So the system of logic being used may be insufficient to convey the capabilities of a God who is not bound by it, rather that the question itself being meaningless.
Bingo! Correct! That is a very good conclusion.
Whatever system of logic we use may very well be insufficient to describe God completely. Almost all attempts to do so will simplfy has character, so any conclusions reached (or contradictions shown) in these logical system should be treated with extreme caution as they are probably dealing with a distorted concept of God. I do agree with cathedral_life that I don't so much define God as confess the God made know to us through Jesus Christ. The purpose of my statements about logic are not to suggest that they are a good way to know God, but to refute the allegation that logical can be used to disprove God by showing he is self-contradictory.
Maybe I should suffix all my words with "in the logical system". When we form arguements about God "in a logical system" we are talking about a concept of God as defined "in that logical system". We are forming questions "in that logical system", which must be meaningful "in that logical system". How statements in this system relate to the real world is another question!
It is possible for a question to be meaningful in a different logical system to the one we are using (cf. square circle in Euclidean/non-Euclidean geometry). But to reach conclusions "in that logical system" it must be meaningful "in that logical system" rather than "in another logical system".
Re: This year's CICCU Main Event - DIRECTION
Bingo! Correct! That is a very good conclusion.
Whatever system of logic we use may very well be insufficient to describe God completely. Almost all attempts to do so will simplfy has character, so any conclusions reached (or contradictions shown) in these logical system should be treated with extreme caution as they are probably dealing with a distorted concept of God. I do agree with
Maybe I should suffix all my words with "in the logical system". When we form arguements about God "in a logical system" we are talking about a concept of God as defined "in that logical system". We are forming questions "in that logical system", which must be meaningful "in that logical system". How statements in this system relate to the real world is another question!
It is possible for a question to be meaningful in a different logical system to the one we are using (cf. square circle in Euclidean/non-Euclidean geometry). But to reach conclusions "in that logical system" it must be meaningful "in that logical system" rather than "in another logical system".