Replies

Thank you for your reply!

All statements presume the fundamental principle of logic, which has its foundation in metaphysics (i.e. the science of being as being). In isolation there can be no "illogical" statements (not to be confused with unintelligible statements). Only *combinations* of statements can be illogical, when the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

The above is a false generalization of “logic” insofar as it represents “formal logic” as “logic” when there exists other forms of logic and disputes among them involving philosophy, language, mathematics, etc.

A significant omission relevant to the present sidebar is “non-classical logic” which rejects bivalence – true v false, the law of the excluded middle.

For instance, Scriptures include both commandments (free will) and prophecies (predestination.) Under bivalence, if everything is predetermined, commandments are illogical and conversely, if nothing is predetermined, prophesies are illogical.

My assertion in the present sidebar is “non-classical logic” – i.e. that both predestination and free will are Truth for the simple reason that God has spoken both. Or to put it more broadly, we cannot apply formal logic (esp. Aristotlean logic) to God because of the observer problem.

Or to put it another way, faith and reason are complementary - but reason cannot substitute for faith. His ways are higher than our ways, His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.

As another example, even though God is perfect by definition He nevertheless has overridden the “laws” of the physical creation (including physical laws and formal logic) in performing miracles recorded throughout Scripture (and others not recorded in Scripture) – the most astonishing of which was The Living Word of God Himself becoming enfleshed through a virgin, physically dying on a cross for our sins, raising Himself up on the third day, sitting at the right hand of God the Father.

If we applied formal logic to our understanding of God, we could not accept that He would make a creation less than perfect. We could accept no miracles under formal logic, i.e. we'd be Deists.

Nor could we accept both the prophesies which pointed to and were fulfilled in Christ and the commandments of God, e.g. judge not that you not be judged, forgive that you shall be forgiven, honor your father and your mother that your days may be long in the land God gives you, choose ye this day whom you will serve (and many other such if/thens.)

Lurkers interested in the myriad facets of logic might want to start here: Logic

As to your assertion that logic only applies to a combination of statements, whereas that is true concerning “formal logic” – especially Aristotlean logic - it does not always apply to “informal logic.”

For instance, the statement ”Mr. Jones, how can you favor gun legislation when you own a pistol?” is a logical fallacy (circumstantial ad hominem.) Dolhenty Archive: The nonsense traps

Moreover, I assert that many if not most all ad hominem arguments are not stated as a combination of statements, e.g. “The author is a liar” “You are an idiot” etc. The conclusion is not formally drawn, it is suggested.

Lurkers, here is a good source reference for: Logical Fallacies

We are engaged here in a rather fascinating sidebar of “God and Logic” which has many paths to explore – none the least of which is the philosophical and theological roots of the term “Logos” - word v logic, etymology of rational (ratio) etc.

If you would care to author an article on the subject, I would love to contribute to the discussion!

More importantly, there are several truly outstanding philosophers, theologians and logicians on this forum who would have much to contribute. I've pinged a few as a "heads up" so they can be thinking about it.

But I strongly suggest you do it after Thanksgiving as many will be too busy over the Holiday.