Statesboro, GA, USA
This can be a complex issue (to us). I like very much what Ron said however. And I guess I stand in much the same place, philosophically speaking. I am not agnostic, for I think that God has adequately revealed himself to us through nature, through Jesus Christ, and through scripture, and can be really known by those who desire the truth. But to balance this, I think that our knowledge of God is definitely limited by our humanity. We are not the deity. He is. So it does not surprise me that our "logic" can not wholly contain his. As Ron mentioned, God is doing things that we might count as illogical because we don't really yet have the knowledge or capacity to grasp them, as a child does not have the knowledge or capacity to grasp adult behavior.
But also comporting with the analogy of a child and an adult Father, is the idea that it would be wrong to imagine the child knowing nothing of adult behavior simply because of his child-like mind. In fact, there is nothing that the child really knows that did not come from his Father or other adults, either biologically or psychologically. I think the Christian idea, is that laws of logic, laws of nature, and moral laws in the universe, reflect the character of God. It's not so much that he is bound to them, as it is that they are bound to him. But the very fact that they are contigent upon himself, would explain why in the Christian world-view, logic is a reflection given to the human mind, of a Personal God who is rational. That's why the Christian can dismiss absurdity (creating a rock that you can't lift, for example) as something foolish and unlike God's mind because it is illogical, and at the same time be open to the possibility of the "supralogical", or "extralogical", or even just logic without all the information, explaining certain propositions. The contigency of laws of logic, and the fact that they are derivative, tells us that God is not necessarily bound to them as we sometimes imagine that he should be, or either that they may not be given in their complete form. That's where Miracles and the like come in. At first glance, he seems to be a God who can break, or suspend, or bend the natural laws for his own purposes. But to be truthful, I really don't feel that he does so, or ever has. I could be wrong in this. But C.S. Lewis once wrote that, "in the whole history of the universe the laws of nature have never produced a single event. They are the pattern to which every event must conform." If this is the case, then for God to perform miracles, he only needs to feed in unforseen events or facts, not change laws. Gravity will always have a different effect on a rock, than a firing rocket, but the pull and "law-likeness" of gravity does not change. Now you might say that the ability to feed events into nature from the outside is breaking a law. But that is the whole question isn't it? Naturalism takes for granted that nature cannot be "violated" (for lack of a better word here). The Christian message is that there is a higher law that nature was meant to recieve God's interjections, that she has in the past (history), and that she will again in the future (prophecy).
I know I went a long way off the topic. Why did I bring these things up, and what do they have to do with logic? The idea about God's relation to natural law illustrates a similar relation God may have with logic. He has data that we know not of, and knowledge that we have not attained, which if we knew might end up being perfectly logical, and fill out what we so desperately lack. This is the proposition of a middle ground between a person being God with absolute knowledge, and being an agnostic. It is a point of recieving and being in need all at the same time. Which in my opinion is where God desires us to be in life. It keeps us humble, yet also from the point of despair ... confident, yet aloof from the trap of self reliance ... always seeking wisdom, yet above the vacuum of total skepticism.
[This message has been edited by Stephanos (01-02-2003 01:00 AM).]