"Who said that God has to adhere to logic?"

[TheManWithNoName]

Lately, this is has been something that I've encountered frequently when debating. Here's an example of a recent question posed on a forum:

"Being a supernatural being, why can't he exist and operate beyond the formulations of what man's mind creates?

What demands he be comprehensible and consistent?"

While I can recognize that it's moronic, I'm struggling with a quick and effective way to refute it.

Frankly, it seems like a cop-out response to me. When embarrassed with the fact there is no evidence to support God, thus showing that his nonexistence is a perfectly valid logical conclusion, they usually resort to something like this. It appears to be a flat out admission that God is nonsensical, and by definition, illogical.

Is there anything I could say to quickly smack down that sort of statement? Is there anything I can add to what I'm already saying to improve it?

[Ariphaos]

If I design a ripple-carry adder, it knows the same rules of addition and 'subtraction' that I do. Likewise, as I add additional mathematical units - multipliers, dividers, and so on. My creations are based on my understanding. Even if they are capable of learning, they may not be able to understand much compared to me, but if they are to function, what they know and can deduce is accurate.

God* is not separate from logic. Rather, to know logic is to know God.

* - Here I use 'God' in the sense of the ultimate rules that govern our Universe, which applies whether or not there is any sort of 'creator'.

[Zixinus]

My try: Everything else in the universe in comprehensible and consistent. We have not found any other thing that is supernatural by nature, instead finding things that are explainable by modern physics but is misunderstood by human perception.

Furthermore, if the god Yahwe/Jehova existence cannot be proven then why cannot the same principle apply for other gods from other cultures, like the Norse God Thor?

[Rye]

Special pleading fallacy.

Also, such an entity is literally meaningless.

[Alyrium Denryle]

My try: Everything else in the universe in comprehensible and consistent. We have not found any other thing that is supernatural by nature, instead finding things that are explainable by modern physics but is misunderstood by human perception.

Furthermore, if the god Yahwe/Jehova existence cannot be proven then why cannot the same principle apply for other gods from other cultures, like the Norse God Thor?

The best response is to inform them that if their argument is true, then they cannot trust God, as his definition of the word "suffering" could in fact be equivalent to our word for "joy" etc.

[TheManWithNoName]

Special pleading fallacy.

Also, such an entity is literally meaningless.

That gives me an idea. Perhaps something like the following:

"Who said that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has to adhere to logic? Why can't he exist outside of it?"

Essentially, replace God with FSM (or something else of your choosing). Meaningless is the perfect word to describe the situation - "couldn't I do this with any random "god" that I pull out of my ass?"

[Darth Wong]

"Being a supernatural being, why can't he exist and operate beyond the formulations of what man's mind creates?

This is just another way of saying that it's OK for God to be nonsensical. If you're admitting that God is pure nonsense, then fine. Just don't expect me to honour the idea, take it seriously, or respect your belief in him.

What demands he be comprehensible and consistent?

Nothing, unless you are trying to make an argument for the idea being taken seriously by rational people. Santa Claus doesn't need to make sense either, until you try to convince other people that they should formulate laws or education standards with him in mind.

Action in the real world should not be based on nonsense.

Remember the word: "nonsense". Every time they try to escape the constrictions of logic, just remind them that they have effectively admitted that they are peddling NONSENSE. That is literally what "nonsense" means: something which makes no sense, ie- is not logical.

A short version of the exchange I have in mind looks like this:

Q: "If God is omnipotent, why does he need to obey the rules of human logic?"
A: "He doesn't, unless you expect me to stop calling the idea a pantload of nonsense."

[Darth Wong]

I forgot to mention that there's an alternate way of responding. You could say:

"God is not making the argument for his own existence. YOU are. Therefore, when you say that God does not need to obey the rules of logic, you are actually saying that you do not need to obey the rules of logic when you argue for his existence.

If God wants to come here and argue for his own existence, then I cannot refute that with a bunch of arguments. But I can refute your nonsense, and no, you don't get off the hook for peddling nonsense just because you call it God."

Question: of the two strategies for responding (this one and the one in my previous post), which do you prefer? I've always used the one from the previous post, but now that I look at it, that older one may be logically sound but it makes me look a little dickish, while I feel that this new one makes the other guy look dickish, or at least dishonest.

[TheManWithNoName]

The first one is excellent, obviously, but I really like your rationale behind the second one. Just for kicks, I'll employ the second one. I'll let you know the responses.

[Singular Intellect]

I prefer my method of simply pointing to a jar of dirt (or equally irrelevent example), and declaring it is proof god doesn't exist and all of their arguments are defeated. When they inevitably ask what does this mean, I reply with their own argument of "it is beyond logical understanding".

[Darth Wong]

I prefer my method of simply pointing to a jar of dirt (or equally irrelevent example), and declaring it is proof god doesn't exist and all of their arguments are defeated. When they inevitably ask what does this mean, I reply with their own argument of "it is beyond logical understanding".

As satisfying as that may be, that would just make you look like a smarmy prick in the eyes of most fence-sitters. It's also a very weak argument: you never claimed that science or evolution were omnipotent or "beyond logic", so if you copy his argument here you actually lower yourself to his level, and concede some kind of equivalence between science and religion. Bad idea.

[Singular Intellect]

I prefer my method of simply pointing to a jar of dirt (or equally irrelevent example), and declaring it is proof god doesn't exist and all of their arguments are defeated. When they inevitably ask what does this mean, I reply with their own argument of "it is beyond logical understanding".

As satisfying as that may be, that would just make you look like a smarmy prick in the eyes of most fence-sitters.

I can certainly attest to having gotten that label tossed my way several times for precisely that reason.

It's also a very weak argument: you never claimed that science or evolution were omnipotent or "beyond logic", so if you copy his argument here you actually lower yourself to his level, and concede some kind of equivalence between science and religion. Bad idea.

I generally reserve it for those morons who are beyond convincing; I just throw their own stupidity back at them.

Admittedly, if I were aiming for the goal of convincing observers, your method is by all means the superior choice.

[mr friendly guy]

Special pleading fallacy.

Also, such an entity is literally meaningless.

That gives me an idea. Perhaps something like the following:

"Who said that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has to adhere to logic? Why can't he exist outside of it?"

Essentially, replace God with FSM (or something else of your choosing). Meaningless is the perfect word to describe the situation - "couldn't I do this with any random "god" that I pull out of my ass?"

Go with Rye's magic dragon. The concept of a dragon or anything for that matter that can kill an omnipotent being is nonsensical, however by their "logic" by being omnipotent it doesn't have to make sense, so your creation also doesn't have to because its better than omnipotent.

[Zixinus]

The best response is to inform them that if their argument is true, then they cannot trust God, as his definition of the word "suffering" could in fact be equivalent to our word for "joy" etc.

I'm sorry, I'm confused. Were you responding to me? I don't quite get how your argument is connected to mine.

[Simon_Jester]

Another take on this:

God is free to act irrationally, of course, or at least in ways that we deem irrational; if we mere mortals can behave in strange ways, surely a being with far greater power and understanding than us could find even stranger ways to behave.

But that does not mean that God's existence is not a proposition subject to rules of logic. An irrational thing is still a thing; it must exist or not exist; there must be or not be evidence that it exists, and so on, even if its properties and behavior don't make any particular sense.

Just knowing that this fool has said "Being a supernatural being, why can't he exist and operate beyond the formulations of what man's mind creates? What demands he be comprehensible and consistent?" tells us little. If they apply this standard to God's behavior, it makes some sense. Approaching the matter without any prior assumptions, for all you know God might have what humans would deem a strange sense of humor, or might think like a hypothetical Martian, or even like Cthulhu. Strictly speaking, the actions of a superhuman God do not HAVE to make sense to you or me, though that doesn't mean there are no words for what God does.

So to a degree, the argument "who says God has to be logical?" makes sense, at least from one angle. Stipulating the existence of any God, it is difficult to rule out a God who sets people on fire for no obvious reason one day and sacrifices his son for them the next, even if that idea makes no sense at all to me.

But making this argument raises three further philosophical problems:
1) It makes sense for the behavior of God to be incomprehensible or inconsistent in our eyes, at least in principle, it does NOT make sense for the proposition "God exists" to be immune to the rules of logic. Our hypothetical big bearded sky-man with a funny sense of humor must exist or not exist, and so must our hypothetical Martian or hypothetical Cthulhu. There must either be or not be evidence of such a thing's existence, even if we can't fit together a cohesive picture of exactly how the thing thinks and what it has in mind for us little meatlings.

2)Most people who believe in any kind of a God do NOT believe in a truly incomprehensible or inconsistent one, so it's usually disingenuous of them to apply this argument even if it does make at least some sense. Worshippers of Lovecraftian abomination-gods or incarnations of chaos are thin on the ground.

3)As others have noted, the argument applies equally well to ALL invisible supernatural beings, not just to the one the debater was originally talking about. Not good, unless you're a pantheist. Which most of the people making this argument aren't.

[Surlethe]

Being a supernatural being, why can't he exist and operate beyond the formulations of what man's mind creates? What demands he be comprehensible and consistent?

Can you self-consistently show that God operates beyond the constraints of logic?

[hongi]

What demands he be comprehensible and consistent?"

If God isn't consistent, then all religious doctrines and revelations are up in the air.

[Gasphemer]

Being a supernatural being, why can't he exist and operate beyond the formulations of what man's mind creates? What demands he be comprehensible and consistent?

Can you self-consistently show that God operates beyond the constraints of logic?

I just figure that if there was a God, he was a Q-like being who just dicked around with humanity because he thought it was fun. But it seems he's grown bored. Maybe we're not as lulzy or worthy anymore?

[Surlethe]

I just figure that if there was a God, he was a Q-like being who just dicked around with humanity because he thought it was fun. But it seems he's grown bored. Maybe we're not as lulzy or worthy anymore?

You kind of missed the point: if God were "beyond" logic, then it would be impossible to self-consistently show that God is beyond logic - doing so would require logic.

[Twoyboy]

Lately, this is has been something that I've encountered frequently when debating. Here's an example of a recent question posed on a forum:

"Being a supernatural being, why can't he exist and operate beyond the formulations of what man's mind creates?

What demands he be comprehensible and consistent?"

While I can recognize that it's moronic, I'm struggling with a quick and effective way to refute it.

Forget refuting it, concede it. Then ask them why there is evil in the world if God is omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving. The usual response is because he gave us free will. Tell them that a God so omnipotent that it is above logic could create a Utopian paradise AND give us free will.

Then conclude that God is obviously an arsehole.

It might not win the argument, but sometimes the best you can hope for is to piss off your opponent.

[Darth Wong]

Oh come on, the "why is there evil in the world" is one of the oldest arguments in existence. All of them have their own well-practiced response to it. It may be evasive bullshit, but they're undoubtedly happy with it, and so are most observers. Far better to come up with something that blind-sides them, like pointing out that "transcends logic" is a glorified term for "nonsense" or that they're actually asking for their own license to ignore logic, since they're actually making the arguments and not God.

They're basically saying "I believe my God is so powerful that he can do impossible and irrational things", which is fair enough, and then using that as an excuse to paper over gaping logical holes in his argument for the existence of this irrational being. It's one thing to say "My God doesn't have to make sense"; it's quite another to say "I don't have to deal with huge logical holes in my argument for his existence".

[Twoyboy]

Oh come on, the "why is there evil in the world" is one of the oldest arguments in existence. All of them have their own well-practiced response to it. It may be evasive bullshit, but they're undoubtedly happy with it, and so are most observers. Far better to come up with something that blind-sides them, like pointing out that "transcends logic" is a glorified term for "nonsense" or that they're actually asking for their own license to ignore logic, since they're actually making the arguments and not God.

They're basically saying "I believe my God is so powerful that he can do impossible and irrational things", which is fair enough, and then using that as an excuse to paper over gaping logical holes in his argument for the existence of this irrational being. It's one thing to say "My God doesn't have to make sense"; it's quite another to say "I don't have to deal with huge logical holes in my argument for his existence".

Oh sure, I understand there are logical and reasonable rebuttals to all of these arguments, but sometimes making them is like nailing jelly to a wall. The arguments seem to wobble all over the place and you're left looking like you've lost control while you try and bring the debate back on track.

I'm quite short on both my tolerance and attention span and often I just prefer to lead people to what their argument results in if followed through rather than reason it out. Plenty of rebuttals have been posted here which are reasonable and powerful, I just thought I'd give another option in case TheManWithNoName was as short tempered as me.