definition of logic
- Thread starter rembrandt
- Start date
- Status
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
(Isa. 55:7-9)
[7] Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. [b:65b43ff2de][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.[/b:65b43ff2de]
[7] Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. [b:65b43ff2de][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.[/b:65b43ff2de]
[quote:bf411614dc][i:bf411614dc]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:bf411614dc]
[quote:bf411614dc][i:bf411614dc]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:bf411614dc]
What is the Christian definition of "logic"? [/quote:bf411614dc]
the art and science of good reasoning vs. bad reasoning. [/quote:bf411614dc]
Logic is not an actual universal law; Rather than something that we just use to make sence out of reality (i.e. reasoning [i:bf411614dc]technique[/i:bf411614dc])?
Rembrandt
[quote:bf411614dc][i:bf411614dc]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:bf411614dc]
What is the Christian definition of "logic"? [/quote:bf411614dc]
the art and science of good reasoning vs. bad reasoning. [/quote:bf411614dc]
Logic is not an actual universal law; Rather than something that we just use to make sence out of reality (i.e. reasoning [i:bf411614dc]technique[/i:bf411614dc])?
Rembrandt
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
Don't try to out think or out rationalize God.
He doesn't have to give us a reason for His actions because He is sovereign and it is not for us to sit here and logically try to figure Him out. We just need to be about the Father's business.
Perhaps I am just not in the thnking mood tonight Paul.
Hectic day tomorrow.
He doesn't have to give us a reason for His actions because He is sovereign and it is not for us to sit here and logically try to figure Him out. We just need to be about the Father's business.
Perhaps I am just not in the thnking mood tonight Paul.
Hectic day tomorrow.
thanks! Is the following a good summary of what you said: 'logic' is how God [i:2115b0aab6]expects[/i:2115b0aab6] us to think? And that 'laws of logic' are revealed by God's logic?
[quote:2115b0aab6]So, God's holy character is needed for a foundation for the "oughtness" of logic. Etc[/quote:2115b0aab6]
If you had to write in [b:2115b0aab6]one paragraph[/b:2115b0aab6] how Christian Theism is the only worldview that can account for [specifically] 'laws of logic', what would you say? Without trying to disprove another form of Theism or anything like that... what would you say giving a positive argument?
Laws of morality is easy. But for laws of logic, would you start out by showing the incompatibility of 'atheistic materialism' with 'invisible laws'? And then ask how 'a' can always equal 'a' without changing tomorrow. If 'a' [i:2115b0aab6]could[/i:2115b0aab6] not be 'a' the next time you observe it, then it is not a law. And you have no evidence based on your empiracle observations that this truly is an always true universal law. Based on what you say, your contrivance of a 'logic' is just made up, and ole bob can come up with his own logic to observe reality.... etc. etc.
How would you do it in one paragraph with the most essential concepts?
thanks tons,
Rembrandt
[quote:2115b0aab6]So, God's holy character is needed for a foundation for the "oughtness" of logic. Etc[/quote:2115b0aab6]
If you had to write in [b:2115b0aab6]one paragraph[/b:2115b0aab6] how Christian Theism is the only worldview that can account for [specifically] 'laws of logic', what would you say? Without trying to disprove another form of Theism or anything like that... what would you say giving a positive argument?
Laws of morality is easy. But for laws of logic, would you start out by showing the incompatibility of 'atheistic materialism' with 'invisible laws'? And then ask how 'a' can always equal 'a' without changing tomorrow. If 'a' [i:2115b0aab6]could[/i:2115b0aab6] not be 'a' the next time you observe it, then it is not a law. And you have no evidence based on your empiracle observations that this truly is an always true universal law. Based on what you say, your contrivance of a 'logic' is just made up, and ole bob can come up with his own logic to observe reality.... etc. etc.
How would you do it in one paragraph with the most essential concepts?
thanks tons,
Rembrandt
- Status
