god is beyond logic.

Ok, do you have anything to say regarding this post?

I dont` t think logic can simply be defined as an internally consistent system since, there are plenty of internally consistent system, but most of them are not logic. Suppose you bite the bullet and say all consistent systems are logical systems, then it would cause more problems for your in a position to justify it.

Your talk about logic can really be said to be about validity. A argument can be valid, but not true. validity is syntax base. Not really what i wanted to talk about. This is de dicto aspect of logic. I am focus on the de re, ontological aspect to logic. They are two different questions.

If god doesn't use the same logical system as we do, how would we ever come to understand anything about him (other than the fact that god is illogical by our standards)? or is that the point?

I prefer to think god would be logical, because, if not, all bets are off in terms of understanding the spiritual ...:surrender:

I don't know if it is helpful to say this or not, but there is no logic of logic, or science of science, or mathematical basis for maths, for that matter. Science, logic and maths are found to be effective. We can't say really say why. All attempts to do so have failed.

I think the point I am making, probably not very well, is that the lawfulness of nature is a given, we can't really analyse or understand what is behind it. In the pre-modern era, the lawfulness was understood as an indication of the rational ideas behind the Universe, or an expression of the Divine Intelligence. Of course many moderns are exasperated by this and want to believe that 'one day we will understand it all'. But I really don't know about that. This kind of question has been explored in light of modern science by Paul Davies in such books as 'The Mind of God' and 'The Cosmic Blueprint'.

I guess I could say that it helps to define your terms before you start. What is god? Come up with a satisfactory logically complete definition.

If you are talking about a creator, then that is one thing, if you are talking about a being that is omnipotent and omnibenevolent that is another. There are many conceptions of god, you need to pick one.

I suggested that reading material because it seems like it would give you more solid ground to stand on.

I'll bite the bullet here because it really doesn't make sense not to, with one alteration: logical systems are not logic, they are applications of logic and I would even go so far as to say that they are manifestations of logic

Logical form is inexorably tied to validity, and is in fact the sum of all valid states of being.

Every object has a logical form that defines the sum total of its possible states of being (the complete picture of how it interacts and how it can interact with the world).

It makes no sense to call any single system Logic, there are many logics (logical systems) but only one overarching process of thought/ necessary underlying boundary of action/being (if you want to try the approach from Physicalism).

So logical form would be exclusively de re, whereas god would most likely include de dicto aspects. You are looking for an undefined object that is given to ontological undecidability. If it is not testable, then you could declare it ontologically false, or unverifiable. If it is logically impossible ( there is a contradiction in its definition) its ontological status is false implicitly(it has no logical form). The problem, however, is that you have failed to define what it is that you are making assertions about, which makes every assertion vacuously true (nothing has every property, an undetectable object can be given properties ad infinitum with no restrictions but non contradiction).

Vectorcube. I would like to thank you for your thoughts here. What I would like to know is where you classify faith in all of this.

I think the point I am making, probably not very well, is that the lawfulness of nature is a given, we can't really analyse or understand what is behind it. In the pre-modern era, the lawfulness was understood as an indication of the rational ideas behind the Universe, or an expression of the Divine Intelligence. Of course many moderns are exasperated by this and want to believe that 'one day we will understand it all'. But I really don't know about that. This kind of question has been explored in light of modern science by Paul Davies in such books as 'The Mind of God' and 'The Cosmic Blueprint'.

I think the reason that we can't (or will not be able to) analyze the lawfulness of nature is that we must use it's own tools (logic). It's like using algebra as your only tool to study why algebra is true.

Just don` t ask me where god came from, agree?

A statement is math could be true if we define the axioms and the derivation of the axioms are true according to a prescipted set of rules of inference.

Sure, absolutely.

Speaking of reading material, there is a new book by Karen Armstrong, who really is a first rate writer on comparitive religion, called The Case for God. Review of the book by philosopher Alain de Botton is here.

could you explain/elaborate on this sentence a little more please? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

If you look the Wikipedia article on Philosophy of Mathematics, you will find that 'the philosophy of mathematics' - considerations of why mathematics works, and in what way it is real - is a very deep and difficult topic indeed. There are a number of schools of thought which are all in opposition.

So - once you accept the axioms and draw the inferences, all kinds of possibilities are available - but it is very hard to explain what makes the axioms true, other than that they just are.