Is it rational to believe in a God that can do the Logically Impossible?

[MindOverMatter2]

Some Catholics, or even Christians in general, think that it is reasonable to assert that God’s omnipotence means that one should think God to have the ability to do the logically impossible; for example, make a square-triangle if he wanted to. They also think - as strange as it is - that the inability to do so should be viewed as an imperfection or impotence in Gods nature.

I think my opponents are incorrect. According to Mackie, “a logical contradiction is not a state of affairs which is supremely difficult to produce, but only a form of words which fails to describe any state of affairs”

According to Aquinas, “It is incompatible with the meaning of the absolutely possible that anything involving the contradiction of simultaneously being and not being should fall under divine omnipotence. Such a contradiction is not subject to it, not from any impotence in God, but because it simply does not have the nature of being feasible or possible … Anything that implies a contradiction does not fall under Gods omnipotence”.

The ability to manifest a contradiction would quite literally destroy any meaningful sense of God being a “rational being” or the “Truth”. I don’t think that such a being can possibly exist. Omnipotence can only mean that God has the power to create any logically possible thing, God is the source of power, and can only do all that which is rationally true of an Omnipotent being. It is reasonable to say that given the truth that God is the very act of reality by which things have power, that such a being is all powerful because he is the source of all power and the sustainer of all things. He is all powerful only in the sense of being “esse”. That would make sense. But it would not be valid to say that God can create a Square Triangle. For example, a perfect act of reality cannot possibly cease to be a perfect act of reality; since the possibility of it would contradict the fact that God is a perfect act of reality, and therefore would be an impediment or imperfection. Similarly, the ability to choose evil is an imperfection insofar as it would contradict the idea that God is perfectly good; because the possibility of moral failure would be an imperfection in God.

The biggest problem with saying that the logically impossible is possible, is that if such is true, then there is no absolute logical reason to say that only God can do logical contradictions. Why not simply dispense with the idea of God and say that the universe pooped out of absolutely nothing by itself?

Its hard to see why one should regard such a being as meaningfully real. In Brian Davies’ book “Thinking about God” there is a quote from Geach saying, *" Since we cannot say how a non-logical world would look, we cannot say how a supra-logical being would act or how he could communicate anything to us by way revelation." *

In other-words there is no reason to recognize the existence of that which is logically irrational and therefore epistemologically void.

 

[Neildown]

Not going to participate in this much I think, but my view is that our universe and our laws are essentially like a bubble within a larger bubble. Ours, being the smaller one, has more limits than the one encompassing it, which is God’s universe in its entirety. Thus, when God accomplishes something we deem “illogical” it is not a breach of logic, but a breach of what we perceive as logic, being humans in our smaller bubble.

It must be remembered that the logic of earth does not apply in the afterlife, so there is obviously more to what truly is “logic”.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It must be remembered that the logic of earth does not apply in the afterlife, so there is obviously more to what truly is “logic”.

I don’t understand what you mean. What is the logic of earth in comparison to this nebulous afterlife logic?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I think the problem that some people have when we say that God cannot do the logically impossible is that they think of logic as some sort of exterior limitation on God. Whereas if God really is Truth, then a thing is logically impossible because it is contrary not to some sort of outside force which God must obey, but because it is contrary to that particular aspect of God Himself. If we look at it this way, then it makes no more sense to say that God could do the illogical than that God could sin.

It’s not that there is any particular action which God does not have the power to do, if He so wished, but to sin God would have to defy Himself which by definition He does not wish. (And what He wishes is the only limit on what God can do - there is nothing He would do if He could but can’t.) Likewise, to do something illogical, He would have to do something contrary to logic and truth, but being Truth Himself, this amounts to the same case as above.

– Note: I think (though am not sure) that Nieldown may not have been thinking of exactly pure logic, but rather of natural laws which apply to the physical universe, but which do not apply to God.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

And what He wishes is the only limit on what God can do

I disagree with this part. It impossible for God to wish evil. God is intrinsically love; it is not something he potentially is. If God wished evil, God would no-longer be God, since love is God. Evil is a contradiction to the intrinsic nature of God since it is not possible for God to cease being God. So it is not simply a matter of God not willing to do evil; but rather it is not possible for God to will against what God intrinsically is by nature.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I disagree with this part. It impossible for God to wish evil. God is intrinsically love; it is not something he potentially is. If God wished evil, God would no-longer be God, which is a contradiction to the nature of God since it is not possible for God to cease being God. So it is not simply a matter of God not willing to do evil; but rather it is not possible for God to will against what God intrinsically is by nature.

I don’t actually think we disagree on any meaningful level, though saying what you said in my terms would get pretty ridiculous pretty fast. For example, it may be impossible for God to wish to do evil, but He does not wish to wish to do evil because He is Good(ness). (And of course, He then could not wish to wish evil because He does not wish to wish to wish evil. etc.)

To make things less silly, you could throw in “it is not possible for God to will against what God intrinsically is by nature,” as well as “God can do anything (else) He wills” and then I think you’d be good. I think what I was doing was saying that “God does not wish to go against His nature, and God can do as He wishes,” which would end up at the same set of stuff God can do. I simply don’t like the phraseology of saying that God can’t do things - just because of the connotations of the word “can’t” - so try to avoid it when possible.

 

[mgoforth]

Considering how much we don’t understand about our world, the physics of the universe, even our own brains…how can we ever expect to fully understand God? That in itself is a logical impossibility.

 

[centurionguard]

Seems to me anything Supernatural in the Mysteries of God in itself defies the full comprehension by means of the limited sphere of human intellectual faculty.

Nothing is impossible to God who is Infinite.

I’m always held in complete Awe (No Impossibility is with God) when I read and meditate in certain passages of Job.

Book Of Job Chapter 38: Verses 1-41 drbo.org/chapter/20038.htm and
Book of Job Chapter 39: Verses 1-35 drbo.org/chapter/20039.htm

I feel humbled low crawling like a cockroach on the ground when reading the end of the discourse in Chapter 39.

[31] And the Lord went on, and said to Job: [32] Shall he that contendeth with God be so easily silenced? surely he that reproveth God, ought to answer him. [33] Then Job answered the Lord, and said: [34] What can I answer, who hath spoken inconsiderately? I will lay my hand upon my mouth. [35] One thing I have spoken, which I wish I had not said: and another, to which I will add no more.

 

[RastaPasta]

God is the author of logic… which means that he can change the “rules” anytime.

Case in point: Jesus walking on water. Illogical by our standards, but not by Gods.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Considering how much we don’t understand about our world, the physics of the universe, even our own brains…how can we ever expect to fully understand God? That in itself is a logical impossibility.

CenturionGuard:

Seems to me anything Supernatural in the Mysteries of God in itself defies the full comprehension by means of the limited sphere of human intellectual faculty.

Yes of course. Not disputing that. Simply trying to understand what we can.

They say St. Augustine (I think), after thinking that he finally had the Trinity figured out, was told that trying to understand God was like trying to empty the entire ocean into a little hole that a kid might dig in the sand on the beach. It won’t fit. But that doesn’t mean you can’t put in as much water as will fit, there’s just no way it’s going to be the entire ocean.

RastaPasta:

God is the author of logic… which means that he can change the “rules” anytime.

Case in point: Jesus walking on water. Illogical by our standards, but not by Gods.

We are not speaking of mere physical laws, but of stuff much more basic than that. For example, God could turn me into a fish quiet easily. He could also refrain from turning me into a fish. But could He both, simultaneously and really (that is, no wiggling out of it with word games) turn me into a fish and not turn me into a fish at the same time? So that I end up being, at the same time and in the same way, both a fish and not a fish? Note that this is not saying having the nature of a fish and also having the nature of a non-fish (in the same way that Jesus is both God and man), but having a single nature that is both entirely fishy and entirely non-fishy.

This is things like “a statement cannot be both true and false” that we’re talking about here. It is my position that that sort of thing relates to God in the same way that Love does in the statement “God is Love”, or that speaking of God being illogical makes no more sense than speaking of God sinning. We determine if an action is sinful by holding it up to God and seeing if it is in opposition to or in concert with Him. Given that no action God takes will be in opposition to Himself, it does not make sense to call any action He takes sinful. I think you could (well you actually couldn’t, but because of limitations on us not because it doesn’t make sense) do the same with a statement to see if it is true or false, logical or illogical, and, if so, then nothing God does can be called illogical - and hence those things which certainly can be called illogical are not things that God does.

 

[razredge]

God is bound by logic, they are part of his very nature like omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

He cannot do things that aren’t logical.

 

[centurionguard]

God is bound by logic, they are part of his very nature like omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

He cannot do things that aren’t logical.

Indeed; because God is the Ultimate Expression of all Logic which is even far more unfathomable than all the collective knowledge of His angels.

First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians Chapter 1 Verse 17-25
drbo.org/chapter/53001.htm

[17] For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void. [18] For the word of the cross, to them indeed that perish, is foolishness; but to them that are saved, that is, to us, it is the power of God. [19] For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the prudence of the prudent I will reject. [20] Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

[21] For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world, by wisdom, knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of our preaching, to save them that believe. [22] For both the Jews require signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: [23] But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumbling-block, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: [24] But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. [25] For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

[25] The foolishness: That is to say, what appears foolish to the world in the ways of God, is indeed most wise; and what appears weak is indeed above all the strength and comprehension of man.

 

[carn]

God is the author of logic… which means that he can change the “rules” anytime.

Case in point: Jesus walking on water. Illogical by our standards, but not by Gods.

There is nothing illogical about walking on water.

It is only illogical assuming some always existing natural laws. If someone is capable of altering those laws - as God is supposed to be able - there is no contradiction in walking on water. Just locally alter gravitational constant or electric constant and thing is done.

 

[afungusamongus]

Omnipotence generally speaking has not meant to include that which is logically impossible. If you think about statements like. Can God create a stone so big that even he cannot lift it? or A room full of emptiness. These are sentences devoid of any meaning. Almost like baby jabber a set of sounds without meaning.

You could also say that Yes he can create a stone so big that he cannot lift and then lift it, but that is logically impossible I hear you say. Yeah so he can do the logically impossible.

Either way it does not call into question his Omnipotence.

 

[shoe]

I don’t think it’s a rational thing “to believe in a God that can do the Logically Impossible,” since a thing that is impossible to do will always remain impossible to do. If God were able to do a thing that was logically impossible, then logic itself would be a logical contradiction. And if God were to contradict His logical essence, the very thing that He naturally is, then God would not be God.

 

[Neildown]

I don’t understand what you mean. What is the logic of earth in comparison to this nebulous afterlife logic?

Simply put, earth’s mechanics are not the same as those in the afterlife. If we graduate from earthly life to heavenly life, obviously there is a change in things, considering in one place you need a body to live and in the other you don’t. Therefore it is obvious that both places do not operate on the exact same logical premise

 

[Alterum]

Some of you don’t understand what a logical contradiction is.

The point Mackie makes (as I recall, in an article concerning the problem of evil) is that the idea of “doing” a logical contradiction is incoherent, since a logical contradiction is not something to be done.

Altering natural laws (or anything else conceivable) does not constitute a logical contradiction. Only that which is logically impossible – like making me exist and not-exist at the same time in the same respect – is a logical contradiction. There is no possible world in which that is something to be done. Likewise for drawing square circles or creating rocks recalcitrant to absolute power. Such contradictions can be determined purely formally.

So, God cannot do the logically contradictory.

All the same, we should be careful that we are looking at a true contradiction when we rule something outside of divine omnipotence.