Search
Author
Signposts is the personal website of Phil and Dan McCredden. We are involved in leadership at Northern Community.
You can also get Signposts via RSS
Pages
Categories
- admin (17)
- blogosphere (115)
- book of the month (4)
- books and dvd's (31)
- bumping uglies (12)
- campaign 2004 (23)
- challenges for the church (436)
- chat (28)
- chicks in church (7)
- Christmas (12)
- election 2007 (2)
- environment (1)
- events (1)
- Forge (52)
- geek talk (51)
- General (5)
- Geoff Bullock (21)
- glurge (3)
- god as santa (3)
- God politics (25)
- guest posters (6)
- Hillsong (12)
- iraq (70)
- kaleo (3)
- leadership (6)
- Liquid (7)
- Mark for Lent 2006 (43)
- mDNA (51)
- notes from northern (59)
- NT for Lent (21)
- oz politics and society (140)
- poetry and writings (17)
- polls (1)
- quotes (34)
- random musings (125)
- reciprocal links (31)
- religious vilification laws (5)
- songs (3)
- spirituality and prayers (46)
- the good book (19)
- the kitchen garden (1)
- the money jar (14)
- theologically speaking (33)
- those wacky christians (5)
- Unfreezing Moves (14)
- us (154)
- wise words (44)
- World Affairs (84)
Recent entries
August 7th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
It’s “grammar”, abtruth.
abtruth - can you please define what you mean when you use the word “logic”?
To get beyond the word “logic”: I believe that God is far too big for our puny little brains to comprehend.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
St. Augustine explained that logic is not an invention of pagan philosophers, as some men objected, but a science which man has learned from God.
“…[T]he validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men, but is observed and noted by them…. …[I]t exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin with God.
Logic is not a dubious non-Christian method of reasoning. All of the fundamental laws of logic can be found in the Bible.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
I am not saying that its evil, nor pagan, nor that it doesn’t usually make sense. I believe in mathmatics and all of that. But I don’t in any way believe that the sum total of life, or creation, or God can be codified. Nor can all that is, be construed as logical. The difference between what I am saying and what you are saying is that you seem to argue that everything can be defined within a modernists epistemology and I say that some of life can be defined by such, and other aspects of life cannot be. The incarnation is not logical, but it is true.
rev
August 7th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
No Rev.. the incarnation is counter intuitive not illogical… not trying to be antagonistic at all but this is (to me) quite obvious
I am not saying that everything can be codified and i know you don’t think its evil (i don’t think that i even implied any of this) but i was justifying my assertion that it is not western nor recent nor modernist
By logical I am asking: (1) does God contradict Himself, and (2) when He says that something is true, then is it really true??
By logical I do not claim that everything which God says must be understandable to us, so that we can explain it…
The doctrine of the Trinity is an example of this.
What the Bible teaches about the Trinity is true and not contradictory: God is one being and three persons… not one person and three persons (modalism).
To be one person and three persons at the same time would be a contradiction. Yet we do not fully understand the Trinity, and we have no way of explaining it.
August 7th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
So what you are saying is everything that is true is logical, but we are incapable of understanding it? Its “logic” is lost on us? So is it logical that the fullness of God was in Christ? Yet the Father was also seperate from Christ? This is not how I understand logic, and if you want to call in counter intuitive, then in my mind you are just making yourself right be putting everything that doesn’t fit your world view into a different category. Practically, it is the same thing. What logic does not do well with is love, and miracles, and relationships. These are all parts of faith, and parts of the kingdom of God.
rev
August 7th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Abtruth, you seem to be redefined the word “logical”. For something to be logical, it must be possible for one to argue for this thing with resort to logical argument - that is, consistent premises leading to a consistent conclusion. If you can’t argue in this way for the Trinity, then it isn’t logical.
August 7th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
I agree with David, abtruth. You are using a different definition of “logic” now to the one you were using earlier on.
August 7th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
logic (free online dictionary)
1. A branch of philosophy and mathematics that deals with the formal principles, methods and criteria of validity of inference, reasoning and knowledge.Logic is concerned with what is true and how we can know whether something is true. This involves the formalisation of logical arguments and proofs in terms of symbols representing propositions and logical connectives. The meanings of these logical connectives are expressed by a set of rules which are assumed to be self-evident.
just because i cant explain or understand something doesnt mean it is illogical
when we are trying to figure something out and we try to explain something, if it is illogical we say ‘well that can’t be right’ and move on to another possible explanation.. even if we never get a satisfactory explanation we never go back and say ‘ohh well it must just be illogical’
David
not necessarily.. one could say that we don’t know enough to be able to explain something logically
a possible example- i can’t explain it (how my computer/tv/phone) works therefore it must be illogical….
the reality is that although i don’t know how it (my computer) works it must be logical or otherwise it wouldn’t work
its funny that you are all trying to logically argue against me..
August 7th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
i would be happy if you think i have equivocated — which post so i can make sure i stay on track (and therefore logical :-))
August 7th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
so would you agree that there is much in life that does not rely upon, depend upon, or is defined or codified by logic? Would you agree that faith, hope and love are often among those?
rev
August 7th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
ultimately we depend upon God and being logical is one of his attributes so i suppose i would say no there isn’t much in life that doesn’t depend on logic as a result of depending on God.
there is plenty that has not been defined (known and explained) and that we will never know. but when we do find new things and try to explain them the explanations will be logical or wrong.
This is how Norman Geisler defines logic from Bakers encyclopedia of apologetics
Logic deals with the methods of valid thinking. It reveals how to draw proper conclusions from premises and is a prerequisite of all thought. In fact it builds from fundamental laws of reality and truth, the principles that make rational thought possible. Logic is such an indispensable and inescapable tool for all thought that even those who eschew it still use logical forms to argue for the rejection of it.
The three fundamental laws of all rational thought are:
1. the law of noncontradiction (a is not non a)
2. the law of identity (a is a)
3. the law of the excluded middle (either a or non a)
Each serves an important function. Without the way of noncontradiction we could say that God is God, and God is the Devil. Unless the law of identity is binding, there can be no unity or identity, without it there is not difference in station “i am I” or “i am a chair”. If the law of the excluded middle does not hold then opposites could both be true.
If logic is the basis of all thought, it is the basis of all thought about God (theology).
Some object that this makes God subject to logic. But God is sovereign and not subject to anything beyond himself. So how can thought about God be subject be subject to logic?
In one sense God is not subject to logic; rather our statements about God are subservient to logic. All rational statements must be logical. Since theology purports to make rational statements, theological statements are subject to rules of rational thought, as are any other statements.
In another sense, God indeed is subject to logic, but not because there is something more ultimate than he. Since logic represents the principles of rational thought and since God is a rational being, God is subject to his own rational nature. Insofar as logic manifests reason it flows from the very nature of God and God is subject to his own nature. Indeed, he cannot act contrary to it ethically or logically. for eg “it is impossible for God to lie”Heb 6.18. Likewise it is impossible for God to contradict himself. both violate his basic nature.
God is not only subject to his own rational self consistency; he also is subject to logic which is derived from it. For we could not even begin to think about or talk about God without the law of non contradiction. In this sense, logic is prior to God in that we need to use logic before we can even think about him rationally. Logic is prior to God in the order of knowing but God is prior to logic in the order of being. Logic is prior to God epistemologically but God is prior to logic ontologically.
To object that this makes God subject to our logic sets up a faulty dichotomy. Logic is logic; it is not our logic as opposed to his. Ours is based on his.God’s rational nature is the basis of our rational nature. He make it that way so we could understand something about him. The law of noncontradiction applies to applies to God’s thoughts as well as to ours. People did not invent it - they discovered it
August 8th, 2007 at 10:56 am
“In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.”
Good summary from abtruth, above.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:59 am
I believe in the light, I do also believe that in darkness we mostly don’t understand the light. And that things like love, hope and faith are not the realm of logic, and are yet the most important and Godly of our pursuits.
rev
August 8th, 2007 at 11:13 am
The word Logos implies not only “word” but also reason, meaning, and yes logic. And John uses Logos as a name for Jesus so it indicates that this is an important part of the nature of God.
Many years ago I studied the foundations of arithmetic. We had to do a proof that the number one existed. I was having some trouble understanding the proof, so I went to see the Professor. In explaining the proof, he mentioned that the proof of the number one is very similar to the medieval proofs of the existence of God.
Now, do I believe that one can prove the existence of God using logic? No, but that dosent mean we should not try. Because in appreciating the beauty of logic and mathematics one sees something of the beauty and order of the universe and ultimately might catch a glimpse (in part) of the nature of the Creator.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:16 am
“Now, do I believe that one can prove the existence of God using logic? No, but that dosent mean we should not try. Because in appreciating the beauty of logic and mathematics one sees something of the beauty and order of the universe and ultimately might catch a glimpse (in part) of the nature of the Creator.”
Wazza, I agree with this completely.
My problem is when people deny that there are any other ways of “knowing” God.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:32 am
What Bec said!
But also, the idea that logic is a person, just as truth is a person, I have no problem with. But like I said before, that greatest parts of human experience are not logical, but something else. I am not saying to exclude logic, but put it in its proper place, which is under God, and alongside of other epistemology.
rev
August 8th, 2007 at 11:40 am
but put it in its proper place, which is under God, and alongside of other epistemology
I know what you mean rev - when hepissedtemalloff, oh gee, he pissed me off as well. I hate that logic guy - he makes no sense at all
August 8th, 2007 at 11:47 am
sorry greg, forgot to dumb it down for you,
alongside of other ways of understanding how we come to know things.
idiot!
rev
August 8th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
thanks - now I see clearly, the clouds have gone and the scales lifted - but i’m still not sure how you caem yo know that he pissed the all off and not just some?
August 8th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
how you came to know that he pissed them all of and not just some
August 8th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Hmmm.. we may be at cross-purposes here.
There are few Christians who would deny there are other ways of knowing God. The vast majority would believe that logic alone is not sufficient. They would stress the importance of a relationship with Jesus, and the action of the Holy Spirit in interpreting the scriptures.
Even the most positivist mathematician must acknowledge that there are limits to logic. Godel’s incompleteness theorem states that no logical system can be both consistent and complete. This can be proved logically. Therefore there are always things that we cannot know from logic.
This was always known and acknowledged well before the post-modernists came along. What they have done, in my view, is throw the baby out with the bath-water and say that there is no way to know. There are texts but there is no concept of meaning or authorship, the meaning is constructed by the particular community of the reader.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
that is not completely true Wazza, what they say is that no communication is complete, every thing that is written or spoken is done so with a bias that is formed by each individuals history, and cultural context. And each reader or hearer also interprets such communication from their own history and context. Therefore all we can do is arrive at an idea of what each other is meaning. There is no complete, and total knowing, not that there is no knowing at all.
rev
August 8th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
What Rev said.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
not fair … I’m going to get my mates.
“The author is dead” is a position well known to be taken by post-structuralist and contemporary theorists.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
And did these theorists “author” that opinion?
You must take these things in the context in which they are given.
rev
August 8th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
what wazza said
August 8th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Rev, the logical inconsistencies are the responsibility of the theorists not me. Here’s some context from the Wikipedia article :
“A post-structuralist text, “Death of the Author” influenced French continental philosophy, particularly those of Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault (who also addressed the subject of the author in critical interpretation in a similar fashion in his 1969 essay, “What Is an Author?”, which argues that works of literature are collective cultural products and do not arise from singular, individual beings). Like Foucault’s work, Barthes’s essay aims to remove the author from his privileged position with respect to the interpretation of texts; instead, Barthes places full responsibility and interpretive authority on the shoulders of the reader.”
August 8th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
part of my trouble with revs statements is that it seems he is saying that love is not logical and therfore illogical.. if this is so I would be concerned of a categorical mistake as love is a choice.. an act of the will as in would it be logical to prefer red over blue
August 8th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I don’t know what you mean, I do believe that love is not a logical thing, that does not necessarily mean it is illogical.
rev
August 8th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Agreed, Rev. Love is something that transcends logics.