One of the claims made by some religious believers is that logic depends on God — that God sustains all the order in the universe; to the extent that without belief in God there is no basis for the belief that logical conclusions follow from their premises. Thus, God could do logically contradictory things if he wants to, because the notion of logical consistency only holds insofar as God wants it to.
In this view, if God wants to make 1 = 3, God can do that; who do you think set the world up such that 1 = 1 in the first place? Mathematics, science, etc. only work in an orderly universe; who do you think made the order? If God wants to make round squares, why not? God wrote geometry, like a programmer writes code; God can write exceptions into the rules if he wants to — just as a programmer of a cellular automata system could write exceptions into its rules: say, whenever the Life cells spell out “CONWAY”, a random cell is turned on. The programmer is not bound by the Life rules; the programmer exists in a space exterior to the Life universe.
These folks will cheerfully agree that they are talking about things beyond the limit of logic, or indeed of human language; that no description of God can possibly be even remotely adequate. So saying that they are contradicting themselves will largely elicit a smile and a nod.
I have probably met this sort of “argument”, but still haven’t seen it elaborated in more detail. Let’s say God can make a square circle: what does the proposition mean? I suppose that most of those people would reply along the lines “we cannot comprehend God in entirety”, but then, even claiming to know that God can do those things seems unfounded. After all, the statement “God can make a square circle” is formulated inside a language whose rules are entangled with the rules of logic. Even if God works outside the logic, statements about God must obey the rules of logic, else they have no interpretation.
These folks will cheerfully agree that they are talking about things beyond the limit of logic, or indeed of human language; that no description of God can possibly be even remotely adequate. So saying that they are contradicting themselves will largely elicit a smile and a nod.
This is because there is for some reason the idea that God is incomprehensible and/or not able to be talked about and/or not able to be talked about rationally within a large portion of religions in the world. So when someone that disagrees with them says their ideas don’t make sense or are contradictory or whatever else then they know they are getting closer to a better understanding of God, as they understand it (or in this case don’t understand it). Which is why they smile and nod when speaking nonsense and admitting to be speaking nonsense.
One of the claims made by some religious believers is that logic depends on God — that God sustains all the order in the universe; to the extent that without belief in God there is no basis for the belief that logical conclusions follow from their premises. Thus, God could do logically contradictory things if he wants to, because the notion of logical consistency only holds insofar as God wants it to.
In this view, if God wants to make 1 = 3, God can do that; who do you think set the world up such that 1 = 1 in the first place? Mathematics, science, etc. only work in an orderly universe; who do you think made the order? If God wants to make round squares, why not? God wrote geometry, like a programmer writes code; God can write exceptions into the rules if he wants to — just as a programmer of a cellular automata system could write exceptions into its rules: say, whenever the Life cells spell out “CONWAY”, a random cell is turned on. The programmer is not bound by the Life rules; the programmer exists in a space exterior to the Life universe.
These folks will cheerfully agree that they are talking about things beyond the limit of logic, or indeed of human language; that no description of God can possibly be even remotely adequate. So saying that they are contradicting themselves will largely elicit a smile and a nod.
I have probably met this sort of “argument”, but still haven’t seen it elaborated in more detail. Let’s say God can make a square circle: what does the proposition mean? I suppose that most of those people would reply along the lines “we cannot comprehend God in entirety”, but then, even claiming to know that God can do those things seems unfounded. After all, the statement “God can make a square circle” is formulated inside a language whose rules are entangled with the rules of logic. Even if God works outside the logic, statements about God must obey the rules of logic, else they have no interpretation.
So, in short, God can make a stone he can’t lift and then lift it. Self-consistency aside, I really like this point of view :-)
I find this horribly believable, but would be interested in good examples.
Edit: I should have scrolled down first.
This is because there is for some reason the idea that God is incomprehensible and/or not able to be talked about and/or not able to be talked about rationally within a large portion of religions in the world. So when someone that disagrees with them says their ideas don’t make sense or are contradictory or whatever else then they know they are getting closer to a better understanding of God, as they understand it (or in this case don’t understand it). Which is why they smile and nod when speaking nonsense and admitting to be speaking nonsense.
This is not the LDS position.