Ingvar Johansson wrote:
> Waclaw Kusnierczyk schrieb:
>> the other is not easy without a trick; there is a solution (though
>> rather arguable) which requires the sort of imagination that allows
>> you to imagine that there can be things that you just can't imagine.
>> for the god to be omniscient, the world does not have to be
>> deterministic. if the world is not deterministic (not completely
>> deterministic, at least), then free will is possible. but that we
>> can, say, choose actions freely, this does not mean that god cannot
>> know our choices 'in advance' -- sure he/she/it can, by definition.
>
> That's not for sure. The definition may contain a contradiction. Already
> Lebniz, who really belived in God, came to the conclusion that not even
> God can break the law of contradiction. But I know that social
> constructivists think that they are under no such constraints :-)
>
>> (i use the quotes because god, as an omnipotent creature, surely has
>> the powers to move back an forth in time,
>
> In my opinion, this is logically impossible. (01)
Ingvar, (02)
That's the core of the problem. If there is any Absoluteness, Truth,
Logic, whatever you wish to call it, logic is only a reflection, a an
approximation (possibly correct) of it. Pat says that logic is a theory
of truth (or Truth?). So logic is a theory of Logic, but it is not
Logic. If something is logically incoherent, it still does not prove,
in any way or sense, that it is also inconsistent with Logic. We may
well think so, but this is a matter of opinion. (03)
Same response to Chris: that your logic (*the*logic, if you prefer)
forces you to conclude that god is devil, and that this is inconsistent,
this does not prove (otherwise than in that logic) that being god and
devil at the same time is incoherent. Perhaps stating this in logic
(with appropriate assumptions) leads to inconsistence, but that's all. (04)
I am not hereby defending the view that there is god, or any other
compatible or contradictory view, for that matter. My point is that
logic is a theory, and thus it is, in principle, as good as any other
theory, in that it may well be incorrect. Anything proved in logic is
proved *in logic*. Any logical incoherence is a *logical* incoherence.
That it it is unimaginable for us that there could be world in which
logic as we know it would not be an appropriate theory of truth is
closer to blindness than to omniscience. (05)
vQ (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)
|