If the logic still can be used to describe reality, is it even faulty?

No I'm saying the system would be faulty. Using a faulty system, you can get results that looks correct in the system, but are not actually correct.

If the logic still can be used to describe reality, is it even faulty? — ToothyMaw

But a world in which contradictory things can happen, is not the world described by logic. So if contradictory things can really happen, then there is reason to suspect the world painted by logic.

But if we can confirm that the appropriate application of logic always leads to correct outcomes, or almost always, then why do we have reason to doubt its integrity?

But if we can confirm that the appropriate application of logic always leads to correct outcomes, or almost always, then why do we have reason to doubt its integrity? — ToothyMaw

We would not know they are the correct outcomes, as the system we are using to understand and evaluate it is faulty. I.E what you or I think is the correct outcome, may not be the correct outcome, as the system we are using is faulty.

Does anyone else have any input on this? IF contradictions could happen, I think our current logical system would have problems. Is there something I am missing?

Here is an example of a piece of logic.

Premise 1: I get letters if and only if the postman visited
Premise 2: I got letters today

Conclusion: The postman visited

If the two premises are true, then logically the conclusions must be true as we understand it.

Now what about if contradictory things can happen? "I get letters if and only if the postman visited" and "I got letter without the postman visiting" can both be true in such a world. The two premises no longer logically result that the conclusion must be true.

But in this scenario, God is not really powerless, is he? For he has the power to take back his all encompassing powers, otherwise he will be stuck forevermore as a mere human. — PhilosophyRunner

Only if he/she is always aware of the truth about who they really are - there true nature.
If they simply forget the truth on occasion, they are powerless only because they have the incorrect information to hand about the truth. When they contemplate the truth and hone in on it through the logic of the truth they could resurrect the réalisation of who they are and reassume the truth. In other words they would remember that which they use to know about themselves.

True that scenario could happen. Or indeed some mechanism where the ignorance is time limited.

A question I have would be, can anyone else in the position of the God-who-is-for-now-human, also go through the same learning process and gain the same powers? I.e is there still a fundamental difference between that God-who-is-for-now-human and other normal humans, that allows him to regain those powers after learning, while other human cannot no matter how hard they try.

Perhaps a Buddhist might be able to chime in - is this not what Buddhist teaches to an extent? Any one who reaches a certain level of knowledge can become enlightened. Admittedly I don't know much detail about said teaching, so may be off here.

It would just mean that our logic system is faulty. What we use as a logical system, is a flawed system. — PhilosophyRunner

Of course human logic is faulty. Humans are flawed. Otherwise we would be perfect and godly. The fact that contradictions exist means contradiction is a necessary and true thing for the universe. Contradiction and paradox are not just limits to human logic they define what human logic is. If the ultimate truth didn't include within its set the existence of contradiction then we would never encounter paradox and have no concept for it.

Why does the truth include contradictions then? Because if it didn't... Two subjects couldn't disagree about one thing and both believe they are right. It would violate multiple subjectivity (different beliefs) about reality if contradiction didn't exist.

But our system of logic cannot cope with contradictions. See my above post with an example.

Here is an example of a piece of logic.

Premise 1: I get letters if and only if the postman visited
Premise 2: I got letters today

Conclusion: The postman visited

If the two premises are true, then logically the conclusions must be true as we understand it.

Now what about if contradictory things can happen? "I get letters if and only if the postman visited" and "I got letter without the postman visiting" can both be true in such a world. The two premises no longer logically result that the conclusion must be true. — PhilosophyRunner

That's what I'm saying: if God messed up the logic in the donkey example, at least, we would know because the logic wouldn't work. If we can do the logic and verify the new statement is true, God has not messed with that particular piece of logic.

But our system of logic cannot cope with contradictions. See my above post with an example. — PhilosophyRunner

I never claimed that human logic can cope with contradictions. It can't, despite what Benj is saying.
edit: you were talking about what Benj said, my bad

A question I have would be, can anyone else in the position of the God-who-is-for-now-human, also go through the same learning process and gain the same powers? — PhilosophyRunner

Haha an excellent question. Because the ultimate truth is the same/contant and unchanging for any and all people once elucidated. When one is not "God-for-the time being" they still have some erroneous beliefs about ultimate truth to contend with. When they finally break that illusion they deceived themselves with, they inherent the ultimate truth and are rid of deception - even if only temporarily before they eventually forget again - once they welcome back into their life flawed beliefs (by accident through lack of contemplation or on purpose because they are tired of being god and don't want to be moral/benevolent again - ie they want deceit/flaw back again. Then it's anyone else's game to do the same thing again.

In that way gods truth can be shared between anyone as all of them are a part of him/her. People can withold the truth from eachother - which is immoral or they can share it and watch as another becomes more and more aware of who they really are fundamentally. A beautiful thing really to nurture god in another

But our system of logic cannot cope with contradictions — PhilosophyRunner

Yes our system of logic can't cope with contradiction... But that is a matter of self- perception. It's relative to .self". The human awareness of self is specific to us as small finite objects where we don't really see everyone else as a part of us but as "other" - not self.
A person prepared to believe they are truly everything cannot be selfish because their self is all people... Discrète Selfishness has thus lost meaning. They are instead selfless as they treat all people as they woukd treat their own body... Because they know they are really all people fundamentally.

It's equivalent to being an "ethical solipsist". If you want to believe you are the center of the universe - as our mother's so aptly remind us we are not so as to not let our ego inflate... Then you had better have a good enough reason to be.. You had better do it for everyone elses betterment .. Be truly selfless. Otherwise you are the most selfish and dangerous person in the world (think Hitler).

If you were god for a day... And you were a "good" god. You would speak the truth. And because evil and deceit must exist as an opposite to truth (opposites must exist they are dependant on one another) you would surely bring the wrath of hatred against yourself. The more you spread truth the more liars would loath you and want to rid of you. The sad fact being god woukd allow them because he will not kill those who wish him dead. He/she would be good and would understand their flaws no matter how heinous.

Almost no human actually wants the responsibility of godly benevolence burdening their shoulders... No one but god himself/herself. However many different forms and times they may arrive to our aid.

I'm saying that we wouldn't be able to use the donkey logic at all, but we reliably can, and that would indicate that our logic is not faulty. If the logic is faulty then why would one be able to use that logic to come to correct conclusions? And if you are saying faulty logic would have no effect on our ability to form arguments then why would there be an issue for the arguments applied to God? — ToothyMaw

Just because we use the donkey logic, and it makes sense to us, doesn't mean it is correct. We could still use a broken system and happily accept the broken conclusions. One would not be able to use logic to come to the current conclusion - that is my point.

If God is able to make contradictions happen, then our logic system is not fit for purpose to be used to analyses him, as it is not a system that can cope with contradictions.

But I feel like we both are going round in circles here.

To be clear, my issue is with your statement: " He could make any two contradictory things possible at the same time if he so desires."

If this is true, can you give one example of how this could happen? Perhaps that would help clear any confusions up.

My contention is that were true, the our logical system would not be capable of being used to analyze such a God.

I thought about another piece of logic that may help (or may not!)

Premise 1: God is capable of making contradictions true
Premise 2: X is unjust
Premise 3: God let X happen even though he could have prevented it

Conclusion: God is unjust

I'm saying our logical system cannot ever be used to derive the above conclusion from the premises, as long as premise 1 is there.

No set of premises that contain a premise that God is capable of making contradictions true, can be used to derive any conclusion. Our logical tools are stumped if premise 1 is correct, and we remain conclusion-less unless we find another tool.

So if contradictory things can really happen, then there is reason to suspect the world painted by logic. — PhilosophyRunner

God would allow contradictory things to happen.
Most paradoxes(of time, of self reference) only exist from the perspective of the most objectified self - a human and not the whole self - the universe.
If God didn't allow contradiction there would be no ability to point out our flaws/eachothers flaws in comparison with what we think is ideal (which is likely a flawed ideal in its own right, subject to contradiction by even bigger ideals and greater truths, right up to the biggest of which would be being God and knowing the truth of all things - contradictions included, why they are there, how they shape the limits of a subjects sense of self. How they divide belief from fact when in the whole truth - as a god, belief and fact are synonymous, true belief = true fact...

Contradictions/paradox divide 2 subjects so that they can both believe their version of the truth is real and the others not. That's why a benevolent god is forgiving because they have the greatest empathy for all individual truths no matter how misguided. For they know better sort of like how parents know better for their children and while the child may not understand and get frustrated, the parent must believe it is right even if the child despise them. Because they want to protect them.

Yes our system of logic can't cope with contradiction... But — Benj96

:cool:

A just God hasta exist!

our system of logic — Benj96

Yes "our" (regular people who don't believe or understand how or why they are God). If god is a person then their system of logic wouldnt contradict ours (the rest of humanity) because it would co-exist. The false separation (logical paradoxes - that we frequently discuss in philosophy/science) between god and humans version of the truth would simply be a matter of how much understanding/knowledge one has... How much of the truth one is prepared to accept.

Flaw and perfection must co-exist. Opposites contradict eachother and yet they exist. Flaw exists for the sake of being ignorant of the truth... And to allow for a means of self reflection, learning, progress, evolution and natural selection. Trial and error.

Perfection exists as the truth. An unchanging ideal worthy of pursuit. A motivator and a source of curiosity as to the revelation of its true nature. And we know that all we ever do every day as humans is pursue perfection (beauty/elegance, morality/ethics, authority, power, wisdom/knowledge, recognition/fame) through art, stories about heroes and villains, through career, adoring talented people and celebrities, through having wealth or political clout.

Because we all determine our "self" identity by what is similar/ acceptable and what is different/ rejectable,
We limit ourselves. But science has already clearly pointed out that on a fundamental level we are entirely one with the universe through the cascade of entropy as well as our atoms and energy and matter. We don't really take on the seismic consequences of that fact. Nor do most of us want to... The responsibility is of epic proportion.

Premise 1: God is capable of making contradictions true
Premise 2: X is unjust
Premise 3: God let X happen even though he could have prevented it

Conclusion: God is unjust — PhilosophyRunner

You conceded that even if logic were messed up, one could still use it to come to correct conclusions, such as in the donkey example or your mail example. It might not be correct, but it works.

I'm starting to doubt I understand what it would mean for logic to not work because of your arguments. If God made logic stop working, how could we use it to come to any correct conclusions?

Would you say that adults should allow their children to suffer injustices at each other's hands merely so they can be judged by adults? That we should allow children to suffer so we can test them? — ToothyMaw

I said it was our responsibility to create just outcomes in society; allowing our children to suffer injustices would be the opposite of that. The direct comparison between people and God also isn't justified. People don't have the power to decide the fate and destination of other people's spirits, unlike God.

From the rest of your comment, I'm getting a strong impression of left-wing idealism and bitterness about inequality, which tells me that your moral intuitions here are just expressions of your personality rather than moral statements I have to acknowledge as being objective or factual.

And what about good people that get cancer? How are we supposed to enact justness there? If we can't enact justness, then shouldn't God protect good people from injustices we cannot rectify if he is even remotely just? — ToothyMaw

No, this is just your moral intuition/outrage again. I don't have to accept the assertion that God should do anything. Intervening to cure every person of cancer would make creating a world with cancer in it pointless. Cancer gives the sufferer (who is ultimately an alter-ego of God) the opportunity to experience and learn from mortality in a particular way, and it gives a unique experience to their loved ones and anyone trying to help them as well.

Expecting God to do everything for us so we needn't do anything is lumping the means by which we show God who we are onto God's lap, which would be pointless because God created creation to see how we react to life. — Hallucinogen

Then God really half-assed creation. We could demonstrate our worth, compassion, bravery, ingenuity etc. in a world with significantly less suffering. — ToothyMaw

This is yet again you repeating the insistence there should be significantly less suffering, which I don't have to accept because it is an expression of your personality. I'm curious how you think we could demonstrate our compassion in a world with significantly less suffering, though. Wouldn't that mean significantly less compassion?

I said it was our responsibility to create just outcomes in society; allowing our children to suffer injustices would be the opposite of that. — Hallucinogen

The analogy just went over your head. I understand letting children suffer would be an injustice - thus I pointed it out. If we allow those whose condition we have control over to suffer, then we are guilty for not preventing that suffering, no matter how, as I have had to point out many times in this thread, unfathomable God is.

People don't have the power to decide the fate and destination of other people's spirits, unlike God. — Hallucinogen

Then God is even more culpable than the parent who lets their child suffer, as he has absolute control over our outcomes and whether or not they are just.

From the rest of your comment, I'm getting a strong impression of left-wing idealism and bitterness about inequality, which tells me that your moral intuitions here are just expressions of your personality rather than moral statements I have to acknowledge as being objective or factual. — Hallucinogen

Yeah, that's a cop-out. I have no issue with inequality, I'm not really much of an idealist, and, unlike you, I generally don't ascribe negative qualities to people merely because I disagree with them.

No, this is just your moral intuition/outrage again. I don't have to accept the assertion that God should do anything. Intervening to cure every person of cancer would make creating a world with cancer in it pointless. — Hallucinogen

And what point is there in such suffering? You assert that gratuitous suffering actually should exist because it gives us the chance to, what? Die a slow and horrible death?

Cancer gives the sufferer (who is ultimately an alter-ego of God) the opportunity to experience and learn from mortality in a particular way, and it gives a unique experience to their loved ones and anyone trying to help them as well. — Hallucinogen

Yes, a unique experience indeed, a loved one getting cancer and dying painfully. Sure, some might be able to draw some positives from surviving cancer and getting a new perspective on mortality, but why would it have to be through something so horrible? Would anyone honestly say that getting cancer and dying is worth it for the uniqueness of the experience? I think not, and not just because they would be dead.

Ultimately it seems to me your subservience, tone deafness, and moral arrogance are likely facets of a personality marked by a severe lack of empathy and tolerance for free thought, and I can just dismiss anything you say because of that.

This is yet again you repeating the insistence there should be significantly less suffering, which I don't have to accept because it is an expression of your personality. — Hallucinogen

The main thrust of the OP is that God is unjust. Whatever I think about whether or not there should be less suffering is not the point.

I'm curious how you think we could demonstrate our compassion in a world with significantly less suffering, though. Wouldn't that mean significantly less compassion? — Hallucinogen

We could just try to arrange society in such a way that people get what they deserve? Do you honestly believe that someone could only be rewarded with a Nobel Prize if someone else falls off a cliff? What connection is there between some people's suffering, or the lack of just outcomes, and the just outcomes others receive, and why couldn't we all at least mostly get what we deserve?

The analogy just went over your head. I understand letting children suffer would be an injustice - thus I pointed it out. — ToothyMaw

No nothing went over my head. You were pointing out something in agreement with what I originally stated, which was:

We have free will and it is our responsibility to create just outcomes in society. — Hallucinogen

When you responded asking whether we should "allow children to suffer so we can test them?", I had therefore already answered this question in the comment I made you were responding to. So I don't know which analogy you think I missed, if it isn't the comparison you made between people's responsibility to intervene and God's responsibility to intervene, which I've pointed out isn't a correct comparison.

If we allow those whose condition we have control over to suffer, then we are guilty for not preventing that suffering, no matter how, as I have had to point out many times in this thread, unfathomable God is — ToothyMaw

Yes that's definitely correct, and I didn't assert at any point such a dependency of our responsibility to intervene on God's unfathomability.

Then God is even more culpable than the parent who lets their child suffer, as he has absolute control over our outcomes and whether or not they are just. — ToothyMaw

This is just you repeating that you think God is responsible for creating justice among humans, when I've already pointed out this is our responsibility which you haven't countered, as well as you assuming that God doesn't create justice in heaven in rectification for that earthly suffering. God has power over the destination of person's spirit, which is the reason why allowing suffering in the material realm does not make God unjust, as he can rectify this in heaven, according to the suffering someone suffered.

We could just try to arrange society in such a way that people get what they deserve? Do you honestly believe that someone could only be rewarded with a Nobel Prize if someone else falls off a cliff? What connection is there between some people's suffering, or the lack of just outcomes, and the just outcomes others receive, and why couldn't we all at least mostly get what we deserve? — ToothyMaw

Hello left-wing utopianism. Everyone gets a participation trophy, and anything less than that is all God's fault! I'm concluding here that you're just angry at reality for containing suffering and that you're just going to keep insisting that the responsibility lies in God's lap instead of in the laps of people who make those decisions, while ignoring that the justice God appropriates is divine and therefore trumps any assertion of injustice on God's part you can make.

Hello left-wing utopianism. Everyone gets a participation trophy, and anything less than that is all God's fault! I'm concluding here that you're just angry at reality for containing suffering and that you're just going to keep insisting that the responsibility lies in God's lap instead of in the laps of people who make those decisions — Hallucinogen

Seriously? I say that we should have a more meritocratic society, and you say that I want everyone to receive participation trophies. I just want people who do good things, or work hard, to receive good things.

Furthermore: who chooses to get cancer, or to be mentally ill? Maybe some people that get cancer or become mentally ill smoke cigarettes and marijuana, but can those that do everything right and still get cancer, schizophrenia, etc. be held responsible? Obviously not.

Look, you are not arguing in good faith, whether it is some attempt to troll me or induce a flame-war - I'm not sure. So, I'm going to stop responding to you.

We create a God ourselves, and then we realize that He is not just and then compalin about that.

Ironically, however, the Judeo-Christian God is vengeful and punitive, which implies justice. Only that this kind of justice is meant for oneself, as one gudges and pleases (see Bible). And yet, this is the God that the Judeo-Christians have created. Why then do they complain that Himself or the world that He created is unjust?

We create a God ourselves, and then we realize that He is not just and then compalin about that. — Alkis Piskas

In other words we look at the universe/reality and see injustice, and believing we are powerless to do anything about it we are angry at "that which may have the potency to rid injustice".

Except we are not powerless. We are as much mediums to channel benevolence as any other. We can make every act we do serve truth if we want to. Rarely do people want to benefit one another at a large scale (humanity) because to do so is to pit yourself against all injustice/ to flag yourself as an obstacle against injustice carrying out its evil mischievousess. And therefore to put yourself in harms way so that another may be protected from it.

Tell me if you were God for a day... Would you spread your knowledge, your truth of truths, with the intent to save strangers that you have never met? Would you sacrifice your safety to demonstrate unjustness as the wrath of hatred falls upon you? Would you be a martyr?

If the answer to this is no, if you'd rather only regard your nearest relatives and friends as worthy then you condemn those you do not know to your apathy. You would not care in this case what happens to others in the world that are currently suffering..

In all honesty if you aren't prepared to face injustice alone, to carry that burden for others, then you do not practice the truth, you would not know it nor possess its true power/authority.

Scripture demonstrates that those that spread truth and are killed for it by those that find it convenient to do so, to uphold their own version of what is right, have a superior sense of morality for the simple fact they were killed. Anyone who murders for their beliefs are not just.

We create a God ourselves, and then we realize that He is not just and then compalin about that. — Alkis Piskas

I was thinking along this line as I read - skimmed, tbh, on the last page or so - through this thread.
Where does this composite image of the god or God come from? The God of Genesis wasn't omniscient or particularly fair, and didn't pretend to be. He told his freshly minted humuns "Go, cavort in the garden and amuse me, but don't touch my special fruit... because, if you do, I'll kill you." No further reason or explanation given. Indeed, it would have a been wasted effort to talk to them about fairness, since they had no knowledge of good and evil.
If we went by that characterization, the deity would be comprehensible. Even later on, when He, in cold blood, drowns everybody and all the animals, and when He lets stand Noah's curse on all the progeny of his son Ham (who accidentally saw him naked)... after having described Noah as a just man, and when He chooses the Jews out of all the people of the Earth and commands them to kill entire tribes for their land... If you ask that God about justice, he could give you a comprehensible - if not a satisfactory - answer. Because that's the morality on which we built our own evolving codes of justice.

That God created just one little world, which he had to share with many other gods who all had their own peoples, with their own codes of conduct. To the hugely inflated Creator of the whole now-known universe, with all his later add-on superpowers, no logic can apply; for such a god, no accounting can be given, of him, no sense can be made.
Only speculation and supplication.

Justice ... what's that?