Jump to content

God, Logic, and Free Will

From GlobeMC Wiki
Revision as of 04:56, 28 October 2025 by Goby (talk | contribs) (Expanded “Common Arguments in Reply” adding detailed rebuttals with citations. Normalized capitalization and terminology. Added underline emphasis across sections for clarity.)

This article explores the idea that logic is the ultimate constant, and that if God exists, then He is that logic. Free will operates within those logical bounds rather than outside them.

Credit to “ℭ𝔥𝔞𝔯𝔩𝔢𝔰” for the debate.

Foundations of the Argument

Overview

Many religious arguments rely on scripture as primary evidence. For readers who do not share that commitment, this can appear circular. Apologetics may then look unpersuasive outside the faith community.

Logic is a shared standard that all sides can use. It does not rely on revelation but on internal consistency. If there is a God, a coherent view is that He operates through logic rather than beyond it. See the Law of Noncontradiction for the principle that underpins rational argument. [Philosophy 1]

The Limits of Omnipotence

The question "Can God make something more powerful than Himself?" is used to test the idea of unlimited power.

  1. If He can, He ceases to be the most powerful.
  2. If He cannot, there is something He cannot do.
  • Either outcome challenges absolute omnipotence.

These are not limits imposed from outside but logical boundaries that avoid contradiction.

  1. God cannot both exist and not exist.
  2. God cannot know what is fundamentally unknowable.
  3. God cannot end Himself without removing the condition for His own existence.

On how classical theology treats what cannot be known about the divine, see Apophatic Theology. [Philosophy 2] [Philosophy 3]

Why Limits Enable Power

Logical structure is what makes power real and intelligible. Without logical structure, there is no distinction between success and failure, truth and falsehood, being and nonbeing. The capacity to do what is possible in every possible case is maximal power; the “power” to do contradictions is not a power at all.

Logic as the Fundamental Constant

Logical Boundaries

If God exists, His limits are logical, not physical. Violating logic would dissolve the coherence that makes existence and meaning possible.

God as Logic

From this perspective, saying God is logic treats the divine not as a person with changing emotions but as the stable framework that makes reality intelligible. This is a philosophical stance rather than a doctrinal claim.

Infinity, Consciousness, and Existence

Eternal Consciousness Paradox

If there is infinite time or a looping universe, then an eternal consciousness would never encounter a first moment of itself. The desire for an end could arise, yet be unreachable without contradiction.

For what could any entity, conscious of eternal existence, want more than an end? [Literature 1]

Human Parallel

Human consciousness shows the same structural limits in finite form. We are finite minds within large but limited possibility. Whether consciousness is emergent or fundamental, it still follows the same logical structure; a thing cannot negate itself and remain the same. [Literature 2]

And AC said, “LET THERE BE LIGHT!” [Literature 3]

Free Will and Determinism

Free Will Within Bounds

Free will and determinism are compatible. Choices arise from prior causes, yet they remain yours because those causes include your character, memory, goals, and reasoning. For surveys of positions, see Free Will, Determinism, and Compatibilism. [Philosophy 4] [Philosophy 5] [Philosophy 6]

Free will here means the ability to act according to one’s own nature within the structure of reality. You cannot teleport or fly at will, but within human limits you still plan, choose, and act.

Applying the Same Structure to Free Will

You can test “absolute free will” with the same form used for omnipotence.

  1. If free will means the ability to do anything whatsoever, it includes doing what is logically impossible. That collapses into incoherence.
  2. If free will excludes the logically impossible, then it already operates within limits.
  • The coherent view is that free will is the rational capacity to choose among possibilities that reality allows. Limits are not defects; they define what it means for an action to be yours rather than a contradiction.

Deterministic Chaos and Unpredictability

Chaos Theory and the Three Body Problem show that deterministic systems can be hard to predict because tiny differences in starting conditions can grow into large differences in outcomes. [Theory 1] [Theory 2]

In practice, this means outcomes can feel open and be open even when the rules are deterministic. Human thought shows similar complexity; many factors interact, so the result feels like free choice even when it is fully within the system. On this view, free will is deterministic chaos made conscious: the self organizing unpredictability of a rational agent operating inside an ordered universe.

Common Arguments in Reply

“He can do it because he is God.”

Letting contradictions count as “possible” destroys meaning. If “anything” includes logical contradictions, then terms like God, power, good, or exists lose stable meaning. The Law of Noncontradiction is the condition for any statement to be true or false. A claim that erases the conditions for meaning is not a solution but an escape from logic. [Philosophy 7]

“With God all things are possible.”

Possible means logically possible. A square circle or two plus two equaling five is not a real state of affairs, it is an incoherent description. Power ranges over realities that can exist, not over contradictions. This is what the omnipotence paradox exposes. Clarifying possibility does not limit God; it preserves meaning so that statements about God can be true rather than undefined noise. [Philosophy 8]

“Human logic cannot contain God.”

Without logic, statements about God lose content. Theology and scripture use identity and noncontradiction to say what God is and is not. Applying logic does not shrink the divine, it makes discourse about the divine possible. See classical logic for the background that underwrites such reasoning. [Philosophy 9]

“Logic is a human creation. God transcends logic because He created it.”

Creation presupposes logic. To create X rather than not X requires identity, difference, and cause. Saying God existed before logic makes before, existence, and cause undefined. A framework cannot be produced by an act that needs that framework to be intelligible. Classical theology treats the logically impossible as outside the scope of power. See apophatic theology and Aquinas on divine power. [Philosophy 10]

“If everything is determined then free will is an illusion.”

Freedom is agency inside causality, not escape from it. Your choices arise from reasons, values, and character that are genuinely yours. This is the core of compatibilism. Complex deterministic systems in Chaos Theory and the Three Body Problem show how tiny differences can yield large outcome differences, explaining why agency can feel open while remaining inside an ordered reality. [Philosophy 11] [Theory 3]

“Contradictions can be true in paraconsistent logic.”

Paraconsistency manages inconsistency, it does not make contradiction a guide for choice. Norms that license both A and not A cannot direct an agent toward one action rather than another. Practical freedom needs discriminating reasons, which presuppose noncontradiction in deliberation. [Philosophy 12]


“Faith surpasses reason.”

Reason sets the boundary of what claims can mean, faith can shape what you do within those boundaries. On this view, faith informs aims and commitments, while logic secures coherence. Free will remains reasons responsive, not contradiction permissive. A believer’s choices can be faithful and rational when they track reasons that do not violate basic logic. See faith and reason for historical approaches. [Philosophy 13]

“Humans cannot judge God’s logic.”

If no rational standards apply, praise and blame lose footing, and moral responsibility erodes. Practical life demands reasons that can be assessed, or free will reduces to arbitrary fiat. Appeals to hiddenness do not remove the need for public reasons that guide action. Agency requires intelligible norms that agents can grasp and follow. See divine hiddenness. [Philosophy 14] [Philosophy 15]

“Omniscience means God knows the unknowable.”

Refining omniscience preserves both logic and meaningful freedom. Accounts like Ockhamism, middle knowledge, or open futurism adjust what is foreknown or how it is known without endorsing contradictions. Free will remains intact when foreknowledge does not fix choices but tracks them as chosen. [Philosophy 16]

“Logic may differ in other possible worlds.”

Necessities like noncontradiction anchor deliberation across worlds; freedom is evaluated by how agents respond to reasons in nearby possibilities. Compatibilist responsibility focuses on whether your decision procedure would track reasons across similar cases, not on changing logical laws. Free will is stable because its standards are modal but not arbitrary. See modal logic. [Philosophy 17] [Philosophy 18]

“Miracles show logic can be broken.”

Miracles, if real, expand the evidence and the option set, they do not authorize contradictions. An unexpected event can change what you reasonably choose, yet your will remains reasons responsive inside logic. Water becoming wine may revise beliefs about nature, but it does not make square circles possible. [Philosophy 19]

“Determinism destroys moral responsibility.”

Responsibility tracks reasons responsiveness, not indeterminism. If your mechanism would recognize and act on reasons across nearby cases, accountability remains appropriate. This preserves free will as a capacity to govern action by reasons, even in a deterministic setting. [Philosophy 20] [Philosophy 21]

“Indeterminism grants freedom.”

Randomness adds uncertainty, not control. A chancy brain twitch does not make a choice more yours. Freedom improves when actions flow from stable character and reasons that you endorse. Agent centered accounts aim to secure ownership without appealing to contradiction. [Philosophy 22]

“Religious experience overrides logical analysis.”

Experience motivates, logic adjudicates. Powerful experiences can supply reasons and reframe goals, but interpretation still uses concepts and inferences that must be coherent. That is how free agents compare options and commit without collapsing into arbitrariness. See William James for classic accounts. [Literature 4]

“Language is relative, so logic is only a practice.”

Different language games still rely on internal coherence to guide action. Explanations of choice use beliefs and desires linked by inference, not by contradiction. Free will as practical reasoning depends on that minimal structure, whatever the vocabulary. See Wittgenstein. [Philosophy 23]

References

Theory

  1. ↑ Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Chaos Theory”
  2. ↑ Edward N. Lorenz: “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow” (1963). DOI: 10.1175/1520-0469(1963)020<0130:DNF>2.0.CO;2
  3. ↑ Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Chaos Theory”; Edward N. Lorenz, “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow” (1963), DOI: 10.1175/1520-0469(1963)020<0130:DNF>2.0.CO;2

Philosophy

  1. ↑ Aristotle: Metaphysics, Book IV. Overview: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Aristotle’s Metaphysics”
  2. ↑ Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q25 to Q26. Text: New Advent Q25 and Q26
  3. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Omnipotence”
  4. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Free Will”
  5. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Causal Determinism”
  6. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Compatibilism”
  7. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Omnipotence”
  8. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Omnipotence”
  9. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Classical Logic”
  10. ↑ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q25–Q26. Text: New Advent Q25, Q26
  11. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Free Will”; “Causal Determinism”; “Compatibilism”
  12. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Paraconsistent Logic”
  13. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Faith”
  14. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Divine Hiddenness”
  15. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Moral Responsibility”
  16. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Foreknowledge and Free Will”
  17. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Modal Logic”
  18. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Moral Responsibility”
  19. ↑ David Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, “Of Miracles” (public domain)
  20. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Moral Responsibility”
  21. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Compatibilism”
  22. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Free Will”
  23. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Ludwig Wittgenstein”

Literature

  1. ↑ Isaac Asimov: “The Last Answer” (1980). Bibliography: ISFDB • Overview: Asimov Fandom
  2. ↑ Albert Camus: The Myth of Sisyphus (1942). Overview: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Albert Camus”
  3. ↑ Isaac Asimov: “The Last Question” (1956). Bibliography: ISFDB • Background copy: Multivax
  4. ↑ William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902), public domain editions available


Retrieved from "https://globemc.net/wiki/index.php?title=God,_Logic,_and_Free_Will&oldid=775"