If your G_d can be anything, do anything, etc etc etc, then you might as well be talking aboot nothing.  For communication to happen, we have to accept limits.

When we limit G_d, then the really interesting stuff happens (which can be as simple as 'Everything in this here Book is G_d').

In this excerpt:

"In applying this principle of non-contradiction to matters of faith, the personal God of Judaism and Christianity is not compatible with the impersonal Brahman of Hinduism.  Either God is an intelligent deity, who is distinct from the universe that he made, or he is an unconscious and impersonal pantheistic god, who is in and part of everything - or neither description is true - but he can't be both in any meaningful sense.  Both concepts could be wrong, of course, but they can't both be right ..." (Mittleberg, 50)

Mittleberg isn't just writing what he is writing.  There is IMPLIED stuff with every word he writes.  "G_d of Judaism" means something, "compatible" means something...but here there is a problem:  if he is implying that 'the G_d of Judaism' and the 'G_d of Christianity' are the same, whose responsibility is it?  Is Mittleberg implying a G_d concept as in my first paragraph?  What happens when Mittleberg doesn't use the term G_d in his paragraph?  Does it need the term?  What does the term mean and what doesn't it mean?  If it has multiple meanings, which one do we use?

In other words, we apply limations to whatever it is that we are looking at and see what we can see.

Really?  Can "nothing" be anything, do anything, etc., etc., etc.?  How is that possible?  Nothing is nothing, right?  It can't be anything other than nothing.  But G_d...  unless, G_d is Nothing.  And actually, maybe G_d is  "No Thing"!  That's very possible, isn't it? 

Yes, yes, absolutely!  But I think Mittleberg isn't just talking about communication.  I think he is talking about the "LAW" of noncontradiction, and in his quote is appears as if that "LAW" was bigger than G_d and as if that "LAW" dictated what G_d can and cannot be or do.  That's the thing that I'm kinda unsure about.

I totally get his question: can G_d be both A and B if in our human real A and B are totally mutually exclusive and contradictory?  His answer: absolutely not!

And I'm saying, why?  I don't think it's an issue of loss of communication or mutual understanding here.  

Hmmm, that's interesting.  "When we limit G_d, then the really interesting stuff happens".  Let me maul that one over a bit. 

Hmmm.  Yes.  And we do limit G_d, all the time.  And yes, all sorts of interesting things do happen.

Mittleberg is saying that there is a "LAW" that says, you must limit G_d or else you are wrong... or something like that.  And I'm just not so sure that's the case.  

It comes down to logic.  Laws of logic.  Not my strong point.  Did try it at university.  Seems like a bit of a fun game.  But why does it constrain what G_d can be or is??

That's all for now, baby is fussy.

A.

Hi Agnieszka:

I think God can be and is both: the personal God of Christianity and the impersonal God of Pantheism.

In the cosmic analysis, Creator and Created (as well as any other pair of diametric opposites) are separate entities. In the cosmic synthesis, the two unite into one inseparable whole. And what unites and separates them is the transcendental power of Creating.

In the analysis, Creator⇔Creating⇔Created are three separate entities. In the synthesis, they are one inseparable whole (a.k.a. the Godhead). The analysis and the synthesis are opposite forms of truth that are simultaneously true, but the TRUTH of the synthesis is the greater and ultimate TRUTH, simply because the cosmos is in an ultimate state of synthesis, and the analysis thereof is only the analysis.

The ultimate TRUTH of synthesis, however, is inexpressible in analytical terms and concepts (all of our concepts are analytical concepts) The TRUTH of synthesis is anti-logical, if you will. The TRUTH of synthesis can only be experienced, and is being expereinced, in the pure, unmediated, unconceptualized and non-analyzed experience.

That doesn't mean that our analyses are not true. They are true, but we must bear in mind that that which we analyze actually is in an inseparable state of synthesis. Any analysis or conceptualization of that state constitutes a fragmentation, whereas that which we analyze actually is an unfragmented whole.

In the cosmic analysis, the personal God of orthodox Christianity is true. In the cosmic synthesis, the impersonal Godhead of pantheism is TRUE. And the two oppsosite truths complement each other and prove each other truthful. And the two truths in one is, I think, panentheism.

The Principle of Complementarity, whereby opposites complement each other, necessitate each other, prove each other truthful, and, ultimately, are each other, is the guiding physical and spiritual principle of the universe.

Our knowledge is fragmentary, and our prophecies are fragmentations.

But when that which is perfect has come, then the fragmentation will end.

1 Cor 13:9,10, Luther Version

So they loved, as love in twain

Had the essence but in one;

Two distincts, division none;

Number there in love was slain.

-From THE PHOENIX AND THE TURTLE by W. Shakespeare

 If god was so rational by human standards, why would she be so hard to understand?

There are certain concepts that are only understood by mere humans in a way that we refer to as logic.  One could argue that God created a universe that has clear and incontrovertable "Laws" such as logic, thermodynamics, motion etc. Through revelation, science and philosophy we have recognized these laws and described them.

Logic is the only way that we can understand truth.  It gives us the ability to determine truth and dismiss ideas or concepts that cannot be true, regardless of how interesting, novel or unique the false idea might sound.  The Law of Non-contrdiction is a "Law" because it trancends the level of Hypothisis or Theory and is absolute.God is absolute so it is easy to understand how one would attribute logic to God and assume that God does not break His own laws.  Where many stuggle in the understanding of the Doctirne of God is when they try to reconcile the omnicience of God with the limitations of His laws.  How can God who is all powerfula and all knowing be limited by laws? Can he break those laws?  The claim that God is being limited or "less than God" if He is constrained by His laws is simply a lack of our own understanding.  God is beyond our understanding but many of his attibutes as revealed to us an can be understood at a level that is relevent and important to a beleiver.

The simple answer to the origianl question posed here is thie.  Can God be non-God? Is there such a thing as a married bachelor?  Can a circle be a square?

The answer to these questions are no. Each word has a definition that is cncise.  In the comparison of a square to our definition of God is becomes obvious that, unlike the square the definition of God is not universally understood. That is why questions like this come up.  The God of the Torah and the Bible does not break His laws of logic etc but still remains all powerfull, all knowing and whithour limits. Any god who does act without logic or restraint  is not Him. Understanding His laws is a great way to learn more about our creator.

(See, this is the kind of thing that a writer like Mittleberg would essentially scoff at.  I don't know this for a fact, but I have read about his attitude towards Zen Koans...  It's disappointing, I know.)

This reading of things requires that one not place the Creator above the other two.  But, in the deistic view, the one who creates is viewed as the one with all the power... actually, in most people's view of the world that is the case, too.  

I hear what you are saying.   When I put myself in the shoes of a deist and read this, it seems idolatrous to say that Creator is same as Creation... Creation is not perfect.  Creator is perfect.  Right?  And Creator is above Creation.  Aaaaand Creator has power over Creation.  The hierarchy is firmly established.  How does one get around that?

Would this be an example of the Tao?  James' The Ineffable?  (Althought, I highly doubt there is anything out there that I won't "eff" at.  Just kidding!)  

I agree with you.  It seems to me that when we have convinced ourselves that our human logic has worked out G_d and has Her all figured out, we're foolin' ourselves in a big way.  In fact, I've contacted the publishers of Mittleberg's book in the hopes of telling him that myself. :-)  Or at least, asking him some pointed questions.  

Anti-logic... is that like paradox??

The Tao of which is speak is not the Tao.  We catch a glimpse, and we lack the words anyway.  Anything we do figure out and put out there, we do very poorly.  Paul talked about this at length.

So how does this Christian, Mittleberg, argue such a thing??  I don't get it... 

Why is one "true", in lower case, and the "TRUE" in caps?

But I am pretty certain that the deist would strongly object. See, it appears as though the personal God of orthodox Christianity is just some small interpretation of  THE BIG ONE.  

And, then there is the view that the personal God of orthodox Christianity creates in a personal way.  Perhaps "He" permeates creations, etc..  But "He" is squarely at the top of this hierarchy.  

Why do you think the insistance on this??

Again, putting myself in the shoes of a deist, how is this an improvement on having a G_d who already IS the guiding physical and spiritual principle of the universe?

Yes!  Can I ask where you found this version? Is in it German??  Or if it is in English, where does one find one?

Interestingly, this makes me think of some of the ideas I've read about the Christ and G_d.

Thanks!

A.

Hi Theodore!  I haven't seen your name around here so if you are new to the Cafe, Welcome!

But, alas, I can't get to most of  your post at the moment as other commitments require my time.

I do have a couple of questions to start with, though.

Are you saying here that God created the law of Non-contradiction?  Does this law apply to nature and the contradictions in the natural world as created by God?  

How about other laws that God created, can they also be attributed to God?  Well, no... God is not bound by Law of Gravity ... so why could God be bound by Law of Non-contradiction or any laws of logic that humans have devised? And how do we decide which laws apply to God and which don't anyway?  Seems like we're devising a God that fits our little minds...

Anyway, fascinating stuff.  Looking forward to the rest of your post!

Cheers,

A.

Logic is FAR from the only way humans can approach truth... how about aesthetic truth, musical or poetic truth? How about relational truth? Logic is a cultural device. It is considered superior by those who apply it, but so are other ways of thinking by those who think those ways. 

But even the users of logic as we know it are susceptible to selective observations, partiality, illusion, information gaps and information overloads. As a species, even with some clever observational technologies, we get to work with only a small sampling from a particular part of what might well be an infinity of infinities. All of our insights, no matter how we have come to them, are species specific. And science is not wholly persuaded that the "laws of nature" have always been the same, now that they apply as we experience them in every part of the universe. The very nature of time and space is open to debate.

To assume we'd necessarily catch on to "god logic" is pushing egocentricity into a preposterous zone. And how would we ever be sure we had? 

I think there's more than a little evolution to be done before the earth's home to creatures smart enough to understand the question, let alone answer it.

God created the law of non-contradiction, but he also didn't create the law of non-contradiction. 

Hi Agnieszka:

Lots of questions. I'll try to answer them:

My quote of 1 Cor 13:9,10 is from the German Luther Bible. The translation into English is by me. In don't know whether there is any official translation of the Luther Bible into English. In the original German, Luther's 1 Cor 13:9,10 reads as follows:

Denn unser Wissen ist Stückwerk, und unser Weissagen ist Stückwerk.

Wenn aber kommen wird das Vollkommene, so wird das Stückwerk aufhören.

I've heard from Greek scholars, who know this quote in the original Greek, that Luther's translation is closer to the original Koine Greek than the various English translations.

To me, the trinity of Creator⇔Creating⇔Created is The Holy Trinity, and neither of these three "persons" of the Holy Trinity takes precedence over the other. What takes precendence over all three, though, is the Godhead into which the three unite.

The Godhead is the ultimate albeit unspeakable TRUTH of synthesis. I capitalize that TRUTH because IT is the ultimate TRUTH and the ultimate state of being.

The analysis of that state is necessarily undertaken from a particular viewpoint, which is arbitrarily chosen by the analyzer, contemplator or observer. Thus, the analysis (any analysis) constitutes an arbitrary creation. In other words, analytical truth is always relative to the observers' viewpoint, which is arbitrarily created by the observer. The truth of analysis is relative; the TRUTH of synthesis is absolute. Thats why I spell the truth of analysis in lower case letters and the TRUTH of synthesis in capitals.

The relativeness of the truth of analysis does not mean that it isn't true. The analysis is true, but only from a particular chosen viewpoint. If we choose a different viewpoint, than a different truth becomes true. Analyzing is creating; conceptualizing is creating. We humans are the creators of our conceptual reality. The Cretaor⇔Creating⇔Created trinity is an arbitrary analytical creation, which applies as much backward as it does forward: Created⇔Creating⇔Creator That's why I insert the equal sign with arrows pointing both ways. Creating is what links the two (the missing link :-)

I feel and think that, in us and through us humans, the Godhead is analyzing ITself. And this analysis, like any analysis, is an arbitrary creation.

Even scientfic analysis necessarily proceeds from a particular viewpoint, which is arbitrarily chosen by the analyzer or observer. Even the most basic scientific analysis has two different albeit diametrically opposed viewpoints and truths: particle or wave. More complex analyses have more, and something as complex as the human experience has an almost limitless number of possible viewpoints and truths, every one of them arbitrarily created by the observer.

The ultimate TRUTH of synthesis, however, remains eternally unchanging. But, as the Taoist philosopher Lao Tsu pointed ot 2.500 years ago, IT cannot be verbalized. Thus, all of the explanations I just wrote are my relative and arbitrarily created creations, and I offer them in that spirt.

The problem with much of the discussion is does not stay with the first premise - how God can be both impersonal and personal.   It is like a round square.   This leads to the next question of what is meant by personal?  If one accepts that God cannot be both impersonal and personal.  I think this is true.  However, it does not finish the issue of the model or doctrine of God.

God does not have to be omnipotent to be personal. God can have God power but is not the only actor in every event, that is other actual entities have power to influence.  This leads next the type of Power God has - influence. It is perusasive only.

The next question has to do with omnipresent.  This can be impersonal as in pantheism. Or it can be personal as in Judaism and Christianity.  ( Here one must accept that the history of these faiths has been based on a personal God, that is a God who cares and interacts with the world - how is another question)   Thus in the doctrines of Judaism and Christianity God is omnipresent in a personal way, where as in a pantheistic view it ( note the it) is present in a non personal way.

To solve the problem, panentheism suggests both personal and omnipresent without the omnipotent.  This view also rejects knows the future before it happens.  This solves the issue the original quote set up and affirms the intent of noncontradiction, without making God omnipotent and other theological mistakes.  This is what is meant with God is in the world and the world is in God and God is more than the world.

It is this phrase that is not needed to make his point " who is distinct from the universe that he made"  Relationality suggest both connected and individual - part of the other and being an other - discrete.  It is the many becoming one, and increased by one.

Amen to that!  Why is it, do you think, that logic seems to always appear more true, more respectable than other ways of knowing/approaching truth?

It seems to come back to human desire for certainty... We want to know what only G_d knows, some would say.  

That's just the thing.  We can't know.  Unless we make the claim that we have seen into the Mind of G_d.  Some have done that.  What do you make of that??  

Amen, again, and Halleluia! too.  Because if what humanity is at now is as good as it gets, that would really suck. 

mike said it well.  However, I was addressing the issue presented - a formal philosophical trope of using a particular but not the fullest way of speaking about God.  It is attempt to deal with the desire of many to make a word mean what they want it to mean - a very subjective defination that only is true for the speaker, and thus, not able to share with others - as has been pointed out there is a tendancy is our culture to empose a belief system and not test it for internal consistancy which is needed to communicate.

One of the problems many have is they define a word idiosyncratically- and that is too often a case in wondercafe.... it makes learning from others hard.  There is formal discussion where what is needed is agreed upon defination so they can be debated challenged and changed.

I think that the original premise is actually "is God bound by logic?" as opposed to "can God be both impersonal and personal?"  I think that because the personal/impersonal is actually an example of the logic question.  If God IS bound by logic than no, God can't be both personal and impersonal simultaneously, particularly not as Mittelberg describes the two options.  

What do you mean by "it is like a round square"?  Do you mean that the question itself is contradictory and therefore impossible?

I don't understand what you refer to when you say "I think this is true".  Can you explain?

No, the issue of a doctrine/theology of God is certainly not finished! I'm happy to talk about it here!

Very interesting.  In the orthodox Christian context, there is often talk of angels - and other agent of God.  And then there is The Enemy.  Is that what you are referring to?  Would you say more about "other actual entities" who have power to influence?  Do they do so outside of God's requests?  Out of their own volition?  I know The Enemy is said to, but what about the other entities?

Do you believe they exist?  Is it like, in a spirit form?  

Okay, but does that really solve the personal/impersonal God question?  Can God be personal and impersonal in the way the Mittelberg describes the two options??  You say that panentheism suggestion a personal and all-present-everywhere-at-the-same-time God, yes?  

In the quote I started with, Mittelberg says "an unconscious and impersonal god, who is in and part of everything" VERSUS "an intelligent deity who is distinct from the universe that he made".  Is the God your theology describes really both simultaneously? Am I missing something?

A personal and omnipresent but not omniscient or omnipotent God sounds to me - and please forgive the simplification here - like a slightly less powerful version of the Orthodox Christian version that Mittelberg defines.  

Who says that?  Just curious.  Is that in the bible somewhere?

But see, Mittelberg, and others like him, do need that phrase God "is distinct from the universe that he made".  This is a huge part of that theology: a deity acting on and in the world but from the outside, unaffected by the world other than due to his compassion and love for his creation, having a perspective on the world like nothing a human mind can have.  Which is why it's so ironic that he would also argue this deity is bound by a law of non-contradiction...

Cheers,

A.

Hey Azdgari, I totally agree and completely disagree with you here!  Now get back to studying for those exams! 

Huh.  I can actually understand that!  I used to be fluent in German but it's been very long and I don't use it at all.  I will have to check what the translation is in Polish.  I'm curious about the English translation of Luther's bible.  Wonder if it exists.

So, is that still a deistic perspective?  Is The Holy Trinity here, the Godhead as you describe it anything like what Orthodox Christianity teaches?  Or maybe you are trying to use an orthodox Christian concept in a much broader sense?

In other words, if I am an orthodox Christian, and my analysis is based on my orthodox Christian viewpoint, I will perceive the TRUTH of synthesis in terms of orthodox Christianity, and I will speak of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, etc..  Yes?  But my analysis will be relative to the fact that I happen to be an orthodox Christian.  I could also be a Hindu and then I would speak of God as the impersonal Brahman; my analysis would be different.  None of that affects the actual reality of what you call "the TRUTH of synthesis", yes?

But, wait.  How do you know that what you know is the TRUTH of synthesis??  

Also, clearly, an orthodox Christian, Jew or Hindu might argue vehemently that theirs are NOT arbitrarily chosen analyses based on their viewpoints at all...

So, any arbitrarily chosen analysis, based on one's particular viewpoint is true irregardless of whether that analysis is in total contradiction with the analysis based on a different viewpoint? And the lowercase "t" truth is a relative thing because we, humans, are creating our conceptual reality.  

This leads me to wonder, again, can the absolute TRUTH ever be known by humans? 

But, to bring it back to the original question "is God bound by logic?", how does what you say offer an answer? It seems that, whether God is bound by logic or not depends on what the viewpoint and chosen analysis is of the person asking the question.

BUT, at the same time, this analysis is really just a "cover" for the real TRUTH as you have described your vision of it.  Because the actual TRUTH is unknowable and inexpressable in   So, any analysis can be argued with, disproven as it is only a personal version.  In which case, the question "is God bound by logic?" is kinda meaningless because it simply depends on what you happen to believe.
 

And since it is your arbitrary analytical creation, this is your answer. Okay.

Above you said that the truth of analysis is relative (meaning, there are various faiths, interpretations, etc..) but the TRUTH of synthesis is absolute (meaning, there is only one TRUTH behind the various interpretations?).  Some say this differently - there are many paths, there is only one peak of the mountain, something like that...  

How do you figure this is the case? 

I hear your point.  An orthodox Christian may well call what you refer to as "the TRUTH of synthesis" GOD and wonder why you don't.  

You realize what this means: in other words, what Mittelberg says is true, too.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha...  That's just hilarious!  

Agnieszka

Hi again, Panentheism, 

Please forgive me, but I'm not always understanding what you mean.

What do you mean here?  Are you referring to the question "is God bound by logic"?  What is "a particular but not the fullest way of speaking about God"? 

Are we talking about God here?  I'm all for internal consistency, just not sure if you are referring to particular system?  

I will leave it at that, I don't think I can respond without understanding the context of your comment here.

Cheers!

A.

Can God lift and unliftable object?  No, becuse if God could, the object would not be unliftable, now would it?  There is a more serious point to be made here: we affirm as Christians that God is "all-powerful," b ut we can't really define what that means in biblical terms.  God may be the Creator of all, the most powerful force in the univ erse, yet there may be many feats of which God is incapable.  Biblical words for "power" and "all" lack the precision in a Hebrew world to allow us to press these terms beyond biblical limits. 

Hi Agnieszka:

Yes, I think what Mittelberg wrote is true—from his viewpoint. I, however, occupy a different viewpoint and have a different truth. And I regard choosing one's viewpoint and analyzing reality from that viewpoint as art, and our analyses or concepts as artistic creations. Thus, your and my creations are as metaphorically true as those of Mittelberg or stephenbooth or anyone else. Artists don't argue the absolute truthfulness of their works; they just share them. I regard this forum as a sharing of our conceptual creations.

There is, however, a qualitative aspect to the art of conceptualization. The quality in the art of conceptualization (or the Zen in the art of conceptualization, if you will :-) lies in its proximity to the ultimate TRUTH of inseparableness or synthesis. The closer a work of conceptual art comes to the ultimate TRUTH, the greater it is.

There is a Zen art whereby the artist dips his brush into ink, slaps an inkblot onto a blank page, and then, intuitively, without thinking, makes drawing out of the random configuration of the inkblot. The psychotherapeutic equivalent of this is a patient stating whatever pops into his mind unthinkingly when looking at an inkblot. This is known as the Rorschach Inkblot Test.

I think the universe is the ultimate Rorschach Inkblot. We create the meanings of the cosmic blot. But, if we want the meanings to metaphorically express the ultimate TRUTH of the blot, then we best create the meanings intuitively, directly from the experience of the the blot.

To me, ultimate TRUTH is GOD. IT also is LOVE, because the experience of ultimate TRUTH results in an upwelling of unitive LOVE. To divide ultimate TRUTH into three—a (any) pair of opposites, together with the transcendental power that unites and separates the two—is one of my analyses that came directly out of my experience of ultimate TRUTH. That's why I call it the "Holy Trinity." My Holy Trinity comes close to the Taoist and the scientific Principle of Complementarity. As I have stated many times before, I consider the Principle of Complementarity to be the foremost spiritual and physical principle. And I regard the conventional Christian Holy Trinity as a metaphorical expression of the Principle of Complementarity.

Replying to the main question of this thread, "Is GOD bound by logic?", I'd say, "No, GOD is not bound by logic! The TRUTH which is GOD is synthesis, which is beyond logic. We can and do logically explain IT, but these explanations are our artistic and metaphorical creations. GOD, as IT really is, is beyond analytical comprehension."

If one is an orthodox Christian, and experiences ultimate TRUTH, one invariably explains IT in terms of orthodox Christianity. If one is an atheist or agnostic, one uses terms of non-religious philosophy or poetic metaphors. Everyone has their own unique interpretive framework, and uses it to interpret phenomena. And everyone's interpretation is equally valid, except, I think, for the aforementioned quality.

Everything I write is, of course, based on my own unique viewpoint, and I share it with the WonderCafe community in a spirit of artistc sharing. 

Can I just make one request, Berserk?  That you please speak for yourself as a Christian?  As opposed to "we ... as Christians"?  There are a great variety of "us Christians" around these parts, and we certainly don't affirm the same things...  Thanks!

As to your point that that, biblically, God is incapable of many feats, can you say how you come to that conclusion?  And also, how does this fit in the discussion here?  

A.

Does that mean that Christianity, with all of its theology, reflection on scripture, grand works of translation, interpretation, etc., etc, are all "works of art"?  Or Islam?  

If it does, how does truth play a part there at all?

Art does express some form of truth, yes, but usually not in the "meaning of life/death" sort of a way.  People do not reach to art to explain or address serious "meaning of life/death" questions.  

Who decides which "work of conceptual art comes closer to the ultimate TRUTH" and how does one go about it?

So, using your metaphor here, how was a faith (aka conceptual art) like Christianity created?  And what part did Jesus play?  And, how close to expressing the ultimate TRUTH is Christianity versus Islam, Hinduism vs. Judaism?  Who gets to decide that?  Or does it all depend on personal preference? 

 But if the closeness to TRUTH of any given faith/conceptual creation depends on one's personal liking, is it really close to TRUTH or is it personal preference?  Is the cheese I like any better than the cheese you like?  OR can that even be discussed?

How would you ever know if your conceptual creation is closer to the TRUTH?

A.

Some people may not reach for art to address life/death questions, but I do. To me, however, all conceptualization is art. This includes the religious expressions of all belief systems.

How does truth play a part there?

As I said, the conceptual creations that come closest to the ultimate TRUTH are our qualitatively highest works of conceptual art. Scientific truth probably comes closest; doctrines, theology, mythology and other spirtual expressions also come close if they reflect the spirit of synthesis. 

How do I know all that, and how do I know that my explanations come close to the ultimate TRUTH?

I don't. But my explanations arise from what I feel and think is direct experience of TRUTH, as directly as possible, directly from my intuitions, meditations, and mystical experiences. My interpretive framework, however, did and does play a role, and has have influenced my creations toward the direction of Zen Buddhism, Sufism, and Christian mysticism.

In all, I feel and think that synthetical or holistic intelligence has been there all along, that the original intelligence of GOD is holistic intelligence, that the universe has evolved along the lines of holistic intelligence, and that the synthetical universe, a.k.a. GOD, finally evolved its opposite intelligence—logical intelligence—and is now able to analyze ITself. In and through us humans, the Godhead is analyzing ITself. But, because the Godhead is in an ultimate state of synythesis, the analysis is a metaphorical re-creation of the unspeakable ultimate TRUTH of synthesis.

Is God bound by logic?

Well that would mean God embodies all the answers. But it also means that those answers don't always have to make sense--- to us. So I suppose from our perspective, God may not be logical.

Too often we expect God to fit into our world in order to make sense, instead of us attempting to see from God's perspective....which is probably impossible 100% of the time, but still, we continue to try.

How about this:  Is the god that one understands, bound by logic?

If one makes no claims to understand his or her god, then it certainly can't be expected to be bound by logic.  It's not bound by anything, since it's not understood.  But if a human claims to understand his or her god, then that god must be bound by the logic of that human's mind - otherwise it could not be understood.

That's a pretty fine bit of thinking there.

Except, there are a number of WC members who are not bound by logic, either.

Well, that sure makes for an awesome breading ground for misunderstanding and miscommunication. 

And if you can claim to have access to what all of us Christians affirm, perhaps there is really no need for conversation at all?  You know it all already, right? ;-)

See, this is confusing:  you can affirm on behalf of all Christians that "God is all powerful", but the precise meaning of the term is uncertain.  How does that even make sense?  WHAT are you affirming then, exactly?

The thing is that a regular person takes the word for what it means and doesn't worry so much about the contradictions.  OR takes the word to mean that it is a compliment, a way of saying just how amazing God is.  Period.  Since you can't argue or change the minds of all the Christians out there, can we just go with those definitions?   Also, I'm still looking for the connection to the question: is God bound by logic?

Again, this is not the type of analysis that most folks engage in.  Can we agree on that?  So, in that case, is it possible that words are taken to mean something that most people agree with?

What do you mean that the premise of this thread is too premature?  What do we need to wait for before asking that question in the title of the thread: is God bound by magic?  You have expounded at length about the imprecise meanings of certain terms in the Bible, but where is the connection to my question?       

Thanks

EDIT: fixed up the formatting

Women ARE hard to understand.  But so many times I can't count them, God is called Father in scripture  :)

Agnieszka

you give some very good responses and questions.
First this quote: 
I have been reading Mark Mittleberg's Choosing Your Faith, and came across his argument that God is bound by what he calls "the law of noncontradiction".”

I wonder, having not read the whole piece whether he actually is speaking about God or our speaking about God when he uses the philosophical idea of the law of noncontradiction.
He then moves on to personal and impersonal and how God cannot be both, but has to be one or the other.  He then uses one theological understanding, and I suggest is the confusion between onmipotent and allmighty. ( I will come back this later).  I also think that the arugment is also God is bound, and that only means the character of God has to be either personal or impersonal. To be both is like a round square - a nonsense statement.  This the logic he is following.

I agree given the premise he begins with that God is either personal or impersonal, and a theological perspective cannot hold both.  However, that does not address the next level of the question of how God is perceived.  Logic is not the only way we can experience the divine, it is one way, however, one can experience the divine as other in the sense of more or mystey  and that might feel like impersonal.  However, theology must begin with the biblical view of God as personal and how that then is worked out is a theological task. I think that is what he is suggesting.
Panentheism wrote:
This leads to the next question of what is meant by personal?  If one accepts that God cannot be both impersonal and personal.  I think this is true.  However, it does not finish the issue of the model or doctrine of God.
I don't understand what you refer to when you say "I think this is true".  Can you explain? 

I am suggesting that God in Godself cannot be both personal and impersonal.  What we do is create a model for our time that begins in what is a primary doctrine.
No, the issue of a doctrine/theology of God is certainly not finished! I'm happy to talk about it here!

Panentheism wrote:
 
God does not have to be omnipotent to be personal. God can have God power but is not the only actor in every event, that is other actual entities have power to influence.
Very interesting.  In the orthodox Christian context, there is often talk of angels - and other agent of God.  And then there is The Enemy.  Is that what you are referring to?  Would you say more about "other actual entities" who have power to influence?  Do they do so outside of God's requests?  Out of their own volition?  I know The Enemy is said to, but what about the other entities?
Do you believe they exist?  Is it like, in a spirit form?  
I a suggesting that what is called the orthodox theology ( tradition) is actually a human construction based on the insight that God cares for this world and seeks to influence it for the better.
To be omnipotent came into theology later than the biblical record and is read back in.  It comes in via the early theologians like Augustine, Aquanis, Luther, and Calvin.  It is a response to Greek philosophy in its many forms.
All mighty does not mean omnipotent. We can read that differently to suggest God has power and so do actual entites ( actual entites are life forms like us - it is be an agent in creation of what will be) The power is a difference in degreea not kind - think of this way, we have more power to influence than a baby but the baby also has power that come with being that life form.  In like manner God has primordal aims that are consitent - beauty/truth, intensity, harmony and novelty, that are offered to each nanosecond. but can only be offered persuasively, not by force.  It can be rejected by life forms or included in our actions, which creates a new moment of agency or causing something to happen.
Panentheism wrote:
The next question has to do with omnipresent.  This can be impersonal as in pantheism. Or it can be personal as in Judaism and Christianity.  ( Here one must accept that the history of these faiths has been based on a personal God, that is a God who cares and interacts with the world - how is another question)   Thus in the doctrines of Judaism and Christianity God is omnipresent in a personal way, where as in a pantheistic view it ( note the it) is present in a non personal way.
To solve the problem, panentheism suggests both personal and omnipresent without the omnipotent.  This view also rejects knows the future before it happens.  This solves the issue the original quote set up and affirms the intent of noncontradiction, without making God omnipotent and other theological mistakes.
Okay, but does that really solve the personal/impersonal God question?  Can God be personal and impersonal in the way the Mittelberg describes the two options??  You say that panentheism suggestion a personal and all-present-everywhere-at-the-same-time God, yes?  
In the quote I started with, Mittelberg says "an unconscious and impersonal god, who is in and part of everything" VERSUS "an intelligent deity who is distinct from the universe that he made".  Is the God your theology describes really both simultaneously? Am I missing something?
A personal and omnipresent but not omniscient or omnipotent God sounds to me - and please forgive the simplification here - like a slightly less powerful version of the Orthodox Christian version that Mittelberg defines.  
It is only less powerful when one suggests that what becomes is done by force only, and that perusasion and cooperation are not efficacious.  However, if love is power, than it is efficacious only through persuasion and cooperation.  Emprically, this more true than force. Omnisient is to know what is actual, the whole of what is, and does not necessarilary mean the future because the future yet to be - what is to be known is what is.  This goes with omnipresent which is say a personal God is in each moment and is concerned for each moment to see the best possiblity for the moment happen.  However, what arises is what the many actors bring into being which is not all the possiblites and those unactualized possiblites remain in God for the next moment
It is the possiblities that have not been actualized that are impersonal, that is resources for the next moment, and God as personal uses them as an aim or lure for this moment of actualization.

It is only this way God is both personal and impersonal, however, the character, which is what matters, is always personal.

Pan wrote:
This is what is meant with God is in the world and the world is in God and God is more than the world.
Who says that?  Just curious.  Is that in the bible somewhere?
This is a quote from process theology, one person among many * and I am one* is Philip Clayton ( who teaches at the seminary B does not like) It is like all theology based on the bible for one does not need to have an actual quote to make the point but to test it with the witness of scripture and we find that in such things as God changing God;s mind, or being the Creator, or seen as Abba.
Pan wrote:
It is this phrase that is not needed to make his point " who is distinct from the universe that he made"  Relationality suggest both connected and individual - part of the other and being an other - discrete.  It is the many becoming one, and increased by one.
But see, Mittelberg, and others like him, do need that phrase God "is distinct from the universe that he made".  This is a huge part of that theology: a deity acting on and in the world but from the outside, unaffected by the world other than due to his compassion and love for his creation, having a perspective on the world like nothing a human mind can have.  Which is why it's so ironic that he would also argue this deity is bound by a law of non-contradiction...
Cheers,A.
Yes that is what he needs but it is not needed - it reflects a theological shift of God as wholly other and sovereign - God can be mystery with God being wholly other.... we can experience God as other, just we experience those outside our skin as other, but that does not mean God does not need the world.  Here is the fault of logic that wholly other - it needs God must love which if followed means the inner nature of God is relational ( here the trinity comes into play to solve the issue or problem of whollly other) however if metaphysical God is the supreme example of relationality then God needs the world.

The whole idea of distinct is a metaphysical mistake and not true to reality - we are bound to one another, in one another, and we are ourselves.  It is a bothand.

Hi Waterfall,

I think the question is more like, is God bound by the laws of logic.  So, for example, logically, it's impossible for God to be both impersonal and personal at the same time.  If we say, yes, God CAN be both opposites, then we are saying that God is NOT bound by logic.  God would not be bound by logic, if God "embodies all the answers", as you say.

That's really the question.  Mittelberg, the author I'm quoting, seems to have trouble with the possibility that God can be both the God of orthodox Christianity AND the impersonal God of Hinduism...  That possibility makes no sense to Mittelberg at all, and therefore, he says, it can't be true.  But, does the fact that it makes no sense to Mittelberg mean that it's impossible?

Yup, that's what I'm thinking, too.  

Hi Arminius,

Thanks for taking the time to share your perspective on this!

Yes, I stand corrected, some people DO reach for art to address life/death and meaning questions.  I am not one of those people.  I find art enriching and beautiful, and it certainly does soothe an anxious or stressed mind.  But with the big questions, I am more likely to look for better questions (not so much answers, I know better), in the world of the intellect.

When you say that all conceptualization is art, do you mean philosophy, too?  

As for religious expression of all belief systems being art, I can agree with that.  What about the belief systems themselves?

Science as the qualitatively highest work of conceptual art?  Fascinating.

In which case, GOD defined as the TRUTH of synthesis must be bound by logic - in your analysis - since science appears to be.

I appreciate your openness.

But, all of this is only really true for you, based on your analysis and your particular viewpoint.  This is the catch with relativism, isn't it.  Yours is just a personal interpretation, one of many...  You believe that your explanations arise from how you interpret this thing you call "direct experience".  This is the moment where we kinda stop and stare at each other.  I don't get your direct experience.      

And that, too.  

Hmmm.  GOD, aka synthetical universe, is analyzing ITself through its opposite intelligence - logical intelligence, through us humans.  So, GOD, aka synthetical universe, is NOT bound by logic, WE are.  But because WE are the only means for GOD to analyze ITself, GOD is bound by logic in ITs ability to analyze ITself??    

How can something be logical AND metaphorical at the same time?  Is that possible?

Well, I have no trouble understanding women whatsoever. I do think "scripture" got it wrong.  I have a father and he makes no sense to me at all.  

That's kind of a given, actually...  Unless one claims to have direct access to God. 

Is logic the only means to understanding?  Imagination, for example, is it logical?  But it sure plays a big role in gaining understanding.  

I would say that God is not bound by any constriction beyond whatever constriction God decides to be bound by.  Basically that which we consider to be illogical may just very well be quite logical from God's point of view.

I do not believe it is necessary at all to impose limitations upon God.  God by definition is that which is beyond definition.  Who are we to pigeon-hole God?

Can God make a boulder so heavy that even God could not lift it?  Such questions are meant to make one realize that trying to define God is missing the point.

Who is to say that Creation is not perfect?  It is all a matter of perspective.  God's perspective is not clear to us.  Who are we to judge?

Derek how would we know when the boulder is too heavy for God to lift?

But then how can we ever be in a personal relationship with such an alien God? (Alien in the sense of foreign to us, incomprehensible, outside of what our human minds can manage.)

I get the drift.  But, again, how do you have a personal relationship with something so beyond anything you know?

And, what if it isn't about trying to pigeon-hole so much as it is about trying to understand enough in order to communicate and make sense and be in relationship.  

What is the point?

I'm not sure who said that creation is not perfect, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't me.  Maybe it is.  No, God's perspective is not clear to us, no.  And perhaps we are not the ones that can truly judge whether creation is perfect or not.  Except, when speaking from our personal perspectives - I don't think my life is perfect, for example.  Maybe it is from God's perspective but since I can't know God's perspective...

Waterfall, it would just keep sitting there.  And since they all tend to just sit there, maybe God is really out of shape at the moment... 

Hi Angieszka:

When you say that all conceptualization is art, do you mean philosophy, too?  

Yes, I do. And belief systems. Even science. But science, because it only has a strictly limited number of viewpoints, is the small t truth that comes closest to the capital TRUTH.

Science as the qualitatively highest work of conceptual art?  Fascinating.

In which case, GOD defined as the TRUTH of synthesis must be bound by logic - in your analysis - since science appears to be

Well, Agnieszka, it think that the self-creative universe, a.k.a. God, evolved ITself as a unitive whole in a state of synthesis. All this breathtaking beauty and complexity that we observe and are evolved within a synthetical whole, without the aid of analytical knowledge. God evolved ITself as far as the present without analytical knowledge or the use of logic. I think one could say that God is bound by synthesis, not analysis.

Now, that God has evolved the capacity for analysis in one of ITs species, God can finally analyze ITself. But every analysis has to proceed from a particular viewpoint, and is relative to that viewpoint. In science, the number of viewpoints is strictly limited. In the realm of human experience, however, there is a limitless number of possible viewpoints and truths, every one of them arbitrarily created by the observer. This makes us limitlessly creative!

God's newly emerged capacity for analysis, however, has a creative potential that goes even beyond that. The use of analysis or logic can propell God, a.k.a. the self-creative universe, to new heights; to heights which IT had been unable to attain when IT was bound by synthesis only. When we use the full complement between analysis and synthesis—which I call SUPRA SYNTHESIS—then we, the Godhead, can attain new evolutionary peaks which would not have been attainable with synthesis alone. The union between synthesis and analysis, or intuition and logic, and the creative use of that union, is, I feel and think, what we are meant to strive for!

But, all of this is only really true for you, based on your analysis and your particular viewpoint. This is the catch with relativism, isn't it.  Yours is just a personal interpretation, one of many...  You believe that your explanations arise from how you interpret this thing you call "direct experience".  This is the moment where we kinda stop and stare at each other.  I don't get your direct experience.

Yes, Agnieszka, this is the catch with relativism.

And it better be, or we'd battle each other over our respective versions of truth.

My "direct experience" is unthinking, unconceptualized, non-analyzed or unmediated experience. I can't really write about it, but we can't stare at each other and communicate it intuitively, either, so I have to resort to concepts and written words to explain. It is easy to experience experience directly, all it take is non-thinking. Shouldn't be too hard, eh?

How can something be logical AND metaphorical at the same time?  Is that possible?

Actually, all logical conclusions ncecessarily proceed from an arbitrarily created viewpoint, are relative to that viewpoint, and therefore are relative or metaphorical. They express the unspeakable synthetical TRUTH in the relative or metaphorical terms of analytical truth.

Ultimately, God is bound by the union between synthesis and analysis: SUPRA SYNTHESIS. This is going to be God's creative game from now on—if WE play along.

I thought they were to show how ridiculous the concept of "God" was.

No one else has stepped up to the mic.  We make observations.  We know that we're not perfect, and the world isn't perfect, because we cause needless suffering, and the world causes needless suffering.  We could be smarter.  We could be more free of hereditary diseases.  Our bodies could break down less, and contain fewer inefficiencies and evolutionary leftovers.  In short, some design.

How does science achieve that?

Ahh, so science only comes the closest, it is still only an analysis...

What does it mean that God is bound by synthesis?

Two questions:  why could God not analyze ITself prior to this moment?  why does God want to analyze ITself?

Countless creative analyses, only one synthesis.  OR Many paths, one journey.  A kind of a tempered relativism - where there is a common truth in there, except everyone perceives it differently, talks about it differently, understands it differently.  

But you know, this is were it stops being believable - if it's a duck to me, a goat to you, and a black square to Joe over there, what the heck is it really??  

(I have to stop here for now.)

A.

What I was trying to get at with this is like this.  Take your OP title "Is GOD bound by logic?"  Ok, that sentence makes sense to you.  Ok, now try this one "Is TGiiXTl bound by logic?"

Both terms, to me, "GOD" and "TGiiXTl" have the same inherent meaning and existence.

Thus (and Pan does a very good job at trying to explain this in various ways), you have to set limits on what you are talking aboot so that the term "GOD" can actually mean something.

That is what I was trying to get at.

Good thinking and catch on the Law.  Logic is really just a shortcut for thinking -- like the things we take on faith, it makes communication and 'finding things out' much easier. Logic is here to make sure that something is self-consistent; whatever one finds out in logic, no matter how 'true' and beautiful, if you can't experimentally verify it (which can be as simple as checking out if you have a head), then it fails.

Glad you agree.

So does a satisfied stomach.  Logic may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.

Hi Agnieszka:

Actually, anti-logic, or synthesis, is a form of logic. Antilogic is the precise diametric opposite of logic and thus quite logical. The synthesis unites what the analysis separates. Or, because reality is in an ultimate state of synthesis, the analysis necessarily fragments that state and thus cannot reflect that state.

Illogic is not the opposite of logic, it is flawed logic. Irrationality is not the opposite of rationalty, it is flawed rationality. I think God is bound by synthesis, and synthesis is perfectly logical, but when synthesis is analysed, it is no longer synthesis but the analysis of the synthesis.

Synthesis just is. (That's why I love the OT definition of God as "I AM" :-) The analysis of the big I AM, when undertaken according to the principles of logic, is analytically true, but is not synthesis. Moreover, the analysis is relative to the observer's viewoint, which is arbitrarily created by the observer.

Why could God not analyze ITself prior to this moment?

Because IT had not yet evolved a dualistic brain to pitch one side against the other, or subjective against objective memory, and thus be capable of analysis.

Why would God want to analyze ITself?

Because the transcendental power strives to transcend what it is and become its own opposite while remaining what it is. This paradox appears to be the principle of creation.

What the heck is it really?? 

IT is the totality of everything in a state of synthesis, which we truthfully experience but are unable to truthfully define, at least not with any absolute certainty. All defining is creating, and the closer our creations come to the absolute TRUTH of universal unity and synthesis, the better they are.

(This, of course, is only my personal take and not absolutely true :-)

Robert Anton Wilson explains the cosmic paradox much better than I. He is Inanna's favourite author. I read excerpts from his books on the internet, and very much liked what I read.

Hi Agnieszka,

The law of noncontradiction is bound by the sameness of time and context.  I am not certain that Mittleberg's appeal to this law is solid.

It would be if he were talking about the same person at the same time because that involves a uniformity of time and context.

Different peoples at the same times nullifies the validity of noncontradiction because it introduces dissimilar contexts.

Same peoples at different times nullifies the validity of noncontradiction because it introduces dissimilar times.

Once we get into different peoples at different times I can't think of any rational appeal to the law of noncontradiction that sticks.

One might possibly argue that God being the same God no matter what time and context God is found in meets the criteria of noncontradiction and yet, if God is the focal point noncontradiction can only speak effectively if God is rigidly the same in every time and every context.  I don't believe that the scriptures that Mittleberg reads make that claim.

Grace and peace to you.

John

It is certainly possible to have a personal relationship with someone (or something) without understanding them.

If you distill what religion teaches us, it pretty much boils down to a simple, yet important understanding of God.  God is everywhere and in everything.  Whatsoever you do to the least of these you also do to God.  We are all God's children.  God loves us so much that He'd sacrifice His only Son (aka Himself) to save us.  We are God.  There only is God...

Jesus said that the most important commandments are to Love God, and to Love thy neighbour.  It all comes down to the Golden Rule.  God wants us to be healthy and happy, and not to hurt, or hate anyone.  To be peaceful.

We don't need to understand anything beyond that.

The point is that it is pointless to try to quantify God with mortal measurements.  Once you start on the slippery slope of quantification, people are going to ask for evidence.

I would liken our relationship with God to the sort of relationship we have with our unconscious mind.  We don't know what's going on in there, but it keeps us alive.

And that would be wrong.

Well, I certainly couldn't have guessed that by saying "if your God can be anything... you might as well be talking about nothing" you actually meant "what do you mean by the term 'God'".  

I totally understand that question when put to me this way, but I wouldn't have figured that out from your first post. 

I decided to use the generic term God, if you will, and see what happens.  A conversation about "what is God" would be a totally different topic.

Okay.  Then I guess there wouldn't be much to talk about from your perspective?

Seeing as a few people did actually know what I was talking about - or at least, chose to talk about what they thought I was talking about - I guess some sort of conversation was possible, even with such vague terms.  

Yes, there has be logic in order for communication to be possible and for us, humans, to be able to make sense of things.  But does that apply to God, or TGiixCs??   particularly, it TGiixCs refers to the source of life, creation, change, energy, transformation, Mystery... or Arminius' IT? 

But humans are not self-consistent.  And neither is nature... or at least, inconsistencies abound.

I'm not understanding you, again, Inanna, so bear with me?  I'm pretty sure I have a head, but that doesn't verify love, for example.  I find love to be true and beautiful, but I can't experimentally verify it.  I can verify compassionate help, kind presence, patient support.  But not love. 

Making a claim of "absolute truth" without something to support it, is wrong.

Asking for evidence is not.

The awe I feel when reckoning creation is my personal evidence of God.

I know that in theory, natural selection can explain the evolution of complex systems, and that billions of years of natural selection has resulted in the marvels that we see around us, but can it explain why and how life arose?  Can the Big Bang Theory explain what caused it?

The answer, of course is no.

Science can theorize and conduct experiment after experiment, but we are still only able to perceive the perceivable and detect the detectable.

The quest for God isn't out there somewhere.  Nobody is going to be able to show you God.  You're not going to see God under a microscope or through a telescope.  (The wonder of Creation... maybe).  The quest for God lies within.

The comment about a rock comes from Anslem in his discussion of faith seeking understanding and to show the question is not logical and has internal contradictions....

 Thanks, Panentheism.

But, to the original topic, I have continued reading Mittleberg's book and have discovered that he actually has no intellectual integrity...  Later on in his book, he commits so many intellectual crimes that it's been incredibly difficult to continue reading.

I'll offer a few examples, but I don't recommend the book:

He argues, for example, that the religion of Mormonism is based on fictional information in the form of some tables which, he says, conveniently the angels whisked away right after Joseph Smith read them...  But then Mittelberg conveniently forgets to mention how his religion of choice begins its story about how God made the world in 6 days.... or how ten of its major laws were supposedly found on stone tablets... and where are these tablets again??  He neglects to mention a word of this, of course.

Then, he moves on to criticize the Jehova's Witnesses for their failed prophecies.  But Mittelberg says not a word, no explanation, no clarification, no excuse, no nothing, to the fact that Jesus was supposed to return within the lifetimes of his disciples.  And people are still waiting for that grand event.  Mittelberg's disrespect for his readers is disgusting.

He accuses an Imam who discussed his faith with Mittelberg of basing her faith on a "choice to believe the Prophet" as opposed to what he, Mittelberg, has actually done.  Accept he forgets to say just what he has done to have arrived at evidence, proof, whatever, of his faith that does not require a choice to believe.

Anyway, I don't even know why I'm surprised.  Should have had substantially lower standards when i chose to pick up a book by an evangelical...   If you think I'm wrong to make that generalization, please, I beg you, suggest a sound theological work by an evangelical that is actually balanced and works out its own crap before dishing it out to others.