Is "logically possible" a deceptive term?

[Prodigal_Son]

Modern philosophers constantly talk about logical possibility, which means (roughly) a state of events which are not contradictory. Rarely do they remember that our idea of logical possibility is merely a function of our ignorance. Could there be noncontradictory states of events that are – in every sense of the word – impossible? Yes!

This is important when it comes to debates about epistemology and the problem of evil. For example, the premise “a necessary being exists” does not entail any logical contradictions, but this does not imply that we *know *a necessary being is possible. (Some of us, of course, know Someone who happens to be a necessary being, but it is hard to “export” that knowledge).

Another example: In discussing the problem of evil, it is claimed that an omnipotent and good God would do any number of things that are noncontradictory to assuage suffering. But to claim that something is noncontradictory is not to say that it is possible, nor to say that God can do it. In effect, we have to decide between two definitions of omnipotence: 1) The ability to do anything logically possible, and 2) The ability to do anything *actually *possible. It seems clear to me that the second option is to be preferred, I could be wrong.

If you describe God as a being that can do anything logically possible, then you are assuming that logical possibility and actual possibility are the same. But this is a claim about the world, and what evidence do we have to make such a claim?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Interesting.

What is “actually logically possible” is what God does. Whatever happened is what was “actually logically possible”, what God did. Everything else wasn’t possible, logically or otherwise.

 

[Magnanimity]

Prodigal Son,

I definitely think you’re on to something here. It seems to me that a lot of the examples you use in your post are just particular outworkings of a larger conflict between realism and idealism, which is an age-old problem. Yes, if one’s thinking is always in terms of “possible worlds,” then you’re going to seem stuck in a rut of idealism. It’s been said before in this context, “if you start in the mind (iow, just with what’s logically possible), then it’s hard to escape the mind and connect with the real world.”

For philosophy to have any real cash-value, it must begin with reality, ie, with one’s actual experience of the world. Otherwise, we all just end up playing sophisticated games of logic with each other, and philosophy, as a discipline, ends up being laughable. There is a strong tendency in the history of thought to overemphasize the role of logic/math to the detriment of philosophical progress. See, for example, Abelard and Descartes and Berkeley and Alvin Plantinga.

In my mind, a proper analogy between logic and philosophy is like that of mathematics and physics. Logic and math are the tools employed, but if you’re not using those tools to try to advance your knowledge of things in re extra, then you’re just game playing in a sophisticated way.

Did you ever read the Jesuit philosopher James Felt’s piece, “Why Possible Worlds Aren’t”? If not, you should give it a shot. It’s available for free online. Also, Henry Veatch’s book Two Logics explores a lot of these issues.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Prodigal Son,

I definitely think you’re on to something here. It seems to me that a lot of the examples you use in your post are just particular outworkings of a larger conflict between realism and idealism, which is an age-old problem. Yes, if one’s thinking is always in terms of “possible worlds,” then you’re going to seem stuck in a rut of idealism. It’s been said before in this context, “if you start in the mind (iow, just with what’s logically possible), then it’s hard to escape the mind and connect with the real world.”

Interesting. I think “possible worlds” has caught on so much because of computer science, which makes idealism trendy.

I actually think that, when you consider God’s action in the world, the entire distinction between idealism and realism breaks down. The conditions for understanding reality are contained within the human person, but this is indeed an imaginative (or perhaps “visionary”) exercise.

For philosophy to have any real cash-value, it must begin with reality, ie, with one’s actual experience of the world. Otherwise, we all just end up playing sophisticated games of logic with each other, and philosophy, as a discipline, ends up being laughable. There is a strong tendency in the history of thought to overemphasize the role of logic/math to the detriment of philosophical progress. See, for example, Abelard and Descartes and Berkeley and Alvin Plantinga.

The interesting thing is that many devout Christians (and some extremely decent agnostics, like Kant) often do a great deal of damage, whereas a stubborn atheist like Hume might almost be seen as a corrective influence. Perhaps we need a practical realist that will allow the full variety of human experience into his data-set.

In my mind, a proper analogy between logic and philosophy is like that of mathematics and physics. Logic and math are the tools employed, but if you’re not using those tools to try to advance your knowledge of things in re extra, then you’re just game playing in a sophisticated way.

Wait, you mean this is more than a game? I thought philosophy was just a diversion!

Did you ever read the Jesuit philosopher James Felt’s piece, “Why Possible Worlds Aren’t”? If not, you should give it a shot. It’s available for free online. Also, Henry Veatch’s book Two Logics explores a lot of these issues.

Thanks for the recommendations. The Felt piece was quite interesting, and I’ll look at Veatch if I get a chance.

 

[Magnanimity]

I actually think that, when you consider God’s action in the world, the entire distinction between idealism and realism breaks down. The conditions for understanding reality are contained within the human person, but this is indeed an imaginative (or perhaps “visionary”) exercise.

Prodigal Son,

Yeah I doubt that you and I fundamentally disagree. Maybe we approach things from a different angle, but I would have to agree that the conditions for understanding reality are in the human person, but that still doesn’t change the fact that many of your objects of knowledge are outside of your person-outside the mind. So, how does the mind connect to those things…? and there we get our age-old solutions to the question: materialism, idealism, or the go-between of realism.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Rarely do they remember that our idea of logical possibility is merely a function of our ignorance. Could there be noncontradictory states of events that are – in every sense of the word – impossible? Yes!

Ah…was that meant to be an argument? Perhaps you can, if your not too busy, explain which non-contradictory events are metaphysically impossible?

This is important when it comes to debates about epistemology and the problem of evil. For example, the premise “a necessary being exists” does not entail any logical contradictions, but this does not imply that we *know *a necessary being is possible.

We know that a being is impossible because such a being is self contradictory or contradicts that which we know to be a logical fact. If we find a being to be logically consistent, then there is no logical reason to think that it is impossible for such a being to exist.

(Some of us, of course, know Someone who happens to be a necessary being, but it is hard to “export” that knowledge).

Another example: In discussing the problem of evil, it is claimed that an omnipotent and good God would do any number of things that are noncontradictory to assuage suffering. But to claim that something is noncontradictory is not to say that it is possible, nor to say that God can do it.

This is a question of logical relativity, not whether a “being” can exist or not. A thing can be contradictory from one perspective, but when put into the light of a different context, the contradiction disappears and becomes intelligible to that specific situation. If i respect the freewill of a women i will ask her for a kiss; and this is because i value the person that i have asked. But that doesn’t change the fact that i could force my will and desire on to that person. However, the result would be degrading and ultimately unfulfilling for that person. What might be possible for us to do, might not be appropriate for God to do, even though when given freedom of a specific agenda and purpose perhaps an unlimited being could do anything, including create robots that obeyed his every command. But that wouldn’t be the God of Christianity since Gods actions permit any and all events that ultimately leads to the greatest good; that which ultimately fulfills the existential purpose of humanity. Such events, however unfortunate, may indeed include great suffering.

All arguments from evil are all based on a misconception of Gods nature in relation to his Creatures, and our ability to comprehend what God would do given any specific situation.

In effect, we have to decide between two definitions of omnipotence: 1) The ability to do anything logically possible, and 2) The ability to do anything *actually *possible. It seems clear to me that the second option is to be preferred, I could be wrong.

It seems to me the two are the same; but what God can do is relative to each and every situation. What is good in one situation, might be wrong in another even though God knows that his children are crying-out in pain. Atheists tend to think that “good actions” and “pleasure” are synonymous terms, as if to say that pleasure follows necessarily from all good actions. But sometimes the mature thing to do does not always coincide with pleasure.

If you describe God as a being that can do anything logically possible, then you are assuming that logical possibility and actual possibility are the same.

There is no assumption. If something is logically impossible; then it cannot exist in reality. For instance; there is no such thing as an actual “nothing” in reality. It would be a logical contradiction if there was such a thing, since absolutely nothing is not an actuality. However, a logical possibility might be restricted to certain parameters. For instance, a twelve foot tall man and a two foot vehicle are both logically possible entities. However, it is logically impossible for a twelve foot man to fit into a 2 foot vehicle.

But this is a claim about the world, and what evidence do we have to make such a claim?

This is like saying that it might be logically impossible for a square to be a triangle at the same time, but that doesn’t mean that a “square-triangle” doesn’t exist in the real world!!! I suspect that you think that if you pursue logic as a definitive method of knowing whether or not something is logically possible, you might find that God will be rendered unintelligible; and this is why you are attacking logic. But not all apparent contradictions are contradictions. For example; in the problem of evil, the atheist assumes that he or she has enough knowledge to determine that God has no good reason to permit evil. However closer scrutiny reveals that human beings do not and cannot possibly know for sure that God has no good reason, for the simple fact that we are limited in knowledge and we are judging that which we presume to be infinitely wise and intelligent. This presents an epistemological problem to anyone that thinks that the existence of evil has permanently undermined the logical possibility of God.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

We know that a being is impossible because such a being is self contradictory or contradicts that which we know to be a logical fact. If we find a being to be logically consistent, then there is no logical reason to think that it is impossible for such a being to exist.

Yes, but there is also not reason to believe it is possible, aside from other evidence. All ontological arguments depend on a premise that is epistemically inaccessible.

Ah…was that meant to be an argument? Perhaps you can, if your not too busy, explain which non-contradictory events are metaphysically impossible?

We don’t know. My point is that actually possible and logically possible are two distinct categories. We cannot assume that they overlap entirely. If you believe that they do overlap entirely, then please explain your reasoning.

This is a question of logical relativity, not whether a “being” can exist or not. A thing can be contradictory from one perspective, but when put into the light of a different context, the contradiction disappears and becomes intelligible to that specific situation. If i respect the freewill of a women i will ask her for a kiss; and this is because i value the person that i have asked. But that doesn’t change the fact that i could force my will and desire on to that person. However, the result would be degrading and ultimately unfulfilling for that person. What might be possible for us to do, might not be appropriate for God to do, even though when given freedom of a specific agenda and purpose perhaps an unlimited being could do anything, including create robots that obeyed his every command. But that wouldn’t be the God of Christianity since Gods actions permit any and all events that ultimately leads to greatest good; that which ultimately fulfills the existential purpose of humanity. Such events, how ever unfortunate, may indeed include great suffering.

At any rate, free will isn’t a problem in relation to the problem of evil; it is, of course, a central aspect of any solution. The problem comes in with the *egregious *suffering of innocents, natural disasters, and the like. Many of these things it would be quite noncontradictory for God to prevent; we want an explanation as to why He does not do so. Atheists tend to assume that God could create the noncontradictory situation that “a person understands the meaning of love and trust” and “a person has never experienced pain”, for example. But just because this is noncontradictory, it does not follow that even God can create such a situation.

All arguments from evil are all based on a misconception of Gods nature in relation to his Creatures, and our ability to comprehend what God would do given any specific situation.

Well, of course they are based on misconceptions, but that doesn’t mean that we should discard them as unreasonable. Arguments against Galileo were based misconceptions about the nature of the universe, but it does not follow that they were unreasonable. “Reasonable” does not entail “true”.

There is no assumption. If something is logically impossible; then it cannot exist in reality.

Yes, but this is only one side of the equation. I agree that “logically impossible entails cannot exist in reality” but I disagree with “cannot exist in reality entails logically impossible”. There may well be things that cannot exist in reality that are not logically impossible.

This is like saying that it might be logically impossible for a square to be a triangle at the same time, but that doesn’t mean that a “square-triangle” doesn’t exist in the real world!!!

No, it isn’t! All contradictions are impossible, but not all impossibilities are contradictions. How is this unclear?

I suspect that you think that if you pursue logic as a definitive method of knowing whether or not something is logically possible, you might find that God will be rendered unintelligible; and this is why you are attacking logic.

Why would I want to render God unintelligible? He is the source of my being and the lover of my soul! I am simply following the arguments in an intellectually responsible way. All truth is God’s truth.

But not all apparent contradictions are contradictions. For example; in the problem of evil, the atheist assumes that he or she has enough knowledge to determine that God has no good reason to permit evil. However closer scrutiny reveals that human beings do not and cannot possibly know for sure that God has no good reason, for the simple fact that we are limited in knowledge and we are judging that which we presume to be infinitely wise and intelligent. This presents an epistemological problem to anyone that thinks that the existence of evil has permanently undermined the logical possibility of God.

I agree.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Yes, but there is also not reason to believe it is possible

If the concept is logically consistent, then there is a reason to think that it is logically possible, since it is not contradictory. That it does not contradict is what makes it possible.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If the concept is logically consistent, then there is a reason to think that it is logically possible, since it is not contradictory. That it does not contradict is what makes it possible.

Here is a dialogue that might clear things up:

Bob: See-through rocks could exist.
Cindy: No, they couldn’t.
Bob: Why not? Are they logically impossible? Couldn’t you imagine something that is both a rock and see-through? Does “see-through” logically entail “not rock”?
Cindy: No, but they you still have no reason to believe that see-through rocks can exist.
Bob: In a sense, I do, though. From the level of how ignorant we are, we have no reason to believe that see-through rocks can’t exist!
Cindy: I certainly agree with you there. But “we have no reason to believe that see-through rocks can’t exist,” it does not follow that we have reason to believe that see-through rocks can exist. Until we have other evidence on the matter, we ought to suspend judgment.

And that is my position: we should suspend judgment on matters of possibility, except in the cases of contradictions. How do we *know *if something is possible? By experience! I have experiences that are best explained by the existence of a living God, which argues in favor of His existence. And if I have evidence for the existence of something, I certainly have evidence for its possible existence.

 

[James_S_Saint]

My point is that actually possible and logically possible are two distinct categories. We cannot assume that they overlap entirely. If you believe that they do overlap entirely, then please explain your reasoning.

Hmm… quite a challenge.

Is the logical necessary? Is the actual logical?

As you pointed out, the number of possibilities is a measure of ignorance. God, knowing truly all, knows only one possibility - the “right” one.

But how do we know that?

To be logical merely means being consistent under a set of laws. In the case of the universe itself, those laws must be 100% obeyed, else they are not the real laws (by definition). If they are 100% obeyed, then nothing else is possible.

If the universe is not logical (consistent) then events are not predictable as they follow no pattern (a law). If the universe obeys no laws, then any attempt to predict or even guess about what is logical is pointless. The mind itself would serve no purpose. Given no restriction, no laws, there would be an infinite number of possibile choices for every event. The probability of being right with any guess at all would necessarily be zero. You would ALWAYS be wrong.

All creatures would die from not being able to match their pattern for living, their behavior, with that of their needs and surroundings. They could find to food because the food might be anywhere at any moment and elsewhere the very next moment. Creatures could not evolve, nor be designed, such as to match their needs. All life would die (or actually never exist in the first place).

In addition, Science would serve no purpose fore it would not be able to even estimate a law. Mathematics would serve no purpose because 2+2 might not equal 4 the next day. Religion would serve no purpose because what is a moral one day might not be the next. In fact, the entire religion might not exist the next day (assuming the next day actually came).

Nothing that supports life could be depended upon, no thoughts, no actions, no desires. Life itself might blink out then appear then blink out again or more likely blink into something different each time.

Because of the extreme problem associated with an illogical universe, it is irrational to assume that it is illogical because there could be no benefit from such an assumption and the rational response would have to be to just give up and try nothing at all. What would be the point?

Thus the ONLY rational assumption is that the universe actually IS logical, but merely not yet known. Evidence tremendously supports this notion. With such an assumption, it is possible that maybe the food will still be where it was a moment ago.

Thus it is TRUTH that the universe is logical because it is DECLARED, not merely assumed. A declaration of truth need not be observed to be true. Declarations are either useful or not. Their usefulness confirms their appointment as truth, not observation.

But if that isn’t convincing, merely try the alternative. Divorce your mind from all logic and see where it takes you. If you do it right, it should only take a few seconds to change your mind - why? Because logic dictates that logic must be used so as to declare any truth at all. Those who truly don’t believe it are soon dead and not of concern.

So yes, logic is most certainly necessary and only allows for one possibility.

But is the actual logical? If it wasn’t what would be the point in using logic or any predictive effort? The whole point stated above is that if the universe itself (the actual) is not logical, then nothing is worth attempting, nothing at all, even saying that it is not worth attempting would only be the result of a logical derivation.

So yes, the actual is most certainly logical and thus only allowed for one possibility.

And in fact, the 2 concepts are the same “category” and “overlap entirely”.

 

[James_S_Saint]

we should suspend judgment on matters of possibility, except in the cases of contradictions. How do we *know *if something is possible? By experience! I have experiences that are best explained by the existence of a living God, which argues in favor of His existence. And if I have evidence for the existence of something, I certainly have evidence for its possible existence.

The other means to conclude is by virtue of no other option. If something is not in jar A or B but is known to be in one of the 3 jars, then it is conclusive that it is in jar C even though it has not been seen.

Btw, what separates the sentient from the animal is the degree of self-verification (awareness). The sentient creature checks what he thought he saw, what he thinks that he understands, and what he thought he actually accomplished. Concluding without verifying is inviting the Devil for dinner.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Thus the ONLY rational assumption is that the universe actually IS logical, but merely not yet known. Evidence tremendously supports this notion.

Well, let’s look at this. If anything is to be rational, then it must be able to represent the world accurately. What’s more, this accurate representation cannot be accidental – guessing how many grains of sand are on the beach correctly is not knowledge.

Postulate a random universe. For someone to be rational in such a universe, he must conclude that the universe is random. And yet such a conclusion, if it is not accidental, must be based on perceiving regularities that lead him to the conclusion of randomness. But regularities do not exist in randomness; therefore, any universe that includes rationality cannot be entirely random.

That doesn’t get us very far, but it is at least indisputable.

Perhaps it also leads to the conclusion that no one can ever rationally appeal to random phenomena, although I can’t quite connect the dots to get us there. Nor am I at all sure that such a conclusion is correct.

What is actually logical corresponds to a complete picture of the world and its relations at a given time. If we had such a picture, the use of logical laws (known or unknown) would seemingly deduce the events at all other times – that is, if there were no randomness. My main point is that we do not know the state of all events, and we do not know all logical entailments. Thus, what is *actually logical *may correspond to what actually exists in a 1-to-1 relation, but we do not have much access to what is actually logical.

Interesting conversation. You ain’t makin’ a determinist out of me yet, Jamesy, but not for lack of trying!

 

[MindOverMatter]

Here is a dialogue that might clear things up:

Bob: See-through rocks could exist.
Cindy: No, they couldn’t.
Bob: Why not? Are they logically impossible? Couldn’t you imagine something that is both a rock and see-through? Does “see-through” logically entail “not rock”?
Cindy: No, but they you still have no reason to believe that see-through rocks can exist.
Bob: In a sense, I do, though. From the level of how ignorant we are, we have no reason to believe that see-through rocks can’t exist!
Cindy: I certainly agree with you there. But “we have no reason to believe that see-through rocks can’t exist,” it does not follow that we have reason to believe that see-through rocks can exist. Until we have other evidence on the matter, we ought to suspend judgment.

This is incorrect. The problem with this line of reasoning, is that we use the word rock for a very specific form. However, perhaps you can speak of a new species of rock, and so perhaps there is no logical contradiction in saying that a transparent entity of sorts can possibly exist. What determines something as a logical possibility is its conceptual consistency. If the concept is logically consistent, then it is not logically impossible for it to exist. Whether or not it will ever come in to existence is an entirely different qeustion. The very fact that a reality such as “absolute nothingness” cannot actually exist, proves that logic is universal and is actually a fundamental expression of absolute being. Therefore a logical possibility is defined by what can be conceived to have existence without being logically contradictory to the ultimate nature of reality. If something is a possibility, then it can possibly exist. However something may stop such an entity from coming into existence such as the will of God; since God governs all possibilities. However God is being, and absolute being is fundamentally logical since Gods nature represents the absolute difference between nothing and something. Logical truth is not created by God. It emanates from Gods fundamental nature. Gods nature determines what is logical and Gods will determines what will exist. However, that God determines what will actually exist, does not change the fact that something is logically possible, even if God does not permit it. And if we want to have evidence that such and such a being actually exists, then we must seek evidence for it through the various means that we have at our disposal.

It seems that when you speak of an actual possibility you are merely speaking of that which is allowed to exist, but in reality has nothing really to do with logical possibilities but rather is to do with what ever is responsible for the actuality of beings. Actual impossibilities are not logical impossibilities. I agree that logic does not determine the existence of the physical universe. My name is not James. However, just because something cannot be allowed to exist has no bearing whatsoever on Gods abilities. Your argument cannot be applied to God as if to say that therefore maybe he can do the logically impossible because some things cannot actually exist, but can nevertheless be logical possibilities. That’s not an argument by itself since it only applies to secondary beings or possibilities that are either subject to chance, fundamental forms, or the will of God. As soon as you realize that God is being by nature rather than by participation, you begin to realize that God, as being itself, is the absolute embodiment of logical truth. God cannot contradict his nature. Neither can logical truth be a creation of something, and thus logic has to be by necessity a reflection of that which necessarily and ultimately exists without potential. The only thing that can exist both necessarily and without potential is that which is existence by nature. That which is Existence by nature cannot cease to be existence. Gods nature makes God the ultimate reality, and thus God is the existence of which i speak. Therefore there are somethings that are logically impossible for God to do, such as, he cannot vanish in to absolute nothingness and cease to exist; because this contradicts his intrinsically logical nature. God cannot create a square triangle…ect ect…so on and so forth…

 

[NowAgnostic]

OK, I’ll agree in part and disagree in part. What you say is basically correct; however I think you err in ascribing a position to modern philosophers they don’t have.

Modern philosophers constantly talk about logical possibility, which means (roughly) a state of events which are not contradictory. Rarely do they remember that our idea of logical possibility is merely a function of our ignorance.

What exactly do you mean by “idea”? It’s one thing to say that some state of affairs may contain a hidden contradiction we aren’t aware of. For instance, before learning Euclidean geometry we might conceive of a triangle whose angles summed to 190 degrees as logically possible. Before learning logic we might not be able to see that some statements A, B, C are mutually contradictory. So we may err indeed in our determination of whether something is logically possible or not. This I would agree with, but I don’t think modern philosophers would disagree.

However, that doesn’t mean that our **idea **of what logical impossibility means is merely a function of ignorance. It’s not a “function of ignorance” to claim that a squared circle or a married bachelor is logically impossible.

Could there be noncontradictory states of events that are – in every sense of the word – impossible? Yes!

Modern philosophers aren’t that dense. They do not assume that logical impossibility is the only type of impossibility. For instance, they also talk of metaphysical possiblity/impossibility.

This is important when it comes to debates about epistemology and the problem of evil. For example, the premise “a necessary being exists” does not entail any logical contradictions, but this does not imply that we *know *a necessary being is possible. (Some of us, of course, know Someone who happens to be a necessary being, but it is hard to “export” that knowledge).

But if a necessary being is in fact impossible, then the premise “a necessary being exists” does in fact entail a contradiction. Now we may not know whether a necessary being is possible or not; that means we don’t know whether “a necessary being exists” entails a contradiction or not.

Another example: In discussing the problem of evil, it is claimed that an omnipotent and good God would do any number of things that are noncontradictory to assuage suffering. But to claim that something is noncontradictory is not to say that it is possible, nor to say that God can do it.

True, that’s the basic gist of Plantinga’s “Free Will Defense”, which most philosophers of religion accept. (I personally don’t, though I have a different answer to the problem of evil.)

In effect, we have to decide between two definitions of omnipotence: 1) The ability to do anything logically possible, and 2) The ability to do anything *actually *possible. It seems clear to me that the second option is to be preferred, I could be wrong.

Well, finally! No one believed me when I started a thread on what omnipotence really meant, saying it should be “obvious” or “self-evident” or that the question was silly or something like that. But it’s not so obvious. I’m glad you see that.

If you describe God as a being that can do anything logically possible, then you are assuming that logical possibility and actual possibility are the same. But this is a claim about the world, and what evidence do we have to make such a claim?

A very good question. But if logical possibility and actual possibility are not the same, then what does omnipotence really mean, apart from a tautological circular definition , e.g. God’s omnipotence means He can do anything actually possible - and what is actually possible is anything He can do.

It is also a claim about the world that this is not the only possible one. What evidence do we have for that claim? How do you refute James Saint’s modal collapse and determinism, if actual possibility is not the same as logical possibility.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Well, let’s look at this. If anything is to be rational, then it must be able to represent the world accurately.

I can see now what you mean when you say that actual possibility and logical possibility are two different things. I agree with this stance in general, and it is a very important philosophical stance in face of determinism and perhaps the problem of evil. How ever i do not agree, as you can see by my previous post that such a differentiation allows God to be free of Logical boundaries and limitations. God cannot do that which is logically absurd.

 

[greylorn]

Modern philosophers constantly talk about logical possibility, which means (roughly) a state of events which are not contradictory. Rarely do they remember that our idea of logical possibility is merely a function of our ignorance. Could there be noncontradictory states of events that are – in every sense of the word – impossible? Yes!

This is important when it comes to debates about epistemology and the problem of evil. For example, the premise “a necessary being exists” does not entail any logical contradictions, but this does not imply that we *know *a necessary being is possible. (Some of us, of course, know Someone who happens to be a necessary being, but it is hard to “export” that knowledge).

Another example: In discussing the problem of evil, it is claimed that an omnipotent and good God would do any number of things that are noncontradictory to assuage suffering. But to claim that something is noncontradictory is not to say that it is possible, nor to say that God can do it. In effect, we have to decide between two definitions of omnipotence: 1) The ability to do anything logically possible, and 2) The ability to do anything *actually *possible. It seems clear to me that the second option is to be preferred, I could be wrong.

If you describe God as a being that can do anything logically possible, then you are assuming that logical possibility and actual possibility are the same. But this is a claim about the world, and what evidence do we have to make such a claim?

Philosophers are terribly confused. Logic is an abstraction. It only applies to abstractions.

For example., mathematical logic is an abstraction. 2 + 2 = 4 is such a powerful abstraction that, given the definitions of integers, plus, and equal (in the mathematical context) the statement would be true even if the universe did not exist and there were no things to count, add, or compare.

Abstractions are sometimes useful when they can be applied to the physical universe, which is why math is used in physics.

But, it is good to note that the mathematical abstractions which describe physical relationships are not the actual relationships. They work in physics, engineering, and other hard sciences only because the abstractions are applied to well defined concepts.

The “God” concept is the most poorly, and absurdly defined concept that mankind has ever invented. It is insufficiently coherent to qualify as a legitimate abstraction. Logic cannot be applied to it in such a manner as to yield a logical result.

Consider your statement, “…you describe God as a being that can do anything logically possible.” That is a fairly worthless definition, not useful by itself.

That is because all applications of the God concept apply to God’s interaction with the physical universe. He created it, and allegedly controls it. The creation and control of matter and energy involve logical abstractions applied to the physical universe. This pretty much puts the nitwit philosophers out of the game, because they do not know anything about physics.

We can reduce the issue to a single, simple contradiction. God is “logically” capable of creating anything he wants to create. But what about the First Law of Thermodynamics? Energy, the sutff from which the universe is made, cannot be created or destroyed. That’s a logical principle, applied to physics.

Up front and simple, if energy cannot be created or destroyed, God cannot have created it. So, start turning your little minds in the direction of a different God-concept— a God who used energy to construct a universe, but could not have created the stuff.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

OK, I’ll agree in part and disagree in part. What you say is basically correct; however I think you err in ascribing a position to modern philosophers they don’t have.

Yeah, you’re probably right. Grad students often make this mistake, but professors don’t.

However, that doesn’t mean that our **idea **of what logical impossibility means is merely a function of ignorance. It’s not a “function of ignorance” to claim that a squared circle or a married bachelor is logically impossible.

I agree entirely. I am saying, among other things, that we don’t know ALL of the things that entail contradictions. We do know some of them.

But if a necessary being is in fact impossible, then the premise “a necessary being exists” does in fact entail a contradiction. Now we may not know whether a necessary being is possible or not; that means we don’t know whether “a necessary being exists” entails a contradiction or not.

Yes.

Well, finally! No one believed me when I started a thread on what omnipotence really meant, saying it should be “obvious” or “self-evident” or that the question was silly or something like that. But it’s not so obvious. I’m glad you see that.

Well, it is obvious in one descriptive sense, and completely opaque in another descriptive sense. God can do anything that can be done. This may be tautological, as you have pointed out, except insofar as it applies the category “God” to the category “possible”. This might be compared to a programmer and his program: what is actually possible in a program is what the programmer can do.

Illustrative conversation that I had this morning, with my four-year-old:

(Dorothy has just drawn a picture of ten children.)
Dorothy: They’re really smart. They’re so smart. They’re smarter than God. Are they smarter than God?
Me: No, dear.
Dorothy: Are we smarter than God?
Me: No.
Dorothy: Who is smarter than God?
Me: Nobody is smarter than God.

You might say that I am defining God as “that which nobody is smarter than”. (Which would make it awfully easy to prove “His” existence, eh? ). But this is all a red herring, as a criticism of Christianity. Though some analyses of the definition may be trivial, there is clearly a concept called God that everyone has some idea of. Perhaps we should simply list very specific attributes: is capable of turning water into wine, is a precondition of all events, is aware of each person’s conscious thoughts, is capable of creating material, etc. Whether these things are or are not possible cannot be ruled on a priori.

A very good question. But if logical possibility and actual possibility are not the same, then what does omnipotence really mean, apart from a tautological circular definition , e.g. God’s omnipotence means He can do anything actually possible - and what is actually possible is anything He can do.

You are assuming that the concept of omnipotence was somehow intended to help us figure out what things are possible and impossible, over and above those contradictions we can perceive. The fact that omnipotence isn’t revealing in this way doesn’t make the concept meaningless, however.

It is also a claim about the world that this is not the only possible one. What evidence do we have for that claim? How do you refute James Saint’s modal collapse and determinism, if actual possibility is not the same as logical possibility.

Well, using standard logic at least, actual possibility *is *always the same as logical possibility; we just don’t know how to gain access to the actual possibilities. The world at a given point in time has certain properties, which can be described in logical language. It is not clear to me that “A or B” where “A entails not-B” cannot be true of the world; thus, it seems that possibility – or at least *free will *-- can still exist in an otherwise deterministic rationalistic realm. This is not enough to refute moral determinism, however, because it does not include reason to believe that these free will decisions can be morally meaningful.

In short, morality and the free will problem present us with almost insurmountable difficulties. Lucky for me, this thread isn’t about these difficulties.

 

[Sair]

All arguments from evil are all based on a misconception of Gods nature in relation to his Creatures, and our ability to comprehend what God would do given any specific situation.

It seems to me the two are the same; but what God can do is relative to each and every situation. What is good in one situation, might be wrong in another even though God knows that his children are crying-out in pain. Atheists tend to think that “good actions” and “pleasure” are synonymous terms, as if to say that pleasure follows necessarily from all good actions. But sometimes the mature thing to do does not always coincide with pleasure.

Of course pleasure and morality are not synonymous - even Epicurus acknowledged that it is is wiser to forego an immediate pleasure in favour of long-term pleasure and peace of mind.

In any case, you are misrepresenting “atheists” by sticking resolutely to your own understanding of what atheism entails. There is no uniform set of rules by which atheists live - we are united solely by a lack of belief in a personal god. Morality does not automatically equate with ‘pleasure’ - at least as it is understood by many Christians, to refer only to sensual pleasures.

In any case, what you are arguing for is a god who is manifestly not omnipotent, nor omnibenevolent - the kind of suffering such a god could prevent if he/she/it so chose is so diverse that it cannot be coherently argued that all suffering permitted by such a god is for the ultimate good of the subjects of said suffering.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I can see now what you mean when you say that actual possibility and logical possibility are two different things. I agree with this stance in general, and it is a very important philosophical stance in face of determinism and perhaps the problem of evil. How ever i do not agree, as you can see by my previous post that such a differentiation allows God to be free of Logical boundaries and limitations. God cannot do that which is logically absurd.

I agree. Maybe this will clear things up:

Logically impossible → Impossible for God
Logically possible, so far as we know → *Possibly *possible for God
Actually possible → Possible for God

 

[Ignatius]

Modern philosophers constantly talk about logical possibility, which means (roughly) a state of events which are not contradictory. Rarely do they remember that our idea of logical possibility is merely a function of our ignorance. Could there be noncontradictory states of events that are – in every sense of the word – impossible? Yes!

Yes, a square circle is a logical imposibility.