Why does God have to follow Reason?

[seeker_of_God]

I think you have a lot of interesting stuff to say, I just don’t think we have established that there is a Creator of Existence, or that truth is a “creation”, so to speak.

I wanted to touch on This. Aquinas would say that God is the act of existence, or the act of being itself. God, being utterly simple, is Himself being; His essence is being.

Interestingly, these self-evident laws could not be otherwise. I do not see them necessarily proving god’s existence, because, really, no matter what, they could not be otherwise. God could never, IMO, make a universe where the law of non-contradiction was not true.

We’re not really talking about God’s existence here, and I’d hate to get sidetracked by such a discussion. God’s existence can be proven by philosophy, but that’s not the matter under discussion. The matter under discussion is whether reason is merely within the mind, or whether it actually applies to the universe, and whether God is essentially reasonable, meaning He follows reason.

 

[BJPeterson]

Note: I have broken my responses into two posts, because one post exceeds the word allowance on the message board!

Did you use a personal arbitrary standard of reasoning to come to that conclusion or a universal unchanging absolutely true standard of reasoning?

I used standards of reasoning derived from observation of the natural world. They may be intrinsically flawed standards, but they are the best we have. If our understanding of the nature of reality changes, so too could our “laws of logic”. I do not see that this should be difficult to accept. I’m not sure where the notion of a “personal arbitrary standard” is coming from. An interesting example of throwing out the middle ground!

Why does existence itself need to come from a supernatural being instead of manifesting as an intrinsic character of nature?

The fact of the matter is we will either someday discover why things do exist (instead of not existing), or we won’t. I, of course, do not understand why nature exists, but to say “therefore God” doesn’t come closer to understanding it. If a supernatural being could always exist, why could the greater Cosmos (of which our Universe is some part) not instead have always existed? There is no good justification for assuming that a being could be timeless but a cosmos could not. Ultimately, I do not think we can answer these questions at present (and maybe never!), so why claim otherwise?

The Universe is what it is and I agree with that statement but why these exist and how they can be absolutely true is the question, which leads to the only reasonable answer, God.

I think we agree that the universe absolutely exists, and has an intrinsic character. And if the universe exists and has an intrinsic character, then we can derive some general rules of order from it (at least provisionally). But again, why does our ability to describe the fact that a universe has a particular character imply God? Is there a reason to suppose that reality has “truth” or “falseness” to it independent of consciousness capable of evaluating its nature?.. CLAIMS about reality can be either true or false, but existence just… exists (heh). These claims, once made, are objectively true or false, merely because the natural world has a particular character to it.

What about Morals, Mathematics, or any number of invisible laws that exist in the Universe… If I evoked these as absolute truths to prove gods existence would that also seem strange? How do we explain the existence of these or any invisible laws? Saying that they exist because they exist is not reasonable…

Laws describing the nature of reality do not “exist because they exist”. If I said as much, I was mistaken (although I don’t recall saying as much). I think we agree that laws have to come from somewhere. In the case of any “natural laws” you can come up with, they are derivable from the intrinsic character of the natural world. Is there a good reason to suppose that in the absence of consciousness, laws are “part” of the natural world?

We agree nature exists. We agree universal laws exist (or at least haven’t been falsified yet). Do we disagree that laws exist because we have devised them provisionally as a means to describe the underlying character of nature? I suspect we all agree that an objective reality of nature exists independent of our ability to describe it. Since we are here to describe it, we have laws… i.e., expressions of our understanding of that objective reality. Laws exists because nature exists in some state that we have proceeded to describe. To say that laws come from either God (=absolute) or humans (=arbitrary and baseless) is missing the point that laws are efforts to describe an objective reality, even if we do so imperfectly. We have devised laws, which may be universally true or not universally true (how could we ever hope to prove this?), but the underlying reality isn’t contingent upon the formulations of our laws.

 

[BJPeterson]

I explain them as Self-Evident Truths that prove there is an Absolute Truth, the creator God. They exist because they come from a source that can make them absolutely true.

I understand the claim you are making here, but I do not understand why you make the claim. We agree that there is an absolute reality. We agree that there are true and false claims that can be made about that reality (although our capacity to know which are true and which are false may be suspect). This business of “Absolute Truth” seems adequately addressed by the term “true”. As in, absolute truths are claims that are true; absolute falsehoods are claims that are not true. So I think we can drop the notion of “Absolute truth” because it is indistinguishable from “truth”. And truth is a binary term we apply to claims about reality… there are not degrees of truth in individual claims.

If the laws of logic are not absolute true, unchanging and universal then we cannot prove Gods existence or know that God exist… In fact it is by our ability to reason that we can know for a fact that God exist. For example the First Cause argument by Thomas Aquinas.

The laws of logic are necessarily provisional. The universe is absolutely what it is; some of our claims about it are absolutely true, while others are absolutely false. Do we really know absolutely where we are correct and where we are mistaken? We may lack the epistemological tools that would be necessary to prove which of our “truths” are true and which ones are not. Our beliefs about what is true do not influence the nature of reality. I’m not convinced, in principle, that we can “prove” God exists or “know” that God exists. And the first cause argument does not help us there, but it is not a crucial part of this discussion.

I am not saying that I do not understand it therefore God did it… I am saying I do not know how to explain it to you, to get you to understand it. Basically, the laws of logic cannot exist by themselves on their own accord they must come from somewhere, so either they come from God or Man. If they came from Man then they are not absolutely true and we cannot know God through our reasoning, but if they come from God then they are most definitely absolutely true and we can know God through our reasoning.

Whether or not particular laws are absolutely true is independent of our ability to determine whether they are absolutely true. And whether they “come from God” or “come from Man (actually, from observations of nature)” doesn’t really help us know we correctly understand them. Either way, are we not still in the position of having to recognize what counts as a law through our imperfect observations of the realities of nature? Unless our epistemological access to reality is better than I think it is, we both should accept our limits on this point. Perhaps one could propose that God gave us “absolute” knowledge of these laws (and so we don’t need to derive them), but I hope we don’t go down that road.

I am saying that God exist based on a Matter of Absolute Truth. If Absolute Truth exist in anyway shape or form then God Exist. All Absolute Truth has to come from somewhere, it cannot exist on it’s own accord. If Truth comes from Man then it is not Absolute. If Truth comes from God then it is Absolutely Absolute. When man discovers something such as Mathematics he is simply stumbling on an Absolute Truth that already exist, not making up an absolute truth as he goes along.

I think the previous points would need to be addressed before these claims can be accepted.

Just to be clear, I post on boards like these because I enjoy the discussion. I hope that everyone involved enjoys the discussion as well. I hope nothing I wrote comes off as inflammatory or unduly dismissive, as that is not my intent.

 

[BJPeterson]

We’re not really talking about God’s existence here, and I’d hate to get sidetracked by such a discussion. God’s existence can be proven by philosophy, but that’s not the matter under discussion.

Sorry… I suppose I am guilty of doing just this! Although, I did notice that you made the claim that philosophy can prove the existence of God in your first post (and again here). The direction of the discussion naturally might be determined by this sort of a claim… But you are correct, your question was about reason, not logic. Maybe simply saying that you are NOT interested in discussions about whether philosophy can prove God (without also claiming that philosophy CAN prove God) would have helped steer the conversation away from these issues.

The matter under discussion is whether reason is merely within the mind, or whether it actually applies to the universe, and whether God is essentially reasonable, meaning He follows reason.

If we take reason to mean, “To think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic,” then we can only accept that reason applies to the Universe if we think the universe can think, understand, and form judgements. I’d be inclined to think that reason is a process that occurs only within the minds of humans (and perhaps of other animals, to some extent).

I think that the question of whether or not God would need to follow reason is intractable. I might go so far as to suggest that claims one way or the other might be wholly meaningless, as the nature of God is insufficiently described in the Bible. An answer like, “God doesn’t have to engage in reasoning because he knows all” seems to be one possible answer, but also seems a bit nebulous.

 

[seeker_of_God]

Sorry… I suppose I am guilty of doing just this! Although, I did notice that you made the claim that philosophy can prove the existence of God in your first post (and again here). The direction of the discussion naturally might be determined by this sort of a claim… But you are correct, your question was about reason, not logic. Maybe simply saying that you are NOT interested in discussions about whether philosophy can prove God (without also claiming that philosophy CAN prove God) would have helped steer the conversation away from these issues.

God can be proven philosophically. There are many arguments out there, but I see from your previous post you don’t seem to have knowledge of the principle of the First Mover and such. Still, it is irrelevant here; I was simply stating it as it is related to my question.

If we take reason to mean, “To think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic,” then we can only accept that reason applies to the Universe if we think the universe can think, understand, and form judgements. I’d be inclined to think that reason is a process that occurs only within the minds of humans (and perhaps of other animals, to some extent).

I do not here mean the process of reason. Of course the faculty of reason is a faculty of the soul/intellect. I mean that the universe is logically coherent, and by reason we can infer and deduce its nature, both materially and spiritually.

There are certain principles that are self-evident, covered in the philosophy of metaphysics. The principles could not be otherwise, and they are not material, so to me it is evident that reason can extend beyond the physical.

Then, the question is, could God contradict these principles? My answer is no. God could not create a square circle, or could not make 2 + 2 equal to 5, or could not make something both be and not be in the same way, at the same time, and so forth.

I think that the question of whether or not God would need to follow reason is intractable. I might go so far as to suggest that claims one way or the other might be wholly meaningless, as the nature of God is insufficiently described in the Bible. An answer like, “God doesn’t have to engage in reasoning because he knows all” seems to be one possible answer, but also seems a bit nebulous.

I think perhaps you are more familiar with Protestant theology than Catholic. We are in no way limited to the Bible, but have a whole 2,000 of Tradition to rely upon as well, not to mention our God-given faculty of reason, as discussed above. No element of faith may go against reason. Of course, this is part of the question as well.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

seeker

I majored in philosophy, and we learned that there are certain a priori, self-evident first principles that could not change. Not even God could change them. This would be things such as the law of non-contradiction and so forth. Without this foundation, well, you simply can’t know anything.

It’s not that God could not change the law of non-contradiction. It’s that God, have created the law, obviously would have no reason to change it.

We cannot compare the will power of God to human will power.

 

[Azygos]

I used standards of reasoning derived from observation of the natural world. They may be intrinsically flawed standards, but they are the best we have. If our understanding of the nature of reality changes, so too could our “laws of logic”. I do not see that this should be difficult to accept. I’m not sure where the notion of a “personal arbitrary standard” is coming from. An interesting example of throwing out the middle ground!

The basic laws of logic cannot change and they are in no way flawed. Just as mathematics cannot change and is in no way flawed. My point, if you believe the basic laws of logic can change then they are not absolute truths therefore we don’t have to absolutely adhere to them (Like Morality), all reasoning is then arbitrary and in the eye of the beholder. How then do we know the the insane person is not the sane person and we are the insane ones for not following his reasoning. We must adhere to the Universal Unchanging Absolute Laws of Logic to make sense or to be rational creatures.

Anonymous Atheist,
So if you start to call yourself Mr WibblegibletftangWOJKGGTHNHY And walk around stark naked howling “WINKIWANKA!!!” at the top of your voice you are not being irrational. Got it. And how do you even know that universal absolutes even exist outside of your mind?

ME,
Without an appeal to a universal absolute source of rationality then for all we know Mr. Wibble could be acting completely sane/rational and we could be the irrational/insane ones for calling him irrational. If there is no clear absolute standard for judging rationality then rationality is in the mind of the beholder and no one can be rational or irrational, just indifferent. Of course I don’t believe this or live presuming that rationality is just indifference and I would rightly call Mr. Wibblegiblet an insane/irrational lunatic.

Basic Laws
A. Law of Non-contradiction
B. Law of Identity
C. Law of Excluded Middle
D. Principle of Sufficient Reason
E. Principle of Causality

Here is a link that provides a definition of each one.
gregcaughill.com/philosophy-wiki/learn-logic/34-the-laws-of-logic.html

 

[BJPeterson]

God can be proven philosophically. There are many arguments out there, but I see from your previous post you don’t seem to have knowledge of the principle of the First Mover and such. Still, it is irrelevant here; I was simply stating it as it is related to my question.

I am well aware of such arguments. I think they are of the sort that is convincing to those who want to prove that their God exists, but generally unconvincing to outsiders looking in on them. And I think even many religious folks don’t find such arguments especially compelling, because they reject the notion that proving something that is explicitly a matter of faith can’t be done–for how could it reasonably be called a matter of faith?

I do not here mean the process of reason. Of course the faculty of reason is a faculty of the soul/intellect. I mean that the universe is logically coherent, and by reason we can infer and deduce its nature, both materially and spiritually.

There are certain principles that are self-evident, covered in the philosophy of metaphysics. The principles could not be otherwise, and they are not material, so to me it is evident that reason can extend beyond the physical.

Then, the question is, could God contradict these principles? My answer is no. God could not create a square circle, or could not make 2 + 2 equal to 5, or could not make something both be and not be in the same way, at the same time, and so forth.

Ok, I think I understand your question to be along the lines of, “Could God contradict genuine natural laws?” Is this a reasonable alternative phrasing?

I think perhaps you are more familiar with Protestant theology than Catholic. We are in no way limited to the Bible, but have a whole 2,000 of Tradition to rely upon as well, not to mention our God-given faculty of reason, as discussed above. No element of faith may go against reason. Of course, this is part of the question as well.

Actually, I was raised Catholic, and I don’t know much of anything about Protestant theology. Perhaps I don’t know much of anything about Catholic theology as well I used a poor choice of words there–I mean to convey that it seems to me the Bible doesn’t contain enough information to flesh out the nature of God in sufficient detail, and I don’t see a reason to believe that the 2,000 years of tradition and doctrine built on insufficient information has proved anything new or substantial. But that’s what we would expect from someone like me–refusing to accept claims of Authority if I do not find them to be backed by compelling use of logic and evidence.

I wonder if your disagreement with the person you were talking to stems from misunderstanding about what is meant by reason? In your original post, you wrote:

Yet, for some reason, the person I am discussing with believes that reason can only discuss the material, and not spiritual realities, and says that God doesn’t need to follow reason; that reason is merely a faculty of the human mind but has nothing to do with the universe itself.

This suggests that perhaps the other person is using reason in the sense of, “To think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic,” while you are using reason to mean something like “The inability to contradict genuine natural laws”. The other person could agree that God cannot contradict natural laws while still asserting that reason is restricted to the domain of the human mind, without being inconsistent or wrong.

I forget sometimes that I should frame all my discussions in the context of Catholic theology… I am quite interested in philosophy, and sometimes forget to explicitly reference the Catholic aspect (since I am not religious). Maybe I should refrain from saying things that conflict with Catholic theology. I just find this, and other message boards to be rather interesting, as much of my family is Catholic and I’m trying to re-understand the Catholic viewpoint.

 

[BJPeterson]

The basic laws of logic cannot change and they are in no way flawed. Just as mathematics cannot change and is in no way flawed. My point, if you believe the basic laws of logic can change then they are not absolute truths therefore we don’t have to absolutely adhere to them (Like Morality), all reasoning is then arbitrary and in the eye of the beholder. How then do we know the the insane person is not the sane person and we are the insane ones for not following his reasoning. We must adhere to the Universal Unchanging Absolute Laws of Logic to make sense or to be rational creatures.

You misunderstand me. Whether the underlying reality is absolute and whether we absolutely understand the underlying reality are two different things. The “laws of logic” as we understand them could, in principle, be flawed. It’s just that we have no reason to believe they are. Our observations of the reality of nature suggest as much to us. This does not suggest that the laws as we have derived them were handed down from on high. And the outcome of reasoning, unfortunately, is contingent on the starting assumptions and known facts, and this obviously leads to different conclusions. I do not see how it follows that reasoning is arbitrary without a God (i.e., anything goes). We adhere to the laws of logic because we have no reason to suspect they do not hold up in our universe. Even if we found isolated instances in which they do not hold up (like for some sort of “spooky quantum-level nonsense”, and I mean that endearingly), we would probably continue to use them because they haven’t been violated at the scale in which we usually ponder the universe.

Anonymous Atheist,
So if you start to call yourself Mr WibblegibletftangWOJKGGTHNHY And walk around stark naked howling “WINKIWANKA!!!” at the top of your voice you are not being irrational. Got it. And how do you even know that universal absolutes even exist outside of your mind?

ME,
Without an appeal to a universal absolute source of rationality then for all we know Mr. Wibble could be acting completely sane/rational and we could be the irrational/insane ones for calling him irrational. If there is no clear absolute standard for judging rationality then rationality is in the mind of the beholder and no one can be rational or irrational, just indifferent. Of course I don’t believe this or live presuming that rationality is just indifference and I would rightly call Mr. Wibblegiblet an insane/irrational lunatic.

I do not know what this is, and it doesn’t pertain to any points I have made. Snippets of conversations with random people making claims I haven’t made doesn’t really do much good for anyone, does it?

I think perhaps I should wind down my contributions to this discussion. We could end up going in circles indefinitely. We can agree on this: “there is an underlying nature to reality and there are laws of logic.” Maybe we should leave it at that!

 

[Azygos]

You misunderstand me. Whether the underlying reality is absolute and whether we absolutely understand the underlying reality are two different things. The “laws of logic” as we understand them could, in principle, be flawed.

I think it is self-evident that the law of non-contradiction (basic laws of logic) cannot be flawed and to say otherwise is just ignorance… Why you continue to hold this viewpoint is beyond me but I assume it has something to do with the notion of absolute truth. Please enlighten me on how the law of non-contradiction can be flawed… I would be delighted to hear it.

 

[seeker_of_God]

seeker

I majored in philosophy, and we learned that there are certain a priori, self-evident first principles that could not change. Not even God could change them. This would be things such as the law of non-contradiction and so forth. Without this foundation, well, you simply can’t know anything.

It’s not that God could not change the law of non-contradiction. It’s that God, have created the law, obviously would have no reason to change it.

We cannot compare the will power of God to human will power.

I’m not trying to call into questions God’s omnipotence, obviously, but it is impossible for any being to do something that is logically impossible. God cannot create a square circle, cannot make 2 + 2 equal to 5, or cannot make something both exist and not exist. He didn’t create these laws, because nothing created is self-evident and a priori. The laws, you could say I suppose, are a part of Him, but they could not be other than they are.

 

[seeker_of_God]

The basic laws of logic cannot change and they are in no way flawed. Just as mathematics cannot change and is in no way flawed. My point, if you believe the basic laws of logic can change then they are not absolute truths therefore we don’t have to absolutely adhere to them (Like Morality), all reasoning is then arbitrary and in the eye of the beholder. How then do we know the the insane person is not the sane person and we are the insane ones for not following his reasoning. We must adhere to the Universal Unchanging Absolute Laws of Logic to make sense or to be rational creatures.

Anonymous Atheist,
So if you start to call yourself Mr WibblegibletftangWOJKGGTHNHY And walk around stark naked howling “WINKIWANKA!!!” at the top of your voice you are not being irrational. Got it. And how do you even know that universal absolutes even exist outside of your mind?

ME,
Without an appeal to a universal absolute source of rationality then for all we know Mr. Wibble could be acting completely sane/rational and we could be the irrational/insane ones for calling him irrational. If there is no clear absolute standard for judging rationality then rationality is in the mind of the beholder and no one can be rational or irrational, just indifferent. Of course I don’t believe this or live presuming that rationality is just indifference and I would rightly call Mr. Wibblegiblet an insane/irrational lunatic.

Basic Laws
A. Law of Non-contradiction
B. Law of Identity
C. Law of Excluded Middle
D. Principle of Sufficient Reason
E. Principle of Causality

Here is a link that provides a definition of each one.
gregcaughill.com/philosophy-wiki/learn-logic/34-the-laws-of-logic.html

Azygos, with all due respect could you desist from this particular topic? It’s off topic from the thread. Please start another thread if you want to continue that line of argument.

 

[seeker_of_God]

Ok, I think I understand your question to be along the lines of, “Could God contradict genuine natural laws?” Is this a reasonable alternative phrasing?

I would say so.

Actually, I was raised Catholic, and I don’t know much of anything about Protestant theology. Perhaps I don’t know much of anything about Catholic theology as well I used a poor choice of words there–I mean to convey that it seems to me the Bible doesn’t contain enough information to flesh out the nature of God in sufficient detail, and I don’t see a reason to believe that the 2,000 years of tradition and doctrine built on insufficient information has proved anything new or substantial. But that’s what we would expect from someone like me–refusing to accept claims of Authority if I do not find them to be backed by compelling use of logic and evidence.

My mistake. What I"m trying to say is that the Bible only forms one part, albeit a very important part, of our faith. Another part is formed by the Tradition of the Church over the years, including the Church fathers and so forth. Yet another part is reason and logic, which is a very important part to the Catholic Church.

Trust me, in this thread I don’t care about appeal to authority, since this is the philosophy forum, so by definition faith is not under discussion here. I’m looking for a purely philosophical angle.

I wonder if your disagreement with the person you were talking to stems from misunderstanding about what is meant by reason? In your original post, you wrote:

This suggests that perhaps the other person is using reason in the sense of, “To think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic,” while you are using reason to mean something like “The inability to contradict genuine natural laws”. The other person could agree that God cannot contradict natural laws while still asserting that reason is restricted to the domain of the human mind, without being inconsistent or wrong.

The other person, I think, takes reason to mean more something along the lines of empiricism and scientific (as in the modern meaning of science) exploration. Thus his notion that reason can only discuss the physical, material world. I am trying to demonstrate how reason can go beyond the material. Again, this is someone who has rejected the entire philosophical tradition from Aristotle and onwards as “misguided.”

I forget sometimes that I should frame all my discussions in the context of Catholic theology… I am quite interested in philosophy, and sometimes forget to explicitly reference the Catholic aspect (since I am not religious). Maybe I should refrain from saying things that conflict with Catholic theology. I just find this, and other message boards to be rather interesting, as much of my family is Catholic and I’m trying to re-understand the Catholic viewpoint.

Not at all, please. This is a philosophy sub-forum, and as such Catholic theology really plays no role herein. That’s in my opinion, anyway; I notice a lot of threads that are more theological than philosophical, but as for me, philosophy is natural reason and nothing more.

 

[Azygos]

Azygos, with all due respect could you desist from this particular topic? It’s off topic from the thread. Please start another thread if you want to continue that line of argument.

No. If he thinks the laws of logic are changing and could be flawed then everything we discuss here is going to be futile. You must first establish a solid foundation to build on or else you are just wasting you time. This conversation has veered off topic but so what. It’s a conversation is it not? Besides that the conversation is a discussion on Logic and God.

 

[epan]

God is the Truth and God cannot deny himself.

Here is a little article I wrote for Atheist.

In order to use language/speech correctly you have to adhere to the universal laws of logic unless of course you want to be irrational and sound like a blabbering fool. Take the law of non-contradiction for example. If I make statements like this, – ‘God exists and God does not exists’ – ‘I am a Christian and Not a Christan’ – ‘I can be and not be’, they would all be False Statements! All those statements would be illogical because they would contradict themselves. They wouldn’t make sense so in order to make sense we must adhere to the universal laws of logic. When we adhere to the laws of logic we are rational and when we don’t we are irrational.

If the universal laws of logic exists then absolute truth exists. If absolute truth exists then God exists. The basic reasoning behind this is that you cannot give what you do not have, for example: I do not have a million dollars to give you therefore I cannot give you a million dollars. The universal laws of logic cannot be absolutely true by themselves they require a transcendent absolute truth (God) that can give these laws the essence to be absolutely true.

If God does not exists then the laws of logic are not absolutely true then I have absolutely no reason to obey them therefore I do not have to be rational, nor does anybody else. We know that we ‘ought’ to be rational therefore we appeal to the universal laws of logic proving absolute truth exists therefore proving God exists.

Every-time you think/talk/write you are using Gods absolute universal truths of logic therefore proving Gods existence, even when you are illogical.

Jesus said, "I am the Beginning and the End, The Alpha and the Omega, I am The Truth."  The Truth proclaims the Glory of God as God is The Truth. Everything in existence is screaming out for creator God and proclaiming by it's Truth the existence of the Invisible God.

I think that some theories in physics would predict that contradictions, as you describe them, do exist simultaneously. The certainties that you refer to are conceptual, and don’t always correspond to what can be shown experimentally and mathematically.

 

[Azygos]

I think that some theories in physics would predict that contradictions, as you describe them, do exist simultaneously. The certainties that you refer to are conceptual, and don’t always correspond to what can be shown experimentally and mathematically.

Contradictions cannot exist without there being error or falsity.

Take a pen for example. It cannot, BE a Pen and NOT BE a Pen in the same Aspect. It can be a Pen and a Cylinder but those are two different aspects. A Cylinder cannot, BE a Cylinder and NOT BE a cylinder in the same Aspect. However a Cylinder can Certainly be a Pen and a Cylinder at the same time, just with two different aspects.

This applies to everything.

And 2 + 2 cannot = 5…

 

[D_Martin]

I’m in a discussion with someone about the limits of philosophy. Philosophy obviously can prove much, up to and including the existence of one, infinite, fully actualized God.

Yet, for some reason, the person I am discussing with believes that reason can only discuss the material, and not spiritual realities, and says that God doesn’t need to follow reason; that reason is merely a faculty of the human mind but has nothing to do with the universe itself.

Obviously I recognize this is not true, but am unable to come up with a very good argument for it. If you reject reason, well…you can’t really say much to it except, “how do you think that?” IMO, the universe would make no logical sense if reason weren’t a fundamental component of it, and obviously it does make sense on a very deep level, so it must be reasonable.

I majored in philosophy, and we learned that there are certain a priori, self-evident first principles that could not change. Not even God could change them. This would be things such as the law of non-contradiction and so forth. Without this foundation, well, you simply can’t know anything.

So, how do I respond?

Well for one thing, you might be requiring some one to speak of spiritual with reason, and understanding. But if this person doesn’t know spiritual it will make no sense or reason to him. Flesh is of the earth hence material but the Lord God is not. Don’t expect some one to talk about or know something they don’t perceive at all. We are all born into the world hence all can relate, but if some one isn’t born of Spirit it makes no sense to them, it does not compute.

Also you may be planting seed or watering it, but it is the Lord who reveals the Truth to them. So stick to what it is about the Lord that convinces or sustains you, and God is the one who does the rest.

 

[WmJackP]

I majored in philosophy, and we learned that there are certain a priori, self-evident first principles that could not change. Not even God could change them. This would be things such as the law of non-contradiction and so forth. Without this foundation, well, you simply can’t know anything.

So, how do I respond?

The questioner begins by asking “why”, so it is clear that he is seeking a rationale for the proposition that the diety is bound by logic. It is almost as if the questioner is using a certain set of tools by which he seeks to show that the same tools don’t exist.

The better question , I think, is whether it is possible that there can exist a construct of reality which is not rational. Of course, we may be forever unable to answer this question because, if it is so, then we are like a fish in a goldfish bowl---- unable to perceive reality as it truly is because of the concave sub-reality in which we are trapped. In other words, how can we possibly perceive reality, if reality is unresponsive to rational perception? Kant and some other gifted people thought it is impossible to do so.

Your friend, however,by asking his question is assuming the universality of rationality in order to question its existence. It is a tautology–like a cat chasing its own tail. It is useless to argue the point with him because the word exchange will soon become meaningless.

 

[seeker_of_God]

No. If he thinks the laws of logic are changing and could be flawed then everything we discuss here is going to be futile. You must first establish a solid foundation to build on or else you are just wasting you time. This conversation has veered off topic but so what. It’s a conversation is it not? Besides that the conversation is a discussion on Logic and God.

Excuse me, Azygos, but I started the thread, so would like to guide its development to answer the original question.

He does not believe that the laws of logic change, only that it discusses only material realities.

I appreciate what you have said, but it’s not exactly pertinent to the topic at hand.

 

[seeker_of_God]

Well for one thing, you might be requiring some one to speak of spiritual with reason, and understanding. But if this person doesn’t know spiritual it will make no sense or reason to him. Flesh is of the earth hence material but the Lord God is not. Don’t expect some one to talk about or know something they don’t perceive at all. We are all born into the world hence all can relate, but if some one isn’t born of Spirit it makes no sense to them, it does not compute.

Also you may be planting seed or watering it, but it is the Lord who reveals the Truth to them. So stick to what it is about the Lord that convinces or sustains you, and God is the one who does the rest.

I don’t exactly agree. Reason can tell us about God, so it doesn’t matter if you are “born of the Spirit,” whatever that phrase means to you.

But through reason, we can reach several spiritual truths. By spiritual, I do mean strictly non-material. The law of non-contradiction is a spiritual truth.