There is no God who can do the logically impossible, as such a thing is incoherent. There is just (possibly) a God who can do the logically possible. — Michael

You're begging the question. You're saying that a God that defies logic isn't possible because it would defy logic.

No, I'm saying that if doing the logically impossible is incoherent then it isn't wrong to suggest that a God that can do everything that is logically possible is "all-powerful".

No, I'm saying that if doing the logically impossible is incoherent then it isn't wrong to suggest that a God that can do everything that is logically possible is "all-powerful". — Michael

Okay, you don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying, or what you're saying yourself.

Let me ask: what do you mean by "incoherent"? Define the term.

I don't think such a world exist. — bahman

In other words, you think that the laws of physics that you have been taught apply to all possible places in all possible times.

How do you know?

In other words, you think that the laws of physics that you have been taught apply to all possible places in all possible times.

How do you know? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

The laws of physics could be different but they should respect something. "One apple+one apple=two apples". I cannot even imagine "one apple+one apple=three apples".

So things you can't imagine can't be possible for God? God is bound by your imagination?

So things you can't imagine can't be possible for God? God is bound by your imagination? — JustSomeGuy

I am saying that something which is unimaginable cannot have any instance in reality. And yes, if you give two apples to God He only have two apples.

God is bound by your imagination? — JustSomeGuy

This is the root argument everyone who says "God cannot defy logic" is making here.

You're saying that God is limited by what you can imagine. Why on Earth would that be the case? It's quite egotistical, isn't it? I'm not calling any of you egotistical, just so we're clear; I don't believe any of you are making the argument with the intent of it being egotistical. But that doesn't change the fact that it is an egotistical claim.

This may be a cliche kind of metaphor, but consider something "lower" than us. Lower than biological life forms. A rock, for example. Do you think a rock understands logic? Can a rock imagine mathematics? If course not. It's a rock. We are not rocks, which is why we can do those things that rocks cannot conceive of (including conceiving of things).

Now, when we talk about God we're talking about a totally different "kind" of thing than we are. Similar to rocks vs. humans, but to an even greater degree. Why in the world would this thing (God) be constrained by our limitations?

"One apple+one apple=two apples". I cannot even imagine "one apple+one apple=three apples". — bahman

Well, I can imagine combining a cup of water with another cup of water and getting three cups of water. Therefore, it would be 1 + 1 = 3.

You are saying two glasses of water is equal to three glasses of water?

1+1=2 represent something in reality. — bahman

We tend to be quite selective in choosing our examples. 1+1=1 when we watch raindrops slide down a window. 1+1=3 when folk fuck without contraception.

We tend to be quite selective in choosing our examples. 1+1=1 when we watch raindrops slide down a window. 1+1=3 when folk fuck without contraception. — Banno

What you are doing is merely redefining the concept of "1" so your theory applies. Two drops of rain of course could form one but the quantities of water satisfy the equation 1+1=2. So I think we need to be clear about what we mean with concepts used in left and right hand side of equation. All I am saying is that 1+1=/=1 if the "1" in left side of equation is equal to the "1" in right side of equation.

What you are doing is merely redefining the concept of "1" so your theory applies. — bahman

Exactly.

And that is exactly what we have done; defined "1" so that the theory of numbers applies.

If god 'defied' logic, we could simply change the rules of logic so that they applied to his actions.

That is, the question in the title badly misunderstands what logic is.

That is, the question in the title badly misunderstands what logic is. — Banno

To put it another way, logic does not constrain the world in any way, nor does it constrain God. It constrains what can be sensibly said. It declares, for instance that, it does not make sense in the context of omnipotent beings, to talk about stuff they cannot do. So don't do it.

Exactly.

And that is exactly what we have done; defined "1" so that the theory of numbers applies.

If god 'defied' logic, we could simply change the rules of logic so that they applied to his actions.

That is, the question in the title badly misunderstands what logic is. — Banno

Is 1+1=1 if 1 in both side are same?

So God can make square triangles?

Is 1+1=1 if 1 in both side are same? — bahman

That's a pretty ambiguous question. Both sides of what - the '+' or the '='? I gave you an example where the equation worked with drops of water. One drop of water added to another drop of water makes one drop of water.

That's an excellent analogue.

If a square is a regular polygon with four equal sides then I don't know of any way to make it a triangle.

But if it is a regular polygon in which all four angles are 90º?

Drawn on a sphere, it would have three sides.

And if we insist on both 90º angles and four sides, we constrain the space to a plane.

Oddly, logic constrains the world...

So God can make square triangles? — Sam26

Banno answered this pretty well, I think, but I'll refer you to another post I made which covers this also:

...you're talking about things that are not possible in our universe. These things are not possible because of the way our universe operates. We cannot say anything about what any other possible universe/reality could look like, because we only have experience of our own. We are limited by our universe. God is not.

If you believe God is limited by our universe, then he cannot be omnipotent, and he cannot be the creator of it. That's fine, you can believe in that sort of God, but when people speak about God they're usually speaking about an omnipotent creator God. — JustSomeGuy

To elaborate for your specific question, in our universe a shape cannot have four sides with all right angles and three sides with non-right angles at the same time. The fact that this is not possible in the universe we live in says absolutely nothing about what God is capable of, because God is not bound by our universe if he is omnipotent and created it. Just because something doesn't make sense to our very limited human brains, doesn't mean it is beyond the capabilities of God. I already discussed this in another post, as well (I suggest you actually read through the thread next time):

You're saying that God is limited by what you can imagine. Why on Earth would that be the case? It's quite egotistical, isn't it? I'm not calling any of you egotistical, just so we're clear; I don't believe any of you are making the argument with the intent of it being egotistical. But that doesn't change the fact that it is an egotistical claim.

This may be a cliche kind of metaphor, but consider something "lower" than us. Lower than biological life forms. A rock, for example. Do you think a rock understands logic? Can a rock imagine mathematics? If course not. It's a rock. We are not rocks, which is why we can do those things that rocks cannot conceive of (including conceiving of things).

Now, when we talk about God we're talking about a totally different "kind" of thing than we are. Similar to rocks vs. humans, but to an even greater degree. Why in the world would this thing (God) be constrained by our limitations? — JustSomeGuy

The fact that this is not possible in the universe we live in says absolutely nothing about what God is capable of, because God is not bound by our universe if he is omnipotent and created it. — JustSomeGuy

That's not something I would agree with.

Just to sure I am not misunderstood, a square triangle cannot exist on a plane; and that's jut a result of what a square and a triangle are. Further this is so in any possible universe.

a square triangle cannot exist on a plane; and that's jut a result of what a square and a triangle are. Further this is so in any possible universe — Banno

Well, in a sense I agree and in a sense I don't. It really has to do with language. The language we are using describes concepts in this universe; we cannot apply any of them to any other possible universe or anything outside of our universe. Like I said earlier, we cannot say anything about anything other than our own universe, because our universe is all we know. Our language and our logic are products of our observations of this universe. It's exactly as unenlightened said:

To put it another way, logic does not constrain the world in any way, nor does it constrain God. It constrains what can be sensibly said. — unenlightened

The language we are using describes concepts in this universe; we cannot apply any of them to any other possible universe or anything outside of our universe. — JustSomeGuy

Of course we can. Hence modal logic.

I suspect @unenlightened might well agree with me if I pointed out that a world containing square triangles would not be talking about the same squares and triangles that exist in our world. The meanings of these words would have changed, as the meaning of triangle is changed when a triangle is scribed on a sphere.

Logic does not constrain the world in any way. But sometimes the logic one chooses is the wrong one for what one has to say, and hence needs changing.

a world containing square triangles would not be talking about the same squares and triangles that exist in our world. The meanings of these words would have changed, as the meaning of triangle is changed when a triangle is scribed on a sphere. — Banno

That's exactly what I was trying to say; maybe I should have elaborated more.

Logic does not constrain the world in any way. But sometimes the logic one chooses is the wrong one for what one has to say, and hence needs changing. — Banno

This follows from what I said, that logic is a product of our observations of this universe.

I think we agree and I just wasn't clear enough.

I was wondering whether there is an argument in favor or against this statement: "God can defy logic".

This issue raised up in another thread. I was questioning whether 1+1=3 is possible.

If by 'God' you mean a perfect being, then no I don't think so. If god is perfect he can have no flaw and not being logical is a flaw. If perfection is the essence of god's being then god cannot defy logic, because he can't defy his essence, which is always in perfect balance.

1+1=3, I heard a joke like that once. A business man was interviewing for a new accountant. He asked each person he interviewed 'what does 2+ 2 =?' and they all said 4 , then late in the afternoon when he asked the question to one of his prospects , the prospect went over to the window and pulled the blind down, turned and asked the business man "what do you want 2 + 2 to equal?" He got the job.

If god is perfect he can have no flaw and not being logical is a flaw — Cavacava

"Perfect" and "flaw" are both subjective concepts.

If G is illogical in this manner, then it's fine saying that G is not G.
(¬(G = G)) ∧ (G = G)
Not sure why anyone would make such a move; they'd no longer be talking about anything in particular.
Weird :o

All concepts are subjective.

What? Does that mean?

So does it make sense to apply our subjective concepts to God?

Depends on how you define god...as I stated...

If god is perfect