisite? Who set the requisite? How was the requisite set? How are the answers you give to this validated?

We should be careful of what we ask, because we are all subject to the demands we make on others’ convictions.

“You should be able to give the answers I say you should have.”
"Who made you the judge on whether I should or not?"
“Your convictions have to meet my criteria.”
“Who said?”
“I do.”

 

[StevenFrancis]

My impression, from books such as Peter Kreeft’s Socratic dialogues, that Catholics generally hold that God is logical. That things that seem to be contradictions, like Christ’s divine humanity, are in fact logical in ways we cannot fully understand.
However, an Eastern Orthodox acquaintance of mine recently challenged this assumption, and as it is just that, an assumption, I am unsure what to say. I don’t believe there is any dogma on the issue?

Kreeft is a philosopher, of course, and so he will entertain most any sort of question. He’s one of my favorite authors and I’ve read a great deal of his stuff.

Personally, I find questions such as this not to be particularly useful to Christian thought, study or apologetics, however. It’s more along the lines of Zen koan. An answerless question to meditate on, so that by contemplating an unsolvable riddle, you quiet and still the mind which will enter a kind of loop and form a mantra.

As an intelligent but not particularly academic Christian, the question has no particular use to my catechesis. To my way of thinking, riddles such as this, can even be a distraction if I spend too much time on them. The bottom line for me would seem that God created everything from nothing. This includes us and out thought processes. Those include logic. So logic is a part of the creation which is of God. God doesn’t deceive, and therefore God would not be illogical. If we can not find the logic in a particular phenomena, then that would be due to a human limitation. Not a trick of God. It might be a “mystery” which is simply beyond our pay grade, so to speak, so the application of logic at our worldly working level may not be achievable.

This seems like one of the many riddles that I see here, such as the one where someone asks if God can make a rock so large that He Himself can not lift it. Or can God choose not to exist. Interesting (perhaps) to think about a little bit, just to get the gears going, but not really sustenance for a mind hungry for knowledge of what we CAN learn and know about our creator. We’ve been given Holy Writ, and 2,000 years of catechetical writing to feed off of. Not to mention perhaps 5,000 years or more of philosophy. How many mental calories do we want to we want to expend on these things? It’s a personal choice. Each person can only answer that for themselves.

 

[belorg]

Why “should” they? What is the basis for claiming that they “should be able to give them” is a requisite? Who set the requisite? How was the requisite set? How are the answers you give to this validated?

That’s obvious,** they** set the requisite because they claimed **they **had arguments for it.

We should be careful of what we ask, because we are all subject to the demands we make on others’ convictions.

“You should be able to give the answers I say you should have.”

No, it’s more like you should be able to give the answers you say you have.

"Who made you the judge on whether I should or not?

"
“Your convictions have to meet my criteria.”

No, your convinctions have to meet your own criteria

“Who said?”

“I do.”

No, you do. And by “you” I don"t mean delson, I mean whoever makes the claim to have arguments should be able to give them and not hide behind " ‘Why’ is not for us to ask".

 

[Charlemagne_III]

God’s intellect is infinite, ours is finite.

It stands to reason that God is not irrational, but beyond the logic that we can comprehend. For us miracles seem to defy logic. Yet they happen. They must then accord with God’s logic if not our own.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

No, you do. And by “you” I don"t mean delson, I mean whoever makes the claim to have arguments should be able to give them and not hide behind " ‘Why’ is not for us to ask".

I had a girlfriend who asked me: “Do you love me?”

My response in the affirmative did not satisfy her because she asked further: “No, but do you really love me. Can you* prove* it?”

I thought for a moment. “You mean, like scientifically? With a scientific study?”

I was met with several swings from her purse. “No, you idiot! You just don’t care about me! How could I have been so stupid to fall in love with an unfeeling dope like you!” She stormed away in tears.

I was in the doghouse for almost a month after that.

How does one prove love? If you read above through this thread, you would know I am a scientist. I can attest with all my professional career that there is no science method that can supply a sufficient answer to a woman’s question to her boyfriend: “Do you love me?”

Even if there was one, that’s not what a woman’s asking for, some unfeeling empirical set of results that have been proven and validated that demonstrate, scientifically, that you do in fact have “love” for your girlfriend. If you give that as a gift for Valentine’s Day you may end up with bodily injury if your girlfriend carried the same heavy purse that mine did!

No, that type of question was more arbitrary. The “proof” had to fit her personally. It had to be what she was looking for to reassure her personally.

It’s the same with what you’re asking for. There is no law in nature or science that says that anyone’s religious convictions about transcendent deities have to have arguments to back up their claims or reasons for their convictions. The demand you have is an arbitrary one. It’s how you measure what you accept or don’t. If there is not a good argument to support some conviction, you reject it. You believe that such is a requisite.

But there is no evidence to support that such a “requisite” is in fact required. Not everything that is needs to fit what you demand here, does it? And you don’t even live up to this standard in all you believe, either.

Can you prove the love for those you cherish in life? How does one prove the emotion of love, how deep it is, when it began, how far it will go? What tests and measures do you use to do so?

Just because people can’t prove their love empirically doesn’t make it is any less true, does it? Or do you demand empirical proof of all those who claim to love you before you believe them? I’ll bet you don’t. “No, Mother, you don’t love me. The test from the labs prove you don’t…See this table here?..”

No, I am sure you believe people who say they love you, even if they don’t have science or a good argument to back up their claims.

You don’t live or accept things on the standards you are placing on others here. You pick and choose what has to fit these standards based on what you want to believe. You don’t believe in God so you put such a belief to standards that aren’t even universal in your own life.

Belief in God is a love affair, not an exercise in academia or logic. We worship God because we love God, not because of the evidence of some empirical study.

Christians believe God is the personification of love. Love is above logic.

If you don’t think so, demand logic to define your next great love affair. I am sure and hope you will be happily disappointed because it’s love’s ability to defy logic that makes it so wonderful!

 

[A23]

I believe logic is important in the quest for God, but logic and reason can only take you so far.

You shouldn’t continue trying to cross the infinite sea, because you can’t.

A healthy faith or even a healthy philosophy must have an element of mysticism.

 

[belorg]

I had a girlfriend who asked me: “Do you love me?”

My response in the affirmative did not satisfy her because she asked further: “No, but do you really love me. Can you* prove* it?”

I thought for a moment. “You mean, like scientifically? With a scientific study?”

I was met with several swings from her purse. “No, you idiot! You just don’t care about me! How could I have been so stupid to fall in love with an unfeeling dope like you!” She stormed away in tears.

I was in the doghouse for almost a month after that.

How does one prove love? If you read above through this thread, you would know I am a scientist. I can attest with all my professional career that there is no science method that can supply a sufficient answer to a woman’s question to her boyfriend: “Do you love me?”

Even if there was one, that’s not what a woman’s asking for, some unfeeling empirical set of results that have been proven and validated that demonstrate, scientifically, that you do in fact have “love” for your girlfriend. If you give that as a gift for Valentine’s Day you may end up with bodily injury if your girlfriend carried the same heavy purse that mine did!

No, that type of question was more arbitrary. The “proof” had to fit her personally. It had to be what she was looking for to reassure her personally.

It’s the same with what you’re asking for. There is no law in nature or science that says that anyone’s religious convictions about transcendent deities have to have arguments to back up their claims or reasons for their convictions. The demand you have is an arbitrary one. It’s how you measure what you accept or don’t. If there is not a good argument to support some conviction, you reject it. You believe that such is a requisite.

But there is no evidence to support that such a “requisite” is in fact required. Not everything that is needs to fit what you demand here, does it? And you don’t even live up to this standard in all you believe, either.

Can you prove the love for those you cherish in life? How does one prove the emotion of love, how deep it is, when it began, how far it will go? What tests and measures do you use to do so?

Just because people can’t prove their love empirically doesn’t make it is any less true, does it? Or do you demand empirical proof of all those who claim to love you before you believe them? I’ll bet you don’t. “No, Mother, you don’t love me. The test from the labs prove you don’t…See this table here?..”

No, I am sure you believe people who say they love you, even if they don’t have science or a good argument to back up their claims.

You don’t live or accept things on the standards you are placing on others here. You pick and choose what has to fit these standards based on what you want to believe. You don’t believe in God so you put such a belief to standards that aren’t even universal in your own life.

Belief in God is a love affair, not an exercise in academia or logic. We worship God because we love God, not because of the evidence of some empirical study.

Christians believe God is the personification of love. Love is above logic.

If you don’t think so, demand logic to define your next great love affair. I am sure and hope you will be happily disappointed because it’s love’s ability to defy logic that makes it so wonderful!

A nice story, but completely irrelevant. You really don’t understand what I was trying to say. I have no problems with belief as a love affair, that’s entirely your business.
All I say is that the person who claims to have rational arguments for his position should not hide between “We cannot know this because we are merely human beings”, because if that’s true we cannot know anything.

 

[belorg]

I believe logic is important in the quest for God, but logic and reason can only take you so far.

You shouldn’t continue trying to cross the infinite sea, because you can’t.

A healthy faith or even a healthy philosophy must have an element of mysticism.

I don’t know how far logic and reason can take us, but what i do know is that we should not arbitralily stop when we arrive at a point we happen to like.
We should travel the sea as far as we can, not as far as we like.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

A nice story, but completely irrelevant. You really don’t understand what I was trying to say. I have no problems with belief as a love affair, that’s entirely your business.
All I say is that the person who claims to have rational arguments for his position should not hide between “We cannot know this because we are merely human beings”, because if that’s true we cannot know anything.

“All*** I ***say is that the person who claims to have rational arguments…”

Neither I nor the Catholic Church claims that all its beliefs can be conceived with mere human reasoning. Some defy the ability to define them rationally.

What I’ve been pointing out is that, and to quote you: “All I say is…”

You are saying that this is required. There is no standard to set but you, satisfying the standards you are claiming need to be met. That’s the point I keep making.

But I’ve never said and neither has Catholicism stated that we have rational arguments for all we believe. If that was true, then we wouldn’t believe in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. That defies logic and our ability to grasp it.

You are the one who keeps saying that we or I or someone claims to have rational arguments. And you keep demanding them.

Like my girlfriend in my “nice story” illustrates, you aren’t satisfied with the answer being given to you because it is not meeting your personally preconceived ideas on what you, yourself want. That’s what that “story” is about.

To repeat as I have before in my replies (and go back and see…because you keep skipping the point), this is an arbitrary demand of your invention. You make your own standard the one to meet–not any proven and accepted standard by all–and if I don’t give you an answer that doesn’t suits what you chose, of course you’re going to reject it…just like my girlfriend did.

You won’t be satisfied if I give you circular reasoning, right? But you keep saying I claim that all my beliefs have a rational argument (which I don’t and never would unless I deny my faith) and you say that all belief have to have a rational argument to be accepted, right? Why do you keep saying I should have something I make no claim to?

And how can I claim to have something that would deny my faith? If I had proof of everything, why would it be called faith?

 

[DelsonJacobs]

I don’t know how far logic and reason can take us, but what i do know is that we should not arbitralily stop when we arrive at a point we happen to like.
We should travel the sea as far as we can, not as far as we like.

Everybody likes to think that we go beyond choosing what we like, that we are all objective enough to accept the “truth” on its own merits.

But more often than we humans like to admit–we prefer gathering selective “proofs” for the convictions we hold.

Do you believe that your convictions can be proven wrong? I doubt it. Why would you hold on to convictions you thought were false or incorrect?

Does anyone readily accept defeat in a debate or argument? How many find it easy to say they are wrong when they really are?

How many engage in debate on forums because they are wanting to be proved wrong and accept the views of the ones debating against them? Don’t people debate to not only try to prove the other wrong and–more importantly–to help strengthen their conviction that their beliefs can stand up to debate?

You don’t want to become a Catholic, do you? You want to stay an atheist. All well and good. You should follow the dictates of your conscience.

I agree with you that we should travel the proverbial sea as far as we can, not stop just stop where we like. But the only people who do that are heroes.

And we are a society that persecutes heroes. We debate with them. We say their beliefs are wrong because they don’t match our logic. We stone them, either literally or with words and arguments.

We make big claims of traversing sea and ocean, but few ever leave port and most don’t even own a boat–or the knowledge to sail one even if they did!

 

[belorg]

“All*** I ***say is that the person who claims to have rational arguments…”

Neither I nor the Catholic Church claims that all its beliefs can be conceived with mere human reasoning. Some defy the ability to define them rationally.

What I’ve been pointing out is that, and to quote you: “All I say is…”

You are saying that this is required. There is no standard to set but you, satisfying the standards you are claiming need to be met. That’s the point I keep making.

But I’ve never said and neither has Catholicism stated that we have rational arguments for all we believe. If that was true, then we wouldn’t believe in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. That defies logic and our ability to grasp it.

You are the one who keeps saying that we or I or someone claims to have rational arguments. And you keep demanding them.

Like my girlfriend in my “nice story” illustrates, you aren’t satisfied with the answer being given to you because it is not meeting your personally preconceived ideas on what you, yourself want. That’s what that “story” is about.

To repeat as I have before in my replies (and go back and see…because you keep skipping the point), this is an arbitrary demand of your invention. You make your own standard the one to meet–not any proven and accepted standard by all–and if I don’t give you an answer that doesn’t suits what you chose, of course you’re going to reject it…just like my girlfriend did.

You won’t be satisfied if I give you circular reasoning, right? But you keep saying I claim that all my beliefs have a rational argument (which I don’t and never would unless I deny my faith) and you say that all belief have to have a rational argument to be accepted, right? Why do you keep saying I should have something I make no claim to?

And how can I claim to have something that would deny my faith? If I had proof of everything, why would it be called faith?

Look, I am not talking about you, I am talking about people who claim they have all figured it out and then get caught in circular reasoning. To say, on their behalf, that this seems circular but that is only to us, imperfect human being, and from God’s prespective this will all mysteriously make sense, is simply intellectual dishonesty.