## Wednesday, December 1, 2010

### Is God bound by the laws of logic?

I wrote these proofs to settle a disagreement with my philosophy professor. He came to agree they were true. Since there is very little good information on this subject on the web and such a question is so vital to constructing a proper theology I have posted them here:

The Law of non-contradiction:1) When one says “God is not bound to the laws of logic” they are stating that it is false to say that “God is bound to the laws of logic”.

2) The law of non-contradiction is a law of logic.

3) If God is “not bound to” the laws of logic then God is not “bound” to the law of non-contradiction (from 2).

4) The law of non-contradiction affirms that “something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense”.

5) If God is not bound by the law of non-contradiction (from 3) then it is possible for God to be bound by the laws of logic and not be bound by the laws logic at the same time and in the same sense (from 4).

6) The one who says “God is not bound by the laws of logic” is stating that it is false to say that “God is bound by the laws of logic.”(from 1)

7) Therefore, the one who says “God is not bound by laws of logic” assumes that God is bound by the law of non-contradiction in order for his statement to be true and the negating statement to be false (from 4 and 5).

8) Therefore, the one who says “God is not bound by the laws of logic” is assuming that God is bound by a law of logic (i.e. the law of non-contradiction).

The Law of Identity (a richly satisfying spectacle):

1) When one says “God is not bound by the laws of logic” they are assuming that God is God in order to say that He is not bound by the laws of logic (i.e. God is not my dog which is quite bound by the laws of logic).

2) The law of identity is a law of logic

3) If God is not bound by the laws of logic then God is not bound by the law of identity (from 2).

4) The law of identity states that “Everything is what it is and not another thing”.

5) If God is not bound by the law of identity (from 3) then God needn’t be God and can be “other things” (from 4).

6) When one says “God is not bound by the laws of logic” they are assuming that God is God and not other things in order to say that He is not bound by the laws of logic (from 1).

7) Therefore, the one who says “God is not bound by the laws of logic” assumes that God is bound by a law of logic (i.e. law of non-contradiction) in order to deny that he is bound by the laws of logic.

The Law of the excluded middle:1) When one says “God is not bound by the laws of logic” they are assuming their statement is true.

2) The law of the excluded middle is a law of logic.

3) The law of the excluded middle states “a proposition is either true or false”.

4) If God is not bound by the laws of logic then God is not bound by the law of the excluded middle (from 2).

5) If God is not bound by the law of the excluded middle (from 2) then propositions about God can be neither true nor false.

6) The statement “God is not bound by the laws of logic” is a proposition which claims to be true (from 1).

7) Therefore, the person who says “God is not bound by the laws of logic” is assuming that God is bound by the law of the excluded middle (from 3 and 4) in order to claim their statement is true and/or that it’s negation is false

One might object by saying that God created the laws of logic and currently subjugates Himself under them, but this appears to be self-defeating as well:

-Who created the laws of logic? The person here assumes the law of identity before it was created. (For that matter why would God create the laws of logic if there were no laws of logic withholding the existence of the laws of logic?)

- When God was not subjugating Himself to logic is it true that He was not subjugating Himself to logic (excluded middle is presupposed).

- To say the laws of logic didn’t exist is to assume that the law of non-contradiction did; otherwise, the laws of logic would have existed and would have not existed at the same time.

You cannot refute logic without presupposing it.

1. On behalf of Grand Master Ashra Kwesi we would like to challenge you to a online debate on our internet radio show. Please email us if you except you will be givin a call in number time and date thank you.

Much respect

2. If a concept is not bound by the laws of logic then the concept is illogical. The concept of god is illogical. A concept can't be logical and illogical at the same time. You can't have it both ways

3. What about dialetheism? The liar paradox is one of many examples that seems to fly in the face of this assumption. Whilst I'm not saying that this implies there is a god of any kind, I am suggesting that there are limits to what we can infer from logic alone.

4. "You can't refute logic without presupposing it."

Well, you also can't "prove" logic without presupposing it.

That's the tricky thing about logic. As soon as you start asking questions about whether or not logic is true, you hit a brick wall.