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.
What seems probable and "logical" to the proverbial (metaphorical) "frog in a well".. communicating to other frogs in other wells.. is drama waiting to happen..
Indeed what is logic.. and logical and real?...
1st reality and 2nd reality loom in the future of such a conversation.. I see where you are going with this.. Its been done before on Free Republic(in threads) as a sidebar.. but never(in my experience) as the main conduit of conversation..
Suggested title of the thread...
What are you "Observing" while vacationing on this planet?...
With, you know, a few words of encouragement.. d;-)..
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.What you said!
We should add a caveat. The concept that you call bivalence is itself the product of logical analysis. This means that while we may easily posit the concept bivalence, this act does not reveal the depth of the synaptic relation between the associated elements. More care is needed to understand it. Plus, the association varies when a third or more element becomes involved. Given that the world is a multitudinous plurality of things, we can become shortsighted by simplifying the relation into a nondescript dualism.
Another note. The idea of nonclassical logic is not that profound, but easily overlooked. For any system to work, we have to agree on first principles. The most important of these is one of scope (which is often presupposed, and thus often not considered a first principle). The observer phenomena is one that designates scope.
In this regard, we can say that the law of non-contradiction also applies for nontraditional logical analysis. Again, this bears out the fact that the concept of non-contradiction does little to reveal the scope of the system. But the law does require limit. There is no principle of noncontradiction apart from limit.
(For some reason this reminds me of Porphory's Isagoge and the classification terms genus and species.)
Predestination is God's way of humbling all of us.
It humbles us when we try to logica our way through it, and it humbles us when we realize our insignificance.
There is no free will that itself isn't previewed and certified by God.
The "insofar as" makes your statement a bit of sophistry, since my statement does not at all "represent formal logic as logic". To refute my statement you would have to provide a statement that does not presume the fundamental principle of logic, or you would have to show an illogical statement that is not a combination of statements.
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.
It is misleading to call it "non-classical logic", because one need give up nothing of logic to affirm it.
We cannot apply formal logic (esp. Aristotlean logic) to God because of the observer problem.
How does that follow?
Or to put it another way, faith and reason are complementary - but reason cannot substitute for faith.
One needn't give up logic to affirm that.
His ways are higher than our ways, His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.
Of course, but one needn't give up logic in order to affirm that verse. There are other ways of taking it.
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)
A physical law is nothing other than a conceptual generalization of a physical disposition(s). It is not something God has to "override". As far as God overriding a law of formal logic, name just one law of formal logic that God has overridden in the performance of a miracle.
If we applied formal logic to our understanding of God, we could not accept that He would make a creation less than perfect.
How would that conclusion follow?
We could accept no miracles under formal logic, i.e. we'd be Deists.
How would that conclusion follow? I hold to formal logic, and I am not a deist.
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.)
Why not?
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.”
Yes it does.
For instance, the statement ”Mr. Jones, how can you favor gun legislation when you own a pistol?” is a logical fallacy (circumstantial ad hominem.)
The question becomes a fallacy only in the context of an argument, e.g. where Mr. Jones is presenting an argument in favor of gun legislation. It is not a fallacy in isolation.
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.
Right, but those are still arguments, because they are enthymemes.
-A8