The first question involves a logical contradiction--the statement "God is perfect" being simultaneously true and false--so of course it is impossible for us to imagine what it might mean, and since I think the laws of logic are unchangeable I think it's a completely meaningless description. But if you believe God can change the laws of logic, you should believe God can change the logical rule known as the "law of noncontradiction" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction ) which says a proposition cannot be both true and false.
On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: > I agree that perfect knowledge and command of logic and math and et al are > necessary attributes of God. > When I say God is consistent, I mean that God is so perfect in His plan > that He doesn't even have any need to change His decree or methods. > However, God reserves the power and the right to do what He wills, when He > wills, and that may appear imperfect to us mortals within our limited > senses and knowledge. > However, Jesse, I won't try to answer the following questions, as that > would be pure speculation. I'm not even sure if I understand the first > question properly. > > Samiya > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 02-Dec-2013, at 6:38 PM, Jesse Mazer <laserma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > But consistency is itself a logical notion. If you think God can change > the laws of logic, can God make it so that he is both perfect and > not-perfect, with "perfect" having exactly the same meaning in both cases? > > Note that believing God cannot change logic need not imply logic is > "independent" of God for theists, they may say that logic is grounded in > God's eternal "understanding", to use the same word as Leibniz. So perfect > understanding of logic and math can be seen as necessary attributes of God, > along with other more specifically theistic attributes like > perfection, omnipotence, omniscience etc. Do you believe that God has > necessary attributes that God cannot change, so for example God cannot make > a new being more powerful than Himself since this would violate omnipotence? > > On Monday, December 2, 2013, Samiya Illias wrote: > > I agree that God is consistent. In my understanding, God is perfect in > every possible meaning of the word. > I was objecting to the assertion below that 'Most theistic philosophers > and theologians who have considered the issue agree that God did not create > the laws of math and logic, and does not have the power to alter them (or > any other "necessary" truths, ...' > > Samiya > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 02-Dec-2013, at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > > On 02 Dec 2013, at 06:11, Samiya Illias wrote: > > This is strange! What 'theism' it is if it limits God? > > > Making It consistent is not really limiting it. > > Accepting the idea that God can be inconsistent quickly leads to > inconsistent theology, which is the fuel of atheism. > (that is why atheists defends all the time the most inconsistent notion of > God, and deter people to search by themselves in the field). > > > > We believe that God is the Reality, the Prime Originator, the Sustainer, > and the Final Goal. > > > OK. > > > > Everything is as God wills and allows it to be. > > > I don't know. > > Bruno > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 02-Dec-2013, at 4:13 AM, Jesse Mazer <laserma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Most theistic philosophers and theologians who have considered the issue > agree that God did not create the laws of math and logic, and does not have > the power to alter them (or any other "necessary" truths, which for theists > might include things like moral rules, or qualities of God such as > omnipotence). Do you think the Mandelbrot set, or any other piece of pure > mathematics, functions without a government, or are mathematical rules > themselves a form of government even if God didn't create them? Certainly > most atheists now think the universe follows mathematical laws, and one > could even adopt Max Tegmark's idea and speculate that our universe is just > another part of the uncreated Platonic realm of mathematical forms. > > > On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Roger Clough wrote: > > How can a grown man be an atheist ? > > An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can > function without some form of government. > > How silly. > > > Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] > See my Leibniz site at > http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough > > > ------------------------------ > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <javascript:_e({}, > 'cvml', 'everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com');>. > To post to this group, send email to > everything-list@googlegroups.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > 'everything-list@googlegroups.com');> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.