<— Here. You say (in bold)
1- If the laws of logic do not apply to God, then that means that God can actualize contradictions, and if God can actualize contradictions then that means that God could have brought it about that all theological viewpoints about Him are true, even ones that are diametrically opposed.
2 – When you say that logic does not apply to God or that God is not bound by logic, this is what entails from that proposition. You can not longer know what’s true about God and what is false because of all we know, God used His omnipotent power to bring it about that all beliefs about Him are true.
3- It is interesting that the Christian who argues that logic is not applicable to God nevertheless thinks that his view is right and wrong. But if logic is not applicable to God (and the law of non-contradiction is not applicable by extension), then there’s really no point in arguing about it, is there? After all, God could bring it about through His omnipotent power that both is and is not bound to logic. Maybe we’re both right. The Christian here is presupposing that it’s impossible for God to be bound to logic and not bound to logic at the same time, which is why I think that’s right and I’m wrong. But that presupposition undermines his argument. If he thinks that logic is not both applicable and not applicable to God at the same time, then it follows that logic is applicable to God.
Here goes the question, I can not express myself clearly what I think. But, you say here that if logic does not apply to God and as God is omnipotent, then does God automatically make all of this true in the REAL WORLD?
I can not understand. Can you explain me?
I wasn’t saying that if logic didn’t apply to God that therefore, He necessarily would have actualized scores of contradictions into the world. I simply meant that the advocate of universal possibilism has no grounds for arguing that He hasn’t. If universal possibilism is true (i.e God can do anything, even that which defies the laws of logic), then on what basis does he have to say that, for example, both Arminianism and Calvinism aren’t simultaneously true, even though these theologies contradict each other? What grounds does he say that Answers In Genesis and BioLogos aren’t both correct? Perhaps both young earth creationism and evolutionary creationism are true. Universal Possibilism (UP) wouldn’t entail that God actually has actualized contradictory states of affairs, just that He could if He wanted to.
In point 3 that you cited, I argued that if UP is true, then the advocate of UP is being inconsistent. He thinks those who say “God can do anything except the logically impossible” are wrong! And yet, in his view, God could have made it so that He is both able and unable to do the logically impossible! So even though he disagrees with those who say “God can do anything exempting the logically impossible”, he cannot say with any degree of certainty that we who say that are wrong. His view allows us both to be right, even though our views are mutually exclusive.
My points were simply this (1) Although one may believe God hasn’t actualized contradictions, within the framework of universal possibilism, one has no basis on which to dispute this, and (2) once you make God transcend logic, you lose all grounds for talking about Him in any meaningful way.
These facts show the absurdity of Universal Possibilism and therefore leads me to reject it.
If you have any questions about Christian theology or apologetics, send Mr. Minton an E-mail at CerebralFaith@Gmail.com. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Christian or Non-Christian, whether your question is about doubts you’re having or about something you read in The Bible that confused you. Send your question in, whatever it may be, and Mr. Minton will respond in a blog post just like this one.