# Is God above Logic?



## LadyCalvinist

Recently, I was listening to Doug Phillips and he said that God is above logic and the rules of logic. I may be misunderstanding him but he is stating that God is not bound by Logic or rationality? And what does this mean?


----------



## Peairtach

God is not going to deceive us by giving us a logic that is false or not founded in the ultimate reality i.e. Himself, so logic must correspond to the truth that God is revealing about Himself and to the way God reasons. 

Although His mind is different to our minds, our mind must be "analogous" to His, i.e. there is a mysterious correspondence between the mind of Man and the mind of God - which makes logic a reliable tool, and which makes truth possible and knowable from Man's point of view - while yet they are very different.

It also means it isn't incongruent for God to become Man.


----------



## djhonea

If God was outside of logic then we would have no place thinking about him because reason as the laws of thought can only grasp what is logical. He could be infinite and temporal at the same time and in the same respect, He could be good and evil, he could be God and not God. That is if he was not under the contraints of logic. 

In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


----------



## Skyler

LadyCalvinist said:


> Recently, I was listening to Doug Phillips and he said that God is above logic and the rules of logic. I may be misunderstanding him but he is stating that God is not bound by Logic or rationality? And what does this mean?



It may be more accurate to say that God is behind logic and the rules of logic.


----------



## Vladimir

Logic flows from God's unchanging rational nature, so He cannot break the laws of logic. You have to remember, though, that we tend to assume logical premises that come out of our human reason, and are not necessarily true; and that there is a difference between laws of logic and laws of _nature_.

A student asked the lecturer, 'Is it possible for me to jump over the Moon?'
The lecturer said that it was logically possible, if he could jump high enough to break the Earth's gravity. But it was humanly impossible because humans can't jump that way.
'Well then', continued the student, 'Can God jump over the Moon?'
The lecturer started explaining that God is everywhere all the time, that He does not need to jump over the Moon, because he is _already over it_, that He's not a here-or-there type of being, so He can't jump from here to there, etc.
Later, when he was contemplating about his answer, the lecturer realized that he should have said, 'No, because God doesn't have any legs'.

From "Come, Let Us Reason" by Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks.


----------



## chuckd

I thought God established the laws of logic by who he is. Law of identity - his name being 'I am', law of non-contradiction - God cannot lie, etc.


----------



## Cymro

Logically speaking, it is illogical for God to be illogical as He must be the first cause of logic,
otherwise it would be a contradiction of logic. Perhaps the writer was saying, that God was above
logic in the sense that faith is above reason. Man cannot by logic find out God, it requires the gift
of faith.
"Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?


----------



## lynnie

maybe 3 can equal 1 ?


----------



## Skyler

Cymro said:


> Logically speaking, it is illogical for God to be illogical as He must be the first cause of logic,
> otherwise it would be a contradiction of logic. Perhaps the writer was saying, that God was above
> logic in the sense that faith is above reason. Man cannot by logic find out God, it requires the gift
> of faith.
> "Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?



I'm not sure I'd use that distinction exactly. Man cannot find God by "faith" alone without logic - for faith depends on logic, or more precisely on God's reasonableness, to find meaning.

Food for thought: Would we say that God is "above love" or "above holiness"?


----------



## Vladimir

lynnie said:


> maybe 3 can equal 1 ?


Nope. God is not 3 persons in one person (if that's what you're referring to), He is 3 persons in one being. While we know that humans mostly have one person per one being, it would not be illogical for an exceptional being such as God to be different.


Skyler said:


> Food for thought: Would we say that God is "above love" or "above holiness"?


Good one! How do you define "above"?


----------



## Pergamum

God is not illogical or against logic. He is beyond our reach when it comes to logic.


----------



## Peairtach

Scott Oliphint, Westminster Seminary apologetics professor, discusses God and logic at some point in this discussion about Gordon Clark and Cornelius van Til, about half-way or three-quarters-of-the-way through.

http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc163/

Our logic is analogical of - or iconic of, i.e. an image of - God's logic. 

Our logic is founded on God's, otherwise logic would just be a convention, which is impossible.

God's mind is very different to ours, because He knows all things in an eternal moment, but if God was a man He would think - sinlessly - like us, and He has indeed become a Man in Christ.


----------



## Afterthought

I thought God created logic as a necessity of the created order (and hence, it is not merely a convention), and that since God doesn't think, He doesn't actually have a "logic" (is that correct?)? If so, that could be what is meant by "beyond" logic, though I think in this case, it would be better to say "behind" logic (as another suggested).


----------



## Skyler

Afterthought said:


> I thought God created logic as a necessity of the created order (and hence, it is not merely a convention), and that since God doesn't think, He doesn't actually have a "logic" (is that correct?)? If so, that could be what is meant by "beyond" logic, though I think in this case, it would be better to say "behind" logic (as another suggested).



Logic is more than merely a set of rules for thinking - it is an aspect of existence. The law of non-contradiction, for example, says that God cannot be both good and not-good. Even outside of the created order, this law still applies, because it is an aspect of who God is - not just a rule for thinking about him. Does that make sense?

That said, it is Biblical to say that God does "think," although not in the manner we are accustomed to - His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.


----------



## Afterthought

Skyler said:


> Logic is more than merely a set of rules for thinking - it is an aspect of existence. The law of non-contradiction, for example, says that God cannot be both good and not-good. Even outside of the created order, this law still applies, because it is an aspect of who God is - not just a rule for thinking about him. Does that make sense?
> 
> That said, it is Biblical to say that God does "think," although not in the manner we are accustomed to - His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.


I'm not sure it does yet. I grant that logic is more than just a set of rules for thinking and that it is an aspect of existence, but I don't see how the view that it is a necessity of the created order (i.e., an aspect of created existence) has trouble with the example you gave. Given that God accommodates the truth to us--not that the truth loses any of its qualities but that the truth comes in human clothing so that we can understand it--we can understand that God cannot be both good and not-good just as we understand it to mean, and we would be correct in our understanding. But nevertheless, since the truth was accommodated, I do not think we would then apply the law of non-contradiction to God, anymore than we would apply emotions or arms or eyes.

Actually, it was my thinking that God doesn't think (He knows all intuitively and in a moment) that made me think that logic is a created thing. Certainly, the accommodated language is not meaningless, and so long as we understand ourselves to be speaking on an accommodated level, we can say that God "thinks" or "repents." At least, that is how I had understood the idea of "accommodation" to work.

Perhaps the main trouble with the "created logic" view is dealing with the question of whether God can know a contradiction.


----------



## Philip

The workings of the mind of God are certainly more profound than human logic could grasp, and His wisdom is certainly deeper than mere reason. But His thoughts are certainly not less than logical or less than reasonable.


----------



## earl40

Peairtach said:


> Scott Oliphint, Westminster Seminary apologetics professor, discusses God and logic at some point in this discussion about Gordon Clark and Cornelius van Til, about half-way or three-quarters-of-the-way through.
> 
> http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc163/
> 
> Our logic is analogical of - or iconic of, i.e. an image of - God's logic.
> 
> Our logic is founded on God's, otherwise logic would just be a convention, which is impossible.
> 
> God's mind is very different to ours, because He knows all things in an eternal moment, but if God was a man He would think - sinlessly - like us, and He has indeed become a Man in Christ.



I have yet to listen to this yet, though I suspect I will be a tad disappointed in that Dr. Oliphint misses the mark with the impassibility of God in the past, and I think this will cloud his thinking here.


----------



## Peairtach

earl40 said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scott Oliphint, Westminster Seminary apologetics professor, discusses God and logic at some point in this discussion about Gordon Clark and Cornelius van Til, about half-way or three-quarters-of-the-way through.
> 
> http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc163/
> 
> Our logic is analogical of - or iconic of, i.e. an image of - God's logic.
> 
> Our logic is founded on God's, otherwise logic would just be a convention, which is impossible.
> 
> God's mind is very different to ours, because He knows all things in an eternal moment, but if God was a man He would think - sinlessly - like us, and He has indeed become a Man in Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have yet to listen to this yet, though I suspect I will be a tad disappointed in that Dr. Oliphint misses the mark with the impassibility of God in the past, and I think this will cloud his thinking here.
Click to expand...


I don't think any views he may have on impassibility are relevant to what he discusses here.


----------



## Skyler

Afterthought said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logic is more than merely a set of rules for thinking - it is an aspect of existence. The law of non-contradiction, for example, says that God cannot be both good and not-good. Even outside of the created order, this law still applies, because it is an aspect of who God is - not just a rule for thinking about him. Does that make sense?
> 
> That said, it is Biblical to say that God does "think," although not in the manner we are accustomed to - His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure it does yet. I grant that logic is more than just a set of rules for thinking and that it is an aspect of existence, but I don't see how the view that it is a necessity of the created order (i.e., an aspect of created existence) has trouble with the example you gave. Given that God accommodates the truth to us--not that the truth loses any of its qualities but that the truth comes in human clothing so that we can understand it--we can understand that God cannot be both good and not-good just as we understand it to mean, and we would be correct in our understanding. But nevertheless, since the truth was accommodated, I do not think we would then apply the law of non-contradiction to God, anymore than we would apply emotions or arms or eyes.
Click to expand...


I don't think I follow what you mean by "applying emotions" and "applying the law of non-contradiction" to God.

Logic is more comparable to morality than emotions in this sense. You don't "apply" the law of non-contradiction to God any more than you "apply" the law of love. That would imply that they are higher than God. But neither can we say that God "invents" the law of non-contradiction, or the law of love, just for the sake of the creation - because that would logically mean that God himself isn't necessarily either loving or self-consistent.

Instead, we first recognize that God _is_ inherently loving and that He is inherently self-consistent - not contingent upon the existence of a creation. He doesn't lie - He doesn't say one thing and the opposite. This isn't because he's obeying a law that's higher than him, or because he's pretending for our benefit to be consistent and loving - this is His character.

It's one thing to say that the truth has been "accommodated" to us in a language that we can understand. It's another thing to say that the truths God tells us about him don't actually tell us something about His character.


----------



## Afterthought

^As I've been thinking about this topic, it seems to me it is quite a bit more involved than I had initially thought. So I'm leaving the thread for right now, though I may come back later (or maybe I'll start a thread on this some time in the future). Thanks for the conversation!


----------



## earl40

Peairtach said:


> God's mind is very different to ours, because He knows all things in an eternal moment, but if God was a man He would think - sinlessly - like us, and He has indeed become a Man in Christ.
> 
> I don't think any views he may have on impassibility are relevant to what he discusses here.



I think this is where we can say our "logic" comes about totally different than what God "knows". In other words, God does not use logic or posses logic to come to conclusions. I think this does tie into impassibility, or better yet His immutability, in that God does not "come to" but "is" which is how we should think of Him in His divine essence.


----------



## earl40

Peairtach said:


> It also means it isn't incongruent for God to become Man.



Though I know you believe Jesus took on a human nature I think to say God "became man" sounds like God changed into a man at the incarnation. Of course I know you believe in the doctrine of the incarnation and the question in the OP is dealing primarily with the divine essence of The Trinity and not the human nature of Jesus.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

LadyCalvinist said:


> Recently, I was listening to Doug Phillips and he said that God is above logic and the rules of logic. I may be misunderstanding him but he is stating that God is not bound by Logic or rationality? And what does this mean?



That argument usually means that logic is among the material creation of God. I would say that logic is the pattern of God's thought; it is non-contradictory and all comprehensive. Logic exists because of the nature of God's existence - He cannot contradict Himself. In that sense, God is logic. To say that God is above logic is to say that God could contradict Himself, which Scripture says is impossible. Knowledge exists in the form of propositions which is symbolically represented by language. We think these thoughts after God through rationality - though ours are not nearly as extensive (a severe understatement). Logic is an eternal concept - not a creation.


----------



## Rangerus

Is God above logic? yes and no. Man is limited by the highest order of logic of the mere human brain. However God operates in a logic that is above the scope and reach of mankind. 

Logic as we know it, the use of valid reasoning in most intellectual activities, and the study of modes of reasoning (those that are valid, and those that are fallacious) involves consistency, validity, soundness, and completeness. But even then some logical systems do not have all four properties. As an example, Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems show that sufficiently complex formal systems of arithmetic cannot be consistent and complete. 

Therefore, logic as we know it is limited, but God's logic is higher than man's logic. Isaiah 55:8-9 (KJV) 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.


----------



## Supersillymanable

God's thoughts are self validating and therefore are all true. God does not contradict Himself, therefore by His very being and nature, logic finds it's foundation. God is not "constrained" by logic. Logic is constrained by God. He defines logic. If God did not exist, neither would logic (or anything else for that matter).

John Frame in the Doctrine of the Knowledge of God has a lot of good stuff on this general topic and these general types of questions.


----------



## Vladimir

Rangerus said:


> However God operates in a logic that is above the scope and reach of mankind.


Now how do you mean? The difference I see in the 'two logics' is that we tend to use false premises, whereas He does not. It's a whole other thing if we say that the laws themselves are different.


----------



## Philip

Vladimir said:


> Rangerus said:
> 
> 
> 
> However God operates in a logic that is above the scope and reach of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> Now how do you mean? The difference I see in the 'two logics' is that we tend to use false premises, whereas He does not. It's a whole other thing if we say that the laws themselves are different.
Click to expand...


Does God use induction? Inductive reasoning is part of being a creature, whereas the creator has no need of it.


----------



## Vladimir

Philip said:


> Vladimir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rangerus said:
> 
> 
> 
> However God operates in a logic that is above the scope and reach of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> Now how do you mean? The difference I see in the 'two logics' is that we tend to use false premises, whereas He does not. It's a whole other thing if we say that the laws themselves are different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does God use induction? Inductive reasoning is part of being a creature, whereas the creator has no need of it.
Click to expand...

That's not a law. Although I see where you are going; so it's not the laws that are different, but the apparatus?


----------



## Skyler

Philip said:


> Vladimir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rangerus said:
> 
> 
> 
> However God operates in a logic that is above the scope and reach of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> Now how do you mean? The difference I see in the 'two logics' is that we tend to use false premises, whereas He does not. It's a whole other thing if we say that the laws themselves are different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does God use induction? Inductive reasoning is part of being a creature, whereas the creator has no need of it.
Click to expand...


This is true, but the fact that inductive reasoning "works" is because God is consistent in the way He interacts with us as creatures and upholds His creation. He isn't fickle or arbitrary, so we can deduce (for example) that since the sun has risen in the morning from time immemorial, it will probably rise again tomorrow morning. Inductive reasoning is again grounded in His character, not ours.

The argument isn't whether God "uses" logic per say. It's whether logic is something He defines, something He models, or something that defines Him.


----------



## Philip

Skyler said:


> This is true, but the fact that inductive reasoning "works" is because God is consistent in the way He interacts with us as creatures and upholds His creation. He isn't fickle or arbitrary, so we can deduce (for example) that since the sun has risen in the morning from time immemorial, it will probably rise again tomorrow morning. Inductive reasoning is again grounded in His character, not ours.



Not disputing this at all, merely pointing out that saying God uses logic may be a category mistake.



Vladimir said:


> That's not a law. Although I see where you are going; so it's not the laws that are different, but the apparatus?



I don't think that God is bound by any law outside His own character. The laws of logic are methodological assumptions which are necessary for us to explore the created order.


----------



## Vladimir

Edit: I misread Rangerus. Please disregard this.


----------



## Skyler

Philip said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true, but the fact that inductive reasoning "works" is because God is consistent in the way He interacts with us as creatures and upholds His creation. He isn't fickle or arbitrary, so we can deduce (for example) that since the sun has risen in the morning from time immemorial, it will probably rise again tomorrow morning. Inductive reasoning is again grounded in His character, not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not disputing this at all, merely pointing out that saying God uses logic may be a category mistake.
Click to expand...


I agree. =)


----------



## Afterthought

earl40 said:


> Though I know you believe Jesus took on a human nature I think to say God "became man" sounds like God changed into a man at the incarnation. Of course I know you believe in the doctrine of the incarnation and the question in the OP is dealing primarily with the divine essence of The Trinity and not the human nature of Jesus.


That seems to be the language used in the catechisms, though they use "Christ" rather than "God." WSC 22 "Christ, the Son of God, became man"


----------



## Vladimir

> Q. 21. Who is the Redeemer of God’s elect?
> A. The only Redeemer of God’s elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continueth to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, forever.


Raymond, it is good that you pointed it out. I probably should stop saying that it is incorrect to say 'became man' instead of 'took on a human nature'.


----------

